Every Society, every culture, whether big or small, old or young, I believe has its history. It doesn’t matter whether its philosophy is skin deep or profound. We the Khasis have our history. The history that I learnt at the foot of the shamans is not of anthropological type that the intellectuals spoke of. What is it then? It is a philosophical history. It is in this realm also that I learnt of the richness and profundity of our language. What I speak in the classroom is to a large extent, a commercial language. The word, “Longbynriew,” “Ioh Hukum Kit Hukum,” ka “Hok” and others speak volume on the profundity of our forefathers’ philosophy. In the following, I’ll try my best to do justice to this philosophy as mere conduit. Nothing is mine. If there’s some truth in it, the credit goes to the cosmos. If there’s any substantial fault represented in this small attempt, I will own my weakness.
Here it goes, I asked many people about our origin. Those people are shamans and the old people of the rural background and untouched by modern education. The one question I asked was, “where do we come from?” The answer came in many ways. Some say “Ngi wan na ka Hok,” (“We come from the Divine justice to make a literal translation”) “Ngi wan na u Nongthaw” (“We come from the Creator”). Others say ‘do we come from the Devil’? ‘we come from “The Sixteen Huts above,” “Ngi wan na ka pap?”. In fact, the most intriguing part of the answers I got, are those that come in the form of a question. From these questions, I got the hunch that many serious thinking people are not interested in some sets of knowledge that are explicit and not finalistic and having nothing to do with our real existence. I also related to one man of the anthropological history. The question I got from him was “Do you pray to Khmer for restoration of the lost balance”? Mark the difference between ‘healing’ and ‘balanced restoration’ (Ka Koit ka khiah bad ka bujai samjai). The latter indicates that health is the birth rights of human beings while the former stands for the interventions by some external forces other than the creator. The difference is of a gross not of a subtle one. Also it is not “God” (U Blei) but the ‘creator’ that is the language of the shamans. No mixing up the two. The word ‘creator’ is selectively used during mantra. The word ‘creator’ is implicit and loaded with substance that linked Man and God. God and healing, they say, create a duality of existence between the creator and the created- the chasm that needs to be bridged by a substance and that substance being “The Devine navel” (U Sohpet Blei). So the creator is addressed to as ‘U Ba-lah Ba-iai’, “Nongjali ja-um” or “Nongbujai Samjai”. These terms commensurate with restoration of balance. As to the effect of the prayer, we’re not concerned here. The crux of the matter is the history substance and logicality of the concept.
The concept of history of our forefathers as I have learnt has no relevance whatsoever with our human origin history as it was in the case of Monkhmer or other origins. They say that we come from the Devine sanction – “Ka Hukum,” (not the command) which by itself explains that we come to exist by way of evolution. By the word “Ioh Hukum Kit-Hukum” we understand that we exist because first of all we were involved in the cause and this form that we wear is but the manifestation of that sanction. To generalize it, we can say that this existence is not a dual existence-meaning that the creation is on the one side of the universe (Mariang) and the created is on the other side. They also say that we come from “Ka Hok” (the positive or Devine Justice). So also when they refer to the destination after death, they say ‘nga wan na ka Hok-leit sha ka Hok’ (Come from the Devine Justice I go to Devine Justice, come from creator, I go to the Creator). Coming from creator and going to the Devil or hell is taken as a logical inconsistency. Matter of factly, every common man would understand that there is only one universe, as simple as that. This oneness of existence is expressed in many ways. (1) Once I asked an elderly woman from Mawshuit, “Where will you go after you died?” Without mincing words, she answered, “Where does man come from?” so no question of heaven or hell – no journey no displacement in one universe. Isn’t it like moving from one room to another room of the same house? That’s the difference of relative, apparent movement from the real or absolute movement. (2) Once a friend who misunderstood me for an iconoclast and atheist’s gave me a book named “Peace with God” written by Billy Graham thinking that the book would change me. On seeing the title of the book, I was convinced that I have read it. the reason being that I have never quarreled with God. By my life experience, this is the thinking of all men and women influenced by western culture and oneness of existence is clean beyond their ken. I see that heathens, ‘pagans’, atheist, idea of God or the impersonal, as a result of their logic, a more relevant philosophy which would leave the modern man of the western culture (Christian) flabbergasted and annoyed. So a God we need to make peace with, is a personal God-a-man-made God, in the view of the ancestors. That’s the established fact in our Khasi world. (3) “U Longbynriew” (the sum total of “Ka Longkynthei” “Ka Longshynrang” “Ka Longkur” “Ka Longkha” u “Khun ka Longkur” “Ka Khun ka Longkha”), is another word that express our idea of this oneness. To be precise, it means that in the creator man was there from the beginning of the universe. So man is God in the gross form and the subtle is God that is involved in man. The two cannot be separated. If they seem to be separable, that is an illusion, not a real.
When we view man through the spiritual prism, he is God; the formless and through the physical prism, we see him as one who bears the form. So keeping the knowledge of this oneness, the shaman says before performing his mantra (Mark true shamans never negotiate on the price). “Ko Kynrad, ko bathaw ko babuh ia ka longbynriew ka man bynriew, ka longkynthei ka longshynrang, ka longkur ka longkha….. I Mr. A or Mr. B, U Longbynriew come to implore to thee for Mr. A or Mr. B…..” The word “U Longbynriew” should never be missed out. I sometimes wonder how this could have been when every shaman especially those learning not by school of thought or being tutored but by instinct, don’t miss the key word ‘u longbynriew’. This key cut short the other necessity (necessicities) of having to address himself for building a bridge of substance between “himself+patient+the Creator”. This is the sacred secret. Therefore, that we come to existence by way of evolution and involution by itself, explain that humanity is as old as the mountain, the seas, skies and the creator Himself. This is our concept of oneness of existence or non duality of existence realized by our forefathers. The word “U Longbynriew binds the two world the spiritual and physical into one existence.
This is their knowledge of God man relationship and the cosmos. But, despite this non-duality of existence how come that there emerged these? (1) They speak of God which according to reason, negates their very belief and knowledge. Now let us deal on these points. (1) The word “God” is used in the lighter note. Here it works only in the context that the two or group of persons has already understood the term in their present context (Kren Palei tang parabriew as in “Katba ibit U Blei” or “Katba isynei U Blei” (as God wills). It ends there and no message is carried beyond man to man. The word “God” also could mean as personal God and not the impersonal. The personal can grant the wish of the worshipers on the ground of propitiation as in the case of ‘U Thlen’ which is one of the personal gods. The impersonal will never entertain such rituals or propitiation except when informed of the imbalance created due to ill health created by external forces or other problems that develop from within an organism other than Him.
In the past, the western world worshipped this word “God” religiously as the truest Entity of the creation. They killed and have sunken many souls, in the name of this non-entity. Some scientists and other free thinkers were condemned as heretics in the garb of this. The case of Galileo is the living example of this crude and blatant condemnation. He had to withdraw his statement in public but only to conclude it by saying “eppur si move” (but it moves). There, lies a one different world where if you speak anything against God, it is the gravest sin in the world. What one can infer from this, is that God has been reduced to a property or an ultra sensitive being – “My property not yours. So don’t touch him or don’t speak ill of Him. He is my sensitive fragile plant. It pains me if you talk against him without first being a believer or fellow believer”. In our culture, it is another world of difference. The God is used in different ways. He is blessed, praised, mocked and cursed. Nobody cares, because He is not a property of individuals. Or that being a non-existent or non-entity, God is laughed at. I personally don’t give an ounce of weight to this God a man-made God. No…. Our forefathers know of his impersonal nature while the westerners of that age missed. They feared Him not as long as they eat honest potato or yam. They have conquered the fear of this god that we talk about till now which is not the Never born the Never died, which has the beginning and has an end-which is the limited. They know that prayers to the creator for miracles, redemption and others except for restoration and sustenance of balance end up doing the work of a placebo which means that if one desires to pray they can pray and if they don’t also there is no problem at all. According to them, all the acts such as breathing, hearing, seeing, eating, sleeping, working, walking, cleaning the system (Leit bar leit lait), that sustain the organism, are a prayer.
So in their daily life they don’t pray to Him before they eat their honest food when they can open their mouth and swallow the food. Prayer in this case is a replica of a placebo. As a matter of fact, we the Khasis call those people who speak much of the word “God” or spend time on trying to know about Him, as “Ki riew Khlem Blei” (literally men without God) – no literal English to explain this statement. The only suitable vocabulary for these is the “Devils” in a limited sense not in a philosophical sense. It is like the beggar who speaks of the money because he has no money. He dreams of money because he has no money. Another voice that rings out loud and clear against using “God” for evangelization is heard in Khatarshnong. There they say “Ka sur ka bym iaryngkat shuh para bashong basah ha pyrthei” (the voice that is not in tune with the co-existents in the universe or the voice that shows no respect for the higher being). This statement, simply expresses that whatever, philosophical speaking, not commensurate with those principles of the universe, are a stinking nonsense. Watch out that mood.
(2) Macrocosm – Microcosm. Man is a small unit of macrocosm as another expression of non-duality of existence. It is said earlier that creator is addressed to during prayer for restoration of the balance lost strictly for that purpose. Here, duality is at work but only for the purpose of communication to the Higher Being, but for miracles. Why? The forefathers believed hat man comes to the world because there’s nothing falling short from creator. They say “Ko Nongthaw Nongbuh, shisha naphi la biang ka kyrkhu kyrdoh, ka pynsleh ka pynkyntang, ka burom ka ijot. Ka long ryngieng ka man rynieng, Une/ Kane kila kit iaphi kaba biang. Hynrei Kynrad mynta wan pynban ka pang ka shitom ha u/ ka I kumban khein ban kdiah pynban Kynrad na katei ka jingkhreh jong phi ….” (I’ll put down in English roughly in the following. “Man does not come into his present form without every atom of their being participating in the creator’s perfection.” So, prayer to a Khasi is a reminder to the all knowing knower, omniscient, omnipotent that something was missing in an individual which is contrary to that Perfection expressed in health. So, duality manifests itself. Miracles never crossed their mind – not a shadow of theirs. The ramification of praying for one miracle is considered as something coming off an insane person. So, in this frontline, they are the dualists and will remain being dualists. I see these mazes are enough to confuse even the sophisticated minds of the modern men and women.
(3) Once I met one Mr. Kothari in Shillong. He asked me to give one example about u Khasi – only one. I chose the theology of ours which is popular in Khatarshnong. I started this “A Preacher who tried to convince a simple villager by talking about God, and painting God as the all loving, merciful, full of grace and so on. I watched that man who listened to the evangelist in awe. When the preacher has finished, the villager asked him this question, “Who makes Gods?” The evangelist answered “No one makes God.” I told Mr. Kothari that in our culture, this question is never answered because the question is the answer”. The professor from the mainland instantly said to me”, enough – enough”. He took to the stage and explained the ramification of the question and answer of the above (Villager and preacher) to the students who came from different parts of the world about our metaphysics system and concluded saying, “This is the strongest culture I ever came across”. Now analyzing the statement, the Khasis of old days, never paint the Creator with whatever words however innocuous or beautiful they may be. They realize that the creator is not in the plane of words – he’s something beyond words. He does not become of what we saying of Him. He doesn’t smile when we doesn’t smile when we praise Him or frown when we curse Him. To paint God entails objectification before which we have to eject Him out of ourselves which is impractical. It also implies that in our mental incapability we also wish to drag God to our level and treat him as a being devoid of intelligence. Now analyzing another part of the question of “Who makes God?”.This question throws a flood light on these – (1). The question once and for all declares the finality of truth. No ambiguity on the subject. This is the quark of a statement. No more qualification of truth. (2)It also denotes this, “stop annoying me with the nonsense or stop lecturing nonsense to me” (mood of disgust and anger). (3) Truth is not personal. Of course there are personals truths but never in this case. (4) A talk can never remain a talk forever. At some point of time it must end when we have arrived at the final truth or the quark. (5) There is nothing short from the creator. Why worry about God? Are we not His creations? These questions will never call for an answer. Now our fore fathers, having relieved themselves of the need to know, to worship, to praise, to humble before him, our unsung poets, our philosophers never mind being branded as atheists, gentiles, heretics, iconoclasts or whatsoever. Matter of factly or philosophically, atheism must be the highest order of philosophy or the highest form of expression of universality and profundity of creator as the Noumenon, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. Reducing Him into the phenomenon, the personal, into something that is ever in a state of flux? No, they will never mind, never explain; defend their being branded as heathens. To go on explaining the journey of “there’s nothing short from the creator”, we inherit the lofty philosophy from our atheists (Atheist not dialectics). That philosophy is “Kamai iaka Hok Im tipbriew-tip Blei” This is the transcendental philosophy we get from our Thawlangs and Suitnia(s) from our “Mei bahok” “Pa bahok” whom we have for so long, under the influence of the western culture, called “Ki riewdum”. It is transcendental because it goes beyond time, space and causality. It simply means do good sake not for something else, that is selfish. This is our Karma Yoga and our poets, the Rishis. Thus, knowledge is translated into a way of life. In the western Christianity, faith precedes every reason and this word “Faith”, is therefore anti-finalistic by excess. Also, if “way of life” or practical living is not let by reason, it is anti-finalistic by defect and is thus bound to be a fleeting emotionalism which can be swayed and obliterated easily by turn of the wheels of time. Our ancestors have been found to have blended the Reason, Faith and practical living during “Ka Sotti Juk” or “Ka Juk jong ka Aiom Ksiar” (The Golden Age).
Now, to compare for better understanding and clarity, “One great human being in flesh and blood, named Jesus, said “Let not your left hand know what the right hand does”. That’s the Karma Yoga. We the followers say “do good in this life”. This sounds great. But again in the same breath continue to say “to be saved”. We also say “Live a good life to be an example to the gentiles”. See the difference, “Live well” “Don’t steal”, “Do well” for a certain reason. So it can well go along with ‘don’t steal because the police will catch and punish you. Wait till the police are no more, then you can do whatever evil you want”. That’s the logic of doing good. That is the journey travelled by the western culture. In one breath it seem to travel to the limits of time and space and in another breath, we take gaint strides to millions of years backward. This is our Christian philosophy of life and acts. That’s the logic under which we have unjustly condemned and killed and sunken the many souls. At present Meghalaya or Khasi-Jaintia Hills is branded a Christian state. But behold, by our forefathers’ insight, it is not. It is the land of human beings who evolved with the involved infinite the eternal poet. Doing good is a necessity not a virtue.
To conclude, their statement saying that “There’s nothing falling short from the creator”, suggests that there’s no need to worry about Him. This sounds iconoclastic. But at the same time it has raised itself above the sectarian cultures or cults and thereby making itself a secular, progressive, profound philosophy which we proudly inherit from our ancestors. It is capable of accommodating all sectarian religions or cults like Christianity within its ambit. This is the philosophy that can go to history on the par with that of the Vedic Civilization. This is our History, our Philosophy.
