In the animal kingdom, a leader’s role is to organize and launch a hunt, to organize and implement community outings for food-foraging, to provide collateral safety for its pack from its predators, etc. Our human society, hard-wired to this behavior acquired in its remote past, has morphed this over time to take care of its production-consumption demands, environmental-needs, political problems, and most of all, to attend to its socio-psychological needs. Not only do we have leaders today for our political identities, actions and agendas, but also for our socio-spiritual wants vested through our gurus and wise-shamans who are alleged to know how to fix our problems that we are beset with.
A leader is incomplete without followers, and a follower needs a leader to guide him to his mission. In any case, both relations depend on the other to sustain and function; a leader, like a follower, is, therefore, never free. Once I’m dependent on another for my being, I’m tethered to that dependency; I cease to become my own. And this lack of freedom, I think, is the crucial element that defines a leader more properly.
Is it possible for an imprisoned person to convey truth to another from the precinct of his prison? This is the question we should look into in anticipating the role of a leader in a community of followers. Particularly, if “truth” were dynamic, can one ever follow it from an imprisoned mind? It would be like capturing the contour of a flame within a rigid boundary – an impossible task no matter how ardently we try.
When followers expect their leaders to provide them with “correct answers”, “correct solutions to their problems” they are asking their leaders to do precisely that: to provide a definitive boundary within which the solution space would be comfortably nestled in. The followers would be no longer alive with the fire of life burning within them – they would be dead wrapped up in the certainty that a conclusion accords. A dead person is not interested in “discovering” the truth himself; he is interested in “knowing” it from some authority in order to conclude, to draw a closure. He lacks confidence on himself and he relinquishes his human role gladly to a proxy — someone in authority — to provide him with “correct approaches” to life. But “truth” being transcendental unlike a fixed goal or design, one can never “know” it, can never “own” it. Therefore, “truth” cannot be acquired or inherited from another; it must be constantly discovered by oneself interested in it. And, this process of continuously discovering “truth” from one’s life and relationships comprise one’s being. Who am I? I’m what I discover myself daily in my relationship. No leader can inform me of this; I must, on my own, find out and discover what I’m. Therefore, an intelligent being cannot be a follower.
Therefore, a leader, in a socio-psychological realm, is a problem, not an answer even to oneself. Almost inevitably, it would be a system derived on misinformation or contradictions, leaving both leaders and their followers confused and unhappy. Truth, however we attempt it, simply cannot be transmitted to another. How does a mango taste like? No matter how much I try, I’d never be able to verbalize that transcendental understanding to another; the best I could do is to advice him to eat some mangoes, some ripe, some not so ripe, some really tart with differing textures, taste, aroma and sensation.
But followers have no such interest in finding things out for themselves. Who has time and capacity to figure out answers to all these weird questions in life, they would contend. They want an instant answer, the correct answer, the answer that withstands time, mood, and place. They want an answer that is convenient, pleasant, not too much demanding and yet socially respectable. For an average follower, “truth” is fine but not always palatable; something approximating truth may be more livable than the actual truth; therefore, get a leader, a teacher or a guru who would know how to dispense truth in convenient packages with silver lining and bright-colored ribbons for mass consumption. But an “approximate truth” is not truth; a well-crafted opinion is not “truth” – they may be more appealing, but they are not truth.
Let’s take a specific example from our contemporary scene. Gandhiji articulated “non-violence” as a policy to implement his non-cooperation movement to demand self-rule for India. Why was it a policy? Does it mean there is an alternative to “non-violence” equally as good when it comes to living? Is “non-violence” really the opposite of “violence” as a policy, as a means to some end? Could an attentive person live by trying to “become” non-violent? If I’m aware, could I be “violent”, “non-violent”, both, or none of the above? If I’m aware, could I have any “choice” in life as such? Isn’t the process of “choosing” itself a modality in violence?
We all forgot to ask these basic questions. Not that it was circumstantial — even if we were interested to ask these questions to ourselves, we were reluctant to explore them – instead, we waited for our leader, for our new guru, new messiah to answer them for us first. The entire country and the entire world took “non-violence” as a “tool” to accomplish its ambitions, its agendas.
What has happened since? Sure Rev. Tutu and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr both embraced this as the doctrine for their individual missions. The world embraced it; we had it installed on the pedestal as an ideal, something to aim for as a choice, something to die for, and something to be violent for, kill for. And, something was assuredly amiss. Today, the land of Gandhi is as violent and as corrupt as the rest of the world; America and South Africa, the two spiritual progenies of Gandhi, are as violent as ever; it appears, as though, Gandhi’s message of non-violence was simply missed out by most of us; non-violence still remains cocooned as an ideal, it hasn’t become part of our life.
Why did non-violence as a pragmatic policy fizz out so spectacularly? It is because we did not discover it ourselves in the depth of our understanding, it was not real for us; we were told of it and we grabbed it as a working tool to gain our independence, to unshackle the chains of apartheid, to step out from the realm of inequity the skin-color as a paradigm cemented. To us, the ends were important; we didn’t look into the means to find out for ourselves what it meant to be non-violent. We were told by our leaders to accept it as an ideal to work for; this would one day bring forth our Camelot, we’d all live happily ever after once it arrived and settled permanently in our midst. Thus, we had minimally a dichotomy: Our real violent living on one hand, and our ideal life on the other, without any conceivable overlap between the two. Thus, from the beginning, we have been in a fragmented living chasing an ideal based on our incomplete understanding.
Gandhiji would enter into self-imposed fasting unto death whenever events of communal riot or violent reaction to British atrocities would greet the nation in front of his very eyes. Sure, the nation would return to normalcy, not because it suddenly understood why non-violence was worth pursuing, but only out of respect of their Bapuji. Indeed, one could say Mahatma had blackmailed his followers on all such occasions: “Return to normalcy, or I’d embrace death through fasting.” This was violence par excellence; the entire nation would be subjected to such a force to elicit a specific behavior that Mahatmaji wanted. Where is “non-violence” in such endeavors?
Leaders need psychologically “dead” followers to complement themselves, to derive their power. If one is “intelligently alive”, the last thing one would want to be is a leader, a guru, a man of authority, etc. We could always anticipate what a leader “should” be, but such a normative design is only a product of our insecure minds. The “ideal” leader doesn’t exist; what exist as leaders, as channels of authority are what we see in our everyday life in every segment of society. Do we need them except on functional chores? Is there any reason why should one need them? Can we stand up on our feet and humbly assert that we don’t need any leader as a psychological prop; we can work our way out in solving our own problems rationally without leaning onto “ideals” and it would be fine even if we make mistakes?
Saumen Sengupta
This idea of “guru” – or the “guru” aspect of leadership, has me somewhat confused. K often repeated that one should not make him one’s guru, that he was not to be anyone’s guru, that one should not follow him or anyone else. What I undesrstand of this is that true inquiry takes a great deal of energy and by following another, some of that needed energy is given away. It throws the responsibility of discovery squarely onto one’s shoulders as the experience of tasting the mango, as in your example Saumen, requires one to directly taste that mango rather than listening to someone else’s description of it. So then, could we say that K was an anti-guru guru? He behaved like a guru in that he travelled a great deal and gave talks. If nobody came to listen to him, then what? But people did come to listen to his talks. It seems that other “realized” people do this also and people come to listen to their talks. They could be called “guru”, except they too are saying that one must make their own discoveries. So there seems to be many anti-guru gurus. Ramana Maharshi seems to have a lineage of gurus who came after him – Papaji, Gangaji, Mooji – So I guess I’m wondering what exactly K meant by “guru”. They all seem to be pointing a finger in the direction of the mango …..
In his article Saumenji has clearly explained that a leader is incomplete without followers and a follower needs a leader to guide him to his mission. Both relations depend on the other to sustain and function.
A person does not become a Guru merely by traveling a great deal and giving talks and a person does not become a follower merely by listening to what a fellow human being is saying. When person A believes that person B is a “realized” person then his attitude toward person B undergoes a dramatic change. Person A also believes that by listening to the so called “realized” person he will become “realized” or the “realized” person will help him to achieve the goal by following a particular method suggested by the “realized” person. Such a person is called a follower because he depends on another person to show him the way.
It does not matter how often person B may repeat that one should not make him one’s guru, that he was not to be anyone’s guru, that one should not follow him or anyone else, but the person who is groping in the dark and who wants someone else to show him the light insists on treating this person as his guru because he depends on him for the solution of his problems and for leading him to enlightenment. He may call him “anti-guru guru.” This means he insists on treating him the guru. It is this psychological dependence that makes a person a follower.
Person B says that feeling of separateness; the feeling of “me” being different from “you” is the root cause of human problems. Person A listens to the statement but he cannot see this as a fact. He still thinks in his mind that since person B is a “realized” person he must be different from others. Such a person is called a follower because he cannot see things as they are. The follower cannot live without creating duality. First he creates in his mind an idea of God, and then he needs a guru to show him God. The follower is always in need of something or the other. He is a perpetual beggar and is, therefore, always dependent.
A person who is able to exploit other people’s need for psychological security by promising them peace, tranquility and contentment is called a guru. He himself depends on other persons for his name, fame, power, position, prestige, authority, regard, respect etc. It may be difficult for the follower to see how much the so called “guru” is attached to the pedestal on which he is sitting because he is blinded by his self-interest. Leader and the follower are related to each other through their respective self-interest. Now the question is, is it possible for human beings to listen to each other without any motive or desire born out of self-concern, self-interest and self-centeredness?
Thanks Sardarji for a better explanation of this leader-follower issue.
I also started thinking after reading what Meghan wrote. I understand the confusion she mentions — and, I admit, it’s a good question Meghan raises. Thanks Meghan for raising it!
If one is guided by what K did or say, or what Ramana Maharshi did or say, then the quintessential one would be missing; it would be, even after the best emulation of K or Ramana Maharshi, a copy, but never original. In a copy, the old is captured, retained and nurtured; how will the NEW, the unprecedented, the unanticipated could ever dawn?
Did Ramana Maharshi follow any one? Was Kabir guided by a guru? Could a K flower without his total refusal to be anything other than himself?
A Meister Eckhart in the faith-laden thirteenth-century Europe observes: “God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made and let God be God in you.” Can any follower of any guru ever see and feel such a beauty at the risk of losing his own life?
Therefore, does it matter, in the final reckoning, what spiritual lineage claims an individual, and how? Sure, there are a lot of us who couldn’t function without a guru, without someone in an authority. Also, there are some who want to meet the wonder that they are without any formula, dictates and expectations?
Dear Meghan,
Two comments have been posted in response to your comment under the article Why Do We Need Leaders. I would like to add that confusion arises when one hears contradictory statements and one cannot decide which statement is correct. Contradictory ideas, opinions, beliefs and viewpoints create confusion in the mind. Mind gets confused when it does not know what to do. There is a strong tendency in the mind to formulate ideas, conclusions and create images. This process of thinking inevitably generates confusion because ideas are always contradictory. This compulsive behavior of the mind needs careful attention. Confusion can go away only when we see facts as they are without creating ideas about the fact.
When K said one should not follow him or any one else he gave plenty of reasons for this. Either these reasons are true or false. If there is truth in what he says then that truth should translate into action. There is no need to interpret what K said or form ideas about what he said or try to reach some conclusion in the light of what others have said. Comparisons do not serve any purpose. Comparisons confuse the mind.
Thank you both, Sardar and Suamen for your responses. And thank you also for your patience in replying. I am thinking all of this over, and feel you’ve done a good job in clarifying most of the question of leadership. I would like to say now that if creating dependency in another, and depending on another because of self interest, is what defines the leader-follower relationship, then I’m not sure that I have personally met anyone who sets themselves apart or encourages people to set them apart. (I have heard about some who are doing this but have not given much attention to them). Also, there may be many who would like to turn the speaker into a guru eventhough the speaker has stressed the danger of doing such a thing. So K for instance, was made into a guru by some despite his repeated warnings against doing such a thing.
Hmmm, do either of you have any further comments on the subject? If so, I welcome them.
Adding further to the converstion, …. in Sardar’s email the point is made about the confusion that is created in the mind when considering different ideas and opinions. The confusion spurs our habitual tendency to create ideas about and around the fact of what is. Having ideas about the fact. Also, your pointing out that if there is truth in what is said then that truth should translate into action. When I read these words from you, I see that if what is said is seen, the direct perception will translate into action not born of intent or goal or endpoint, reward, punishment…fear of either, nirvana or enlightenment, good or bad karma, … even morality does not come into play when there is a seeing or direct perception. There is no debate and no need of morality or any other concept. Moral actions come without reason or endpoint. I am summarizing because the way the reasoning comes is very beneficial. Your words add clarity.
Saumen, your pointers that if one is guided by what K or Ramana or anyone did or say, the ‘quintessential one’ would be missing …. By “quintessential one” do you mean the one who first spoke the words … like K or Ramana? Or do you mean the one who is hearing that which is said? Probably, it would happen in both?
The responsibilty of the individual is paramount – without the “idea” of “individualism”. Does there need to be formula, dictates or, etc ….?
One more time, I am asking for clarification. When you say: “Can any follower of any guru ever see and feel such a beauty at the risk of losing his own life?” … what do you mean by losing one’s life?
Also, there are some who want to meet the wonder that they are without any formula, dictates and expectations.
Who does not wish for this?
Interest in the discussion. I shall participate later.Let me mature as a good student. Kindly keep updated.
Thsnks
pc
Who am I when I’m trying to understand something, when I’m in the process of interacting with my world? So long as I’m there as a doctor, as a soldier, as a politician, as a murderer, as a saint, as a teacher, as a follower, as a guru the actual me, the real me sans all these masks wouldn’t be there; instead, it would be some social entity fielding all it’d encounter on its bias, a social entity in the process of “becoming” would be in the picture eliciting a set of response the society values a great deal. My perception would be biased; truth would escape me; I’d be a cocoon wrapped in opinions the society sanctions for its own survival.
Is there a way out of all this? Could there be a living where one is essentially that residue left behind when all masks are dropped off and all biases are abandoned with the actual one, the real one standing alert to perceive, to understand? This residue, for lack of any decent terminology, is what I call a “Quintessential One”: The forever original, the pristine, the unbecoming, the solitary presence.
“Is the ‘Quintessential One’ the one who first spoke the words,” Meghan asks. It’d always be the first one because every understanding is always new even though it may appear the same countless time from outside. A Christ talks about God being LOVE, and, throughout the world, billions of people repeat the same without really perceiving it in their hearts. They repeat it as social elements, as church goers, as Christians, as crusaders, as peaceniks, etc. without ever understanding LOVE in their essential being, in their left-over residue where one IS. But, suppose, one day, one discovers it anew without any bias, without any mask and shouts in joy that God is LOVE, wouldn’t that discovery be totally original for him without requiring any precedence, without any anticipation?
Every formula, every dictate, every doctrinal concept is inimical to what one IS. Why do I need a formula? Formula for what? To become a “better” person? If I ever become “better” through a formula, surely the credit ought to go to that “formula”. In that case I’m irrelevant, my thoughts are irrelevant, and, definitely, my prospect of becoming “better” is also irrelevant. If my presence, my life is more than a formula, more than what others believe or don’t believe, if it is independent of any interpretation the society dishes out for its own reasons, then I’m aware: I exist.
In that sense, there has only been, throughout our history, only one Christian ever: the Christ himself. No one else could become Christian try as they may. One could be doctrinal, but that’s not the same. One day, a Meghan may realize in her quintessential being what LOVE is independent of all she heard and learnt. She might then be considered repeating Christ by outsiders, but, in reality, her own discovery would be totally new, pristine, and original without leaning on any precondition. To call her a Christian then would miss the point.
Mr. Sardar Singh, today, penned something very interesting under the title “Clarity of perception”. So long we are not ourselves, but a smorgasbord of many roles, we’d not be able to get that clarity. In our “Quintessential” presence, that clarity dawns on its own.
Thank you for your post.Really thank you! Really Cool.