When I Met A Monk

I met a monk recently.  I have always wanted to talk to a monk.  I have heard Monks' discources.  I have been in their presence.  But I have not talked to them.

I got the opportunity recently and having availed of it, found satisfying resonance.

I hope you enjoy this story.

I. Prelude

When I was a young reader in middle school, I read James Hilton's Lost Horizon, a vivid and magical description of Shangri-La nestled inaccessably high among the mountains of Tibet.  It was an enthralling read and has stayed with me all these years.  The signature moment in the story for me is when Conway, the protagonist meets Father Perrault and learns the truth about Shangri-La.

Conway Meets Perrault

Frank Carpa made an Oscar winning movie of this story in 1937.  There is a clip on YouTube that captures this scene (about 2 mins) that is worth watching.  (I have posted the notes of the dilogue at the end of this peice - worth reading!).







I have carried the image of Conway meeting Perrault all this time in my mind's eye.  And while my own meeting with the monk is not equivalent, it carried a special resonance for me for this reason.

II. Backstory

We go way back to the late 1800s. The British Raj was in full swing. The English language was promulgating. Civil Service was being constructed. Railroad tracks were being laid. Sati was being abolished.  Rich Indians were sending their kids to Harrow and Cambridge (Nehru was part of this segment - so was Gandhi!). Western Philosophy was making its way into India . Indian Philosophy was making its way to the west through Germany (Max Muller). Boy, was life was hunky dory.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy

With the western influence, some of the leading Indians of that time, started social reform and religious reform. The Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj were parts of this movement, bringing Indian social mores to a more modern viewpoint, and trying to get rid of superstitious thinking. Calcutta as a prominent intellectual center was leading in these areas.

Youngsters were very influenced by all of the above. Young Narendra Nath, a precocious, energetic, charismatic character was influenced by these modern movements too. He was indeed greatly influenced by the writings of John Stuart Mill.




One day with friends, Narendra Nath goes to a small temple on the outskirts of Calcutta and he meets Ramakrishna, a local priest, illiterate, very much uneducated in western ways and wearing nothing more than a loin cloth. The meeting was rather dramatic.

Ramakrishna says, "ah, you have come. I have been waiting for you"

Narendra Nath is rather taken aback. Cutting through some of the story, Ramakrishna comes up to Narendra Nath and touches him. He goes into a total daze. And for the next week he wanders around not knowing up or down. And his family gets very worried.

Anyway, Narendra Nath gets drawn to this simple looking person and goes into his orbit. Ramakrishna's basic stance is, "I see God. Like, I see God now. So should you." All of Narendra Nath's reason and education rebel against this (he continues to rebel and doubt for years, till Ramakrishna's dying breath).

After Ramakrishna passes away, Narendra Nath takes the name of Vivekananda (the name means, the one who can discriminate between what is real and what is not real). He wanders around India as a mendicant.

Then the Chicago Parliament of Religions is announced and India was not organized enough to select a representative. In his wanderings, Vivekananda meets one of the Kings of India (there were many many Kingdoms at that time in India , before Independence ). And the King, impressed by Vivekananda's erudition and knowledge of Western Philosophy says, that he should go representing India . The year is 1893.


He has no clue how to navigate himself in the US . Somewhere in Chicago he is totally lost. He is sitting on the sidewalk in one of the suburbs in this bright orange garb. One of the women in the suburbs spotting him from the window walks up to him and asks him if he is lost. He explains and she takes him to the conference.

There Vivekananda gives a stunning speech that rockets him to the top of the news. He is in demand everywhere and goes around the US talking about 'the unity of all religions'.

Harvard University offers him a Chair of World Religions. But he explains that he is a mendicant and goes back to India. He starts the Ramakrishna Mission (the HQ is Belu Math - very famed) and dies within a few years. The mission then has grown over time to connect the message of Ramakrishna (hey, God is right here - can't you see?) to the essence of Indian Philosophy called Vedanta (end of knowledge). In fact the Ramakrishna mission is also called Vedanta Society.

Famed western writers like Aldous Huxley and Christopher Isherwood continued to give Vedanta visibility in the West. Academia in the West gave it standing as well with folks like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Prof at Cambridge and the First President of Independent India - 'Idealist View of Life'), Eknath Eswaran and Heinrich Zimmer (whose student was Joseph Campbell).






III.  21st Century Multi-Culturalism and Convtroversy

The wheel then turns and the study of Indian Philosophy gets into the academic currents of feminism and new multi-culturalism etc. Cut to the present and Wendy Doniger at the University of Chicago ( Chicago again!).

She is an ardent feminist and applies modern sociology constructs and twenty first century sensibilities to ancient Indian culture. And thus she sees male chauvinism, vituperative sexual mores in every single Indian text. And has kinda been a lightning rod.

She wrote a book titled "The Hindus: An Alternative History". I wrote a review of the book in Amazon.com that is rated the most useful review.

You can find this review at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BDMXF32OLZ2V/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2BDMXF32OLZ2V

One of her students then proceeds to write about Ramakrishna's sexuality (similar to folks who claim Lincoln was gay). This gets the Ramakrishna Mission concerned.  Rather than declare Jihad (that an Islamist would have), they publish a 200 page rebuttal debunking this book. And since this was a University Published book, the author had to concede the corrections and re-published his book (but refused to specifically acknowledge the rebuttal). And then dropped the avenue of research to find strange sexual mores elsewhere.

The person who wrote this rebuttal, a monk of the order, went onto to publish another book with stunning scholoraship on this subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Ramakrishna-Swami-Tyagananda/dp/8120834992/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297520953&sr=1-1

Professor Clooney of the Harvard Divinity School had the following to say about this new book: "Interpreting Ramakrishna is a substantial and conscientious work of scholarly and religious reflection, the best resource we have for understanding Sri Ramakrishna today. Instigated by recent debates about Ramakrishna’s identity and significance, the book fruitfully invites us to step back and take a much longer perspective, noticing a century’s worth of Ramakrishna scholarship by devotees, monastic writers, and academic scholars. But the book also looks forward to how we — with all our varied interests and perspectives — can most fruitfully reflect on Ramakrishna in the 21st century. We can only thank Swami Tyagananda and Pravrajika Vrajaprana for showing us how to remember, think clearly, and write constructively about Ramakrishna, with an honesty that is critical, unpresuming, and in fact deeply spiritual."

Then in a separate instance, the author of Interpreting Ramakrishna, gave a very interesting speech on the 'Kumbh Mela' - India 's largest festival. He gave a historical, cultural, sociological, economic, religious, spiritual account of this festival that was remarkable for its scope, delivery and erudition.

So I sent him a note complimenting the speech. I also shared with him the poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar (son of American Slaves) titled, "We wear the mask,", which he liked a lot.

He then sent a note back saying, 'Would like to meet'

And I went, "Oh my God, I need some questions!"








IV. Preparation

I reached out to close friends and family and collected a set of questions, that I over several days edited and summarized.

Spiritual
1. What is reality and what is my relationship to it?
2. Who or what is a sthithah prajna? How does one become one?
3. What is the difference between prayer and meditation?
4. How does one know 'atman' exists? What is it?
5. After death, does the 'atman' remain intact or dissipate?

Science / Psychology
6. Is happiness just one more type of information (signal) like pain?
7. How does or doesn't the eon-long evolution of life to its current fleeting moment mesh with the Vedantic view of the development of self?
8. Would it matter to the Vedantic viewpoint if we discovered intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?

Religion
9. What distinguishes the Upanishads from other religious texts?
10. What additional value can one get from being Vedantic over generally being a Hindu?
11. Should a person question a religious dictum or just accept it?

Culture
12. In today's world, with so much fundamentalism abounding, what can a Vedantic approach do to help?
13. What can Westerners in general and Americans in particular learn from the Vedantic approach?

General

14. How does one choose a guru?
15. Can writing a diary be a meaningful ritual?

With these questions prepared, I waited for the day of the meeting and let my mind ruminate, mull and simmer.

V. The Meeting

I was early. I like being early to events. In Coimbatore, when we caught the Jayanthi Janata Express to Vijaywada and then to Hyderabad, we would be at the station 2 hours ahead of time, and there were no security checks even! Being early allows me to feel calm and prepared. And boy did I prepare. After the flurry of questions that all my friends and family helped me with, I had sorted and organized them into categories. I was not sure what questions I was going to ask or even whether I would ask a question. I was not even sure I would be enterntained for more that 5 mins. Maybe it would be a quick bow, and then I would be dispatched.


I rang the bell to the stately house on Commontwealth Avenue. There was a rustling of keys and the big doors opened slowly. And there he stood in front of me. I said brightly, "good morning. How are you?" (aye, aye, aye, aye, aye - I said 'how are you. Maybe I should have bowed silently? In any case I am glad I did not say 'how do you do?" or some worse vernacular).

With a pleasant smile he asked me to enter the well appointed parlour. I took my jacket and shoes off and went into the parlour and sat in a sofa facing him.

He let me go first. And I was NOT about to talk about the weather. But I did not want to ask a question either. I needed permission to ask a question. So I wondered what to do to start the conversation.

I mentioned his recent talk that I was able to listen via podcast. I then asked if there were other talks from the mission that were available as podcasts. He said they were available locally but not coordinated. That gave me a chance to talk about eLearning and how it has allowed interactions to be asynchronous. He acknowledged and cautioned that it was one mode of learning and that in spiritual affairs personal learning and experience was paramount.

He then asked me what I had in mind. I had brought the questions with me, typed neatly on a piece of paper in a full sized envelope. It was right there on the table between us. I decided not to reach for it. Seemed like it might interrupt the flow. Instead I decided to try a new question that fit the conversation better.

"I am suspicious I said. Not racked with doubt but suspcious. That the truth Vedanta asks us to find within ourselves is a slippery slope to solipsism. (Wiki: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.)

Strange Loop

He then explained, "There is no interaction in this world without self-reference. That does not mean it is solipsistic. For example, let us say a tree falls on a house in far away hinterlands of Russia. It is a two sentence byline in the NY Times. But you may or may not feel for the persons affected. At least to the degree that someone you know is impacted.





You might think that you are feeling for somebody. But you are feeling for your own loss. That is self-reference and not solispsism.

The world inside and outside are the same. It is divine. The purpose of spiritual life is to find unity and that is not solipsism. The path to dive deep internally is to find that divinity."

I persisted, "if I were to trust just what is in myself, I would have stayed back withing the four walls of my study. I came over to meet with you because there is sure to be value. And that lies with you and in this interaction and not with me, prior to my meeting you."

He smiled. And then continued, "We take help and we find paths. That is what gets us to the journey. Teachers are needed to show the path. He then talked about the example of Shri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. He then said, one cannot be forced to learn. One has to come to that motivation by oneself. He gave the example of a manager of a company asking people to do things, but even he can only push people so far."

I acknowledged that part by saying that the new management thinking is about empowerment. If employees know what the values of the company are and what the mission is, the most productive one are those who feel empowered.

I thanked him for the answer to the question and asked if I could ask another. He nodded in acknowledgement.

I said that I was worried about indifference and loss of empathy that might ensue if one persists in the path of trying to transcend past good and evil.

He said firmly, "Good is good and evil is evil. Let there be no confusion about that. They may be two sides of the same coin. But good is the path and evil is to be shunned."

I liked this answer, truly. This is what I wanted to hear. This was bothering me a lot. But the answer seemed moral and not philosophically consistent and more importantly not what it seemed to me Vedanta says.




So I asked, " I said that if we took the example of the house in Russia where the tree fell on it, I might as well say hey, people live and die, let me return to my meditation."

He said even more firmly, "The problem we have in society with corruption today is that people are indifferent to good or bad. That is the way to degradation. Spiritual people reach enlightenment through the path of good. Let me give you an example. If you do bad things you will go to jail. There is no choice. Law will put you in jail. There is a penalty. If you do good you might receive a reward. But you are free to reject it."

A light bulb went off in my head. Like the Nobel Prize and famed people who rejected it.

"Yes" he said seeming happy that I got the message.

He then talked about the meaning of the word 'adhikari.' He said, the danger in spiritual life is people asking the wrong question, half hearing what is said, being colored by their own biases or understanding only partially, which was the most dangerous of all.

An adhikari he said is qualified to hear the message. Like a University exam, one needs to pass it to gain access to the study materials.

I nodded with evident pleasure.

I said I wanted to make one more point before potentially asking another question. He was amenable.

(I slipped in two points)

I said that Lincoln advised that we appeal to the better angels of human nature whatever the conflict is. Which affirmed his good vs evil advise. I also said that in Quantum Physics at the microscopic level the observer is part of the experiment and thus there is no inside/outside - it is all the same.

On my second point, he nodded and almost finished that sentence for me. There was a fellow monk who wrote about Physics and Vedanta that got a foreword by Nobel Prize winning Phsyscist Wheeler ( a good read for those who like those two subjects connected).

I asked my final question. We spend our day wearing masks. Commuter, Manager, Spouse, Parent, Neighbor. Finally when we go to bed there is no mask. Is a mask health or not healthy.

He replied, 'in spiritual matters, the key question to ask and always keep in mind is who is behind the mask. You can play all those roles and indeed you need to. But keep in mind that question. Who is behind the mask. If you realize that then your outlook on life will change and the answers to your first two questions will become self-evident. '

I nodded, contemplating his answer.





He continued, 'one should not confuse moral action with spiritual action. One can be an athiest and be very moral. Being moral is good. Being moral is the correct choice over being immoral. However that is not all what being spiritual means. Being spiritual means experiencing the spirit of the divine everywhere.'

I persisted, 'but what is the proof? Perhaps there is empirical evidence. But is there a construct?"

He said, "the examples of great saints is the proof and their message and their compassion. They did not say, take my word for it. They said you should find out for yourself."

"So," he said, "ask yourself who is behind the mask."

I senses that that was going to be his final message to me.

I thanked him for his time and then mentioned the envelope on the table. I explained the exercise I went through with friends, colleagues and family to work up the questions. I then said, it is not like we are demanding answers to these questions. But rather a sign of what is on people's minds with regard to spiritual matters.

He said maybe he will incorporate the answers to these questions in his future talks.

Now that I had collected myself, I had better judgment. Rather than say goodbye, I asked if I could bow to him. He said yes, and I did.

He retreated upstairs and I shut the door behind me and walked out into the bright sunshine and the cold crisp air of Boston filled my lungs.

*****************************



Notes:  Dialogue from The Lost Horizon Between Conway and Perrault (excerpted from Tim Dirks The Greatest Films):

Conway agrees to meet with the all-powerful High Lama ("The High Lama arranges everything").


In a room illuminated by a candle, the back-lit, wise and wizened old High Lama (Sam Jaffe) - [a caricature of the spiritual leader - the Dalai Lama?] introduces himself to Robert Conway - who is immediately startled, from a subjective camera view, to see a crutch for the Belgian monk, and one solitary leg ("It's astonishing and incredible, but...you're the man...You're still alive, Father Perrault!"). He clearly realizes, in multiple reaction shots, that The High Lama and Father Perrault are the same man.

Conway is told that he was actually selected and summoned by Sondra because of his idealistic writings ("she has read your books and has a profound admiration for you"):

You may not know it, but I have been an admirer of yours for a great many years. Oh, not of Conway, the empire builder and public hero. I wanted to meet the Conway who, in one of his books said, 'There are moments in every man's life when he glimpses the eternal.' That Conway seemed to belong here. In fact, it was suggested that someone be sent to bring him here.

Conway confirms his suspicions about an underlying reason for the group's 'kidnapping':

Of course, I have suspected that our being here was no accident. Furthermore, I have a feeling that we're never supposed to leave, but that for the moment, doesn't concern me greatly. I'll meet that when it comes. What particularly interests me at present is, 'Why was I brought here? What possible use can I be to an already thriving community.'

The High Priest describes the pacifistic mission behind Shangri-La and introduces Conway to its mysteries where time has virtually stopped. The younger Conway is amazed by the promise of youthfulness in the alpine Eden. With a world destined to be destroyed by wars, violence, and lust for power and domination, Shangri-La was created as a sanctuary for civilization's rare treasures - ready to step in with "new life" after apocalyptic annihilation:

High Priest: We need men like you here, to be sure that our community will continue to thrive, in return for which Shangri-La has much to give you. You are still, by the world's standards, a youngish man. Yet, in the normal course of existence, you can expect twenty or thirty years of gradually diminishing activity. Here, however, in Shangri-La, by our standards, your life has just begun - and may go on and on.

Conway: Hmm. Of course, to be candid, Father, a prolonged future doesn't excite me. It would have to have a point. I've sometimes doubted whether life itself has any. If that is so, then long life must be even more pointless. No, I'd need a much more definite reason for going on and on.

High Priest: We have reason. It is the entire meaning and purpose of Shangri-La. It came to me in a vision long, long ago. I saw all the nations strengthening, not in wisdom, but in the vulgar passions and the will to destroy. I saw their machine power multiplying until a single weaponed man might match a whole army. I foresaw a time when man exalting in the technique of murder, would rage so hotly over the world, that every book, every treasure would be doomed to destruction. This vision was so vivid and so moving that I determined to gather together all things of beauty and culture that I could and preserve them here against the doom toward which the world is rushing. Look at the world today. Is there anything more pitiful? What madness there is! What blindness! What unintelligent leadership! A scurrying mass of bewildered humanity crashing headlong against each other, compelled by an orgy of greed and brutality. The time must come, my friend, when this orgy will spend itself, when brutality and the lust for power must perish by its own sword. Against that time is why I avoided death and am here and why you were brought here. For when that day comes, the world must begin to look for a new life. And it is our hope that they may find it here. For here, we shall be with their books and their music and a way of life based on one simple rule: Be kind. When that day comes, it is our hope that the brotherly love of Shangri-La will spread throughout the world. Yes, my son, when the strong have devoured each other, the Christian ethic may at last be fulfilled, and the meek shall inherit the Earth. (The High Lama stands, smiling with a broad, toothless grin)

Conway: I understand you, Father.

High Priest: You must come again, my son.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------