The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 5/Epistles - First Series/LXXXIX Mother
LXXXIX
(Translated from Bengali)
Deoghar, Vaidyanath.
3rd January, 1899.
Dear Mother,[1]
Some very important questions have been raised in your letter. It is not
possible to answer them fully in a short note, still I reply to them as
briefly as possible.
(1) Rishi, Muni, or God — none has power to force an institution on society.
When the needs of the times press hard on it, society adopts certain customs
for self-preservation. Rishis have only recorded those customs As a man
often resorts even to such means as are good for immediate self-protection
but which are very injurious in the future, similarly society also not
unfrequently saves itself for the time being, but these immediate means
which contributed to its preservation turn out to be terrible in the long
run.
For example, take the prohibition of widow-marriage in our country. Don't
think that Rishis or wicked men introduced the law pertaining to it.
Notwithstanding the desire of men to keep women completely under their
control, they never could succeed in introducing those laws without betaking
themselves to the aid of a social necessity of the time. Of this custom two
points should be specially observed:
- (a) Widow-marriage takes place among the lower classes.
- (b) Among the higher classes the number of women is greater than that of men.
Now, if it be the rule to marry every girl, it is difficult enough to get
one husband apiece; then how to get, in succession, two or three for each?
Therefore has society put one party under disadvantage, i.e. it does not let
her have a second husband, who has had one; if it did, one maid would have
to go without a husband. On the other hand, widow-marriage obtains in
communities having a greater number of men than women, as in their case the
objection stated above does not exist. It is becoming more and more
difficult in the West, too, for unmarried girls to get husbands.
Similar is the case with the caste system and other social customs.
So, if it be necessary to change any social custom the necessity underlying
it should be found out first of all, and by altering it, the custom will die
of itself. Otherwise no good will be done by condemnation or praise.
(2) Now the question is: Is it for the good of the public at large that
social rules are framed or society is formed? Many reply to this in the
affirmative; some, again, may hold that it is not so. Some men, being
comparatively powerful, slowly bring all others under their control and by
stratagem, force, or adroitness gain their own objects. If this be true,
what can be the meaning of the statement that there is danger in giving
liberty to the ignorant? What, again, is the meaning of liberty?
Liberty does not certainly mean the absence of obstacles in the path of
misappropriation of wealth etc. by you and me, but it is our natural right
to be allowed to use our own body, intelligence, or wealth according to our
will, without doing any harm to others; and all the members of a society
ought to have the same opportunity for obtaining wealth, education, or
knowledge. The second question is: Those who say that if the ignorant and
the poor be given liberty, i.e. full right to their body, wealth, etc., and
if their children have the same opportunity to better their condition and
acquire knowledge as those of the rich and the highly situated, they would
become perverse — do they say this for the good of society or blinded by
their selfishness? In England too I have heard, "Who will serve us if the
lower classes get education?"
For the luxury of a handful of the rich, let millions of men and women
remain submerged in the hell of want and abysmal depth of ignorance, for if
they get wealth and education, society will be upset!
Who constitute society? The millions — or you, I, and a few others of the
upper classes?
Again, even if the latter be true, what ground is there for our vanity that
we lead others? Are we omniscient?
Freedom in all matters, i.e. advance towards Mukti is the worthiest gain of man. To advance oneself towards freedom — physical, mental, and spiritual — and help others to do so, is the supreme prize of man. Those social rules which stand in the way of the unfoldment of this freedom are injurious, and steps should be taken to destroy them speedily. Those institutions should be encouraged by which men advance in the path of freedom.
That in this life we feel a deep love at first sight towards a particular
person who may not be endowed with extraordinary qualities, is explained by
the thinkers of our country as due to the associations of a past
incarnation.
Your question regarding the will is very interesting: it is the subject to
know. The essence of all religions is the annihilation of desire, along with
which comes, of a certainty, the annihilation of the will as well, for
desire is only the name of a particular mode of the will. Why, again, is
this world? Or why are these manifestations of the will? Some religions hold
that the evil will should be destroyed and not the good. The denial of
desire here would be compensated by enjoyments hereafter. This reply does
not of course satisfy the wise. The Buddhists, on the other hand, say that
desire is the cause of misery, its annihilation is quite desirable. But like
killing a man in the effort to kill the mosquito on his cheek, they have
gone to the length of annihilating their own selves in their efforts to
destroy misery according to the Buddhistic doctrine.
The fact is, what we call will is an inferior modification of something
higher. Desirelessness means the disappearance of the inferior modification
in the form of will and the appearance of that superior state. That state is
beyond the range of mind and intellect. But though the look of the gold
mohur is quite different from that of the rupee and the pice, yet as we know
for certain that the gold mohur is greater than either, so, that highest
state — Mukti, or Nirvâna, call it what you like — though out of the reach
of the mind and intellect, is greater than the will and all other powers. It
is no power, but power is its modification, therefore it is higher. Now you
will see that the result of the proper exercise of the will, first with
motive for an object and then without motive, is that the will-power will
attain a much higher state.
In the preliminary state, the form of the Guru is to be meditated upon by
the disciple. Gradually it is to be merged in the Ishta. By Ishta is meant
the object of love and devotion. . . . It is very difficult to superimpose
divinity on man, but one is sure to succeed by repeated efforts. God is in
every man, whether man knows it or not; your loving devotion is bound to
call up the divinity in him.
Ever your well-wisher,
Vivekananda.
- Notes
- ↑ Shrimati Mrinalini Bose.