Introduction To Vedanta - P. Nagaraja Rao 2 страница

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 6 из 20Следующая ⇒

quarts of water, a little phosphorus and sulphur, a

pinch of iron and silicon, a handful of mixed salts and

all scattered and recombined.

The Hormic school of psychology declares that

seventeen instincts ‘are the prime fhovers of hu-

manity'. Freud’s discovery of the Unconscious and

its function was the last of the shocks science ad-

ministered to the grandiosity of man. The scientific

picture of man is so narrow that it leaves out the sub-

jective experience of the values that man cherishes.

It confines itself purely to sense-experience and the

mechanical conception of cause. It is subjective ex-

perience that discloses the true nature of man which

explains the pursuit of the ideals. Man is not the

mere observable personality, not an inefficient fertili-

ser. There is something in him deeper than his feel-

ings, the very spring of instinct and intuition, the

original unsilenceable whisper of the soul. Man in

his essence is not an animal with effective volition,

nor a mere instrument of material force, nor a play-

thing of blind fate. He is an immortal spirit with an

effective will. But for this spirit many of man’s acts

remain a mystery to us. He propounds mathematical

theorems in beleagured cities, composes and conducts

metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, cracks

jokes on the scaffold.

Man’s power, apart from his spirit, and its

manifestations, the word, the dream, mind and reason,

are insignificant and nothing when compared to the

mighty forces of nature acting on him. Pascal

urged that the minute human being who knows he is

crushed is infinitely higher than the unknowing mass,

however vast, which crushes him. It is man that has

given significance to life. The physical universe re-

mained insignificant until man interpreted it.. That

is the uniqueness of man. It is his double nature, th®

combination of the ape and essence that makes him

the greatest marvel of creation. The story of man is

far more wonderful than all the wonders of physical

science. “It is a mystery unsolved, yet it is a solid

fact. It is divine, diabolic — in short, human ” 16 The

proper study of man is man.

The scientific picture of the universe and the

destiny of man, if it is not modified by other elements,

makes us depressed. If the second Law of Thermody-

namics is true, the prospects for humanity are not

encouraging. “A time will come when the sun goes

out, a catastrophe that is bound to be, mankind will

long ago have disappeared. The last inhabitant of

the earth will be as destitute, as feeble, and as dull-

witted as the first. They would have forgotten all

the arts and all the sciences. They would huddle

wretchedly in caves in the sides of the glaciers that

will roll their transparent masses over the half-obli-

terated ruins of cities, where now men think and love,

suffer and hope. The last desperate survivors of

mankind will know nothing of our genius, nothing of

our civilisation. One day the last man, callous alike

to hate and love, will exhale to the unfriendly sky

the last human breath and the globe will go rolling

on, bearing with it through the silent fields of space,

the ashes of humanity, the pictures of Michaelangelo,

and the remnants of the Greek marbles frozen to its

icy surface. ” 17

Such a prospect can hardly give any meaning or

significance to human life qr action.

Our age is an age of science. We are children

of science and reason. The commitment is made once

for all and we cannot retrace our steps. Science is

necessary; its outlook and methods are useful in many

matters. But, it is wise to recognise and foolish to

ignore its limitations.

A purely empirical approach to problems does

not give us any satisfactory answer. It is not possible

to build a perfect science on the basis of pure empiri-

cism. Albert Einstein declares that “every attempt

at a logical deduction of the basic concepts and postu-

lates of mechanics from elementary experience is

doomed to failure. ” 18 He writes, “the supreme task

of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elemen-

tary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by

pure deduction. Here is no logical path to these

Laws; only intuition resting on sympathetic under-

standing of experience can reach them. ” 19

Science is one great approach to the problems

of life. It has some limitations in its outlook and

technique. We need and should use science in the

measure it can help us. “It is the mark of an educa-

ted man, ” observes Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics,

“to look for precision in each class of things just so

far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently

equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a

mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician

scientific proof. ”

18. Albert Einstein, The world as 1 see it, p. 35.

Chapter II.

THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

(The Western View)

It is as much the nature of man to seek the

knowledge of human existence, the meaning of life,

the nature and the destiny of man, the values that men

and religions are in search of as to seek the biological

needs — food, sex, raiment, shelter and medical aid. To

wonder and reflect on his acts, “to look before and

after and pine for what is not, ” to praise and condemn

are as natural to him, as to eat, drink and be merry.

Man is an interrogating animal. He seeks not only

bread but also understanding. He is not at peace with

himself until he interprets the facts and gets the pic-

ture and meaning of life. He has been described

variously as a ‘rational animal’ and a ‘metaphysical

being. ’ Hegel declared that “it is only animals that

are not metaphysical. ”

The desire to reflect and interpret, to question

and answer the problems of life is called the philoso-

phical activity. Philosophy is an adventure of the

mind. It is an intellectual interpretation of Reality.

It is a distinct approach to the understanding of

Reality. It has its own specific methods. There is

no use confusing it with other modes of apprehension

such as Religion, Science and the Arts.

It is an attempt to think things out in a syste-

matic way. It employs mostly the methods of per-

ception and reason in its understanding and interpre-

tation of Reality. A few make use of intuition. But

it must not be forgotten that what is discovered by

intuition is demonstrated by logic. Philosophy is

fundamentally an intellectual interpretation of

Reality.

The aim and object of philosophy is Truth. In

the words of Hegel “it is the thinking consideration

of. things. ” It does not differ from Science in its ob-

jective'. The philosopher’s conception 'of Reality is

wider and includes all human experience in it. In

the words of F. H. Bradley, philosophy is a quest “to

gain possession of Reality in an ideal form. ” Philo-

sophical understanding does not aim at comfort, or

salvation or moksa or escape from the troubles of the

world but seeks Truth. It does not care for security

or rest. It seeks to satisfy the intellect and not sur-

render it. It does not accept things on faith, or the

revelation of any scripture. It seeks to know Reality

with the help of reason. This attitude distinguishes it

from religion and theology. Philosophy is not the dog-

matic assertion of a set of beliefs. It is a body of “ex-

amined beliefs”. It argues its case and does not simply

assert. It is critical, in the sense that it seeks to exa-

mine the fundamentals of thought. It goes into the

inquiry of the primary causes. Some of the postulates

of Science, such as, Space, Time, Causation etc. are

problems of philosophy. Before turning the telescope

on to the sky, it examines it. Scientific truths are de-

monstrable and verifiable in a concrete sense. They

can be repeated also. Philosophical truths are de-

monstrable and verifiable in a logical sense. They are

tested by the criteria of consistency and non-contra-

diction. The deductions in philosophy are logical

and are the work of pure reason. It seeks to under-

stand the whole in terms of reasoning.

In the popular mind, there is a great deal of pre-

judice against philosophy, its nature and function.

This has arisen because of the ignorance of the signi-

ficance of the term philosophy. This is responsible

for the cheap jokes and revilement of philosophy.

Some mistake philosophy for unintelligibility and so

declare that ‘when A talks to B, and B to A, if both do

not understand each other, it is metaphysics. Others

mistake philosophy for ‘useless knowledge* and des-

cribe it as the search for a black cat in a dark room

where it is not. Some mistake philosophy for an un-

imaginative outlook and describe it as Keats does, ‘Do

not all charms fly at the mere touch of cold philosophy?

Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings. ’ Some expect

romance from philosophy and, when disappointed, cry

out with Romeo, “Hang up all philosophy, unless

philosophy can make a Juliet. ” A few others have

identified philosophy with gloom and burst out with

Dr. Johnson that “all his life he tried to be a philo-

sopher, and cheerfulness breaks in and makes it

impossible for him. ” They regard it as a kill-joy.

Yet others have identified philosophy with a never-

ending, inconclusive farrago of arguments leading us

nowhere. Omar writes:

“Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and saint, and heard great argument

About it and about; but ever more

Came out by the same door as in I went. ”

These men regard philosophy as a series of mar-

ches and counter-marches, where we traverse and

retraverse the same ground. A few regard philosophy

as a matter of one’s temper. The philosophy a man

chooses, declared Fichte, “depends upon the kind of

man he is. ” Some regard any kind of serious mood

as philosophy.

The cheap gibes at philosophy are the result of

ignorance. Philosophic spirit and knowledge are not

things alien to man. It is man’s distinguishing trait.

Evolution has reached a very remarkable stage in man.

Nature refuses to do anything for man. He has to

make or mar his future. He is at crossroads and he

is the “trustee” of human history, in the words of Ju-

lian Huxley. Man is instinct with philosophy. He

needs to find the meaning of life. Aldous Huxley

writes: “It is impossible for man to live without a

metaphysics. The choice is not between some kind of

metaphysics and no metaphysics; it is always between

a good metaphysic and a bad metaphysic. ”

To think and reflect is the nature of man. To

forbid it makes man non-human. It is impossible

for man to cease asking questions or seeking answers,

and to abstain from reflection and thought. The

philosophical attitude is fundamental to man. It can

be described as “the finding of bad reasons for what

we believe upon instinct. ” Bradley retorts, “but to

find these reasons is no less an instinct. ” Men do the

philosophising in a confused, careless and slipshod

manner. Philosophy requires them to do the job in a

systematic manner. There is no point in asking us to

philosophise but not fully. Bradley observes, “to

reflect and ponder is human. We will only cease to

do it when the twilight has no charms or man has

ceased to be man. ”

Two principal objections are levelled by the

enemies of philosophy. Some hold that philosophy

and metaphysics are impossible. Others declare that

it bakes no bread and is useless. It is a flight from

the objectives of immediate living. It is escapism.

It is a tempting, fruitless exercise of the mind of man.

It is the luxury of a lazy few. It is inconclusive in

its results. It encourages the contemplative mood in

us and weakens our action. It is absolutely unrelated

to life. In the last analysis, it is practically no

knowledge worth the name.

The objection that metaphysics is impossible,

because our knowledge can never be complete and

comprehensive is itself a rival theory of metaphysics.

The declaration of the failure of metaphysics ' pre-

supposes a knowledge of the criteria of Reality. So

from this we cannot argue to the impossibility of

metaphysics.

Philosophy is organic to the nature of man. To

ponder, to reflect and to reason out is as much neces-

sary for man as to love, hate and strive. To condemn

philosophy is “to break with the noblest in the nature

of man. ” To stop thought short of its final goal is to

mutilate one aspect of human nature.

It is not true to say that philosophy has not ad-

vanced. The problems of philosophy have not

remained the same. They have altered. The solu-

tions to philosophical problems have been influenced

by the general development of the sciences.

Some of the problems of philosophy are: (1) Is

the universe a fortuitous collocation of atoms, or is

it an embodiment of design? (2) Is the evolution of

life and the world purposive or is it mere change? (3)

Is there a soul? Is there God? Philosophy seeks to

study the nature and function of values like Truth,

Beauty and Goodness. In the words of Dr. Joad,

philosophy “defends Reason and affirms values. ”

The philosophical outlook is not very different

from the scientific. It includes a few super-sensible

and hyper-physical values in its study. It is because

of this, Plato said, “that the noblest of all studies is the-

study of what man should be and what he should

pursue. ” Philosophy expresses itself in two forms.

It is employed by some thinkers to construct a

coherent system of thought to interpret Reality. We

have different systems of philosophy such as Idealism,

Realism, Naturalism^ Theism, Absolutism, Pragma-

tism, Instrumentalism, Materialism, and the philo-

sophies of Evolution. Each system has its own fine

shades and able exponents. Great names like that of

Plato, Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Whitehead, Santayana,,

stand out in the panorama of western philosophy.

Understanding philosophical systems gives us a

definite rigorous mental discipline of exact and careful

thought. It gives us the joy of pure thought, untaint-

ed by any sordid concern for utility. In the words

of Collingwood, the ideal philosopher is resigned to

the contempt of fools and worldly men and their

success. It strengthens the contemplative bent of

mind in us.

The nature of a philosophical system has to be

clearly understood. In the words of Prof. E. A. Burtt,

“Philosophy has much in common on the one hand

with naive reflections in which unsophisticated people

engage; and on the other hand with abstract and exact

inquiries of Science. ” “It seeks essentially to trans-

cend the limitations of science while respecting the

fundamental standards of intellectual attainment upon

which science has come to insist. It is a queer hy-

brid in the realm of reflective inquiry produced

through the fertilization of the spontaneous specula-

tions of common sense about ultimate things by the

responsible discipline of scientific logic. The philoso-

pher is a child in his open-eyed wonderment at the

'world and a fnan of mature research in a critical and

rigorous fashion in which that wonderment is

satisfied. ”

Philosophy lays bare to us the influence of ideas.

4< Man lives not in a world of hard facts to which

thoughts make no difference, but in a world of

thoughts. If you change the moral, political, economic,

theories generally accepted on which he lives, you

change the character of the world also. ” The influence

of ideas and their power over the minds of men can

never be disputed. Things first happen in the mind

of man and then are translated into action.

A few positive-minded men do not see any good

in philosophy. They declare that it is useless know-

ledge. They hold that politicians and scientific in-

ventors decide and guide the fate of nations and not

philosophers. This is an old charge. Marx gives

pointed expression to it: “Philosophers have inter-

preted Reality and not changed it. The need is to

change it. ”

The process of interpretation is not passive. “To

interpret is also to change. ” The philosophical out-

look is not without its great benefits. It influences

our thoughts and through it our actions. Its great

value is that “it protects us from dogmatic superstition

on the one hand, and from commonplace materialism

on the other. ” It also makes us not to fall a prey to

“stupid fanaticism and dishonest sophistry. ” Philo-

sophy when genuinely pursued satisfies the mystical

side of our nature. It is “not dull as crabbed fools

suppose; ” “it is sweet as Apollo’s lute, ” is the verdict

of Milton.

The general influence of philosophy on the

thought of man is liberal. It restores the perspective

we need. In the eloquent words of Bertrand Russell*

“philosophy enables us to fight the triple evils of life*

error, hatred and strife, with knowledge, love and

service. In thought, philosophy enables man to rise

above the life of the senses, seeking what is always

general and open to all men. In desire and will, it

aims simply at the good without regarding the good

as mine or yours. The impartiality philosophy in-

stils in us leads us to truth in thought, justice in actioix

and universal love in feeling. ”

Philosophy may not produce goods. It gives us.

a clear understanding of the problems of life. It

liberates the individual from the tyrrany of narrow

ideas and eager wishes. It has a quality of infinity

about it. Its indirect effect on our outlook and on life

is to make us feel how trifling and little are our con-

flicts and acerbities in comparison with the cosmos.

Philosophy teaches us the spirit of toleration and for-

bearance.

In the recent UNESCO discussion on philoso-

phy, five -reasons are given as to why philosophy

should be taught in our universities. (1) It supplies

a basis for synthesizing knowledge as a whole. (2)

It causes a student to reflect and judge and to think

for himself. (3) It classifies and refines appreciation of

humanistic values and establishes their universality.

(41 -It promotes respect for others, freedom, tolerance

understanding of man. (5) It helps the in-

-c^dugr^Sfltprm ideas on all problems and to assume

his pro]5tdl^|ce in society. Philosophers in the West

hjayecpnsti®ted imposing systems of thought by the

iree-eraritlcpllln ethods. -A partic ular branch of philo-

into the origin,

nature. ye4HB«lV> anch extents /human knowledge,

together with the grounds and degrees of belief. It

also describes, as to how we come to acquire know-

ledge, the several sources of knowledge, the nature of

knowledge and the criteria of truth and error.

Metaphysics in short is the science of the nature-

of Reality. Logic and Ethics assume the existence of

values like Truth and Goodness. The task of logic

is to know how Truth is to be attained. It does not

ask the question, “Is Truth Possible? ” That is thei

problem for metaphysics.

The great philosophers of the West have employ-

ed different methods in the building of the systems.

The closest method to common sense adopted by the

philosophers is the empirical methodr Empiricism

holds the view that all human knowledge comes from

sense-experience and whatever cannot be verified by

experience is not real. Locke, Hume and many

modern Logical Positivists hold to the method of em-

piricism.

Some like Descartes have put forth the method

of Scepticism for arriving at philosophical truths.

The Cartesian method of doubt consists in doubting

all things that are not clear and distinct. There are

different uses to which scepticism is put in philo-

sophy. Descartes doubted in order to arrive at a

dogma. T. S. Eliot writes, “for every man who thinks

and lives by thought, must have his own scepticism,

that which stops at the question, that which ends in

denial, or that which leads to faith. ” Humian scepti-

cism is academic. It did not interfere with his life.

A third method of philosophy is the faith in rea-

son and its workings. It is called Rationalism (not

in the modern sense of the term). This school holds

that the Real is rational and that thought construction

-agrees with the actual world in which we live and

move. Reality is open to the gaze, of thought. Hegel

upheld this view. He put forward the dialectic

method.

A fourth method in Western Philosophy is

Intuitionism. The anti-Rationalists dicf not believe in

the efficacy of reason; so they declared that reason

cannot give us the whole of Reality. It is a defective

instrument and is incapable of grasping the flow of

Reality. Bergson advocated the method of intuition

to grasp Reality. He made. it popular.

Some Idealists hold that Reality can be compre-

hended only in a transcendent mystical experience.

They are critical of the intellect and have convicted

the relational way of knowledge adopted in Logic as

being contradictory. They hold that spiritual expe-

rience alone can make us know Reality.

Yet another method of philosophy, very popular

in America is Pragmatism of James and Dewey. They

hold the view that truth lies in successful willing and

not in copying an Absolute. Pragmatism and Instru-

mentalism have paved the way for a secular Huma-

nism. Their slogan is that “man is the measure of all

things. ”

Some of the contemporary philosophers have

built their imposing metaphysical systems on the con-

clusions of Physics and Biology. Whitehead, Edding-

ton, Alexander, Morgan, Julian Huxley are some who

have used Biology and Physics for their foundation.

Western Philosophy has an impressive and powerful

intellectual foundation.

Chapter III.

THE SPIRIT AND SUBSTANCE OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY.

The term “Indian Philosophy” comprehends the-

groups of philosophical systems that have originated

from the spiritual experience of the sages of ancient

India, subsequently elaborated into systems of

thought and explained in terms of reason and logic.

They are called darsanas. They are not the fruits,

of mere intellectual speculation.

The antiquity of Indian philosophic thought has

not remained a mere matter of history. It has had

a living and growing influence on the thought and

life of Indians through thirty centuries. It has pre-

served its spirit through the ages in spite of repeated

invasions, social convulsions and frequent upheavals

— through all the vicissitudes of India’s fortune. The

spirit of Indian philosophic thought has a strange

vitality, a strong and sound instinct for life, which has

made it mrityunjaya (triumphant over death). In

every age we have some representative of the philo-

sophic spirit of India. No age is without its witness.

Indian philosophic thought has permeated all

aspects of Indian life and literature. It has determin-

ed and coloured the themes of Indian drama, litera-

ture and art, the social structure and ethical ideals;

and its influence is lasting. One of the living systems

of Indian philosophy, the Vedanta, has become to

some Western intellectuals a solace and a solution to

the vexed problems of the world. They consider that

it offers the central principles of the universal religion

we need today.

Tradition divides Indian philosophy into two

groups. The orthodox. group ( astika darsanas), which

consists of Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga,

Mimamsa and Vedanta, believes in the authority of

the Vedas and gives allegiance to it. Of this group

of six systems, the Mimamsa and the Vedanta base

themselves directly on the teaching of tfie Vedas and

accept nothing that goes contrary to them. They

make use of reason to explain the truths of revelation,

i. e., the body of spiritual experience of the Rishis.

The other four systems of the group are based more

on independent grounds of logic and reasoning, but

they too are not opposed to the scriptures. Not con-

tent merely to swear by the scriptures, they seek to

confirm and reassure themselves of the contents of the

scriptures through reasoning. The difference is in

the distribution of emphasis.

The second group, including Buddhism, Jainism

and the Charvaka school, does not owe any allegiance

to the Vedas, and hence these systems are called

nastika darsanas. They originate from the spiritual

experience o£ prophets like Gautama the Buddha and

Mahavira.

All these nine systems constitute Indian philos-

ophy. Before attempting a detailed study of them, we

should try to understand the general characteristics of

Indian philosophy, its pervasive climate of thought.

Its range and variety are astonishing. All shades

of opinion are there: Realism, Idealism, Pluralism,

Monism, Dualism, Monotheism, Theism, etc. In the

words of Professor Hiriyanna, “we have all the

different shades of philosophic theory repeated twice

over in India, once in the six systems and again in

Buddhism. ”

Most of the philosophical systems do not make

any reference to the personalities that set them forth.

In the words of Max Muller, “of the philosophers

hardly anything remains to us beyond their names. ”

They cared more for the truths they expounded than

for their names.

The Indian philosophical ideal is different from

that of the West. The Indian systems seek to attain

a state of existence called moksa. Moksa is the

highest good, parama purusdrtha. It is the ultimate

value. All the other values of life subserve the rea-

lization of the highest good and result in it. The

Indian outlook is synthetic, integrated and concen-

trated in the attainment of moksa.

To the question “Why seek moksa? ” the answer

is the need for the radical termination of the sorrows

of life. All the systems begin with a reflective exam-

ination of the state of human life and find in it a

good deal of sorrow. Samsdra is full of sorrow. Philos-

ophy originated in India under the pressure of a

practical need to overcome and destroy the threefold

suffering to which man is heir. It is the master

remedy for the ills of life.

Moksa is the master word in Indian philosophy

according to Sri Aurobindo. It is a state of perfec-

tion beyond suffering. The ideal of moksa is not

conceptual. It is the result of integral experience.

Mere intellectual study will not enable us to attain

it. It requires moral discipline also. It is a religious

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒