Science of the Rishis: A Daily Rhythm

Part VI: Transcendence Over Mentation: The Real Path to Universal Harmony

Now Gandhi played a trick. He said that this war is only a metaphor, it never happened in reality, it is not historical. It is really the inner war in man between the forces of evil and the forces of God, it is the inner war between darkness and light. And Krishna is saying to Arjuna, “Don’t escape from the inner war — fight it and win over the darkness.”

Now this is a very cunning strategy. Nobody before Gandhi has ever said that the war between the Pandavas and the Korvas was just a metaphor. For five thousand years, thousands of commentaries have been written on Gita; nobody has said that it is a metaphor, it has always been known as a reality. But Gandhi has to call it a metaphor, otherwise he will not be able to synthesize religions. And Jainism and Buddhism are two of the most important religions — they have to be incorporated.

And Jesus also creates many troubles, because Jesus goes into the temple of Jerusalem, becomes very angry, takes a whip, hits the money-changers, turns their boards, throws them out of the temple. Now, a non-violent person cannot be so angry. If Gandhi was asked, he will say, “Go for a fast. Sit in front of the money-changers and do a fast unto death unless they stop money-changing in the temple. That will be the non-violent way to transform their hearts.” But taking a whip in your hand and hitting them and turning their boards and throwing them out of the temple does not seem to be very non-violent.

He never talks about it. He drops the whole matter. He only talks about Beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek for theirs is the kingdom of God.” But Jesus does not seem to be so meek. This man is meek who is turning money-changers’ boards and throwing them out of the temple? Is he meek? Can you call him meek? He is a warrior. He cannot tolerate such nonsense in the temple. He said, “You have polluted the house of my father. Get out from here!”

Gandhi chooses only pieces and then makes a hotch-potch which he calls synthesis of all religions. It never happened. Neither the Mohammedans were convinced with him, nor the Hindus. He could not even convince Hindus — he was a Hindu — and he was murdered by a Hindu. He could not convince Hindus. He could not convince Jains either, because they continuously believed that Krishna is not a good man.

In Jain mythology Krishna is thrown into seventh hell for the simple reason because he distracted Arjuna, who was going to renounce war. He forced him, persuaded him, convinced him, seduced him by beautiful logic — silenced him somehow — to fight. And millions of people died. Who is responsible for all this violence, for all this blood? He is responsible — more responsible than Arjuna. Jains have never forgiven him; not even after Gandhi a single Jain has written a book in which Krishna is forgiven or accepted. What to say of Krishna? Jains don’t even agree with Buddhists and their nonviolence, Buddhists don’t agree with the nonviolence of the Jains. They both are non-violent, but their nonviolences are different.

Jains say, “Don’t kill. Don’t eat meat.” Buddha has said, “Don’t kill, but meat you can eat if the animal has died on his own accord — then what is wrong in eating the meat of the animal?”

Now that is a big problem between Jains and the Buddhists. And I think that Jains are right in a way. Logically Buddha is right, that killing is bad — “Don’t kill animals. They have life, as much life as you have, and they want to live as long as you want to live. Don’t kill them. But when an animal has died, why waste his meat? It can be used as food. Its skin can be used, its meat can be used, its bones can be used. They should be used. Why waste them?” He seems to be very pragmatic; he was a pragmatic man.

But Jains are also right. They say that once you allow that meat-eating is not bad, then who is going to decide whether the animal has died on his own or not?

And that’s exactly what has happened: in China, in Japan, in Korea, in Burma, in the whole of Asia, Buddhists eat meat. So many animals don’t die every day on their own accord! All the five-star hotels in the whole of Asia, from where they get the meat? And if this meat comes from natural death of the animals, then why so many butchers exist in Buddhist countries and so many butcheries? — for what reason? Every hotel in Buddhist country keeps a signboard that, “Here only that meat is served which comes from a naturally dead animal — one who has died a natural death.”

Man is so tricky that he will find a way; if you give him just a little loophole he will find a way out. No loophole should be given, that was Mahavira’s emphasis.

Gandhi could not convince anybody, but here you are seeing a synthesis happening on its own accord. And I am not interested in synthesizing anything. I never talk about synthesizing religions — but it is happening. Here you will find all religions, people belonging to different religions. Nobody bothers who is a Jew, who is a Mohammedan, who is a Hindu, who is a Jain, who is a Buddhist, who is a Parsee; nobody takes any note of it.

A synthesis is happening. It is not being manufactured; it is happening through meditation not through mentation. This is true synthesis. It is happening through transcendence. When you meditate you go beyond the mind. When you go beyond the mind you are no more a Christian, no more a Hindu, no more a Jain, no more a Jew. You are simply a consciousness, a pure consciousness, a mirror-like clarity. That clarity is true synthesis.

You ask: IS TAO A SYNTHESIS OF THE PATHS OF LOVE AND AWARENESS? In a sense, no; in a sense, yes.

Theory: Beyond Mind and Dogma: Understanding True Synthesis in Meditation and Tao

Mindful Workplace (Sattva): Set Firm Ethical Boundaries (Dharma-Yuddha) – Stand firm in integrity when core ethics or standards are threatened, rejecting passive compliance.

• Workplace Practice: Avoid toxic toxic positivity or passive avoidance when severe operational or ethical issues arise. Like a true steward of your craft, address compliance violations, safety risks, or harassment head-on through appropriate professional channels with firm, calm authority.