06 Feb 2017
Shri Balaji (on Phone): Swami! Two colleagues become emotional to scold a concept not liked by them and I too become emotional. Please advise me.
Swami replied (on Phone): While doing propagation of spiritual knowledge to humanity in this word, the first required quality of the preacher is to have lot of patience without any trace of emotion. In the commentary of the first Brahma Sutra, Shankara prescribed the patience as the first required quality (Shama damaadi...). Due to emotion, mind gains strength and intelligence becomes weak so that your argument is weak due to the lack of power of analytical logic, which is supplied by the intelligence alone. In the first stage of knowledge, intelligence should be strong and hence the Gita starts with Buddhi Yoga or Sankhya Yoga.
Before entering in to argument, you must prepare the other side for the argument and then only argue with him. Without the prior preparation, if you enter straight in to argument, you will always get repulsion from the other side. The preparation of the other side should be in the following way: “My friend! Please listen a few words before we argue on this topic. None of us should become emotional, which reduces the power of logic in our arguments. If we argue in the lowest level of excitation, the energy will conserve, which is used in the argument by the brain. By this, both of us will be able to project our concepts with full logic and in complete manner. By this way, the truth will come out. One of us will be defeated in the arguments. The defeated person need not be emotional because this is not loss of a case in the court resulting in the loss of some property. The defeated person should be more happy since he gained right knowledge to be benefited and avoided the loss happening already due to wrong knowledge. The successful person in the argument need not be happy at all since he does not have any extra benefit by the success. We both are arguing as friends, co-operating with each other to dig out the truth, which may benefit both of us in case both our arguments are defective. In such case, both of us shall be equally happy. Our arguments are not our registered properties, which may be lost in the court. I am different from the argument. The argument may win or get defeated, I need not be effected at all since it is not my registered property. If I lose my property in the case, I shall feel pained since I lost the property, which gives me loss. But, in this debate, if I lose the argument, I have not lost anything. Instead, I gained profit because I have captured the right knowledge that gives me benefit in future. In addition to this, I have arrested my future loss because I am not going to lose any more due to the wrong knowledge I had so far. Additional benefit combined with arrest of loss is a double benefit! Hence, I wish that I loose in the debate if my knowledge is wrong. If we argue with this background, one of us will benefit (if one argument is wrong) or both of us may be benefited (if both arguments are defective)”.
Some times, you may have to accept some arguments from the other side also in order to become friendly with him, even though you know very well that his arguments are totally wrong. In such case, you have to accept some weak points of the other side to become friendly with him and argue vehemently on a strong point, which is the most important for his uplift. Since you have accepted with him in some points, the other side will also develop an ethical responsibility to agree with some points from your side. This is also a talented way of preaching based on the context of the rigidity of the receiver. Such talent was exhibited by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva in their times to uplift even the rigid fellows in a tactful way.
All these are essential points for preparing the receiver for the debate in the propagation of spiritual knowledge.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★