Search e-Library

European Enlightenment : Webster’s Dictionary: Enlightenment: A philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by questioning of traditional doctrines & values, a tendency towards individualism, & an emphasis on the idea of universal human progress, the empirical method in science & the free use of reason. Philosophy: (a): a pursuit of wisdom (b): a search for a search for a general understanding of values & reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means (c): an analysis on the grounds & concepts expressing fundamental beliefs. Speculative: (a): involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; theoretical rather than demonstrable. (b): marked by questioning curiosity. [G&C. Merriam Co., USA; Indian Edition, 1985, pp.375-76, 854, 1109] Sri Aurobindo: In ancient Greece the word philosophy stood for philos: one who has an affinity for or a strong attraction to Sophia: wisdom, & sophos: the wise. That was when in Indian & in Greek philosophy, “the first question for thought was the problem of the One & the Many”. Indian philosophy never lost its double function: it “sought the Truth not only as an intellectual pleasure or the natural dharma of the reason, but in order to know how man may live by the Truth or strive after it” & never lost “its intimate influence on religion, the social ideas, the daily life of the people, its immense dynamic power on the mind & actions of Indian humanity”. The “Greek thinkers, Pythagoras (582-507), Socrates (407-399) , Plato (428/347), the Stoics (308BC) & Epicurus (341-270), had also this practical aim & dynamic force, but it acted only on the cultured few because Greek philosophy, losing its ancient affiliation to the Mystics, separated itself from the popular religion”. ― “Heraclitus (537-475) shows us that the ancient system of sacrifice in Greece had a psychological significance, purification of the soul as well as propitiation of higher & helpful powers, & was therefore in all probability mystic & symbolical; for purification was, as we know, one of the master ideas of the ancient Mysteries. In the development of Judaism by the prophets & by Jesus, while the old physical symbols were discouraged & especially the blood-rite, the psychological idea of sacrifice was saved, emphasised & equipped with subtler symbols, such as the Christian Eucharist…. But Greece with its rational bent & its insufficient religious sense was unable to save its religion; it tended towards that sharp division between philosophy & science on one side & religion on the other which has been so peculiar a characteristic of the European mind. Here, too, Heraclitus was, as in so many other directions, a forerunner, an indicator of the natural bent of occidental thought. Equally striking is his condemnation of idol-worship, one of the earliest in human history: ‘he who prays to an image is chattering to a stone wall’. The intolerant violence of this protestant rationalism & positivism makes Heraclitus again a precursor of a whole movement of the human mind. It is not indeed a religious protest such as that of Mahomed against the naturalistic, Pagan & idolatrous polytheism of the Arabs or of the Protestants against the aesthetic & emotional saint-worship of the Catholic Church, its Mariolatry & use of images & elaborate ritual; its [of Heraclitus’ protestant rationalism & positivism] motive is philosophic, rational, psychological. Heraclitus was not indeed a pure rationalist. He believes in the Gods, but as psychological presences, cosmic powers, & he is too impatient of the grossness of the physical image, its hold on the senses, its obscuration of the psychological significance of the godheads to see that it is not to the stone, but to the divine person figured in the stone that the prayer is offered…. When it was too late, some attempt was made to re-spiritualise the old religion, & there was the remarkable effort of Julian (q.v.) & Libanius (q.v.) to set up a regenerated Paganism against triumphant Christianity; but the attempt was too unsubstantial, too purely philosophic, empty of the dynamic power of the religious spirit.” This was catastrophic for Europe, for, “as ordinarily Philosophy alone can give light to Religion, & save it from crudeness, ignorance & superstition, so Religion alone can give, except for a few, spiritual passion & effective power to Philosophy, & save it from becoming unsubstantial, abstract & sterile.” [SABCL 16:340-65] That catastrophe burst on Europe in the 18th century by the turmoil created among Europe’s ‘cultured few’, the intellectually advanced, the truth-seekers, the scientists, tormented by the stifling crudeness of dogmatic & doctrinaires Christianity. On one side came Protestantism, Calvinism & a host of others – phenomenon common in every religion in human history. The mantra of truth-seeking scientific scholar created by European Enlightenment may be thus defined: The anti-spiritual reasonings of my ‘corporeal mind is the only lamp’ the sole reliable revealer of the true nature of everything & everyone in the universe, for it alone can systematically gather, organise, & critically interpret all relevant verifiable truths, especially the ultimate Truth & Purpose of Evolution. This mantra developed what might be called Anti-Spiritual Scientific Research & Scholarship, ASRS. It began its humanitarian crusade at home relegating its spiritual & cultural heritage to museums & universities – sanitising the popular mind & life (see Lucifer). And when ASRS’s charity turned to captive natives of European colonies, it was infuriated to find that Hindu Hindus have imbibed with their mother’s milk the habit of surrendering to their past spiritual & cultural civilisation, in spite of waves upon waves of its Orientalists, Philologists, Antiquarians, Archaeologists, Explorers, Writers, Indologists, etc., labouring to inculcate their own habit ‘imbibed with their mother’s milk’, to Enlighten them. John Dowson: “Of history, in the true sense, Sanskrit possesses nothing, or next to nothing… So I have gleaned from many European writers, & have sought to present our knowledge of the religion & mythology of Ancient India. My mainstays throughout have been the ‘Original Sanskrit Texts’ of Dr. Muir &...Prof. H.H. Wilson, including his translation of the Rig-Veda, & more especially of the Vishnu Purana, republished with additional notes by Dr. Fitz Edward Hall. I have also levied numerous contributions from the writings of Williams, Max Müller, Röth, Böhtlingk, Lassen, Weber, Whitney, Wollheim da Fonseca, & many others too numerous to mention.” And Dowson’s introduction declares: “Comparative philology & mythology go hand in hand; & as the language of the Vedas has proved the great critical instrument in the construction of the science of philology, so the simple myths of the Vedic hymns furnish many clues for unravelling the science of mythology.” [A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology & Religion, Geography, History, & Literature Dictionary] Among C.E. Buckland’s most notable Orientalist are: (1) Böhtlingk Otto Von (1813-1904) studied at St. Petersburg, Dorpat, Berlin, Bonn & returned home to Petersburg, 1842: gained fame as a Sanskritist: published Grammaire Sanskrite 1840, Dissertation sur Vaccent Sanskrite, 1843, edition & German translation of Śākuntalam de Kālidāsa, Chrestomatàie Sanskrite, 1877: 7-volumed Sanskrit Dictionary in collaboration with Röth & Weber, 1852-75. (2) Hann Georg Bühler (1837-98): educated at Hanover & Gottingen: graduated in Oriental languages & Archaeology, 1858: studied Sanskrit at Paris, Oxford (London): Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Poona, 1855: Prof. Oriental Languages, Elphinstone College, Bombay, 1863 [where Dr Bhandārkar obtained his M.A.in 1866]: Educational Inspector, Bombay Presidency, 1868, 1872: edited Sanskrit texts: deputed to collect [confiscate] Sanskrit texts: discovered [impounded] over 5000 [Hindu] manuscripts. which the British-Indian Govt. distributed among British Universities & Collections, & Indian Societies & Institutions [in Europe of course]: left India 1880: did important work [towards European dominance] as an epigraphist: wrote on Hindu inscriptions: brought out, with Sir Raymond West, a digest of Hindu Law: wrote a Sanskrit Primer, editions of Sanskrit works: published a Glossary of the oldest Prakrit dictionary: collaborated in the series of Sacred Books of the East: translated the Laws of Manu: Prof. Indian Philology & Archaeology, Univ. of Vienna: edited an Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Philology: contributed his Indische Paleographie, 1896: member of Royal Asiatic & other learned Societies: drowned in Lake Constance, 1898.” (3) William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894) studied Sanskrit at Yale 1949-50: attended lectures of Weber at Berlin & Röth) at Tübgen: Prof. Sanskrit, Yale 1854, & Comparative Philology from 1870: Secretary 1857 & President from 1884 of American Oriental Society: published Sanskrit works & translations: head of School of Vedic Studies in U.S., edited Atharva Veda, wrote on Language & Study of Language, Oriental & Linguistic Studies, wrote on Oriental subjects: contributed to Röth’s & Böhtlingk’s Sanskrit Dictionary: was opposed to the native system of Sanskrit grammar.” Sanjeev Sanyal: “One of the persistent misconceptions about Indian history is that Indians have somehow never conceived themselves as a nation & consequently never cared about their history. This idea was repeated by colonial-era officialdom for obvious political ends. As Sir John Strachey put it, in late 19th century, ‘The first & most essential thing to learn about India is that there is not, & never was an India.’…. Winston Churchill said that ‘India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the equator.’ A corollary to this point of view was the argument that: Since Indians were never conscious of their nationhood, they did not care for their history or their freedom. There is more than enough evidence to show that Indians have long been conscious of their history & civilisation. Indeed, from very ancient times, Indians have gone out of their way to record their times as well as to create linkages to those who came before them [See Orion, & Arctic Home]…. Till early 20th century, it was believed that India was inhabited by aboriginal stone-age tribes till around 1500 BC when Indo-Europeans called ‘Aryans’ invaded the subcontinent from Central Asia with horses & iron weapons. Indian civilisation was seen as a direct result of this invasion. Although the date was entirely arbitrary & not backed by any evidence, this theory appeared to fit the pattern of later Central Asian invasions as well as explain certain linguistic similarities between Indian & European languages. Most importantly, it was politically convenient at that time as it painted the British as merely latter-day Aryans with a mission of civilize the natives.” [Land of the Seven Rivers – A Brief history of India’s geography, 2012] Although the protracted labour of Muirs, Wilsons, Halls, Williams, Müllers, Röths, Böhtlingks, Lassens, Webers, Whitneys, Fonsecas, Bühlers, Deussens, Dowsons could not throw everything Hindu into mankind’s forgettable history, its limited success shouts out in the life & creations of Europeanised Hindus. Tilak c.1904: “In the flush of modern education, the younger generation has hardly any regard for India's cultural heritage. Educated youths…are so apathetic that would prefer to ignore religion & culture altogether. I sometimes think that the advent of Swaraj or the continuation of Christian domination hardly makes any difference, if none is going to stand for culture & religion. Swaraj has a purpose in so far as it makes us god-fearing & conscious of the heritage of our blood. Modern education makes us eager for a Swaraj which would satisfy simply our animal instincts & appetites.” [S.L. Karandikar: 204] Sri Aurobindo: “Is this then the end of the long march of human civilisation, this spiritual suicide, this quiet petrifaction of the soul into matter?” After all, if the scientific view is correct, why not? An evolution that started with the protoplasm & flowered in the orangutan & the chimpanzee, may well rest satisfied with having created hat, coat & trousers, the British Aristocrat, the American capitalist & the Parisian Apache. For these, I believe, are the chief triumphs of the European enlightenment to which we bow our heads. For these Augustus created Europe, Charlemagne refounded civilisation, Louis XIV regulated society, Napoleon systematised the French Revolution. For these Goethe thought, Shakespeare imagined & created, St. Francis loved, & Christ was crucified. What a bankruptcy

What a beggary of things that were rich & noble

. . . Europe boasts of her science & its marvels. But an Indian cannot content himself with asking like Voltaire, as the supreme question, ‘What have you invented?’ His glance is at the soul; it is that into which he is accustomed to inquire. To the braggart intellect of Europe he is bound to reply, ‘I am not interested in what you know, I am interested in what you are. With all your discoveries & inventions, what have you become? Your enlightenment is great, – but what are these strange creatures that move about in the electric light you have installed & imagine that they are human?’ Is it a great gain for the human intellect to have grown more acute & discerning, if the human soul dwindles? . . . But Science does not admit the existence of soul. The soul, it says, is only an organised republic of animalcules. And it is in the mould of that idea Europe has recast herself; that is what the European nations are becoming, organised republics of animalcules, – very intelligent, very methodical, very wonderful talking & reasoning animalcules, but still animalcules. Not what the race set out to be, creatures made in the image of the Almighty, gods that having fallen from heaven remember & strive to recover their heritage. Man in Europe is descending steadily from the human level & approximating to the ant & the hornet. The process is not complete but it is progressing apace, & if nothing stops the debacle, we may hope to see its culmination in this twentieth century. After all our superstitions were better than this enlightenment, our social abuses less murderous to the hopes of the race than this social perfection. . . . It is a very pleasant inferno they have created in Europe, a hell not of torments but of pleasures, of lights & carriages, of balls & dances & suppers, of theatres & cafés & music halls, of libraries & clubs & Academies, of National Galleries & Exhibitions, of factories, shops, banks & Stock Exchanges. But it is hell all the same, not the heaven of which the saints & the poets dreamed, the New Jerusalem, the golden city. London & New York are the holy cities of the new religion, Paris its golden Paradise of Pleasure.” [CWSA 1:545-46]