Distinguishing an Attitude of Equality From One of Indifference

The mental framework frequently wants to find an “either/or” option rather than looking at the nuance needed to resolve multiple views of pending questions. Thus, when we are asked to consider achieving a poise of equality in the face of provocation of any sort, positive or negative, we will tend to shift toward a poise of indifference and thereby give up the initiative to action. It is difficult for us to conceive of maintaining such a standpoint and at the same time engaging in the action needed to fight for a principle or to achieve the evolutionary goal before us. This was the conundrum that paralyzed Arjuna on the battlefield, when he said ‘I will not fight.’ Sri Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, provided the answer to Arjuna. He was not to demonize the opposition, but he was to fight for the principle of truth and be ready to kill the opponents, even those who were respected and honored elders and teachers and family members. A tough lesson, to be sure….

It is easy to become upset, to claim the enemy before us is a demon, or somehow utterly evil and worthy to be destroyed. We may feel we are fighting for the truth. But this leads to the question, particularly in complex areas that have balancing aspects on each side, of whether we are impartial enough to actually judge the truth of the situation, and if so, are we ready to meet the challenge, and do so without demonizing the opponent.

If we take a longer view, we can see the arc of evolution tending towards greater understanding, more harmony in our interactions with others and with Nature, and with more compassion and empathy as we identify suffering. This does not imply that most of humanity has adopted these principles as a basis for their actions; it means that more people have been aware of these issues and aspire towards realizing them in circumstances that are both complex and mired in the ways of the past — change does not come easily, quickly or on a scale that transforms life all at once. This basic understanding represents a true sense of the purpose of our lives and the direction that we can support. Similarly, the apparent increase in power of retrogressive forces does not imply that the evolutionary change has failed or been reversed; rather, it may paradoxically show that the evolutionary trend is gaining steam and those wedded to the old ways and habits are fighting with all their power to derail the changes.

Sri Aurobindo notes: “No doubt, hatred and cursing are not the proper attitude. It is true also that to look upon all things and all people with a calm and clear vision, to be uninvolved and impartial in one’s judgments is a quite proper yogic attitude. A condition of perfect samata can be established in which one sees all as equal, friends and enemies included, and is not disturbed by what men do or by what happens. The question is whether this is all that is demanded from us. If so, then the general attitude will be of a neutral indifference to to everything. But the Gita, which strongly insists on a perfect and absolute samata, goes on to say, ‘Fight, destroy the adversary, conquer.’ If there is no kind of general action wanted, no loyalty to Truth as against Falsehood except for one’s personal sadhana, no will for the Truth to conquer, then the samata or indifference will suffice. But here there is a work to be done, a Truth to be established against which immense forces are arranged, invisible forces which can use visible things and persons and actions for their instruments. If one is among the disciples, the seekers of this Truth, one has to take sides for the Truth, to stand against the forces that attack it and seek to stifle it. Arjuna wanted not to stand for either side, to refuse any action of hostility even against assailants; Sri Krishna, who insisted so much on samata, strongly rebuked his attitude and insisted equally on his fighting the adversary. ‘Have samata,‘ he said, ‘and seeing clearly the Truth, fight.’ Therefore to take sides with the Truth and to refuse to concede anything to the Falsehood that attacks, to be unflinchingly loyal and against the hostiles and the attackers, is not inconsistent with equality. It is personal and egoistic feeling that has to be thrown away; hatred and vital ill-will have to be rejected. But loyalty and refusal to compromise with the assailants and the hostiles or to dally with their ideas and demands and say, ‘After all, we can compromise with what they ask from us’, or to accept them as companions and our own people — these things have a great importance…. It is a spiritual battle inward and outward; by neutrality and compromise or even passivity one may allow the enemy forces to pass and crush down the Truth and its children. If you look at it from this point, you will see that if the inner spiritual equality is right, the active loyalty and firm taking of sides is as right, and the two cannot be incompatible.”

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Looking from Within, Chapter 2, Looking at Oneself and Others, pp. 45-47