Should it be Tolerance or Accomodation?

11-16-1999, 10:59 PM

Dear Friends,

Ramachandran wrote

" Religious tolerance is the best strategy to avoid making mistakes. It is
a sign of maturity and not a sign of weakness."

I would prefer the word 'accomodation' to 'Tolerance'. The word 'Tolerance'
has a negative connotation in usage. We normally only tolerate mosquitoe
bites, heat, dust and Power cuts in India. That means Tolerance is towards
something which is normally disliked. That means we should dislike other
religions to tolerate them. So I think the word 'Tolerate' is not
appropriate. The better word is 'accomodate' because it has a positive
connotation. Accomodation means giving the right place to everything in the
scheme of things. It is born out of understanding. Infact the Vedas don't
tolerate other religions but they validate all forms of prayers and
worship.Again I think there is big difference between Validation and
Tolerance.
Please don't think I am hair splitting too much here. I see that every word
carries a certain implication with it and so I think one should be careful
in using words so that what the speaker spoke should be understood as it is
by the listener. This does'nt take place and thats why we have so many
misquotations and denials in the Newspapers everyday.

Ramachandran wrote
" The self-realization is nothing more than accepting the world as it is
and adopts us to this reality. According to Shankara, the world is the
creation of the mind, and the mind can create the perfect world by removing
the imperfections of the mind. "

And

" Nature is God's creation and we are responsible for the creation of
intolerance, impatience and misery. "

I want clarify one thing here. It looks as though Ramachandran is
contradicting himself here. He says world is the creation of the mind and
then says Nature is God's creation. I think what he means is an individuals
world is the creation of the mind (Jiva Shristi) over and above the world as
it is, which is Isvara Shristi. This is the correct understanding of
Shankara. Because Shankara does'nt say everything is the creation of mind
like the Yogachara Buddhists (Kshanika Vijnanavadis) or the western
Idealists. He infact argues against such a view.

Ramachandran wrote

" Let me conclude this essay with some important points made by Shankara:
According to Shankara, those who read the Scriptures for scholarship and ego
(self-promotion) are just wasting their precious time. The story behind
Shankara's Bhajagovindham explains this clearly. This well known story
describes the circumstances in which this great poem, Bhajagovindham burst
forth the lips of Sankara. Once in Banaras when he was going along on his
daily rounds, he overheard a very old Pundit cramming Panini's grammer
rules. Sankara was touched with pity at the ignorance and folly of the man
to be wasting away the most precious 'dusk hours' of his life for a mere
intellectual accomplishment instead of spending them in contemplation on the
Lord, praying for spiritual enlightenment and for release from the bondage
of Samsara. Shankara knew that this was not the state of that particular old
man only, but was the general state of most of us. "

I accept that Scholarship for the sake of Wordly benefits has been condemned
by our acharyas. Infact any pursuit had a value only if the end in view was
kept as Moksha. So Yagnyavalkya Smriti says 'The One who plays the
instrument Veena properly, becomes fit for attaining Moksha.' From this we
know that it is not enough to excel in one's own chosen field. The maturity
and mental dsicipline one gains while putting efforts to excel in any
particular field has to be seen as a qualification for gaining Moksha. So
Scholarship for the sake of moksha is valued. In fact all our acharyas like
Shankara, Sureshvara etc. were great Scholars. So we should not think that
scholarship is bad and one need not study Shastras. Scholarship and study of
Shastra should be for the purpose of gaining knowledge and Moksha.

with love and prayers,

Hari: Om,

Jaishankar