“I promise to Be a sweet and a naked statement in your mouth”.*
Long ego on this blog I wrote a blog-post on “Athato” of Brahma-Jigyasa where I had touched upon certain issues. However unfortunately I could not take those issues forward to produce some rich philosophical text. Perhaps, I could not do it because I am not very good at English language and also I had paucity of everything including “time”. In this post too I shall try to touch certain issues but here it is about the second part of the same that is “Brahman-jigyasa”. We know that everything is Advaita as well as dyad and triad. Similarly we also know that the consciousness is Advaita and has three rather four or five facets (rather n-number of faces, eyes and limbs) that gradually become more virtual and more intense. And then, of this consciousness and cogito there is a celibate side, and then there is a passional love of man and women that no longer has any use for consciousness or reason. Thus these are the two sides of life that humanity has always desired to live in totality. In Hinduism it was called the path of nivritti i.e. life of a renunciate and the path of pravritti i.e. the life of a household. Passional love is a cogito built for the two beings, just as the cogito is a passion for the self alone. Do we live or have ever lived it with its respective intensity? Have we truthfully explored life on the both planes of madness! Let us talk about the second aspect first that of passion of reason which is supposed to begin with, “अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा”! Traditional Hindu theology begins with “Athato Brahman Jigyansa” without a proper beginning. We have never asked any question to the so called seers who wrote ‘let’s begin a search after ultimate reality” but never began it. Let’s ask now, does Badarayana really begin any authentic search after truth? And if he began it, where does he begin it! When we investigate it, we discover that he encloses all possibilities of questioning in the very beginning of the discourse.
One of the methods of mediation in theology in India is called “dialectic”. It was said to be invented by Buddhist theologian Nagarjuna and re-invented and practiced by Adi Shankaracharya later. Dialectics is the way of seeking the truth by talking with others from different points of view,through “Yes” and “No,” until a “Yes” has been reached which is hardened in the fire of many “No’s” that is expressed in great Vedanta logic “neti-neti”. Modern English writers from foreign universities wrote that ‘dialectic’ was invented by Nagarjuna but in the great Upanishadic expression “Neti-Neti” it was already present. Paul Tillich laments on priesthood that finished everything that could open any new possibility of truth and life. “It is most unfortunate that the name “dialectical theology” has been applied to a theology that is strongly opposed to any kind of dialectics and mediation and that constantly repeats the “Yes” to its own and the ”No” to any other position.” But even if ancient Vedanta theologian have said to be proceeded with dialectic “Neti-Neti”, he writes his first sutra “अथातो ब्रह्मं जिज्ञासा” and then enclosing it he writes the second sutra “शास्त्रयोनित्वात”. Where is the possibility of an opening? He categorically declares that it (answer) can’t be from the outside. The source of jigyasa (search, quest and the authentic knowledge of reality) is a particular book, namely Vedas. Badarayan would even say that the Upanishadic instruction ” आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः” is said in relation to the tradition of scriptural knowledge(श्रुत ), not for the outside contemplation. A search after truth can only begin with “questioning “and Badarayana says that it can’t be asked from the outside; it should always be within the scriptural tradition. Answer and question both would rely on the book and the traditional knowledge that emanated from the commentaries on these sacred books. Our critical metaphysical investigations are quite specific in the sense that they always bear upon a certain material, an epoch, a body of determined practices and discourses. There has never been an investigation from the outside or from the frontier as such. Even Buddha had to confirm to the continuity of absurdity that what he preached was of the ancients. Kant would call it the “immaturity” of the seers who place a certain text in the place of our understanding. Badarayana even does not believe in the Upanishad teachings that put understanding above the intelligence and the reason. By formulating these Brahman Sutras a dharma dictator resolves to decide what truth or false is on behalf of a certain book; he takes place in our conscience as an interpreter. In many ways the writer of Vedanta Sutras had similar adventure that of Saint Paul who had formulated Romans and Luka for the new testament of Bible. In the signifying paranoid regime the book has a special status; it works in different levels of inscription. In Hinduism and Buddhism the word of god is poured in your mouth by recital, in public as well as in private.
The greatest Hindu sages and teachers from Badarayana to Adi Shankaracharya never “dared to know” because they have had no courage to see the open. were they better than a Lark! In his third sutra Badarayana writes “जन्मादस्य यतः” from whom this existence proceeds is that Brahman or ultimate reality, about which this inquiry has been undertaken. But this inquiry can’t be from the outside because the source of valid answer is found only in scriptures called shrutis. Indian philosophy never posed an authentic question concerning the ultimate reality; all questions are formulated considering the obvious answer found in the book. All Indian philosophy is a discussion upon a certain truth written in a certain book or the truth spoken by some illiterate sadhu with his abracadabra mysticism which would be formed on the heard words of knowledge from the same book in Satsanga. Those who couldn’t read the books written in Sanskrit language, form the image of truth by their own imagination through satsanga. A more ambiguous and confusing image is formed in this way by listening of the discussions on the books in satsanga of priests and ascetics. Kabir was an illiterate but speaks about Advaita Vedanta of Adi Sankaracharya, he formed his abracadabra mysticism of Brahman, Naad, Maya etc in Vedanta satsanga that was pervasive in the century he was born in. A new inquiry unto the nature of truth and reality was never undertaken by the seers. Their metaphysical is so much narrow that the other day as per materialistic-political requirements its main opponents or enemies become friend and the subject of reverence. In the Brahman Sutra the main metaphysical opponent of Vedic Sanatan Dharma is Sankhya school but later in Puranas we see the declaration of its proponent Sage Kapil as incarnation of Vishnu. All opponents of Sanatan Vedic dharma were declared incarnations in later priestly period of its illiteracy and foolishness.
Interestingly, in this priestly period of illiteracy, irrationalism and superstition, one of the great ascetics Veda Vyasa was confused over his achievement as a compiler of Vedic tenets, interpreter of scriptures, great speaker and writer. He confesses thus: “ तथापि बत में दैह्यो ह्यात्मा चैवात्माना विभु:| असम्पन्न इवाभाति ब्रह्मचर्यस्यसत्तम.” He found that passion was missing in his endeavors that produce ecstasy or perhaps because “Brahman Jigyasa” had never begun, it never produced madnesss that satisfies the soul or perhaps the madness of so called knowledge was unable to produce ecstasy. Or perhaps, he thought that he had not portrayed all forms of dharma, especially that which belongs to the pure passion of man and women. The failed ascetic Veda Vyasa was said to be motivated by a pervert ascetic Narada to fall in the passional mood of couples and to write their love story. But what he produced was once again the reproduction of the same scriptural knowledge that denies all forms of passion. Text has undoubtedly some literary poetic quality but not that good we expect from the master story tellers. Text renders love neither in its divine purity nor in its nakedness. What song? There is no love song in it except some rendering of vulgar priestly devotionalism. In pure love and passion whether it is for Humans or God there is no place for pity. In text we find Cow-Women pleading for the pity from the lover for whom they have left their husbands. And strangely enough, in 29th chapter of eleventh skandh we find women pleading for the pity from the God lover and in the next chapter having gotten fucked in the pool they have suddenly realized unity with phallus i.e. the signifier, thus song of the cunt: “गतिस्मित प्रेक्षणभाषणादिषु प्रिया: प्रियस्य प्रतिरुढमूर्तयः/ असावहं त्वित्यब्लास्तदात्मिका न्य्वेदिषु: कृष्ण विहार विभ्रमा:” How easily this unity was attained without madness, passion and love. How can love become madness that is not pure and has no passion of a beloved? How can Love that still have a lower level of consciousness that of a slave obtain unity with the divine? It contradicts their theory that says that such unity is possible only when reason rises in pure sattva. “तन्नो निधेहि करपंकजमार्त्बंधो/ तपस्तेनेषु च शिरस्सु च किंकिरीणाम” They call themselves “किंकिरी” and unpaid sex slaves of their king God “अशुल्क दासिका”. Slave is an animal and premise is that the animal can’t see the open. I would not go in to more details in this matter but would certainly like to ask, what happened to Veda Vyasa who fell from his asceticism to experience the passional love and its ecstasy in writing? Was he able to experience the heat of love in his writing? Question here is of an authentic experience of a passionate and naked pure love. Is it possible without adventure and madness? Absolute failure!
Even in the production of love lore and passion we have missed the poetics of the sublime. In comparison to the writer of Bhagawat purana, the great Kalidas is still far ahead in poetics. Alas! Not enough form and force of madnesss. In India it is missing on both levels of cogito i.e. cogito as passion for the self alone and the pure passional love of which love itself is its cogito. Desire pure and naked that promises pure nakedness. It is so because enlightenment is missing under the dominance of asceticism and their yogic adhyatmik hypocrisy. Light is needed for the light. Now we must ask what Foucault asks, has India ever been in the process of Enlightenment? Means, have we ever been able to imagine Enlightenment as a historical change that affects the political and social existence of all people on the face of the earth. Or are we to understand that it involves a change affecting what constitutes the humanity of human beings? But the question then arises of knowing what this change is. Have we ever been able to initiate a real change in our unconscious that was filled with dog shit? Why our perception concerning social, familial, religious or whatever reality, is so much terribly homogeneous? Have we ever asked what causes it! Even Buddha “dared not to ask” these questions. He was conservative enough regarding certain truth and its perception. Only a sage can be truly revolutionary and India had produced no sage. All were slaves of the regimes of certain truths and perceptions.
Concerning the regimes of truths let’s look at Buddha’s truth. He repeats Upanishadic truth that the actual cause of suffering is ignorance. But what kind of ignorance causes it? My desire to have my biological existence in this world, he called it “bhava”, this simply means < to get rid of suffering one should get rid of desire to exist>. This is what Buddha’s enlightenment is! In spite of contemplating how to bring in ontological changes in the feudal world that enslaved and exploited poor human beings, he contemplated on how not to be born not to have the experience of suffering. Being born as a human being is a subject of mourning rather than celebration. You are born from suffering for the suffering alone. At this point Indian religions join Christianity that concludes ‘Sin’ as the cause of human birth and sufferings which ultimately is the same ignorance that Indians believed to be the ultimate cause of human suffering. In the Garden of Eden what sin Adam and Eve had committed? The same fruit of knowledge (as ignorance) they had eaten and fell on the earth for the suffering unto death. In all Indian religions the only human goal is the ceasation of desire that causes one to fall. The fall is falling in to biological existence. A verse renders it thus “पुनरपि जननं. पुनरपि मरणं/ पुनरपि जननी जठरे शयनं”. His “Nirvana” is a biological death, as he clearly said in Pali “Tanhaye vippahanen nibbanam iti buchati”! Desire means originary desire “bhava” that is one’s biological desire to be born. You are born in this world not to be born again. He was not different than the original stupid mendicants of Upanishad who concluded it. This much is India’s enlightenment that we proud and call ourselves the world guru. Only idiots and ash holes can follow this enlightenment. All the three major religions of India have similar theory of enlightenment by which Indian humanity is suffering since the ages. It has caused India’s mental and spiritual under development. Enlightenment is not personal; it is a political problem which can’t be solved without a valid criticism. For the western philosophers who had initiated modernism like Descartes, Kant and Hegel etc. the Enlightenment is the age of the critique. India is still infantile and immature in understanding of the nature of enlightenment. What have hitherto been called enlightenment in India are the work of immature and the idiot ascetics. Their religious-philosophical mode of reflection concerns only to the past and future of Atma not to the present, for the present was all dukkh. In India, Enlightenment can begin only with what Foucault says “with separating out from the religious percepts that has made us what we are.” We need to begin it by deconstructing the unconscious in which the words of gods and images and also that of ‘ dickheads, ashholes, Raja-Rani, Bajirao-Mastani, whores, goddesses and ascetic, etc ’are inscribed.
Michel Foucault concludes that there is a generality of problem and answers and its continuity that continued to recur up in our times: for example, the problem of liberation and bondage, problem of the relationship between sexes, the problem of the role of sexual relations, problem of race and caste; and so on. Answer is always traced in its metahistorical continuity and its responses which conform to the religious-political wisdom of Raja Manu and Rishis. New lines are always blocked, a child can’t ask question that does not confirm to idiocy. As Deleuze says “The child is made to take root in the family, be photographed under the father, be traced onto the mother’s bed; then a signifier takes over everything, a subjectification of affects. The only escape route left to the child is a becoming-animal perceived as shameful and guilty.” We are so impotent that we dare not to ask and know the forms of power that are exercised in it. Intellectuals never thought about the suffering and experience that we have in it of ourselves constituting nothing but determined historical figures that often manifest racially with a destructive logic in opposition to the ‘other’. The racial masses shouting slogans “Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai” is the work of a fucked up consciousness. The leader or the religious-social reformist who invokes these historical traitors and deceivers, himself is a traitor and deceiver that masses recognize in the end when they are absolutely fucked, as in the case of Hitler. One will often be forced to take dead ends, to work with signifying powers and subjective affections, to find a foothold in formations that are Oedipal or paranoid or even worse, as Deleuze puts it. Sometimes even a historical whore, a robber, a thief becomes a hero and begins to command their unconscious. Peshwas of Maharashtra or Gujarat were historical robbers who had looted and conquered other weak and poor Hindu races from the distant territories of south and north of India but Hindutva fascists have made them heroes of Hindu religion and culture which has a certain localism and a racial tone (in the form of Gujarat Desh of Gujjis who are known to be a conqueror kaum/race or Marathi Manush). The Hindutva that surfaced in Maharashtra and Gujarat region has a certain form of local-racial tendency as well as a certain economic and cultural imperialism inspired by Shivaji’s “Hindu Pad Padshahi”. Imperialism can be local of a certain small race within a race. A paranoiac can be born anywhere, in any region. Hindutva’s real motivation is local and it is a certain racial, namely the kaum that Shivaji represented in the guise of Bhagawa flag and slogan. In form and substance there is no difference in Shivaji-Bajirao peshwa’s Hindutva and RSS-BJP’s Hindutva. It is an ideology of a petty bourgeois that certainly belongs to an inferior race than those of the people of Awadha, great Samudra Gupta and the people of Magadh .
But wait; let me refrain from this historical- racial. We believe in a new world. Deleuze puts it more clearly what causes such racial nationalism, “The various forms of education or “normalization” imposed upon an individual consist in making him or her change points of subjectification, always moving toward a higher, nobler one in closer conformity with the supposed ideal. Then from the point of subjectification issues a subject of enunciation, as a function of a mental reality determined by that point. Then from the subject of enunciation issues a subject of the statement, in other words, a subject bound to statements in conformity with a dominant reality (of which the mental reality just mentioned is a part, even when it seems to oppose it).” In this case what happens with the masses is that the substance (knowledge of their past, of race, of their conquest, of kings, of ascetics and their ethics and morality etc) that was inscribed becomes subject. In Maharashtra and Gujarat a kind of saffronized and feudalized economic-political consciousness that we see insurgent today, is the work of Marathis and Gujjis, largely its trader class. In the almost eight decades they have invested to build the institutions for it in the core segments from economic, political, religious, and educational to the social works. And they worked collectively with these institutions spread across the social body of the region (that we call Saffron Corridor) for their racial cause. The man of Hindutva that RSS formulated upon Hindu Pad PadShahi was conceived as an uncritical, enslaved, conservative, anti-modernism and anti-enlightenment lot whose attitude and life is that of a slave, he behaves like a machine when words of order is issued forth from the mouth of the despot in khaki-nikker. RSS Khaki-nikker Nazis are suicidal. How can India see the new dawn if they exist as a cancerous body? The rallying of idiot babas and sadhus behind this political gang of DalalEconomy is India’s tragedy. Only option remains in front of people is to revolutionize their reason to escape its objectivist projects and its petty pragmatism.
Courtesy Note: This blog-post withdraws largely from Foucault’s “what is enlightenment” and Deleuze’s Anti-Oedipus to say something on India’s religious enlightenment.