Why Yoga

IDEALISM AND REALISM

In essence, what is this idealism which is so often referred to as some vague thinking related to Utopian ideas? Is it an unusual phenomenon or has it some substance? Idealism merely tries to represent things and facts in an ideal form—as they ought to be—according to either an individual or a group. Realism on the other hand permits neither vagueness nor imagination; it insists on regarding things for what they are, i.e., in their true nature and, further, in dealing with them accordingly. Have these two any common ground for recognizing things and facts as universals? Or is it only their treatment of these which happens to differ due to differences in motivations, values and attitudes?

When idealism and realism assert their own peculiar identities, we become conscious of three distinct presentations, inversely different. These presentations can be classified as (i) idealism and realism, (ii) idealism vs. realism and (iii) idealism-cum-realism. When the two run parallel to each other without meeting, they may be treated as idealism and realism. When however the two are antagonistic, they represent idealism vs. realism. When there is neither parallelism nor antagonism between the two, there is a state of equilibration (samatvam) which can harmonize and correlate the two, and the facts and things are no more allowed to remain parallel or antagonistic.

Unlike the savage who lives entirely at the level of existential realism, the average man having evolved with the aid of will and reason moves from perceptual realism to conceptual idealism. Swaying between the two, whenever he happens to consult his head exclusively, he favours idealism; at a lower level when he accepts the dictates of his heart alone, he remains torn between idealism and realism and succumbs to the crisis-reflex; but when he prefers to consult his stomach first before anything else, he lives at the level of animal reflex being subject to existential needs and environs. An average man therefore is an unpredictable entity whose impact on the society is equally unpredictable. Both idealism and realism thus coexist giving rise to untold complexities, and the human society suffers because no lasting solution to reconcile the two has yet become acceptable by all.

It is also a matter of daily experience that the stress of idealism and realism affecting man gives rise to opportunism when the individuals and groups resort to either one or the other as suits their interests. Without faith or loyalty to either, their strange psychological behaviourism contributes to duplicity, hypocrisy and a multitude of similar depravities. When the gap between idealism and realism is obviously very wide, the average man loses faith in universal values and plays false by being insincere. Efforts to cure these ills of humanity by closing the gap between idealism and realism through religion, economics, sociology, politics, etc. have so far yielded poor dividends.

Religion preaches universal love, non-injury, truth and all the good things, but the very followers and teachers of religion often act diametrically opposite. Politics recognizes equality but no politician likes to be considered an equal. As a patriot he is a flop except as a speech maker. When he talks of peace, one can be sure he is about to declare a war. The sociologist who elucidates humanism has many reservations about its application when race, religion and other considerations arise. None appear to be sincere and it can be truly said that humanity lives by deception, sophistication, diplomacy and pretence.

The existence of idealism and realism is a fact of history, and humanity has treated them both at their face value. Intolerance and impatience goaded each to eliminate the other when conflicts arose, but the majority rooted in realism always gained the upper hand despite truth or justice being on the other side. This crux of duality has its own tacit impact on an individual. An average man thus has more respect for realism than idealism because the former affects him directly and compulsively—something which he cannot by-pass. Idealism on the other hand operates invisibly, is expendable and can be kept in cold storage—without being exposed.

Yoga assumes that by their very nature these two ideologies cannot become identical under ordinary conditions of life except through isolation. Their conflict s also recognized as the basic problem to a way of life and the total elimination of one is sure to create new problems hitherto unsuspected—although total elimination of one or the other remains questionable. Yoga therefore subscribes to the existence of both the ideologies without having to keep them apart or permitting them to be in opposition. The broad base of Yoga rests on compromise by mutual acceptance of each one’s due on issues of universals. These universals of idealism and realism are then fixed and given a practical shape. Idealism is appreciated by all who wish to achieve it in its many ramifications but what comes in the way are the conditions which make it impracticable. If idealism can be given a practical shape, it becomes realism. The yoga efforts therefore are directed to the acceptance of ideals with the proviso that they are later translated into facts.

Yoga is free from the excess of idealism as in theology and religion or from realism as in science, technology, etc. It has tried to correlate and harmonize the universals above and beyond both without the trappings of either. Yoga thus succeeded in evolving spirituality, morality, authenticity, etc., without the need for any religion just as it offers rational and schematic technology without the need for scientific instrumentation and computers. As a result, the cumulative effect of yoga technology culminates in the highest form of idealism while, at the same time, meeting the exigencies of realism. Genuine Yoga represents idealism-cum-realism, and only the yogi is able to harmonize within himself the best that is offered by both. Yoga has shown the way and to Yoga we shall have to come! But, to which Yoga? We here specifically refer to the classic Yoga of Patanjali. One could not conceive of holistic India sans Yoga; and it is equally true that if there is no Yoga, there is no India in essence except geographically. The cream of Indian culture has all along been vitally represented by the classic ideology and technology of Yoga. Both the aspects have somehow survived the ravages of time, but much has also been lost.

In spite of its capacity to solve human problems, Yoga was never wisely, widely or sincerely applied for this vital purpose. Moreover, the genuine guru has become extinct; and the distortion, misrepresentation and misuse of Yoga has become rampant. Even the charismic image of Yoga is daily getting blurred what with the impact of materialistic modern values and mundane objectives. Yoga as projected today is not the same as the classic Yoga of the past nor is it known what will remain in future of the Yoga of today. In the conflict between, idealism and realism, the essential imperatives of freedom, happiness and peace enshrined in moral conscience and spiritual apprehension have been eroded by materialistically oriented sciences and technologies d ctated by compulsive politics, economics and 5 similar considerations. This gap has to be filled before man is turned into a computing robot for the benefit of his syndicated exploiters—political, social, economic, military and ideological.

THE BANE OF PERMISSIVE SOCIETY

It is truly said that even a holy man cannot live in peace without satisfying his wicked neighbours. It is therefore not a question whether one wants to live in peace; the more important question is whether the wicked will tolerate it. To bring tolerance among the neighbours so that you can live in peace, they demand that you please them. It is natural with them to be jealous of things which you enjoy but which they could not hope to have. Although in theory it sounds good to preach live and let live and treat thy neighbour as thyself, in actual practice it is seldom followed. One thing is clear: that anyone seeking peace, freedom and happiness, must select a suitable neighbourhood. The yoga texts have emphasized this, while asking the student of Yoga or the yogis to select the area for habitation which is well governed.

For a society or a country to be well governed, a certain discipline and self-control become necessary. Allowing each to live as he likes is sure to lead to chaos as the interests of individuals are likely to conflict. What will follow is violence and untruth — in fact, both are synonymous in Yoga. If suffering has been the lot of mankind even after centuries of civilization and culture, it speaks ill of the society and the world that did not benefit from these. Have we ever thought why our civilization and culture — with all their promises and traditions of religion, science, philosophy, sociology, economics, politics and what else there is — have so far failed to give a positive shape to a normal human society where every one can live in peace, can enjoy happiness and be free? We hardly realize that this is due to the bane of permissive society which is not the product of today as some think but which is an evil that made inroads, though in small measure, right from the beginning of our civilization and culture. For example, the divine rights of royalty and the might and main of privileged class has scant respect for self-control and discipline. Their behaviour pattern was governed by their attitude which held self-control in contempt and discipline as abasement.

In permissive society, exceptions become the rule and the rules remain as mere exceptions. So whatever principles, commandments, rules, etc. were formulated by religion, ethics, sociology, economics, law, etc. have remained operative only for those who respect and obey them. Others who defied the structure and authority behaved cynically. After much deliberation on the issues of right and wrong, a framework of rules, customs and commandments happens to be projected — and do we not find them uniformly good everywhere? — but these, however, fail to be imperative. Exceptions enjoyed by might by a few become an eyesore to all others and the letter in their turn take every opportunity to perpetrate the same on the sly. When the majority becomes involved in the act which is wrong socially and legally, there is very little left to be done but to look the other way. This permissiveness is the Magna Carta for the vegetative society which is self-centered and opposed to conventions, discipline, rules and commandments of any kind. Their interest lies in sel'-satisfaction at every opportunity and by every means possible. There is no directive except sensate pleasure though it may be temporary and consequently harmful even to themselves.

Members of the permissive society believe that the world is made for them and that there is none to question their acts. Neighbours mean nothing to them where their own self-interest is concerned. If they an afraid to act individually, they take recourse to faming gangs and there are a very few who could challenge them. Goodness being in the minority, the Icne good man concerned with his own struggle in lie finds it easier to ignore permissive acts even vhen done in his presence. It lends encouragement the anti-social and uncivic elements to become bold. Once such permissive acts become commonplace, the perpetrators project them as valid and these soon become internationalized. Then when the mass — which is usually rabid — follows such