Saturday, 29 December 2012

Nirbhaya: Killing us un-softly







I had decided to hold my peace about Nirbhaya but I can’t. I just read a statement by a politician that Nirbhaya should be accorded a state funeral! Sorry, that’s not what she died for.  She doesn’t need a grand funeral. She fought for a radical change in archaic laws and in law enforcement. I watched a wonderful panel discussion led by Arnab Goswami on ‘Times Now’ last night.  The great thing about the debate was the focus on action rather than platitudes, committees of inquiry etc. Among other things the recommendations included a demand that:
<1.  No politician who is facing charges of offences against women should be given a party ticket.
<2.  No woman should be subjected to the humiliation of going through a medical examination twice.
<3. The judicial process should be time bound.

 All these are essential.  Bachi Karkaria, pragmatic and down to earth as always, added that all offences against women such as eve teasing, groping etc should be included.

 I've done a bit of work with women’s organisations, mostly in Canada but also in India. Going to a police station with a victim to report a rape can be a horrifying experience for the woman. I’m not trying to suggest that the police or judicial officers are always insensitive but it happens often enough to form an unacceptable pattern. For starters, there is an utter lack of respect for the woman: What kind of clothes were you wearing? How did you behave? Did you make a pass at the man? Are you a woman of easy virtue?  How many boy friends have you had? Where did you pick him up?  These are questions that may not always be asked, but they are implied. It’s always defamation first and then rape. The tables are turned. The victim becomes the offender and the rapist is the decent guy at the receiving end of a regrettable lack of propriety.  Poor chap. It was just a moment of weakness buckling under grave provocation. Why should you be stupid enough to take a bus in the evening with the guy you are dating? Lock your door, wear a nun’s habit and sit at home.

It’s a question of values and mindsets. Granted chastity and fidelity are important, more so for a woman.  There has to be a limit. Sita gets abducted and goes through the fire to prove her chastity. A dhobi questions her morality and she is sent into exile for the rest of her life. Sri Ram is ‘Maryada Purshottam.’ He remains faithful to one woman all His life, going to the extent of using a statue of Sita during a yagna.   No one questions His character or expects Him to go through the fire or go into exile again.

 A man can have affairs, one night stands or whatever. It’s macho, isn't it?  However, the same guy will breathe fire and brimstone if his wife or girl friend cheats on him. That’s not all. She’s dead if she so much as thinks of another man. Worse, if he imagines that she’s into someone else or has been ‘easy.’  The Othello clan is alive and kicking. A man may not go to the extent of killing his innocent wife but he will dump her like yesterday’s garbage and feel completely justified.

Any defenseless woman becomes a soft target for violence and exploitation.  There are cases where a woman who has property becomes the victim of ruthless greed- she may be up against unscrupulous family members, neighbors or others. Here again the pattern repeats itself.  She is made out to be a woman of low character: We are not out to swallow her property. We are trying to get rid of an immoral woman.

Change is always subjective. We need to change our values. Let me end with a wonderful quote from Swami Vivekananda:
All nations have attained greatness by paying proper respect to woman. That country and that nation which do not respect women have never become great, nor ever will be in the future...Manu says, ‘Where women are respected, there the gods delight and where they are not, there all works and efforts come to naught.”[i]

I hope, wish and pray that we take these words to heart in the New Year which also happens to be the 150th birth year of Swami Vivekananda.

January 4, 2013: I'd like to add a postscript to this blog. Nirbhaya's friend gave an interview today in which he mentioned the key reason for the high incidence of rape and offences against women in our country: The public bus in which the horrific gang rape took place circled the city for two and a half hours. After the rape, Nirbhaya and her friend were pushed out of the bus, unclothed. She was badly wounded and bleeding profusely. He had been beaten up with a rod and was in a bad state. They shouted for help. People stopped to gawk and moved on. No one had the decency to take them to the hospital. No one was decent enough to cover them with a sheet. They lay on the street for two hours in the midst of  heavy traffic. When the police finally arrived, they stood there arguing about jurisdiction for half an hour. At the hospital the wait for clothes and treatment continued. Nirbhaya had to record her statement to the SDM twice in that terrible state. Her friend lay on a stretcher for four days before any one bothered to attend to him - that at his own expense!

Do we have the right to call ourselves a civilized society? There is such a high incidence of rape in our country because we are a people without a social conscience. All we care about is me, my family, friends and myself.

<1.   Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda, 7, 214-15.   

Pic: www.newsprint.in                







Saturday, 24 November 2012

Carl Jung: A Near Death Experience





There’s a fascinating body of work dealing with past life regression and NDEs (near death experiences). The trend started with Carl Jung, the great Swiss psychoanalyst. Jung was born into a family of priests. Perhaps because of his religious background, and a mother who took part in seances,  Jung kept an open mind about extra sensory perception and mystical experiences which could not be explained scientifically. There is in Jung a fierce and fearless commitment to truth and direct perception, even when it seems absurd and irrational. He was influenced by Indian religious traditions, especially Buddhism. Jung records his mystical experiences as unverified personal experience and leaves it to his readers to accept or reject their validity.

In 1944 Jung had a heart attack and a near death experience:

‘It seemed to me that I was high up in space...A short distance away I saw in space a tremendous dark block of stone, like a meteorite. It was about the size of my house, or even bigger. It was floating in space, and I myself was floating in space...An entrance led into a small ante-chamber.  To the right of the entrance, a black Hindu sat silently in lotus position upon a stone bench. He wore a white gown, and I knew that he expected me...As I approached the steps leading up to the entrance in the rock, a strange thing happened. I had the feeling that everything was being sloughed away; everything I aimed at or wished for or thought, the whole phantasmagoria of earthly existence fell away or was stripped from me – an extremely painful process. Nevertheless something remained; it was as if I now carried along with me everything that I had ever experienced or done, everything that had happened around me. I might also say: it was with me, and I was it...I consisted of my own history and I felt with great certainty: this is what I am. ‘I am this bundle of what has been and what has been accomplished.’
‘There was no longer any regret that something had dropped away or been taken away. On the contrary: I had everything that I was and that was everything. Something else engaged my attention: as I approached the temple I had the certainty that I was about to enter an illuminated room and would there meet those people to whom I belong in reality. There I would at last understand-- this too was a certainty-- what historical nexus I or my life fitted into. I would know what had been before me, why I had come into being and where my life was flowing. My life as I lived it had often seemed to me like a story that had no beginning or end. I had the feeling that I was a historical fragment, an excerpt for which the preceding and succeeding text was missing. My life seemed to have been snipped out of a long chain of events, and many questions had remained unanswered. Why had it taken this course? Why had I brought these particular assumptions with me? What had I made of them? What will follow? I felt sure that I would receive an answer to all these questions as soon as I entered the rock temple...

(Then) an image floated up. It was my doctor Dr. H. -- or, rather, his likeness-- framed by a golden chain...A mute exchange of thought took place between us. Dr. H. had been delegated by the earth to deliver a message to me, to tell me that there was a protest against my going away. I had no right to leave the earth and must return.’

The vision ends. Jung is angry and disappointed at being dragged down to earth. He has not been able to enter the temple or meet the people to whom he truly belonged. Jung was seriously sick for three more weeks. In a strange coincidence, Jung’s doctor, Dr. H. took ill on the day Jung sat up, April 4, 1944. Jung was concerned about him because Dr. H. had appeared to him in his ‘primal form.’ Shortly afterwards, the doctor died of septicemia.

The ‘black Hindu’ in the temple is symbolic because for Jung, this was the moment of truth, the most significant event of his life.

Many of us have experienced similar events. If you or someone in your circle of family and friends has had a dream, vision, out of body experience, please share it. How did you interpret it? Do you think Jung was delusional? Or was it a true vision? How can we tell the difference?

Ref: Carl Jung, Memories,Dreams,Reflections, ed. Aniela Jaffe, trans.  Richard and Clara Winston (New York;Vintage Books,1989),290-2


Pic: www.crystlinks.com

Monday, 22 October 2012

Plato's Cave



There’s a wonderful song in the hit musical ‘Chicago.’  It’s called ‘Mister Cellophane’:        

                                         'Mister Cellophane
                                      Shoulda been my name
                           'Cause you can look right through me
                                           Walk right by me
                                  And never know I'm there'  

 We are connected to, and intensely aware of   a handful of family and friends or ‘significant others’ and to our work. If I may recast a famous image from Sartre, this nest, this egg is the sum total of our reality. The rest of the world is just a smudge, a blob. Of course we can’t ignore ‘others’ completely. They may be a useful or necessary part of our lives. At times they have a nuisance value and need to be disciplined. So we pay enough attention to the crowd so we can push the right buttons and get the required reactions. As we grow, we learn to put insignificant others in behavioral uniforms, straitjackets even.  We create environments where outcomes can be controlled. There is order and a balance of sorts in our lives. Conflict is minimized. 

No one openly subscribes to the ‘live comfortably and let others die’ philosophy but our concern for others is often superficial, if that. We’ve all seen couples who’ve been married for years interacting with each other like trained athletes jumping through the required hoops, including the mouthing of endearments and platitudes. It’s a meeting of masks in a make believe, ‘happy’ environment. Woe to the man who dares to step outside this charmed circle and tell it like it is. He is ostracized, ridiculed, disciplined and finally made to fall in line. If he doesn’t, he ends up as a social outcast. And it’s cold and freezing out there...The bottom line, even for reasonably moral and decent people like us is not what happens, but who it happens to. A wise elder is often around to mollify the victim: ‘Anger is a waste even when you’ve been terribly harmed and hurt.’ Sound advice if you want to survive. The perpetrators of injustice vulgarize victims and cover them with mud so they can stand on pedestals and look down at lesser creatures with disdain. ‘He had it coming....’ It’s almost a law of nature that some benighted soul stands up in the midst of this drama and asks silly questions like: ‘Is this true? Is it just?’ Is it ethical?

Let’s take the trial of Socrates as a case in point. Normally, a court of law is a place where the judge is wise, learned and impartial. The lawyers are far more knowledgeable than the defendant. An impartial jury is in attendance. Justice is done and each man gets his due – in theory. Socrates was tried and condemned by people who had neither his intellect nor his moral integrity. Worse, they were arrogant enough to think that they were qualified to judge a man of his caliber. Men who did not have the brains or knowledge to understand Socratic ideas pronounced them immoral! Socrates, of all people, was accused of ‘corrupting’ the young! Socrates had many disciples but Plato was the brightest star in his firmament. Plato was shocked by the trial and the verdict condemning Socrates to death.

 Plato’s Republic[i] is an inquiry into the nature of truth and justice: What is justice and who will administer it? Plato comes up with the concept of the ‘philosopher king or guardian,’ a seer who rules but is not allowed to own property or accumulate wealth.  Mahatma Gandhi in modern times and king Janak in ancient times are examples of philosopher kings.[ii] The word ‘republic’ is made up of two roots: ‘res’ (welfare) and ‘publica’ (public) meaning a welfare state. The Republic is a blueprint for the setting up of a just state. Swami Vivekananda says somewhere: ‘that society is best where the highest truth becomes possible.’ Plato draws up a plan for a Utopian state. I must mention here that there are many ideas in The Republic which would not be acceptable in a modern state. The underlying philosophy is however as sound as ever.

 Chapter seven of The Republic is the soul of the book. It is set forth as a dialogue between Socrates and his disciple Glaucon. Plato uses poetry rather than polemic as his weapon. The imagery is sublime, the ideas are ethereal. Imagine, says Plato, a dark underground cave or dungeon. The mouth of the cave opens towards the light but no one in the cave can see this light. In the cave are prisoners who have been there since they were children. Their legs and necks are bound by chains in such a way that they can’t turn their heads. They can only look straight ahead. A fire is burning at some distance behind them. Between the fire and the prisoners, high above them is a path which runs along a low wall. People walk across the path, chatting with each other, sometimes carrying wooden or stone statues, animals or other sundry objects.

The prisoners see reflections of their own selves and the people and objects moving across the path on the wall in front of them. They hear echoes of people speaking. All they can see are shadows, and as shadows go, they can’t tell the difference between the shadows of   living human beings and shadows of statues and other objects. The prisoners talk to each other about the shadow figures as if they are living, breathing creatures. Since the echoes come from the shadows, they think it’s the shadows speaking. They play games and become experts at predicting the order in which certain shapes appear. This is empirical, verifiable reality as they experience it day after day. This is truth as they see it. This is their egg, their world, their cocoon. For.For Plato, life in the den is existential life, a life of slumber and shadows. In Vedantic terms, this is the hazy world of Maya. It is an existence that has no substance. There is only one true reality, God.

Supposing, says Plato, one of the prisoners is set free. He stands up with the utmost difficulty. He is asked to turn around and look at the people, animals and objects moving across the path. He hears people speak for the first time. He is shown that the shadows he saw earlier were mere reflections of living human beings and inanimate objects. He is stunned and incredulous. His eyes, long accustomed to a dark, unending, black night are blinded. He is then made to climb out of the cave. At first he sees only shadows, and then slowly, reflections in water, gradually his eyes get used to seeing things by starlight and finally he learns to see clearly on days lit by the blazing sun. He finally understands the difference between flesh and blood people and their shadows, tunes into the cadence of real voices and laughs at the echoes in the den.

At one level, the prison represents external societal constraints and the shadow play of interactions between people that we have touched on earlier. These are external shackles. There is a much deeper, inner component: The darkness of the den signifies tamas or ignorance. The chains are attachment to the five senses and the difficulty we have in breaking free from the prison of physical reality. At the existential level, life is slumber, a dream state and a puppet show of shadow figures.[iii]The journey to light is the destiny of every pilgrim soul without exception. The guru guides the struggling soul to light and freedom.

Plato does not talk of God. He uses the concept of ‘Ideas.’ We live in a twilight world trapped in bodies we can’t walk out of and rooted to the phenomenal world through sense perception. The prison is the sense world. The light of the fire represents the sun. The journey out of the cave is the soul’s odyssey ...its trek to the intellectual world. ‘The eye of the soul’[iv] is normally buried in ‘an outlandish slough.’ When the soul sets out to find the Holy Grail, this eye turns upwards towards the good, towards truth: 

‘...in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort, and then, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the Lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual, and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eyes fixed.’[v]

Vedanta speaks of a veil of Maya that traps us in a net of illusion or half truth. Through persistent effort we have to cut our way out of Maya to freedom. Plato makes an assertion which is interesting from the Vedantic point of view: You can’t put sight into eyes that are blind. Knowledge is in the soul already[vi]. It’s not put there by some external force. The transition from ‘becoming’ to ‘being’[vii] happens when the eyes are turned away from ‘the lead weight of sense pleasure to the opposite direction.’ The mind is polished until it is free of dross and becomes a perfect reflector for truth.

The allegory does not stop here. It’s not enough that a prisoner breaks free and comes face to face with truth. Plato forces him to go back to the cave and pull others out of the den they are trapped in. This is the philosopher king, the guru. It’s very hard for him to come down from divine consciousness to the ‘evil state of man.’ Once again his eyes are blinded. Plato adds a telling remark here: if he is forced to fight in a court of law while his eyes are adjusting to darkness about shadows of images, of justice with those who’ve never seen ‘absolute justice,’ he would be totally out of his depth. This of course, is what happened to Socrates. He could not explain the truth to people who were rooted to a world of false consciousness.

When the seer returns and tries to tell his mates that what they see are shadows, they laugh at him:

‘Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without the use of his eyes, and that it was better not to think of ascending, and if any one tried to lose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.’[viii]

 The guardian must work in spite of this ridicule. In Plato’s republic, young people are put in the care of guardians who turn their minds towards the right values, towards the good. They are thus trained to be fit administrators in a just state. Education is the key to truth, justice, freedom and felicity. The faculty of sight which was turned in the wrong direction is now focused on the truth. We now have the answer to the question which The Republic set out to answer: what is justice? What is truth? The welfare state is one in which the highest values become practical, where sages like Socrates are celebrated not condemned to death.

Pic: 3quarksdaikly.com                                                                                                                                   

[i] Plato, The Republic,(2000) trans. Benjamin Jowett(New York: Dover Publications).
[ii] For an academic analysis, please see: Davidson,Pramila,”Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A Vedantic Reading,” Prabuddha Bharata, Vol.114,No.8,August 2009
[iii] Ibid.,p.196
[iv] Ibid.,p.195
[v] Ibid.,p.179
[vi] Ibid.,p.180
[vii] Ibid.,p.195
[viii] Ibid.,p.179

Saturday, 29 September 2012

The death of Socrates






Once upon a time and an extraordinary time it was, there lived in Athens a man famous for his wisdom. His name was Socrates. If stories are to be believed, he was ugly and unkempt. He wore shabby clothes and much like Indian rishis, went about barefoot. He had a shrew of a wife who henpecked him and made his life a living hell. Partly because of this domestic angst, he learnt to bear and forbear and to face life with fortitude. So great was his capacity to bear adversity that he went about in ordinary clothes and bare feet even when all the strong and healthy people around him were shivering with cold. He was absent minded and erratic (as a philosopher should be). The highest ‘good’ for Socrates was a transparent, unsullied mind that could see with absolute clarity into truth. He was unperturbed by the vagaries of life. In short, he was a sage, a rishi. Socrates was known for his ‘odd’ ways. Often he would be lost in thought trying to untie the intricacies of a philosophic problem that vexed him. On one such occasion, He stood rooted to a spot for such a long time that word spread through the streets of Athens. a People poured into the streets to look at Socrates frozen into a statue. Some of them brought out their mats and camped around him just to see when he would move. Socrates stood all night and the next morning he shook himself up and left the place as if nothing unusual had happened. It’s hard to say whether Socrates had experienced the super conscious state or Samadhi.

Having learnt the mysteries of life the hard way, Socrates took to teaching the young. He was too other worldly to take a tuition fee. Plato was his most famous pupil. If Plato’s oeuvre is anything to go by, Socrates must have been a man of extraordinary genius and character.  A thinker of Plato’s caliber couldn't have felt such reverence for an ordinary man. At about the age of seventy, Socrates was tried and condemned to death for ‘corrupting the young’ among other things.  He was probably tried by men who were far inferior to him in intelligence and moral integrity. Socrates chose to represent himself at the trial and when sentenced, suggested such a paltry penalty that he infuriated the judges. It’s been said that death meant nothing to him. It was a case of mind or soul over matter.
He didn't care if the body stayed or fell. Further, he went on to assert that it wasn't in the power of the judges to punish or kill him. His soul was immortal:
‘…if you kill such a one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you injure me…for a bad man is not permitted to injure a (man) better than himself…the evil of unjustly taking away the life of another- is greater far (than being put to death)...those of us who think death is an evil are in error. For either death is a dreamless sleep- which is plainly good- or the soul migrates to another world. And ‘what would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die and die again.’(1)

The reference to reincarnation is interesting. Socrates calmly drank the cup of hemlock brought to him and died consoling his distraught disciples. He brings to life the ideal of right living and dying regardless of consequences.

Pic: www.biography.com

1.Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy



Saturday, 22 September 2012

Nietzsche contra Vivekananda: The Will to Power




In Part II of Thus Spake Zarathushtra[1] Nietzsche introduces the concept for which he is most famous: the will to power (‘der Willie zur Macht’). There is no ‘being’, only ‘becoming’. Aristotle had postulated mutually exclusive categories:  a thing is either black or white. It cannot be both. Dualistic thinking is based on Aristotelian logic. Plato introduced the concept of ‘becoming’ in The Republic but the concept was fully conceived by Hegel: between black and white, there are many shades of grey, between ‘being’ and ‘nothingness’ there is ‘becoming.’ In his analysis of Nietzsche’s thought, Copleston remarks that reality in Nietzsche implies ‘becoming:
“Reality is becoming; it is we who turn it into being, imposing stable patterns on the flux of Becoming. And this activity is an expression of   the will to power. [2]
We try to find order and meaning in a world which is devoid of both.  Nietzsche’s   ‘reality’ is phenomenal and empirical. It consists of change, flux, development or ‘becoming ‘.  This idea raises problems.  Being is existence. Change implies a background which is constant and stable. If you deny the constant, your reality is chaos, not a rational transition from one entity to another, e.g. animal to man or man to superman.  Nietzsche’s starting point is Schopenhauer’s concept of will. Schopenhauer had established the will as the primary datum of experience. He conceptualized the will as unintelligent; a blind striving that motivates everything in nature. It is never satisfied, forever disenchanted, so it brings suffering.   Nietzsche transforms the will into a life affirming will to power:
‘Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master.’[3]
Our primal instinct is not the will to survive, to live, but the will to power:
‘Yea, something invulnerable, unburiable is with me, something that would rend rocks asunder: It is called my Will.[4]
 The weak serve the strong. Those who cannot be a law unto themselves will be forced to obey others. Nietzsche’s idea of redemption is unique:  The past is redeemed and transformed when the expression ‘it was’ changes to “thus would I have it... thus do I will it! Thus shall I will it!”[5]   The will to power has a cluster of attributes: It is centred in egoism, not altruism. This is ‘the wholesome, healthy selfishness that springeth from the powerful soul.’[6] It is rooted in independence and ambition. It is the celebration and assertion of self.  It is the ability and willingness to dominate others, to fight to get to the top of the heap, to be sovereign over others.  Zarathustra commands because he has ‘unlearnt’ how to obey.  The will to power is beyond good and evil.  If imposing our will on others causes them pain, it is justified.   This obviously implies a situation where competing wills try to dominate each other in a Hobbesian world. An equilibrium is reached where persons of approximately equal value come to a power sharing arrangement, a ‘union with others who are similar’ and conspire to gain mastery over the herd. They form a new oligarchy.  The will emancipates us from the prison house of the past and creates happiness for us because it spells personal growth, an overcoming of self, and the determination to achieve perfection.   It is not necessarily an attempt to gain power over others. It is a state of consciousness.  It has divergent manifestations. It is the ascetic’s struggle to master physicality, the artist’s mastery over his work.  The scientist who ‘feeds on acorns and the grass of knowledge for the sake of truth,’ and is willing to ‘suffer hunger of the soul’ is motivated by the will to power. He wants to control nature. Even the will to peace is just the will to self-preservation. To sum up, Nietzsche’s superman is a bit like Gulliver in Lilliput towering over the little people, crushing them like ants if that is necessary as he sculpts victory to the cadence of Wagner’s music.
It is difficult to discuss the will to power in the context of Vivekananda’s life and ideas. He was, even by utilitarian standards, the most successful of men, a force that shook the world.  Swami Nikhilananda has written a beautiful biography of  Vivekananda. The story of his journey to North America to attend the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago has been told many times, many ways.  I want to retell a few aspects based on Swami Nikhilananda’s biography because nothing illustrates the shallow limits of Nietzsche’s logic better than  Vivekananda’s journey to Chicago. The tale begins at the end of  Vivekananda’s pilgrimage across India. He swims through the shark infested sea, unafraid, to what is now called Vivekananda rock at Cape Comoran. As he sits on the rock, he thinks of his travels:
I traveled all over India. But alas, it was agony to me, my brothers, to see with my own eyes the terrible poverty of the masses, and I could not restrain my tears!  It is now my firm conviction that to preach religion amongst them, without first trying to remove their poverty and suffering is futile. It is for this reason – to find means for the salvation of the poor of India – That I am going to the America.’[7]
Vivekananda comes to Madras. His disciples support his plan to go to North America and raise funds. The Raja of Khetri anoints him with the name of Swami Vivekananda and gifts him a turban and ocher raiment of fine silk.   Vivekananda arrives in Chicago and is told that the Parliament of Religions which was to be held on July 31, 1893 has been postponed to September.  Apart from the date, he has another problem; He needs credentials certified by a recognized organization. He has none. As luck would have it, it is too late to register. He approaches the Theosophical Society for help. They refuse.  His meager purse is getting thinner.  An American he meets advises him to go to Boston as it is cheaper. In the train to Boston, the affluent Kate Sanborn is intrigued by this regal, picturesque man in fancy dress.[8] She invites him to her home. Vivekananda meets many people at her house including Professor Wright of Harvard.  Wright is impressed by Vivekananda’s extraordinary intellect and erudition. He writes to several influential people asking them to help him get the necessary credentials: ‘Here is a man more learned than all our learned professors put together.’ He says to  Vivekananda: ‘To ask you, Swami, for your credentials, is like asking the sun about its right to shine.’[9]
 Vivekananda  goes to Chicago but he has mislaid the address of the organizing committee responsible for delegates. Basically, he is stranded again.  He  spends the night in an empty wagon, hungry. Forgetting that he is in a strange country, he goes begging for food in the time honored tradition of Hindu monks and has doors slammed in his face.  His clothes are dirty. His unshaven face gives him the look of a tramp up to no good. Finally he sinks into a side wall utterly spent. Mrs Hale, an influential lady living in the house opposite, notices him. She guesses that he must be a delegate to the Parliament.  Vivekananda,  childlike as always pours out all his troubles. Mrs Hale sees to it that he gets a hot breakfast, bath and fresh clothes. She then takes him to the offices of the Parliament of Religions. Vivekananda is introduced to Dr. Barrows, the president of the Parliament. Thereafter he is accepted as a delegate representing Hinduism. 
 Vivekananda  attended the Parliament in the clothes the Raja of Khetri had gifted him: A red turban, ocher robe and scarlet sash. It had not occurred to anyone that these clothes might look a bit odd amidst the suits in Chicago. Vivekananda carried them off with grace and dignity. At the Parliament, he kept postponing his speech. He had never addressed a public gathering before. It had not occurred to him to prepare a speech.  His opening words ‘Sisters and brothers of America’ got a two minute ovation from the seven thousand people assembled. The rest is history.  Vivekananda spoke on behalf of the oldest religion and order of monks in the world and in the name of millions of Hindu peoples. The applause after his speech was thunderous. A delegate was amazed by ‘the scores of women walking over the benches to get near him.’ She remarked that if the thirty year old Vivekananda ‘can resist that onslaught, (he is) indeed a God.’[10]  Christopher Isherwood talks of ‘a strange kind of subconscious telepathy that spread through the assembly.[11]   Romain Rolland captures the impact  Vivekananda  had:
‘His strength and beauty, the grace and dignity of his bearing, the dark light of his eyes, his imposing appearance and from the moment he began to speak, the splendid music of his rich, deep voice enthralled the wide audience...The thought of this warrior prophet of India left a deep mark on the U.S.’[12]
  Harvard and Columbia, both schools most people would kill to get into, offered to set up new departments with Vivekananda as head. He refused.  The greatest American intellectual of the time, William James listened intently to every word he spoke and called him ‘Master.’ James refers to Vivekananda  as ‘the paragon of Vedantists’ in his Varieties of Religious Experience.[13]  His work owes much to  Vivekananda’s  Raja Yoga.[14]   James organized a lecture for  Vivekananda  at Harvard. Apart from an extraordinary intellect,  Vivekananda  showed his sense of fun: Someone asked him: ‘Swami, what do you think about food and breathing?’  Vivekananda could hardly resist such a question. His reply is an absolute gem: ‘I am for both!’ [15]One of the greatest novelists of all time; Leo Tolstoy had this to say:
He is the most brilliant wise man, it is doubtful in this age that another man has ever risen above this selfless, spiritual meditation.’[16]
J. D.  Salinger, the author of The Catcher in the Rye, was mesmerized much like Gertrude Stein, John D. Rockefeller and Robert Ingersoll. The scientist Nikola Tesla met  Vivekananda  and was impressed by the similarity between the Sankhya philosophy of matter and the concept of energy in modern Physics.[17]   Vivekananda  had an emotional meeting with ‘the white haired sage’ Max Muller at Oxford. [18]How did this sudden adulation and luxury affect  Vivekananda? It made him even more intensely aware of the terrible poverty in India:
…what do I care for name and fame when my motherland remains sunk in utmost poverty? To what a sad pass have we poor Indians come when millions of us die for want of a handful of rice, and here they spend millions of rupees upon their personal comfort! Who will raise the masses of India? Who will give them bread? Show me, O Mother, how I can help them.’[19]
 In one incident, he was mistaken for a black and someone asked him why he didn’t tell them that he was not a Negro but a Hindu.  Vivekananda  was indignant; ‘What! Rise at the expense of another? I did not come to earth for that.’[20] There were lighthearted moments too because  Vivekananda never  lost his sense of mischief.  A student in Minneapolis asked him if Hindu mothers fed their children to crocodiles in the river. Vivekananda shot back: ‘Yes Madam! They threw me in, but like your fabled Jonah, I got out again. [21]
Life wasn’t easy for Vivekananda even after the Parliament of Religions. Jealousy prompted representatives of other religions and even Hindu sects to spread malicious gossip about him. The new movement he represented consisted only of half a dozen bedraggled young men with hardly enough clothes to cover their backs.  He was entirely dependent on donations and charity in the U.S. For this he needed his Indian followers to acknowledge him publicly as a genuine representative of Hinduism. It took Vivekananda almost a year to get this recognition. He asked his disciple Alasingha to organize a public meeting with prominent people, move a vote of thanks for his service to his religion and country. [22]It came, but it took months.  Many of Vivekananda’s admirers withdrew their support thinking him to be a cheat and an  upstart. Funds available to him dried up  which caused him a lot of hardship.  
His love for his people did not suffer because of this neglect. In London someone asked him; ’‘Swami, how do you like now your motherland after three years’ experience of the luxurious and powerful west?’  Vivekananda said: ‘India I loved before I came away. Now the very dust of India has become holy to me, the very air is now to me holy, it is now the holy land, the place of pilgrimage, the Tirtha!’[23]  If anything, he was intensely aware of his identity as a monk; ‘I long, Oh, I long for my rags, my shaven head, my sleep under the trees, and my food from begging.’[24]
The sweep of Vivekananda’s vision was extraordinary.  He foresaw  the  consequences of the crisis of faith in the west. ‘The religions of the world have become lifeless mockeries.’ He conceptualized a vibrant ethical system grounded in reason. He went back to the roots of Vedantic thought and came up with ideas which were not only revolutionary but scientific. He was conscious of the magnitude of what he was doing: ‘I have a message to the West as Buddha had a message to the East.’  Margaret Noble, later Sister Nivedita, had this to say about her initial reaction to his talks:
Belief in the dogmas of Christianity has become impossible for us, and we had no tool, such as we now hold, by which to cut away the doctrinal shell from the kernel of Reality, in our faith. To these, the Vedanta has given intellectual confirmation and philosophical expression of their own mistrusted intuition. The ‘people that walked in darkness have seen a great light’…it was the Swami’s 'I am God' that came as something always known; only never said before.[25]
  Vivekananda went to North America with pennies in his pocket, a man no one had heard of and inspired the awe reserved for kings. He returned to India with name, fame and enough funds to buy the land on which  the Ramakrishna Math and Mission at Belur was built.  He put India on the world map as the mother of all religion and spirituality.  He was recognized and revered across the globe as the spiritual and intellectual giant he was.  How did he feel when he got home? When his boat landed in Aden en route to Sri Lanka, he saw a ‘pan wallah’ smoking a hookah as he went on shore.  This is something that he had missed when he was in North America.  Vivekananda went up to the vendor and said; ‘Brother, do give me your pipe.’ Mr Sevier was watching. He said: “Now we see! It was this that made you run away from us so abruptly!’[26]  The welcome he got when he reached home was tumultuous.  Did  Vivekananda puff up with pride? No. He was totally detached. He had been entrusted with a task and he had accomplished it. He offered all his work and achievements at the feet of  his guru,Sri Ramakrishna:
My teacher, my master, my hero, my ideal, my God in life, If there has been anything achieved by me, by thoughts or words or deeds, if from my lips has ever fallen one word that has ever helped anyone in the world, I lay no claim to it, it was his. But if there have been curses falling from my lips, if there has been hatred coming out of me, it is all mine, and not his. All that has been weak has been mine, all that has been life-giving, strengthening, pure and holy has been his inspiration, his words, and he himself. [27]
 His tribute is all ‘Thou’ and no ‘I.’ The heart and soul of his leadership ethic – if we can call it that, was ‘thou,’ not ‘I.’ His life is a living testament to his remark that ‘he who is the servant of all has the world at his feet.’ There are many paths to glory.  Vivekananda’s  trip to North America was not an expression of a will to power, unless it was a will to power for India and the whole, wide world.  His task was to make even the weakest living being realize that it was not the scum of the earth, it was God. There are no impregnable hedges around his words, ideas or life. Everything that he was, everything that he had, became the birth right of every soul that approached him.  I have highlighted the externals, the least important of  Vivekananda’s  attributes and achievements to emphasize that a life that is a blazing fire of renunciation can conquer the world in a way that Nietzsche can only dream of.  Vivekananda was no proselytizing monk. Every spiritual path, every religion is true. Ultimately, his ideas  boil down o verifiable intellectual  and ethical truth .
We live in a rational, scientific age. Reason demands that we recognize truth wherever we find it. An odyssey does not cease to be true because the ‘Mein Kempf’ comes from a monk committed to serve the scum of the earth, among other things.






[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich (2009), Thus Spake Zarathushtra,(Mumbai, Wilco Press)
[2] Copleston, Fredrick, S.J. (1985), A History of Philosophy ,Fichte to Nietzsche ,Book III, Volume VII, (New York: Doubleday), p.408
[3] Nietzsche, op.cit, p.139
[4]Ibid.,p.137
[5] Nietzsche, op. cit., p. 174
[6] Ibid., p. 227
[7] Swami Nikhilananda, (2010), Vivekananda: A  Biography,(Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama),p.58
[8] Swami Nikhilananda, op. cit., p. 62
[9]ibid
[10] Swami Nikhilananda, op. cit., p.66
[11] Bardach, L, “What did J.D.Salinger, Leo Tolstoy and Sarah Bernhardt have in common?” The Wall Street Journal, WST Magazine, March 30, 2012
[12] Swami Adiswarananda, Swami Vivekananda in America,  www.Ramakrishna.org/sv-sa.htm
[13]London: Collier, 1961
[14]Swami Nikhilananda, op. cit. p. 104
[15] Bardach, op. cit
[16] Bardach, L, op. cit.
[17] Swami Nikhilananda, op. cit., p. 93
[18] Ibid, p. 105
[19] Ibid, p.68
[20] Ibid., p. 94
[21] Ibid.
[22] Swami Vivekananda, Letters of Swami Vivekananda,(2006), (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama).
[23] Ibid, p. 117
[24] Ibid., p.85
[25] Ibid, p. 113
[26] Ibid., p. 122
[27] Ibid, p.129