I recently received a forwarded WhatsApp message about a talk program with advices given by a sannyasi. Later, I came to realize that he is a famous sannyasi (Radhanath Swami, ISKCON). In his talk, Radhanath Swami shares the story of Easy Eddie, who becomes a model father to his son Butch O’Hare. O’Hare, single-handedly, brought down several war planes during World War II and was honoured with the highest Congressional medal in the USA. O’Hare international airport in Chicago is named after him. After listening that talk, I commented:
Interesting to listen to such a talk about being a model for the children to imitate from a SANNYASI who gave up all kinds of relationship. A sannyasi can easily give such a grand talk about the importance of relationship without needs to maintain it. Probably this ISKCON Sannyasi gave this talk, as he missed it in his personal life. I would like to know whether he ever visited his mother even once a year to know about her health and needs. We, sometimes, need to listen to such advices, but never imitate sannyasis’ model as they are never committed for the maintenance of any human relationship because of their dharma. As he is busy travelling entire globe to give such grand talk, probably he, himself, might not have time to sit and reflect upon it and stop giving such talk. A family person alone is eligible for such a talk. Not a sannyasi.
The reason for saying this is: though I am not against anyone giving such a talk, a sannyasi should better keep away from giving advice to family people. He or she can engage in other kinds of social activities even running orphanage, old age home, feeding millions of people like this Radhanath Swamiji who feeds millions of school children in Mumbai area etc. Though I also have personal reservation for sannyasis involving in social activities, still I am not completely against it. When it comes to giving advice, particularly about being a model parent, sibling, friend, neighbor etc., a sannyasi can give any kind of advice to public without feeling any need to emulate it in his personal life. This does not mean that only those who lead a perfect life can give advice to others. But a sannyasi can only give an objective advice without having any kind of personal experience as his ideal is to give up everything — including remaining as a model for others. Though he can give all kinds of objective advice, there won’t be any personal touch in it. Apart from this, most of the people who listen to such advice from sannyasis will have a ‘what he knows?’ notion in their mind.
Here is a joke about it. When a favorite disciple of a sannyasi was pestering him to give him sannyasi deeksha, a swamiji, who knows about him quite well responded with much irritation: “I cannot give sannyasi deeksha to any family person who runs away from his responsibility particularly a husband who deserts his wife”, as he also knew that there existed some problems in that shishya’s marital life and earlier, he had even given some advices to both him and his wife. But the shishya with much tears, folding his hands, said, “Maharaj, I am not deserting my wife. You don’t know about (that) woman. I am a refugee seeking asylum and save me from persecution.”
That is why, when any family person seeks my advice on any life issue, my only advice is not to go to any sannyasi seeking counsel. Generally I say, ‘if you cannot listen and learn from your own elders, relatives, friends and neighbors who are actually living with others with so many issues and manage to lead relatively happy married life, you can never learn from a sannyasi. All that he can share is mere theory.’
For example, however well read a sannyasi about family issues and problems, as he does not have personal experience living as a husband, he cannot give advice on how to be a good husband. Furthermore, if he becomes a sannyasi after his marriage, then he is the worst person to give such advice to others as he, himself, failed to remain a husband till the end of his life to his wife, father to his children and grandfather to his grand children. After all, Sanyasis’ mental makeup is detachment which others cannot grasp unless they become a sannyasi. Just as a sannyasi cannot understand the real commitment of a family person, the other family persons cannot understand the inner detachment which a sannyasi develops because of his orientation. He may be involved in the life of others, but he won’t, can’t and needs not to make any kind of commitment towards them. Without having such commitment in his own life, better let he not give any kind of advice to others. But in case, if he has to give, let him make it clear that what he shares is mere theory and let he reminds it a few times.
One of the main problems in several families, particularly in India, is that they go and seek all kinds of advices and remedies from Sannaysis. Poor Sannaysis already want to run away from all kinds of responsibilities in life becoming a burden unto themselves and to get rid of it. That is why it is said in Tamil that for a sannyasi even a loin cloth- used to cover his private parts- is still a burden [Kovanamum baaram, kuditanamum paavam]. He becomes a burden, problem and solution unto himself. He can never seek it out side him or from others. Better leave him alone is NOT JUST my ADVICE but REQUEST TO all family people.
You all know the famous stories from the life of both Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Mahatma Gandhi. One mother approached Paramahamsa with her son who is eating too much jaggery to know remedy to stop it. Then Paramahamsa asked the mother to come after few days. After she left, when his shisyas asked him for the reason, with much surprise, as Paramahamsa is famous to give spontaneous advice to many, said, ‘I also eat too much jaggery often and I became addicted to it. So now I’m not eligible to give any advice to that mother. First, I have to stop eating for few days to overcome that addiction. Then only I can suggest advice to that mother. Similarly, when Kasturiba had to take salt-less food because of her health, she resisted it and challenged Gandhi. When he persuaded her to eat salt-less food, Gandhiji immediately cut-off taking salt. When his wife resumed taking salt after her treatment, Gandhiji continued it lifelong (I think).
I am not against a sannyasi involving in the lives of people. But he should do it knowing his limitations and calls first. Whenever others sought any kind of advice, let him first warn that what he says is only a theory particularly about life and interpersonal relationship.
It is better for a sannyasi not to involve in the so called social service. It is the responsibility of the society to do it. When any need arises, he should rather guide and encourage family people in the society to do it rather than he involving directly in it. He may be in the society but is not part of it. At his best, he should remain a symbol of non-permanence of life through his dress and life for others and never go for anything in excess considering the transparent nature of life. The colour of his dress symbolizing Agni (fire) should warn people about this. The inner detachment which he develops, others cannot understand unless they too become sannyasis. He should always remain as the water on the lotus leaf. He can involve in so many things not violating his sannaysi dharma without having any personal commitment to anything except his own mukti. When he forgets it and get entangled in other things, he will become a bad sample and problem to many in the long run. But a true sannyasi can walk away from any activity other than his call as a sannyasi and relationship without any guilt conscience or remorse. He is not even committed to himself. He does not have any normal dharma which is applicable to every non-sannyasis. He only has purtra dharma towards his mother and in other cases, he is beyond dharma (ati-dharmi not adharmi). If his mother demands his seva, he is under an obligation to her. That is why in some sannyasi order besides mother, even the other relatives are not permitted to meet him. In case if they come to meet, he will remain only as a sannyasi for them. But when his mother visits him, he even has to bow and touch her feet; whereas if his father comes to meet, he has to touch the feet of the sannyasi. Similarly, a sannyasi can even perform final rite of his mother but not of any other human beings (as we read about from the life of Adi Sankara and Pattinattar).1
Whereas a family person is bound by dharma, he is under an obligation to various people in his life. That is why I never believe or accept when someone says that he failed as a parent, father, mother, brother, sister, friend etc. Because there exists no perfect parent, father, mother, brother, sister, friend, relative or neighbor. If a person fails as a father, he alone is not responsible for that. In fact, without a child, he is not even a father. So in his role as a father, not only the child or children, but all other relatives also play a crucial role. If he feels that he failed, others also have a share in it. No individual, at least in India, derives his identity and security in life alone. As I often say, we neither born just as an individual without any identity nor die without any identity. That is why even after our death, we still have our identity. Some people say that his father, mother, grandfather, uncle, aunt died not as a person. But even a divorcee continues to keeps relationship with his/her divorced life partner because she or he still has to call him or her as his ex-husband or ex-wife. Even if they get remarried, they will only remain a second wife or husband continuing the identity with the first wife or husband.
So never think or say that you failed as a father, mother etc. You have done your best. This does not mean that you can always blame others for your share in the failed life and walk away easily without having any remorse or guilty conscience. NO WAY THAT IS POSSIBLE. Being social animals, we all have collective responsibility to everything in life. All are either failed parents or have done their best. The latter is the reality. Even a failed father can be a model for a son as found in case of Daud Ibrahim, the notorious gangster and smuggler (the Mastermind behind Mumbai bomb blast in which several hundred people were killed who is now hiding in Pakistan). I once saw news about his son who disowning his father and his wealth now lives with his wife and children as a Moulvi in a Madarasa in Pakistan leading a very simple life. Now his son stands as a model son for many not to imitate a bad father. I wish the entire town in which he lives could be named after him as he surpassed even O’Hare. While we have to carry our own burden, we need to carry each others’ burden as well. Remember we are living with others and not for others. A sannyasi is the only exception to this. Even a guru needs at least one shisya to become a guru, but a sannyasi does not require anyone to be a sannyasi. When a sannyasi becomes a guru or acharya, still he is not committed to his shishyas or followers.
Having the responsibility and so many obligations yet trying to live without children based on some imagined ideology based upon many tragedies and failures in life and society is not acceptable to me. As there can be no perfect life on earth, even this childfree life can never be a perfect one. Indeed, it is a perverted life. If others are selfish, even this concept of childfree life or world is also selfish. Above all, life needs to be lived on HOPE and not based on some imagined tragedies that might happen—however the statistics prove this is true (I always doubt the so called scientific data collection method which remains always biased and has many prejudices).2 There is no doubt several tragedies are happening around us. But this is part of life. Every achievement has its own pain and cost to be paid. The real joy and peace in life remains just like a lightning for a fraction of a second. But we need to toil for several hours each day to have it. Then that fraction of second of a joy and peace alone can sustain and motivate us to toil for it. And at least to carry this vision of ‘childfree’ life and world, they need children to carry their vision and mission in future generation too as this their ideology will never materialize now or ever.
Remember the instinct of sex is for procreation. It is a mean to that end. Not an end in itself. When we feel hungry, we eat not to quench the instinct of hunger, but for good health. That is why who eats just to quench the instinct of hunger will end becoming a sick person. The same is true with sex. At the same time, self control and fasting is also part of that package in addressing the natural instincts.
But a sannyasi cannot say this. He can never say that he failed as a sannyasi. And if he feels that he failed, then no other person is responsible for that. Whether he stands or falls, he does it as an individual. Similarly, he cannot say that he has done his best as a sannyasi. Because he cannot compare his life with any other person, not even with other sannyasi. He is in every sense an individual. He might have followers and other might call him as their guru and he calls them as his shishyas. But he is not even committed to them as a sannyasi.
Keeping all these various concepts behind our life in mind, it is good for a sannyasi to remain true to his call and vocation and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world. In case, if he is forced to entangle let him warn others to be prepared and be ready for him to desert them at any moment in life.
Other sannyasis might disagree with me. And they have every right to do so as I remain detached even from their views without any commitment to them.
db
1-8-2019
- There might be several contradictions in this view. Contradiction is part of life. If one wants to find contradiction, she can easily do by reading the message out of context or giving wrong interpretation or reading some other message in between the lines. This is part of imperfection in life as nobody can write a perfect paper or article. There is always space and hope for correction and improvement as writing and reading is a collective responsibility. So as a so called writer I accept the responsibility for all the mistakes and contradiction. But as a sannyasi I even disown this article without any commitment of a writer!
See also another article in the blog: Sannyasi is not the model
Notes
1 Pattinatar is a Tamil business man who renounced all his wealth and became a sannyasi. But he promised his mother to come to do the final rite after her death. See more about his songs which wrote at the funeral of his mother, which will bring tears to anyone who reads it. See in Bhakti Theology song 55 more on Patttinatar.
2 The following extract from a scholar who is an authority on such Anthropological survey will highlight this:
…During the last thirty years a class of academic-entrepreneurs has emerged in response to the demand for data and studies. They are usually senior men, heads of departments, or institutions, who enjoy directing projects, appointing staff, distributing patronage and flying to Delhi and other places for meetings of committees and seminars. Their intellectual interests are continually shifting to new areas: for instance, Indian social scientists (p.521) have discovered poverty to be a profitable area for research. Research in slums and villages is also becoming fashionable.
The low qualifications, poor emoluments, harsh working conditions, and lack of knowledge, if not sympathy with, the aims of survey, which usually characterize investigators, result in the collection of information of dubious value. (I am aware that there are differences between various surveys in this matter but such differences are of degree and not of kind.) There are all kinds of hazards in such surveys. Do the investigators understand the questions clearly, assuming, of course, the questions are unambiguous? Can they explain them to respondents? How many of the questions touch on areas which are sensitive, especially during a period of every-increasing governmental intrusion into the lives of the citizens? How many questionnaires does an investigator have to complete each day, and so on? When an investigator is required to complete so many questionnaires per day, and the latter are long and contain tricky, difficult and sensitive questions, then evasive, inaccurate, and wrong answers are unavoidable. Even worse is the tendency to fake responses to questionnaires….I recently came across an instance of an investigator who had faked, sitting in his home, responses to some forty questionnaires. Faking, however, is not confined to investigators. It also occurs at higher levels where data is processed—‘laundered’ might be a more appropriate term. For instance, when a macro-study involves several projects and the results of one of them diverge from the others, the latter may be brought’ in line’. The computing assistants feel safer when the results are not too diverse.
The bigger the survey, the greater the likelihood, if not the quantum, of faking. Academic decorum requires that this is not mentioned, let alone discussed. But anyone who bothers will find out that underneath the decorous surface there is a whole body of folklore about how investigators fake information and how their supervisors fake supervision. The supervisory and investigating staff act in collusion, thus defeating the survey itself.
My remarks on the unreliability of the data collected in a macro-survey and the role of the research-patron are not peculiar to developing countries. For instance, according to Andreski: (p.522)
The chief advantage of the mechanical application of routine techniques is that it permits a massive production of printed matter without much mental effort….A research boss does not have to bother himself with observing or thinking about what he sees. All he has to do is to raise the money and recruit the staff who will do the work. Another advantage is that no matter how careless or even dishonest the interviewers might have been, the tabulated figures do not tell the story of how they came into existence, and the more massive the tables the more inscrutable they become (Andreski, S. Social Science as Sorcery. London: Andre Deutsch. 1972: 109)
The belief seems to be widely held that all this can be taken care of by providing for a percentage of error in the responses. While such caution is to be welcomed, I find it difficult to believe that the investigator’s failure to understand some questions, or clearly translate them, the numerous questions to which responses have to be obtained, the reluctance of respondents, and faking, can all be tidily summed up as a tiny percentage.—VILLAGE STUDIES, PARTICIPANTS OBSERVATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IN INDIA. Pp.515-531, in M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004. pp. 521-523
Model Parenting
I recently received a forwarded WhatsApp message about a talk program with advices given by a sannyasi. Later, I came to realize that he is a famous sannyasi (Radhanath Swami, ISKCON). In his talk, Radhanath Swami shares the story of Easy Eddie, who becomes a model father to his son Butch O’Hare. O’Hare, single-handedly, brought down several war planes during World War II and was honoured with the highest Congressional medal in the USA. O’Hare international airport in Chicago is named after him. After listening that talk, I commented:
Interesting to listen to such a talk about being a model for the children to imitate from a SANNYASI who gave up all kinds of relationship. A sannyasi can easily give such a grand talk about the importance of relationship without needs to maintain it. Probably this ISKCON Sannyasi gave this talk, as he missed it in his personal life. I would like to know whether he ever visited his mother even once a year to know about her health and needs. We, sometimes, need to listen to such advices, but never imitate sannyasis’ model as they are never committed for the maintenance of any human relationship because of their dharma. As he is busy travelling entire globe to give such grand talk, probably he, himself, might not have time to sit and reflect upon it and stop giving such talk. A family person alone is eligible for such a talk. Not a sannyasi.
The reason for saying this is: though I am not against anyone giving such a talk, a sannyasi should better keep away from giving advice to family people. He or she can engage in other kinds of social activities even running orphanage, old age home, feeding millions of people like this Radhanath Swamiji who feeds millions of school children in Mumbai area etc. Though I also have personal reservation for sannyasis involving in social activities, still I am not completely against it. When it comes to giving advice, particularly about being a model parent, sibling, friend, neighbor etc., a sannyasi can give any kind of advice to public without feeling any need to emulate it in his personal life. This does not mean that only those who lead a perfect life can give advice to others. But a sannyasi can only give an objective advice without having any kind of personal experience as his ideal is to give up everything — including remaining as a model for others. Though he can give all kinds of objective advice, there won’t be any personal touch in it. Apart from this, most of the people who listen to such advice from sannyasis will have a ‘what he knows?’ notion in their mind.
Here is a joke about it. When a favorite disciple of a sannyasi was pestering him to give him sannyasi deeksha, a swamiji, who knows about him quite well responded with much irritation: “I cannot give sannyasi deeksha to any family person who runs away from his responsibility particularly a husband who deserts his wife”, as he also knew that there existed some problems in that shishya’s marital life and earlier, he had even given some advices to both him and his wife. But the shishya with much tears, folding his hands, said, “Maharaj, I am not deserting my wife. You don’t know about (that) woman. I am a refugee seeking asylum and save me from persecution.”
That is why, when any family person seeks my advice on any life issue, my only advice is not to go to any sannyasi seeking counsel. Generally I say, ‘if you cannot listen and learn from your own elders, relatives, friends and neighbors who are actually living with others with so many issues and manage to lead relatively happy married life, you can never learn from a sannyasi. All that he can share is mere theory.’
For example, however well read a sannyasi about family issues and problems, as he does not have personal experience living as a husband, he cannot give advice on how to be a good husband. Furthermore, if he becomes a sannyasi after his marriage, then he is the worst person to give such advice to others as he, himself, failed to remain a husband till the end of his life to his wife, father to his children and grandfather to his grand children. After all, Sanyasis’ mental makeup is detachment which others cannot grasp unless they become a sannyasi. Just as a sannyasi cannot understand the real commitment of a family person, the other family persons cannot understand the inner detachment which a sannyasi develops because of his orientation. He may be involved in the life of others, but he won’t, can’t and needs not to make any kind of commitment towards them. Without having such commitment in his own life, better let he not give any kind of advice to others. But in case, if he has to give, let him make it clear that what he shares is mere theory and let he reminds it a few times.
One of the main problems in several families, particularly in India, is that they go and seek all kinds of advices and remedies from Sannaysis. Poor Sannaysis already want to run away from all kinds of responsibilities in life becoming a burden unto themselves and to get rid of it. That is why it is said in Tamil that for a sannyasi even a loin cloth- used to cover his private parts- is still a burden [Kovanamum baaram, kuditanamum paavam]. He becomes a burden, problem and solution unto himself. He can never seek it out side him or from others. Better leave him alone is NOT JUST my ADVICE but REQUEST TO all family people.
You all know the famous stories from the life of both Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Mahatma Gandhi. One mother approached Paramahamsa with her son who is eating too much jaggery to know remedy to stop it. Then Paramahamsa asked the mother to come after few days. After she left, when his shisyas asked him for the reason, with much surprise, as Paramahamsa is famous to give spontaneous advice to many, said, ‘I also eat too much jaggery often and I became addicted to it. So now I’m not eligible to give any advice to that mother. First, I have to stop eating for few days to overcome that addiction. Then only I can suggest advice to that mother. Similarly, when Kasturiba had to take salt-less food because of her health, she resisted it and challenged Gandhi. When he persuaded her to eat salt-less food, Gandhiji immediately cut-off taking salt. When his wife resumed taking salt after her treatment, Gandhiji continued it lifelong (I think).
I am not against a sannyasi involving in the lives of people. But he should do it knowing his limitations and calls first. Whenever others sought any kind of advice, let him first warn that what he says is only a theory particularly about life and interpersonal relationship.
It is better for a sannyasi not to involve in the so called social service. It is the responsibility of the society to do it. When any need arises, he should rather guide and encourage family people in the society to do it rather than he involving directly in it. He may be in the society but is not part of it. At his best, he should remain a symbol of non-permanence of life through his dress and life for others and never go for anything in excess considering the transparent nature of life. The colour of his dress symbolizing Agni (fire) should warn people about this. The inner detachment which he develops, others cannot understand unless they too become sannyasis. He should always remain as the water on the lotus leaf. He can involve in so many things not violating his sannaysi dharma without having any personal commitment to anything except his own mukti. When he forgets it and get entangled in other things, he will become a bad sample and problem to many in the long run. But a true sannyasi can walk away from any activity other than his call as a sannyasi and relationship without any guilt conscience or remorse. He is not even committed to himself. He does not have any normal dharma which is applicable to every non-sannyasis. He only has purtra dharma towards his mother and in other cases, he is beyond dharma (ati-dharmi not adharmi). If his mother demands his seva, he is under an obligation to her. That is why in some sannyasi order besides mother, even the other relatives are not permitted to meet him. In case if they come to meet, he will remain only as a sannyasi for them. But when his mother visits him, he even has to bow and touch her feet; whereas if his father comes to meet, he has to touch the feet of the sannyasi. Similarly, a sannyasi can even perform final rite of his mother but not of any other human beings (as we read about from the life of Adi Sankara and Pattinattar).1
Whereas a family person is bound by dharma, he is under an obligation to various people in his life. That is why I never believe or accept when someone says that he failed as a parent, father, mother, brother, sister, friend etc. Because there exists no perfect parent, father, mother, brother, sister, friend, relative or neighbor. If a person fails as a father, he alone is not responsible for that. In fact, without a child, he is not even a father. So in his role as a father, not only the child or children, but all other relatives also play a crucial role. If he feels that he failed, others also have a share in it. No individual, at least in India, derives his identity and security in life alone. As I often say, we neither born just as an individual without any identity nor die without any identity. That is why even after our death, we still have our identity. Some people say that his father, mother, grandfather, uncle, aunt died not as a person. But even a divorcee continues to keeps relationship with his/her divorced life partner because she or he still has to call him or her as his ex-husband or ex-wife. Even if they get remarried, they will only remain a second wife or husband continuing the identity with the first wife or husband.
So never think or say that you failed as a father, mother etc. You have done your best. This does not mean that you can always blame others for your share in the failed life and walk away easily without having any remorse or guilty conscience. NO WAY THAT IS POSSIBLE. Being social animals, we all have collective responsibility to everything in life. All are either failed parents or have done their best. The latter is the reality. Even a failed father can be a model for a son as found in case of Daud Ibrahim, the notorious gangster and smuggler (the Mastermind behind Mumbai bomb blast in which several hundred people were killed who is now hiding in Pakistan). I once saw news about his son who disowning his father and his wealth now lives with his wife and children as a Moulvi in a Madarasa in Pakistan leading a very simple life. Now his son stands as a model son for many not to imitate a bad father. I wish the entire town in which he lives could be named after him as he surpassed even O’Hare. While we have to carry our own burden, we need to carry each others’ burden as well. Remember we are living with others and not for others. A sannyasi is the only exception to this. Even a guru needs at least one shisya to become a guru, but a sannyasi does not require anyone to be a sannyasi. When a sannyasi becomes a guru or acharya, still he is not committed to his shishyas or followers.
Having the responsibility and so many obligations yet trying to live without children based on some imagined ideology based upon many tragedies and failures in life and society is not acceptable to me. As there can be no perfect life on earth, even this childfree life can never be a perfect one. Indeed, it is a perverted life. If others are selfish, even this concept of childfree life or world is also selfish. Above all, life needs to be lived on HOPE and not based on some imagined tragedies that might happen—however the statistics prove this is true (I always doubt the so called scientific data collection method which remains always biased and has many prejudices).2 There is no doubt several tragedies are happening around us. But this is part of life. Every achievement has its own pain and cost to be paid. The real joy and peace in life remains just like a lightning for a fraction of a second. But we need to toil for several hours each day to have it. Then that fraction of second of a joy and peace alone can sustain and motivate us to toil for it. And at least to carry this vision of ‘childfree’ life and world, they need children to carry their vision and mission in future generation too as this their ideology will never materialize now or ever.
Remember the instinct of sex is for procreation. It is a mean to that end. Not an end in itself. When we feel hungry, we eat not to quench the instinct of hunger, but for good health. That is why who eats just to quench the instinct of hunger will end becoming a sick person. The same is true with sex. At the same time, self control and fasting is also part of that package in addressing the natural instincts.
But a sannyasi cannot say this. He can never say that he failed as a sannyasi. And if he feels that he failed, then no other person is responsible for that. Whether he stands or falls, he does it as an individual. Similarly, he cannot say that he has done his best as a sannyasi. Because he cannot compare his life with any other person, not even with other sannyasi. He is in every sense an individual. He might have followers and other might call him as their guru and he calls them as his shishyas. But he is not even committed to them as a sannyasi.
Keeping all these various concepts behind our life in mind, it is good for a sannyasi to remain true to his call and vocation and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world. In case, if he is forced to entangle let him warn others to be prepared and be ready for him to desert them at any moment in life.
Other sannyasis might disagree with me. And they have every right to do so as I remain detached even from their views without any commitment to them.
db
1-8-2019
- There might be several contradictions in this view. Contradiction is part of life. If one wants to find contradiction, she can easily do by reading the message out of context or giving wrong interpretation or reading some other message in between the lines. This is part of imperfection in life as nobody can write a perfect paper or article. There is always space and hope for correction and improvement as writing and reading is a collective responsibility. So as a so called writer I accept the responsibility for all the mistakes and contradiction. But as a sannyasi I even disown this article without any commitment of a writer!
See also another article in the blog: Sannyasi is not the model
Notes
1 Pattinatar is a Tamil business man who renounced all his wealth and became a sannyasi. But he promised his mother to come to do the final rite after her death. See more about his songs which wrote at the funeral of his mother, which will bring tears to anyone who reads it. See in Bhakti Theology song 55 more on Patttinatar.
2 The following extract from a scholar who is an authority on such Anthropological survey will highlight this:
…During the last thirty years a class of academic-entrepreneurs has emerged in response to the demand for data and studies. They are usually senior men, heads of departments, or institutions, who enjoy directing projects, appointing staff, distributing patronage and flying to Delhi and other places for meetings of committees and seminars. Their intellectual interests are continually shifting to new areas: for instance, Indian social scientists (p.521) have discovered poverty to be a profitable area for research. Research in slums and villages is also becoming fashionable.
The low qualifications, poor emoluments, harsh working conditions, and lack of knowledge, if not sympathy with, the aims of survey, which usually characterize investigators, result in the collection of information of dubious value. (I am aware that there are differences between various surveys in this matter but such differences are of degree and not of kind.) There are all kinds of hazards in such surveys. Do the investigators understand the questions clearly, assuming, of course, the questions are unambiguous? Can they explain them to respondents? How many of the questions touch on areas which are sensitive, especially during a period of every-increasing governmental intrusion into the lives of the citizens? How many questionnaires does an investigator have to complete each day, and so on? When an investigator is required to complete so many questionnaires per day, and the latter are long and contain tricky, difficult and sensitive questions, then evasive, inaccurate, and wrong answers are unavoidable. Even worse is the tendency to fake responses to questionnaires….I recently came across an instance of an investigator who had faked, sitting in his home, responses to some forty questionnaires. Faking, however, is not confined to investigators. It also occurs at higher levels where data is processed—‘laundered’ might be a more appropriate term. For instance, when a macro-study involves several projects and the results of one of them diverge from the others, the latter may be brought’ in line’. The computing assistants feel safer when the results are not too diverse.
The bigger the survey, the greater the likelihood, if not the quantum, of faking. Academic decorum requires that this is not mentioned, let alone discussed. But anyone who bothers will find out that underneath the decorous surface there is a whole body of folklore about how investigators fake information and how their supervisors fake supervision. The supervisory and investigating staff act in collusion, thus defeating the survey itself.
My remarks on the unreliability of the data collected in a macro-survey and the role of the research-patron are not peculiar to developing countries. For instance, according to Andreski: (p.522)
The chief advantage of the mechanical application of routine techniques is that it permits a massive production of printed matter without much mental effort….A research boss does not have to bother himself with observing or thinking about what he sees. All he has to do is to raise the money and recruit the staff who will do the work. Another advantage is that no matter how careless or even dishonest the interviewers might have been, the tabulated figures do not tell the story of how they came into existence, and the more massive the tables the more inscrutable they become (Andreski, S. Social Science as Sorcery. London: Andre Deutsch. 1972: 109)
The belief seems to be widely held that all this can be taken care of by providing for a percentage of error in the responses. While such caution is to be welcomed, I find it difficult to believe that the investigator’s failure to understand some questions, or clearly translate them, the numerous questions to which responses have to be obtained, the reluctance of respondents, and faking, can all be tidily summed up as a tiny percentage.—VILLAGE STUDIES, PARTICIPANTS OBSERVATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IN INDIA. Pp.515-531, in M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004. pp. 521-523