Dharm Aur Buddhi - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Dharm aur Buddhi" by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

The text "Dharm aur Buddhi" (Religion and Intellect) by Sukhlal Sanghavi argues for an inherent compatibility and, indeed, a necessary relationship between religion and intellect, challenging the perceived conflict between them.

Key Arguments and Observations:

Intellect as the Originator and Sustainer of Religion: The author asserts that historically, no thinker has ever claimed religion originates or develops from anything other than intellect. Every religious sect's history points to its origin or purification by an intelligent individual. Religious leaders and scholars often take pride in demonstrating that their religion is supported by intellect, logic, reasoning, and experience. Therefore, intellect is the producer, modifier, sustainer, and propagator of religion.
The Apparent Conflict and Its Causes: Despite this foundational role of intellect, the history of religions, including those in India (Arya Dharma) and in Europe (Christianity, Islam), shows a consistent conflict and struggle between religion and intellect. When intellect begins its work, it often raises doubts, objections, and logically reasoned questions within religious discourse. Surprisingly, religious leaders and scholars often oppose, rather than respect, this rational inquiry. Their resistance suggests a fear that if logic, doubt, and reasoning are allowed, religion will cease to exist or will become corrupted. This perception of conflict leads to the natural question: Is there a conflict between religion and intellect?
The Author's Stance: No Inherent Conflict: Sanghavi firmly states that there is no conflict between religion and intellect, nor can there be. If a religion truly opposes intellect, then, in his view, there is no need to engage with such a religion; life can be happier and more developed by not embracing it.
Two Forms of Religion: The text distinguishes between two aspects of religion:
1. Inner Purity (Jeevan-shuddhi): This involves qualities like forgiveness, humility, truthfulness, and contentment.
2. External Conduct (Bahya Vyavahar): This includes practices like bathing rituals, applying tilak, idol worship, pilgrimages, respecting gurus, and self-mortification.
The Conflict Arises from Misinterpretation and Externalism: The conflict arises when individuals, even those professing a religious path, sometimes resort to violence or partisanship in the name of protecting their religion, despite valuing non-violence. Similarly, advocates of truth might resort to falsehood to protect truth, and those who preach contentment might justify the need for possessions to support their religion. This leads intelligent individuals to question how religious purity can be achieved through actions considered irreligious, like violence.

The author highlights another source of conflict: religious leaders often emphasize external rituals and practices as the sole representation of religion, neglecting inner purity. They claim that religion will be lost without specific external behaviors, languages, and attire. When intelligent people question the connection between these temporary and often inconsistent external behaviors and true religion, religious leaders become fearful. They fear that these questioners, driven by pure intellect, might declare the established practices as irreligious. This fear makes religious leaders see such thinkers as opponents of religion.
The Cycle of Fear and Opposition: This fear in religious leaders leads to a situation where, instead of explaining the fundamental, unchanging aspect of inner purity with thorough analysis, they heavily emphasize external practices, declaring them to be eternally binding. This can frustrate the intelligent class, leading them to dismiss the religion as mere pretense or deception. The gap between religious preachers and rational, intelligent people widens, leaving religion dependent on blind faith, ignorance, or superstition, thus appearing to be in opposition to intellect and its associated qualities.
Examples from History:
- Europe (Christianity): The author notes that Christianity initially resisted the birth of science. When this resistance led to the decline of religion, its proponents shifted their focus to areas where they could practice religion without hindering science. This allowed science to develop unhindered, eventually leading to the separation of religion from social and political spheres in Europe.
- Islam and Hinduism: The text contrasts this with Islam and Hinduism, stating that Islamic doctrine is more apprehensive of intellect and rationalism. It suggests that this might be why Islam hasn't produced many great spiritual figures and has imposed social and political restrictions on its followers, despite its origins being rooted in freedom. Similarly, various branches of Hinduism (Vedic, Buddhist, Jain) claim freedom but their followers are often enslaved in many aspects of life. This situation is increasingly troubling to thinkers.
Modern Youth and the Conflict: The author observes that the modern youth, having studied politics, sociology, theology, logic, history, and science, are developing independent thoughts and expressing them fearlessly. However, many religious leaders and scholars remain ignorant of these new fields and are stuck in their old, superstitious, narrow, and fearful ideas. When youth express their independent thoughts, these "religious professionals" become agitated, claiming that knowledge and thought have initiated the downfall of religion.
A Specific Jain Example: The text cites a recent incident in Ahmedabad where a graduate lawyer, a fearless thinker, expressed his views on the practical aspects of religion. This caused an uproar among religious leaders, who debated the appropriate punishment for him – one that would be non-violent yet more severe than violence, to deter future critical examination of religious topics. The author concludes that such past and present events in Jain society demonstrate a widespread perception that religion and thought are opposed.
Challenging Religious Leaders: The author directly questions religious authorities, asking if they consider the fundamental and practical aspects of religion to be identical and if they can prove the practical form to be unchangeable. He argues that if the practical form of religion changes (as it should), then a thoughtful individual expressing their views should not be opposed. No thinker disrespects fundamental religious principles like truth and non-violence; they often admire and advocate for them. Criticisms and suggestions for modification are usually related to the practical form of religion, aimed at enhancing its utility and prestige. Accusing such thinkers of destroying religion, therefore, reveals either a misunderstanding of religion's true nature and history or a deliberate, self-serving effort.
The Flaw in Followers and the Fear of Change: Sanghavi points out that a large section of followers, including many monks, are incapable of proper analysis and balanced judgment. Narrow-minded monks and their followers exploit this by collectively declaring that someone has destroyed religion. This pushes well-meaning people deeper into ignorance. Instead, the author believes, thinkers who present new perspectives should be respected, and freedom of thought should be encouraged. The suppression of such voices stems from two underlying issues:
1. Inability to Understand and Correct: The inability of religious leaders to understand radical ideas and demonstrate their flaws.
2. Fear of Losing Comfort: The fear that their comfortable, unearned lifestyle, built on inaction, will be disrupted.
The Real Reason for Opposition: The author probes further, questioning why religious leaders, if capable of understanding a thinker's errors, cannot present counter-arguments with greater force. Why don't they use the just means of providing proper responses to neutralize the influence of flawed ideas? Instead of protecting religion, they are perpetuating ignorance and irreligious tendencies within themselves and society. Sanghavi believes the root cause is the long-standing habit of enjoying the fruits of others' hard labor while sitting on comfortable cushions without performing their own demanding physical or mentally accountable work. This comfortable lifestyle leads to such ridiculous behavior. Otherwise, these proponents of pleasure and knowledge-worship would respect learning, science, and freedom of thought, and would generously engage with thoughtful youth, correct their errors, appreciate their abilities, and take pride in the Jain community that produces such individuals.
Conclusion: An Inevitable and Necessary Relationship: The author concludes by stating that a reaction has begun on both sides. One side asserts a conflict between religion and thought, while the other has the opportunity to prove the necessity of freedom of thought. He stresses that human existence is meaningless without freedom of thought. Ultimately, there is no conflict between thought and religion; rather, there is a mutually essential connection.

The text, published in August 1966, reflects a critical and progressive view of religion's role in society, advocating for intellectual engagement and reform rather than rigid adherence to tradition.