406 119 5MB
English Pages  Year 2015
Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) popularised Vedanta in the West and reformed Hinduism in India. He also inspired the mass
402 87 2MB Read more
Bringing together fourteen papers, this book gives new depth to our understanding of the aims and achievements of Swami
448 92 45MB Read more
419 68 2MB Read more
An absorbing biography of Swami Vivekananda (1863 - 1902). With 28 photographs and Appendix containing most important te
454 55 1MB Read more
This volume brings together works written by international theorists since the fall of the Berlin Wall, showing how toda
541 79 4MB Read more
371 50 1MB Read more
133 83 9MB Read more
111 43 14MB Read more
This Reader brings together some important writings from Swami Vivekananda’s prolific output along with a scholarly assessment, placing Vivekananda in his context. In editing this volume Prof. Paranjape has done a great service to the academic community and broader public. Gavin Flood, Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion University of Oxford Academic Director, Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Whatever our interest in Swami Vivekananda . . . this anthology, well-organized with a general introduction along with helpful section introductions by Professor Makarand Paranjape, is now the indispensable resource. Swami Vivekananda would be the great harmonizer of our age. All those interested in questions of religion and science as well as modern Indian identity will treasure this anthology. Stephen Phillips, Professor of Philosophy and Asian Studies University of Texas The present volume makes a concerted effort to present this cyclonic monk by identifying different prominent themes, through a classification of a variety of genres of writing, and making a balanced representation. In the process Makarand Paranjape brilliantly succeeds in . . . making available Vivekananda for further modern academic scrutiny. A. Raghuramaraju, Professor of Philosophy University of Hyderabad This elegant selection of passages from the magnificent body of work produced by Swami Vivekananda helps give the full picture of his genius . . . Professor Paranjape’s book serves to clarify and amplify this important voice, showing Vivekananda’s ongoing relevance in the 21st century. Chris Key Chapple, Doshi Professor of Indic and Comparative Theology, Department of Theological Studies Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
Swami Vivekananda A Contemporary Reader
Makarand R. Paranjape
LONDON NEW YORK NEW DELHI
First published 2015 in India by Routledge 912 Tolstoy House, 15–17 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001
Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Makarand R. Paranjape
Work on this book was supported by a grant from the Dharma Civilization Foundation, Los Angeles.
Typeset by Glyph Graphics Private Limited 23, Khosla Complex Vasundhara Enclave Delhi 110 096
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library
Once again, for Prashantji, who has understood the meaning of sadhana:
Manushyaanaam sahasreshu kashchidyatati siddhaye; Yatataamapi siddhaanaam kashchinmaam vetti tattvatah. Among thousands of human beings, perhaps only one strives for realization; even among those striving for realization, only one perhaps knows me truly. Srimad Bhagavad Gita (7.3)
Dil zinda-o-bedaar agar ho to ba-tadreej Bande ko ata karta hai chashme-nigraan aur If the heart be alive and awakened, then a different vision is bestowed step-by-step upon the devotee. — Muhammad Iqbal
This page intentionally left blank
Part 1: Addresses at the Parliament of Religions, Chicago Response to the Welcome Why We Disagree Paper on Hinduism Religion not the Crying Need of India Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism Address at the Final Session
1 3 4 5 16 16 18
Part 2: The Four Yogas From Karma Yoga From Raja Yoga From Jnana Yoga From Bhakti Yoga
21 23 25 27 33
Part 3: Speeches and Lectures Delivered Abroad Unity, the Goal of Religion Reason and Religion Practical Vedanta
39 40 44 56
Part 4: Lectures from Colombo to Almora Address at Ramnad Reply to the Address of Welcome at Shivaganga and Manamadura From ‘My Plan of Campaign’ The Future of India Reply to the Address of Welcome at Calcutta
70 71 78 81 87 102
viii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
Part 5: Selections from Prose Writings Religion and Science Selections from Notes to Lectures and Discourses On Fanaticism The Cosmos and the Self Who is a Real Guru? On Art The Evils of Adhikârivâda Ishvara and Brahman The Cause of Illusion Evolution Buddhism and Vedanta The Goal and Methods of Realisation The Problem of Modern India and its Solution
112 113 114 114 116 118 119 119 121 122 123 124 126 127
Part 6: Poems My Play is Done The Song of the Sannyâsin Kali the Mother Peace To the Awakened India To the Fourth of July Light
135 136 138 141 141 142 144 145
Part 7: Selections from Letters To Pramadadas Mitra, 4 July 1889 To Pramadadas Mitra, 7 August 1889 To Pramadadas Mitra, 17 August 1889 To Panditji Maharaj, 20 September 1892 To Alasinga et al., 10 July 1893 To Alasinga, 20 August 1893 To Alasinga, 2 November 1893
146 147 149 150 153 155 159 166
To Alasinga, 1894 To Miss Mary Hale, 1 February 1895 To Alasinga, 6 May 1895
170 172 175
To Alasinga, 9 September 1895 To Alasinga, 18 November 1895 To Alasinga, 13 February 1896 To Swarupananda, 9 February 1902
178 179 180 183
Part 8: Sayings and Utterances
Part 9: Interviews and Conversations Abroad and the Problems at Home Conversation with Sharatchandra Chakravarty
195 196 202
About the Editor
This page intentionally left blank
IVivekananda’s have felt greatly privileged to prepare this edition of Swami works during the sesquicentennial anniversary celebrations of his birth.1 I undertook such a task not merely as a ‘modern’ rationalistic or ‘secularised’ intellectual, but as someone who sees the deep connection between the rise of Indian modernity and the religious reform movements of the nineteenth century. The aim of this anthology is to offer an authentic and persuasive contemporary account of Vivekananda’s life and work by balancing these two aspects of his life — the religious and the secular, the spiritual and the worldly, the deeply faith oriented and the intensely rational. Hence the title, ‘A Contemporary Reader’. This presentation of Vivekananda’s lifework is aimed at selecting the most significant and representative texts from every major genre and phase of his enormously productive, albeit brief, life. While Vivekananda is one of modern India’s most anthologised figures, his words have been collected over and over again largely by the organisations that he himself founded, the Ramakrishna Math and Mission. These, under the banner of the Advaita Ashrama, have over the years published several editions of the only available and exhaustive collection of his writings, the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Extending into nine volumes but still not finished, they embody the most extensive compilation of Vivekananda’s writings. The original manuscripts of Vivekananda are, however, mostly unavailable or closed to the public. So the comparison of the published works with their originals or the publication of an independently edited edition of Vivekananda’s works is as yet not possible. The monks of the Order no doubt have done their best to preserve, collect, and collate all of Swamiji’s writings. This is a Herculean effort involving hundreds of men and women, spread across at least three continents. And yet, the present edition of the Complete Works, for reasons that I shall give, is not without its flaws and problems. For instance, the Complete Works does not adequately provide the
xii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
original circumstances, historical details, and information about the source of each of its contents. Except for the speeches at the Parliament of Religions, which are clearly identified, the items in the collection seem to be all jumbled up in a haphazard and overlapping manner. The arrangement is neither consistently chronological, thematic nor generic. Several other, smaller anthologies mostly brought out by the Mission are in the nature of compilations for more specific purposes, such as ‘Swami Vivekananda’s Message to the Youth’ or ‘Swami Vivekananda on Women’, ‘Swami Vivekananda on India’s Problems’, and so on. These selections tend to decontextualise Swamiji’s words by removing them from the specific historical occasion on which they were uttered. They are in the nature of inspirational booklets and perhaps effective to that extent, but they do not give us an accurate picture of what Vivekananda said to whom, where, why, and how what he said may fit into his overall career as a thinker or activist. The Complete Works, which are source of all these anthologies, including the present text, pose some special challenges. They were published over a period of time, first in four volumes; then the fifth and sixth were added; the seventh volume appeared after a long gap. Then the eighth and, most recently, the ninth volumes were published. The Complete Works occupy about 5,000 pages, with the arrangement of the contents dictated more by reasons of convenience, availability of material, or the order of the discovery of the writings rather than any well-thought out order or plan. There seems to be neither a clear written policy nor agenda of publication. Their largest portion consists of transcripts of lectures and talks that Vivekananda gave. These occupy 2,000 pages or 40 per cent of the total contents, spread across several volumes. What he wrote himself only takes up some 650 pages or a mere 13 per cent of the space. This includes his English and Bengali writings, which are in different sections. His letters, again, occurring in several volumes in different series, take up around 1,000 pages or 20 per cent of the total. The rest of the material, about 1,300 pages or 26 per cent was not even written by Vivekananda. It consists of lecture notes and conversations (about 20 per cent), newspaper reports and interviews (about 6 per cent). The different genres that make up the Complete Works, thus, include transcripts of his speeches, original writings, translations, summaries of talks, letters, poems, conversations, interviews, even newspaper reports.
We may assume that the transcripts of his talks, which make up a good portion of the Complete Works, are reasonably reliable. But that too would depend only on the accuracy and efficiency of the transcribers. Of these, J. J. Goodwin, an expert stenographer, whom Vivekananda himself praised and who was responsible for transcribing a number of the lectures, was possibly the best. He accompanied Vivekananda to India on the latter’s return. So we are fortunate to have accurate accounts of many talks that Swami Vivekananda gave on his triumphant return. But before Goodwin joined Vivekananda and after he died, there were other, less reliable, hands. Vivekananda spoke in so many places, with such a punishing schedule, that great variation in the accuracy and quality of the transcription would be unavoidable. No wonder there are, on occasion, several versions in the Complete Works of the same lecture. In the case of the published letters, several omissions are indicated by ellipses in the texts. I have learned that many of these were made to protect the names or reputations of the people Vivekananda knew and interacted with. The letters were critical not only of individuals, but of movements and groups like the Theosophists, the Brahmos, the Christian Missionaries, or of the British Government. That it why it was thought prudent to censor them before publication. Now that many of those mentioned are dead and the political situation entirely changed, it would be appropriate to restore the omissions. The well-intentioned efforts of the editors of these volumes are suggested by how they sometimes publish a letter with Vivekananda’s own injunction not to publish it! In addition, there are always issues of standardisation or language, spelling, capitalisation, even ‘corrections’ of grammar or idiom. Vivekananda’s letters show a disregard for capitalisation or even niceties of grammar, which his editors may have over-compensated for. For instance, a few years back, two unpublished letters of Vivekananda were found in the record room of Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. They were published in full in The Times of India of 24 February 1999. Both were written to the Maharaja of Khetri, Ajit Singh. In the first, dated 15 February 1893, Vivekananda calls the Maharaja, your ‘High Up’. The letters were written without punctuation and have many other peculiarities. When Prabuddha Bharata reprinted the ‘corrected’ versions, they changed ‘High Up’ to ‘Highness,’ and also the ending of the second letter of 22 May 1893 from ‘yours obediently’ to ‘Yours in the Lord’ (Chattopadhyay 1999: 431–33). I do not wish to suggest deliberate
xiv Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
censorship or alteration in Vivekananda’s texts, but I am concerned about the fidelity and completeness of some of them. The difficulties with the Complete Works are reproduced if not exacerbated in the large number of anthologies of Vivekananda’s writings. In these, the Swami’s words are wrenched out of their specific situations so as to make them eternal pronouncements, totally unrelated to space, time, or causality. This is how some of these anthologies reduce the complexity or interpretive challenge of Vivekananda’s thought. His words and ideas are turned into prophetic utterances. For political or polemical reasons, many arguments are made on the basis of these secondary or even tertiary selections and sources. Claims and counter-claims on behalf of what Vivekananda really thought about a particular issue or the other are advanced by adducing this quotation or that from some of these anthologies. The result is that instead of the ‘real’ person, we have a pre-packaged, pre-cooked, even pre-digested Vivekananda, or Vivekananda made easy — simplified, at times, even rendered into ‘instant Vivekananda.’ Keeping several of these issues in mind, though I have had to rely on the Complete Works, I have made every attempt to identify the sources of these selections and also to arrange them in a rational, mostly chronological order. In addition, certain orthographical variations may be found in the use of diacritical marks and stylistic usage. The different sections are meant to suggest generic and other divisions of Vivekananda’s works, but within each section, the contents are included, as far as possible, in a sensible order. I have also tried to include samples of the various genres that Vivekananda wrote or spoke in. So besides speeches and lectures, I have also included letters, poems, other writings, and even interviews and conversations. My purpose was to represent the many facets of Vivekananda’s personality and thought as reliably as possible to a contemporary reader. In my ‘Introduction’, I have focussed mainly on Vivekananda’s contribution to the making of Indian modernity. This area has not received sufficient scrutiny but draws our attention when we try to situate him in the contemporary context. I have also refrained from providing a biographical sketch of the Swami in the ‘Introduction’ because such accounts are now readily available. Instead, the detailed Chronology offers a fairly clear idea of his travels and activities. I have incurred several debts in editing this anthology. The foremost of these is to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where
I work and live. My sincere thanks to colleagues and students for their support and inspiration, especially to Huzaifa and Suryansu who helped in some last minute proof-reading. The UGC Special Assistance Programme awarded to the Centre for English Studies offered a modest subsidy for which I am grateful. My editors at Routledge deserve a special word of thanks for their continuing confidence in me and my work.
Notes 1. I also edited The Penguin Swami Vivekananda Reader (2005), which has now been out of print for some time. The present anthology owes much, both in its contents and methodology, to that previous effort. Much of the Introduction to this volume is, however, entirely different, written during the 150th anniversary celebrations of Vivekananda’s birth in 2013–14, when I attended a number of conferences, and also reworked my selections. 2. See Swami Tyagananda ‘Rediscovering Vivekananda in the East and the West’, in Makarand Paranjape and Sukalyan Sengupta, eds, The Cyclonic Swami, Vivekananda in the West. New Delhi: Samvad India, 2005, pp. 29–38.
This page intentionally left blank
Presenting Swami Vivekananda
T he challenge before any selection of the writings of a famous person is how to represent his or her life and work. In Swami Vivekananda’s case, the difficulty is compounded by the variety of roles he played. Socialist moderniser, progressive reformer, champion of women and untouchables, upholder and re-inventor of Sanatana Dharma, founder of Indian/Hindu nationalism, saint–prophet, even tragic failure — Swami Vivekananda has been considered all these and more by his admirers and detractors. But what is the truth about Vivekananda? What are the facts? In an incomplete paper on ‘The Fundamentals of Religion’, Vivekananda himself said, ‘grouping facts . . . is impossible without some abstract notion as the background’ and that ‘without . . . metaphysical conceptions, no physical fact is possible to be understood’ (Complete Works 4: 377–78). In other words, how we understand Vivekananda will depend on the prior narratives or structures of belief that we already subscribe or adhere to. In this respect, we have to remember that the studies of the lives and works of saints, sages, mystics, and holy men/ women pose special challenges. While devotees focus only on their divine attributes, even ignoring everything else, critics and ‘secular’ scholars tend to regard, often to censure, only their human qualities. Sometimes the two perspectives are so much at variance that it is impossible to reconcile them. Luckily, in the case of Vivekananda, a very large amount of fairly accurate and reliable data is available; the historical and spiritual facts about him are, therefore, not so far apart that we have two totally contradictory or incommensurable portraits. The real difficulty is that modern, secular, scientific, and rationalistic learning refuses to accept anything called the ‘spiritual’ fact.
xviii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
Its terms of reference exclude claims or experiences which allude to the spirit. That is because such facts are not accessible to the restricted band of consciousness that we consider normal or real. The world of spirit points to a region outside the purview of a narrowly defined intellect. The sage or the mystic claims to have experiences which are supra-normal or supra-sensual. These require different standards of understanding and reference. As Vivekananda himself says, ‘Spiritual facts are to be gathered mostly from the superconscious state of mind’ (Complete Works 5: 293). The methodological challenge in approaching the life of a holy person is how to retain a rational, even critical bent of mind without denying or denouncing claims to higher states of mind or consciousness. Those scholars who have a regular spiritual practice or who belong to cultures where it is considered a common part of life may not have great difficulties with a figure like Vivekananda. He is modern, approachable, perfectly intelligible, even as he is aweinspiring, larger than life, and mysterious. That is why for a richer understanding, there needs to be no fundamental dichotomy or dualism between the devotee and the historian, between the admirer and the critic, between the spiritual seeker and the ordinary student. Even if we agree that these may fall into two groups or categories, we should allow for a great deal of overlap or intermingling between them. Without that, it would be difficult to do justice to a figure like Vivekananda.
The Indian ‘Modern’ The main task of this anthology is not only to represent Vivekananda as fully as possible in his own words, but also to locate him in the trajectory of Indian modernity. But one of the peculiarities of Indian modernity is that it is Janus-faced, both chronologically and spatially. Because it is constituted by elements drawn from classical Indian traditions and from the contemporary West, it looks both backwards and forwards at the same time, and also towards the East and the West. To complete the metaphor, we might add that it looks both inward and outward simultaneously. Indian modernity, it is also obvious, did not emerge sui generis but was an outcome of
the colonial encounter; it is, thus, two-faced in being colonial(ist) and national(ist) at once. Those who are unable to grasp and reconcile this dual nature of Indian modernity at once fall into one or the other extreme of either succumbing to the lure of the West and rejecting India totally or rejecting the West in the hope of asserting some untainted Indian identity. While it often tends to be schizoid, at its best Indian modernity is actually a peculiarly non-dual formation which resists two monisms, Indic and Western, respectively, to arrive at its own unresolved and ambivalent confluence. Without a rediscovery of its ‘glorious’ past, which was one of the by-products of colonialism, Indians would not have had the self-confidence to stake their claim to modernity. But because they were colonised, Indians also never quite overcame their sense of inferiority to the West, a trait that still persists to this day, especially in the domain of intellectual efforts and knowledge-production. Consequently, the finest product of Indian modernity, was the nation-state.1 Though truncated and partitioned, this entity had the best chance of preserving the civilisational heritage of India, of staving off foreign invaders, and of allowing the Indian people to express their natural energies and talents in a somewhat just social order. If the Indian nation is the embodiment of India’s tryst with modernity, it also bears all of India’s contradictions when it comes to our uneasy relationship with it. Indians are not anti-modern, nor are they pro-modern; they are uneasily, unusually, and alternatively modern. Our modernity is a species of alter- or non-modernity; that is why, even as we keep speaking of Indian modernity, we must bear in mind its radical alterity. Here, our focus will be on how Swami Vivekananda contributes to its fashioning.
The Phenomenon of Sri Ramakrishna Like European modernity, Indian modernity was also riddled with contradictions and paradoxes. Hinduism, not yet quite an ‘ism’ nor fully reformed to survive in a new age, itself was under siege. Faced with the criticism of Christian missionaries on the one hand, and the dismissive contempt of the post-Macaulay secular ‘English education’ on the other, it was hard-put to justify its existence. Some,
xx Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
such as Michael Madhusudan Dutt, arguably the first modern poet of India, even compared the Hindu to a rotten tree trunk, fit only to be cut down. Middle-class Hindus were faced with two conversions: a religious conversion — as several leading Bengalis of the period, including Madhusudan, resorted to — or a more widespread and irreversible secular conversion to modernity, which most others committed themselves to. Yet, neither was without its attendant risks or discontents. Converted Indians somehow felt inferior, as if they were hollow or mimic men. What was the way out? A reformed, congregational, monotheistic version of Hinduism as the Brahmos practiced? Atheism? Or, of course, resistant, even chauvinistic revivalism? Such a narrative sets the stage for the messianic appearance of Sri Ramakrishna (1836–1888). As Amiya P. Sen puts it, to his followers and believers, Ramakrishna signalled the humbling of the West and all that was Western: ‘This great intellect never learnt even to write his own name but the most brilliant graduates of our university found in him an intellectual giant’, observed Vivekananda (Complete Works 3: 268). A friend of Vivekananda, Nagendranath Gupta (1861–1940), argued that it was not at all fortuitous that the saint should prefer to have as his disciples ‘English educated men of good families’ and not passing sadhus or saints with whom he otherwise freely associated (2006: 168).
One might even argue that Sri Ramakrishna offered an alternative to the bhadraloks who were suffocating under the disenchantment imposed by colonial reason and modernity. To them, Sri Ramakrishna became an escape, a refuge. This, at any rate, is how Samir Dayal sees him: In the late 1870s and the early 1880s, colonial Bengal was on the cusp of great social change. Western education and its rationalist values and print culture had permeated every level of colonial middle-class life. . . . But not everyone welcomed change . . . and for some groups the period was the sad twilight of a familiar old order. If there was a rising middle-class elite, there was also a disappointed middle-class minority, caught somewhere between the Indian elite groups and the true subalterns. It was from within this disappointed middle class that Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836–88), a religious ecstatic and would-be social reformer, emerged to offer an unlikely but compelling alternative for subaltern self-assertion, and a modest form of resistance (2001: 75).
Ramakrishna, in other words, inaugurated a unique performative which though ‘couched . . . quite self-consciously in a symbolic frame sanctioned within the community’ nevertheless offered an alternative to the dominant ‘discourse of modernity, with all its appurtenances of progress, education, science, emancipation, and epistemology’ (Dayal 2001: 75). But, according to Dayal, that very modernity to which Ramakrishna offered a countervailing pull, was ‘fast also becoming the rallying cry of the rising cadre who were prominent in the Freedom Movement . . . and who would ultimately replace the British by inheriting the reins of the hegemonic public discourse, as Indian society made the transition to Independence’ (Ibid). Therefore, Ramakrishna’s ‘teachings and resistant performative’, to Dayal, ‘comprise’ not so much ‘a fully developed blueprint for a alternative modernity . . . but . . . a minor, oppositional discursive space, between the discourse of tradition and the universalising discourse of modernity’ (ibid.). Dayal’s formulations are more persuasive than the characterisation of Ramakrishna by some of his critics as ‘a captive of a middle-class discourse in colonial Calcutta’ (Sen 2006: 166). Tracing this line of thought from Walter G. Neevel Jr., Sen critiques how it develops in Partha Chatterjee and Sumit Sarkar. For Chatterjee, Mahendranath Gupta’s Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita reveals more about its author and the urban middle class that he represents than it does its subject, Sri Ramakrishna (ibid.). Ramakrishna, in other words, is an invention; like any fictional character in the newly emergent and increasingly popular genre of the novel, he is a creation of his author’s imaginative depiction and deliberate narrative strategies. Similarly, Sumit Sarkar observes, If Ramakrishna attracted bhadralok through his ‘Otherness’ this was to a considerable extent an Other constructed by the bhadralok themselves. There is no direct written testimony left by the saint: we know about him only from bhadralok disciples and admirers, and the texts they composed simultaneously illuminate and transform (1992: 1544).
And: Ramakrishna, then, was an appropriated, partially bhadralok-constructed, Other with whom an urban group plagued with a sense of alienation from roots could relate without undue discomfort (ibid).
xxii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
For Sarkar, Ramakrishna could be appropriated so easily precisely because he posed no significant threat to the established order: Despite the apparent vehemence of his rejection of book-learning and activism, acceptance of Ramakrishna, we shall see, did not usually involve any sharp or total break with normal forms of bhadralok life and activity. These could still be carried on, but in a new way, enriched by a spirituality and inner life suited to the times, which helped to mitigate a deepening sense of anomie (ibid.).
In fact, his appeal lay in affording the bhadraloks a way of reaching back to their own rural and rustic past: ‘for through Ramakrishna the city bhadralok[s] could imagine themselves to be reaching back to lost traditional moorings, in the countryside, in simple faith conveyed through rustic language’ (ibid). Ultimately, Sarkar is somewhat dismissive, if not condescending, about the phenomenon called Ramakrishna, who he claims stood for a non-threatening devotionalism: Quietistic, inward-turning bhakti, tolerant and non-proselytising, had thus been transformed, with conflicts but no major rupture, into a crystallised and assertive Hindu identity with activist programmes. But insurmountable contradictions — fundamentally, perhaps, the limits set to bhadralok idealism by hierarchies of caste, gender and class within a colonial situation — blocked the realisation of such programme (1992: 1562).
Sarkar, like Chatterjee, does not consider religious or mystical phenomena as valid in themselves; they must and can only be reduced and understood in material, social or historical terms. In such analysis, no autonomy is granted to the subjective, inner realities, even to the experience of Samadhi or superconsciousness that Ramakrishna repeatedly and visibly demonstrated. Nor is any credence to be adduced to the recorded affect of his trances on his companions, disciples, or followers. Spiritual matters, then, must be understood in terms of their material causes or effects. In response to such claims, Sen says: It appears absurdly reductionist to suggest that this class, bereft of much hope in a grossly unequal world, was primarily attracted to Ramakrishna’s recurring references to the ‘illusory’ nature of this world and worldly relations (2006: 167).
Similarly, Peter Heehs, in Indian Religions: A Historical Reader of Spiritual Expression and Experience, says: Writing as social historians of nineteenth-century Bengal, Sarkar and Chatterjee are not obliged to study the experiential sources of Ramakrishna’s teachings . . . by granting no autonomy to his inner life, they miss out on what might have been the most important factor in his appeal to his countrymen (2002: 27).
On the contrary, Debiprasad Bhattacharya, in ‘The Relevance of Sri Ramakrishna for Modern Man’, goes to the other extreme in maintaining that Ramakrishna’s teachings went against all that the dominant culture valued. In asserting that ‘nothing is of the slightest consequence except for the Divine, and man’s relation with the Divine’, Sri Ramakrishna ‘can have no conceivable relevance for the modern age’ (1988: 237). In preaching ‘pure spirituality’ (ibid.: 238), Sri Ramakrishna is a ‘profoundly disturbing phenomenon’ (ibid.: 240) because the goes against he zeitgeist of his age. He is ‘supremely relevant’ only because he is ‘radically different’ (ibid.). Though we cannot be like him, even imitating or following him a bit is wonderful because ‘even a little dharma saves one from great catastrophe’ (ibid.: 245–46). What makes Ramakrishna exemplary and, therefore, counter-modern is that there is not the ‘slightest discrepancy between speech and act, theory and practice’ in his life (ibid.: 243). Between easy appropriation and radical unassimilability is the more complex paradox of Ramakrishna, deliberately reaching out to the modern sector, as if knowing full well that that is the real target of his mission, even as he continuously displays a healthy disregard for its materialism, secularism, and worldliness. Whether Ramakrishna was radically different or easy to assimilate, the relationship between him and the Calcutta bhadraloks was complex, dynamic and almost dialectical. If it was a relationship of attraction and repulsion between an incipient modernity and creatively reinventing tradition, then the official accounts in the Ramakrishna–Vivekananda tradition certainly reinforce such a stereotype. The key to the understanding of this conundrum is the relationship between Ramakrishna and his foremost disciple, Vivekananda. Much has been written on this relationship, but I shall focus only on one central aspect, which to regard it as a paradigmatic encounter of modernity with tradition.2
xxiv Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
Narendranath’s ‘Conversion’ Vivekananda’s first meeting with Ramakrishna was hugely significant.3 Here is Ramakrishna himself, as quoted by Gupta, on his initial meeting with Vivekananda at Dakshineshwar: When I met Narendra for the first time, I noticed that he did not have body consciousness. I just touched his chest with my hand and he lost all external consciousness. When he returned to his normal state, he exclaimed, ‘I say, what did you do to me? I have my father and mother!’ (Gupta, ‘Sri Ramakrishna’).
Gupta, the narrator, reports Ramakrishna’s own description of his meeting with Vivekananda. But in his Introduction, Gupta frames the encounter in terms of a classic face-off between mundane if modern rationality and superiorly-endowed spiritual power: As he read in college the rationalistic Western philosophers of the nineteenth century, his boyhood faith in God and religion was unsettled. He would not accept religion on mere faith; he wanted demonstration of God. But very soon his passionate nature discovered that mere Universal Reason was cold and bloodless. His emotional nature, dissatisfied with a mere abstraction, required a concrete support to help him in the hours of temptation. He wanted an external power, a guru, who by embodying perfection in the flesh would still the commotion of his soul. Attracted by the magnetic personality of Keshab, he joined the Brahmo Samaj and became a singer in its choir. But in the Samaj he did not find the guru who could say that he had seen God (Gupta 2001).
Gupta is already skewing his narrative away from ‘cold and bloodless’ reason and ‘mere abstraction’ towards something greater and more ambitions. The crisis of colonial reason, the somewhat paler and watered-down version of the Universal Reason of the Enlightenment, is evident here in its full-blown form, with Sri Ramakrishna shown as the classic mind-bender that a fully awakened guru was supposed to be. Again, in his second visit, Gupta records how suddenly, at the touch of the Master, Narendra felt overwhelmed and saw the walls
of the room and everything around him whirling and vanishing. ‘What are you doing to me?’ he cried in terror. ‘I have my father and mother at home.’ He saw his own ego and the whole universe almost swallowed in a nameless void (ibid.) Interestingly, Narendra, who has a strong will, considers natural causes for his altered state of mind, including hypnotism, but not satisfied, returns home ‘more confused than ever, resolved to be henceforth on his guard before this strange man’ (ibid.). The stage is now set for Narendra’s conversion by which the supremacy of the mystical, even occult, supra-rationality of Sri Ramakrishna is established over conventional reason. During the third visit, Narendra entirely loses consciousness: While he was still in that state, Sri Ramakrishna questioned him concerning his spiritual antecedents and whereabouts, his mission in this world, and the duration of his mortal life. The answers confirmed what the Master himself had known and inferred. Among other things, he came to know that Narendra was a sage who had already attained perfection, and that the day he learnt his real nature he would give up his body in yoga, by an act of will (ibid.).
By now we have left the terrain of modern reason entirely, entering the mysteries of spiritual realities quite beyond our mundane, historical verities. Ramakrishna’s slipping out of historical time into mythic time is seamless. But even if there is no division or break for him, for the modern bhadraloks, such a flip is only possible through a process of validation through eye-witness accounts and verifiable experience. The pre-modern, non-historical, mytho-poetic world into which Ramakrishna draws Vivekananda is thus ratified empirically, by modern, contemporary and rational means. It is in this emphasis on actual experience that scholars like Jeffrey D. Long locate the modernity of the Ramakrishna–Vivekananda neo-Vedanta. Long argues that the official doctrine of the Ramakrishna Mission is not Vedanta, but neo- or Ramakrishna-Vedanta, which is different from Sankara’s and other traditional ideas of Vedanta. The difference is that in Ramakrishna-Vedanta, anubhava or direct experience is given the highest validity, higher even than the Vedas. According to Long, this is in keeping with modernity which places the highest value on ‘direct experience — and reasoning based on that experience — over the authority of a text, institution, teacher, or oral
xxvi Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
tradition’ (2007: 18). Scholars like Long are wrong in thinking that traditional Vedanta set little store by direct experience. It always valued direct experience, but in scholastic traditions, this primacy was often overshadowed by intricate debates over doctrinal nicities and speculative hair-splitting. Yet, at least throughout the classical period, spiritual experience was not considered unavailable or unamenable to rationalistic expression or articulation. It was largely in the medieval period that an ecstatic celebration of spiritual union was taken out of the pale of dry reason and mental gymnastics. This period also coincided with the decline of classical scholarship and its supporting institutions, largely as a consequence of the destruction of Hindu kingdoms and their system of patronage to Sanskritic knowledge. Bhakti was a way of by-passing the inferiority of the unlettered by attaining to a direct, higher spiritual realisation through fervent longing and loving surrender rather than painstaking scholarship. Sri Ramakrishna, the unlettered savant as he was made out to be, was himself a representative of this tradition, perhaps it’s final flower. On the other hand, modern Vedanta, as championed by Swami Vivekananda, after a long gap, once again made spiritual practice and experience amenable to rational analysis and expression. After centuries of the dominance of Bhakti, characterised by emotional surrender and pseudo-feminine anti-intellectualism, modern Hinduism tried to reintroduce a robust rationality into the spiritual quest without denying the latter altogether as had happened in the West. No wonder Swami Nikhilananda, Vivekananda’s biographer, is quick to point out that the Master never once asked Naren to abandon reason. He met the challenge of Naren’s intellect with his superior understanding, acquired through firsthand knowledge of the essence of things. When Naren’s reasoning failed to solve the ultimate mystery, the teacher gave him the necessary insight.
In Nikhilananda’s (2003) version of Narendra’s second visit to Sri Ramakrishna, the power of the latter’s ‘magic’ over the former’s rationality is even more pronounced: After a minute or two Sri Ramakrishna drew near him in an ecstatic mood, muttered some words, fixed his eyes on him, and placed his right foot on Naren’s body. At this touch Naren saw, with eyes open, the walls, the room, the temple garden — nay, the whole
world — vanishing, and even himself disappearing into a void. He felt sure that he was facing death. He cried in consternation: ‘What are you doing to me? I have my parents, brothers, and sisters at home.’
Nikhilananda very consciously develops this conflict between rationality and spiritual realisation, modernity and enlightened tradition: Sri Ramakrishna was ignorant of the modern way of thinking. But Narendra was the symbol of the modern spirit. Inquisitive, alert, and intellectually honest, he possessed an open mind and demanded rational proof before accepting any conclusion as valid. As a loyal member of the Brahmo Samaj he was critical of image worship and the rituals of the Hindu religion. He did not feel the need of a guru, a human intermediary between God and man. He was even sceptical about the existence of such a person, who was said to be free from human limitations and to whom an aspirant was expected to surrender himself completely and offer worship as to God. Ramakrishna’s visions of gods and goddesses he openly ridiculed, and called them hallucinations . . . One day he was making fun of Sri Ramakrishna’s non-dualism before a friend and said, ‘What can be more absurd than to say that this jug is God, this cup is God, and that we too are God?’ Both roared with laughter. Just then the Master appeared. Coming to learn the cause of their fun, he gently touched Naren and plunged into deep samadhi. The touch produced a magic effect, and Narendra entered a new realm of consciousness. He saw the whole universe permeated by the Divine Spirit and returned home in a daze. While eating his meal, he felt the presence of Brahman in everything — in the food, and in himself too. While walking in the street, he saw the carriages, the horses, the crowd, and himself as if made of the same substance. After a few days the intensity of the vision lessened to some extent, but still he could see the world only as a dream. While strolling in a public park of Calcutta, he struck his head against the iron railing, several times, to see if they were real or a mere illusion of the mind. Thus he got a glimpse of non-dualism, the fullest realisation of which was to come only later, at the Cossipore garden (ibid.).
Not accidentally, this account of the taming of Vivekananda occurs in a chapter called ‘Training of the Disciple’. Vivekananda’s training is not complete till he recognises a source of knowledge superior to sense perception and rational deduction. These two sources of knowledge
xxviii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
recognised by modern science are shown to be subordinate to a mystical or non-dual, unmediated apprehension of reality, which can only happen in supra-normal if not supernatural states of consciousness.4 While this ‘conversion’ is quite remarkable, it is not entirely without basis in tradition. Aptavachana or Sabdapramana, translatable as the reliable authority of a spiritual master, was also considered a valid epistemological category in traditional Indian logic, along with direct sense perception and inference. What distinguishes modern thought from tradition is clearly its rejection of authority as a reliable source of knowledge. The Ramakrishna–Vivekananda movement, once again, rather than breaking with tradition on this score, actually insists on continuity by recognising spiritual authority as a valid source of knowledge. What is happening in such ‘official’ accounts of the Ramakrishna– Vivekananda relationship is not just the reinforcement of the Guru– Sisya parampara or the Master–Disciple paradigm. It is nothing less that a careful rearrangement of the value-chain of epistemological hierarchy with Enlightenment rationality not rejected, but reordered as second to gnosis or spiritual insight. It is this reordering or rearrangement of reason that is at the heart of the Indian inflection or tweaking of modernity. Such a re-placement of reason, I believe, has never seriously been challenged even by the proponents of modernity in India; instead, they simply dismiss it or refuse to engage with it. On the other hand, it has been continuously reinforced by almost every major spiritualist including Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, the Dalai Lama, and so on, not to speak of poets like Rabindranath Tagore, scientists like Jagadishchandra Bose, and political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. Reason below illumination or realisation is, thus, the hallmark or canonical formula of Indian modernity, which makes it quite different from its European parent. I do not wish here to set up a dichotomy between Western and Indian modernity. On the contrary, I am deeply concerned with their differences, especially with the spaces, however, tenuous, that Indian modernity affords. From this point of view, Indian modernity too is an invention of a special version of tradition, just as European modernity, it is possible to argue, too was. Elements from the classical past were combined with other features derived from the modern west to shape Indian modernity. In so doing, we were distanced not only from our medieval, but also from our immediately prior Muslim pasts. Interestingly, perhaps, it is upon such a
formulation that the hopes and fantasies of India being the jagatguru or the teacher of the world rest. After all, if modernity needs to be rescued from itself, only something other than reason, even a higher, non-divisive, and non-violent version of reason, might do the trick. To return, however, to the Kathamrita, that key even foundational text on Ramakrishna, we notice that it also suggests how such accounts of the conversion of Narendra may be exaggerated. We may go so far as to speculate that it is the demands of the Master–Disciple narrative, symptomatic of the relationship between Ramakrishna and the bhadrasamaj or tradition and modernity, that fed into such constructions. Perhaps, even to begin with, Narendra was not such a sceptic or hard-core rationalist after all. In a telling passage in the Kathamrita, Narendra says: I have no need to take to reasoning. Mother! Grant that I may be mad in Your love. (To M.) Look, I have read Hamilton. He wrote: A learned ignorance is the end of Philosophy and the beginning of Religion. Sri Ramakrishna (to M.) — What does it mean, brother? Narendra — When one completes the study of Philosophy, one becomes a ‘learned fool’. Then he begins to talk on religion. Religion starts then (Gupta 2001).
Here, it would appear that Narendra is already speaking his Master’s language; like preaching to the converted, Ramakrishna merely reinforced what was not totally erased from the Indian psyche. Indian modernity had not quite given up its ancient spiritual leanings. Beneath the varnish, the old orientation continued, merely waiting for a quickening agent. As if to prove that no matter how modern, the Ramakrishna Math and Mission actually subscribes to an ideology that runs counter to the basic thrust of Western modernity, we only need to read their mission statement, as published on their website. Of the official tenets of their faith, point number six bears special examination: ‘Avatarhood of Sri Ramakrishna’ — According to the Hindu religious tradition, God incarnates himself as the Avatar in every Age in order to give a new message to humanity suited to the needs of each Age. In the Ramakrishna Movement, Sri Ramakrishna is adored as the Avatar of the Modern Age. What this means is that his life and teachings have opened a new way of salvation
xxx Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
for humanity. The uniqueness of Sri Ramakrishna’s Avatarhood is that it embodies the spiritual consciousness of earlier Avatars and prophets, including those who are outside the Hindu fold, and is in harmony with all religious traditions. In all the institutions of the Ramakrishna Order, worshipful reverence is shown to all Avatars and the founders of all religions.
‘Avatar of the Modern Age’ would seem like a contradiction in terms, modernity, after all, being predicated upon the epistemic destruction of every form of authority. The only room for such a figure is sociological, as in Weber’s idea of charismatic authority. But here too it is the function and the effect of such figures that is examined, not their experience or the content of their self-expression. On the contrary, such leadership is seen as liable to be cultic and dangerous. Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal argue that anti-colonial modernity was not only: (a) an assertion of a unique and romantic Indian past; (b) critique of Western modernity; but (c) consisted of imaginative borrowings and exchanges with the latter in order to escape the oppressive present. The debates were between tradition and modernity within India on the one hand, and between European and indigenous modernity, on the other (Bose and Jalal 2004: 90–92). I believe that Ramakrishna and Vivekananda worked together to help forge such an alter- if not anti-colonial modernity. In this context A. Raghuramaraju makes an astute observation about the difference between them. Pushing Ashis Nandy’s characterisation of Vivekananda as a ‘more divided man’ (than Ramakrishna) ‘dealing with more divided men’, he considers him much more ‘troubled’ than Ramakrishna, precisely because Vivekananda, having gone to the West and understood its material superiority, recognised not only the magnitude of the challenge for India but also the extent to which modern Indians had become ‘divided men’ as a consequence. According to Raghuramaraju (2013), this ‘trouble’ is the key to understanding Vivekananda’s ‘inconsistencies, confusions, ambiguities’.5 The assertion of Indian spiritual or religious ‘superiority’ was one way to shore up the self-esteem of a defeated people, something that Ramakrishna in his pre-modern or ‘folk’ self-sufficiency and confidence did not need. One might, from a somewhat firmer faithlocation, even venture that Ramakrishna’s self-confidence, mistakenly characterised as natural and ‘innocent’, did not rest on the fragile
and easily undermined ignorance of colonialism or modernity but on the firmer footing of self-realisation and Samadhi. His avataric intervention, choosing of suitable vehicles such as Vivekananda, and resolve to ‘save’ India, derived not from naiveté or lack of acquaintance with the engines of colonialism, technology, and modernity, but from knowing their destructive power only too well.
Vivekananda, Reason, Science As an early proponent of modern science in India, Vivekananda’s interventions in the creation of Indian modernity are so important because, as I shall show, he initially welcomed science as the door not only to material power, but also to spiritual knowledge. By the end of his short life, however, Vivekananda too, coming up against the difficulties in reconciling modern science and Vedanta in one unified framework, had to temper his early enthusiasm for the former as the final solution to the objections raised against the latter. Thus in India too, as in the West, modern science, after having ‘relentlessly deconstructed other sources of value-creation,’ had inevitably to face the prospect of ‘its own meaning . . . dissipated beyond repair’ (Kim 2012).6 But let us examine his early enthusiasm. In his lecture on Reason and Religion (delivered in London on 18 November 1896), Vivekananda states, The worship of the goddess of Reason during the French Revolution was not the first manifestation of that phenomenon in the history of humanity, it was a re-enactment of what had happened in ancient times, but in modern times it has assumed greater proportions. The physical sciences are better equipped now than formerly, and religions have become less and less equipped. The foundations have been all undermined, and the modern man, whatever he may say in public, knows in the privacy of his heart that he can no more ‘believe’. Believing certain things because an organized body of priests tells him to believe, believing because it is written in certain books, believing because his people like him to believe, the modern man knows to be
xxxii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
impossible for him. There are, of course, a number of people who seem to acquiesce in the so-called popular faith, but we also know for certain that they do not think. Their idea of belief may be better translated as ‘not-thinking-carelessness’. This fight cannot last much longer without breaking to pieces all the buildings of religion. The question is: Is there a way out? To put it in a more concrete form: Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific — as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry — but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has (Complete Works 1: 366–83).
From a man of religion, a monk in fact representing a certain order and belonging to an ancient tradition, this is a statement of extraordinary boldness and self-confidence. Vivekananda refuses to justify or preserve a religion which is no longer ‘true’, whose beliefs are easily disproved by discoveries in sciences, and which maintains its hold on its flock only through dogma, superstition or fear. He also asserts that the modern reliance on reason is not unprecedented, nor is science itself entirely new or modern. He states that in times past too the civilisational enterprise was based on rational pursuits of verifiable truths. Indeed, that the evidence of such a quest is to be found in Indian spiritual traditions themselves. By this method, he seeks to forge an alliance between ancient Indian spirituality and modern, largely Western science, considering them as natural allies rather than antagonists. What this does is to make science and spirituality allied instead of adverse quests; the terms of their encounter are not framed in the classic Western templates of reason vs faith or science vs superstition. In both domains argues Vivekananda, the source of knowledge is similar. Thus, even the internal mandate posited by Vivekananda is
based on the criterion for fullness of a knowledge system that may be acceptable to the scientific method. According to Vivekananda: Experience is the only source of knowledge. In the world, religion is the only science where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of experience. This should not be. There is always, however, a small group of men who teach religion from experience. They are called mystics, and these mystics in every religion speak the same tongue and teach the same truth. This is the real science of religion. As mathematics in every part of the world does not differ, so the mystics do not differ. They are all similarly constituted and similarly situated. Their experience is the same; and this becomes law. In the church, religionists first learn a religion, then begin to practice it; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the mystic starts out in search of truth, experiences it first, and then formulates his creed. The church takes the experience of others; the mystic has his own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out. Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the book of nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sage is often ignorant of physical science, because he reads the wrong book — the book within; and the scientist is too often ignorant of religion, because he too reads the wrong book — the book without. All science has its particular methods; so has the science of religion. It has more methods also, because it has more material to work upon. The human mind is not homogeneous like the external world. According to the different nature, there must be different methods. As some special sense predominates in a person — one person will see most, another will hear most — so there is a predominant mental sense; and through this gate must each reach his own mind. Yet through all minds runs a unity, and there is a science which may be applied to all. This science of religion is based on the analysis of the human soul. It has no creed (Complete Works 6: 81–82).
We might see here an attempt by Vivekananda to ‘scienticise’ religion. The extent to which religion can be considered another type of science is not clear, not can we be certain that this is the best or most productive way to understand religion. Indeed, Vivekananda’s attempt to explain religion in terms of science is both a strategic
xxxiv Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
defense of religion in a world dominated by science and an attempt to focus on the more rational aspects of faith. But if we were to go back to Vivekananda’s master, Ramakrishna, then we shall see that neither the materialism of modern science nor the supremacy of rationality are accorded the highest importance; faith, spiritual experience and grace are viewed as equally, if not more, important, depending on the temperament of the aspirant and the context of the spiritual practice. Even if we do not take Vivekananda’s terminological transposition of religion as a type of science at face value, we will have to acknowledge that what Vivekananda does accomplish is to anticipate by nearly a hundred years the efforts of other religious figures such as the Dalai Lama to open up spiritual phenomena to scientific examination, thereby enriching both domains. Having explored the question of the relationship between science and spirituality in a broader erspective, let us now examine Vivekananda’s views on some specific scientific topics. In this regard, some of his cosmological observations are fascinating because they were actually in dialogue with scientific thought of his time. Vivekananda states, the Sanskrit word for creation [srishti], properly translated, should be projection and not creation. For the word creation in the English language has unhappily got that fearful, that most crude idea of something coming out of nothing, creation out of non-entity, nonexistence becoming existence, which, of course, I would not insult you by asking you to believe. Our word, therefore, is projection. (Complete Works 3: 116–35)
But this immediately raises numerous age-old questions, best summarised in the beautiful hymn of the Nasadiya Sukta from the Rig Veda (X.129): ‘Whence is this? When there was neither aught nor naught, and darkness was hidden in darkness, who projected the universe? How? Who knows the secret?’7 Vivekananda answered these questions in detail in a lecture. His central arguments were: 1. Everything in nature begins with certain fine forms and becomes grosser and grosser, and develops, going on that way for a certain time and then again goes back to that fine form, and subsides. The same is the case with the universe: it has come out of a nebulous state and must go back to it. Thus, it is a cyclic process of involution and evolution: every evolution is preceded and succeeded by an involution.
2. For any phenomenon, going back to the cause is termed destruction. Therefore, the effect is the same as the cause, not different. 3. This manifested universe cannot be projected from nothing. (Complete Works 2: 203–11)
The next logical question, also put rhetorically by Vivekananda, is: ‘The involution of what? What was involved?’ Vivekananda answers in one word: God. He relates God to the sum total of the intelligence displayed in the universe and states that it must therefore be the involved universal intelligence unfolding itself. In his words, ‘It is absolutely certain that in the beginning there is that Infinite cosmic intelligence. This cosmic intelligence gets involved, and it manifests, evolves itself, until it becomes the perfect man, the “Christ-man,” the “Buddha-man.” Then it goes back to its own source’ (ibid.). We should be careful not to confuse Vivekananda’s definition of ‘universal intelligence’ with the present controversy regarding ‘intelligent designer’: the former is ontological whereas the latter is an active agent that is regulating biological evolution. Instead, Vivekananda here clearly anticipates Sri Aurobindo, whose theory employs this very vocabulary of involution and evolution. However, the question still remains: what are the building blocks of this universe? Vivekananda’s interpretation is as follows: According to the philosophers of India, the whole universe is composed of two materials, one of which they call Âkâsha. It is the omnipresent all penetrating existence. Everything that has form, everything that is the result of the compounds, is evolved out of this Âkâsha. It is the Âkâsha that becomes the air, that becomes the liquids, that becomes the solids; it is the Âkâsha that becomes the sun, the earth, the moon, the stars, the comets; it is the Âkâsha that becomes the body, the animal body, the planets, every form that we see, everything that can be sensed, everything that exists. It itself cannot be perceived; it is so subtle that it is beyond all ordinary perception; it can only be seen when it has become gross, has taken form. At the beginning of creation there is only this Âkâsha; at the end of the cycle the solids, the liquids, and the gases all melt into the Âkâsha again, and the next creation similarly proceeds out of this Âkâsha. By what power is this manufactured into this universe? By the power of Prâna. Just as Âkâsha is the infinite omnipresent material of this universe, so is this Prâna the infinite omnipresent manifesting power of this universe. At the beginning and at the end of a cycle
xxxvi Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
everything becomes Âkâsha, and all the forces that are in the universe resolve back into the Prâna; in the next cycle, out of this Prâna, is evolved everything that we call energy, everything that we call force. It is the Prâna that is manifesting as motion; it is the Prâna that is manifesting as gravitation, as magnetism. It is the Prâna that is manifesting as the actions of the body, as the nerve currents, as thought force. From thought, down to the lowest physical force, everything is but the manifestation of Prâna. The sum total of all force in the universe, mental or physical when resolved back to its original state, is called Prâna (Complete Works 1: 147–48).
In such passages, one can find remarkable similarities between Vivekananda’s thoughts and those of modern philosopher–cosmologists, such as John Wheeler and Martin Rees, especially the concept of ‘the big crunch’ and the idea of a ‘multiverse’. One cannot overemphasise that Vivekananda expressed these thoughts in 1895, 10 years before the much-celebrated set of papers of Albert Einstein was published, heralding a new age in Physics. Many attempts have been made to reinterpret Vedantic statements in light of Einsteinian concepts of relativity, space-time curvature, mass energy equivalence, quantum mechanics, and so on. But let us explore Vivekananda’s interaction with one scientist of the preEinstein era: Nikola Tesla who was one of the preeminent scientist– engineers of the 1890s.8 In January and February 1896, he most likely attended Vivekananda’s lectures in Hardiman Hall or Madison Square Garden, New York, as Vivekananda later mentioned in an address at Kumbakonam, I have myself been told by some of the best scientific minds of the day how wonderfully rational the conclusions of Vedanta are. I know one of them personally, who scarcely has time to eat his meal or go out of his laboratory, but who yet would stand by the hour to attend my lectures on the Vedanta; for, as he expresses it, they are so scientific, they so exactly harmonize with the aspirations of the age and with the conclusions to which modern science is coming at the present time (Complete Works 3: 185).
Tesla was practically living in his Houston Street Laboratory in New York at that time, and fits Vivekananda’s description of the scientist mentioned in the passage. Tesla and Vivekananda probably
met earlier in 1893 at the World’s Columbian Exposition (the site of the Parliament of Religions) in Chicago, but no record exists of any conversation between them. They did meet at the Corbins’ house (a mansion in Fifth Avenue, New York City) for dinner on 5 February 1896 and almost certainly Vivekananda explained Sankhya cosmology to Tesla and asked him questions, for we know of the letter from Tesla to Vivekananda dated 8 February 1896: My dear Sir, As it would be difficult to answer your questions by letter and as I wish to have the pleasure of meeting you again I would suggest a visit to my laboratory 45 East Houston Street any day next week you find convenient. Faithfully yours, N. Tesla
They agreed to meet for Vivekananda wrote in a letter to E. T. Sturdy, dated 13 February 1896, Mr. Tesla thinks he can demonstrate mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy. I am going to see him next week, to get this new mathematical demonstration. In that case, the Vedantic cosmology will be placed on the surest of foundations. I am working a good deal now upon the cosmology and eschatology of Vedanta. I clearly see their perfect unison with modern science . . . Now on the Advaitic side, it is held that the soul neither comes nor goes, and that all these spheres or layers of the universe are only so many varying products of Âkâsha and Prâna (Complete Works 5: 101–2).
Unfortunately, there is no record of this meeting and Vivekananda scholars opine that the meeting never took place. Vivekananda’s disappointment at the failure of this marriage between Vedantic cosmology and modern science is clear in his later lecture in Lahore: ‘There is the unity of force, Prâna; there is the unity of matter, called Âkâsha. Is there any unity to be found among them again? Can they be melted into one? Our modern science is mute here; it has not yet found its way out’ (Complete Works 3: 400). The question alluded to by Vivekananda, namely, ‘what gives rise to Âkâsha and Prâna’, is even today considered ‘metaphysics’ rather than ‘physics’. At any rate, Vivekananda viewed cosmology and consciousness as a continuum, unlike modern science’s attempts to compartmentalise these two subjects in very different realms.
xxxviii Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
Conclusion Swami Vivekananda’s mortal remains are enshrined in a simple but elegant two-storeyed temple at the Belur Math, on the banks of the Hooghly. The Math itself is a modern structure, built in the last days of the British Empire. It is an eclectic mix of Rajputana and Eastern architectural styles, with neo-Classical and colonial flourishes thrown in. Across the river, we can see the more traditional temple complex of the Dakshineshwar Kalibari, which Rani Rasmoni built in the second half of the nineteenth century and where Sri Ramakrishna came as the temple priest.9 Sri Ramakrishna’s lilaprasanga, as his disciple–biographer, Swami Saradananda characterises his life, was played out mostly inside the compound of that temple. The more modern Belur Math was inspired by Swami Vivekananda, his foremost disciple, who also founded the order named after him, the Ramakrishna Mission. The Mission was a wholly new, even modern phenomenon, but one which was inspired by the deepest springs and stirrings of tradition, and which had its roots in the soil of spiritual India. Swami Vivekananda’s samadhi has many visitors, who bow before his image and visit his room upstairs. The shrine is immaculately clean and daily worship is conducted there by the designated priests of the Ramakrishna Order. In contrast, across the river, there are endless streams of much more ordinary pilgrims, quite unregulated if not chaotic, who worship not just Kali, the principal deity, but the many Shivalingas, Radha–Krishna, and Ramakrishna himself, pausing at his little room, full of portraits of his disciples and other saints. Somehow, these two institutions facing each other across the Hooghly represent, to my mind, the paradox of Indian modernity that we have been exploring: what appears traditional has been reinvented in modern times and what is patently modern actually has its roots deep in the seedbed of tradition. In the 150 years after Vivekananda’s birth, India has gone through massive political, social, cultural, and economic changes. These have amounted to nothing less than the total reorganisation of the material and mental life of the country. While this transformation may seem rather unprecedented in the context of five thousand years of Indian history, I believe its roots lie in the reform and revival movements of
the nineteenth century. Vivekananda was a key figure in that upsurge or ‘renaissance’. We need all the more to read him carefully today because he is one of the founders of our modernity. While fears have been expressed about the political misuse of Vivekananda’s legacy, I am convinced that a serious study of his work will deter such concerns. This is not only because he himself anticipates and condemns the misuse of religion, but is also one of harshest and unsparing critics of Indian culture in general and Hindu traditions in particular. These criticisms, however, were not meant to weaken but to strengthen Indian society. Of course, it is also important that Vivekananda had a message for the West. This he delivered as tirelessly and unsparingly as he did his exhortations to his own countrymen and women. One of Vivekananda’s unique qualities was that he abhorred negativity and weakness. His is a positive and life-enhancing message, which rings loudly across the gulf of the 150 years that have elapsed since his birth and still speaks to us today with remarkable freshness and immediacy. His words are not mere verbal tokens or even the medium of his thoughts and ideas, but a dynamic force in action. I hope that this anthology gives readers the experience of being in contact with that great power which, like a live wire, once galvanised Indian society and set it forward on its path to modernise itself.
Notes 1. See Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India (2010) and Making India: Colonialism, National Culture, and the Afterlife of Indian English Authority (2013). 2. A whole range of scholars including Ashis Nandy (1973), Sumit Sarkar (1992), Narsingha Sil (1993), Carl Olson (1998), and Jyotirmaya Sharma (2011) have dealt with this relationship. 3. Narendra first met Ramakrishna in November 1881 in Calcutta at the home of Surendranath Mitra. The ‘first’ and ‘second’ meetings referred to in Gupta’s Gospel took place in December 1881 and January 1882 at Dakshineshwar, where Sri Ramakrishna had invited Narendra. In the ‘first’ of the Dakshineshwar meetings, Naren famously asked his guru-tobe if the latter had ‘seen God’, the latter replying in affirmative. During the ‘second’ meeting in January 1882, Sri Ramakrishna put his foot on Naren’s chest, transporting the latter into a trance. 4. Halbfass considers this tendency in neo-Hinduism and neo-Vedanta as an attempt to show that orthodox Vedanta as exemplified by Sankara is ‘fully
xl Swami Vivekananda: A Contemporary Reader
7. 8. 9.
compatible with Western rational and scientific thought’ (1991: 131). The whole chapter, ‘Human Reason and Vedic Revelation in Advaita Vedanta’ is fruitful in this context (ibid.: 131–204). Also see Raghuramaraju’s Debates in Indian Philosophy: Classical, Colonial, and Contemporary (2006) for insightful comments on the ‘Swami’ vs the ‘Mahatma’ paradigms and Modernity in Indian Social Theory (2011) for an innovative reading of Vivekananda’s attacks on some of the ‘Others’ of Hinduism as examples, after Raymond Williams, of ‘subjunctive’ rather than ‘indicative’ criticism. Several portions of this section are from a paper, ‘Swami Vivekananda and the Integration of Science and Religion in Future’, by Paranjape and Sengupta. Some of these paragraphs are actually Sengupta’s writing and I am grateful to him for allowing me to include them in my article. Ralph T. H. Griffith. The Hymns of the R.gveda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995. See, for instance, M. T. Commerford’s The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla (1894), reprinted in 1996. A similar passage occurs in Sarkar, though he does not see the contrast between Dakshineshwar and Belur so overtly as a face-off between tradition and modernity: Dakshineshwar temple, where Ramakrishna had lived for thirty years, and Belur Math, founded by his most illustrious disciple, face each other today on opposite banks of the Bhagirathi, presenting in many ways a vivid study in contrasts even oppositions. The temple, like any major Hindu sacred site, is thronged with crowds which cut across class divides, noisy, colourful, not oversensitive to dirt . . . Belur Math is much more of an upper-middle-class devotional-cum-tourist spot: almost aggressively hygienic, it is full of guards and notices warning visitors off from bathing in the river or spoiling the lawns (1992: 1558).
Works Cited Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, ed. by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, trans. by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Bhattacharya, Debiprasad. ‘The Relevance of Sri Ramakrishna for Modern Man’, Studies in Sri Ramakrishna. Kolkata: Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 1988, pp. 234–46.
Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. Chatterjee, Partha. ‘A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class’, in Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, eds, Subaltern Studies VII. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 40–68. Chattopadhyay, Rajagopal. Swami Vivekananda in India: A Corrective Biography. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. Dayal, Samir. ‘Managing Ecstasy: A Subaltern Performative of Resistance’, Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 2001, 6(1): pp. 75–90. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus, Winter 2000, 129(1): pp. 1–29. Gould, Stephen Jay. The Richness of Life: The Essential Stephen Jay Gould. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007. Gupta, Mahendra Nath. ‘Sri Ramakrishna with Devotees at Kali Temple in Dakshineswar’, in Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, trans. by Swami Nikhilananda. 2003. Available at http://www.kathamrita.org/ kathamrita2/k2sec06.htm (accessed 16 January 2013). ———. ‘Narenda’, in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, trans. by Swami Nikhilananda. 2001. Available at http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda. info/gospel/introduction/narendra.htm (accessed 16 January 2013). ———. ‘With Bhaktas in Dakshineswar Temple’, in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, trans. Swami Nikhilananda. 2001. Available at http://www. kathamrita.org/kathamrita/k1sec07.htm (accessed 16 January 2013). Halbfass, Wilhelm. Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991. Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1982. Heehs, Peter (ed.) Indian Religions: A Historical Reader of Spiritual Expression and Experience. London: C. Hurst, 2002. Kim, Sung Ho, ‘Max Weber’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Available at