When sentiment expands beyond the limit of an individual to embrace others also, it is called “socio-sentiment.” 
The radius of a socio-sentiment may be narrow or wide compared with another socio-sentiments, depending on how many people the sentiment encompasses. The narrowest of all the socio-sentiments is technically called “socio-sentiment minimitis”; and the greatest is called “socio-sentiment maximitis” or “socio-sentiment excellencio”.
For example the socio-sentiment of family sentiment has a very small radius, whereas the radius of humanism may be termed as socio-sentiment maximitis.
Sometimes people promote a socio-sentiment of greater radius has being more important and better than another socio-sentiment of smaller radius. However because all socio-sentiments are born out of superiority complex and pride which inevitably causes harm to other beings, and because this way of habitual thinking is divisive to society, PROUT recognizes all forms of socio-sentiment as a psychic disease.
Socio-sentiment is much more harmful for society than geo-sentiment because it occurs pervasively in all spheres, such as the mental sphere, and economics, politics, culture or religion – in all spheres of life. Socio-sentiment perpetuates psychic exploitation by injecting inferiority complexes in others’ minds, and this psychic exploitation is the basis of other types of exploitation.
Examples of social sentiment are diverse since it applies to any group sentiment that harbours superiority complex of this identity. Therefore only a short example follows from socio-sentiment minimitis to socio-sentiment manimitis:
2 people willing to commit crimes against others to help each other (socio-sentiment minimitis)
Humanism (socio-sentiment maximitis)
1. “We were discussing socio-sentiment. When sentiment expands beyond the limit of an individual to embrace others also, it is called “socio-sentiment.” Where does it end?
Just as zero cannot have any radius, infinity has no radius either. You can form a circle with a radius greater than zero but less than infinity; only in this circumstance can it exist. Unless the radius of anything is greater than zero and less than infinity, its existence becomes meaningless. Then there may be existence in theory but not in actuality.
Now, family sentiment is also a kind of socio-sentiment, but its radius is very small. Greater than this is the radius of caste sentiment, and still greater is that of community sentiment, national sentiment, international sentiment and so on. Now, the narrowest of all the socio-sentiments is technically called “socio-sentiment minimitis”; and the greatest is called “socio-sentiment maximitis” or “socio-sentiment excellencio”. What is the difference between these two terms?
The small theoretical gap between excellencio and maximitis makes little difference so far as the collective welfare is concerned. It merely soars high in the realm of theory, just like the argument whether the pot contains the oil or the oil is contained in the pot, or the argument whether the palmyra fruit falls first or the sound of its hitting the ground comes first. This is how the ancient logicians used to endlessly debate.
It is said that once the scholars in Navadvipa conducted a long research on the subject of whether the sound is produced before or after the palmyra fruit hits the ground. The story goes that the scholars carried on this debate for three days and nights, and five maunds of snuff was consumed in the process! After three days and nights it was found at daybreak that almost all the scholars were dead. And what was the cause? The palmyra fruits fell on their heads, and that is how they died!
Now, this socio-sentiment, in its stage of excellencio or in theory maximitis, is called “humanism.” Suppose I was working for a particular nation, but now I am working for all nations. When I admit the existence of nations and say that I am working for all nations, then it is neither humanism nor universalism – it is merely internationalism. When I use the term “internationalism”, I am admitting the existence of separate nations, and along with this I must naturally also think, within the nations, of the people’s five fundamental requirements of life (food, clothes, education, shelter, and medical care). But when I discover that one nation is trying to thrive on the life-blood of another, I oppose it, and this opposition ultimately leads to world war. So internationalism is not the solution either.
Now, if we enlarge the circumference beyond the scope of nationalism or internationalism, and embrace all people within one fold, this is called “humanism”, or, still better, “ordinary”, or “general”, humanism.
What is this humanism? It is socio-sentiment maximitis. Is this the panacea for all problems? Does it provide answers to all questions? No, it does not, for two reasons. The first is that even within humanism there is still intra-humanistic clash; and secondly, in the living world, humans are not the only living beings – there are many other creatures as well. If people completely ignore them, indeed this may not create any great conflict in the external world, because non-human creatures are psychologically undeveloped. (Even if they are physically developed, mentally they are undeveloped.) Thus it is easy for human beings to destroy the animal and plant kingdoms. But this destruction will upset the balance among the plant, animal and human worlds, and result in the catastrophic ruin of human life as well.
Now, what does “intra-humanistic clash” mean? Suppose I find that a particular social group is suffering from starvation, and I provide food for them. This is humanitarian, no doubt, but at the back of my mind I am thinking, “Let me utilize these people as the suppliers of our raw materials and the purchasers of our finished products, because these people are now obligated to us.” This sort of mentality will one day destroy peace in society. So the humanistic approach is not perfect – it is adulterated.
Suppose we discover that a particular group is educationally backward. We feel pity for them because they are also our fellow human beings; so we think, “Let us introduce them to the printed word, at least!” and actually we do something towards that end. But through this so-called “literacy drive”, we inject ideas in their minds that paralyse them mentally, and then we ultimately govern these mentally-paralysed people as colonized people. In this way the peace of the world will be destroyed. This is all “intra-human conflict”. The intention is to develop them socially in the way we like and thus destroy their originality. This mentality is at work.
What is the reason for this type of mentality? “I pity them” – this vanity, this superiority complex, will eventually create satellite social groups. This adulterated [humanism] is not genuine [humanism], nor is it true humanistic spirit; it is ordinary human sentiment or pseudo-humanistic strategy in another form. It has some affinity with pseudo-reformist strategy.
How does pseudo-reformist strategy work? What is its nature? It arises within socio-sentiment: “Yes, what my opponents [revolutionaries] say is correct; but if this really materializes, it will greatly inconvenience me and disturb my individual senntiment. So what we must do is to try to adjust with the existing situation. We don’t want any great changes, we will just go ahead step by step. Externally we may speak of reform, but in our heart of hearts, we have decided not to allow any change to take place.” This is pseudo-reformist strategy.(1)
And what is “pseudo-humanistic strategy”? “Outwardly we preach the gospels of humanistic idealism but actually we stab others in the back.” In the absence of a firm foundation, this sort of ordinary human sentiment remains unstable. This situation is prevalent all over the world today; you must make sincere efforts to see that it continues no longer.
Intra-humanistic clash is a continuing phenomenon, and as a result there are constant conflicts between individual and individual, between group and group. What is the reason? It is because this so-called ordinary humanism or general humanism is nothing more than an enlarged form of nationalism: only its radius is large, or maximitis, as I said in the beginning. That is the only difference.
So you see, socio-sentiment minimitis and socio-sentiment maximitis, although they differ in radius, are both mental diseases which demand our equal attention. Suppose in someone’s body there is a certain disease in one place affecting a limited area, and the same disease in another place affecting a broader area. The disease is the same; the difference lies only in the magnitude of the affected area. The socio-sentiment maximitis or excellencio that is included in socio-sentiment results in clash not only among human beings, but also in mutual clash among humans, animals and plants. If, instead of firmly establishing one’s mind in humanism, one is guided by pseudo-humanistic strategy, one is bound by some means or other to bring the social group to which one has given aid within the scope of one’s own socio-sentiment. Thus today or tomorrow they will become exploited, either directly or indirectly, and the exploitation will be more intense in the economic sphere than in other spheres.
This has one very interesting aspect, which most people overlook. Depending upon the degree of economic affluence, some countries are called “developed”, some “developing” and some “undeveloped”. Now the interesting thing is that none of these so-called developed countries can stand on their own legs. They are simply compelling the developing and undeveloped countries to buy their industrial goods by creating circumstantial pressure on them. None of these countries gets developed by developing its own resources.
In those countries which are developing their own resources, the resources are not equally distributed among them, so naturally some countries’ resources will become exhausted sooner than others’. And when this occurs they will have to use force – either physical or intellectual – against others.
So as long as there are bondages of nationhood, maximitis bondages (not to mention minimitis), the tendency to exploit individuals or the collectivity will continue to exist. This is bound to have its repercussions on political life as well as religious life. I said yesterday that religion is being used to create satellites; the propagators of religion are performing this unjust action consciously or unconsciously. But behind all this lies the wealth of those who seek to create satellite groups as suppliers of their raw materials or customers for their finished products. Thus there is pervasive corruption in religious life. None of these religions is Bhágavata dharma, the all-embracing human dharma.
There is degeneration in cultural life also. Once one’s cultural life is controlled, one becomes a slave. The rulers and exploiters, who are motivated by socio-sentiment maximitis (otherwise known as general humanism), want to exploit people in all spheres of life – social, economic, political, cultural and religious. Hence humanism cannot be considered to be the panacea; it is not a perfect remedy.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 22 March 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, Pseudo-Humanism (Discourse 8 )
2. “In this world we find different varieties of group sentiment and socio-sentiment. For example, a small group may be composed of only a very few people, which we call a family. There are still larger groups, such as castes, communities,(1) tribes and nationalities; and behind all those groups the same mental weakness, the same psychic disease, is operating. As a consequence of this disease, people confine themselves within a particular group, and due to this confinement, they suffer from different types of complexes. Sometimes they praise and applaud each other, saying, “How fine this gentleman speaks! How nicely he acts!” Actually this applause comes from those who share the same psychic complex.
Within a gang of thieves, one of them says appreciatively, “Oh! The sleight-of-hand of such-and-such other thief is marvellous – he has made a fool of me!” Here one pickpocket is praising another, because they belong to the same group. But one who does not belong to that gang of pickpockets will never appreciate it.
In actuality, it so happens that a person belonging to a group whose boundaries are larger will always disparage and denounce a group whose boundaries are smaller. The person who is concerned only with his own family and nothing else, merely goes to the office, strolls home and reads the newspaper. Those who have formed a group on the basis of caste – the organizers of the “All-India Such-and-Such Association” – what will they do? They will criticize that person, saying, “He is concerned only with his family.” Again, those who are involved with a slightly larger community – the “All-India Such-and-Such Society” – will say about them, “Pooh! They are concerned only with their caste! Is this proper?” But those whose minds are still more expanded, what will they do? They will say, “Pooh! These communities, these castes – they are contrary to nationalism. If we concern ourselves with caste, community, etc., it will weaken the foundation of our nation. They are enemies of the state – they cause harm to society by spreading communalism and other narrow ideas!” They forget that they are all suffering from the same disease – the only difference is, one’s circle is slightly larger than the other’s.
They may indeed be quite conscious of the fact that they are all suffering from the same disease, but still they propagate these sorts of idea because they are motivated by selfish interest. Thus those who confine themselves within any specific circle, regardless of its circumference, all come within the scope of socio-sentiment.
Where there is no such limitation or confinement, where socio-sentiment is transcended, I call this “general humanism”, but this is not something noble to gloat over either.
Now, in socio-sentiment, it happens that a certain group exploits another, and that exploited group in turn exploits a third. In Hindu society you will notice that there are many divisions of caste, high and low. You will hear many people saying lightly, “It is the Brahmans who are responsible for all this!” But the same person who holds the Brahmans responsible, will refuse to touch the people of a caste slightly lower than his or her own, so as not to pollute oneself by their contact. Still others hold two or three castes responsible, but they themselves also refuse to touch lower-caste people. A person of the low Tentule Bagdi caste says, “Dule Bagdi caste people are lower than me – so I will not touch them!” But the same Tentule Bagdi caste person complains, “We are ruined by the Brahmans!” In fact these are all expressions of the mental disease I referred to. One who is confined within a certain circle condemns other groups. You should never hold any particular caste or community responsible for the ruin of the society – this is completely false. You yourself are responsible for it.“…
…”I know a certain lady who never drinks tap water, because, according to her, “People of all castes work in the waterworks – how can I drink such water?” She drinks only pure Ganges water – as if that water were touched only by the holy Brahmans! Behind this reluctance to accept the new in place of the old lies a fear complex.
Motivated by socio-sentiment, one group harms and exploits another group in the social, economic, cultural and religious spheres.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 21 March 1982, Calcutta, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, Exploitation and Pseudo-Culture (Discourse 7)
3. “The moment an inferiority complex is created, the ruling class uses it to exploit them psychically; those who are motivated by socio-sentiment continue their social exploitation in this manner. They infuse the same inferiority complex in other spheres of life also; then psychic exploitation occurs as a matter of course.
Psychic exploitation is twofold. Sometimes it occurs only in the mental sphere, and sometimes partially in the mental sphere and partially in other spheres, such as economics, politics, culture or religion – in all spheres of life. That is why I said previously that socio-sentiment is much more harmful for society than geo-sentiment. What is socio-sentiment? People forget their own rights, and even forget that they are human beings, that they too have the right to live with dignity. Thus socio-sentiment is more harmful. Socio-sentiment perpetuates psychic exploitation by injecting inferiority complexes in others’ minds, and this psychic exploitation is the basis of other types of exploitation.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 21 March 1982, Calcutta, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, Exploitation and Pseudo-Culture (Discourse 7), Mental Complexes and Psychic Exploitation
4. “Motivated by socio-sentiment, one social group tries to forcibly dominate another group, with the intention that “We will utilize the exploited group or their land” – here the group is more important than the land – “as a source of raw materials. The finished products will be manufactured within our area, and then we will utilize the exploited country as the market for our goods.”
What can the financially-handicapped groups do in this situation? They are forced to enslave themselves to the powerful countries or groups because of their fear complex born of their impotence or poverty. And what is the outcome of such slavery?
In the next phase, the exploited painfully find themselves reduced to the position of suppliers of raw materials and purchasers of finished products. They are economically ruined. Such things happen as a result of both psycho-economic exploitation and politico-economic exploitation. Intelligent people should analyse this carefully.
When this exploitation is perpetrated by the application of brute force, it is politico-economic exploitation; but when it is done not through brute force but through the application of cunning intellectual strategy, it is primarily psycho-economic exploitation.
Now, whatever may be the nature of this psycho-economic or politico-economic exploitation, its inevitable outcome is that the [[exploiters]] not only exploit the people directly or indirectly, but also govern them. This makes the exploitation easier for the rulers.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 21 March 1982, Calcutta, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, Exploitation and Pseudo-Culture (Discourse 7), Economic and Political Exploitation
5. “Human culture is one, though there are some local variations in its expression. But a particular group which is motivated by socio-sentiment to exploit others, tries to destroy the local cultural expressions of other groups. It forcibly imposes its language, dress and ideas on other groups, and thus paves the way for exploitation by paralysing those people psychologically. This is how people guided by socio-sentiment perpetuate exploitation in cultural life.
This is occurring throughout the world. Is it not your noble duty to save these simple and persecuted people from exploitation? Certainly it is. Those of you who did not understand this before, now do understand it clearly; or you will come to understand it later from others. Human beings must be saved. Why should innocent people be forced to live like sacrificial lambs? This must not be tolerated.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 21 March 1982, Calcutta, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, Exploitation and Pseudo-Culture (Discourse 7), Cultural Exploitation through Pseudo-Culture
6. “Those who have harmed humanity have various natures, and by now you have already understood those types of people. It is a bit hard to identify those human chameleons who change their sentiments in order to exploit humanity more. Sometimes they shift their ground from one geo-sentiment to another geo-sentiment, sometimes from a geo-sentiment to a socio-sentiment, or from one socio-sentiment to another socio-sentiment. They are adept at everything. To attain the support of the masses, one day a certain leader said, “I will not allow my country to be divided, to be vivisected – my country will be partitioned only over my dead body, not before.” What he did in this case was to exploit both the geo-sentiment and the socio-sentiment simultaneously. All clapped their hands in joy and said, “He is the only hope of our country,” and they considered him a god incarnate. Then when the country was really partitioned, that leader did not open his mouth in the beginning – he preferred to observe his vow of silence. Later he merely said, “I am extremely sad, I am with the people.” This is nothing but metamorphosed sentimental strategy. You must clearly recognize those people who adopt such a strategy; and to recognize them, one needs a greater degree of intellect, not merely common intellect.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 28 March 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, An Ideology for a New Generation (Discourse 10)
7. “By means of this proto-psycho-spirituality one can fight against all sorts of socio-sentiments. The human chameleons who use socio-sentiments or geo-sentiments, can also be easily detected in the light of proto-psycho-spirituality.
Now you may ask, what is proto-psycho-spirituality? First, we must discuss what psycho-spirituality is. Since it is the mind which advances towards spirituality, it is called “psycho-spirituality”. And it is called “proto” in the sense that it is a flickering entity – it is like a flickering flame, not like a steady flame. It is not something unruffled or fixed; it is expressive of movement. Hence it is not complete psycho-spirituality but proto-psycho-spirituality. And the mobility portion within the systalsis of proto-psycho-spirituality is purely psychic; and the blissful staticity within the systalsis is purely spiritual. So it is a happy blending of psychic and spiritual strata. Thus I call it “psycho-spirituality”.
One thing more should be added here. Whenever people, after performing some activity, think of the Nucleus of the circum-rotarian universe, their minds become all-pervasive. Such people can never think of harming others; rather they will think only of universal welfare. In that elevated state of mind, they will easily detect those demons in human form and will acquire the necessary capability to properly guide the ordinary or extraordinary individuals or groups who tend to be misguided by all sorts of socio-sentiments (because socio-sentiment is many times more harmful than geo-sentiment).
Intelligent people should clearly realize this, and then through seminars should make people aware of the importance of sama-samája tattva and proto-psycho-spirituality to fight against socio-sentiment. This is how intelligent people will show them the path of liberation. This must be done, for although there may be some individuals who, knowingly or unknowingly, are fighting against this socio-sentiment, the majority of people are in darkness. That is why you will have to carry the collectivity with you, because the collectivity is yours. The collectivity is not outside you – your future is inseparably connected with the collective fortune. You must take the entire collectivity with you and move towards the sweetest radiance of the new crimson dawn, beyond the veil of the darkest night.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 28 March 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 8, An Ideology for a New Generation (Discourse 10), Proto-Psycho-Spirituality
8. “Shiva did not give any particular importance to the matrilineal, matriarchal, patrilineal or patriarchal systems. He simply allowed people to grow in a natural way. But when it was necessary to maintain the patrilineal order, one’s gotra had to be ascertained. Shiva advised His followers, “Don’t create conflicts among yourselves in the name of gotras.” Previously there had been frequent conflicts between clans living on different hills. Shiva banned those conflicts and told people, “Those of you who love Me, who obey Me, should accept the benevolent rule of a code of discipline. You should proclaim to the world, ‘Henceforth, we shall no longer remain divided into various gotras, and erect artificial walls of separation among ourselves. Smashing all these barriers, we shall all sit and eat and drink together in the same compound, bound by the ties of one human family. We refuse to remain scattered in numerous clans – we, the followers of Shiva, belong to one gotra, Shivagotra: Átmagotraḿ parityajya Shivagotraḿ pravishatu [Leave your own gotra and enter Shivagotra].’” Shiva introduced this revolutionary idea into the then society and demolished all narrow sentiments such as geo-sentiment, socio-sentiment, etc. The exponents of those geo- and socio-sentiments immediately opposed and vehemently criticized Him.
In the social sphere, Shiva played a very active role in removing the distinctions among the members of society. Shiva had three wives – Párvatii, a fair-complexioned Aryan girl; Kálii, a dark-complexioned non-Aryan girl; and Gauṋgá, a yellow-complexioned Mongolian girl. Shiva wanted to unite the people by obliterating social differences. He tried His utmost throughout His life to unite the then human society, scattered and fragmented into numerous groups and sub-groups, and lead it towards supreme fulfilment.
The human society of those days was not yet confronted with economic problems, so Shiva did not have to do anything in particular in the economic sphere. Politics had not yet crystallized in human society, so He did not have to do anything special in politics either. But there were other aspects of life which demanded His attention. Regarding the intellectual world, Shiva’s clear instruction was, “Beware of those who want to divide people, those who try to erect walls of artificial separation between pure and simple human beings by encouraging narrow geo-sentiments and socio-sentiments. These people are lokavyámohakárakáh – they try to inject the diseases of narrowness into human minds – you should beware of them.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 18 April 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Shiva – Both Severe and Tender (Discourse 2)
9. “Prior to Shiva, there was no system of marriage in human society. And as there was no recognized marriage system, the matrilineal order was in vogue, because it was easy to identify the mothers. In the case of the fathers, it was impossible to identify them. Shiva, for the first time, introduced the system of marriage which has continued until this day. The Sanskrit word for marriage, viváha (derived vi – vah + ghaiṋ), literally means “to follow a particular system”. This system of marriage is known as Shaeva viváha. According to this system, the bride and the bridegroom will equally share full responsibility for their marriage, without any consideration of caste or community. Shiva was above all sorts of geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 18 April 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Shiva – Both Severe and Tender (Discourse 2)
10. “Furthermore, the non-Aryans, the original inhabitants of India who were not Aryanized, were made the slaves of the Aryans and were not even allowed to utter oṋḿ, the controlling mantra of the Aryan Vedas. Later, when the women lost their status, they too were not permitted to repeat the oṋḿ mantra. The non-Aryans and the women used to repeat namah instead of the oṋḿ mantra. The Árśa Dharma, the Aryan religion, was based on this discrimination.
In fact, the Árśa Dharma was not dharma at all – it was nothing but a geo-sentiment, sometimes combined with socio-sentiment. This continued for a long period. Shiva observed that this was not dharma at all. He looked deeply into human psychology and found that human beings do not really want happiness – they want absolute peace: peace is better than happiness. People do not attain peace by performing yajiṋas [sacrifices] nor by sacrificing animals in the sacrificial fire. They may please their palates by eating meat, but they will not attain peace in this way. Shiva showed human beings how to attain peace; and that path to supreme peace should not be called a path of ordinary attainment, but of supreme attainment. Here the spiritual realization is aparokśánubhúti – is direct. This path, as shown by Shiva, is known as Shaeva Dharma
Of course, Tantra did exist before Shiva, but it was scattered, not well-organized. As I told you a little earlier, Shiva made everything systematic and regulated. He brought about a harmonious synthesis between those scattered Tantras and the people’s spiritual urges for supreme fulfilment, and created His Shaeva Dharma, which was above all sorts of geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment. This path of Shiva, which was a happy blending of the existing Tantra and His practical processes, was an ideal adjustment between the objective world and the subjective world. In spite of that, this cult was not able to survive the ravages of time. One of the reasons was that in those days it was not possible to write anything down because script had not yet been invented. Knowledge was conveyed orally, not by writing. The Vedas could not be written due to the same difficulty.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 18 April 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Shiva – Both Severe and Tender (Discourse 2)
11. “The Danger of Socio-Sentiment
Now, within the stage of sentimentality, as mentioned previously, living beings become divided into two categories, one gregarious, or collective, and the other solitary. The collective tendency of human beings remains intact as long as they are within the scope of sentimentality, but that kind of collectivity, that groupism, that group feeling, that demi-social mentality, is goaded by sentimentality.
But when logic develops, the scope of sentimentality wanes and contracts. Wherever groupism exists, sentimentality also exists. When logic starts to operate, then people realize to their dismay, “Ah! We gave such undue importance to such-and-such religious leader – now we realize it was all merely priestcraft and gurudom – he didn’t contribute to the welfare of the people in the least!”… “Ah, we gave him so much respect; but alas, now we discover that he introduced seven hundred castes into the society, and divided it into innumerable groups, thereby bringing about society’s ruin!”… “We wrongly thought that personality to be great but now we find that he did enormous harm to society by propagating national socialism!”
At this point people begin to analyse in this way; previously they could not analyse anything logically, because their sentimentality confined them to groupism. But the moment logic developed, sentimentality decreased and simultaneously groupism was adversely affected. Rationality says, “No, no, that is not the correct path. Since all living beings of this world have originated from the same source and will merge into the same goal, into the same desideratum, they all have the equal right to survive and fulfil their needs.”
Sabái ámra samán bujhi
Shiitátap kśudhá trśńar jválá,
Kaci káncáguli dánt́o kare tuli,
Váncibár tare samán yujhi.
[We all equally feel cold and heat, We all feel the pangs of hunger and thirst; To raise tender plants into mighty trees We struggle equally hard.]
A collective tendency, a tendency to live in groups, that is based on sentiment, is called “socio-sentiment”. Socio-sentiment is a million times more harmful than geo-sentiment, because socio-sentiment leads people much further from proper thinking than does geo-sentiment. As long on this earth as group mentality or collective mentality – a collective mentality behind which operates a sentimentality based on innumerable superstitions – persists in a noticeable form, it is bound to cloud the otherwise clear human intellect – unless a rationalistic mentality awakens in humans. In the absence of rationalistic mentality, human beings are bound to harm other groups, and even subgroups of their own groups. (Here “subgroup” means a smaller group, including one’s own family. Family interest represents one’s individual interests also.) Many individual hopes and aspirations are antagonistic both to the hopes and aspirations of other individuals and to collective hopes and aspirations. If a person’s sentimentality and groupism do not get sufficient nourishment from one’s group, or subgroup, or family, or from one’s individual abilities, he or she will become a cynic.
Today this group mentality based on sentimentality is on the increase; on the other hand, human logic is not increasing at the same rate. As a result, the number of suicides and mentally-disturbed people is rapidly growing. This is all due to sentimentality, or group mentality based on sentimentality.
When a particular group, motivated by socio-sentiment, thinks only of its own socio-economico-political interests, it completely ignores the socio-economico-political interest of other groups, which ultimately results in conflict between the groups or communities. Those who seek to be victorious in this conflict and defeat others, while at the same time preaching the message of peace, are motivated by hollow vocal sentiment. They say: “Let us stop the use of this weapon or that weapon.” But they are totally guided by sentimentality and groupism – demi-socialism based on sentimentality. They are the first-class hypocrites of the world. Their inner psychology is, “Preach the gospels of peace, but keep your powder dry” – so that at any moment you can load the cannon.
At present civilization has reached such a state. Human beings will have to save themselves from the dreadful consequences of this group mentality, this demi-social psychology based on sentimentality. For this, as I said previously, study and a rationalistic mentality are essential.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 14 March 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism, Living Beings and Their Mentality (Discourse 5)
12. “While discussing Neohumanism, I said that study and rationalistic mentality are required to counteract geo-sentiment, and a proto-spiritualistic psychic structure is required to resist socio-sentiment. But geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment and the means of resisting them are matters of the objective world. Geo-sentiment is entirely limited by geographical boundaries (it is confined in space); while socio-sentiment is limited to certain groups. By resisting these two sentiments (one relating to “space” and the other relating to “person”) with rationality and sama-samája tattva respectively, it is possible to move towards the Supreme Subjectivity. So these two are completely associated with the external world.
The movement of the inner life of humanity is entirely an internal affair, a matter of devotion – a path to the inner world with devotion as a cult, as a mission. In the world of rationalism, human beings do not attain anything of inner life; and in the realm of devotion, there is no ism that can establish humanity in the supreme spiritual stance. In the case of devotion, human beings become resplendent in their own glory. This is entirely an inner process. For that there is a path of devotion, a devotional spirit, and the sweet mission of devotion. In that case there are only two entities – I and my Lord. There is no one to create barriers, no one to exploit, no one to impose geo-sentiment or socio-sentiment – there humanity is one and indivisible. In this situation, human beings proceed towards Supreme Consciousness with every step. This is beyond rationalistic approach and study, and it has no concern with the objective mind.
However, in the course of one’s journey through the inner world, one cannot altogether deny the rationalistic outlook of external life. This is also necessary because, in the absence of rationality, the internal thoughts may be disturbed. But it is also true that the mind should certainly be directed towards the Supreme Consciousness – because one’s inner assets are directly nourished by the thought of the Supreme, by running towards Him with tremendous speed. Rationalistic outlook and study are required to facilitate this onward movement towards the Supreme” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 9 March 1982, Calcutta, EdEit 7, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism, Inner Asset
There is still another sentiment which is more expanded than geo-sentiment – it is socio-sentiment. Socio-sentiment does not confine people to a particular territory, but instead pervades a particular social group. That is, instead of thinking about the welfare of a particular geographical area, people think about the well-being of a group, even to the exclusion of all other groups. And in the process, while they concern themselves with the interest of a particular group, they do not hesitate to violate the interests and natural growth of other groups. Perhaps this socio-sentiment is a bit better than geo-sentiment, but it is not altogether ideal; it is not free from defects.
Socio-sentiment has, in the past, caused much bloodshed and created enormous division and mutual distrust among human groups, separating one group from another and throwing them into the dark dungeons of petty dogmas. Humanity’s movement is then no longer like a broad and flowing river, but like a stagnant pool.
There is still another sentiment – human sentiment. Many persons were born in the past who shed copious tears for suffering humanity. But strangely enough, after their eloquent speeches were over, they sat down comfortably at a dinner table and treated themselves to a delicious meal of hilsa and kaimách fish(1) – as if those fish had not suffered pain and death. This human sentiment has expressly violated the interests of non-human creatures, but its proponents have found nothing wrong with it.
Once I read in a certain book that a great saint used to live only on locusts dipped in honey. That saint did not seriously consider that those little locusts also had vital life force throbbing in them.
Obviously human beings will have to behave rationally; they must maintain their existence while adjusting with the external environment. It is true that living creatures are the food for other living beings (jiivah jiivasya bhojanam); and indeed, the vegetables that we eat every day also have living cells in them. But regarding food, I have expressed my opinion in some of my books.(2)
This concern for the vital rhythm throbbing in other human creatures has driven people to the fold of humanism, has made them humanists. Now, if the same human sentiment is extended to include all creatures of this universe, then and only then can human existence be said to have attained its final consummation. And in the process of expanding one’s inner love to other creatures, there should be another sentiment behind this human sentiment, which will vibrate human sentiment in all directions, which will touch the innermost recesses of the hearts of all creatures, and lead one and all to the final stage of supreme blessedness.
Vistárah sarvabhútasya Viśńorvishvamidaḿ jagat;
[This manifested universe is the expression of Viśńu, the latent All-Pervading Entity. Therefore a wise person should look upon everything as his or her own, from an integral viewpoint.]” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 21 February 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism, Devotional Sentiment and Neohumanism (Discourse 1), Socio-Sentiment
14. “Developing Proto-Spiritualistic Mentality
Next comes socio-sentiment, which promotes the interest of one’s own society at the expense of other societies. Based on this sentiment are many other sentiments, such as socio-patriotism, socio-religion, socio-economics, socio-art, -architecture, -literature, and so on.
A social group’s own deity “says” to the people, “Your God is the true God: all other gods are false. You are the chosen people in this universe: all others are cursed!” These are the preachings of socio-religion.
Similar is the case with socio-patriotism and socio-economics: “Let that country be destroyed. I will conquer that nation and drain its vitality for the sake of my own country” – this is socio-patriotism, also called “fascism”.
“Let others be ruined. I will exploit that country to serve the interests of my dearest homeland” – this is socio-economics.
What is the way to counteract this socio-sentiment? The only way to eliminate it is to develop proto-spiritualistic mentality. The basis of this proto-spiritualistic mentality is sama-samája tattva [the principle of social equality]. When people understand this principle from the core of their hearts, they spontaneously develop proto-spiritualistic mentality, proto-spiritualistic psychic structure. So this sama-samája tattva is very necessary to fight against socio-sentiment. There is no other way.
If one avoids this sama-samája tattva and thinks, “I will be a virtuous person, I will be a devotee of the Lord, I will do all sorts of good deeds – but I will not raise my voice against injustice,” I must say that will be foolish. Trying to do good while avoiding this sama-samája tattva is just like placing the cart before the horse. The cart should be placed behind the horse; it is foolish to place it in front.
Sama-samája tattva teaches that the basis of dharma [righteousness] is the collective march of all in unison.
Vishvajaner páyer tale Dhúlimay ye bhúmi Sei to svargabhúmi Sabáy niye sabár majhe Lukiye ácha tumi Sei to ámar tumi.
[This dusty earth which humanity treads – this is indeed heaven; You who are within all, hiding in every heart – You are indeed mine.]
This is the first and last word of sama-samája tattva.
This sama-samája tattva is the firm foundation of society. And what is it that maintains social dynamism on this firm foundation? It is the proto-spiritualistic psychic structure, the proto-spiritualistic mentality.
This proto-spiritualistic mentality has been moving eternally towards the Supreme Entity. Its undulating waves have no beginning or end. They spread out in all directions, endlessly. No one can stop its movement; no one has the power to stop it. And the Supreme Consciousness also wants this proto-spiritualistic systaltic movement to continue endlessly, until it finally merges in Him.
Once a person is established in this proto-spiritualistic flow, what happens within his or her mind? Devotion as a cult is transformed into devotion as a principle. Only at this stage, when devotion becomes a principle, can one fight against socio-sentiment.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 28 February 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism, Bondages and Solutions (Discourse 2), Developing Proto-Spiritualistic Mentality
15. “In fact, the Árśa Dharma ["Religion of the Sages", Aryan Religion] was not dharma at all – it was nothing but a geo-sentiment, sometimes combined with socio-sentiment. This continued for a long period. Shiva observed that this was not dharma at all. He looked deeply into human psychology and found that human beings do not really want happiness – they want absolute peace: peace is better than happiness. People do not attain peace by performing yajiṋas [sacrifices] nor by sacrificing animals in the sacrificial fire. They may please their palates by eating meat, but they will not attain peace in this way. Shiva showed human beings how to attain peace; and that path to supreme peace should not be called a path of ordinary attainment, but of supreme attainment. Here the spiritual realization is aparokśánúbhuti – is direct. This path, as shown by Shiva, is known as Shaeva Dharma [Shaivism].
Of course, Tantra did exist before Shiva, but it was scattered, not well-organized. As I told you a little earlier, Shiva made everything systematic and regulated. He brought about a harmonious synthesis between those scattered Tantras and the people’s spiritual urges for supreme fulfilment, and created His Shaeva Dharma, which was above all sorts of geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment. This path of Shiva, which was a happy blending of the existing Tantra and His practical processes, was an ideal adjustment between the objective world and the subjective world. In spite of that, this cult was not able to survive the ravages of time. One of the reasons was that in those days it was not possible to write anything down because script had not yet been invented. Knowledge was conveyed orally, not by writing. The Vedas could not be written due to the same difficulty.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, Calcutta, 18 April 1982, ElEdit 7, Discourses on Tantra Volume One, The Essential Dharma
16. “Just consider for a moment what enormous refuse these people are bearing with them. These people with defective mentality, who are wallowing in geo-sentiment, socio-sentiment, or ordinary humanistic sentiment, have not done any good to society, nor can they do so in future. They do not have any such capacity. A strong determination must be taken to rectify them. And when you take such a determination to rectify them and act accordingly, you will notice that those who refuse to be rectified will be destroyed – they will be completely annihilated.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 22 March 1982, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism, Awakened Conscience (Discourse 9)
17. “Progress is never ending. Pabulum is also never ending. We should understand this. There cannot be any stop in the march of human progress. And not only in human progress, but in the physical and psychic worlds also. Geo-sentiment will die out; socio-sentiment will disappear; socio-economic sentiment will be eradicated. Finally a day will come when sentient sentiment will dominate. A day will come when human beings will get the maximum amenities, then human beings will reach the zenith. But is the provision of maximum amenities the zenith of service? It may be looked upon as the zenith; but because circumstances change, maximum amenities change. The provision of maximum amenities should be treated as a relative zenith point and not the supreme zenith.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 13 October 1989, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 17, Minimum Requirements and Maximum Amenities, Neo-Humanistic Approach to Economics
18. “You must strengthen the base of spirituality. Charvaka came to strengthen the base of spirituality in the post-Vedic age. Communism came to strengthen the base of spirituality which was lost in the last 300 years. There was no God-centred philosophy. Most philosophies were dogma-centred or self-centred. Some philoso phies were based on geo-sentiment, socio-sentiment or sanguinary sentiment. These sentiments have to go in a very short time. Other sentiments and philosophies will also have to quit. Be speedy – speed is the order of the universe.
Was there social equality in the Vedic period? No, because there were many clans and tribes. Was there social equality in the post-Vedic period? No, because the caste system was in vogue. In the age of the Mahabharata, just before Buddhism, the caste system existed but it had no rigidity. Nevertheless, Vidura could not ascend the throne because his mother was a Vaeshya. Dhritarastra was the legal king but since he was blind Pandu became the de facto king. Karna also was not permitted to ascend the throne because he was born before marriage, but what wrong did he do?” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 25 March 1990, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 17, Move with Ever-Accelerating Speed
19. “Intellectual capitalism causes several pressing problems in society. First, the literacy skills of a large part of the population are not developed. Secondly, the socio-economic consciousness of the indigenous people is not encouraged. Thirdly, unhealthy inferiority complexes and fear complexes influence the minds of the people so that they are kept psychically weak. Fourthly, the intellectual and moral development of human beings is hindered, so intellectual backwardness and irrationality become rampant in society. Finally, narrow sentiments like geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment start exerting a destructive influence on society. Consequently, intellectual exploitation, dogmatic theories and doctrines, and religious superstition and rituals become widespread.” – Sarkar, Prabhat, 1981, Calcutta, ElEdit 7, Prout in a Nutshell Part 13, Capitalism in Three Spheres, Intellectual Capitalism