Science of the Rishis: A Daily Rhythm

Part V: Transcendence, Not Compromise: The Radical Difference Between Synthesis and Tao

IS TAO A SYNTHESIS OF THE PATHS OF LOVE AND AWARENESS?

TAO IS NOT A SYNTHESIS in the sense we understand the word. It is not synthesis in the sense Assagioli uses the word “psychosynthesis”.

The ordinary meaning of the word “synthesis” is making two opposites meet, creating a certain meeting ground between the two opposites. It is not synthesis in that sense. It makes no effort to create that kind of unity. But it is a synthesis in a very different meaning, in a very higher sense, in a totally different dimension. It is transcendence of the paths of love and awareness, it is transcendence of the opposites. And whenever the opposites are transcended synthesis happens on its own accord. But you have to understand the difference.

Assagioli’s synthesis is very poor; it has no depth, it cannot have — it is mind effort. It is far poorer than Sigmund Freud’s analysis for the simple reason because mind is very efficient in analyzing things; mind is incapable of synthesizing things. That’s why, although Assagioli is trying to do something far more important than Sigmund Freud… but he fails. If you study both, Sigmund Freud looks like a genius. Assagioli looks just a pigmy by his side.

And, let me emphasize again, he is trying to do something far bigger, far more important than Sigmund Freud, but Freud succeeds because he is doing the right kind of work that the mind is capable of doing. Assagioli is trying to do the same thing as Tao but through the mind. Mind is NOT capable of synthesizing. Tao does it from a totally different dimension: it goes beyond mind, it goes into no-mind. And when you reach into no-mind synthesis happens — not that you have to do anything about it.

Assagioli’s synthesis is man-made, man-manufactured. Hence it is more like a hotchpotch, somehow trying to make two opposites meet, but they are unwilling to meet; forcing them to meet, but basically, because they are opposites, they cannot meet. And he is using the mind which cannot create synthesis, which is capable only of analysis.

Tao uses meditation, not mind. It is not interested in synthesis at all. It simply moves beyond the mind, and then synthesis comes like a shadow. You can see it happening here.

For example… Take a more contemporary example. Just few years before Mahatma Gandhi tried a great experiment of synthesizing all the religions. He utterly failed. It was bound to happen because he was trying to manufacture synthesis, and synthesis cannot be manufactured. He was trying to do it through the mind. He knew nothing of meditation, he never tried meditation. In the name of religion, all that he knew was prayer — and prayer is of the mind; it is not meditation, it is talking to God. Just as you talk with others you can talk to a God, who may be just imaginary, who is in fact imaginary, because there is no person there.

Prayer is a dialogue, dialogue between you and an imaginary God. Meditation is silence — no dialogue, no monologue either.

Gandhi knew nothing of meditation, but he tried hard to create a certain facade of synthesis. What you can do through the intellect?

Basically he was a Hindu and he remained a Hindu all his life, to the very end. He calls Bhagavad Gita his mother, but he never calls Koran his father — not even an uncle. Although he talks about that the teaching is the same, but the way he manages is absolutely political — clever, cunning, but not authentic. It is a mind effort, it cannot be authentic. He does it well. What he does is: whatsoever he finds in Koran, in Bible, in Dhammapada, which is in agreement with Gita, he immediately picks it up, and he says, “Look! All the religions teach the same thing.”

But there are many things which go against Gita in the Bible, which go against Gita in the Koran, in the Dhammapada. He does not take any note of them, he ignores them; he knows he will not be able to manage, to cope with them, so his synthesis is bogus. In fact, he reads Gita everywhere; wherever he can find Gita echoed, he immediately says, “Look! They are talking the same thing.”

But what about the differences? What about the totally opposite standpoints? For example, Koran does not believe in nonviolence. Mohammed never believed in non-violence; he himself carried a sword always, he fought many wars. And Gandhi believes in nonviolence But Koran is a big book; you can find few pieces from here, from there which can support love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, and you can use them as if Mohammed is supporting nonviolence.

Mahavira supports nonviolence, Buddha supports nonviolence; even Krishna in Gita does not support non-violence. Then Gandhi does a political trick again. He says the war in which Gita was spoken for the first time, the great war called Mahabharat, in which Arjuna became aware of the fact that millions of people will die and the whole thing seems to be useless — just for the power, for treasures, for kingdom, to kill so many people… A great desire to renounce the world arose in him. And he wanted to renounce, and he said, “It is better I should go to the mountains, become a sannyasin,” and Krishna persuades him to fight because “That is your duty. God wants you to fight. Surrender to God’s will; don’t bring your own will in, don’t bring your mind in. You be in a let-go and let God function through you.”

Arjuna argues in many ways, but finally Krishna wins him over, convinces him of the necessity of war, because, he says, “This is the war of right against wrong, of religion against irreligion, of light against darkness, of divine forces against evil forces.”

Theory: True Synthesis is Transcendence, Not Effort

Mindful Workplace (Sattva): Foster Unity Beyond Compromise (Advaita / Non-Duality) – True resolution of opposing views comes from transcending binary thinking (e.g., win/loss, right/wrong) rather than forcing superficial compromises.

• Workplace Practice: In team conflicts, look beyond surface-level disagreements to identify the shared underlying objective. Instead of seeking a hotchpotch middle ground where both sides compromise reluctantly, elevate the discussion to address the overarching organizational goal that encompasses both perspectives.