IQ, short for intelligence
quotient, is highly valued in our world. People who have high IQs and able to
solve reasoning and other problems are valued because some of the toughest
competitions for further studies and employment are based on similar tests.
World’s toughest entrance exams, GMAT, GRE and so on all capture those with
high IQs. As a result, high IQ individuals become leaders of big organisations,
run important corporations and end up having high government positions. Because
all employers want to have the most intelligent, sharpest employees, even
smaller organisations/employers have started using clones of IQ tests as part
of their selection tool(s). In this blog, I will discuss why I think it is more
important to have Spiritual Quotient (SQ) than just IQ (or Emotional Quotient
(EQ), which has also become popular in recent years).
Before defining SQ, let me give an
imaginary example, which will clarify what SQ means. Imagine there a beautiful,
large (say, a 2 metre by 1 metre) painting hanging on a wall. Let us say it is
a wildlife or nature painting consisting of big red roses, animals such as
elephants and big lush green trees. Now let us suppose we bring in two people Mr.
A and Mr. B to see and tell us what the painting is all about. Mr. A has a high IQ measured at around 150
whereas Mr. B’s IQ is only around 100. Both of them are graduates. Let us say,
in terms of all other factors such as family income, where they were educated
and previous exposure to art etc. , both
are at the same level.
Mr. A is brought blindfolded into
the room and made to stand at a distance of merely 10 cms from the painting and
then his blindfold is removed. He is asked to describe what is in front of his
eyes. Most probably, the high IQ Mr. A
will only describe the painting in terms of blurred colours. Perhaps he might
describe it as lot of black blur (if he was positioned in front of the elephant)
or a blur of green colour (if he was positioned in front of the tree) etc. Let us say Mr. B is brought in to see the same
painting but his blindfold is removed at a distance of 2 metres from the
painting. He is able to see the painting as a complete and coherent picture,
making logical sense, not just a splash of colours but depicting a coherent,
carefully thought out artistic design.
The point I am making is simple.
The ability to perceive a picture clearly is not dependent on the IQ of the
person but on the distance between the painting and the person. Hence, at the
correct distance, even a small child is able to perceive the picture much
clearly than an adult with highly developed intelligence but standing too close.
(Now before someone asks me whether more
distance is always better than less distance, and whether it isn’t equally undesirable
to be very far away from the picture, I will answer this question subsequently.)
A person could be brilliant at
solving puzzles, logical reasoning or have a great level of grasping power or comprehension,
but it is still the correct distance from the painting, which makes him/her see
the picture holistically and coherently. Again, ability to manage emotions,
empathise with others and ability to adjust oneself socially (namely, emotional
quotient (EQ)) is also not particularly useful in deciphering the painting.
Hence, based on this imaginary
example, I hope to bring much needed clarity to this concept. Although
Spiritual Quotient (SQ) has been discussed in books, blogs etc. this lack of a
very tangible definition was holding back our understanding of SQ and kept it
as a mumbo-jumbo concept, although
every great master across religions have mentioned about the paramount
importance of SQ directly or indirectly.
In recent centuries, we have always
valued the limited logical intelligence (IQ) and in more recent times, EQ. Perhaps in a relatively, static world where we
only had newspapers, only land based telephones and few television or radio
channels, this might have been sufficient. But in this era, we are deluged by
information from all sides, from television channels to internet to myriad
forwards and ‘news’ and information coming to us from diverse social media
websites, it has increasingly become critically important to ‘make sense of the
big picture’.
Hence, even though it is a bit like
putting the cart before the horse (considering that many articles first like to
define and then discuss), let me define what I mean by spiritual quotient,
derived from the above imaginary example of a person viewing a painting. In my view, spiritual quotient is this perceptual distance, which enables a person to have a more holistic
understanding of what is happening. Greater this perceptual distance,
higher is the spiritual quotient (SQ). To my knowledge, no other article or
book has defined SQ in these terms. (I request my readers to correct me if I am
wrong).
Let me answer some questions, which
might arise in the minds of my readers.
Is having an optimal perceptual distance (coming back to the analogy of
person seeing the painting) better than simply maximising this perceptual distance?
Of course, this is a question,
which could be asked in terms of IQ and EQ too. The upper limit of most IQ
tests are about 170. Albert Einstein is famously reported to have scored around
160. In case of EQ, the maximum possible score is said to be either 60 or 80,
depending on which type of questionnaire is used to generate that score.
In terms of Spiritual Quotient, if
it is measured simply as the perceptual distance it means that it can almost be
infinite. A person can be 1 feet away from a painting or 90 feet or 100 feet,
going right up to infinity. Perhaps it
could be more useful to now apply the analogy of height. If I am flying 10 feet
above the ground, I have a certain view of things below. When I fly 200 feet
above the ground, my view is more holistic and comprehensive. At 1000 feet it
is even more comprehensive and so on. Hence, with increasing distance, we see
things more holistically and in larger area. However, the disadvantage is that things,
which had appeared significant and big, now appear much smaller and
insignificant.
So is the case with Spiritual
Quotient. Higher this perceptual distance, higher is the SQ. Masters who had great SQ such as Buddha or
Jesus or other spiritual gurus often see things from such a broad perspective
that smaller things such as everyday issues of family, closer society etc.
appear small and insignificant. That is why Jesus did not get embroiled in the
issues of Jewish political aspirations of his time. Similarly, Buddha even
though a ruler was not an ambitious empire builder/expansionist king.
Think of a plane flying at 35,000
feet. Even huge buildings on the ground would be either invisible or like small
dots or even just a blur of clouds.) If
the distance continues to increase, at one point the entire earth would itself
be a dot. (Ignore the problems of gravity and space travel). In a similar way,
the SQ (distance) can also be infinite. That is why there is no limit to
spiritual growth.
Having said this, even if we are in
the midst of normal life and working in organisations navigating through
everyday problems of work life, family, relationships and money, this ability
to have a distance (high SQ) can entirely change our life for the better.
Another possible question:
Can SQ be cultivated through training or is it genetic? After all, they often
say that good genes have a role to play in high IQ. Is it the same in high SQ?
Of course, spiritual merit passes
through death barrier. Therefore some people are born with high SQ naturally
because of accumulated spiritual merit, which include various factors such as
their previous karma, purpose of their birth etc. etc. As per Bible, Jesus was
found at the age of 12, to be debating
with Jewish scholars. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa started having spiritual
experiences also at a very young age. Buddha is said to have developed a state
of very high distance (high spiritual IQ) from his earthly surroundings at a
young age of 29. Having said this, there is no age at which we cannot train
ourselves to increase our perceptual distance (SQ). The simplest method to
increase this SQ is through meditation. There could be other spiritual
practices such as various physical interventions (hatha yoga among them) and
tantric practices, bhakti and mantra practices, worshipping higher spiritual
entities etc. which can all in different forms and degrees increase our
perceptual distance (SQ). Practices such as mindfulness (fancy Western names
for ancient Eastern practices) all help towards this increasing our SQ.
Isn’t it better to develop Spiritual Quotient (SQ) along with IQ and EQ,
in balance, rather than just focussing on SQ?
This is more of what I call a ‘politically
correct’ statement. Perhaps those who make this statement are thinking along
the lines of the dietary balance of proteins, carbohydrates and fats. But, that
is not how SQ works. I would unequivocally say that IQ and EQ are the sub-sections
of SQ. SQ is the larger bracket, and IQ and EQ are smaller parts of this larger
bracket.
I think Lord Krishna is saying this
when he tells Arjuna (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10, Verse 8) that “I am the source of all spiritual and
material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise know this and thus worship
me.” Again he elaborates on this
importance of SQ as the most important when he says “From me alone arise the varieties in the qualities amongst humans, such
as intellect, knowledge, clarity of thought, forgiveness, truthfulness, control
over the senses and mind, joy and sorrow, birth and death, fear and courage,
non-violence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, charity, fame, and infamy.”
(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10, Verse 4-5). Jesus Christ again says that it is
better to work to elevate our SQ when he says “seek first the kingdom of God
and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you” (Matthew
6:33). Similarly, again very clearly, this folly of focussing on high IQ is
highlighted by Jesus when he says “…the meek shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew
5:5). Jesus does not say the sharpest
and brightest will inherit the earth.
In fact, once SQ is sufficiently developed,
other subordinate faculties such as IQ and EQ will be added on as much as
deemed appropriate and necessary. It is thus not without reason that ancient
Indian monarchs and maharajahs were always advised by people of high SQs, often
referred to as rajguru. Similarly, viziers
(prime ministers) who were often also high priests and philosophers, endowed
with high SQs, often assisted ancient Egyptian rulers.
In recent times, under the
influence of the otherwise healthy idea of keeping ‘religion’ and ‘state’
separate, people with high SQs are deliberately kept away from the proximity of
important leaders such as President of USA, PM of UK or Chancellor of Germany
etc., all in the name of democracy and pluralism. To me, this amounts to
throwing the baby along with the bathwater. As a result, advisors with only
high IQs (and perhaps EQ) counsel leaders of the world’s most powerful, big
democracies such as US, UK, Australia etc. This focus on IQ is a mistake and will result
in the failure of many complex systems in the future. Even in India, under the
tradition of secularism, which India followed after gaining freedom in 1947, spiritual leaders
were kept away from democratic governance. (Of course, it is worth cautioning here
that high SQ does not automatically mean only those who occupy
religious positions such as Sadhus, Maulvis or Catholic clergy).
Another probable question:
Okay. Even if we agree on the importance of SQ, how can we measure the SQ
of individuals objectively, to use it to hire the right people?
It is important to identify the nature
of the concept first, with a high level of clarity. That is the first step. For
example, Henri Becquerel discovered radiation in 1896, whereas the most
commonly used and feasible instrument to measure radiation, the Geiger-Mueller
counter, was only designed in 1928. Now that there is more clarity on what
needs to be measured (namely, the
perceptual distance at which an individual is able to view reality), in
course of time, this generous universe will provide us more precise tools to
measure SQ. Let us all meditate upon this.
To conclude, let me say that we are
living in an extremely turbulent world. Sometimes we get so much information
from diverse channels that we do not know what bits to believe and what to
discard. It is only SQ, which will help
us discern things better and with great sagacity. It is time that schools focus
on developing children’s SQs and not merely train them to improve their IQ and
memory. Similarly, more people with high SQs must be brought into the
government, leadership positions in corporations, if we want to see a better
world. The time has come.
