Neo-Humanism: February 2006 Archives

At the very outset let me state that many theories have been propounded on this earth. Some of them survived for some time and then gradually passed out of existence; others emerged like meteors, exhibiting their dazzling radiance for a very short time, and then vanished into darkness. The mere existence of a theory is not the essential point; what is important is whether the theory promoted the welfare of all, the spiritual well-being of all -- otherwise its advent on this earth was quite useless. Such useless theories are not even worth mentioning.

Any theory will contain the seed of well-being if its firm foundation is sama-sama'ja tattva [principle of social equality]. It may survive for a very long period -- even for eternity - if it cherishes the ideal of forever promoting the welfare of all. This is the essential point.

I have already said several times, and I repeat, that while moving towards the inner world, human beings have to maintain equilibrium and equipoise in the external world. If some declare that "Brahma satyam' jaganmithya'" ["Only Supreme Consciousness is real and the world is false"], they will not be able to do anything in this "false" world. They are simply deceiving themselves - it is a sign of hypocrisy. An honest person should never resort to hypocrisy in any sphere of life; under no circumstances must he or she compromise with any unjust theory. This is the rule; this is correct. Propriety dictates this.

In this fight for independence, the Indian leaders committed a blunder. they should have engaged themselves in an economic fight instead of starting a political movement. The British took advantage of this blunder of the Indian leaders. They got the opportunity to divide India into two parts. They infused in the Muslims the idea that the Hindus formed the majority, and that therefore if the British quit India the government would naturally go into the hands of the Hindus, and the Muslims of the whole of India would remain as their subjects.

This shrewd policy yielded good results. A Hindu phobia grew among the Muslims. The Muslim leaders began to propagate this Hindu phobia at the top of their voices, and as a result of this anti-Hindu sentiment created out of Hindu phobia, a Muslim nation was again born in India in this twentieth century. Directed by this Hindu phobia, they demanded a separate homeland for the Muslim nation. It was not possible for the Hindus to resist this demand for a separate homeland, because at that time no nation which could be termed a Hindu nation was formed in India.

The next image of the future which is increasingly gaining adherents is that of global collapse. This image is constituted in various discourses. The first is the economic. In this perspective, the world economic system's inability to deal with increasing levels of inequity (within nations and between nations), the international debt load, and rising speculation in the global stock markets will lead to a global collapse of epic proportions. Areas integrated into the world capitalist system will be particularly hard hit; those areas that are self-reliant will manage, though. This image is also constituted in the language of the return of the Vengeful God. Because Man has tampered with nature (through technological development--genetic engineering, space exploration, overindustrialization), nature is now striking back--we can't escape our collective karma. What will result is environmental catastrophes such as the Greenhouse effect, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns, water shortages, and other wonderful things one can ponder while one falls asleep at night. Religious groups, in particular, are eagerly awaiting this event, or series of events. For many it is the Armageddon, the return of Christ, the Madhi, or Amita Buddha. It is the collapse of the hope and promise of the science and technology revolution, of the rationality of the enlightenment, and of liberal democracy. While some imagine this collapse as leading to the arrival of heaven on earth, most see this world as that of the rise of the worst of humans, a post-nuclear society ruled by the mighty.

While the vision above presents Sarkar's thinking, it does not place it in the context of other images of the future. By placing Sarkar's vision in the context of other images we will better be able compare his thought. We use as our points of comparison, the images developed by futurist James Dator.³²