The respect for
life was elaborated by the German philosopher Albert Schweitzer wherein he remarked in
criticism on the Indian religion. He said that the religion of this country is
life negative. This remark is correct to a large extent, if Krishna is left
out. But it is utterly wrong in the context of Krishna. If Schweitzer had tried
to understand Krishna he would never have said so.
When
we will see to Lord Buddha or Lord Mahavir or Jesus we will feel a sadness or
nothingness in them. Buddha and Mahavira
renounce happiness, Krishna does not renounce it. Krishna accepts that which
is. He does not find happiness even worth renouncing, let alone indulging. He
does not find happiness even worth renouncing. He has no desire whatsoever to make
even a slight change in life as it is; he accepts it totally.
But it was unfortunate that we did
not allow Krishna to influence our
life in a broad way. He remains a lonely dancing island in the vast ocean
of sorrow and misery that is our life. Or, we can say he is a small oasis
of joyous dancing and celebration in the huge desert of sadness and negativity,
of suppression and condemnation that we really are. Krishna could not influence the whole spectrum of our life, and for this
we are alone to blame. Krishna is not in the least responsible for it. We
were not that worthy, that deserving, to have him, to imbibe him, to
absorb him.
Up to now, man’s mind has thought of
and looked at life in fragments – and thought dialectically.The religious man
denies the body and accepts the soul. And what is worse, he creates a conflict, a dichotomy between the body and spirit. He
denies this world, he accepts the other world, and thus creates a state of
hostility between the two. Naturally our life is going to be sad and miserable
if we deny the body, because all our life’s juice – its health and
vitality, its sensitivities and beauty, all its music – has its source in
the body. So a religion that denies and denounces the body is bound to
be anemic and ill, it has to be lackluster. Such a religion is going to be
as pale and lifeless as a dry leaf fallen from a tree. And the people who
follow such a religion, who allow themselves to be influenced and conditioned by it, will be as anemic
and prone to death as these leaves are.
Krishna is utterly incomparable, he
is so unique. Firstly, his uniqueness lies in the fact that
although Krishna happened in the ancient past he belongs to the future, is
really of the future. Man has yet to grow to that height where he can be a
contemporary of Krishna’s. He is still beyond man’s understanding; he
continues to puzzle and battle us. Only in some future time will we be able
to understand him and appreciate his virtues. And there are good reasons
for it.
The most important reason is that
Krishna is the only one in our whole history who reached the absolute
height and depth of religion, and yet he is not at all serious and sad, not in
tears. By and large, the chief characteristic of a religious person has
been that he is somber, serious and sad-looking – like one vanquished in
the battle of life, like a renegade from life. In the long line of such
sages it is Krishna alone who comes dancing, singing and laughing.
Religions of the past were all
life-denying and masochistic, extolling sorrow and suffering as
great virtues. If you set aside Krishna’s vision of religion, then every
religion of the past presented a sad and sorrowful face. A laughing
religion, a religion that accepts life in its totality is yet to be
born. And it is good that the old religions are dead, along with them,
that the old God, the God of our old concepts is dead too.
What does Krishna
really tell Arjuna? When he says, "Leave everything and come to me,"
he means to say that Arjuna should set aside everything and go to the feet of
life itself, should accept life as it is.
A fakir has said in his prayer,
"O Lord, I accept you, but not your world." In fact, every fakir
says, "O Lord, I accept you, but not your world." This is opposite to
the position taken by an atheist. The atheist says, "I accept your world,
not you." Thus theists and atheists are two sides of the same coin.
Krishna's theism is quite unique. In
fact, only Krishna is a theist: he accepts what is. He says to God, "I
accept you and your world too," and this acceptance is so complete, so
profound that it is difficult to know where the world ends and God begins. The
world is really the extended hand of God, and God is the innermost being hidden
in the world. The difference between the world and God is no more than this.
Krishna accepts the whole. It is
important to understand that Krishna does not give up anything, neither pain
nor happiness. He does not renounce that which is. With him the question of
renunciation does not arise.
If we understand rightly we will see
that the individual, the ego, the I begins with giving up, with renunciation.
As soon as we renounce something I-ness into being. There is no way for me, for
the ego to be if we don't give up anything...........
No comments:
Post a Comment