by Naresh Jotwani
Information age, AI, virtual reality, global hegemony, tariffs, space war, cyber war — many such heavy words are being bandied about 24×7. What is one to make of it all? How does one chart one’s path through the bewildering recent outpouring of geopolitics and technology?
This post argues that the answer is ‘as old as the hills‘. A person’s inner voice, nurtured and clarified through persistent individual effort, is still the most reliable guide — just as it has been over millennia.
Every adult believes that he is rational; he can easily cite many examples of rational behaviour from his routine daily life. Picking one from several brands of cereal in a store, for example, or making sure that a child is properly dressed and equipped to go to school. Any civilized society in the world rests on the foundation of countless such acts of perfectly rational behaviour.
But ‘rational behaviour’ is defined only through a set of underlying premises. The underlying premises in the two examples cited above are self-preservation and nurture, both perfectly valid premises in a civilized society. In fact, they are much more than dry, logical premises; they are innate drives. One does not question them. In a society at peace with itself, the underlying premises – drives, values or ‘self-evident truths’ – are understood, appreciated and not questioned.
In a time of crisis, of course, the underlying premises of a society begin to crack. Neglect, brutality, deception, mistrust and misery reign. An individual is no longer sure about what he should believe – and what strange thoughts the next individual may be carrying in his head. This leads to insecure individuals forming smaller clans or groups which fear and mistrust each other.
A person is defined by the premises – drives, values or ‘self-evident truths’ – by which he lives. A devoted mother, for example, lives by the self-evident truth of nurture of the family; similarly a soldier, a teacher, a farmer … and so on.
Many different variants of ‘civilized society’ exist around the world. Therefore a fascinating topic of inquiry is this: The ‘self-evident truths’ binding a civilized society together.
Consider an example from Buddha’s teachings.
Buddha said: ‘Suffering is a noble truth’. He meant that this particular truth is existential; it holds in any human society. That existential fact is a basic premise in his teachings.
That suffering is an existential reality should be evident to all but children and the imbecile. If anything, the variants of suffering around the world have grown profusely over the millennia since Buddha, as technology has produced powerful means to injure human life, animal life and indeed entire ecosystems.
Doubt does arise, however, about the word ‘noble’. How can suffering be called a ‘noble’ truth — given that one invariably and often desperately wishes to be rid of it? Surely that adjective is out of place here? In fact, suffering seems to be a rather ‘ignoble’ aspect of existential reality.
So why did Buddha use the word ‘noble’? Can this apparent riddle be solved?
‘Suffering’ is an element of reality that one finds painful, or at least very unpleasant. With what attitude does one face a painful or very unpleasant element of existential reality? A scowl or howl of disgust does not help, whereas a calm mind might actually come up with a way to lessen the pain.
Might ‘nobility’ be construed to mean that the painful reality compels one to remain calm, to think of a way to deal with it, to alleviate it? ‘Nobility’ then lies in how one faces the challenge. Any serious challenge does demand a certain degree of nobility in facing up to it.
Ideas such as ‘paradise’, ‘promised land’ and ‘shining city on the hill’ arise when individuals or groups fail to face up to challenges. They may dream of a ‘final victory’ over suffering and push ahead on that false basis, blind to reality.
Logic enables one to go a little further. If suffering is an existential reality, does it really matter whether one dubs it as ‘noble’? Of course not. The word ‘noble’ is an adjective here. Its use does not alter the existential reality, but it does reflect upon a person’s response to it.
When Buddha said suffering is ‘noble’, he did not imply that crimes are not ugly. Criminals must be punished and victims must be helped. But Buddha did seem to imply that a reflective person must examine the whole scene – crime, punishment, redress – with a clear eye and a calm mind.
One can imagine a vantage point from which the reality of suffering can be examined with a calm mind — although that does require at least some respite from suffering and also acceptance of it.
A discussion about the premises underlying rational behaviour can be compared to two friends sparring at chess. Their aim is not to ‘win a big prize’, but to explore the various possibilities which the game provides for creative, logical thinking. While no prize is at stake, both players become better at chess as a result of the sparring.
Exactly in that way, one can explore the effects on people’s behaviour of the drives or premises by which they live.
A few other examples:
(1) Today, the people and the ‘leaders’ of a certain ‘superpower’ seem at a loss about their fundamental values. Money, sense pleasures and fame seem high on the agenda – but these are either kept under wraps or disguised in fake verbosity and fake narratives. Various attempted self-serving concepts only worsen matters. Insincerity and lack of clarity are running rampant; greed, prejudice, political exigency and whim are determining actions.
(2) That same ‘superpower’ lists ‘the pursuit of happiness’ as an inalienable right of a human being. But what if Buddha – and many others – are right in saying that finding true happiness is a long and difficult inner journey? In that case, ‘pursuit’ is the wrong word; an external pursuit cannot ever bring about durable happiness.
As understood within the ‘superpower’, the pursuit of happiness justifies the killing, maiming and looting of millions upon millions of other human beings around the world. The victims do not have any right to happiness, apparently. Even then, has that relentless, violent pursuit of happiness brought any contentment to the ‘superpower’?
(3) In India, there is an ongoing intense debate about which set of premises will determine the political processes in the coming years and decades. The constitution provides a very sound framework, but competing premises are being voiced. Wisdom, core values and constitutional processes will resolve matters over time – but an interim rough patch is likely.
The key point seems to be this: The premises – drives, ‘core values’, ‘self-evident truths’ – that a society lives by, or fails to live by, determine its path going forward. Off and on, these core values are bruised by political bombast or economic pressures; however, the longer term evolution of a society is crucially dependent on them.
If there is truth in this conclusion about the ‘core values’ of a society, then another conclusion also follows.
What goes by the respectable sounding title of ‘an ideology’ is only a show of self-serving verbosity which disguises the true drives of devilishly clever, vociferous and insatiable people. The ‘ideology‘ hides dark drives, not only to scam but also to harm ordinary people (for an example, see here and here).
Love is its own proof. A caring parent, teacher, friend, doctor or farmer do not need an ideology, a PR narrative or a polemic. Those who do need lies — the dark, devilish ones — cannot help but puke out lies 24×7. The louder their lies and hype, the guiltier they must be, since guilt knows no peace (see Note 1).
In general, zeroing in on the underlying drives of a person or group may help one see through false ideology and polemics. The light of knowledge ensures that one ruled by wholesome values — not by dark drives of unknown origin.
Today we float in an ocean of petabytes upon petabytes of digital fluff. Some of that fluff even makes grandiose claims of ‘scholarly merit’ — or even ‘intelligence’. But the hype means nothing. Clarity about the underlying drives, including one’s own, helps one remain anchored. Thereby one avoids drifting endlessly, or even drowning, in the vast ocean of digital fluff, which is the newest incarnation of eternal maya, illusion.
The inner voice — nurtured and clarified through one’s own diligent effort — is the only reliable guide. Even erring through one’s own judgement is better than blindly following an ‘assured success formula’ from the digital fluff. A person’s own errors are his most valuable teachers.
Separating grain from chaff, truth from maya, is an essential survival skill today — exactly as it has been over millennia.
Note 1: Hindi proverb चोर की दाढ़ी में तिनका refers to the guilty conscience showing up in a person’s inadvertent gestures.
seeker-of-root-causes 