Dharm Aur Buddhi

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text "Dharm aur Buddhi" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on its key arguments and observations:

The text explores the relationship between religion (Dharm) and intellect/reason (Buddhi), arguing that while intellect is crucial for the origin, development, purification, and propagation of religion, a historical and ongoing conflict often exists between religious authorities and intellectual inquiry.

Key Arguments and Observations:

• Intellect as the Foundation of Religion: The author begins by stating that no thinker has ever suggested that religion can originate or develop without intellect. The history of every religious sect points to wise individuals as its founders or purifiers. Religious leaders and scholars often take pride in claiming their religion is proven by intellect, logic, contemplation, and experience. Therefore, intellect is identified as the producer, refiner, supporter, and propagator of religion.

• The Paradox of Conflict: Despite intellect's foundational role, a persistent opposition and conflict between religion and intellect is observed throughout history, not only in Indian religions but also in Western religions like Christianity and Islam. When intellect begins its work, it often raises many doubts, counter-doubts, and argumentative questions within religion. Surprisingly, religious leaders and scholars tend to oppose this rational thought and inquiry rather than respecting it. This opposition suggests a fear that if logic, doubt, and contemplation are allowed, religion's existence itself might be threatened or it might become distorted.

• The Core Question: Is There Conflict? The observed conflict naturally leads to the question of whether religion and intellect are inherently opposed. The author's concise answer is that there is no inherent conflict, nor can there be. If such opposition is truly acknowledged in a religion, the author suggests, then that religion, being anti-intellect, is not worth pursuing, and one can live a happier and more developed life by not adopting it.

• Two Forms of Religion: The text distinguishes between two forms of religion:

  1. Internal Purity of Life (Jivan Shuddhi): This includes virtues like forgiveness, humility, truthfulness, contentment, etc.
  2. External Practices (Bahya Vyavahar): This encompasses rituals like bathing, applying tilak, idol worship, pilgrimages, respecting gurus, physical austerity, etc.

• Conflict Arises from External Practices: The conflict arises when individuals who desire "sattvic" (pure) religion, while advocating for non-violence (ahimsa), might justify violence for its protection. Similarly, a proponent of truth might resort to untruth for its preservation, and one who preaches contentment might advocate for accumulation of wealth for religious support.

  • The intelligent mind questions how these apparent "adharma" (unrighteousness) like violence can protect or strengthen the religion of life purity.
  • Furthermore, when religious leaders and scholars overemphasize external rituals as the sole essence of religion, neglecting life purity, and declare that religion will cease to exist without these specific customs, language, and attire, the intelligent class questions the true connection between these temporary and often inconsistent external behaviors and the true nature of religion.

• Fear and Misinterpretation by Religious Authorities: The author suggests that when the intelligent question these external practices, religious leaders and scholars develop a fear. They perceive these questioners as not being truly religious but as mere logic-driven individuals who label the accepted religious practices as irreligious. This fear leads them to believe that if logic and doubt are allowed, their established practices, which they equate with religion, will crumble. In their view, these thinkers are seen as enemies or opponents of religion because they could lead to a state where neither true religion (life purity) nor the superficially accepted religion (external practices) can survive.

• The Cycle of Conflict and Superficiality: This fear leads to a conflict where religious leaders, instead of explaining the profound and lasting aspect of life purity, emphasize external practices as eternally valid. This overemphasis often alienates the intelligent, leading them to dismiss the religion of these leaders as mere hypocrisy or deception. The gap and opposition between religious preachers and rational intellectuals widen, leaving religion reliant on blind faith, ignorance, or superstition, thus creating an apparent opposition between intellect and religion.

• Case Studies: Europe and Islam/Hinduism:

  • Europe (Christianity): The history of Europe shows that science was initially resisted by Christianity. Eventually, seeing the complete destruction of religion due to this resistance, religious proponents shifted their focus to areas where they could perform religious duties without obstructing scientific progress. Scientists also gained an unimpeded domain for their development. A significant consequence was the withdrawal of religion from social and political spheres, leaving these institutions to evolve based on their own merits and demerits.
  • Islam and Hinduism: In contrast, Islamic and various Hindu religions (Vedic, Buddhist, Jain) are seen as more apprehensive of intellect and logic. The author suggests that Islam, perhaps due to this, hasn't produced a great universal reformer and, despite its origin in freedom, has bound its followers with social and political restrictions. Hindu religions, while claiming to offer freedom, find their followers enslaved in all aspects of life. This situation is disturbing to thinkers, who believe that as long as religion is perceived as opposed to intellect, it cannot benefit anyone. This sentiment is identified as a primary characteristic of the "mental revolution" of today's youth.

• The Rise of Independent Youth: The widespread study and contemplation of subjects like politics, sociology, theology, logic, history, and science have led to intellectual freedom and fearless expression among the youth. Religious leaders and scholars, often lacking familiarity with these new disciplines, remain confined to their old, superstitious, narrow, and timid ideas. When young people express their independent thoughts, religious figures become agitated, claiming that knowledge and thought have initiated the destruction of religion.

• Jain Society Example: A recent incident in Ahmedabad is cited, where a graduate lawyer, a fearless thinker of the middle class, expressed some ideas on the practical aspects of religion. This triggered a strong reaction from religious leaders, who debated how to punish him and set an example to deter future independent religious critique. Such incidents, past and present, reinforce the perception that religion and thought are in opposition.

• Deeper Analysis and Questions to Religious Authorities: The author probes deeper, asking religious leaders:

  • Do they consider the fundamental and practical aspects of religion to be identical?
  • Can they prove that the practical form or framework of religion is unchangeable?
  • If the framework of practical religion changes (and it should), why should a contemplative thinker's opinion on this change be objectionable?

• The Object of Criticism is the Practical, Not the Fundamental: The author asserts that no thinker disrespects the fundamental principles of religion like truth, non-violence, and contentment. In fact, they often advocate for their confirmation, development, and utility. Any criticism or suggestion for alteration is directed at the practical aspects of religion, with the aim of enhancing its utility and prestige. Accusing such a thinker of destroying religion, or opposing them, only proves that either the religious leaders do not understand the true nature and history of religion, or they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

• Inability of Many Followers and the Role of Fear: A significant portion of both lay followers and even renunciates (sadhus) are incapable of proper analysis or balanced judgment. Narrow-minded sadhus and their followers exploit this, exclaiming that someone has destroyed religion by making certain statements. This plunges the innocent masses deeper into ignorance.

• The True Need and the Author's Diagnosis of Resistance: The author believes that instead of stifling dissenting voices, thinkers who present new perspectives should be welcomed with genuine respect to encourage freedom of thought. The attempts to silence them are attributed to two main factors:

  1. Inability to Understand and Correct Extreme Views: Religious leaders are unable to understand and point out the errors in challenging ideas.
  2. Fear of Losing Comfortable Indolence: They fear that challenging these views would require effort, disrupting their comfortable, sedentary lifestyle based on inaction.

• The True Path vs. The Current Behavior: If thinkers' ideas are partially or wholly incorrect, surely religious leaders can recognize it. If they can, why can't they decisively refute the errors with strong arguments? Why don't they use the just method of providing proper answers to counter the influence of such ideas? Why do they, under the guise of protecting religion, foster ignorance and unrighteousness within themselves and society? The author concludes that the long-ingrained habit of enjoying the fruits of others' strenuous labor while sitting on comfortable cushions, without engaging in physical or accountable work, leads religious leaders to such contemptible behavior. If this were not the case, these proponents of pleasure and worship of knowledge would respect learning, science, and freedom of thought, engage with young thinkers generously, correct their intellectual flaws, and take pride in a society that produces such individuals.

• The Inevitable Reaction and the Necessity of Freedom of Thought: The author notes that a reaction has begun from both sides. One side asserts that religion and thought are opposed, while the other side has the opportunity to prove that freedom of thought is essential. It is crucial to understand that without freedom of thought, human existence is meaningless. The author reiterates that there is no opposition between thought and religion, but rather a mutually essential connection.