Knowing the Unknown: Part 4 - Expecting others to be convinced

Flawed as the human nature is, as social beings we want to live as a community. Probably this primitive need arose due to our physical weakness compared to the wild animals and hence the need to band together to form a more aggressive force against the enemy. In a sense, we are like wolves (start of the Roman empire, ironically) or even like viruses (as the Matrix movie portrays) where there is a need to band together to become more powerful. The age-old sentiment of "United we stand. Divided we fall" is pretty true of human nature. Interestingly, the same behavior is being exhibited currently in the form of 'social networking' and 'crowdsourcing' - history does repeat itself!

Maybe this is the reason why when it comes to matters of belief and conviction, we are not just happy of being convinced or even others echoing our beliefs voluntarily. No, we want more - we want everyone to like what we like and thus rises a need not just to convey things to others, but also expecting them to get convinced. I echo Alexander Pope's (poet, not religious leader) sentiment here - "Blessed one who does not have any expectations, for he shall never be disappointed." He is not alone. The same sentiment has been expressed time and again in ancient Hindu scriptures, most strikingly in Bhagavad Gita which asks one to perform actions without expecting the results of those actions.

karmaNyeva adhikAraste mA phaleshu kadAchana |
mA karma phala heturbhu: mA te sangostvakarmaNi ||

You have the right to action only and not to fruits thereof. Do not try to be instrumental in making your actions bear fruit (which will follow according to laws of nature). Neither let your attachment be to inaction.

(Translation Source: Parag Singla; correctness in splitting the words thanks to Vasu Srinivasan)

Such duties performed without expectations can be much more productive and beneficial. Taken into the context of our model, we can see this need for others to be convinced of our opinions take form as follows.

Let's take this apart now from left to right.

Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism arises when one is not satisfied with others getting convinced in our opinions voluntarily. The belief in one's opinion sometimes becomes so strong that an expectation builds up fairly exponentially that others should be convinced as well and a resulting disappointment arises when they do not. This subtle difference can convert a pious, religious person to cross over to the darker side of fundamentalism.

Social stigmas and political needs taken away, most, if not all religions advocate freedom of expression and speech. When the expectation becomes dominant, this fundamental thought of freedom expounded by religions are often supressed and one starts marching towards a path of destruction personified by anger, bitterness, hate, and jealousy.

Hence it is crucial for anyone who embarks on a path of understanding the unknown be aware of the wrong turns they can take towards finding true meaning. Fundamentalism start benign but can quickly turn malicious. Many of us are fundamentalists to some degree, regardless of the religion we practice. We are inherently flawed with my impure qualities that surface when our emotional nerves are touched. A very quick experiment is to ask someone to criticize something you believe in very vocally - be it your religion, family, or country - you are bound to get angry fairly quickly, right? In different scenarios, the name given for the feeling is different - fundamentalism, loyalty, or patriotism.

All these flavors have a good side, provided the feelings are kept at bay and the respect for others' beliefs are maintained. The issue arises when the feelings are overwhelming and the expectation arises that others feel the same way. It's fine to be faithful to one's religion, but not at the expense of another's faith.

Proof
On the right side, things are not as bad. Over here, the expectation for others to get convinced is more benign. It's really more about providing all the facts surrounding the theory and hence giving solid proof of one's opinion. There is a good chance that those who go through the facts will get convinced of the statement made. However, it is also quite possible that they may not. But when that happens, you don't go forcing the proof down one's throat. Rather, you just let it be and let them be convinced at a later time - mainly because the proof is not going to change. At the same time, you are also open to others providing additional facts that can overturn your proof or alter portions thereof.

This is a healthier version of expecting others to be convinced. Interestingly, this behavior can be seen even in spiritual leaders.

Philosophy
There is an in-between world where the theory or opinion one developed does not have sufficient facts to become a proof but still has some logical underpinning that ensures that the expectation for others to get convinced is kept at bay. I would classify that as philosophy.

Philosophy by nature, deals with more immeasurable aspects and hence cannot be inherently 'proved'. At the same time, it has enough logical reasoning to disqualify it as mere opinion. Philosophy, when taken as a thought process and kept closer to proof, is healthy in nurturing debates and further thought.

However, it is also vulnerable to fundamentalist thought as we have seen in cases of Communism (and times even Democracy). As I mentioned earlier, many religious leaders who expounded their philosophies about what they thought of the unknown have taken the benign path. This is quite apparent especially in the bhakti movement that occurred in India till the 16th century. When religious seers such as Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhwa provided their take on the unknown, they did not just ask people to accept their philosophy because they were great. Rather, they attempted to provide proof (albeit in the way of quoting scriptures) on why their philosophy is more accurate than the others.

Such attempts to convince others off their belief by taking a more rigorous approach would lead to a healthier environment than what most religious leaders and politicians practice nowadays.

A note on omissions
Before I move on to the next level, did you notice anything interesting in this diagram - especially more on what's not there rather than what's there?

In my 'tree' diagram, I have not expanded "Spirituality" and "Superstition" to the next level. The main reason is because both these aspects, although perceived completely differently, are quite personal in nature. It is really more about us being convinced in something strongly than really going about convincing others.

Superstition is something you may identify this with fairly easily. While you may strongly believe in a certain superstition (number 7 is lucky or black cat crossing your path is bad), you would rarely expect others to follow it. While it is true that some superstitions are prevalent enough that there is a small expectation that it be followed, it is rarely emphasized. In many cases, some may even let go of their superstitions in favor of more rigorous rituals or more scientific theories. In either case, superstition itself remains fairly personal.

The case for Spirituality may sound less convincing at first. After all, we equate religion with spirituality and hence, all religious leaders are spiritual, right? Yes and No. True spirituality preaches personal enlightenment. While others may follow the path of a spiritual person, it is not often that a spiritual person convinces others of his spirituality.

Many rishis (sages) and saints fall in this category. They perform rigorous penance to achieve personal enlightenment. While some go forward (such as Buddha, Jesus or the siddhars in India) to convey what they felt to others, they rarely expected others to follow their path. They mostly provided a guideline on what others can do if they want to achieve what they experienced, but never expected others to do what they did. Hence, the thought stops at that level.

Unfortunately, such non-egoistic, non-promotional spiritual leaders are becoming rarer to find nowadays.