CHAPTER TEN

MY FAMITH (PHILOSOPIIICAL)

In 1917 I became very friendly with a Jesuit father. We used to have long talks on matters of common interest. In the Jesuit order founded by Ignatius Loyala I then found much that appealed to me, for instance, their triple vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience1 . Unlike many Jesuits, this father was not dogmatic and he was well versed in Hindu philosophy. In our discussions he naturally took his stand on Christian theology as interpreted by his church, while I took my stand on the Vedanta as interpreted by Shanka- racharya. I did not of course comprehend the Shankarite Doctrine of Maya2  in all its abstruseness, but I grasped the essential principles of it——or at least I thought I did. One day the Jesuit father turned round to me and said--”I admit that Shankara’s position is logically the soundest—-but to those who cannot live up to it, we offer the next best.” There was a time when I believed that Absolute Truth was within the reach of human mind and that the Doctrine of Maya represented the quintessence of knowledge. Today I would hesitate to subscribe to that position. I have ceased to be an absolutist (if I may use that word in my own sense) and am much more of a pragmatist. What I cannot live up to—what is not‘ workable-—I feel inclined to discard. Shankara’s Doc- trine of Maya intrigued me for a long time, but ultimately I found that I could not accept it because I could not live it. So I had to turn to a different philosophy. But that did not oblige me to go to Christian theology. There are several schools of Indian philosophy which regard the world, crea- tion, as a reality and not as an illusion. There is, for example, the theory of Qualified monism according to which the ultimate reality is One and the world is a manifestation of it. Ramakrishna’s view is similar, that both the One (God) and the Many (Creation) are true. Several theories have been advanced to explain the nature of creation. Accord- ing to some the universe is the manifestation of Ananda or Divine Bliss. Others hold that it is the manifestation of Divine Play or ‘Leela’. Several attempts have also been made to describe the One-—-the Absolute——God—in human language and imagery. To some, like the Vaishnavas, God is Love ; to some like the Shaktas, He is Power; to others He is Knowledge; to still others He is Bliss. Then there is the traditional conception of the Absolute in Hindu philosophy as ‘Sat-Chit-Ananda’, which may be translated as ‘Existence- Consciousness (or Knowledge)-Bliss’. The more consistent philosophers say that the Absolute is indes• cribable or inexpressible (anirvachaneeya). And it is reported of Bud- dha that whenever he was questioned about the Absolute he remained silent. It is impossible to comprehend the Absolute through our human intellect with all its limitations. We cannot per ceive reality as it is objectively———as it is in itself——we have to do so through our ow11 spectacles, whether these spectacles be Bacon’s ‘Idola’ or Kant’s ‘forms of the under- standing’ or something else. The Hindu philosopher will probably say that as long as the duality of Subject (Jnata) and Object (Jneya) remains, knowledge is bound to be imperfect. Perfect knowledge can be attained only when Subject and Object merge into oneness. This is not possible on the mental plane——the plane of ordinary conscious- ness. It is possible only in the supra-mental plane-—in the region of superconsciousness. But the conception of the supra-mental, of the super-conscious, is peculiar to Hindu philosophy and is repudiated by Western philosophers. Ac- cording to the former, perfect knowledge is attainable only when we reach the level of the super—conscious through Yogic perception, i.e., intuition of some sort. Intuition as an instrument of knowledge has, of course, been admitted in Western philosophy since the time of Henri Bergson, though it may still be ridiculed in certain quarters. But Western philosophy has yet to admit the existence of the supra-mental and the possibility of our comprehending it through Yogic perception. Assuming for a moment for argument’s sake that we can comprehend the Absolute through Yogic perception, the difficulty about describing it will still remain. When we attempt to describe it, we fall back into the plane of normal consciousness and we are handicapped by all the limitations of the normal human mind. Our descriptions of the Abso- lute of God are consequently anthropomorphic. And what is anthropomorphic cannot be regarded as Absolute Truth Now can we comprehend the Absolute through Yogic perception? Is there a supra-mental plane which the individual can reach and where the Subject and the Object merge into Oneness? My attitude to this question is one of benevolent agnosticism—~—if I may coin this expression. On the one hand, I am not prepared to take any- thing on trust. I must have first- hand experience, but this sort of experience in the matter of the Absolute, I am unable to get. On the other hand, I cannot just rule out as sheer moonshine what so many individuals claim to have experi- enced in the past. To repudiate all that would be to repudi- ate much, which I am not prepared to do. I have, therefore, to leave the question of the supra• mental open, until such time as I am able to experience it myself. Meanwhile I take up the position of a relativist. I mean thereby, that Truth as known to us is not absolute but relative. It is relative to our common mental constitution——to our distinctive charac- teristics as individuals-—and to changes in the same indi- vidual during the process of time. Once we admit that our notions of the Absolute are relative to our human mind, we should be relieved of a great deal of philosophical controversy. It would follow that when such notions differ, they may all be equally true—the diver- gence being accounted for by the distinctive individuality of the subject. It would follow, further, that the notions of the same individual with regard to the Absolute may vary with time along with his mental development. But none of these notions need be regarded as false. As Vivekananda used to say, “Man proceeds not from error to truth but from truth to higher truth.” There should accordingly be scope for the widest toleration. The question now arises: Granting that reality as known to me -is relative and not absolute, what is its na- ture? In the first place, it has an objective existence and is not an illusion. I come to this conclusion not from a priori considerations but mainly from the prag-matic point of view. The Doctrine of Maya does not work. My life is incompatible with it, though I tried long and hard to make my life fit in with it. I have, therefore, to discard it. On the other hand, if the world be real (not, of course, in an abso- lute but in a relative sense) then life becomes interesting and acquires meaning and purpose. Secondly, this reality is not static——but dynam- ic——it is ever changing. Has this change any direction? Yes, it has; it is moving towards a better state of existence. Actual experience demonstrates that the changes imply progress-——and not meaningless motion. Further, this reality is, for me, Spirit working with a conscious purpose through time and space. This concep- tion does not, of course, represent the Absolute Truth which is beyond description for all time and which for me is also beyond comprehension at the present moment. It is there- fore a relative truth and is liable to change along with the changes in my mind3 Nevertheless, it is a conception which represents my utmost effort to comprehend reality and which offers a basis on which to build my life. Why do I believe in Spirit? Because it is a pragmatic necessity. My nature demands it. I see purpose and design in nature; I discern an ‘increasing purpose’ in my own life. I feel that I am not a mere conglomeration of atoms. I perceive, too, that reality is not a fortuitous combination of molecules. Moreover, no other theory can explain reality (as I under stand it) so well. This theory is in short an intellec- tual and moral necessity, a necessity of my very life, so far as I am concerned. The world is a manifestation of Spirit and just as Spirit is eternal so also is the world of creation. Creation does not and cannot end at any point of time. This view is similar to the Vaishnavic conception of Eternal Play (Nitya Leela). Creation is not the offspring of sin; nor is it the result of ‘avidya’ or ‘ignorance’ as the Shankarites would say. It re- flects the eternal play of eternal forces——the Divine Play, if you will. I may very well be asked why I am bothering about the ultimate nature of reality and similar problems and am not contenting myself with experience as I find it. The an- swer to that is simple. The moment we analyse experience, we have to posit the self———the mind which receives-and the non-self—the source of all impressions, which form the stuff of our experience. The non-self—reality apart from the self—is there and we cannot ignore its existence by shutting our eyes to it. This reality underlies all our experience and on our conception of it depends much that is of theoretical and practical value to us. No, we cannot ignore reality. We must endeavour to know its nature—though, as I have already indicated, that knowledge can at best be relative and cannot be dignified with the name of Absolute Truth. This relative truth must form the basis of our life-—even if what is relative is liable to change. What then is the nature of this Spirit which is real ity? One is reminded of the parable of Ramakrishna about a number of blind men trying to describe an elephant— each giving a description in accordance with the organ he touched and therefore violently disagreeing with the rest. My own view is that most of the conceptions of reality are true, though partially, and the main question is which conception represents the maximum truth. For me, the essential nature of reality is LOVE. LOVE is the essence of the Universe and is the essential principle in human life. I admit that this conception also is imperfect——for I do not know today what reality is in itself and I cannot lay claim to knowing the Absolute today-even if it be within the ulti- mate reach of human knowledge or experience. Neverthe- less, with all its imperfection, for me this theory represents the maximum truth and is the nearest approach to Absolute Truth. I may be asked how I come to the conclusion that the essential nature of reality is LOVE. I am afraid my epistemology is not quite orthodox. I have come to this conclusion partly from a rational study of life in all as- pects——partly from intuition and partly from pragmatic considerations. I see all around me the play of love; I per- ceive within me the same instinct; I feel that I must love in order to fulfil myself and I need love as the basic principle on which to reconstruct life. A plurality of considerations drives me to one and the same conclusion. I have remarked above that the essential principle in human life is love. This statement may be challenged when one can see so much in life that is opposed to love; but the paradox can be easily explained. The ‘essential princi- ple’ is not fully manifest yet; it is unfolding itself in space and time. Love, like reality of which it is the essence, is dy namic. What, now, is the nature of the process of unfolding? Firstly, is it a movement forward or not? Secondly, is there any law underlying this movement? The unfolding process is progressive in character. This assertion is not quite dogmatic. Observation and study of nature point to the conclusion that everywhere there is progress. This progress may not be unilinear; there may be periodic set-backs-—-but on the whole, i.e. considered from a long period point of view, there is progress. Apart from this rational consideration there is the intuitive experi- ence that we are moving ahead with the lapse of time. And last but not least, there is the necessity, both biological and moral, to have faith in progress. As various attempts have been made to know real- ity and to describe it—so also have attempts been made to comprehend the law of progress. None of these efforts is futile; each gives us a glimpse of the truth. The Sankhya Phi- losophy of the Hindus was probably the oldest endeavour to describe the evolutionary process in nature. That solution will not satisfy the modern mind. In more recent times, we have various theories, or perhaps descriptions, of evolution. Some like Spencer would have us believe that evolution consists in a development from the simple to the complex. Others like von Hartmann would assert that the world is a manifestation of blind will—from which one could con- clude that it is futile to look for an underlying idea. Berg- son would maintain his own theory of creative evolution; evolution should imply a new creation or depar-ture at every stage, which cannot be calculated in advance by the human intellect. Hegel, on the contrary, would dogmatise that the nature of the evolutionary process, whether in the thought world or in reality outside, is dialectic. We progress through conflicts and their solutions. Every thesis provokes an tntithesis. This conflict is solved by a synthesis, which in its turn, provokes a new antithesis--and so on. All these theories have undoubtedly an element of truth. Each of the above thinkers has endeavoured to reveal the truth as he has perceived it. But undoubt- edly Hegel’s theory is the nearest approximation to truth. It explains the facts more satisfactorily than any other theory. At the same time, it cannot be regarded as the whole truth since all the facts as we know them, do not accord with it. Reality is, after all, too big for our frail understanding to fully comprehend. Nevertheless, we have to build our life on the theory which contains the maximum truth. We cannot sit still because we cannot, or do not, know the Absolute Truth. Reality, therefore, is Spirit, the essence of which is Love, gradually unfolding itself in an eternal play of con- flicting forces and their solutions.

  

<<            <            11           12           13           >            >>