The Three Wise Monkeys is a popular icon/symbol in India. Though it appears that the icon/symbol had origins in Japanese culture, it became popular in India through its association with the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. The Three Monkeys portray a simple message - "See no evil, Hear no evil and Speak no evil." The focus is on good conduct and morality and that one should not engage the senses in activity which one considers evil.
Through this post, I seek to give an alternate interpretation to the motif of the Three Monkeys. By no means do I suggest that this was Gandhi's interpretation. I am simply suggesting an interpretation. The interpretation could be divorced from the original meaning or intent and so I state very clearly that it is not my burden to draw any parallels or links with any earlier meaning or intent.
The gross message that we get when we look at the Three Monkeys is one of control of the senses. The said subject has been a focus of debate since times immemorial - the materialists advocating a fuller exploitation of the senses and the spiritual advocating restraint. Much mistranslation and misinterpretation happens between the two ends.
I am not a votary for pertinaciousness (हठ), when it comes to interaction with sense objects. Abstaining from sense objects has some value and it does help to a certain extent. However, I do not believe that it is sustainable in the long term. I also don't believe that it solves the problem. Abstaining from objects only solves the problem of access. It does not solve the mental part of the transaction i.e.: desire. To my understanding, the sustainable solution is to train the senses to perceive according to the intellect's instruction.
In other words, shutting the senses from interacting with sense objects (as is pictorially depicted in the Three Monkeys) is not the sustainable solution. The Three Monkeys depict something subtler i.e.: the training of the senses, or if I may call it, making the senses introverted.
For instance, imagine yourself entering a room full of people. You go into the room, glance across the room, you look for your significant other and on not finding them, you come out of the room. Outside, you meet your significant other. She asks you whether there was a painting in the room or not. You may or may not recollect this. But given that you were not focussing on the wall hangings, the likelihood of remembering is lesser. It is not as if you did not see the walls in the room. You saw all of them, but you did not register/process the information. Similarly, the senses can be trained to selectively perceive/process. It's all about where our attention is.
At the moment, a lot of our interaction is mindless. When I say mindless, what I mean is that the interaction does not have any direction or sense. The senses run roughshod over our emotions and rationality. Take for example gory pictures. The mind feels terrible at the sight of gory pictures. Yet, the senses continue seeing it. Thus, even though the sight is disagreeable to the mind, the eye continues making it a subject.
I had mentioned about making the senses introverted. A legitimate question that follows is - How can the senses, which are designed to be outward, be made introvert? The senses are designed to make gross objects as their subjects and cannot perceive subtler concepts. Any subtle concept (such as the soul, mind, intellect, self etc.) cannot be known through the senses. If that be so, how can the senses ever face inward? After all, the space occupied by psychology and spirituality hardly has any gross objects.
When I say that senses be made inward/introverted, what I am really saying is that the senses should take instruction from the mind/intellect before they engage with the world. Ordinarily, the senses face outward and indiscriminately perceive the outside world. By making them turn inwards, the goal is that the senses should turn their face inside (i.e.: to the subtler concept of me - the mind/intellect) and take instruction from the mind/intellect, as to what to perceive and where to put the attention. In this way, even though you see the whole room containing good and evil, the focus is on the good. The eye has perceived the image before it, but it does not register the evil in the picture. Even though the ear has heard the sounds of an abuse, it has not registered the evil in the sounds. Thus, extroverted senses and introverted senses perceive the same objects, but the latter is able to ignore the evil. Once again, there is no blanket shutting of the senses.
A sentence or two must be said over here about the power of reasoned decision making (निश्चय). Most of us make the mistake of not taking a firm decision, because of which our senses run astray. If we make a firm decision, then the senses act according to that decision. We forget that the decision must come first and the resource deployment follows thereafter. So, if I make the decision that all objects in the world are a gift of God, then perhaps, when seeing them, I would focus on them being gifts than just being objects.
A sentence or two must be said over here about the power of reasoned decision making (निश्चय). Most of us make the mistake of not taking a firm decision, because of which our senses run astray. If we make a firm decision, then the senses act according to that decision. We forget that the decision must come first and the resource deployment follows thereafter. So, if I make the decision that all objects in the world are a gift of God, then perhaps, when seeing them, I would focus on them being gifts than just being objects.
The whole thing can be seen from another perspective. Assume that I shut off my senses. For instance, I close my eyes. After closing my eyes, I do not see any gross object. I only see darkness. There is no new thought that comes forth. Similarly, let us say that I don't open my mouth to speak. No new communication takes place. There is cessation of activity. But a cessation of external activity, does not necessarily lead to a better or more moral or a higher spiritual life.
On the contrary, the perception by the senses allows the seeker to understand subtler concepts. The beautiful thing about sense perception is that it not only allows you to know the object, but it also allows you to know that you are perceiving the object. This may sound jargon-y and so let me illustrate -
When I see a pot, I have knowledge of the pot. The knowledge of the pot is a direct result of the eye seeing the pot. This knowledge is expressed as - This is a pot.
Now, another result of the eye seeing the pot, is the knowledge of the fact - 'I can see'. The knowledge "I can see" can happen only when the eye perceives an object. I will know that I can see only when my eye perceives an external object. When perceiving through the senses, this knowledge, even though present, is often ignored.
But, why is the knowledge "I can see" of any consequence? The knowledge "I can see" is of relevance because it is through this knowledge that one can ask the deeper questions - "Who sees?" and "What power enables me to see?"
If the senses are shut off, there is no perception, there is no experience of perception and hence there is no enquiry into the perceiver. Thus, another way to look at the motif of the Three Monkeys, is that it asks you not to focus on the external objects of the senses. The external objects are infinite and endless and no amount of lifetimes will ever satiate knowledge of them. Instead, focus on the subtler concept of who perceives and how she perceives. In that way, the senses are turned inward/introverted to explore the mechanics of 'Who am I?' It's a gradual shift from the seen to the seer. So, the idea is not to shut off the senses. Instead, when deploying the senses, the focus shifts from what is perceived to who is perceiving. In that sense, evil is not seen, spoken or heard, as the attention is on the seer. When seeing or hearing or speaking - take a pause and ask yourself - Who sees? Who hears? Who speaks?
Thus, to my mind, the Three Monkeys do not advocate a closure of the senses. Either they refer to a control of the senses through the intellect/mind. Or they refer to shift in the focus from gross objects to subtle objects. A human being goes through three states of consciousness - waking, dream and deep sleep. Of these three, constructive thinking is possible only in the waking. The senses are available only in the waking. Therefore, the senses must be utilised for achievement of constructive thinking. Turning them off completely would be a tragedy.
A lot of what has been said above is covered in the Kathopanishad. I am only a repackager. I have been lucky to have had teachers who have taken great pains to help me with the subject and to them I am eternally grateful.
If you're interested in the subject, I would recommend that you at the very least read the commentary of the first shloka of the first valli of the second chapter of the Kathopanishad. I found the commentary of Swami Maheshananda Giri Ji to be extremely comprehensive - http://dakshinamurtimath.com/index.php/download/kathoupnishad2/
On the contrary, the perception by the senses allows the seeker to understand subtler concepts. The beautiful thing about sense perception is that it not only allows you to know the object, but it also allows you to know that you are perceiving the object. This may sound jargon-y and so let me illustrate -
When I see a pot, I have knowledge of the pot. The knowledge of the pot is a direct result of the eye seeing the pot. This knowledge is expressed as - This is a pot.
Now, another result of the eye seeing the pot, is the knowledge of the fact - 'I can see'. The knowledge "I can see" can happen only when the eye perceives an object. I will know that I can see only when my eye perceives an external object. When perceiving through the senses, this knowledge, even though present, is often ignored.
But, why is the knowledge "I can see" of any consequence? The knowledge "I can see" is of relevance because it is through this knowledge that one can ask the deeper questions - "Who sees?" and "What power enables me to see?"
If the senses are shut off, there is no perception, there is no experience of perception and hence there is no enquiry into the perceiver. Thus, another way to look at the motif of the Three Monkeys, is that it asks you not to focus on the external objects of the senses. The external objects are infinite and endless and no amount of lifetimes will ever satiate knowledge of them. Instead, focus on the subtler concept of who perceives and how she perceives. In that way, the senses are turned inward/introverted to explore the mechanics of 'Who am I?' It's a gradual shift from the seen to the seer. So, the idea is not to shut off the senses. Instead, when deploying the senses, the focus shifts from what is perceived to who is perceiving. In that sense, evil is not seen, spoken or heard, as the attention is on the seer. When seeing or hearing or speaking - take a pause and ask yourself - Who sees? Who hears? Who speaks?
Thus, to my mind, the Three Monkeys do not advocate a closure of the senses. Either they refer to a control of the senses through the intellect/mind. Or they refer to shift in the focus from gross objects to subtle objects. A human being goes through three states of consciousness - waking, dream and deep sleep. Of these three, constructive thinking is possible only in the waking. The senses are available only in the waking. Therefore, the senses must be utilised for achievement of constructive thinking. Turning them off completely would be a tragedy.
A lot of what has been said above is covered in the Kathopanishad. I am only a repackager. I have been lucky to have had teachers who have taken great pains to help me with the subject and to them I am eternally grateful.
If you're interested in the subject, I would recommend that you at the very least read the commentary of the first shloka of the first valli of the second chapter of the Kathopanishad. I found the commentary of Swami Maheshananda Giri Ji to be extremely comprehensive - http://dakshinamurtimath.com/index.php/download/kathoupnishad2/
Hari Om Tat Sat
Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ektogamat/2687444500