Light To Lamp Lights: 0.1 ►Q&A

Question: Today anuvrat, in the form of a humanistic religion, is being established at the national and international levels. This has happened more at the ideological level. Is there any plan to establish it at the practical levels as well?

Answer: Any movement comes down to the practical level only after it has proved its worth at the ideological level. Those who have reflected on ethics have emphasised the fact that any conduct before it becomes a matter of practice, has necessar­ily to emerge from the soil of ideas. Without the ideological background and individuals moving along the path of conduct are likely to slip any time. Once the ideological ground is solid, there are fewer chances of slipping. From this point of view, before putting any programme in action, an ideological revolution is necessary. When the ideological aspect is correct, it can give the practical form at any appropriate time.

It is true that the ideological aspect of anuvrat has strengthened and it has spread wide. For this very reason, the anuvrat movement is alive. No other contemporary movements for rectification of behaviour —Sarvodaya, Moral Rearmament, etc. which are equally important-are not even being discussed anywhere, whereas the voice of anuvratis heard loud and clear so far. The idea that it should now be given a practical shape is also appropriate. But everyone knows how difficult it is to give any idea a practical shape. It is not even possible that any idea could become cent percent practical. At the same time, this does not mean that the ideas should soar high into the sky and the practical behaviour should remain buried underground.

The Tirthankaras gave us the philosophy of non­violence. They enunciated the principle of non­violence in a very clear form and clear terms. Still, violence has existed all along without any respite. The reality of violence cannot be disputed, but if there is even a slight weakening of man's tendency to be violent, it is the result of experiment in non­violence. In the prevailing psychological state, if the feeling leading to the ideas of disarmament, curtail­ing the arms and avoidance of war are not the practical results of non-violence, what else are they?

It is not as though no experiments are being made in the field of anuvrat. In the Anuvrat Training Camps, constant attention is being paid to make the anuvrat philosophy life-oriented. The practice of prekshadhyan came to be adopted only with the intention of not letting the anuvrat code of conduct be merely a matter of preaching. The science of living also has the same aim. This has been the idea behind observing 1990 as the Anuvrat Year. It would be too much to imagine that the ideological aspect of anuvrat would become practical in toto. Attempts are being made to make it as practical as possible.

Question: In this age of immoral economic practices, the common man finds it difficult to accept the code of conduct based on anuvrat. In this context, does anuvrat provide any practical solution?

Answer: Those who experience difficulty in this regard have not attempted to understand thoroughly the code of conduct prescribed by anuvrat. If each of the vows is understood in its proper context, this difficulty can be overcome. We know that under the prevailing conditions, it is not easy to follow the hard vows. From this point of view, full attention has been given while deciding the code of conduct. For instance, both taking a bribe and giving it are a crime. Both are immoral economic practices. But, in the present age, not giving a bribe is as difficult as taking a bribe is easy. That is why anuvrat has limits-'I shall take no bribe, it says. It is not moral to give a bribe. Still, in the first step of anuvrat, it has not been considered a taboo, because an ordinary man cannot live comfortably without doing it. The same is true about honesty, which also has its limitation. This limitation can be pointed out through the rules of anuvrat to be applied to a particular class or group.

Some laws are also such that they push the individual into economic crimes. People face prob­lems on account of the taxes they have to pay. Initially, anuvrat did not interfere in this matter in any way. As a matter of fact, anuvrat does not believe in any ideal which man cannot be followed in practice at all. As far as difficulties are concerned, some compromises would necessarily have to be made. If one has to face no difficulty at all in life, what difference would it make if one follows or does not follow anuvrat? In an age when there are no such difficulties, would the acceptance of the path of anuvrat have any meaning at all? In my view, psychological weakness causes a greater difficulty than the difficulty one may have in following the path of anuvrat. If one's will power is strong, then the path of anuvrat seems to be right royal path.

Question: Is the philosophy of anuvrat capable of changing the economically oriented view-point of the individual? Unless that happens, any progress would be actually regression.

Answer: The philosophy of anuvratis not intended for the refinement of any one distorted view-point. The aim of anuvratis to rectify the distortions in every field of life—economic, social, political, religious, educational, familial and indi­vidual. Today the situation is such that no field of life has remained pure. The predominantly economic viewpoint has set aside even moral principles and ethical values. Consciousness of selfish consider­ations throws up a dazzling bright light. The philosophy of anuvratis very clear and it is incontrovertible. It is necessary to apply it to one's own self than to others. The shortest and the most direct and effective way to change the basically economic viewpoint is to regard wealth not as the end to be achieved in life, but take it to be merely a means to carry on with one's life.

Question: The coordination between the spiri­tual and the scientific viewpoints is the urgent need of the present age. Anuvrat progresses to the heights of spiritualism. Does it also have any scientific basis?

Answer: One small instance of the coordination between the spiritual and the scientific viewpoints is anuvrat. Bhagwan Mahavira was a great scientist. It is true that he did not conduct any experiments seated in a laboratory, but the laboratory of his experiences was very big and very well-equipped. He worked a great deal in the fields of both the animate and the inanimate. No scientist has so far been able to approximate the subtle and clear-cut concepts about the non-living matter and the living being. Science is still silent about the atom which is the final indivisible part of matter. But the soul can never become the subject of its investigation.

A vow by itself is a scientific concept. Material resources are limited. Desires are unlimited. The principle of limiting consumption in the context of this clash between the limited resources and the unlimited desires brings us face to face with a scientific reality. It is only now that science has started raising a voice in favour of protecting the environment. Bhagwan Mahavira had given formula about the judicious consumption of the resources of like earth, water, vegetation etc. two thousand and five hundred years ago. From one point of view, we can never separate spiritualism and science. Science follows its own rules. Spiritualism too has its own rules. Science has discovered the properties of matter and spiritualism has found the rules of consciousness. The quest in both these field is still on.

Anuvrat is not an imaginary concept. Bhagwan Mahavira used the word anuvrat while clarifying dharma. We have picked up that word right from there. It has its own philosophical background. Its scientific aspect can be understood only in its philosophical perspective. If science is concerned only with the experiments conducted in the labora­tory, we have no hesitation in accepting that there is no such laboratory for anuvrat. Its only laboratory is the life of man.

Question: All religious sects function within their own limits. All of them have their independent existence. Under these circumstances, why is the Question of tolerance or intolerance raised at all?

Answer: Sects are established on the basis of some specific beliefs. Man is prone to think more in the of his own beliefs. That is why he gets furious with the beliefs of others. He cannot bear facing any idea, which is opposed to his own idea. Any individual belonging to a particular sect accepts the idea of religious freedom, but he does not take sympathetically to the ideas that are different from his own. When a person belonging to another sect is attracted to his sect and changes his own religion, he is respected as a person with a generous heart, a supporter of independent thinking, fearlessness, courage etc. But when someone belonging to his own sect changes his religion for some reason, that action on his part is considered wrong. Because of such an attitude, the poison of sectarianism spreads and a pure phenomenon like religion gets distorted. That is why having tolerance for all sects is in the individual's own interest. An intolerant attitude gives rise to feeling of hatred, rivalry and jealousy. When an individual or a sect becomes powerful and has a wide following among the people, any opposing view is not tolerated and obstacles are created in the independent existence of others. That is why it is necessary to develop tolerance.

Question: Existence of various sects is a test for tolerance. If the sects cease to exists, for whom, would tolerance he shown? But in the face of the continued existence of communalism, how is it possible to put an end to intolerance?

Answer: In my view, communalism and intol­erance are not two different conditions. The kind of thinking that only the tenet accepted in one’s own sect are correct, means sectarianism, which in course of time, takes the form of intolerance. It is possible to put an end to intolerance. That possibility is all the greater in the prevailing circumstances. No society, state or community can serve its interests by becoming intolerant. The evil consequences of intolerance have rudely shaken the consciousness of man. Today, tolerance is being considered of great value and its field has also become widespread compared to the past.

The spread of tolerance is the current trend of high thinking of the civilised society. Because the voice of tolerance has grown stronger, the individual has developed the concepts suited to that principle. The sanskaras of the future generation would be influenced by this ideology. Hence, the door for orientation to traditions and respect for exchange of ideas are beginning to open. Considering that every individual is entitled to his individual way of thinking, it is possible to accept even the view point contrary to one's own on the ground that every individual is entitled to one's independent but by being intolerant, the freedom of the individual is destroyed.

Tolerance also has its own limitations. It is very difficult to tolerate the direct assault by the oppo­nent on the principles or the ideas of an individual or society. An individual may have his own beliefs, but slinging mud at others for having their beliefs is intolerance.

Such intolerance is found more among the religious-minded people. It is not as though this tendency does not prevail in political or social matters. But in these fields, it is not surprising to be intolerant. But those who represent religion should behave, considering tolerance as the ideal. That is why intolerance among them becomes unbearable. Intolerance leads to destruction of property, killings and the feeling of eliminating the individuals who hold opposite views. Can religion teach all these things to man. Religion teaches man to be tolerant. When the feeling of tolerance spreads, it would be possible to wipe out communalism.

Question: What are the consequences of tolerance and intolerance?

Answer: A tolerant society would cherish freedom and would be essentially liberal. It would be capable of motivating people to act. Any society which is capable of so motivating the people can become powerful and can spread itself. Any society which lives in mutual amity in spite of the differ­ences of culture, community, language, province etc. can never disintegrate. Even the power divided among different classes can make a valuable contri­bution in the interest of an undivided human society. An experience of indivisibility is symbolic of the extensiveness of that society.

Intolerance strengthens the separatist tendency. In India, this tendency prepared the ground for communal conflicts. There were clashes in the name of community and the undivided human race got disintegrated. The consequences of intolerance can never be good. It can lead to concentration on delusory matters by the individual, not put an end to it. Such concentration on delusory matters poses a danger to peace in the society, the family and the individual. That is why anuvrat has advocated the vow of tolerance. The greatest need of the present times is the widespread practice of this vow by the followers of religious sects.

Question: What special characteristics should the individual possess to fight against a violent situation non-violently?

Answer: For a non-violent resistance the very first requirement is that the individual should possess extraordinary courage. With ordinary courage, he trembles at the very sight of the fire of violence. When there is trembling in the mind, the solution of the situation is seen only through violence. This false view point inspires violence in the individual. This chain of violence and counter violence continues persistently. It is necessary for the individual to become tolerance; the balance of mind is disturbed. If there is no mental equilibrium, any talk of non-violent resistance tolerance is extremely necessary.

Some people are able to put up with the opposite point of view, but they do not have the capacity to bear hardships. With the slightest physical trouble, they get into panic and stray from their goal. They become demoralized at the very possibility of such trouble and yield themselves to the violent situation. But those who have the capacity to face physical hardships never talk about bowing before injustice and falsehood even under the most adverse circumstances. Such individuals can be more successful in offering non-violent resistance. Their ability to face hardship develops to such an extent that they are always ready even to choose death. Those who are not afraid of death can do everything to protect the truth. Only such individuals have used non-violence as a way of resistance.

Question: Should the demands of the violent people be accepted in order to save the society from the destructive violent activities or should they be challenged?

Answer: A person resorts to acts of sabotage to hide his own weakness. But these acts only reveal his weakness. No capable person can give patronage to violence to get his demands accepted. It is very necessary for a non-violent individual to decide what is justified and what is unjustified under such circumstances. If the demands are justified, there should be no obstruction in accepting them. Other­wise, surrendering on the face of violence means killing the principle. Submitting to violence by thinking about distantly possible hardships is cow­ardice. And cowardice is as sinful as violence itself. A cowardly person cannot bear hardships and a tolerant person cannot be a coward. Cowardice and tolerance are two opposite direction. The same individual cannot follow both the directions at the same time. Developing tolerance is very necessary to fight with determination against violent conditions. With the mentality of a coward, one compromises with violence or gets provoked by feelings that take him to violence. Hence, showing cowardice in the struggle is the individual's first defeat.

Sometime there is indulgence in the acts of sabotage on the ground of legitimacy. In my view, this is not healthy method. We may disregard it by considering it helplessness or compulsion, but can­not regard it as something worth doing. This conflict between violence and non-violence can be ended, but this can be achieved not by submitting to violence but by fighting against it. Peace that comes after such a fight proves the beneficial power of non­violence. By compromising with violence, one feels for the moment that the atmosphere is becoming peaceful. But after some time, it becomes more violent. Hence I proceed on the assumption that whether there is a compromise or a fight, propriety should not be violated. In fact, only the situation created on an ideological basis is a way to freedom from conflict.

Question: Today, in the context of terrorism, the new tactic of kidnappings is developing fast. What is the basic reason for it according to you? What can be done to solve this problem?

Answer: The tactic of kidnapping is the result of ambition to acquire power and wealth. Terrorism came into being for the purpose of attaining power and acquiring wealth. Through intensive training in the use of arms and terrorist activities, the feeling of cruelty grew in a certain section of the people. One of the expressions of that cruelty is kidnapping. Kidnapping an important political leader to get a large number of terrorists released or kidnapping a wealthy person to get from him a ransom of lakhs of rupees is the basic inspiration for kidnapping.

There can be many reasons behind the policy of terrorism and kidnapping. One of the reasons is economic disparity. At some places this disparity is so great that one can see heaven and hell in the same place. One person possesses palatial mansions, while another person has no roof on his head at all. He spends his life on the pavement. On the one hand, people have to take pills to digest the excessive food, and on the other hand there is not enough food to satisfy hunger. On the one hand, people change their dresses four times a day and the number of their dresses exceeds even three hundred and sixty days. On the other hand there are not enough clothes for others to cover their bodies. Such disparity gives rise to rebellion.

When a person rebels, he becomes cruel. When his cruelty goes beyond a certain point, he is capable of doing anything. In ancient times, crimes like brigandage and murders were common. Now man goes on devising new ways. Kidnapping involves less risk and brings greater benefits. In popular view, this has become an easy profession. After being successful, a couple of times, a person become more daring. This tactic has deprived man of his sense of security and fearlessness.

It requires great effort to get rid of any illness when it aggravates too much. There is no guarantee of cure even after spending a lot time and money and a great deal of effort. The kidnapping menace is becoming like a similarly incurable disease. But whether or not the disease gets cured, it is necessary to make the effort. We find the description of auasarpini time in the Jaina philosophy. According to this, there is a gradual decline of the good things. We are seeing such a decline right before our eyes. In such a situation, let man learn simplicity, labour and self-restraint. The only solution of this problem is that the sanskaras of non-violence and self-restraint should be imbibed by all people.

Question: The new proposal for reservation that has come from the political forum had given a chance to the students to vent their wrath. This step on their part is certainly not reasonable. However, is it possible to place before them an alternative Proposal

Answer: Anything coining from the political quarters is given a political hue. The wrath of the students which has erupted or is erupting on the issue of reservation is more impulsive than well-thought out. It seems to me that a new kind of communal feeling is being encouraged among the students. Some people have a natural tendency to make every matter an issue for agitation. Encourag­ing the agitation without giving any thought to the advantage or disadvantage is like axing one's own legs.

If the students are really keen to do anything, there are great many constructive things they have before them. What is necessary is that they should not waste their lives by simply drifting along with the current trend. The greatest task before them is that of carrying on a campaign for freedom from intoxication. No one is unfamiliar with the harm done to the student by the culture of intoxication. No one has been able to exercise any control over corruption. Social evils too are manifesting them­selves in new forms. If the youth power is properly harnessed for protesting against all these things, a great revolution can come about and the country can benefit out of it. It is not possible to climb the peaks of construction merely with the help of agitations.

Question: Do you consider reservations useful for promoting social development?

Answer: Reservation on community basis becomes a debatable Question. But when any effort is made after freeing oneself from communal, sectar­ian or minority considerations and with the sole intention of elevating the weaker sections cannot be regarded as unjustified. When all citizens of a country are enjoying a high standard of life and there are some particular sections that have remained poor and undeveloped for centuries, what is the good of independence, if nothing is thought about those sections?

I am not in favour of the idea of doing something for the weaker sections out of pity. One way is to help someone rise from the point of view of humanism or brotherly feeling. The correct way would be to empower those sections. Let them develop and go forward on the strength of their own competence. Anybody can be instrumental in this process.

There is a famous story about the city of Pail that any new person who came to live there was considered equal to all others. This is an example of affection leading to homogeneity. As for the process of accepting a new person within its fold, it is said that the newly arrived person was given a brick and a rupee by the each of the inhabitants of that place. This cooperation offered out of a feeling of brotherhood became a great support for that new person.

All people living in India are brother up to themselves. If this feeling is developed and if the intention is to elevate everyone on this basis; the policy of reservation cannot be called erroneous. But when someone is doing something to position of power or votes in the name of reservation, we cannot but raise a doubt about it.