Religion and reason

The clash between religion and reason is an old story. Centuries have witnessed the two parallel forces influencing the society most. The Management Theory explains this as the race for supremacy to gain control over the society. While religion was the first source of authority as humanity acquired civility, the development of human intellect through scientific pursuits led to the emergence of rational-legal authority as a means of social control. As things stand, and as the bygone ages testify none is emerging as the winner. More so in India where religion has always been an important source of authority to acquire social control. Against this back drop, there is a need to revisit the religion versus reason conflict. Particularly, as the recent times are witnessing a tug-of-war between the institutions that represent the religious authority and those representing the rational-legal sources of authority. We need not go very far behind in the history. From Shah Bano to Sabarimala, cases galore point out at this conflict. The problem is to be reformulated if we need to come to an amicable answer. There is need for a philosophical approach blending religion and reason, rather than looking at it from a religion versus reason issue. We must understand that religion is more a matter of faith whereas reason is based on rational analysis. Naturally, the two concepts have their own standpoints based on very strong convictions. Faith is something guided by a belief system that is a result of centuries of cultural conditioning and hence rationality may not be able to change the belief that has such strong and deep roots. How far can the institutions of rational-legal authority, especially elected Governments and courts of law, go in interpreting and demystifying religious beliefs through rationality? It is a big question that may not be easy to answer. But it is important to realise that both religion and reason have their roles in effective development of the society. While one must admit that many issues of philosophy of religion have broad relevance to human concerns, they are also quite complex in their ramifications. Obviously, explaining or interpreting them on the touchstone of rationality alone may not be a prudent approach. They do need to be rethought in each age in the light of broader scientific knowledge and deepening ethical and religious experience. But a summary interpretation may not be the right approach. Best would be to follow an eclectic approach taking the best of both the views. The rationalist may have a major limitation in that for them the only truth capable of being asserted is based on analytical and hence tautological reasoning only. But that may not be enough in the cases of religious beliefs which arise out of faith. It is better if faith and reason join hands to reinvent religion and bring out prescriptions for right living. Yes, rationality is important to discriminate between belief and superstition. But the matter of faith is a crucial issue in religious beliefs and legal interpretations may not go very far in changing the belief system. Religion is not something that can be inferred by law. Hence, there is need to hasten slowly. Albert Einstein had very rightly suggested that religion begins where science ends. Social movements have been successful in changing many archaic beliefs in the past like Sati or human sacrifice. But it was more a process of attitudinal change and opinion creation rather than being just mandated by law.

The leadership question

Time and again the leadership question crops up to find out what is the right mix of leader qualities. Yet, the issue fails to be resolved. In other words, people are not consistent in their views. This is true not only for nations but also organisations. However, in the case of organisations the people do not have as much say as is the case of nations, particularly in the democracies. But the essential question remains the same — the transient nature of perception of the people about the leader. Why do people get disillusioned with the leader they once admired? Management theorists and political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have all tried to give prescriptions for effective leadership, only to realise that the said effectiveness fails to last long. Does it mean that attempts to find out consistent qualities of effective leaders are futile? But it does call for some serious thinking. Interestingly, evolution of leadership theories have passed through all these stages in the last over hundred years, though inconclusively. Still, there is a need to examine the issue afresh because leadership is one of the most talked about subjects in management literature. As experts galore try to broach over the subject, an old Indian story is worth recapitulating. Once, Lord Shiva and Parvati decided to visit the world along with their ox. The God was disguised as an old man, whereas Parvati wore her natural young and beautiful look. As they took to the streets people would gaze at this odd couple of an old man and a young woman. On the way, Lord asked Parvati to ride the ox while he chose to walk alongside. As they were travelling they heard comments disapproving the young lady riding the animal while the old man is made to walk. Hearing this, Parvati asked Shiva that since people disliked this it will be good if the Lord rides the ox and Parvati walks along side. The God agreed and acted accordingly. Now Shiva was riding and Parvati walking. They had travelled a little distance when another set of people started murmuring sarcastically saying that how mean it was for the old man to enjoy riding the ox while the young lady is being made to walk. The God then changed his mind and asked Parvati to also sit on the ox so that people do not comment. They both were now riding the ox. But barely had they travelled a short distance that another group of people commented that how inhuman the couple was to ride and torture the dumb and poor animal. Shiva again changed his mind. They dismounted the bullock and started walking alongside the animal. But after travelling some distance they found a group of people ridiculing their foolishness on having an ox, yet choosing to walk. The Lord could now realise that no matter what you do there will be people to criticise you. Moral of the story — do not try to please everybody. No matter what you do or how noble your intentions are, people will find fault. Perhaps, this may give some clue as to why people’s perception about leaders is fickle. The course open for leaders is to have an agenda with noble intentions and pursue the path with dedication, without aiming to satisfy all the people all the time. Leadership is not about being politically correct. It is about being just correct. Let the conscience be the judge.

The cosmic man

Understanding man’s position in this universe is difficult. He is miniscule in terms of his size, his abilities, his strengths and his entity when compared to the hugeness of the universe. But there is a view that he is also a microcosm of the universe. One of the earliest thinkers to propound and elaborate upon this idea was Patanjali. His idea was that man is a system consisting of four basic components — the mineral man, the vegetable man, the animal man and the human man. Patanjali gives the different characteristics of each of those four components or subsystems that go into the making of an organic entity, the man. Patanjali explains that as the mineral man, man is alive yet passive, lazy by nature performing acts through the force of habit. Thus he is capable of doing only that which he is trained to do. The vegetable man is at a higher level, thus it feeds on the minerals and draws its sustenance from the energy it saps through the roots that is its connecting link. One advancement — from the mineral man to the vegetable man is its ability to reproduce, bear fruits and multiply. So it is the animate qualities that give it activity and enterprise. The animal man is yet another higher level of organization compared to mineral and the vegetable man. The distinctive feature of this component is its mobility. To move, to run, to walk, to connect and forge links with the surrounding world. The animal man develops the ability to think, to remember, to be conscious. The fourth or the highest subsystem is the human man which is a synthesis and harmony of the mineral man, the vegetable man and the animal man. It is this level where the spiritual subsystem or the Purusa is introduced into the individual material subsystem. It is owing to this Purusa that the human activity rises to the higher levels of spirituality and gets endowed with reason and soul. It is the human man that, vested with Purusa, acquires the human qualities of manipulating the environment, changing it and making it suit his own interest. This human man is supposed to shake all the shackles of prakriti or the matter that is dominant in the other three subsystems. Thus this approach of Patanjali is cosmic rather than social. But this needs to be understood that such cosmic character is yet not achieved and by and large it is the social approach that is a better explanation of the present state. Patanjali was thus right in assuming that the ideal man needs to be cosmic, but he could not visualise when that level will be achieved, if at all. Though this explanation of the model of man is more secular and less religious yet, does open vistas for understanding the true purpose behind human creation. Something that Shri Aurobindo talked about in his model of future evolution of man, the ascent of man to acquire supramind. It is this man who will be untouched by worldly pleasures, sufferings and attachments and will acquire Godliness or unity within the supreme soul. The Gita explains this state as the stithpragyan. One who is free of ignorance, ego, attraction, aversion and bodily pleasures, thus acquiring the yogic state. When that is going to happen, if at all, is almost impossible to visualise, yet the model of cosmic man is a grand explanation of the ultimate state of man.

Loyalty as a virtue

Loyalty has been considered as a noble value since ages. But defining loyalty is not easy and understanding its true nature is even more difficult. Dictionaries leave much to be desired when consulted for a meaning of the concept. Loyalty is suggested as anything ranging from devotion to faithfulness to even blind trust towards persons, regions, religions, etc. Some philosophers believe that it is strictly interpersonal and only human beings can be the object of loyalty. Law and political science consider it as fidelity of an individual to a nation, king or kingdom. But these definitions hardly do anything to clear the haze that surrounds the concept of loyalty. And there is another question — can there be dual loyalty? Difficult to resolve as this dilemma is usually a classical case of an approach-approach conflict. But more than finding out the basic nature of loyalty what we need to discuss is the critical issue of loyalty as a value vs loyalty as a virtue. Often, people consider these as synonymous. But we need to go deep into the concepts of a value and a virtue. While value is a cause one strives for, something close to one’s heart, virtues are innate moral qualities within people that support individual moral excellence. Thus values can be the goal but virtues are the means to attain the goal. Thus, though not always, there can be a conflict between a value and a virtue. A value is an individually, culturally or organisationally accepted norm. But it is not necessary that it may always be a virtue. Examples ranging from Ku Klux Klan to the modern day Islamic State are ample indications to suggest that a value cannot always be a virtue. Ramayana throws a beautiful illustration about this through the dialogue between Ravana’s brothers Kumbhakaran and Vibhishan. While the essence of Kumbhakaran’s argument to dissuade Vibhishan from joining Rama is based on loyalty as a value, Vibhishan’s stand contradicts this establishing primacy of virtue based on righteousness that can override loyalty. So, loyalty can be a value if it is blended with the right cause but it cannot always be a virtue. In the Mahabharata war this has been emphasised time and again. While value has more of emotional content, virtue is largely ethical in nature. Though Vibhishan is looked down upon and his unfaithfulness to his brother has brought a kind of eternal stigma to the name as used in Hindi idioms and phrases, the fact is that he was more an embodiment of virtue rather than treachery and deceit. Judgment and context then are the essence of this debate between loyalty as a value versus loyalty as a virtue. Human beings are supposed to be thinking beings whose judgments need to be based on righteous decisions and judicious observation of a situation. It is not necessary that loyalty as a value may be at odds with loyalty as a virtue, but there is a subtle difference that needs to be understood. If loyalty is backed with right cause it is a virtue to be cherished, but if it is loyalty for the sake of loyalty without any consideration for the right and the wrong it becomes a vice. Both means and ends are important and rationality lies in exercising the right choice between where to be loyal and when to defy. The moral judgment of course is based on a very highly developed sense of maturity.