Acharya Mahaprajna
Dream remained a dream
A palace built on the foundation of violence, oppression and force crumbles down by itself. Its example is communism. The philosophy of communism is a pinnacle and summit of human thought. Had its advent come with non-violence, democracy and purity of means then heaven would have come down to earth. The advent did not take place in this way and therefore that which was a dream remained a dream. The compassion towards poor and the feeling of cooperation turned into cruelty. The iron grip of dictatorship was so strong that the voice of disagreeing group could not come up again. Whosoever opposed and asked for change he had to part with his life. The maṅgalapātha (well-meaning/auspicious lessons) of Glasnost and Perestroika which the Soviet president Gorbachev gave, they are not accidental water-drops. In their background history of many fire-atoms is hidden.
Weakness of dictatorial leader (adhināyaka)
We cannot change reaction in the language of action. For the long duration of seventy years the empire of violence prospered. This is a surprise in itself. The effort to change this awful circle (bhairava cakra) is a greater surprise. Violence or oppression does surely terminate one day, this truth can be evinced in the context of history. In a system in which a dictatorial leader has the power to take away the lives of millions of people, that system cannot be human. The greatest weakness of a dictatorial leader is that he cannot tolerate rival camp, rival thought and rival criticism. On this problem necessity of change of heart, change of mind or spirituality is felt. Had Karl Marx and Engels got the opportunity to couple spirituality with Marxism then Marxism would have been a boon. It would not have got associated with dictatorship. Its movement would have been in the direction of 'stateless state'. It is travesty of fate that Marx regarded 'stateless state' to be the destiny but use of this idea was made for oppression, tight gripping and autocracy.
Question is that of enthroned people
Question is not that of communism or democracy. Question is of those people who run the system and be seated on the throne of power. A person seats on the throne of power and no rabidity and arrogance arises in him, this is possible only when there is control on him (piercing iron hook to control the elephant) and rein is in someone else's hand. One king refused to sit on an elephant. Before riding he told the keeper of elephant {mahāvata), 'bring rein'. The keeper replied, 'it has no rein'. The king said, 'I do not want to ride on that the rein of which is not in my hand.'
In democracy people have the check and control and therefore one who sits on the throne of power cannot be autocrat. In autocracy, there is no check and control and therefore here the possibility of rabid-ness and arrogance cannot be avoided.
Spiritual training is necessary
'We are working for the wellbeing of the poor or for eradicating poverty' when I hear this voice on the political platform, I get a shaking in my thinking. Has the political worker entered politics with spirituality or only for the wellbeing of poor? If he has done so with spirituality, then he will go in the direction of Gandhi and if he has done so for the wellbeing of poor only then soon after acquiring power the matter of wellbeing will be secondary and the daydream of splendour and voluptuary-ness will come forth. Then his movement will be in the direction of Chaushesku.
Is it necessary for a politician, for an administrator and ruler to have spiritual training? Why only for politician alone? Spiritual training is needed for every individual. This is not a training of any sect or mode of worship. It is a training of awakening of inner strength. The meaning of spirituality is—inner self-development. Without this no work, can be done with authenticity or spiritually. The ruler or administrator must be temperate, recluse and ascetic. If he is not so then people should not expect goodness from him.
When will curtain be down?
We may give up the matter of dictatorship. If even in democracy, there is no spiritual training then what can be greater surprise than this. In democracy dictatorship, cannot thrive but one who comes on the seat of power he gets unlimited power in his hands. Vast administration, vast wealth, and unlimited facility of planning action—what is the assurance that an elected person will use them properly? What is its controlling element? At the time of election public has the right to change them but is five years' duration less? In this period one can do or undo all rights and wrongs. The solution of this problem is the proclamation of Acharyashri Tulsi made at Jayaram centenary which is as follows— 'Control on one’s own self, and then discipline (for others)', but those who have the power of money, have the capacity to purchase votes, and who are expert in playing political tricks and gimmicks why will they pay heed to this proclamation? On the political platform, some such play is going on. We do not know when will the curtain be drawn?
