Beauty of Mind and Beauty of Matter

It's been a constant grouse for me why it's easier for physically attractive people to get attention much more than for people who are mentally capable. For example, it's not uncommon for fashion models to have millions of followers on Instagram. Comparatively, an artist should consider himself fortunate if he can garner even a few thousand followers.

In fact, the attitude that the world seems to have for intellectuals (in which I include those who make their living using their mental capability; this would include teachers, scientists, creative professionals like artists, writers, film and theatre directors and even bureaucrats to some extent) is more than just lack of interest. Instead, I see a certain degree of animosity and intolerance too. The world around us as we see it is the product of the the thoughts and work of intellectuals. So, no one can simply ignore the existence of intellectual beings. However people seem to prefer having nothing to do with this aspect of their being, thus trying to restrict their relation to intellect as a transactional thing. Where intellectuals must be dealt with at a social level, they are boxed into stereotypes of being geeks, nerds, studious, scholars etc. amounting to grumpy, mean, serious, sever, belligerent to being socially inept and insufferable to some extent.

This animosity and unfair bias against intellectuals -- often known as anti-intellectualism -- placed vis-a-vis the enormous appetite that the world has for anything glamour has appeared very unfortunate to me to the extent of causing me great and enduring pain.

Here, I try to make peace with this predicament by trying to explain it based on psychology, to the I extent that I understand it.

So, I would like to distinguish virtues in terms of being associated with mind or matter. There are human qualities that cause immediate sensual pleasure. A beautiful body, apart from the neutral aesthetic angle, causes sexual titillation. Cooking done well leads to pleasurable eating. A beautiful painting or sketch leads to a visual treat for the viewer. A piece of music is nice to the ears whether one understands music or not. All these, I would like to call the experiences of the matter. Experiencing these involves no training or preparation.

A level above these involves aspirations, arguably a thing of the mind, with which we are born. Aspirations to look good, to be rich and influential, to be accepted and respected in our social surroundings -- these aspirations lead us to see beauty in things which otherwise may not be having any apparent beauty. For example, being rich draws looks of admiration because people aspire to be rich. Possessions -- cars, gadgets, house, properly jewellery, dresses -- receive compliments and admiring looks from those who wish to have these for themselves. Of course, as a rejoinder, let me add that it would not be completely correct to say that the above things of possession have no inherent beauty of their own: а house can be really pretty and grand; a car may be majestic, sleek, fast and powerful; a gadget may be sleek, a piece of jewellery or garment can be really fine. Yet, I would say that a large majority of humans aren't so concerned about how inherently beautiful these objects are -- at least not until they find them well within their financial reach -- but what it entails to possess them.

Collectively, the above two forms of admirations, I would like to categorise as those of the matter. They would evoke reactions from almost anyone, with or without any special training, education, talent or intelligence.

The other form of beauty is the beauty of mind. This form of beauty, in order to be admired, demands us to get into the semantics -- the structure and the kinetics -- of the object in question.

To sense this form of beauty one certainly needs to get into a state where he concerns himself as much with the process that creates the object of beauty as with the object itself. The process that created a piece of beauty is an arbitrarily deep thing. For example, to be able is sing a particular song, the singer must go through a prolonged and rigorous training in music. The poet must feel something extraordinary or something ordinary extraordinarily that he expresses through the song. The music composer, the orchestra and the singer must internalize the details of the song -- both the technical and the emotion to put together a performance powerful enough to grab the notice of the most insolent of hearts. While the song itself has the beauty of the matter, the process that creates it is unboundedly more beautiful. But it is accessible to the person only with his mind's eye open. 

Unfortunately, staying in a state where the mind's eye is open is not effortless in most cases. In fact, most of us spend only a small part of our conscious life in that wakeful state. For most part, we are in an unconscious state, a mist of insolence and apathy surrounding us. I suspect that for most unfortunate people, this wakeful state happens for a disappearingly small period of time. I am unprepared to believe that there are people who never experience this wakefulness. You may consider it my form of faith that says that each one of us is blessed with that spark of divinity that can be stoked into a blazing fire with the right kind of nurturing. But anyway, what's important here is that statistically most people have their mind's eyes closed. Hence, appreciation for the beauty of the mind is so difficult to find. Places like Facebook or Instagram are where most of us spend the moments when we are in no condition or mood to perceive anything that's not out on the surface or doesn't assert itself loudly.

Sometimes creators of the beauty of mind, in their frustration of not being able to garner are kind of popularity that those with the beauty of the matter do, try to assert themselves in all sorts of ways. Unfortunately, this hardly ever ends well. In most cases, they are judged as belligerent, that is, pushing their supremacy on others. One question is: is indeed this belligerence there? Hard to say if it's right to interpret this behaviour as belligerence. It's definitely born out of anger and frustration, and has an element of violence in it. But belligerence?Belligerence amounts to an act of aggression in an attempt to force someone to to do something without his consent. What is an overassertive creator of beauty of mind trying to force people to do by making a noise about his creation? It's hard to point out. It's often construed as an attempt to force people to acknowledge the superiority of such a person. This mayn't be the case though. Such a claim, if at all there (which I doubt it is) as vacuously true and is in no need of validation. If someone is wilfully denying this, it's clearly a mean act. For most creators, their so called belligerence is really an act of retaliation against this meanness. But interestingly, to begin with, the denial of the above acknowledgement doesn't originate from meanness, but from intellectual incapacity. When intellect is slumbering, where is the question of it seeing below the surface?

The other, even more unfortunate, way the creative mind asserts its presence to the intellectually asleep majority is by commodifying itself. 'Become so good that the brilliance of your goodness pierces through the thickest of the wall of intellectual slumber', that's the maxim. This commodification is the unfortunate mechanism that drives the commercial world. It legitimises consumerism which is the advanced state of intellectual slumber; and it legitimises the alienation caused by the non-interest in the deeply beautiful thing in favour of that whose beauty is shallow and of the material. It also normalises the claim that there's no fundamental difference between the beauty of the mind and that of the matter.

Before I close, I would like to return to the infinite potential of the experience involving the beauty of the mind. There is really no limit to what you are allowed to see and experience behind an act of creativity. In fact, it's completely legal to perceive things that even the creator may not have perceived. Experiencing the beauty of mind is an act of creation.

On a completely tangential note, this may provide at least a partial resolution to the following conundrum: 'Does a copy (probably produced mechanically) have the same beauty as the original creation? Beauty of matter: yes! Beauty of mind. no! Beauty of mind can't be copied. It can't be manufactured. Process of creation happens only once -- in the mind of the creator, in the mind of the experiencer. In fact, beauty of mind is not a thing, but a process. Ephemeral. Unique. Unreplicatable.

Final word: Beauty of mind is not meant to be popular in the manner the beauty of matter is. It is sacred, and trying to push it through the wall of the widely prevailing intellectual slumber may sometimes work, but often will break it, defile it, turning it into the beauty of matter.

In Defense of Gandhi

Today (started on January 30) is the 74th death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. I am currently reading his autobiography -- a long pending life assignment for me; I am halfway through. From some conversations I have been witness to recently, where his contributions to India and its independence was questioned, and he was called over-rated, I feel motivated to express my current views on him.

Victim of Idolisation

Like many of his likes, Gandhi has been a victim of idolisation. It mayn't be wrong to say that calling him 'Mahatma' has done more to damage his life's work than anything else. Calling him the father of Nation may have been an act of love done by his devotees and friends. But today, this title has little function beyond being a fodder to controversies.

Congress had a vested interest in projecting him as Mahatma and then claiming the inheritance of his political legacy. They ran their shop for a long time in large part by appropriating this false legacy. The result: The Gandhi we see is through a veil of misinformation, exaggeration, and data manipulation propagated through 7 long decades.

The common man has his own reasons for making a deity out of anyone leading an inspiring life. Giving a status of Godliness is the most potent method of stunting a teacher ability to teach. It becomes a free pass for devotees to keep the benefits of being under the wings of a great man without having to follow in his footsteps. Each time someone expects such a thing of you, you excuse yourself, calling yourself a mere mortal. You escape the real test, and get a point for modesty!

The Narrow Lens

Gandhi's most predominant fame is as a freedom fighter which is again a very unfortunate thing. Gandhi was really a public worker who would gravitate towards what he encountered around himself. He started his career as a public worker in South Africa where he fought a long battle for the upliftment of the conditions of immigrant Indians. His public work would often bring him against the authorities. And he kept going back to South Africa after returning to India whenever he was called.

Gandhi worked on almost all conceivable areas of public work: health and sanitation, education, rural emancipation etc. From what appears to me from reading his autobiography, freedom struggle must have been only a part of his life's agenda and goal. Probably, it mayn't be wrong to say that it was, like all other areas, an avenue where he put his theories of truth to test.

The Spiritual Seeker

Public work itself was the outlet that Gandhi's spiritual quest found. Gandhi was deeply religious person, achingly in search for the spiritual secrets of life which he interchangeably refers to as truth or God. This lay at the base of his extreme compassion, courage and tolerance on the one hand, and deep disconnection with many things external. Yet, Gandhi was blessed with great worldly wisdom and tact, which kept getting better over the years. Many of his decisions and choices, particularly in his personal life, weren't half as worldly.

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Early  twentieth century was to Indian social reawakening what it was to Western Science -- a golden period. There were many greats including Gandhi, Nehru, Madan Mohan Malwiya, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Tilak etc. all on the political and social front. On the other side, we had the likes of Vivekananda, Tagore, JN Tata, JC Bose etc. all doyens in their respective areas. Gandhi was not the only great soul walking on the Indian soil.

One observation we could easily make is that Gandhi diligently worked towards developing a strong network with influential people. This may very well be his most distinctive characteristic which contributed to his immense influence. And, looking at his methods, far from getting a feeling of a Mahatma, I get a feeling that he followed the best practices of networking to an extent that today's IIM graduates would be envious of.

Unnecessary Comparisons

There are many unnecessary comparisons drawn  between Gandhi and many of his influential contemporaries. One of the most prominent of them is with Subhash Chandra Bose. And I upfront admit my very scant knowledge about Netaji except what was taught to us in our school textbooks and the conspiracy theories that never seem to settle about his death and afterlife.

Netaji was of the opinion that Independence should be snatched; we can't reason with the imperialists so they peacefully let go of their control on their prized colony. It goes without saying that his point of view wasn't without merit. However, his ideas couldn't coexist under the same roof with Gandhi's ideas of non-violence. So, they parted ways.

I would like to see this as nothing more than an intellectual difference between two great men. I don't find great merit in trying to insist to settle as to whose role was primary in India's independence. To the best of my understanding, it was neither. England was then a war torn country driven to the verge of bankruptcy. They would have been keen to invest their energies in rebuilding their nation rather than worrying about a colony which was already milked dry for 2 centuries, where the public faith on the Raj was at its all time low, and mutinies waiting to erupt anywhere and everywhere. I am sure, this would have already bumped up their willingness to leave us to the breaking point. Now what gave them the final push is neither easy to decide nor so important.

I am also aware that the relations between Gandhi and another great man, Dr. Ambedkar, weren't the sweetest. I have nearly no knowledge about the details of this disagreement. I am all too aware of the scholarly brilliance of Dr. Ambedkar, and the ground-breaking contributions towards drafting the Indian constitution and the upliftment of Dalits. Yet, he was no fan of  the other person who worked along with manual scavengers to improve the sanitary conditions of the city during plague, and worked towards their emancipation. This fails to perturb me one bit.

Consider how we do not make a big deal when statesmen or scholars of the present day debate and disagree vehemently with each other on matters professional, ethical and even personal or scientific. Why then does it perturb us so much when big guys we love who died decades ago didn't agree with each other? Because we are stuck with the idea of making gods out of them. It's we who make them into Gods, it's we who expect infallible behaviour from these Godly men, and it's we who fight like religious fanatics when our Gods don't agree with one another. It again us, who lynch out gods when they fail in living up to our picture perfect image of them. Isn't it stupid?

In other words, to pit two great souls against each other long after after they are gone is a vain debate fit for idle hero worshipers who contribute little to the real glory of either of them.

Non-Violence

Gandhi is often ridiculed for his overbearing fascination with non-violence. Non-violence, it seems, is all about giving your other cheek. I think, it's such an incredibly narrow interpretation of an unfathomably deep concept! Like truth, non-violence is open to interpretation. Gandhi didn't invent non-violence. It has found mention in many schools of thoughts over millennia. Gandhi just created a resoundingly successful experiment in using it as a tool to break the spirit of the mighty imperialists and empowering the teeming millions to think that they could take on the Britishers by coming out into the streets and filling up the jails in thousands.

Even if we look at non-violence as just a tool in the struggle for independence, it is not an exclusionary policy. I am sure there were people on both extremes and everywhere in between. Non violence was super effective in solving many complicated standoffs, and there are numerous examples of that. And admittedly, it wasn't a panacea for all issues.

A New Lens

Let's forget the Mahatma. Think of a shy, mediocre teenager from provincial Gujarat -- unsure of himself in everything: be it in his ability to speak English, his control on lust, his professional capability or his spiritual depth. And start tracing his journey from this state to when the whole nation starts looking at him as an imposing influence in some of the most stressful and controvercial of its social matters. You see that he made this big transformation possible through things which each one of us would -- in theory -- be able to do. The tricks he used were of study, self-examination, honesty, perseverance, non-violence, self experiments (in a variety of social, economic and religious austerities among others), networking with a wide-variety of people from various political schools, nationalities, religious backgrounds and races. These are none the qualities of a highly intelligent or talented person, but of a simple and ordinary person who just didn't know how to give up.

And that, in my eyes, is the most inspiring legacy of Gandhi. He essayed his life as a story of a simple man who reached dizzying heights of greatness using nothing but his pathetic experiments with truth. In front of these achievements, I count even his contributions to the National Independence as nothing.

So, let's give Gandhi a second chance. Let's liberate him of his titles and the unrealistic expectations of infallible public/political behaviour from him. Let's study his journey and his experiments with truth. Debate with his thoughts and opinions. Disagree with him, ridicule him, sometimes even feel a sense of revolt at his many naivetes and failings. But let's acknowledge him for his numerous merits which include courage, tact, willpower, resilience and so on. And then see if he fails to impress and inspire.

Living Every Moment

Sometimes, I think ...

How sad it is that we end up leading the life of a slave to meet our expectations of ourselves -- to become rich, successful, inspirational ... But the worst happens when we actually become successful! Because we create a false example of success for many others who consider us their heroes or role-models, condemning them to a life of slavery!

 How about we let go of those false self-expectations and focus on leading each day, each moment as if were a lifetime, a work of art? What would happen if we stopped defiling the present moment so that somebody would erect a statue of us and worship it when we are gone?

Is Religion Such a Ridiculous Idea?

You may count me as an atheist. Some reasons:

• I don't think all nature leads to any conclusive evidence of it having been created by a sentient/intelligent creator, or being maintained by one. I don't think that for a moral society, we need constructs like God.
• I don't consider religious rituals the only good or even the best way to bring camaraderie or cohesion among people.
• I don't consider spiritual experiences as necessarily religious.

But hello my atheist friend! Wait a moment before considering me one among you. Here's how I am not exactly like you:

• I don't think religion is a stupid construct, let alone being a vile one.
• I don't think science conclusively proves the absence of an intelligent creation.
• I don't consider religious people stupid in any way. I know extremely intelligent (and wise) people who are religious. And I don't count it as their failing.
• I don't reject the good deeds, qualities, thoughts of people just because they place it in a religious context.

Faith, like food habits, are not all cerebral in nature. They are handed down to us from our culture, and by the time we get the intellectual choice to question them, they would have played too critical a role in our making -- both in good ways as otherwise -- for us to have a total freedom to forsake them.
In fact, if one is a true sceptic, he will refrain from judging and ridiculing others, or passing blanket statements about someone's faith. When this restraint is broken, your atheism is no different than those religions you so eloquently ridicule.

Respect and Reverence

Respect makes you observe the person, opens you to allowing fundamental changes in yourself through close observation of the person, criticising the person and disagreeing with him. Reverence makes you do either or both of the following:

• follow a person with blind faith, which essentially amounts to expecting to enjoy benefits from the moral standards of the other person without necessarily having to follow them yourself
• makes you merely worship him, which is the same as closing yourself from answering for deviating, in the garb of false humility, from the standards (followed by the object of your reverence) which you know you should follow.

The side-effects of confusing reverence with respect may be more serious than meets the eye directly. One of the most glaring examples is that of spiritual gurus.

Reverence is based on a radical maxim that deepest insights -- typically spiritual in nature -- can be imbibed from outside of oneself, somewhat similar in principle to a company which tries to grow and flourish by acquiring another company. Spiritual growth, as per me, can happen only organically, through self-discovery.

Spiritual gurus often start their onslaught by saying that following them will lead to strengthening of your spiritual energies, which will then lead to great strides in spiritual growth. However, this often leads to a life full of rituals, all in the name of spiritual practices. The promised spiritual growth, which by definition, is very elusive and immeasurable, never happens. Instead, the person is drawn further away from people with habits and beliefs not aligned with the ways prescribed by the guru. This alienations starts at a social and behavioural level, proceeds through being intellectual alienation, and ends up by snapping emotional connection with anyone or any group which disagrees or dissents. This is the first step in the direction of radicalisation and intolerance.

The succour comes from the fact that disciples of the guru, going through similar experiences, are drawn closer and closer to each other. It is based on agreement in habits and ways of daily life, but eventually grows into alignment in beliefs and thoughts. This creates intellectual ghettos -- a bunch of disciples who are guaranteed to never disagree with the majority, and with overflowing eagerness to see their guru's statements proving to be true. The force which drives these people is infinite, inexplicable reverence for a so-called guide. External references are accepted only to the extent that they don't fall foul with whatever has been said by the guru. Such interactions between disciples can only create superstitions and pseudo-science: stories of air-travel and nuclear warfare being invented in India, astrology, energy fields around human bodies etc. etc. etc. Any inferences and conclusions drawn in interactions happening within such ghettos is intellectually mimed and very predictable. The basic standards of critical analysis, debates and scepticism are hardly met to allow any serious debate, and give no intellectual credence to these agreements.

These disciples keep reassuring each other that they continue to be the mild and modest people as they were; that no radicalisation has happened. And yet, here you have created, a fertile ground for raising an army of faithful ferocious soldiers who will use everything in their reach -- weapons or words -- to stamp out any voice of disagreements which dare question the absolute authority of the guru.

In short: Respect. Don't Revere.

Vinoba Bhave's Thoughts on Education

In brief ...

I summarise some of Acharya Vinoba Bhave's thoughts on education (named Nai Talim). I find its strengths in education's well-grounded and practical nature and it being treated as an ennobling agent, both traits missing in any explicit terms in present day mainstream education. I however have doubts about the practicality of such a way. It results in a society which, though internally developed, is vulnerable to external attacks and desertion by its weaker and/or ambitious members. It also seems to undermine the importance of intense intellectual pursuits like abstract science, philosophy or arts. It is hard to imagine that something like Nai Talim (an abstract concept of significant intellect) itself could emerge from such a system.

Nai Talim

I recently came across a very interesting take on education while going through a compilation of Acharya Vinoba Bhave's thoughts on education. I purchased the book for Rs. 35 at Bapu Kuti in Sevagram. The concepts are given the name Nai Talim (new learning). The concept and the term originated from Mahatma Gandhi. In gist, here are a few points which come up repeatedly as salient:

• It talks predominantly about rural education in India.
• The education is craft-based.
• Work and learning can't be separated. This is called integrated learning.
• Obsessive pursuit of knowledge isn't advocated. A pragmatic approach is proposed where knowledge is used as a tool of improving life.
• Distinction between intellectual work and labour work is discouraged.
• Overall personality and character development is emphasised.

Tones of spiritualism, socialism and non-violence are mixed at all times in the explanation of the concept. The model of development seems to weigh self-reliance and organic growth over speed of development or modernisation.

Praise

In spirit, I find myself partial to this way of learning, living and developing. I find the following as the strengths:

Education as a Value Add to Life. Over-specialisation seems to be a bane of our current way of educating our children. Students spend all their learning years gaining an expertise which is useful in a setting which isn't native to him. For example, after more than 20 years of devoted effort, all I seem to know is to work on a computer. Through a series of technological world events, computers are now placed centrally in our lives. Yet, I don't see anything natural or fundamental in this situation. How well am I educated to continue leading a meaningful, satisfied and dignified life if some of the key material aspects of my work are altered, for example, say, computer disappear?

This has several implications. Firstly, it makes me vulnerable to social and technological changes on which I have no control, and which may be centred so far away from me that I have no way to feel connected to them. Secondly, it tends to drain away my faith in education. Most students struggle for all their academic years to identify practical motivations for the activity they spend most of their waking hours in: studying. Some keep an eye on the next examination. Some have the target of getting into a top university. Some vie for a high paying job. Some of a respectable degree. All these are extrinsic and artificial motivations for doing something we aren't convinced about the real use of. Most of our learning (training) happens for the service of a complex world we have no clue about.

I feel, in the least, my education must equip me to apply my thoughts to the improvement of my own life directly. My training should enable me to solve problems of physical, analytical, emotional, social, economic and ethical nature. Nai talim seems to address that.

Education as an Ennobler. Education, as we have it today, doesn't seem to ennoble anyone. It should. In fact, this objective should be given as much importance as, if not more than, intellectual development. More educated people aren't necessarily less selfish, less corrupt, more courageous or less violent. They should be. This is dealt with in the Nai Talim.

Critique

However, I also have some doubts which render the practicality of such a system like Nai Talim questionable.

1. Vulerability. Firstly, this concept seems to be in line with an age-old Indian tradition of learning. We all know of its merits. It rightly keeps our attention away from blind materialism and focuses on inner development of people, which is what development really is. The model results in a peaceful, harmonious, robust and sustainable society, at least in theory. In a world where all civilisations, nations and races are prepared to honour, if not follow, this way of living and learning, no problems will arise. However, in a world comprising of other methods of learning and development, this way appears very vulnerable. This vulnerability has more than one forms.

1.1 External Vulnerability. Consider yourself an educated and elevated society of people leading a peaceful life in harmony with their surroundings. Any expansion is done only when bidden by necessity. So, visible signs of modernisation and technology aren't many. The real development is of course in the people: they are nobler, less aggressive, and in general happier. All hunky-dory! In comes a bellicose element: an external invader, an imperialist, a mining magnate. He is spiritually bankrupt, but has made immense strides in material development. And to drive his world at its ever increasing pace, he needs all sorts of fuels: minerals, wood, cheap labour, sex workers. He gives a damn about your inner peace and spiritual elevation; he isn't educated to believe that such things can exist. All he cares about is your mines, forests, your healthy youth and your attractive women. How do you stop him? Your military capabilities never progressed, because you never needed them so far. So, he tramples on you, kills you, destroys your monuments, burns your scriptures, rules over you for centuries, turns your lot into an intellectual and cultural morgue. He even uses his influence to convince the world that this was the barbaric tribe he was here to civilise.

A method like Nai Talim doesn't provide any protection against this effect. And we know that this form of attact happens: colonialism, atrocities on tribal villages in India and, if you will allow my including a fictional case, invasion of humans on Pandora in the film Avatar.

1.2 Internal Vulnerability. Here's another form of the vulnerability. Whatever you might say, your spiritual way of living is a bit dull, a bit slow, even boring. To enjoy it itself requires certain degree of training and orientation. On the other hand, that bellicose invader, that imperialist, makes sure to flash before everyone every evidence that his people lead an exciting life, materially fulfilled, intellectually free. He erects billboards showing beautiful models loving men due to something they wear, or possess, even though, both the beautiful model and that man posed because they got paid for it; and probably they actually hate each other in their lives. He tells stories about his most brilliant scientists. The reality may be that the scientist invented his stuff because his government wanted to bomb another nation. The scientist may have been a parasite plagearising on others' work. Or he may have been a homosexual recluse who killed himself after leading a life of unbearable persecution. But the stories told would  be of their towering scientific accomplishments as if they were all a result of an irrepressible creative urge. For a society with statistically significant population, there is bound to be a section of the population which would be swayed by this propaganda. Some will leave because they think material and sexual fulfilment is more easily available elsewhere. Some will leave because they think it's more cool to design a nuclear bomb than to till the soil. Even if you have answers to the first form of vulnerability, it's this second form which deals a deathblow to the idea of a harmonious, self contained society, because it brings forth a very important and fundamental characteristic of large collection of humans: they can never all be the same.

1.3 Way Back to Aggressiveness. And if the state tries to intervene to mitigate any of the above vulnerabilities, either through protectionist acts, strong military or iron-fisted law and order, what we have is not a spiritual society, but an equally aggressive state which is a breeding ground of inefficiency, corruption and eventually revolution.

2. Contradiction. There's one final negative factor, which I wouldn't even call a vulnerability. It's something else, something more. It's that such a way of education seems to address a large majority of people for whom imposed knowledge is an unbearable burden. For them, connecting every piece of knowledge gained with a practical experience has the potential of phenomenally increasing the outreach of education. However, there's a minority which would pursue knowledge and learning out of sheer nature. A good many of these would probably be having only one healthy organ in their body: their brain. Restricting the domain on which they are supposed to apply their thoughts would probably be okay. But to declare that mere thinking or pursuit of knowledge is of no value if not accompanied by craft based activity would paralyse these people, because, by nature, these people are probably good in only that. And it's not just about rendering these intellectual lot useless. I don't care much about sophisticated technology. But abstract mathematics and philosophy, astronomy, art, ..., I am yet to see how dedicated, passionate pursuit of such subjects would ever develop in a Nai Talim like environment. I even say the Vinoba himself falls in this category. Not in the sense that he wasn't any good in any crafts, but in the sense that many of his visions are based on his ability (and keenness) to use abstractions which he didn't need to develop as a part of his craft.

In conclusion, dedicated intellectual work of the most abstract kind are integral to the development of any society, not just the aggressive and bellicose ones, but even those which Acharyaji envisioned. This is because the concept of a large society, as large as a nation, doesn't emerge naturally from a tribal outlook that something like Nai Talim seems to advocate, but from man's inherent ability and nature to create abstractions.

Related:

Limits of Education

Small is Beautiful

Three Pillars of Enlightenment

We bought a farewell gift of three books -- one on popular science, one on Bhagwad-Gita, and one a humour novel by Wodehouse -- for one of our colleagues who spent his last day in our company today. The following message (edited) was written to bring them together:

Science: The disciplined approach of understanding everything through logical deduction, experiments and sensory observation.

Metaphysics: There lie truths beyond the boundaries of our 5 senses. Where science goes mute, mystical metaphysics becomes our guide.

Humour: Zen masters say that an acute sense of humour is the highest form of intellect; and a light-hearted laugh, the highest form of spiritual bliss.