Why Devotion Needs Logic, and Logic Needs Devotion — What Hanuman Ansh Taught Me on the Way Home

1 hour ago

22 min read

The Hanuman Chalisa a whole theatre sang begins with a confession: I lack understanding, give me a better mind. Why devotion needs logic, why logic needs devotion, and how to tell a living faith from a sealed one.

In Brief

This is the article the series was leading to. On the drive home from Hanuman Ansh, I kept asking: must a person choose between devotion and reason?

No, but not for the usual reason. Strands of our tradition began with questions: a creation hymn that ends in doubt, a boy who questions Death, a Gītā that teaches through questioning, a great devotee praised for his learning, and a hymn that opens by asking for understanding. The tradition also holds strands of obedience, and this article says so.

Then it applies the same scrutiny both ways. Devotion can be captured, in four ways the article names. Reason can be captured too, by cleverness, tribes and contempt. The answer is not to keep faith and science in separate rooms. It is to match every claim to the test that fits it: evidence for facts, logic for arguments, ethics for choices, honesty for experience.

The article answers readers’ personal questions, offers a practice for Monday morning, and ends with six principles of the mind I call Dimāgī Sanātanī: a mind that knows what would change it.

Core Thesis

Devotion supplies neither truth nor goodness by itself. Reason supplies neither purpose nor virtue by itself. Devotion without judgement can be captured by anyone who knows how to move a crowd; reason without commitment can explain everything and still not tell a person what is worth doing. Each can discipline the other, but neither can certify itself. Strands of our tradition, and Hanuman, praised for his learning as much as his strength, point to a better way: love that keeps asking questions, and questions that remember what they are for. I call it Dimāgī Sanātanī, and its mark is simple: it knows what would make it change its mind.

The Drive Home After the Credits

On the way back from the theatre, I was not thinking about miracles. I was thinking about a contradiction.

A film about a man who owned little more than a blanket had grossed more than ₹424 crore, by trade estimates [1]. On its set, according to reports, there was no swearing, only vegetarian food, and the team chanted the Hanuman Chalisa at the start and end of every shooting day [2].

It would be easy to say the discipline caused the success. I cannot say that; nobody can. Nor is the film evidence for anything that follows. It moved me, and it raised a question. The question is not whether I was moved. It is what standards should govern the beliefs and decisions that follow from being moved.

We are often told that the spiritual and the material are enemies: the West chose matter, the East chose spirit; a devotee must distrust reason and a rationalist must distrust devotion. On that drive I became convinced the picture is wrong. Not because spirit produces money, but because neither devotion nor reason can be trusted alone.

First, my words, because loose words have done most of the damage in this debate. By logic I mean testing whether a conclusion follows from its premises. By evidence I mean what supports or undermines a claim about the world. By reason I mean the larger work of weighing evidence, spotting assumptions and changing your mind. By devotion I mean love directed at what a person holds highest, a deity, a teacher, an ideal, the truth itself: love strong enough to loosen the grip of the ego.

So the title is not a law of psychology. People find purpose in compassion, duty, solidarity, curiosity or a secular ethic, and an atheist mathematician can live a rigorous and good life. My claim is about the kind of mind worth building: one in which commitment answers to reason, and reason remembers what it serves. Devotion is one powerful source of that commitment, and the one this film was about.

The first three articles named three capacities a living civilisation needs: gathering attention that is not wholly for sale, using power for those who have none, and taking criticism without losing devotion. This article names the fourth, which holds the others together.

Part One — Strands of a Tradition That Began With a Question

The charge most often made against Sanātana is that it asks for blind belief. Some of its oldest texts answer that charge better than any defender could.

The Ṛgveda’s hymn of creation, the Nāsadīya Sūkta, does not end with a creed. It ends with a doubt:

Who really knows? Who here can say where it came from, where this creation began? He who watches over it in the highest heaven, surely he knows. Or perhaps he does not know. (Ṛgveda 10.129.6–7) [3]

A hymn about creation closes by admitting that even the highest witness may not know. That is not the voice of a tradition afraid of questions.

The Kaṭha Upaniṣad builds its teaching on a child’s question. Naciketa, a boy, stands before Yama, the lord of death, and asks:

There is this doubt about a person who has died. Some say he exists; others say he does not. This I want to know, taught by you. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.1.20) [4]

Hanuman Ansh begins in a similar place: a boy who has lost his mother, asking where she has gone. The film’s opening echoes the Upaniṣad’s, with grief and uncertainty as the start of inquiry.

The Gītā names questioning as one of three ways to knowledge:

Learn it by bowing down, by asking questions, and by serving. The wise who have seen the truth will teach you. (Bhagavad Gītā 4.34) [5]

The Kena Upaniṣad makes humility about knowledge itself a mark of knowing:

It is known to the one who thinks it is not known. The one who thinks he knows it does not know. (Kena Upaniṣad 2.3) [4]

And one of the best-loved prayers in our tradition asks to be led toward truth:

Lead me from the unreal to the real. Lead me from darkness to light. Lead me from death to immortality. (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.3.28) [4]

A tradition whose prayer asks to be led from the unreal to the real cannot honestly demand that its followers stop checking what is real. That is my reading of the prayer, not proof that every school has read it so.

I must be honest here. Our traditions do not speak with one voice. They also hold strong strands of surrender, obedience and trust in the teacher, and some have been used to silence questions. I am not claiming the tradition always chose inquiry. I am showing that inquiry is in its oldest roots, and choosing to carry that strand forward. Inheritance is not exemption from scrutiny. A tradition gives us texts, practices and questions; it does not place any of them beyond examination.

Part Two — Hanuman Was Praised for His Mind

Most of us picture Hanuman as strength: the mace, the mountain, the leap across the ocean. In recent years his face has even become an angry decal on car windows, a change some writers have criticised [6]. But the texts give a fuller picture.

In Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, when Rāma first meets Hanuman, he is struck by his speech. He tells Lakṣmaṇa:

No one could speak like this who had not learned the Ṛgveda, who had not mastered the Yajurveda, who did not know the Sāmaveda. Surely he has studied grammar thoroughly, for in all that he has said, not one word was wrong. (Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Kiṣkindhā Kāṇḍa, sarga 3) [7]

In this first encounter, what Rāma recognises is Hanuman’s learning, through the quality of his speech. Strength is not the whole of his greatness; discernment and self-command are part of it.

The Rāma Rakṣā Stotra calls Hanuman buddhimatāṃ variṣṭham, foremost among the intelligent [8]. The Hanuman Chalisa calls him vidyāvāna guṇī ati cātura: learned, virtuous and exceedingly clever [9].

And before its forty verses begin, the Chalisa opens with a confession:

Buddhi hīna tanu jānike, sumirauṃ pavana-kumāra. Bala buddhi bidyā dehu mohiṃ, harahu kalesa bikāra. Knowing myself to be without understanding, I remember you, son of the wind. Give me strength, intelligence and knowledge, and take away my troubles and faults. (Tulsidas, Hanuman Chalisa, opening dohā) [9]

Think about what that means in a cinema hall. The hymn a whole theatre sang begins with an admission: I lack understanding. Give me a better mind. That is the posture of honest inquiry: first admit what you do not know, then ask for help to know it.

These texts do not give us a scientific method. They give us a tradition in which a great devotee is praised for his intelligence, and in which devotion can ask for a better mind rather than permission to stop using it.

Part Three — How Devotion Gets Captured

Devotion is a force, and a force needs direction. How does good devotion turn into something that harms the people who feel it? There are four common ways, and they usually arrive together.

Capture of knowledge. A leader claims special access to truth. Doubt is called a personal flaw. Criticism is called disloyalty. Outside evidence is called proof that outsiders are corrupt.
Capture of feeling. Belonging, gratitude, fear and hope get attached to one person. Disagreeing starts to feel like losing your family.
Capture of institutions. The leader controls the money, the access, the reputations and the right to say what the teaching means. Questioning has a price: a job, a home, a community.
The sealed belief. Every outcome confirms the leader. If the blessing works, it proves his power. If it fails, it proves your faith was weak. If someone criticises him, it proves the critic is spiritually immature. Nothing could ever count against him.

The fourth gives us a test anyone can use. Ask of any belief you hold dear: what would make me doubt it? If the honest answer is “nothing could”, the belief is sealed, and a sealed belief can be used by anyone who holds the key. Holding a belief firmly is not the same as sealing it. Some beliefs rest on a great deal of evidence. The question is whether you can say what would change your mind, and whether you would let it.

Capture is not only a matter of individual minds. A person who depends on a leader for money, housing or family cannot question freely, however clear-headed they are. That is why the third form matters most in practice. Independent judgement needs conditions: open accounts, protected dissent, the freedom to leave without punishment. Very intelligent people are captured every day, because capture works through belonging and dependence, not through lack of intelligence.

Two and a half thousand years ago, the Buddha gave the people of Kesaputta a test against exactly this. The Kālāmas asked how to choose among the teachers who came through their town, each praising his own doctrine and attacking the others. He answered:

Do not go by what you have heard again and again, nor by tradition, nor by rumour, nor by what is in a scripture, nor by logic, nor by inference, nor by reasoning from appearances, nor because it agrees with a view you already hold, nor because the speaker seems capable, nor because you think, “This monk is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that these things are harmful, blamed by the wise, and lead to suffering when practised, then give them up. (Kālāma Sutta, Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.65) [10]

Look closely at that list. The Buddha warns against trusting scripture and tradition, as we would expect. But he also warns against trusting logic and inference on their own. Both the believer’s authorities and the reasoner’s tools can be captured. His alternative has three parts, not one: does the teaching lead to harm or to welfare; does it grow from greed, hatred and delusion or from their absence; and would the wise blame it or praise it? Feeling better is not enough. Cults offer belonging too.

Our tradition has its own answer. The Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, traditionally attributed to Śaṅkarācārya, says:

Among all the means to liberation, devotion is the greatest. And devotion is said to be the search into one’s own true nature. (Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 31) [11]

That is an Advaita definition; other schools define bhakti differently. Within it, devotion is not a surrender of the mind. In my gloss, it is the mind turned toward the deepest question there is. It shows that, in at least one great school, devotion and inquiry can be the same act.

I define mokṣa as freeing the will from three things: innate tendencies, acquired conditioning and past karmas. That is my working definition. On it, devotion that makes a person less able to examine or revise his beliefs becomes a fourth prison, a new conditioning with a stronger lock, because it feels holy. Devotion with judgement does the opposite. It loosens the other three.

Part Four — How Reason Gets Captured Too

Now the side that rationalists rarely examine.

Here is a short story. Daniel and Priya are invented; the question they face is not.

Daniel Okafor is a neuroscientist in London. He grew up Catholic in Lagos and left the Church at nineteen. His wife Priya takes him to see Hanuman Ansh when it opens overseas. Through the first half he explains the music to himself: repetition, slow tempo, the release of tension in the body. When the boy on screen calls out for his dead mother, Daniel cries, and he can name exactly which parts of his brain are crying. Walking to the Tube, Priya asks what he thought. “I understood every second of it,” he says. “And I still have not spoken to my father in four years. I know understanding is not deciding. I think I have been hiding behind it.”

Daniel knows the difference between explaining and deciding; he is a scientist. His mistake is subtler: he has let understanding feel like resolution. Reason is not powerless here. It can weigh what he owes his father, what the silence protects, whether it guards him or only nurses a grudge. But the explanation of his tears cannot do the deciding for him. Explaining why I feel something is one task. Deciding what to do about it is another.

Feeling cannot do the deciding alone either. Emotion shows what matters to us, but it can also carry fear, old injury or pride. The task is not to choose the heart over the head. It is to bring both, with the facts of the relationship, into one decision.

Blaise Pascal saw the gap three centuries ago:

The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. (Blaise Pascal, Pensées) [12]

His line cuts both ways. The heart’s reasons are real, and they can also be borrowed by anyone who knows how to move hearts. That is why the heart needs reason as a guard, and reason needs the heart as a guide.

And reason has its own ways of being captured. Cleverness can become a tool for defending what you already believe. Rationalists form tribes, with their own heroes and heresies. Contempt for believers can become a pose that feels like thinking. A rationalist who never asks what would change his mind has a sealed belief too. Confidence backed by evidence is not dogma. Confidence that no evidence could touch is.

Socrates, on trial for his life, said his only wisdom was that he did not think he knew what he did not know [13]. And he left the West its most famous sentence about thinking:

The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. (Plato, Apology 38a) [13]

Socrates examined his own beliefs first. A rationalist who examines only other people’s beliefs is not following Socrates. He is following his tribe.

Albert Einstein put the balance in a line written in 1941:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion”) [14]

Einstein did not mean conventional doctrine or a personal God. In the same essay he describes a religious feeling tied to freedom from selfish desire and devotion to values beyond oneself. My reading is that he meant awe at the order of things and commitment to what is worth pursuing. Read that way, I think he was right; but it is a reading, and the line illustrates my argument rather than proves it.

Viktor Frankl, who survived Auschwitz, built Man’s Search for Meaning around a line from Nietzsche [15]:

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Reason is very good at the how. Commitment supplies the why. But a destructive ideology can give a person a powerful why too: false history, scapegoats, humiliation, revenge. Meaning is not good just because it is meaningful. It must be examined too.

Part Five — Every Claim Answers to Its Own Test

In an earlier version of this argument I said that science and faith should each keep to their own territory. That was too neat. The truth is harder and more useful: every claim must answer to the test that fits it.

Take four sentences a viewer might say after this film:

“I felt a presence in the hall.”
“The presence was Neem Karoli Baba.”
“The experience helped me through my grief.”
“So I should obey this teacher.”

They make four different kinds of claim. The first reports an experience. The second explains its cause. The third describes its effect. The fourth draws an obligation. Taking the first seriously does not commit you to the second or the fourth. A sceptic should not dismiss the experience because its explanation is uncertain. A devotee should not treat its intensity as proof of the explanation. An experience can be real without every explanation of it being true.

So I separate five questions.

Truth: is a claim about the world supported by evidence? Did the train stop? Does this medicine work? Does meditation lower stress? Truth alone cannot tell you whether a claim matters, or what to do.
Validity: does the conclusion follow from its premises? A valid argument can still rest on false premises.
Meaning: what does an experience or belief mean to the person who holds it? Meaning is real, but it does not make an explanation true. A belief can console without being accurate.
Ethics: is the choice fair, and whom might it harm? Ethical reasoning uses evidence but is not decided by it alone, and hard cases do not have mechanical answers.
Consequences: what happens when a belief is lived? Good fruits matter, but usefulness alone does not prove truth.

A tradition answers to all five. It is a treasury of concepts, practices and long reflection; it is not exempt from evidence, logic or ethics.

Take forgiveness. Evidence can tell us its effects and risks. Reason can tell us that forgiving is not reconciling, and not excusing. Faith may inspire a person to forgive. But faith must never be used to make someone ignore harm, or to push someone who has been hurt back toward the one who hurt them. Devotion must never be used to make the suffering of the wronged look holy.

So are you anti-science? The opposite. Every claim, religious or scientific, must face the test that fits it, and nothing gets a permanent exemption. That is not the same as doubting everything. Doubt is a tool, not a virtue. Endless doubt can be as easy to manipulate as blind faith. What we want is discernment: knowing which questions matter, what would answer them, and how sure the evidence lets us be.

This is also how our tradition’s aims of life fit together. The puruṣārthas, dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa, were not four rivals; in most classical readings dharma governs how artha and kāma are pursued, so wealth and pleasure are legitimate aims when they stand inside dharma [16]. To these I would add two commitments of my own for our time, not as new puruṣārthas but as conditions for pursuing the old ones well: knowledge, without which judgement fails; and saśaktīkaraṇa, empowering others, especially the next generation, to act independently.

Neem Karoli Baba’s circle offers a small example of matter and spirit living in the same people. A review of Parvati Markus’s book about his Western devotees notes that several later made major contributions to society, including the epidemiologist Larry Brilliant and the psychologist and writer Daniel Goleman [17]. By Brilliant’s own account, it was Neem Karoli Baba who urged him to join the World Health Organization’s campaign to eradicate smallpox, and he went on to serve in it in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar [18] [19]. India was declared free of smallpox in 1977. I do not claim the saint eradicated smallpox; tens of thousands of health workers did that. What the story shows is simpler: devotion and rigorous science can live in the same person. The supposed war between them is not a law of nature. Their meeting in one life does not validate every religious claim or every scientific one; each still answers to its own test.

The saint’s own life invites a similar reading. After years of wandering, he returned home at his father’s request, lived a settled married life with his wife, Ram Dulari, and fathered two sons and a daughter, before leaving home again in later life [20] [21]. One reviewer of the film found it hard to see why a man of non-attachment settled anywhere at all [22]. The Gītā answered that long ago: act without clinging, like a lotus leaf that stands in water and stays dry (Bhagavad Gītā 5.10) [5]. The biography does not prove this, but it is the lesson I draw: non-attachment is not absence. It is presence without grasping. A householder who stays free inside his household holds a harder balance than a monk who leaves it.

Part Six — The Questions My Readers Asked Me

A personal article owes its readers some personal answers.

Are you a devotee of Neem Karoli Baba? I was moved by the film and by the teaching his devotees remember. I am nobody’s follower in the sense of handing over my judgement. That is exactly what Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna not to do:

Reflect on it fully, then do as you wish. (Bhagavad Gītā 18.63) [5]

Did he want to be worshipped? I cannot read the mind of a man who died in 1973. What I can read is the instruction his devotees carried away: love everyone, feed everyone, remember God. I take that as a reason to judge any teacher by the service his teaching inspires, not by the reverence he attracts.

Then are you defending godmen and gurus? No. I am defending a method, not every man who claims it. A tradition that cannot expose its frauds cannot protect its saints. Exposure needs fairness too: an accusation is not proof, and a fair process protects both the vulnerable and the falsely accused. In the first article I set out four tests for any teacher or movement: does it ask you to give to others or to it; can you question it without punishment; can you leave and still be respected; and is wrongdoing examined in the open?

Did Steve Jobs meet Neem Karoli Baba? No. Jobs travelled to India in 1974 hoping to meet him and arrived to find he had died the previous September [23]. Mark Zuckerberg later visited Kainchi Dham, influenced by Jobs [20]. The Westerner who did meet him, in 1967, was the Harvard psychologist Richard Alpert, who became Ram Dass [24].

Why do you say “Sanātana” and not “Hinduism”? It is a choice of emphasis, not a claim that one word is right and the other wrong. Sanātana Dharma, the phrase for an enduring order of life, lets me stress what I care about: a continuing, internally diverse inheritance that can be examined and renewed. “Hindu” and “Hinduism” have their own long history, and many people use them with pride. I explain my choice more fully in The Exile and the Return.

Part Seven — A Practice for Monday Morning

Philosophy that never reaches our conduct risks becoming entertainment. So here is what I am taking from the film into ordinary life, built on the three instructions his devotees remember.

Love everyone. Choose one person you strongly disagree with. Try to state their view so well that they would accept your summary. Understanding is not agreement, and loving everyone does not mean trusting everyone. Care and boundaries can live together.
Feed everyone. Feed one person outside your family each week. Keep a short note of what changes in you. That note is honest self-observation, not proof. Now and then, ask the larger question: why was this person hungry, and what would stop it?
Remember God. Take five minutes each day with no phone. If “God” is not your word, remember what is larger than you: the universe, the dead who made your life possible, the unborn who will inherit it. Do not decide in advance what you should feel. Notice what you actually feel.
Ask for a better mind. Do what the Chalisa does in its first lines: admit what you do not understand.
Unseal one belief. Write down one belief you hold dear and, next to it, what would make you change it. If you cannot write anything, you have found the belief to examine first.

Keep the Faith. Keep the Questions.

Daniel does not call his father that week. First he calls his sister and asks a question he has avoided for four years: why did the silence start, and is it safe to end it? Then he writes a letter. He tells Priya only later. “The science explained why I cried,” he says. “It could not decide what to do. That part was mine.”

That is the argument of this series in a few lines. Hanuman Ansh moved me, and it made me fall in love again with Bhāratīyatā, with a way of being rooted that does not need to be rigid. I do not defend Sanātana by defending every miracle or every teacher. I defend the strands of it that never asked me to choose between my heart and my head: a creation hymn that ends in doubt, a boy who questioned Death, a devotee praised for his mind, a definition of devotion as inquiry, and a hymn that begins by asking for understanding.

This is what I mean by Dimāgī Sanātanī: not someone who defends every inherited belief, and not someone who rejects inheritance to look clever, but someone who can stay committed without becoming unaccountable. Six principles:

Match the test to the claim. Evidence for facts, logic for arguments, ethical reasoning for choices, honesty for experience.
Exempt no authority from scrutiny. Respect teachers, texts and traditions; surrender your judgement to none of them.
Take experience seriously, but not as self-explaining. The experience may be real; its cause and meaning need separate examination.
Judge beliefs by their fruits, but not by fruits alone. Ask whether they produce compassion, honesty and independent judgement, or fear, prejudice and dependence. Usefulness does not prove truth.
Stay corrigible, not gullible. Know what would change your mind, and change it in proportion to the evidence. Revising a belief is not losing faith.
Turn understanding into responsibility. Knowledge that never acts is vanity. Devotion that never improves how we treat people is performance.

These principles apply to my own writing too. If any article in this series has claimed more than the evidence supports, the fifth principle obliges me to correct it.

This is the fourth capacity, the one that holds the other three together. A tradition needs the courage to examine its inheritance, and reason needs the humility to examine its own assumptions. Neither can promise that a civilisation will survive every crisis. Together they give it a better chance to recognise error, correct injustice and adapt without surrendering what it values. A mind that knows what would change it is hard to capture, by a guru, a party or a clever argument.

Keep the faith. Keep the questions.

A personal motto, in my own Sanskrit:

Bhārate jātaḥ sanātane pratiṣṭhitaḥ jñānānveṣaṇe nirataḥ. Darśanapatheṣu sañcārī tantravidyā-premī. Praśnān śabdaiḥ svarūpayan.

Born in Bhārata, established in Sanātana, devoted to the search for knowledge. A traveller on the paths of philosophy, a lover of tantra-vidyā. Giving shape to questions through words.

Words to keep

These are not slogans. Each line carries a step in the argument.

“The hymn a whole theatre sang begins with an admission: I lack understanding. Give me a better mind.” The Chalisa opens with humility and asks for strength, intelligence and knowledge. Here devotion does not replace thinking; it prays for better thinking. One prayer does not prove that every devotional practice encourages inquiry, but this one does.
“Devotion supplies neither truth nor goodness by itself. Reason supplies neither purpose nor virtue by itself.” The two are not rivals. Each disciplines the other, and neither can certify itself.
“Ask of any belief you hold dear: what would make me doubt it? If nothing could, the belief is sealed.” The test applies to gurus, ideologies, scientific assumptions and our own loyalties. A firm belief is not a sealed one; a belief that no evidence could touch is.
“Both the believer’s authorities and the reasoner’s tools can be captured.” Scripture and teachers can be used to block scrutiny. So can logic, data and expertise used selectively. Not every source is equally reliable; each must be weighed for what it actually is.
“Explaining why I feel something is one task. Deciding what to do about it is another.” Understanding an emotion can improve a decision. It cannot make the decision.
“Meaning is not good just because it is meaningful.” Destructive ideologies give people purpose too. The strength of a commitment says nothing about its goodness.
“An experience can be real without every explanation of it being true.” Report, explanation, effect and obligation are four different claims. Honour the first without assuming the rest.
“Every claim answers to the test that fits it. Nothing gets a permanent exemption.” This rejects both the demand that every experience become a lab result and the demand that religious claims be beyond checking.
“Inheritance is not exemption from scrutiny.” A tradition can give us languages, stories and practices without making every inherited claim immune to examination. Preserving and examining are not opposites.
“Devotion must never be used to make the suffering of the wronged look holy.” An interpretation of suffering must be judged by what it asks the vulnerable to endure, and whom it protects.
“A tradition that cannot expose its frauds cannot protect its saints.” Accountability is not hostility to a tradition; it is how a tradition keeps its credibility. It also needs fair process, because an accusation is not proof.
“Devotion and rigorous science can live in the same person.” One life holding both does not validate every religious or scientific claim. It shows that the war between them is not a law of nature.
“Stay corrigible, not gullible.” Openness to correction means revising in proportion to evidence, not changing your mind for whoever speaks loudest.
“Keep the faith. Keep the questions.” Commitment need not mean surrender, and questioning need not mean contempt. Sometimes a cherished belief must still be revised; the phrase invites disciplined inquiry, not a promise that every belief survives it.

Terms

Buddhimatāṃ variṣṭham: “foremost among the intelligent”, Hanuman’s epithet in the Rāma Rakṣā Stotra.
Bala, buddhi, vidyā: strength, intelligence and knowledge, what the Chalisa asks Hanuman for.
Svasvarūpānusandhāna: inquiry into one’s own true nature, which the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi calls devotion. An Advaita definition, not every school’s.
Corrigibility: the capacity to recognise when a belief needs revising, and to revise it for good reasons. Not the same as doubt.
Dimāgī Sanātanī: my name for a person rooted in a tradition who keeps every inherited belief open to examination.

How I wrote this

Starting point: This essay began with my own response to Hanuman Ansh. The film prompted the questions; it is not evidence for the answers.
Texts: I draw on selected passages from Vedic, Upaniṣadic, epic, devotional, Buddhist and Greek sources. They do not speak with one voice, and I do not claim to represent every school of Sanātana thought. Renderings of Sanskrit, Avadhī and Pāli are my own unless a translator is named.
History: Claims about Neem Karoli Baba, Larry Brilliant, Steve Jobs and the film’s earnings rest on the numbered sources. Box-office figures are reported trade estimates of gross.
What is mine: Dimāgī Sanātanī, my working definition of mokṣa, my two added commitments and my readings of the texts are proposals, written in the first person and open to dispute.
What is invented: Daniel and Priya are fictional. They illustrate a question; they are not evidence.
Tools: I researched and revised this series with the help of AI tools for fact-checking and editing. The arguments, the judgements and any errors are mine. Corrections will be noted at the foot of the article.

Sources

After ₹424 crore run, Hanuman Ansh to release in Telugu, Business Today, 6 October 2026.
How Hanuman Ansh became 2026’s biggest box office surprise, ETV Bharat.
Ṛgveda 10.129.6–7; Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton (trans.), The Rigveda (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). The rendering here is mine.
Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.1.20; Kena Upaniṣad 2.3; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.3.28; Patrick Olivelle (trans.), Upaniṣads (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Renderings here are mine.
Bhagavad Gītā 4.34, 5.10 and 18.63. Sanskrit text and several standard translations at the Gita Supersite, IIT Kanpur. Renderings here are mine.
Mohit Satyanand, Monkeying With Hanuman, Substack.
Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Kiṣkindhā Kāṇḍa, sarga 3; Rosalind Lefeber (trans.), The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki, Volume IV: Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
Budha Kauśika, Rāma Rakṣā Stotra, verse 33.
Tulsidas, Hanuman Chalisa, opening dohā and chaupāī 7. The rendering here is mine.
Kālāma Sutta, Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.65; Bhikkhu Bodhi (trans.), The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2012). The rendering here is mine.
Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 31 (32 in some editions), traditionally attributed to Śaṅkarācārya; Swami Madhavananda (trans.), Vivekachudamani of Sri Sankaracharya (Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama, 1921).
Blaise Pascal, Pensées (1670), Lafuma 423 / Brunschvicg 277; A. J. Krailsheimer (trans.) (London: Penguin, 1966).
Plato, Apology 21d and 38a; G. M. A. Grube (trans.), The Trial and Death of Socrates (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1975).
Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion” (1941), reprinted in Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950).
Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (1946; English edn, Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), quoting Friedrich Nietzsche.
Gavin Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), on the puruṣārthas.
Review of Parvati Markus, Love Everyone, Publishers Weekly.
Larry Brilliant, Sometimes Brilliant: The Impossible Adventure of a Spiritual Seeker and Visionary Physician Who Helped Conquer the Worst Disease in History (New York: HarperOne, 2016).
Lawrence Brilliant papers, finding aid, University of Michigan Library.
Neem Karoli Baba, Wikipedia.
Who was Neem Karoli Baba?, Penguin India; and Hanuman Ansh and the story of Neem Karoli Baba, NewsGram, 2 September 2026.
Hanuman Ansh movie review, TeluguOne.
Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011).
Ram Dass, Miracle of Love: Stories about Neem Karoli Baba (New York: Dutton, 1979).