|
Indian Culture and External Influence
Indian Culture and External Influence
IN
CONSIDERING Indian civilisation and its renascence, I suggested that a powerful new
creation in all fields was our great need, the meaning of the renascence and the
one way of preserving the civilisation. Confronted with the huge rush of modern
life and thought, invaded by another dominant civilisation almost her opposite
or inspired at least with a very different spirit to her own, India can only
survive by confronting, this raw, new, aggressive, powerful world with fresh
diviner creations of her own spirit, cast in the mould of her own spiritual
ideals. She must meet it by solving its greater problems, —
which she cannot avoid, even
if such avoidance could be thought desirable, — in her own way, through
solutions arising out of her own being and from her own deepest and largest
knowledge. In that connection I spoke of the acceptance and assimilation from
the West of whatever in its knowledge, ideas, powers was, assimilable, compatible
with her spirit, reconcilable with her ideals, valuable for a new statement of
life. This question of external influence and new creation from within is of
very considerable importance; it calls for more than a passing mention.
Especially it is necessary to form some more precise idea of what we mean by
acceptance and of the actual effect of assimilation; for this is a problem of
pressing incidence in which we have to get our ideas clear and fix firmly and
seeingly on our line of solution. But it is possible to hold that while new creation — and not a motionless sticking to old forms — is our one way of life and salvation, no acceptance of anything western is called for, we can find in ourselves all that we need; no considerable acceptance is possible without creating a breach which will bring pouring in the rest of the occidental deluge. That, if I have not misread it, is the sense of a comment on these articles in a Bengali literary periodical1 which holds up the ideal of a new creation to arise
1 Narayan, edited by Mr. C. R. Das.
Page-385
from within entirely on national lines and in
the national spirit. The writer takes his stand on a position which is common
ground, that humanity is one, but different peoples are variant soul-forms of
the common humanity. When we find the oneness, the principle of variation is
not destroyed but finds rather its justification; it is not by abolishing
ourselves, our own special temperament and power, that we can get at the living
oneness, but by following it out and raising it to its highest possibilities of
freedom and action. That is a truth which I have myself insisted on repeatedly,
with regard to the modern idea and attempt at some kind of political
unification of humanity, as a very important part of the psychological sense of
social development, and again in this question of a particular peopleʼs life
and culture in all its parts and manifestations. I have insisted that
uniformity is not a real but a dead unity: uniformity kills life while real
unity, if well founded, becomes vigorous and fruitful by a rich energy of
variation. But the writer adds that the idea of taking over what is best in
occidental civilisation is a false notion without a living meaning; to leave
the bad and take the good sounds very well, but this bad and this good are not
separable in that way: they are the inextricably mingled growth of one being,
not separate blocks
of a childʼs toy house set side by side and
easily detachable,
and
what is meant then by cutting out and taking one element and leaving the rest?
If we take over a western ideal, we take it over from a living form which
strikes us; we imitate that form, are subjugated by its spirit and natural
tendencies, and the good and bad intertwined in the living growth come in upon
us together and take united possession. In fact, we have been for a long time
so imitating the West, trying-to become like it or partly like it and have
fortunately failed, for that would have meant creating a bastard or twy-natured
culture; but twy-natured, as Tennyson makes his Lucretius say, is no-natured
and a bastard culture is no sound, truth-living culture. An entire return upon
ourselves is our only way of salvation.
There is much to be said here,
it seems to me, both in the way of confirmation and of modification. But let us
be clear about the meaning of our terms. That the attempt in the last century
which still in some directions continues, —
to imitate
Page-386
European civilisation and to
make ourselves a sort of brown Englishmen, to throw our ancient culture into
the dustbin and put on the livery or uniform of the West was a mistaken and
illegitimate endeavour, I heartily agree. At the same time a certain amount of
imitation, a great amount even, was, one might almost say, a biological
necessity, at any rate a psychological necessity of the situation. Not only
when a lesser meets a greater culture, but when a culture which has fallen into
a state of comparative inactivity, sleep, contraction, is faced with, still
more when it receives the direct shock of a waking, active, tremendously
creative civilisation, finds thrown upon it novel and successful powers and
functionings, sees an immense succession and development of new ideas and
formations, it is impelled by the very instinct of life to take over these
ideas and forms, to annex, to enrich itself, even to imitate and reproduce, and
in one way or in another take large account and advantage of these new forces
and opportunities. That is a phenomenon which has happened repeatedly in
history, in a greater or a lesser degree, in part or in totality. But if there
is only a mechanical imitation, if there is a subordination and servitude, the
inactive or weaker culture perishes, it is swallowed up by the invading
leviathan. And even short of that, in proportion as there is a leaning towards
these undesirable things, it languishes, is unsuccessful in its attempt at
annexation, loses besides the power of its own spirit. To recover its own
centre, find its own base and do whatever it has to do in its own strength and
genius is certainly the one way of salvation. But even then a certain amount of
acceptance, of forms too, — some imitation, if all taking over of forms must be
called imitation, —
is inevitable. We have, for instance, taken over
in literature the form of the novel, the short story, the critical essay among
a number of other adoptions, in science not only the discoveries and
inventions, but the method and instrumentation of inductive research, in
politics the press, the platform, the forms and habits of agitation, the public
association. I do not suppose that anyone seriously thinks of renouncing or
exiling these modern additions to our life, — though they are not all of them
by any means unmixed blessings, — on the ground that they are foreign
importations. But the question is what we do
Page-387
with them and whether we can bring them to be
instruments and by some characteristic modification moulds of' our own spirit.
If so, there has been an acceptance and an assimilation; if not, there has been
merely a helpless imitation.
But the taking over of forms is
not the heart of the question.
When I speak of acceptance and assimilation, I am thinking of certain influences,
ideas, energies brought forward with a great living force by Europe, which can
awaken and enrich our own cultural activities and cultural being if we succeed
in dealing with them with a victorious power and originality, if we can bring
them into our characteristic way of being and transform them by its shaping
action. That was in fact what our own ancestors did, never losing their
originality, never effacing their uniqueness, because always vigorously
creating from within, with whatever knowledge or artistic suggestion from
outside they thought worthy of acceptance or capable of an Indian treatment.
But I would certainly repel the formula of taking the good and leaving the bad
as a crudity, one of those facile formulas which catch the superficial mind but
are unsound in conception. Obviously, if we “take overˮ anything, the
good and the bad in it will come in together pell-mell. If we take over for
instance that terrible, monstrous and compelling thing, that giant Asuric
creation, European industrialism,
—
unfortunately
we are being forced by circumstances to do it, — whether we take it in its form
or its principle, we may under more favourable conditions develop by it our
wealth and economic resources, but assuredly we shall get too its social discords
and moral plagues and cruel problems, and I do not see how we shall avoid
becoming the slaves of the economic aim in life and losing the spiritual
principle of our culture.
But, besides, these terms good and bad in
this connection mean nothing definite, give us no help. If I must use them,
where they can have only a relative significance, in a matter not of ethics,
but of an interchange between life and life, I must first give them this
general significance that whatever helps me to find myself more intimately,
nobly, with a greater and sounder possibility of self-expressive creation, is
good; whatever carries me out of my orientation, whatever weakens and belittles
my
Page-388
power, richness, breadth and height of
self-being, is bad for me. If the distinction is so understood, it will be
evident, I think — to any serious and critical mind which tries to fathom
things, that the real point is not the taking over of this or that formal
detail, which has only a sign value, for example, widow remarriage, but a
dealing with great effective ideas, such as are the ideas, in the external
field of life, of social and political liberty, equality, democracy. If I
accept any of these ideas it is not because they are modern or European, which
is in itself no recommendation, but because they are human, because they
present fruitful viewpoints to the spirit, because they are things of the
greatest importance in the future development of the life of man. What I mean
by acceptance of the effective idea of democracy, —
the thing itself, never fully worked out, was present
as an element in ancient Indian as in ancient European polity and society, —
is that I find its inclusion
in our future way of living, in some shape, to be a necessity of our growth.
What I mean by assimilation, is that we must not take it crudely in the
European forms, but must go back to whatever corresponds to it, illumines its
sense, justifies its highest purport in our own spiritual conception of life
and existence, and in that light work out its extent, degree, form, relation to
other ideas, application. To everything I would apply the same principle, to
each in its own kind, after its proper Dharma, in its right measure of
importance, its spiritual, intellectual, ethical, aesthetic, dynamic utility. I take it as a self-evident law of individual being applicable to group-individuality, that it is neither desirable nor possible to exclude everything that comes in to us from outside. I take it as an equally self-evident law that a living organism, which grows not by accretion but by self-development and assimilation, must recast the things it takes in to suit the law and form and characteristic action of its biological or psychological body, reject what would be deleterious or poisonous to it, — and what is that but the non-assimilable? – take only what can be turned into useful stuff of self-expression. It is, to use an apt Sanskritic phrase employed in the Bengali tongue, ātmasātkara’a, an assimilative appropriation, a making the thing settle into oneself and turn into characteristic form of our self-being. The impossibility of
Page-389
entire rejection arises from the very fact of
our being a term of
diversity in a unity, not really separate from all other existence, but in
relation with all that surrounds us, because in life this relation expresses
itself very largely by a process of interchange. The undesirability of total
rejection, even if it were entirely possible, arises from the fact that
interchange with the environment is necessary to a healthy persistence and
growth; the living organism which rejects all such interchange, would speedily
languish and die of lethargy and inanition.
Mentally, vitally and physically I do
not grow by a pure self-development from within in a virgin isolation; I am not
a separate self-existent being proceeding from a past to a new becoming in a
world of its own where no one is but itself, nothing works but its own inner
powers and musings. There is in every individualised existence a double action,
a self-development from within which is its greatest intimate power of being
and by which it is itself, and a reception of impacts from outside which it has
to accommodate to its own individuality and make into material of self-growth
and self-power. The two operations are not mutually exclusive, nor is the
second harmful to the first except when the inner genius is too weak to deal
victoriously with its environmental world; on the contrary the reception of
impacts stimulates in a vigorous and healthy being its force for self-development and is an aid to a greater and more pronouncedly characteristic
self-determination. As we rise in the scale we find that the power of original
development from within, of conscious self-determination increases more and more,
while in those who live most powerfully in themselves it reaches striking,
sometimes almost divine proportions. But at the same time we see that the
allied power of seizing upon the impacts and suggestions of the outside world
grows in proportion; those who live most powerfully in themselves, can also
most largely use the world and all its material for the Self, — and, it must be
added, most successfully help the world and enrich it out of their own being.
The man who most finds and lives from the inner self, can most embrace the
universal and become one with it; the svarāṭ,
independent, self-possessed
and self-ruler, can most be the samrāṭ,
possessor and shaper of the world in which he lives,
can most too
Page-390
grow one with all in
the Atman. That is the truth this developing existence teaches us, and it is
one of the greatest secrets of the old Indian spiritual knowledge.
Therefore to live in oneʼs self,
determining oneʼs self-expression from oneʼs own centre of being in accordance
with oneʼs own law of being, svadharma, is the first necessity. Not to
be able to do that means disintegration of the life; not to do it sufficiently
means languor, weakness, inefficiency, the danger of being oppressed by the
environing forces and overborne; not to be able to do it wisely, intuitively,
with a strong use of oneʼs inner material and inner powers, means confusion,
disorder and finally decline and loss of vitality. But also not to be able to
use the material that the life around offers us, not to lay hold on it with an
intuitive selection and a strong mastering assimilation is a serious deficiency
and a danger to the existence. To a healthy individuality the external impact
or entering energy, idea, influence may act as an irritant awakening the inner being
to a sense of discord, incompatibility or peril, and then there is a struggle,
an impulse and process of rejection; but even in this struggle, in this process
of rejection there is some resultant of change and growth, some increment of
the power and material of life; the energies of the being are stimulated and
helped by the attack. It may act as a stimulus, awakening a new action of the
self-consciousness and a sense of fresh possibility,
— by comparison, by suggestion, by
knocking at locked doors and arousing slumbering energies. It may come in as a
possible material which has then to be reshaped to a form of the inner energy,
harmonised with the inner being, reinterpreted in the light of its own
characteristic self-consciousness. In a great change of environment or a close
meeting with a mass of invading influences all these processes work together
and there is possibly much temporary perplexity and difficulty, many doubtful
and perilous movements, but also the opportunity of a great self-developing transformation
or an immense and vigorous renascence. The group-soul differs from the individual only in being more self-sufficient by reason of its being an assemblage of many individual selves and capable within of many group variations. There is a constant inner interchange which may for a long time
Page-391
suffice to maintain the vitality, growth, power
of developing activity, even when there is a restricted interchange with the
rest of humanity. Greek civilisation, — after growing under the influence of
Egyptian, Phoenician and other Oriental influences, —
separated
itself sharply from the non-Hellenic “barbarian” cultures and was able for some
centuries to live within itself by a rich variation and internal interchange.
There was the same phenomenon in ancient India of a culture living intensely
from within in a profound differentiation from all surrounding cultures, its
vitality rendered possible by an even greater richness of internal interchange
and variation. Chinese civilisation offers a third instance. But at no time did
Indian culture exclude altogether external influences; on the contrary a very
great power of selective assimilation, subordination and transformation of
external elements was a characteristic of its processes; it protected itself
from any considerable or overwhelming invasion, but laid hands on and included
whatever struck or impressed it and in the act of inclusion subjected it to a
characteristic change which harmonised the new element with the spirit of its
own culture. But nowadays any such strong separative aloofness as distinguished
the ancient civilisations, is no longer possible; the races of mankind have
come too close to each other, are being thrown together in a certain
unavoidable life unity. We are confronted with the more difficult problem of
living in the full stress of this greater interaction and imposing on its
impacts the law of our being.
Any attempt to remain exactly
what we were before the European invasion or to ignore in future the claims of
a modern environment and necessity is foredoomed to an obvious failure. However
much we may deplore some of the characteristics of that intervening period in
which we were dominated by the western standpoint or move away from the
standpoint back to our own characteristic way of seeing existence, we cannot
get rid of a certain element of inevitable change it has produced upon us, any
more than a man can go back in life to what he was some years ago and recover
entire and unaffected a past mentality. Time and its influences have not only
passed over him, but carried him forward in their stream. We cannot go backward
Page-392
to a
past form of our being, but we can go forward to a large repossession of
ourselves in which we shall make a better, more living, more real, more
self-possessed use of the intervening experience. We can still think in the
essential sense of the great spirit and ideals of our past, but the form of our
thinking, our speaking, our development of them has changed by the very fact of
new thought and experience; we see them not only in the old, but in new lights,
we support them by the added strength of new viewpoints, even the old words
we use acquire for us a modified, more extended and richer significance. Again,
we cannot be “ourselves alone” in any narrow formal sense, because we
must necessarily take account of the modern world around us and get full
knowledge of it, otherwise we cannot live. But all such taking account of
things, all added knowledge modifies our subjective being. My mind, with all
that depends on it, is modified by what it observes and works upon, modified
when it takes in from it fresh materials of thought, modified when it is
wakened by its stimulus to new activities, modified even when it denies and
rejects; for even an old thought or truth which I affirm against an opposing
idea, becomes a new thought to me in the effort of affirmation and rejection,
clothes itself with new aspects and issues. My life is modified in the same way
by the life influences it has to encounter and confront. Finally, we cannot
avoid dealing with the great governing ideas and problems of the modern world.
The modem world is still mainly European, a world dominated by the European
mind and western civilisation. We claim to set right this undue preponderance,
to reassert the Asiatic and, for ourselves, the Indian mind and to preserve
and develop the great values of Asiatic and of Indian civilisation. But the
Asiatic or the Indian mind can only assert itself successfully by meeting these
problems and by giving them a solution which will justify its own ideals and
spirit.
The
principle I have affirmed results both from the necessity of our nature and the
necessity of things, of life,
—
fidelity
to our own spirit, nature, ideals, the creation of our own characteristic forms in the new age and the new environment, but also a
strong and masterful dealing with external influences which need not be
and in the nature of the situation cannot be a total rejec-
Page-393
tion; therefore there must be an element of
successful assimilation. There remains the very difficult question of the
application of the principle,
—
the
degree, the way, the guiding perceptions. To think that out we must look at
each province of culture and, keeping always firm hold on a perception of what
the Indian spirit is and the Indian ideal is, see how they can work upon the
present situation and possibilities in each of these provinces and lead to a
new victorious creation. In such thinking it will not do to be too dogmatic.
Each capable Indian mind must think it out or, better, work it out in its own
light and power,
— as the Bengal
artists are working
it out in their own sphere,
—
and
contribute some illumination or effectuation. The spirit of the Indian
renascence will take care of the rest, that power of the universal Time-Spirit
which has begun to move in our midst for the creation of a new and greater
India.
Page-394 |