|
1.) Like the usage of several other words, the usage of the word "secular" also has changed from time to time. Earlier it was used in the
context of "antichurch accused" transferred by ecclestial court for severe punishment. The word "secular" thus came to stand for sceptical attitude and outlook. However, as against the religious
truth, that is "the truth" given by the scriptures, in the present century the word is used in the context of worldly affairs and it denoted only this - worldly outlook. In India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
became the champion of such use. He used the word "secular" for connoting a non-religious attitude concerning the welfare of the people. Secular thus meant something other than theocratic.
2.) In modern Euro-American society, the word "secular" is perhaps used to convey the sense of "not controlled by church". But this
is so because in modern societies the church controls only the ecclestial activities and a common man is not affected by such activities. Man has freedom to chose whether he should belong to church or not. What is
thus suggested is that "secular" should convey actions "not controlled by particular dogma. In this sense, even the actions or behaviour patterns in the communist World, although concerned with
"this World" only, would be non-secular for they are controlled by the party or the polit bureau of the party. But strictly speaking this would also apply to the behaviour patterns in the so called
"free societies" which are controlled by some social and political prejudices. In some tradition ridden Afro-Asian societies, the case is still more complicated. "Secular" thus should stand for
"free from any".
3.) Right from the ancient times when man was passing through stages of cultural development in different parts of the World, he was in a way subjected
to two kinds of influences. He started discovering some laws of nature and thus developed a scientific attitude. But he also looked at the natural phenomena with awe and wonder and when explanation of these
phenomena was beyond his comprehension he regarded them as superhuman and spiritual leading to what is known as belief, faith and religion. Even today when scientists discover something, their discovery may lead to
progress of science but when they stumble against something, some problem, they remember God. This is how scientists like Einstein fell upon musician God and Eddington, too, thought of "deepwaters". It is
so because the unknown laws of the universe are likely to be far more than the known laws and the man with finite comprehension might not know everything about the cosmos.
4.) Again although we talk of cosmos, our knowledge itself is of two types. One type is concerned with the relations of ideas, and the other, with
matters of fact. By observing a circle and its diameter, we can come to understand the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of that circle and we may also arrive at the conclusion that this ratio is
constant, that it is true for any circle whether big or small. But whether common salt is used or not, in our food recipe will not be known to us unless the food is actually tasted. If we merely depend on the
information given to us, it would only be an information and not knowledge. In this universe there are such matters of fact also, and it is difficult to establish an uniform relation amongst such matters of fact.
Furthermore, although these matters of fact may behave in some uniform way, the scope of such uniformity is limited and the conclusion brought out is subjected to falsification at some point of time and on account
of our limitations of knowledge we fall back on God, the supernatural and the spiritual. Thus what we call non-rational, emotional and belonging to the sphere of wishfulfilment get grouped together and give rise to
man's worldly as well as other-worldly attitudes.
5.) It will be useful here to trace the history of the two words culture and tradition. Tradition is described by the Oxford concise dictionary as
opinions of our belief or customs handed down from ancestors to posterity. Such heritage is usually prized and some kind of value is imposed on it. The traditions in the strict sense are not cultures, codified or
defined. They are, in fact, by-products of culture. But gradually traditions acquire the status of culture in their own right and it is difficult to violate the rules of the established tradition. It may be
worthwile to point out here that most of the founders of religions have not written anything themselves. Whatever goes in their name is lateron inserted or codified from their oral teaching by their disciples. But
such traditions become dogmas of religion. In this World, some of such activity is always going on. Activity is some kind of movement arising on account of our self-consciousness. Movement of things is not called
activity. Some kind of wilfulness or voluntariness always goes with what we call "activity". In fact, one may also be able to say that over the given universe man builds his own universe.
6.) This universe is contingent. That is, the propositions about it are not always true and universal. They vary from situation to situation. Man tries
to build such a universe by using the natural laws as he understands them. What we call human culture and human civilisation are manifestations of such a World. This World is governed both, by the laws of science
and our beliefs which are subject to change from time to time. Even man's formulation of the scientific laws is subject to change for man's formulation of "these laws of science" is governed not by the
natural laws themselves but by man's perception of these natural laws. And what man understands by natural laws and his explanation of the phenomena might be governed not by science but by some kind of magic, totem
or mysticism, imposed on the phenomena by man. In such a case he might bring in the element of supernatural, ghost, spirit etc. For example, if there is a thunderstorm he might think that some demon has created the
phenomena. He is wonderstruck by unusual phenomena and he tried to link it with wonder or something which is super-human. On account of such kind of "wonder", a fear could be generated in his mind and he
could think of appeasing the God by praying to Him or worshipping Him. The guiding principal underlying all this is that man wants his security and safety. Even after death he wants to ensure this safety for his
soul. Different tribes might thus create different Gods or Godheads and if they were on quarrelling terms with each other or one another, they may depict their Gods too as quarrelling among themselves. Where the
scientific explanation failed man tried to substitute it by the so-called religious explanations. As in science he tries to explain these phenomena with the help of causal law, although "this" causal law
is not based on any scientific hypothesis. Events are either simultaneous or are successive. In the case of successive events, an event either precedes or succeeds some other. Man connects these earlier and later
events and the preceding events are called causes and the succeeding events are called effects. He thus prepares a cause-effect chain in the case of events or happenings. In any culture one confines himself to such
causal chains not only in regard to scientific explanations but also in regard to religious ones. In both the cases, the scientific and the religious, the causal law plays an important role. Of course, in one case
there is a proper application of the causal law. In the other, there is a pseudo-application of the same. But any cultural form is a mixture or combination of the both. Adi Shankar has said that anything that
happens in this World is due to the mixture of the true and false (or valueless). Traditions and cultures sprang out of such human behaviour. They take the form of culture and tradition when they come to stay over a
period of time.
7.) But there are not two Worlds, the theocratic and the secular. There is only one World where the theocratic and the secular elements are mixed up in
such a way that it is difficult to, not possible to separate them. For they are the elements of human thought imposed on the phenomena in the World by man in the process of his explanation. In fact, it is the man
alone who has thought of the other World, the heaven or the hell. Again, it is the man alone who has thought of merit or sin, which is so to say, helping him to get a birth in the other World, either after the dooms
day or continuously in a series of birth-death-cycles. And it is man alone who has thought of a state of perpetual calm and eternal happiness, associated with the soul or the self, and which is possible to attain in
this World alone. What we call civilisation (or culture) has all these elements although some elements would be emphasised sometime and some other elements would be emphasised some other time.
8.) In the course of human history, man is struck with a strange phenomenon. The living beings are born, they grow for some time and then they die.
Death is perhaps the strangest, and still the most common phenomenon man has come across. He has also tried to explain this phenomenon in his own way. One such explanation is that although the living being
(particularly human being) looks one, it (or he) as it (or he) consists of two elements, the material body and the other, consisting of what we may call the spirit, soul, self or mind. What we call death is the
separation of these two. Both elements exist (forever) in their own right. This is at the back of Cartesian or Mimamsa dualism. But unless they come together they do not shape what we call an individual.
Nevertheless, philosophers did think that the soul or the spirit, which is a driving force in living beings must also be a driving force even in the
absence of the physical body. This led to all kinds of spiritualism and other Worldliness. Even those religions which do not take shelter under the concept of "rebirth" too, are carried by this kind of
dualism. For the followers of these religions carved out a superior place for what they call spirit and do think that after the "dooms day", wearing another "body" (or the same body with
modifications) these spirits would enjoy better kind of happiness in some other "land", some other World. It means that whether it is mind-body dualism, or ideo-spiritualism it finally takes us to other
Worldliness. A refutation of this attitude or philosophy was attempted by those who propounded the concepts or Nirvana, Moksa or Apavarga or concepts similar to them. Nirvana means blowing out (of candle), it is
extinguishing (of life). Moksa also meant "ceasing" of the (phenomenal) self, by merging into the ultimate One or Brahman. Nagarjuna in his MadhyaMIKA Karika explicitly points out that when he says:
Na Samasarya nirvanat kimcidasti visesanan
Na nirvansya samsarat kimcidast visesanam
Nirvanasya ca ya kotis samsaranasya ca
Na layarantaram kinmcit susuksmamapi vidyata
He clearly gives a verdict against the two Worlds and points out against other-Worldliness. He specifically says that the two Worlds are not the
physical Worlds or a duplex of the physical and spiritual Worlds. They are the two Worlds of attitudes, the Worlds of points of view, of looking at the phenomena of the World. This is, in fact the "this worldly
attitude" without being worldly. This is the concept behind secularism understood properly. And to make an attempt in this direction would mark for me the process of secularisation. Here, there would be no
place for belief, faith, religion or the supernatural. There would be neither heaven nor hell, nor an evil spirit, nor its opposite. Everything would be this Worldly in the sense that every kind of our behaviour
would be governed by reason which would dominate our baser emotions. Everything of our behaviour would belong to this World only.
What is secularisation? It is the process, proceeding in the in the direction of making things secular, that is making people aware that everything
belongs to this World only. We must only learn how we should look at things in this World.
This is also knowing the limitations of the human World. It is knowing that the human world is grafted to the natural world, on account of the
intelligence and will of man. It is also knowing that finally the grafted human world withers away in the natural world. This happens in two stages. It happens on the individual level when man becomes aware of his
ability and knows that he has to return to the same "universe" from which he has taken a leap in this world. But ultimately withering away this is also going to happen some time to the whole human universe
only, and not bother about birth, or life after death and so on.
Traditionally I was born in a Hindu family. But I do not make a distinction between one man and another, on the basis of colour, creed, race, etc. For
me the anthropos is anthropos. And if there is more than one individual belonging to the race of anthropos, the behaviour of the individual, whether factual or normative would be of three types. He would, without
any exception, be governed by these types.
- He would do something for himself.
- He would do something for others.
- He would reciprocally expect something from others.
But in this world ether there is one individual or more he would have to know finally the nature of his relation with the universe as a whole. This
knowledge is that he has to return to the same universe from which he has sprung. To know all these relations has nothing to do with caste, creed or religion. But this is, I believe, known in Indian cultural
tradition as Purusharta. And I also believe that all religious have such a tradition at the background. I therefore feel that all religions to begins were only secular. And it is our ignorance which has transformed
them into something non-secular. This is also at the back of Gandhiji´s concept of Sarva Dharma Samabhava. All religions have the same essence. In fact, to know that all religions have the same essence is to follow the essence of all religions and not one particular religion. This is the basis of secularism understood in a right way. To proceed in the direction of achieving this is the process of secularisation.
The main hurdle in this process is again due to the manifestation of man's own nature. In the process of man's activity of constructing his own world
over the nature, he also develops his own nature in a peculiar way. Where he is not able to explain the natural phenomena in rational way he starts constructing pseudo-arguments regarding its explanations. This he
does in two stages. His explanation takes two forms. Either he starts believing in his own constructed explanation intuitively basing it on some previously observed phenomena and using the concept of causality as
his authority or he starts believing in some such explanation given by some other person or persons believing "in his or their authority". In fact, both these varieties of explanation are basically
scientific in form and are used in scientific method. In our everyday life also we do intuitively come to certain explanations or we do depend upon the explanations given by someone else believing in his authority.
In scientific method both these varieties are known as Pramana or criteria of knowledge. But illegitimate use of such Pramanas does not lead to knowledge but to its opposite. Unfortunately, there is no way to refute
it immediately. When I believe in something the source of my belief is myself. This belief is originated in myself. Such beliefs can be given up on a later consideration. But we also start believing in the belief of
someone else and it is difficult to eject such beliefs. Such beliefs are known by the term "faith". And when these faiths get connected in a certain systematic form the "f" of faith becomes
capital. The faith becomes king faith and takes the form of religion. Although the origin of such king faith or religion is the same as that of knowledge or science, it can take the form which is opposite of
knowledge. But it starts controlling manÆs behaviour. The result is the establishment of culture based on faith. It goes without saying that the tradition of such cultures is determined to secularisation. But it is
also clear that in any process of history it can not be avoided, although it can be repaired from time to time. For what we call culture is grafting over nature, and since what we graft is determined not only by our
knowing capacity but also by our emotions, attitudes and our outlook to synthesise the new and the old, fusion of the rational with the irrational is bound to take place, leading to non-secularisation. But it can be
repaired from time to time, as I said earlier, by introspection and retrospection. Like a Philosopher, a scholar of history and culture should also start with the method of doubt. He has to be sceptical basically.
Otherwise what he knows or tries to know will be polluted by other worldliness.
top
|
