Hinduism derives all its authority and inspiration from the Vedas. Over the centuries, the importance attached to the different portions of the Vedas has been shifting.  Today it is the Upanishads that appeal to the modern mind. The Upanishads are not systematic philosophy. They are more like ecstatic slide shows of mystical experiences. They are like snapshots of the same object from different angles. They simply set down what the Rishis saw and experienced.

The very nature of the Upanishads does not allow one, unique interpretation. The Upanishads are collections of free, candid and detailed discussions between teacher and disciple and it is for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Even to understand them, you will need the physical presence of a teacher before you - a Guru. It is not fair to expect the Upanishads to tell you categorically whether this is right or that is wrong. This privilege has devolved on the great teachers. The fundamental differences among the concepts enunciated by the various schools of vedanta, supported by these masters, should not deter us from attempting to understand the totality that is Hinduism and the philosophy that emanates from the Upanishads. Any attempt to sort out these differences at an intellectual level can become an exercise in futility. It is desirable to follow one of these masters, with single-minded faith, and try to understand that master and his perceptions of the Upanishads. That itself can occupy a whole lifetime.

We find several friendly Hindu groups in various parts of India and abroad, who are well motivated and genuinely interested in passing on the tradition of their culture to the next generation. They conduct periodic bhajans, pujas, recitations, satsang and the like. So far so good. But more often than not, considerable time is spent on discussions on subjects like - relative merits of Sankara's Advaita, Ramanuja's Visishtadvaita, Madhwa's Dvaita, or whose interpretation of the Upanishads is correct, or which master has the 'right' philosophy etc. The intellectual exercise thus started leads them into a 'maya' of confusion and doubt. They see no end to this labyrinth and finally the project itself withers. This is an expression of a crisis of intellect. It is intellectually arrogant to believe that by sitting together for one hour a week and by reading translations of the great masters as a hobby, one can adjudicate among them. In fact, the binary concept of right and wrong simply does not apply. For all you know, all of them could be 'right'.

It is wothwhile to recall in this context the prerequisites, prescribed by Adi sankara -  Sadhana-Chatushtayam (The Four-Fold Qualification) - as the necessary qualifications for the study of Vedanta, whichever tradition you follow. The spark of realization and the onset of spiritual becoming have to come through faith and intuition, not through study of books alone. Listen to swami Vivekananda on this :

The soul can receive impulses from another soul and from nothing else. We may study books all our lives, we may become very intellectual, but in the end we find that we have not developed at all spiritually. Only our intellect derives profit from such studies, and not our inner spirit. This inadequacy of books is the reason why we find ourselves so woefully deficient, when it comes to action and the living of a truly spiritual life. To quicken the spirit, the impulse must come from another soul. The person from whom such impulse comes is called the "Guru".

 While we have just dealt with one expression of the crisis of intellect to which every individual succumbs, namely the temptation to adjudicate intellectually among the different schools of vedanta, another traditional way in which persons who have no claims to intellectualism also fall prey, is to engage in the standard controversies such as - whether Ahalya in the Ramayana was a "Pativrata" or not, whether Rama did right in killing Vali from behind a tree, what kind of chastity could be ascribed to panchali with her 5 husbands, whether Adi Sankara set up 4 matts or 5 - and scores of such popular topics of debate.One should look only for the essence of all knowledge and try to assimilate that essence. It is faith and intuition that ultimately make Vali himself accept Rama's action, and our intellect would be of no use in trying to deny that acceptance. Let us remember that even two great scholars like Sankara and Mandana Mishra, did not, in the final analysis, resort to intellect but agreed to bow down to faith in the miracle of whether their respective garlands withered away or not, in their long debate to determine which was right - Sankara's advaita or Mandana Mishra's mimamsa theory - and that too in the presence of the Goddess of learning, Saraswati, herself as adjudicator.

A third manner in which the crisis of intellect expresses itself is in an orthodox setting. It is that of a dogmatic pursuit of a ritual or what one holds to be a dharmic principle. Since external exhibitions or expressions of dharma change from age to age, a dogmatic pursuit of such an exposition, beyond the times for which it was valid, can ultimately lead us into a situation where the primary dharma of  compassion and non-violence is jeopardised. The classic response of Vyasa, when asked to summarize the limitless scriptures that he had produced was : "Paropakarah Punyaya, Papaya Parapidanam" (Merit is one which helps others and sin is the one which hurts others).

It is in this breed of  arrogant upholding of the so-called dharma that practices like 'Sati' perhaps got generated, without an eyebrow being raised. While it is true that Manu Smriti talks of woman having no independent status- "in her childhood she is dependent on the father, in her youth and middle ages on the husband and in her old age on the son " - the same Manu Smriti insists very emphatically that every man should act in such a way that not a single tear rolls down the cheek of a woman, for, if it does so, continues the Smriti, "the person who caused that tear-drop will be destroyed with his whole clan" ! If the followers of Manu Smriti had only taken this seriously, women in Hindu society would have been put on the highest pedestal. But custom and tradition forced themselves away from the spirit of ancient times. They thrust humiliating and unfair norms on the woman of the household, particularly when she lost her husband; just as, at the social level, a caste-ridden arrogance created and sustained the practice of 'untouchability'.

The touchstone of Hindu dharma is, therefore, the attitude with which one acts. One has to analyse oneself constantly. Whether it is a question of interpretation of caste rules, or a question of the meaning of the partnership between husband and wife, father and son, teacher and disciple, elder and younger - whatever it may be, the choice between what is dharma and what is adharma should be made only on the basis of absence or presence of an internal selfishness, irrespective of what the secondary scriptures, like Manu Smriti, have to say. Even if there is an iota of selfishness in what one is doing or saying, then there is the contamination of adharma in it.

It is humility and surrender to God's will that is most important and must be emphasized in the context of any crisis of intellect. Rama and jesus knew what they were doing was the right thing, but there was not an iota of arrogance in them. It is easy to say that everything happens according to God's will, but extremely difficult to live by this belief. Surrender to God's will is not a pose, but an attitude. It is not our will, or our mind, or our intelligence that works out things for us. The "Agent Provocateur" is within us. Every action is His. The only action that should be ours is to surrender our will to Him. This surrender He never does for us, because it has to come out of our free will. He creates only the circumstances for us to surrender to Him. If we do not voluntarily give ourselves to Him, in thought and deed, He allows us, in His infinite mercy, to be tossed about by the waves of birth and death in the ocean of 'samsara' and take our own time to come to Him.

So far we have been referring to the crisis of intellect within Hinduism, ie. within one religion. The larger crisis of intellect finds expression in wanting to adjudicate among the great religions of the world. This larger crisis of intellect can be resolved only by going back to the very ancient thoughts that have remained with us for many centuries. we have to readjust our attitudes to restore the balance between intellect and intuition. Two world wars have warned us, but we have not learned the lesson. Our task should be to search diligently and patiently for the best principles of all the religions of humanity. With the help of science, spread them throughout the world. Our time being finite, we do not have to apologize for spending it on the best.