Be Kind and Serve Vaishnavas.
[By SJ. NARAYANADAS ADHIKARI. M.A., BHAKTISUDHAKAR. July 1929]
THE teachings of Lord Chaitanya make the following the sine qua non of spiritual life, viz., to have an inclination for the Holy Name, to be kind to Jivas, to serve the Vaishnavas.
In this iron age, Krishna chooses to appear in this world in the form of the Holy Name. To recite the Holy Name without offence is the only permitted way of serving the Supreme Lord in this sinful Age. To attain this is the ultimate object of human life.
In order to qualify for and continue in the state of grace in which the chanting of the Name without offence is possible it is necessary to be both kind to all animate beings and to serve the devotees of the lord. Sri Chaitanya insists that the shastras enjoin us to serve no one who does not serve the Lord. The shastras recognise no community of unbelievers. The word 'service' is therein deliberately reserved to denote the relationship with the devotees alone. It is necessary and obligatory on all animate beings to serve the Vaishnavas and them only.
The idea of service that prevails in non-vaishnava communities is rendered to the material cases of body and mind in which the jiva is incarcerated in the state of sin. As a matter of fact the mind and body can be served only by mind and body and not by the soul. The mind and body are, however, without the power of initiative. It is the soul that serves the body and mind under the mistaken notion that they are identical with himself. It is, however, impossible for the soul to serve the material cases even while under such self-delusion. What he really does in such a case is to require the cases of others to serve his own cases. The soul only confounds himself with the material cases when he is really averse to serve at all as he can he serve only the soul. As soon as he desires to receive the service of other souls then the delusion of being master in his own right overpowers his judgment and makes him lose the function of service and have that of enjoyment in its stead. In the realm of the spirit there is no enjoyment for the individual souls there being only the Enjoyer, viz., the Supreme Lord Himself to Whom all services are rendered. In the spiritual realm no individual soul misappropriates any service for his own personal enjoyment. This is the only and natural constitution of the real spiritual community. The soul has nothing to do in the matter of service with a community of sinful jivas which is based on the principle of selfish material enjoyment sometimes passing under the name of service. The Vaishnavas can only feel sorrow for the plight of fallen souls and try to reclaim them from the self elected state of sinfulness. They cannot serve a fallen soul as the latter wants only enjoyment and not service, the relationship, whatever it is, being mutual.
The spiritual function taught by Sri Chaitanya on the authority of the scriptures should not be confounded with duties in the current ethical senses. If we are inclined to enjoy objects which are on the plane of the material cases in which we may happen to be incarcerated we run the risk of prolonging the painful delusion that our souls are identical with the body and mind. This is a suicidal folly. The dereliction of so called ethical duties is punished by physical and mental inconveniences that obstruct our freedom of material enjoyments and serves a useful purpose if it makes us understand the justice and beneficent purpose of what appears to be a retributive principle which should be impossible in all-merciful Providence. But such reaction is rare and would hardly be recognised as ethical. The sinner ordinarily tries to avoid the inconveniences by being more careful in the choice of enjoyment for the future. This leaves him substantially in the same position as before. The dereliction of spiritual duty is punished by an increase of worldliness or attachment to the material cases which are mistaken for the soul. This deadens the spiritual instinct still further. This is not perfectly intelligible as long as one remains subject to the worldly or apparent self. The worldling indeed, finds nothing to object to, and much to praise, in the conduct of the worldling. Nay, the confirmed worldling is also necessarily a confirmed opponent of spiritual life. The so called dutiful worldling is only under a double delusion. The word duty which belongs to the technical vocabulary of empiric ethics does not, therefore, really apply to those spiritual functions the necessity of which is emphasised by Sri Chaitanyadeva.
The worldling, indeed, finds an infinite number of duties to be performed in this world. These duties are sometimes comprehensively and euphemistically styled "service of humanity." To minister to the wants of the body and mind is, according to ethical science, the paramount and only duty that we owe to ourselves and other fellow beings. That conduct which does not serve, or actually obstructs this purpose is branded as bad. The decision lies with the mind. Of course the mind has its thousand and one considerations by which it pretends to seek to establish the real necessity and wisdom of following a particular course. But these considerations themselves are always subordinate to the above purpose. In its attempt to formulate a basis for its conduct that will stand the test of reason the mind is reduced to the necessity of declaring that no definite basis exists merely in order to avoid a straightforward confession of its thraldom to the body. This means the abandonment of impartial and all-round consideration in favour of a foregone conclusion which is the product of an irrational instinct, viz., the desire for sensuous gratification.
But the insincere and irrational science of empiric ethics although it is compelled, in however roundabout a way, to confess its failure to find a basis in reason for its conclusions, still continues shamelessly to proclaim itself as the only rational regulator of human conduct. As a matter of fact, under the colour of regulating it only tries to persuade us to follow the natural bent of the mind to pander to the body by adopting the ideal of seeking to adjust the mind and body their surroundings under pressure that admits of no action. There is really no 'ought' in the matter at all. It is taken for granted as self-evident that the body and mind have a right to live and function at their own sweet will as long as and comfortably as possible. But the body is sure to grow old and decrepit and die, The mind is subject to decay and is liable to perish with the body so far as this is ascertainable by itself. According to empiric science the mind cannot actively exist, or in other words, be alive, except in the living body.
Thus our so-called duties, according to the principle of empiric ethics, reduce themselves to no more than this, viz., to follow the natural inclinations of the body in such way that the body may thereby be enabled to enjoy the most vigorous and all-round existence for the longest space of time; and also to help others to do the same. But the latter is not really compatible with the former, in spite of all the ingenuity that has been displayed to explain away the incongruity and gild the pill.
The attempt to live for the biological purpose of accumulating worldly facilities for the body is sure to lead to social and moral disaster. The biological interests of one individual are not identical with those of another individual. The struggle for existence is really a fight of each individual against every other individual in order to live well at the expense of others. But the attempt carries its own punishment. The individual cannot continue to thrive unless other individuals are also prosperous. This is the insoluble vicious circle. This is only as it should be. The defects of a conclusion that is not proven nor provable can never be avoided in the long run.
The result has been that even the cleverest of ethical persons finds it convenient only to profess a lip homage to the vague principles of biological ethics as their contrived vagueness frees him from submitting to any principle except the dictates of the interest of the physical body. Charity, says the biological proverb, begins at home. It should have been added that it also ends there. Charity to one's own body is elastic enough to monopolise easily the whole of one's conduct. It has always the first as well as the last claim on its votaries. The occasion to consider the claims of the second and third persons does indeed always arise but always as auxiliaries of the first person singular number. Empiric altruism is sheer hypocrisy from beginning to end.
So everybody who professes to follow the principles of empiric ethics, either biological or casuistical, only lives into the body and mind, which are really one, which he or she is pleased to call the soul this predominance of the pseudo-self is inevitable and natural in this world and does not require to be taught. The body and mind have their natural but unappeasable wants. The wants themselves are of a hopelessly conflicting nature. It is impossible to harmonise the demands of the body and mind except by always refusing to gratify them either wholly or partially. Nay even this imperfect satisfaction of these wants becomes increasingly impossible by the very effort to follow the recommendations of empiric ethics.
The philanthropists and all those who advocate the cult of the 'service' of humanity are being converted by the stern logic of facts to the creed of the economists which favours the uncompromising biological ideal. Today in all civilized countries all weighty issues are practically decided almost solely by the economic test. This is as it should be if we really want to follow the natural dictates of the body to their logical conclusion.
Charity in all its forms is condemned on principle by the economic science on biological grounds. The economists oppose all unproductive expenditure. Their ideal strictly limits the individual to the fruits of his or her own personal industry. Even charity to the disabled is regarded as a necessary evil and drain on the resources of industry. The so-called relief that is provided for the unemployed is so arranged as to be made to pay itself as much as possible. The self-supporting and self-sufficient principle of the unit is advocated in every sphere of human relationship as the ideal of perfect living.
This biological brand of the 'service' of humanity favoured by modern charity is a by-product of the 'Service' of one’s own body. The incompatibility of communal and individual interests is avoided by making the latter supreme. Selfishness is ever incompatible with charity.
I don't deny the validity of the conclusions of economic and biological sciences. They are certainly true in the limited sense. They moreover serve the useful purpose of exposing clearly the hypocrisy of the claims of the whole race of sentimental humanitarians who pose as agencies for correcting the errors of a merciless providence by their own superior clemency. But these sciences fall into the opposite error when they deny the necessity of the very principle of charity through correct apprehension of its inevitable abuse in the hands of sinful humanity. Those exact sciences are disposed to regard, not without very cogent reasons, the results of the abuse of the principle of charity with even greater alarm than those of undiluted selfishness which they themselves advocate for this reason.
If an unproductive, or merely consuming person, says the economic science, is encouraged to lead a life of ease and comfort which is the proper and safe reward of the productive individual, both parties to such a policy, viz., the helper as well as the helped, are bound to come to grief in the long run. Only the potentially productive person may be helped, to a strictly limited and tentative extent, without producing far-reaching bad economic consequences which are bound to undermine the basis of material well-being. The humanitarian of the sensuous sentimental school replies with equally limited and equally misleading argument that the consequence of total abstinence from helping, or segregating, those who are economically mischievous members of society, are not likely to be less fatal to general material well-being.
Those apparently well meaning people, who after hearing both sides and realising the validity of their respective contention, try to medicate between the hostile schools by devising the path of the 'golden mean', find themselves reduced to the unenviable position of Hobson, as this third alternative only creates a fresh source of evil without diminishing the prospect of mischief threatened by the other two already existing.
