CWTVKS Volume 2

4) Is it Eclecticism?

(2)

Under the caption “Sri Kapali Sastry on Sri Aurobindo,” a reply to my article “Is it Eclecticism?” that appeared in the Advent of last August is given by the same critic Sri S. S. Raghavachar in The Vedanta Kesari (January). The writer makes a serious attempt to maintain the position he first took up, amplifies his criticism and in his reconsideration of whatever flowed from his pen he has tried to remove the ‘ambiguity’ I had referred to by stating that his critical remarks proceed from his dissatisfaction with the work of the disciple and not with the Magnum Opus of the Master himself. I welcome this concession contained in the last part of the sentence, as The Life Divine is an admirable production which even the worst opponents of Sri Aurobindo's teachings dare not dispose of lightly even when they could not or would not appreciate it in toto. But this does not mean that the critic accepts the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, the Yoga, the Path, the Goal of mankind, and other kindred matters on which he has written many volumes which put together are all very much larger in bulk than that of the Magnum Opus. His admiration for The Life Divine is not in question, but he has stated it because he wants it to be known that he does not find fault with that work and nothing more. If he has dissatisfaction with the disciple's work, he has his own reasons which he has stated in categorical terms. To mention them and to give adequate answers would require as much space as, if not more than double the space, taken up for writing the ‘booklet’ that has so much offended his (critic's) philosophical sobriety as to unsettle his equable poise in the ‘fabrication’ of the Daniel's judgment. If I refrain from taking notice of his posers, I have reasons which I shall presently state. I shall later on deal with some of his statements regarding the Master's philosophy and the many schools of philosophy in the West or in India.

The first and foremost reason for my viewing the criticism as not meriting refutation is this: I have stated in the book animadverted upon as well as in my article in the Advent the exact nature and purpose of the work viz. to explain throwing light on the Fundamental Concepts of Sri Aurobindo's Teachings. The title of the- ‘booklet’ itself must make it evident to any one who is not unwilling to see. Now to extend the connotation of the title to a title that would suit the convenience of the critic to attack viz. ‘Introduction to the Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo' is unfair, baseless; and that even after my explaining the position to insist that somehow the folly was mine, at any rate I should or must fall into the error of the critic's choice, is invincible prejudice; if not, what else?

Again, the critic himself states “It is too slender to be taken as furnishing an adequate introduction to the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo.” For this reason also, Lights on the Fundamentals is not the same as an adequate introduction to, the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. There is another important point that the critic has thoroughly missed. He seems to assume that this ‘booklet’ purports to be a summary or resume of The Life Divine which is not the case. Nowhere have I stated in the book itself or later in my article that it is an introduction to Sri Aurobindo's philosophy as presented in The Life Divine. I took care to explain ‘darsanebhyah’ in the plural (p. 90). On the previous page it will be found that this work is extract from the teachings of Sri Aurobindo’ (p. 89). By that I meant other works also including the Secret of the Veda. If I did not mention the authority from Sri Aurobindo's works for every statement I made it was not necessary as mine is the responsibility for whatever I stated. This is because I had a system formed long ago in my mind that could be based on the traditional wisdom of the ancient mystics from the Rig Vedic times traversing the scriptures of an earlier age, followed by the Upanishads and Agamas of the different sects and Puranas down to our own times. The formation of such a system in my mind was facilitated by Sri Aurobindo's references to the Vedic, Vedantic and Tantric teachings in the various contexts of the subjects he was dealing with. Since the short treatise was intended to expound the central concepts, it was considered advisable to publish it as an appendix to The Four Powers of the Mother, translated by me into Sanskrit verse. As The Mother was mainly intended for Sadhaks and the matter was what related to Sadhana, a clear idea of the fundamental concepts of the Master's teachings being found in the booklet, the Master approved my idea of printing it as an appendix. This fact I had already mentioned. At least now, I hope the critic will see the correctness of my view and his initial error which led him to supplement the title by adding his words to explain what he considers I should have meant. Questionable is the journalistic ethics for a reveiwer to indulge in such luxuries. Ancient standard was fairly high and scrupulously maintained by shastraic writers. Old Kumarila demurs to such steps, saying, yavad vacanam vacanikam, ‘the meaning actually expressed must be conveyed’ and nothing is needed to supplement it.

I might as well stop here having pointed out the erroneous basis of the critic's contention as well as what he calls the main charge that I have not dealt with Sadhana. What I have stated is enough to show that he goes to a wrong shop, knocks and knocks at the wrong door and not finding what he wants quarrels and raises a hue and cry instead of blaming himself for want of circumspection before undertaking the unedifying job.

But I proceed to make some observations on some of his statements about the ‘eclectic patches,' ‘Western philosophers’ and a few others. What I write here is not quite adequate but is sufficient to point to the direction of my views on the curious and mistaken notions of the critic in respect of some of these topics. Before proceeding I must first dispose of a simple question which shall not be left in suspense. I recognise as genuine the critic's admission that he is not dissatisfied with the Philosophy of The Life Divine. I assume therefore that he recognises the synthetic harmony therein as an outstanding fact and that only in my miniature reproduction of it (i.e. Life Divine, according to him which I have explained in my denial) it turns out to be an untenable combination of “eclectic patches”. Well, it is something to know that he has nothing to say against The Life Divine, though he does not expressly state that he accepts the position of man and the goal before him as portrayed in The Life Divine; he has conceded so far, and that indeed serves his purpose of tearing to pieces my ‘eclectic patches’ over which he has very much to quarrel. But one can very easily see that the eclectic bugbear of the critic threatens the teachings of Sri Aurobindo as a whole and as represented in the’ booklet' in question. For whatever scriptural authority was referred to by me, whether Veda or Agama, Upanishad or Purana, has been based upon the Master's explicit and lucid statement to the same effect. I stress this fact because the critic strikes at the root of the case I have presented, as an easy step to show that there is no theological tradition to support the Seven Worlds etc. I shall presently show how the critic has fallen into the error of what seems to him as eclectic. Let me first quote Sri Aurobindo in regard to the world-order: in the Doctrine of the Mystics prefaced to the translation of the Hymns of the Atris, he says: “We have the same Cosmic gradation as in the Puranas but they are differently grouped,—seven worlds in principle, five in practice, three in their general groupings” (Arya, Vol. II, p. 100). I need not quote in detail the descriptive statements made about them and the intricate world-system of the Vedic mystics which takes a gros-shape in a simplified form in the Puranas, and has received adequate treatment at the hands of Sri Aurobindo there, as also elsewhere. But the critic would divine “eclectic patches” of the Vedic, Upanishadic and Puranic patterns in the harmonising of the sevenfold, fivefold and threefold principles and groupings and if the terms used are explained, as for instance, vijnana, or janaloka, with an eagle's eye he would pounce upon it tearing it to pieces labelling them as fanciful interpretations without any basis in what he would call Theological Tradition’. I realise and readily concede that the critic writes from genuine conviction and long-held strong views on the matter of theological conceptions that are in vogue in certain quarters, but not universal. But I hold that these views have an erroneous basis and the conviction is one born of equally erroneous notions.

In India the Veda is admitted on all hands to be the fountainhead of all spiritual Wisdom; and the other scriptures, Upanishads, Tantra or Purana are not unconnected departures from it, but are ‘in their essential build and character transmutations and extensions of the original vision and first spiritual experience.’ What Sri Aurobindo writes on the real character of these ancient texts stresses the fact that “the Veda gave us the first types and figures as seen and formed by an imaged spiritual intuition and psychological and religious experience. The Veda became to the later scholastic and ritualistic idea of Indian priests and pundits nothing better than a book of mythology and sacrificial ceremonies.” This is so in the face of the fact that all the scriptural texts, Upanishads and others proclaim the Vedas as the supreme authority held in great reverence and even Puranas themselves acclaim in portions that they are enlargings, upabrhmanam, upon the Vedic truths.

Once we grasp this fact about the character of these different lines of development of sacred literature in India we no longer accept the idea that they are all unconnected departures from the original source in the Vedic texts.

If therefore the seven worlds of the Puranas are traced to the seven Cosmic principles of the Vedic mystics, we are giving a factual interpretation on the authority of the Vedic and Puranic texts themselves. The same applies to certain references I made to the Taittiriya text which also continues the Vedic tradition and uses a language that is in accord with that of its age. Only when we treat these texts as totally unconnected deviations, the ‘patches’ has room to rear its head. One important fact that must be borne in mind in this context is that the names used in the Purana signifying the nature of the worlds to which they apply are suggestive and are our main clues to unveil the secret; for instance, when the Puranas say that Narayana reposes on Ananta I would presume that Ananta is the Infinite Prakriti on which he rests, and if a learned critic for the sake of criticism questions me as to the propriety of giving that fanciful meaning while according to his theological and puranic tradition Ananta is Sesha, serpent, the thousand-headed hydra and nothing more, I have no answer but a pitiful look at the stalwart. In the same way jana in janaloka suggests birth or creation which proceeds from Ananda according to the plain texts of the Upanishad.

Now I shall pass on to another interesting argument of the critic against the idea that Tapas is the creative force, or conscious force and that it leads to anthropomorphism. I stand aghast, my readers would laugh out in disgust. I need not quote him in full, nor is it worth an answer on his terms, I can very well imagine he is not a scoffer of the scriptures, but here he uses whatever argument he can summon to his convenience for demolishing my statements. The pity of it is that he forgets for the time being that the Vedas proclaim that by Tapas, He, Prajapati, created, satapo’ tapyata. The idea occurs frequently in the Brahmanas and the Upanishads. Sri Aurobindo expounds the principle of Tapas-force as exclusive concentration, in his Magnum Opus over which the critic has no quarrel. In my Rig Bhashya Bhumika, (published last year), I explained the term occurring in the second verse which I reproduce here as it contains a short but straight answer, as if in anticipation of the criticism. The Supreme “wears the sound-form for body and creates the universe by exhalation and lives with tapas for his life-breath.” On this my note runs as follows (I give only the relevant lines): “As the Creator he assumes the form of the primordial Sound, nada, the creative Logos; this Sabda is his body; his life-breath is Tapas which is Consciousness as Force. To show that the Tapas (as explained) is inherent in him an anthropomorphic figure is pressed into service on the strength of scriptural authority, that he exhales and the worlds are created. Creation is the natural, effortless outcome of that poise of the Lord, Prabhu.”

Sublime ideas, truths that transcend the senses and the reason founded on sense-data have always been expressed in images and figures and symbols from immemorial times, not only in the ancient scriptures of this land, but by Mystics all over the world. Only the ‘rationalist’ raises an ineffective objection against the use of image etc. But the one solid reply that can be given to it is Sri Aurobindo's answer (Vide his Letters, First Series) to Leonard Woolf's criticism of Mysticism where in the concluding passages he says that there is no deceitful cunning in using metaphors and symbols as in the simile of focus which is surely not intended as an argument but as a suggestive image.

In modern times thinkers of first rank, even when their system is not labelled spiritual philosophy, have had recourse to figures and images to carry home their conceptions or subtle perceptions, if you like. An appreciative critic of Bergson remarks: “He is occasionally obscure by the squandered wealth of his imagery, his analogies and his illustrations; he has an almost semitic passion for metaphor.” Thus, though Sri Aurobindo employs figures and images in illustrative terms to explain what is meant by Tapas and Ananda, he has taken care to deliberate upon them in the language of metaphysical reasoning in his Magnum Opus, and for the sake of a clear grasp of the terms he has described that “Tapas is the energising conscious power of Cosmic being by which the world is created, maintained and governed; it includes all concepts of force, will, energy, power, everything dynamic and dynamising. Ananda is the essential nature of bliss of the cosmic consciousness and in activity, its delight of self-creation and self-experience.”

Now I shall proceed to an important aspect of the critic's reasoning in caricaturing as untenable eclectic patches what we consider as a synthetic harmony. I have already mentioned the nature of the Upanishads, Tantra, etc. that are subsequent to and continuation of the teachings of the Vedic Wisdom in spite of their variations in form; and they all branch out from the spirit of the original Scripture. If I find in the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari something about the Logos I recognise that it has its basis in the Rig Veda, in the nitya yak, the Eternal Word, of Rishi Virupa in the 8th Mandala, or another line from the Valakhilya hymns of the Rig Veda, vageva visva bhuvananijajne, leaps to my mind and if my listener has ears he will have no difficulty in admitting the truth that the Logos of Bhartrihari is of Vedic origin. Or I turn to the Upanishads. I recognise the Logos in the Pranava, Akshara, Omkara, Udgitha variously described and explained therein, or when I look into the Pancharatra, Shakti Tantra or Shaiva Agma, I recognise the same Logos in the primal nada, adya spanda. The primordial throb which is the same with slight difference in name—but more expressive of the significance as the nitya vak, of the Rig Veda or Udgitha of the Chhandogya, or Omkara of the Mandukya; well, in the same manner, I can show that the so many ‘isms,’ vadas, that hang loosely in the learned mind of the critic as patches without fusing are mostly in their essentials directly traceable to the Upanishads. I carefully omit the Veda here as it is not in Vogue for purposes of theological and spiritual discussions, but simply kept in the lumber room though with great respect in theory. But let me state that these vadas have for their support the Shruti texts each in its own way for its purpose. But I do not undertake to quote the relevant texts here on which these Acharyas and their vadas depend. This much I say here that if I find spiritual monism or parinama vada or any other, I recognise them as rising from the sacred texts. And if any critic comes forward and preaches to me learnedly that what I say is taken from the spiritual monism of Shankara, I have no option but to laugh and pity my preacher just as any one would if he is told that the Gayatri is taught in the Chhandogya. That the Chhandogya refers to Gayatri is a fact, but originally it is in the Rig Veda of which the learned preacher is obviously ignorant. Similarly there is a passage in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad tat kena kam pasyet. When.I read it I find that the Shruti refers to an unalloyed Monistic Reality that could be experienced; if I say so my critic would say this is the “ism” of Shankara.

Now that I have finished with the eclectic worm, I should like to bring home the exact nature of this ‘eclectic’ stuff by the illustration of a picture in which various colours and curves figure within the framework on the canvas and any one with eyes on his head could see that it is a picture drawn on a canvas and that the substance and the materials used can be recognised, including the wooden or metallic frame. But a mind which is not inclined to appreciate a co-ordinated whole can very well say that the green colour is borrowed from the parrot of that garden, the azure from the half-clouded sky, the curve is copied from the distant landscape, the material for frame from the forest etc. In cases of such judgment which resolves a harmonious synthesis into intruding patches, the superior arbiter is a developed conscience and rectitude of the scrutinising eye; more is a matter of opinion of competent minds that count. Again, I am speaking of a tree in its entirety—root and branch, fruit and foliage and stem, but my critical friend's mind, riddled as it is with patches of my system, considers each part separately and thinks this is timber in its raw state, that is bark useful for therapy, those are flowers for decoration and so on with the result that their parts, usefulness or different uses cannot be co-ordinated and so are incongruous elements. Let me quote a passage from Sri Raghavachar in this connection which burns to ashes all the fancied ‘patches’ that are supposed to make up the whole. “One finds in Sastry's work the emergent evolution of S. Alexander, the intuitionism of Bergson, the spiritual monism of Shankaia, the Realism of Ramanuja and Madhava, the Brahma Parinamavada of Bhaskara and Kashmir Saivism, the Logos of Bhartrihari, the Sakti concept of Tantra and the ‘Lord’ of popular Theism.” Well, Sri Raghavachar could go on with many more ‘isms,’ for all is grist that comes to his mill and he is too learned, certainly. But the fact must be told that Sastry was singularly unaware of these systems, except perhaps a superficial idea and second-hand information obtained from later writers who knew or from cheap literature; and it was his fortunate ignorance of these ‘isms’ in their original and pristine purity that enabled him to study and understand the scriptures in their true set-up while he was hardly out of his teens nearly half-a-century ago, and later led him to appreciate and follow Sri Aurobindo on the one hand and on the other hand equipped him for an upright appraisal of the ‘isms’ of the West (of the East also), not their downright condemnation as is alleged.

The critic is emphatic, even extravagant, in the use of his sharp tongue when he fancies error in others and is generous in his righteous indignation at my basic remark about western metaphysics in general. His comments and stretchings and strictures as is quite often the case with him, are offensive and beside the mark. The actual line I used is this: “The bulk of metaphysical thinking in the West differs fundamentally from the philosophical systems in India.” This is the beginning of the passage that has offended his sense of fairplay and justice to western philosophers and he quotes the names of James, Bergson, Kant, Plato etc. Well, it is amazing how he fails to see that I did not mean or say that the West has not progressed and is not slowly or rapidly giving up materialistic thought realising the limitations of Reason. The names he mentions are, certainly worthy names. James was the son of a Swedenborgian mystic and himself contributed a deal to psychology and of all his works the Variety of Religious Experience was an eye-opener to the scientist who till then would not believe in the phenomena of a non-material existence which is in some way connected with the physical world. Bergson was rightly styled the ‘David destined to slay the Goliath of Materialism’ and his Creative Evolution is the first masterpiece of the Century. Much more can be said here. But what do all these prove? Can all this be an answer to the question ‘Is there a philosophic tradition in the West as is assumed in this land that a philosophic system is an attempt at intellectual presentation of supra-intellectual truths, perceived or experienced by the system:builder?’ The critic is loud that mine is a definite error; but he must know I am in good company.

A word about Reason. It has an important place, and is the highest instrument the human mind is endowed with, but it has its limitations. When I was speaking of Sri Aurobindo's system building, I did accord a radical place for experience, for Realisation and added that certain articles of faith, become theories or dogmas, but I did not mean or say that they shall not or can not be put in terms appealing to Reason. Otherwise there would have been no raison d'etre for The Life Divine. I did not undertake to establish the system or reason out the position and in that connection I spoke of what I may call the starting assumptions or dogmas.

I agree that ‘there is clearly a need for a criterion to eliminate pseudo-realisation.’ Here Reason can take an important part, but how far it can be trusted to solve the difficulty depends upon so many factors some of which pertain to the office and guidance and limitations of Reason itself.