Devlok With Devdutt Pattanaik Read online

  Tell us about the word secularism.

  This word originated in America. It means that the state will be separate from religion; that the laws of the state and those of religion will be kept distinct. Earlier, kings were heads of state and were considered to have been chosen by God. But, with the advent of secularism, the rule of the state could no longer be ordained by religion.

  Another definition is respecting and acknowledging all religions and treating them alike. Yet another would be that all religions are problematic and one should keep away from them all—in this, secularism itself becomes like another religion. There is constant debate between these two definitions—is secularism about respecting all religions or being non-religious.

  How would you define the term religion?

  The word religion is merely 100–200 years old. It was primarily used for Christianity, then for Judaism, then Islam. When it came to India, they started using it for Hinduism. It wasn’t used here before that. People would want to know which panth (sect) or sampradaya, parampara (tradition) you were from or what you believed in.

  Religion assumes the existence of God, rules, a messiah. Hindu dharma does not have any of these. The concepts of god, rules, heaven and hell are different in various panths and sampradayas. Some people believe in the gramadevata (village deity) or kuldevata (deity of the clan) but not in a paramatma (supreme god). We have so many varieties, that it’s hard to use the word religion for them all.

  Has India had a tradition of nastikta?

  Yes, it’s a very long tradition, beginning 4000 years ago. If you look back for the origin of the belief in a god who created the universe, such a concept was first mentioned only 2000 years ago by Krishna in the Gita where he says I created the universe.

  The word sanatan means the world has always existed; time and space were always there. We don’t need a god, and there is no god who makes rules. The concept of genesis, that first there was nothing, then God arrived and created the universe, does not exist in Sanatan Dharma. At the most it will be said that when god was asleep, there was no naam (name) or roop (form) in the world; only Devi or prakriti. The definition of creation is very different.

  Broadly, the believers of the Vedas were called astik and those who didn’t were called nastik (Buddhist, Jains, Charvaks). They did not accord importance to the Brahmins; they claimed to be shramans who would seek the truth by themselves. Among the astik Brahmins too a number of groups emerged. Here, darshan or point of view was important. There were those who believed in logical thinking (nyaya), analytical thinking (sankhya), synthesis (yoga), investigation (vedanta), inquiry (mimansa), etc. According to the Uttar Mimansa, you need to just perform yagnas and follow rituals—that is the truth.

  In the Brahma Sutra it is said that the Vedas are apaurusheya. Does that mean they are alaukik (not worldly) or adhyatmic (spiritual)? Rather, it can be said that they are of nature (prakriti) since they are not of purusha (man). So that makes them natural principles. They are without beginning (anadi) or end (anant) because when did nature not exist? According to the Big Bang Theory in science, nothing existed before it—but perhaps they do not know it yet, and will discover it eventually that nature existed before all living beings and will continue to exist after.

  The Puranas speak of the Creator, the Sustainer and the Destroyer. These do not mean creator of the world, but creator of sanskriti, culture. Likewise, preserver and destroyer of sanskriti, never prakriti.

  In India traditions like Purva Mimamsa, Yoga, Sankhya, Buddhism, Jainism don’t give so much importance to the concept of god, so are known as nastik.

  What is Charvak?

  It’s a nastik parampara. Buddhism does not believe in the atma, karma or God, while Jainism believes in the atma, not karma, and has different concepts for God. Charvak does not believe in the atma, God or karma. That which I cannot see or experience, I do not believe in. Only that which I can experience is real, true. This is known as bhautik-vaad or laukik-vaad—materiality or emphasis on the physical world. What is alaukik, non-material, like karma, cannot be measured, and so I cannot believe in it. Charvak is a big parampara in India, but you can’t always identify it because it’s not a religious school or sampradaya.

  In the Ramayana, when Bharata goes to meet Rama in the Chitrakoot forest, he is accompanied by a Charvak called Jabali. Bharata tries to persuade Rama to return to Ayodhya and become king, but Rama refuses, saying he cannot renege on the promise he made to his father. Then Jabali attempts to counter each of Rama’s reasons for not returning. He asks Rama, ‘Isn’t it silly to sacrifice worldly life and live in penury just to fulfil dharma?’ When Rama asks what will he say to Yama after his death, Jabali responds, ‘Why do you lose the present for what you don’t know will happen after you die? What about your responsibility to Ayodhya and its people?’ Rama says, ‘I want my father’s soul to rest in peace and him to be reborn.’ Jabali says, ‘Who has ever seen the soul? When and how does rebirth happen? Does it even happen?’ Rama insists, ‘If I don’t respect my father, I’ll be known as the biggest adharmi.’ Jabali replies, ‘Man’s most significant relationship is with himself. He enters and departs from this world alone. Why do you suffer for someone else’s promise? This, now, is the only moment that counts.’ Rama is surprised at Jabali’s logic and says, ‘If I were to listen to you, I’d definitely go to Naraka [underworld].’ Jabali says, ‘There’s nothing beyond this universe. Give importance to what you see; don’t waste your intelligence on things outside of that.’ Jabali’s argument is that there’s no soul and no rebirth, so there is no call to torture oneself with these thoughts. What he tells Rama is very practical.

  But, according to the astik concept, truth is not merely that which you experience or feel through your senses (indriyan). There’s something beyond. For instance, karma is the belief in cause and consequence. Just our experiences do not make up the world. Many things happen which we can neither control nor understand—we can only believe in them. This belief is astikta.

  The conversation between Rama and Jabali is a dialogue between astikta and nastikta.

  Are Jains also nastik?

  The word nastik is often seen as negative to mean that the person does not believe in anything—vishwas-heen. That’s not correct. Jainism believes in the atma. Their concept of god is different. God is a perfect being—the Tirthankaras who have found Truth and are in Siddha-loka (the realized world). They are free of karma, their ties to the physical world and they can teach you how to achieve mukti, freedom from this world. So the concept of god here is that of a teacher, one who teaches kaivalya gyan, how to attain liberation, not one who creates the universe.

  Those who show you the right path . . .

  Not the ‘right’ path, but the sanatan path—a path which has always been there. You are lost and need to be brought back on it. There’s no right or wrong here. If it’s not in your karma, you will not find this road now, but after ten births—what’s the hurry, the road will remain where it has always been!

  Buddhism believes in neither god nor atma, because everything is destructible; it has the concept of unatma. Buddha was once asked about God and how the world was created, to which he gave an illuminating answer. He said, ‘If you were shot with a poisoned arrow, would you go looking for the attacker or for a doctor to heal you of the poison spreading in your body? I am the doctor. I am talking of removing the poison that sorrow is. I am giving you a path to relieve you of this sorrow-filled life.’

  So, Buddha wasn’t interested in theological questions; his focus was practical.

  Are you astik or nastik?

  In times of sorrow, I am astik, and when things are going well, I become nastik.

  In these modern times, people say many different things about their beliefs. What should one ideally follow?

  I think people should follow their own system of beliefs, whatever it may be—astik, nastik, secular, religious, spiritual. But also respect everyone for their beliefs. Why control anyo