|
Olivier Lacombe
The problem of human unity is twofold: structural and dynamic unity of human being, and unity of mankind throughout its history and its cultural and biological differentiations. These two aspects of the problem are distinct yet interdependent: it is wise not to mix them up, nor to dissociate them. On the other hand, man's unity is the oneness in complexity: God alone is absolutely one and simple. But complexity necessarily brings together the idea of a wealth of being and a risk of rupture. Further, man's unity is at the same time a fundamental datum of his existence and a scheme to be developed and achieved by means of culture and liberty.
I Man is a living being endowed with biological, sensitive and rational capacities. His is a totality in which one and the same principle serves as a source of thought as well as constitutes thanks to the material elements which he informs and moulds his own organic body, field of his vegetative and sensorial life. Let us not, at any rate, speak of the union of the soul and the body. In fact, whatever be the posthumous state of the soul, the organic body is not capable of living on its own. After death, the body no more exists; what remains is but a corpse, that is to say, a heap of mere elementary physico-chemical realities. In Sanskrit, it is the same root (man) that provides the words to indicate man (manu) and thought or mind (manas). But the word deha, which means first of all the corporeal mass, may even signify a living being, and a man as well. Humanity has thus been installed as it were on the horizon and upon the boundary of two universes: mental and corporeal. Let us rise up to the region of the pure mind, take a dip down to its lowest zone, then in our imagination break through this lower limit, try to descend farther by a sort of distension of this forbidden frontier. And then, just when the spirit is about to undo itself, there dawns a unique and incomparable
Page-222 situation: still the situation of a spiritual being, but a spirituality scattered to such a point and so poor that it requires some reinforcement and some intimate and essential collaboration from the material world to help it realise its own destiny. This precisely is man, on the border of the material and the immaterial.
II
Now let us leave this ideal genesis of humanity and return to the concrete. Man assures his continuity by the way of generation. Without touching upon the philosophical and religious problem of his radical origin as yet, we must in spite of our incompetence question physical anthropology and palaeontology about his empirical origin. Here we come across the theory of evolution of living species, which has so much impressed Sri Aurobindo, as much as his Western contemporaries: Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin. It does not mean that, even on the scientific level, this theory offers no difficulty: "If we are forced and so to say condemned to believe in evolution, we have nevertheless still to expect a sufficient suggestion as regards the causes of the transformations of species, a supposition 'that might be accepted by whosoever reasoning with some prudence' (Huxley). And I may even say that probably we are in a less privileged position than in 18591, for, having in vain groped for over a century, we have somewhat an impression of having exhausted the field of hypotheses. Moreover, living Nature seems to be more constant, more steadfast and more rebel to all transformation than she appeared in the past." This is what Jean Rostand, the famous biologist stated on 20 April 1957. He tends to think further, with his colleague Albert Vandel, that the evolution of the animal world is over today and that the living organisms of our days no more possess the evolutionary capacity that was inherent in their remote prehistoric ancestors. Whatever it be, modern taxonomy considers contemporary mankind (Homo Sapiens) to be the unique surviving species of the family of hominids who, with another family that of the anthropoid apes constitute the group of hominoids, themselves belonging to the order of primates, included in the class of mammals.... Let us switch back to the family of hominids which is of a direct interest
Page-223 to our purpose. On this ground, other difficulties await us. This is owing to the fact that the philosopher and the scientist do not hold the same view of the living species and do not use the same criteria of judgment. The scientist cannot but utilise, in the name of his own rigorous method, empirical criteria. "The various categories of taxonomy which he uses, in fact concern only the observable characters considered to be more or less important and favourable to group individuals within more or less conventional and tentative classes of the world of sensory representation: they can only correspond symbolically to the categories and the objects of thought of the ontolog'ical order, but cannot reveal them." (Jacques Maritain). The philosopher seeks to discriminate the ontological species free from all ambiguity, even though the specific differences between one ontological species and another are not open to direct observation. This is why the palaeontologist and the philosopher do not grant to the concept of man taken in its specific content the same comprehension. Let us take for instance the notions familiar to the palaeontologists of primitive man and of hominisation. If by 'primitive man' we understand 'a human being belonging to an archaic form of humanity', the term is philosophically acceptable. But it ceases to be so, when one interprets it to mean a human being who would not have as yet acquired all the essential characters of humanity. If by hominisation we are made to understand the fact of an animal "getting increasingly closer to man, or assuming progressively advanced humanoid characters", the formula is philosophically admissible and describes well from outside a certain movement of natural evolution. But from the point of view of philosophy, hominisation cannot claim to see "a simultaneous belonging of a certain animal type in the becoming, to the human order as well as the non-human, with a gradual increase of the human element in it". There is, therefore, a threshold before which we have not yet to deal with a man and beyond which we have the veritable man, that is to say the homo sapiens. There have been beings very close to humanity whose past existence in the night of prehistory is being revealed by palaeontology, and in whom it happens to recognise the human quality in proportion to the implements and the 'culture' they have created; but they cannot have possibly been other than "overdeveloped animals" or "prehumans", getting promoted to a "fore culture". They bear the testimony of an evolutionary process irreducible to any other, in this precisely that it was to culminate in the appearance of the homo sapiens. It is indeed therefore Reason which constitutes the specific difference Page-224 of man. Still we have to make a distinction between the levels of functioning of reason. The models borrowed from cybernetics, from animal intelligence, and from instinct, may turn by turn provide us with analogies utilisable by comparison for a better understanding of the lower and the medium functionings of human mind. But philosophical reflection has never been able to content itself fully with such analogies either. And, in spite of the sceptics, the empiricists and the relativists, the sense of the absolute has never been rooted out of man's heart. We will come back to this point later. But presently we must continue insisting upon the idea of evolution and upon related themes.
III One of the most striking characteristics of modern thought is the importance it attaches to the historical dimension. From this point of view, it feels no more contented with the knowledge of the essences that constitute the beings of the universe and of the permanent laws which govern their activities. It has as well to take into account the situation within the time of events that mark the upsurge of these beings and these actions.1 Since Lamarck and Darwin, biology has appropriated the theme of the evolution of living species: as we have seen, here it is not only a question of the sequence of biological events, but of the successive transformation of more elementary forms of life into increasingly complex and increasingly rich organisms, a graded succession which involves also at every phase of evolution multiple variations, and even regressions. The philosophy of Enlightenment, contemporaneous with Lamarck, announced on its side the advent of Pure Reason in the history of men and, the opening of a new era of continuous progress which no retrograde force could impede any more. At last the philosophies of history (Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Hegel, Marx), even more ambitious than the philosophy of Enlightenment, claimed to reveal to men the steps of their journey, the meaning of their destiny, the end of their history, the means of acting fruitfully down its course (praxis). With the exception of Nietzsche who has restored to a place of honour in the West with limited success the idea familiar to the East, that of the eternal return and the cyclical becoming of the universe, modern mind is
Page-225 usually impatient to assure its forward march, to forge its coming destiny and considers as nostalgic misfits to existence, and even as devitalised, those who cling to tradition. Such an attitude, however frequent it be, is not exempt from confused postulates, more or less uncritical, borrowed from the currents of thought we have just enumerated and which it supposes to be fully coherent. It is not therefore purely rational though it takes support rather on the rationality of a scientific and technological type and on the unchallengeable progress of which it can boast about since the past three or four centuries. Here arise multiple questions. Must we wish tomorrow's man to be more perfectly human or more than human ? In other words, must we look for the fulfilment of man or, beyond man, for the superman? In the first hypothesis, will scientific and technological humanism suffice to accomplish the human project ? Does the second hypothesis come forth from the immanent possibilities of the universal Evolution? Sri Aurobindo seems to answer in the affirmative to this question, when he writes: "The animal is a living laboratory in which, it is said, Nature has worked out man. Man himself could very well be a living and thinking laboratory in whom ... Nature wants to work out the superman, the God...." This thesis will certainly be discussed during the second day of our Seminar, and we cannot but mention it here, at least for the sake of distinguishing it from the facile and hazardous constructions of science fiction.
IV We cannot, however, avoid remembering a few methodological rules in respect of our present subject and, at the same time, a few logical impasses which embarrass the modern sciences of man. More than one among the representatives of scientific and philosophical anthropology, willingly inclined to give to historical perspective its due, wonder whether the same explanatory keys can be used to be abreast of the biological continuities and transformations of living species, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the constants, developments, variations and mutations of which the human mind, both individual and collective, is the main factor: they hesitate to uphold these two categories of becoming under the common term of evolution. Is it not really obvious that if the essential patrimony of the living being with or without the characters acquired during the parental existence Page-226 is transmitted by means of generation and heredity, the knowledge, the customs, the virtues, the institutions, the culture with all its traditions and innovations cannot be handed down but by education and legacy? So dissimilar in their modes of transmission, do they not discourage us to speak, univocally, of evolution, apropos of the one or the other register? It is rather known to all how much the "structuralist" method, extremely honoured by the contemporary savants who deal in linguistics, in the science of religions, in ethnology, in sociology, guard us against the stalemate towards which may lead an oversimplified evolutionary sketch claiming to reconstitute the birth of the synthetic totalities out of rudimentary elements. Observation places us in the presence of complex structures where the totality commands and organises the elementary parts. A language or a social system should be considered as an organisation of which no articulation has any existence or meaning other than through its function in the whole. It is not enough to study diachronically the becoming of the elements; synchronically we must seize the structure of the whole and the interaction of the parts it commands. Thus, we see, there is a "false evolutionism" that conceives the development of humanity in a unilinear way and refuses to see in the ancient cultures held as pre-rational or of a rudimentary rationality anything but steps leading to a fully rational civilisation, of which the modern Western world should represent up to this date the best approximation and the model for all men to follow. The veritable ethnology, according to these very savants, must recognise the Reason at labour in the traditional civilisations, among which the most fertile ones prove that the privilege of cumulative and progressive history is not reserved for the modern Western world alone. Cultures cannot be classified into a hierarchy, not even through progression in time. Each one has its strong and its weak points, and their diversity making them hardly comparable by reducing them to a unique gauge proves neither an inequality of the human races, nor an inequality of the "styles of culture" and the national geniuses that have invented them. Indian and Chinese civilisations have been for a larger part of Asia "cultural models" not less fascinating than Hellenic civilisation for Europe. How to determine their relative superiority or inferiority? This is the thesis that some of the most eminent ethnologists of our time defend against the supporters of a unilinear evolutionist philosophy. In their eyes, civilisations come to exist at the moment when historical conjuncture makes it possible; they continue to develop and transform Page-227 themselves as long as their internal dynamism is able to assimilate the external contributions and to assure the poise of the tensions that are at work in them. They die either by accident (war, natural cataclysms), or by endogenous consumption. But in each of them humanity manifests itself in a manner both original and truly human. We shall have to examine whether the alternative between a "unilinear evolutionism" and the "plurality of incomparable cultures" is not slightly fallacious and whether it is not possible to find a better formulation of man's Unity through his becoming and his history.
V But, first of all, let us consider the same problem from the political viewpoint. The major alternative of our time is between a plurality of sovereign states, each taking the responsibility at a close angle of the sum of human interests belonging to a particular community forged by history and that proves by its very existence that it is viable, plurality compensated by treaties of cooperation and arbitration, by at least a minimal organisation of interests common to the nations in coexistence and, on the other hand, the search for a political unity of the world which would alone be sovereign and would federate more limited national unities. It is clear that the second term of the alternative wells from an eagerness for integral rationalisation of human relationships in the domain of politics. Its weakness lies in the fact of not or not yet existing, and of having to overcome the big ideological and emotional conflicts and the powerful divergences of interests that divide men. It may as well be asked whether the immensity of this unique sovereign state will not drift it away too far from the real man and, as such, will not render it inhuman. On the contrary, the first term of the alternative, that is to say the present situation of national independence, so solemnly proclaimed, in an interdependence undergone or more or less agreed upon, is a precarious state, in constant motion and revision, where dead weights and arbitrary tensions mingle with the creative dynamism and with the legitimate thirst for life of every political community.
VI Language, along with reason, is man's own. This by no means denies the fact the most evolved animal species possess a fore-language and that Page-228 the individual animals have a means to communicate amongst themselves. But there is a qualitative difference, a difference of nature and not of degree only, between animal communication and human speech. Any ensemble of signs be they spontaneously or artificially established is not necessarily a language. The science of language or linguistics distinguishes itself from the general science of signs or semiology. Now, language cannot in fact be realised except in a plurality of tongues of which each one is an autonomous system provided with categories which are articulate amongst themselves in a particular way. It follows, then, that the significant values of the terms that compose it establish themselves in respect to one another and within the framework of this categorical disposition. The originality of each language is such that a term for term translation from one into another is impracticable. The Italian saying "tradut-tore, traditore" (translator, traitor) rightly emphasises this major obstacle to the communication between human groups speaking different idioms. Must we thereupon conclude that their thoughts are mutually impervious ? A question which amounts to raising the problem of rationality of languages. The old-time grammarians in the East just as in the West were inclined to identify the categories of their language with those of logic, if not of ontology. This view was guilty of excess. But it would be unreasonable to deny human languages in general all relationship more or less direct with the call of reason and with the intimations of the real. Language is a mixture of rationality and para-rationality. Now, there is no doubt that language not only expresses but also underlies human thought. As a result, a man speaking only one language runs the risk of remaining a prisoner for the best and the worst part of it of suggestions it prompts to him, if not imposes upon him with a greater or a lesser force. But rather, instead of concluding therefrom as ever so many do that each language carries with itself some virtual metaphysics (which leads us to identify quite arbitrarily the profoundest thought with the demands of a particular language), we would prefer mentioning that a cultured person must have mastery over more than one single language and, thus, free his thinking from the bondage of a unique system of expression. Then, the plurality of languages ceases to become an obstacle to inter-human communication, the very condition of an actual unity of mankind. Page-229
VII In contrast with the structurally closed character of political societies and of languages, the most esoteric and the most exclusive of civilisations want to get disseminated and at least half-open themselves, when they do not know how to open themselves widely: what is excellent in a culture, up to the point where it can prevail over the obstacles of matter, tends to transcend limitations caused by accidents of history or geography, superior values being by their very nature communicable. Wisdom, science, moral values, values of art tend to overcome by themselves territorial boundaries. The higher the pitch of a civilisation, the greater is its force of appeal, the more radiant its universalism. This is how Hellenism contributed a great deal to the Western civilisation. This is how, again, Indian culture has spread itself all over South-East Asia during the period of its greatest dynamism and at the peak of its development, the pacific expansion which won for India her beautiful title of "civilisatrix". It is, therefore, always very important to compensate the sense of the diversity in the realisation of history by a sentiment none the less strong and none the less puissant for the oneness of the human essence. The theme of human nature, one in all men, seems, indeed, to us to be a major truth that we need to put forth in these times of irrationality and of escape in diversity. In culture just as well reason and love are present. The civilisations are not yet the Civilisation. But these plural civilisations tend to form the human civilisation, and man seeks spontaneously, in spite of all recoil, the unity in civilisation. It has often been noticed that the multiplication of the material means for meeting among men is not at all enough to bring their spirit together. The technical means are ambiguous from the moral point of view, and may serve to destroy as well as to construct unity, to arouse misunderstandings as much as to appease them. It is the supratechnical factors that should utilise the technical possibilities in the direction of unity. That is how the civilisations tend progressively to form the Civilisation that is truly human.
VIII In the Western world, by an analogy with the attitude of classical rationalism born out of the Renaissance spirit, one is apt to call humanism that conception of man which lays stress on the unity of his nature, in spite Page-230 of all human diversities according to space and time, on the superiority of this nature, inasmuch as it is distinct from the animal world, and on the value of its full blossoming in this temporal existence. Really speaking, the humanistic attitude stands on a precarious equilibrium : it may jealously hold man as the only centre for himself, and make of him "the measure for everything". It may emphasise man's symbiosis with cosmic forces and sink towards a monistic philosophy, although reserving for man a certain privilege. It may even open itself to God and recognize in Him the true centre of the universe and the very centre of man: it is in this direction that the 16th century saw the birth of a spiritual movement as yet alive and known as Christian humanism. The Mahabharata proposes a formula of an Indian humanism when it says: "Here I proclaim a secret and divine Word: none there exists more excellent than man."1 We know all the same that according to Brahmanism or at least according to Advaita Vedanta man transcends himself absolutely since his soul is identical with the Universal Soul and the Absolute. Such a position surpasses evidently, from above, all humanism. In the West, humanism has on more than one occasion linked its fate with atheism: Marxism, Sartrean Existentialism, among others, prove this adequately. On comes, down the track of structuralistic methods, a new conception of man, according to which humanism has no permanent and universal significance whatsoever, and is no more than a form of a particular civilisation born in the 14th-16th centuries and doomed to die, just as any other civilisation: Westerners who have believed to have freed man by declaring after Nietzsche, the death of God, must logically proclaim the death of Man, this supposed creator of supratemporal values. God and His privileged creature, Man, have been affirmed jointly in an absolutist vision of the universe. The negation of the one necessarily brings in that of the other. Let us be allowed not to refrain from speaking on the future promised by the philosophies of the death of man: personally, we feel ourselves just aloof from them, not being among those who believe in the death of God.
IX
The building principle of the human being is what philosophical tradition calls soul. The human soul is the Form of man. It gives form to a physico-chemical matter conveniently arranged. It is the ontological basis
Page-231 of human unity, in the double sense of the word we have defined in the very beginning. Must we conclude that it dominates the body to such a point that it precedes conception and survives death ? We know that the majority of the darsanas of Brahmanism consider dtman orpurusa as unborn (ajd) or uncreated, and immortal (amard); and they admit its transmigration from body to body right up to the deliverance (moksd) when it returns to its essential nature, eternally appeased, luminous, blissful. In Christian metaphysics especially in the tradition of Thomism the personal soul receives its being from. God by a direct creation, once when the appropriate organism has been prepared by the process of nature in order to be vitalised by this soul from within. But also endowed with spiritual functions which transcend time and becoming, this soul is capable of an immortal destiny and, even, by Grace, of a participation in the very life of God. Buddhism and several modern philosophies are sceptical about the notion of soul, labelled as "substantialism". For lack of time, we shall not examine whether this accusation might not be based upon a misunderstanding. Whatever it be, it seems to the author of this paper that the pattern provided by cybernetics and the apparatus to transmit both energy and messages under self-control of servo-mechanisms, certainly contribute to make us understand better in some respects what man is, but are not enough to account for all that is human. The most perfect of cybernetical machines are doomed to finitude. Man, finite in his being, is open to the infinite by means of knowledge and love. Man, immersed in time and becoming, measures them supratempo-rally. Man, whose knowing is a texture of sensory experience and rational abstraction, owns, above it, a true, though dim, intellectual intuition that, through phenomena, reaches Being, if it does not attain the very core of Being. Man's mind, shrouded in the night of unconsciousness, is athirst for an integral and transluminous self-consciousness, for a perfect transparency of the self to oneself, of which our imperfect reflected consciousness is an approach without price. Is not all this the signature of the soul on Man, and is not man's soul the seal of his unity, rather than the mask for his own split self? Page-232 Hajime Nakamura
(I) INTRODUCTORY WORDS
THE idea of compassion-love was common to both East and West in the mediaeval age in which it is supposed that East and West were rather separate. In the following, the writer would like to point out some features which can be noticed in common in both East and West.
(2) COMPASSION-LOVE DOCTRINE
In mediaeval East and West complete dependence on the absolute is aimed at as the ultimate condition of poise. Krishna (Vishnu's incarnation) in the Bhagavadgita says, "Delivered from passion, fear and anger, absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me, many purified by the austerity of wisdom have attained to My state of being." (IV. 10) Jesus said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit." (Luke, XXIII, 46) He submitted himself completely to Him: "I and the Father are one." (John, X, 30) All the phenomena and changes of the world depend upon the will of God. Krishna (Vishnu) says, "If I should cease to work, these worlds would fall in ruin and I should be the creator of disordered life and destroy these living beings." {Bhagavadgita, III, 24) The same idea was expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas who said, "As the production of a thing into being depends on the will of God, so likewise it depends on His will that things should be preserved in being.... Hence if He took away His action from them, all things would be reduced to nothing." (Swnma Theologica, I, IX, article 2, Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 9, p. 398). In India, when the conservative Buddhist Order became a large organisation with huge endowments, the monks did not render much service to the common people. The monks of conservative Buddhism (so-called Hinayana) were apt to be very self-complacent and self-righteous. Being fond of solitude they despised the common people; they did not want
Page-233 to partake of the worries and sufferings of the common lot. To illustrate, a Buddhist verse says: "When the learned man drives away vanity by earnestness, he, the wise, climbing the terraced heights of wisdom, looks down upon the fools, serene he looks upon the toiling crowd, as one that stands on a mountain looks down upon them that stand upon the plain."1 It is likely that there was little trace of compassion in conservative Buddhism (such as Theravada). As a similar comment, Lucretius said: "It is sweet, when on the great sea the winds trouble its waters, to behold from land another's deep distress; not that it is a pleasure and delight that any should be afflicted, but because it is sweet to see from what evils you are yourself exempt."2 When Buddhism was introduced into China, the Taoist term for immortals, chen-jen, served as a translation of the Buddhist word Arhat, "the worthy one", which is tantamount to "the fully enlightened one". Wu-wei, "non-action," was used to render the Buddhist term for ultimate release, Nirvana. Men of Non-Action were praised by Taoists and some early Chinese Buddhists. They were also aloof from the people. As a protest against such an attitude in India, some religious leaders advocated a new form of Buddhism, which is called Mahayana (the Great Vehicle). They were in close contact with the common people and felt their needs. They vehemently attacked the self-complacent and self-righteous attitude of Conservative Buddhists. This situation seems to be similar to the rise of Christianity against Stoicism, Epicureanism and other ideological systems; Christians aimed at being friends of common people. On the other hand, just as St. Paul was opposed by the Judaist conservatives, so the Mahayana was opposed by the Conservative Buddhists. In the Greater Vehicle (Mahayana) the virtue of compassion3 was more stressed than in Hinayana. We admit that the Compassion motif was not entirely absent in the Conservative Buddhism called Hinayana. But Mahayanists claimed that Compassion was the chief characteristic of Mahayana: "To those whose intelligence is excellent and who aspire to benefit living beings out of Great Compassion the Way of Bodhisattva (Mahayana) is taught."4 Great Compassion was thus regarded as the essence of Buddhism. They said, "The Buddha-Mind is nothing but Great Compassion."5 The Mahayana protest against the Hinayana is somewhat similar to the change in the history of thought in Israel. It is occasionally said that Christ abrogated the Mosaic Law, and stressed love, although the love motif was not entirely absent from Mosaic Law in Judaism. This needs examination by specialists. Anyhow, what is clear here is that both Mahayana and Christianity, laid greater stress on love than previous Page-234 religions and philosophies. Both movements appeared in nearly the same period, although their philosophical background was quite different. The compassion of the Buddha was stressed in Mahayana. The Buddha in the Lotus Sutra says: "I am the father. All living beings are my children".6 "In the whole universe there is not a single spot so small as a mustard seed where the Buddha has not surrendered his body for the sake of creatures."7 The compassion of the Buddha comes to everybody equally. It is compared with raining: "I recreate the whole world like a cloud shedding its water without distinction; I have the same feeling for respectable people as for the low."8 The Supreme assumed human form for the sake of saving man. St. Paul says, "you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich." (II Corinthians, VIII, 9.) It is true that there was a vital difference. The basic premise of Christian thought and practice, as for the Jews, was belief in a Creator God. Such a belief is absent in Buddhism, but the later conception of the Eternal Buddha may be regarded as bringing the Buddhist outlook nearer to the Jewish and Christian in this respect. The Buddha became more and more magnified and deified. The Buddha was no longer regarded as a man but, so to speak, the living God.9 Matreeta, the poet (2nd century A.D.), addresses the Buddha: "Only you yourself can know yourself who are beyond measure, beyond number, beyond thought, beyond comparison."10 In order to show us what God's love11 is the parable of the "Prodigal Son" was taught. A Buddhist counterpart also was set forth in nearly the same period (in the 1st or 2nd century A.D.) in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddhists parable12 of the Prodigal Son is significant: A rich man has an only son, who roams about in foreign lands for fifty years. While the father grows richer and richer, and has become a great man, the son lives in foreign parts, poor and in reduced circumstances. As a beggar he at last returns to his home, where his father has been yearning for him all the time. The beggar comes to the house of his father, whom, however, he does not recognize in the great man... he flees for fear that he, the ragged beggar, might be ill-treated. His father, however, recognizes him at once and sends out servants to bring the beggar in. Trembling and shaking with fear, he is dragged in, and he falls unconscious. Then his father commands that he shall be released.... Now the rich man thinks out a plan whereby he may win the confidence of his son. He sends workmen to hire him for the humblest work in his house; he sometimes chats with him, and gradually becomes intimate with Page-235 him. In this way twenty years pass, without the father's making himself known. Not until the hour of his death does he ... announce that the beggar, who has now become a trusted servant, is his own son; and he makes him the heir to all his wealth. The rich man is the Buddha; the son who was lost and is found again, represents human beings, whom the Buddha, as the wise father, gradually draws to himself, and finally appoints as his fortunate heir.13 The parable of the Prodigal Son was related in later India by early Vedantins such as Dravida (c. 550 A.D.), Bhartriprapancha (c. 550) and Sundarapandya (c. 600 A.D.), with whom the father represented the Highest Self (paramatman) and the son the individual self (jivatman).14 The story was interpreted as representing the reunion of individual souls with the highest One. In a Mahatmya on Kanchipuram, i.e. a book depicting the 'glory' of this holy place of Vishnu and recording the legends associated with his great temple, there is related another version15 of the Prodigal Son in a more detailed form than in the fragments of the early Vedantins. It is an interesting coincidence that compassion was especially emphasized in nearly the same period in both East and West. Incarnation was admitted in Buddhism and Hinduism as well as in Christianity. In the Bhagavadgita, as in Hinduism in general, Krishna is an incarnation (avatara or avatarana) or descent of the Divine into the human frame. While the Apostle's Creed lays stress on the human nature of the Son of God, the Nicene Creed adds that he "came down from heaven and was made flesh." However, whereas in Hinduism and Buddhism more than one incarnation of the Godhead or the absolute are possible, for Christians there has been and can be only one in the person of Christ. The Buddha himself has been received into later Hinduism as an incarnation (avatara) of Vishnu. But the philosophy which he taught was not for the orthodox; Hindus thought that it was designed to delude the wicked and to bring them to ruin. Christianity had a similar idea. "God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."16 In this respect both legends convey the idea that even wicked things are due to Providence. The ideal of compassion-love brings one to the altruistic attitude. Of course, Mahayanists did not all engage in altruistic deeds. But some stressed the altruistic spirit. Shantideva (7th century A.D.) made such vows: Page-236
His poems are often compared to The Imitation of Christ traditionally ascribed to Thomas a Kempis. The book sings of love, saying: "There is nothing sweeter than love, nothing stranger, nothing better in heaven nor in earth. Love feels no burden and takes account of no labor." However, whereas it is said that this book bears the mark of the distrust of scholasticism spread by the modern school of devotion (devotio moderna),19 Shantideva still adhered to traditional scholarship20 to some extent. As an interesting parallel to this, love came to be emphasized in China even among anti-Buddhist scholars. For Neo-Confucianists, the natural affections constituted the basis of human relations and the perfection of virtue humanity or benevolence which Neo-Confucianists like Ch'eng Hao (1032-85) and Chu Hsi (1130-1200) raised to the level of a cosmic principle, was often defined as "love" (ai).21 It is often reported that Buddhism has softened the rough warrior races of Tibet and Mongolia, and nearly effaced all traces of their original brutality. In Japan also, according to the statistical reports, cases of murder or assault are relatively rare in districts where the Buddhist influence is strong. This attitude of compassion motivates one to esteem highly the natural disposition of man. Japanese Buddhism tends to be most conspicuous in that respect. Even Buddhist ideas were preached with a close reference to matters of love, and sexual love is considered not to be incompatible with religious life. Zen Buddhism in early China does not seem to have much emphasized the idea of compassion. There is not a single reference made to the word "compassion" in the well-known scriptures of Chinese Zen Buddhism. Zen practitioners were more elite. They did not mingle with the common people in early days. After Zen Buddhism was brought into Japan, however, it came to emphasise deeds of benevolence. The spirit of tolerance and compassion of the Buddhist made it impossible to cultivate a deep hatred even toward sinners. There existed hardly any punishment that was cruel in those days when Buddhism flourished. The same was also reported by Chinese pilgrims in regard to ancient India under Buddhist influence. It holds true equally with some of the Buddhist countries in Southern Asia. In Japan too, during the Heian period, capital Page-237 punishment was not in force for a period of nearly three hundred and fifty years. This fact is parallel to the fact that people in the Mediaeval West became meek and gentle with the spread of Christianity. However, the esteem of compassion and love did not go together with the esteem of faith in a parallel way. In the West, the Chiistian practice of love suffered restriction in some cases. The teaching "Love your enemies" was not put into practice in relation to persons holding opinions different from those of the ruling Church. Even the Christian God is not supposed to be kind to the non-believers. St. Augustine believed that, while God was merciful to mere moral wickedness, He could not extend forgiveness for dogmatic error. The chief weapon for persecutions was excommunication, and the chief excuse for excommunication was 'heresy'. In India, intolerance of other faiths also characterized some of the Vaishnava writers. The rival creeds were depicted with malice. Some Vaishnava writings exhibit great intolerance of the Jaina and Buddhist faiths.22 Some rulers who maintained the Saiva faith persecuted Jain monks, even to the extent that some were boiled in hot water. These facts involve the difficult problem of incompatibility of faith and tolerance in some cases.
(3) THE ROLE OF SAINTS AND BODHISATTWAS
Along with the development of the Compassion motif in Mahayana Buddhism, the worship of Bodhisattwas came into existence. The Bodhisattwa was originally the Buddha before attaining Enlightenment. But later anybody who aspires for Enlightenment and renders help willingly to suffering creatures was called a 'Bodhisattwa'. Nearly in the same period the worship of saints appeared in the West also. Because the saints were so good, their prayers were supposed to have more weight with God. Bodhisattwas also, being so compassionate, were supposed to extend the hand of help willingly. The practice of the Bodhisattwa requires vigor and endeavor. In Tibetan, the word Bodhisattwa is translated as Heroic Being (Byanchub sems-dpah). The Christians also canonize only those saints who have exhibited virtues on a heroic Scale. It is sometimes said that in the case of Mahayana Buddhism the historic Buddha (Shakyamuni) fades into the background, and Amida and other Buddhas and Bodhisattwas virtually take his place. In some forms of Christianity there has been a comparable regard for the saints. Believers sought the aid of Virgin Mary or St. Anthony, when it might be Page-238 expected that they would appeal directly to Christ. In both cases the explanation may be given that such forms of belief do not mean that faith in the Founder is absent; it is included or implicit in the appeal to the saints and Bodhisattwas. We may also note that the cult of the Saviour of mercy in Mahayana lands has certain analogies with the cult of the Virgin in the West. It is especially represented in the worship of the Bodhisattwa Avalokiteswara or Kwan-yin in Chinese or Kannon in Japanese, who looks like a mother, although he himself is male originally. Avalokiteswara has been probably the most worshipped divine being in Asian countries. The Virgin Mary was the friend of the souls, and all alike, lord and lady, serf and maid, took refuge under the broad folds of the protecting Mary. The similarities shared with Mary are so very convincing that in the days when Catholics were persecuted due to political reasons in the feudal Japan, Japanese Catholics worshipped the images of Maria secretly under the pretension that they were the images of Buddhist Kannon. They secretly called them 'Maria-Kannon'. In spite of obvious similarities, there are remarkable differences. Avalokiteswara was by origin a male person, although his outlook became female. Moreover whereas Maria was a historical individual, Avalokiteswara was not supposed to be a historical individual, for his real personality was regarded to be eternal. Kannon shares some features with Catholic saints also. "If one happens to fall into the dreadful ocean, the abode of Nagas, marine monsters, and demons, he has but to think of Avalokiteswara, and he shall never sink down in the vast waters."23 In the West St. Christopher has been the patron of travellers.24 In the Hellenistic age there was a cult of Asklepics, the god of medicine, who as Healer and saviour called all mankind to himself. In a treatise called Askilepios, a long address and prayer to this deity are preserved, of which the tone is strikingly Christian. We find a Buddhist counterpart to it in the figure of the Healing Teacher (Bhaisajyaguruvaiduryaprabhasa). Even transcendental Wisdom came to be deified and worshipped as an object of worship, as Sophia in the West and as 'the Holy Goddess Wisdom' (Bhagavati Prajnaparamita) in India and other South-Asian countries. There were the Wisdom speculations of Western Asia between 200 B.C. and A.D. 300. Their conception of Sophia is closely analogous to that of prajnaparamita, and some of the similarities are startling. However, the iconographies of Sophia and Prajnaparamita seem to have evolved independently. The Holy Wisdom is, like the Virgin, the mother and yet 'untouched' by defilement. The Indian Wisdom is called "Buddha-Mother", i.e. the Mother of the Buddha and yet she is not defiled. In the mediaeval West pilgrimages to the martyr's grave became common. Page-239 The pilgrims on their way entertained each other with stories which Geoffrey Chaucer gathered together in verse in the Canterbury Tales. In India, Hindus and Jains made pilgrimages to holy places (tirtha) or temples which were well-known as meritorious. Buddhists in India made pilgrimages to the places specially related to the life of the Buddha.25 Jains also made pilgrimages. In Japan Buddhists made pilgrimages to the places especially related with the life of the founder of each sect. In Shintoism, believers made special trips to well-known shrines which they worshipped.
(4) VICARIOUS SUFFERING
One striking expression of the Compassion-Love motif is the idea of Vicarious suffering.26 The idea of "vicarious suffering" is to be found in the crucifixion of Christ, and the Cross is a symbol of his taking over the sufferings of men upon himself so as to lighten their suffering. In Christianity it is called "vicarious atonement". In this connection, there is an opinion widely spread that the concept of vicarious suffering is confined to Christianity alone. Even nowadays a certain Hindu Swami said as follows: "The life of Christ is spiritually inspiring. To us in India, however, the end is just tragedy.... The deaths of our own spiritual heroes, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, were near tragic: but we did not build our religion on them."27 But contrary to such an opinion, we find the notion of vicarious suffering in Hinduism and Buddhism, although the significance is different. A Buddhist conception of Vicarious Suffering was expressed, for example, by Nagarjuna. In his work Ratnavati he says: "May the evil acts produced by another ripen their fruits, (i.e., cause retribution) upon me! May the good acts produced by me ripen their fruits (i.e., cause retribution) upon him!"28 "To take over the sufferings of others by oneself"29 was extolled as an ideal of Mahayana ascetics. However, we should not overlook a great difference between Christianity and Mahayana. In Christianity vicarious atonement is suffered by Christ alone, whereas in Buddhism by any Bodhisattwa. Mediaeval Christians found the ideal image of vicarious atonement in Christ on the cross, whereas Northern Buddhists found it in Kshitigarbha or Jizo of Japan. The name of Kshitigarbha means "Earth-womb" or "Earth-Store-house". The original meaning of the title is not very clear, Page-240 but it was interpreted to mean that he is lord of the nether world. Some scholars think that the belief in Kshitigarbha first appeared in Central Asia. Legend has it that he has vowed to deliver all creatures from hell. He visits them in their places of suffering to deliver them. In Japan he is the special protector of dead children. When someone dies to save others, people in Japan erect an image of Jizo in honour of him, calling it "Lord Jizo in Vicarious Atonement" (Migawari Jizoson). It is said that Jizo will never enter nirvana, so long as there remains even one person suffering from afflictions, and that he stays in the mundane world with sinners. In Hindu literature we find some stories expressing the ideal. For example, the Markandeya-Purana relates the story of the pious King Vipaschit.30
The story ends, saying: The king of gods grants him this wish, and as he ascends to heaven, all the inmates of hells are released from their pain. The figure which represents the ideal most conspicuously in Hinduism seems to be that of Tondar-adi-podiy-alvar. Tondar-adi-podiy-alvar was a Tamil Vaishnava saint, a historical person, who lived about 830 A.D.31 But he was regarded as an incarnation of the chaplet (vanamala) of Vishnu.32 His image always represents a standing posture with a parcel or burden on the right shoulder, whereas the images of other alvars or saints are in a sitting posture. It represents his ideal to take on himself the sufferings of all men. In this respect we are reminded of the images of Amitabha in Shinshu Buddhism of Japan, which are always in standing posture to show his readiness to help suffering people. The idea of vicarious suffering is naturally closely related to a sense of human need and implies ideas of sin remedied by compassionate Grace.
(5) CONCLUSION
The discussions as are set forth above will lead us to the conclusion that, even in the mediaeval age in which it is supposed that East and West were rather separate, common ideals were working in the thoughts of common people. These facts will show that humanity was one even in those days when little intercourse was carried on between East and West. They Page-241 will also evidence that people in general in those days had desire or inclination towards love or compassion which will result in the unity of mankind in the end.
REFERENCES
1.Dhammapada, 28. 2.Lucretius, Book II, ad init. tr. by H. A. J. Munro, p. 15. 3.The Sanskrit word for "compassion" is maitri or karuna or dayd. Maitri can be translated as 'friendliness' also, because the word derives from the word 'mitra' meaning 'friend'. The word 'karuna' was translated into Chinese with the word meaning 'sorrow'. In Sanskrit literature also, the sorrow of a lady who has no prospect of seeing her lover again is expressed with the word karuna. (Sdhityadarpapa, III, 213). 4.The Chin version of the Buddhdvatathsaka-siitra, vol. 26; The Book ontheHua-yen Five Teachings (Kegon Gokyo-sho) ed. by Kwanno, vol. 1, p. 50 b. In the Lotus Sutra, we find a similar thought, (ye viryavantah sadd maitracittd bhavanti maitrim iha dirghardtram. Chapter 2, ed. by Wogihara and Tsuchida, p. 93; cf. p. 248) 5.Amitdyurdhydnasutra. 6.The Chinese version by Kumarajiva of the Saddharmapuridarika-sutra, Chapter 7.The Saddharmapundarika-sutra, Chapter XI, SBE, vol. 21, p. 251. 8.The Saddharmapundarika-sutra, V, vv. 6; II; 21; 24. Cf. "Society, as we have constituted it, will have no place for me, has none to offer; but Nature, whose sweet rains fall on unjust and just alike, will have clefts in the rocks where I may hide, and secret valleys in whose silence I may weep undisturbed." (Oscar Wilde: De Profundis, pp. 150-151) 9.The God of the Kirishitans (The Japanese Catholics in feudal days) was popularly called Deus-Nyorai. Nyorai is the Japanese equivalent of the Sanskrit tathdgata (Buddha). 10.Shatapancha. 11.Luke, 15, 11-32. 12.Chapter IV of the Lotus Sutra, SBE, 21 pp. 98 ff; Winternitz: A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II. pp. 298 ff. 13.Saddharmapuifdarika-sutra, chapter IV'. CPM Winternitz: A History of Indian Literature,'^. II (University of Calcutta, 1933), pp. 298-299. cf. n. 12. 14.Mentioned in Sureshwara's Brhaddranyakopanisadbhdsyavdrttika etc. Discussed in H. Nakamura: Vedanta Tetsugaku no Hatten, Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten. 15.Rudolf Otto: India's Religion of Grace and Christianity Compared and Contrasted. Translated from German by Frank Hugh Foster, New York, Macmillan, 1930, pp. 136-141. 16.II. Thessalonians 2, 11-12. 17.Bodhicarydvatdra III, 6; 7; 17; 18: Winternitz II, Indian Literature, p. 371. 18.Winternitz: Ibid., II, p. 372. 19 Etienne Gilson: History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, New York, Random House, p. 446. 20.Shantideva wrote a book called Siksdsamuccaya which is full of quotations from scriptures. 21.Cf. DeBary, Ch'an and Watson, op. cit., pp. 530-531, 556-557, 559. 22. N. K. Devaraj: Hinduism and Christianity (Bombay etc. Asia Publishing House, 1969), pp. 101-103. 23.The Lotus Sutra, Chapter 24, Samantamukhaparivarta, v. 6. 24.In America we find often taxi-drivers driving with an icon of St. Christopher. In Japan taxi drivers drive with an amulet of Fudo (Acalanatha Vidyaraja) of the Naritasan Temple within their cars, even as American drivers do. Page-242 25.They are Lumbini, Buddhagaya, Migadaya (Benares), and Kusinara. 26.The thought of vicarious atonement has a long history in the West. For example, there was Abelard (1079-1142), who asserted that we are redeemed from sin and from fear, since Christ works love in us. "Our redemption, therefore, is that supreme love in us, through the sufferings of Christ, which not only liberates from the servitude of sin, but acquires for us the true liberty of the sons of God, so that we fulfil all things from love." (Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, p. 71). 27.Robert Lawson Slater: Can Christian Learn from Other Religions? Wheaton College, New York. 1963, p. 26. 28.The Chinese version of the Ratnavali, the Sanskrit text of which is lost for the most part. 29.Bodhisattvabhumi, ed. by M. Wogihard, p. 249, 1. 6. 30.Winternitz: Indian Literature, I, pp. 562 ff. 31.Surendranath Dasgupta: A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. Ill, Cambridge University Press, 1952, p. 64. 32.Ibid., p. 64. Page-243 Modern Secular Man and the Problem Of the Unity of Mankind* S. Takdir Alisjahbana
'T'HE monotheistic Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam emphasize the oneness of the human race through the single creation of Adam and Eve by God. Against this monogenesis of the unique origin of mankind stand some evolutionary theories which tend to accept that the human race came into being in several places on earth as the result of a long process of evolution from the animal. The humanization is, according to them, a result of the gradual development of the human body and especially of the brain, from which emerged the human mind with its capacity for thought and language. Without taking sides in the controversy between monogenesis and polygenesis, we can make the statement that since immemorial times man has been spread over the world, in many races, societies and cultures. In many cases there were no relations between the various races, societies and cultures. In various societies man considered himself as the only representative of the human race with a culture or civilization, while other people from other societies were considered not yet human, or at least barbarian. The concept of the unity of the human race is a relatively late phenomenon in human history. It presupposed a further development in the abstraction process of the mind, which went parallel with the widening of experience through contact with other human beings, societies and cultures. It is undeniable that this widening of concepts was a result of man's mastery of nature such as the taming of animals, and the development of a certain technology based on a better understanding of the laws of nature. It is known that it was especially the use of the horse as draft-animal and as steed, the discovery of the wheel, the capacity to make ships, which created greater contact between the isolated societies and cultures. The concept of the unity of the human race became pronounced in the great epoch of the first millennium before A.D. when in a relatively short span of time in China, India, the Middle East and Greece, religious builders and thinkers arrived at a new consciousness of man and his life, of the world and the universe, transcending the magical and dynamical world
Page-244 and life view of the primitive, and even of the mythical metaphysics of the Egyptian and Babylonian cultures of 2 or 3,000 years earlier. It is as if man had discovered a new way of thinking, a new insight, not only of himself and the world, but also of the forces around him and thus experienced a deep discontent with his existing cultures. Through its most talented representatives mankind started to ask radical questions about life, nature, and the mysterious powers which governed both, and thus arrived at new concepts, new ideals, which went together with a deepening of life, experience and thought. It was at this time that the accidental, pre-logical consciousness of magical powers and mythological relations gradually became transformed in to more rational systems, with a strong tendency towards the pursuit of extreme abstraction. While the Greek philosophy of nature attempted to arrive at the ultimate substance or truth of the world and man, the Jewish prophets were wrestling with the concept of the unity of God as the base and the ruler of the universe. In India, to the concept of Brahma as the total and ultimate Reality to which Atma returns, was added the Buddhistic concept of Nirvana, the ultimate goal of all life, when the curtain of ignorance is removed. In China, Confucius laid the foundations of the largest social-political structure in history based on the loyalty of children to their parents and of the citizen to the King and the State, on moderateness, on realism, and on a system of education for an efficient civil service. It is clear that there is a great difference between the concepts and ideals of Confucius and Buddha, between those of Buddha and the prophets, and those of the prophets and the Greek thinkers. But compared to those of an earlier time, these concepts and ideals had many traits in common, such as the radicality of their questions, the uncompromising seriousness of their search for solutions, and the comprehensiveness and logic of their concepts and ideas. It is as if they all experienced the universality and unity of man and his destiny, and attempted to live according to these experiences and concepts, regardless of their consequences. It was the time that Buddha left his princely life for the sake of ultimate truth, that philosophers and thinkers moved from one place to another as in China and Greece to teach, that hermits retreated from life out of an inner religious urge. Man discovered a new limitless spiritual order, out of which he could understand and judge the world and himself. Out of his extreme power of thought and understanding, a new comprehensive world and life view emerged replacing the old, which had been bound to the tribes, to the local magical and mythological beliefs and practices. A great social revolution took place. The breakthrough of this new attitude and courageous reflection was, not only a breakthrough of individualism, which gave to the world new Page-245 religions and philosophies, but also went together with an expansion of ethical responsibility far beyond the border of the clan or tribe: an ethical universalism came into being, which became, not only the basis of the new large kingdoms, but which also made it possible that the new religions, philosophies and ethical systems spread through the whole world. Thus Buddhism moved to South-East Asia, China and even Japan. Greek thinking spread through the area round the Mediterranean to Western Europe. Chinese learning became accepted in Japan and the surrounding countries of Korea and Indo-China. We know that, a half millennium later, Christianity emerged out of the tenets of the Semitic prophets and conquered the whole of Europe, where it formed a unique synthesis with the continuation of Greek thought, which we call European culture and which had such a great impact on modern culture all around the globe. A half millennium later arose, from the same Semitic cultural atmosphere, Islam which spread in a short time through Asia and Africa. Thus the extraordinary mental and spiritual upheaval round the fifth century B.C. has had far-reaching consequences for the whole world. It is the birth of these broad, universal beliefs, concepts, and ethics, setting free great expansive energy for the organizations of political entities such as the Han, Maurya and Roman empires that brought about a new, hitherto non-existent, communication between the human races. The great importance of the last millennium B.C. has, of course, long attracted the attention of historians, and philosophers. In recent decades it was Karl Jaspers,1 who especially emphasized this period by qualifying it as die Achsenzeit, the time of the axis of history, i.e. the most decisive epoch in the history of man, in which the great human potentialities broke through, and a common framework of historical self-knowledge for all people of the world became manifest. That was the time from which our present social and cultural life has been derived. No people in the world has been able to escape its impact without being forgotten in primitivism. The greatest historical force for the forming of our progressive secular culture, and our present concept of mankind, came however from the Renaissance. It was the thinkers of Greece who broke with the rigid logic of mythical thought, and consciously expanded their knowledge about the real world of nature. In the synthesis of Roman thought, Islamic and Christian monotheism, and the rational secular spirit of Greece, the appearance of the modern world was retarded for a certain time during the Middle Ages, in order to break through in the Renaissance, which forms the very basis of our secular modern world, dominated by science, technology and economic progress.
Page-246 This does not imply that there were no science and scientific activities in the Middle Ages or in the cultures of China and India. We know that our present university, as a centre of learning, has its roots in Islamic and Christian cultures in the Middle Ages. We know that the achievement of China during the millennia of its existence was tremendous; many of the revolutionizing discoveries of European culture such as printing, the fabrication of paper and gunpowder took place in China at a much earlier stage than in Europe. Also India has shown great achievements which contributed to the development of science, in astronomy, in medicine, as well as in linguistics and mathematics. The culture of Islam can be said to be the first culture which consciously combined the achievements of Greece, Persia, India, even China in the framework of its Semitic monotheism. Are there historical, geographical, social and cultural reasons for the incapability of these great cultures to produce independently, out of their own historical and cultural logic, the progress of modern science, technology and economics of the 20th century ? The failure of traditional Chinese science in giving birth to modern science is, among others, related to the dominance of pseudo-scientific theories. Chinese science was not able to liberate itself from traditional belief and to develop scientific skepsis.1 Similar relations apply to Islamic culture with its strong theological character. We know that Al-Ghazali has qualified Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina and others as heretics. As we may remember, the same had occurred in Christian Europe with Giordano Bruno, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo. It was the greatness of the Renaissance that, on the basis of a return to Greek secular thought, a fresh breakthrough came, not only through Christian orthodoxy, but also Greek thought itself developed further towards the extension and intensification of the knowledge of nature. A new type of man arose who exploited the capacity of his senses in obeying a deep curiosity for the secrets of nature. On the basis of the strict logic of his mind, liberated from religious dogmas, he was able to arrange the newly gained facts of nature according to a dynamic system of mathematics. Thus the new science of nature opened the road for the blossoming of a continuously expanding technology which assured man of the mastery of nature for his progress and material prosperity. It is important to refer to this mental and spiritual revolution during the Renaissance, because it put an end to the attitude of renunciation which characterized the view of life of the Middle Ages and many of the religious trends from the axis of history. A secular attitude and a new way of life emerged, and through them European society and culture expanded in various directions of terrestrial activity and adventure.
Page-247 The self-confident man of the Renaissance manifested himself in great individualistic thinkers, scientists and artists. The universal kingdom of the Church crumbled and in its place came many independent national states, rivalling each other in power and economic prosperity, as well as in other cultural achievements. The blossoming of trade promoted not only an exchange of agricultural and other products, but also stimulated the rise of industries on the basis of the new technology, which later amounted to the well-known industrial revolution. It is not possible that these activities and this restlessness were only limited to the boundaries of Europe. Earlier traders and seafarers were already crossing the Mediterranean, and later the oceans, for the fabulous richness of the Orient and other parts of the world, and for the discovery of unknown territories. The development of human society and culture in Europe from the sixteenth through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with its scientific, technological, industrial and commercial revolution, as well as the tremendous progress of physics and chemistry, and the discovery and fast application of electric power in the 19th and 20th centuries, are to be considered as mere consequences of the mental and spiritual revolution in the Renaissance. In our age we have witnessed the tremendous expansion of the utilization of automobiles and airplanes as means of transportation, which decrease distances on our planet from months and weeks into days and hours, while the wide-spread utilization of radio, transistors and television has brought the whole world simultaneously into our living rooms. The rapid expansion of man's knowledge of nature and the fast progress of his mastering the powers and possibilities of nature by technology have changed the surface of the earth. It is not any longer nature which is the most important determinant of human social and cultural behaviour; the natural environment itself has been transformed into a part of human culture, the result of human evaluation and creation. The spirit of achievement and expansion of the Renaissance was at the same time a spirit of struggle and strife, not only in Europe but everywhere in the world. The European national states gradually became the great imperialistic states of modern time, struggling among themselves and occupying more and more territories, of which the population had not yet assimilated the secular and rational attitude of the scientific and technological progress of the man of the Renaissance. It was this spirit and culture of the Renaissance which, through the expansion of European political power and influence, encompassed the whole world and gradually realized itself in our world-wide modern culture, characterized by the dominant position of the progress of science, technology and economics. In our century the great and powerful national imperiums, equipped Page-248 with the most modern weapons produced by advanced science and technology, came to a head-on collision in two unprecedented devastating wars. Especially the Second World War was a world war in the strict sense of the word, involving nearly all people and all countries of the world. The turning point in the concept of war, however, came from the discovery and application of nuclear power, which for the first time was utilized in the Second World War. Man gradually realized that the greatest danger for human life and existence does not come any longer from the power of nature, such as natural disasters, diseases, but in the form of the great devastating power of nuclear weapons created by man himself. Through the possession of nuclear power man is able to destroy his world, and with it his own species. It is especially during the last decade after the Second World War that man gradually realizes that the world which has been changed by human cultural activities more and more endangers human life, because the natural environment with which man has struggled during the millennia, represents a basic factor of human life, i.e. man cannot go on destroying his plants and animals, his forests and beaches without impoverishing and endangering his own life; The continuously accelerating speed of automobiles and aeroplanes, which diminished the distances on the earth, will become the greatest killer of man, after the microbes, bacilli and other germs have been eliminated. Even the blessing of abundance in consumer goods and of the efficiency of modern medicine and medical care create tremendous, unexpected problems for mankind: the human species has multiplied so rapidly that gradually the problems of overpopulation arise in a world with limited space and resources. Add to this that through the density and speed of transportation more and more people can afford to travel, so that the contact and with it the tension and conflict between people and nations become greater and more complex, we nearly can say that in our age there is not one real important national problem which is not at the same time a world-wide problem, which can only be solved at an international level. And the solutions of these world-wide problems, be they economic, political or otherwise, have been nearly impossible because of the great differences, disparities and contrasts in interest, concept and belief between the various nations through differences in tradition, life style, as well as ideologies, which during the last centuries have brought conflicts and contrasts between people to a degree as there have never been before. Thus the development of human society and culture on our planet since the Renaissance has clearly resulted in the dominant position of man vis-a-vis nature, so that we really can say that our world is a human world, Page-249 in which culture as contrast to nature has become the dominating feature. Man has not only become the master of the inorganic, the plant and the animal in nature, but also of his own destiny, which inextricably is related to the destiny of his world. And it is also clear that the solution of so many problems of the world as well as the problems of mankind is only possible in the consciousness of the unity of the world, and what is even more important, of the unity of mankind itself. Since the first experience of the oneness and compact solidity of our planet by Magellan and his mates in their circumnavigation of the world, this experience has multiplied continuously with the increase of transportation and communication, which makes people, goods and ideas as dynamic as jet planes and radio-waves. The conquest of the outer space during the last decades has even given to man the opportunity to see his world as a tiny, fragile balloon wandering in a limitless universe. But it is the individualistic and nationalistic attitude of the liberation of man in the Renaissance which continues in the rivalling and conflicting struggles between nations, and social, economic and cultural groups. If we realize that the Second World War with its tremendous devastating capacity, viewed from the present and future progress of science and technology, represents only a small example of what destructive power is in store for mankind, there is no doubt that if man is to be saved from self-destruction, he has to undergo a new spiritual transformation after his continuous scientific and technological progress which went together with the great change of his natural surroundings, and with his continuously expanding strife and struggle. This transformation must take place in the very consciousness of man. If the Renaissance saw him in surrounding nature in the relation of subject and object, in the coming world this attitude and relationship will be only to human disadvantage. In the man-made environment in which man is facing himself, he is at the same time the subject as well as the object, the agent for change as well as the object of change, and in this position it could not be otherwise he is responsible for both. And in this connection any real purposeful responsibility can be achieved only if mankind is not divided within itself. Thus the problem of the unity of mankind which expresses itself in understanding, tolerance and cooperation is the crucial issue of our time. Science has given us a view in the universality of the laws of nature, and on the basis of the universality of science are built the great centres of learning and culture, i.e. our universities and other institutions of science, which dominate our modern social and cultural life. Technology as the application of modern science has inescapably the same universality, and it is technology with its world-wide application in transportation and communication, Page-250 which gave to the world its factual unity: as has been said, in our time every part of the world is reachable within a few days by planes; and radio, television and books have brought the whole world within the reach of every home. On the other hand, this factual physical unity does not guarantee the integration of human society and culture, the integration of human thought and action. The expansion of technology as has been testified by our recent history has even been able to intensify the division and conflicts of the world, because the integration of human thought and action, of human social and cultural behavior is only possible on the basis of the awareness of a deeper affinity and dependence, which give to mankind a common ground and a common goal, i.e. which create a certain solidarity between man. We witnessed how the consciousness of the universality of man and his destiny during the time which Karl Jaspers called the axis of history was not able to realize itself in the factual unity of mankind because of the more or less strong isolation of the great centres of mental upheaval. The consciousness of the unity of mankind was at that time indeed only in the mind of the great religious builders and philosophers but did not exist in the social and cultural reality, because of the great distance between the spiritual centres and the lack of the means of transportation and communication. The progress of science and technology since the Renaissance, however, transformed the world and mankind to a factual unity, but the particularistic and individualistic consciousness and world view of the Renaissance and the competitive spirit which derived from it are unable to give to the factual unity of the world and mankind a spiritual basis in the consciousness of mankind itself. Thus to the dynamic spirit of the man of the Renaissance which* with its rationalism and individualism, has created our modern secular world must be added the universal spirit of the axis of history. It is the consciousness to be an infinitesimal part in a greater order which alone is able to make man realize the relativity of his successes and power, and gain an independent calmness and sureness in facing the complex and multitudinous problems of this time. Coming out from a mysterious, unknown and limitless past and gradually evolving into the historical phase of a few millennia, the human being in his concrete present is facing his future which is not less mysterious, unknown and limitless as his past. The only concrete reality he knows and for which he bears a direct responsibility is his historical present, which is beset with uncountable conflicts and animosities deriving from competing and clashing ambitions, interests and concepts. He also knows that the accelerating tension of these conflicts and animosities through the in- Page-251 creasing complexity of the political and economic relations in a world which continuously becomes smaller through the growth of science and technology, in one way or another can easily explode into a holocaust with the most devastating weapons for which a great part of the wealth of the world has continuously been spent. He is fully aware that his present predicament resulting from his own progress will only come to a real and lasting solution if the unity of his world and the destiny of man can find expression in an effective integration of the power relationship of the various parts of the world. He has observed that this integration is only possible on the basis of the voluntary subordination of the various sovereign states under a universal legal structure or on the basis of the subordination of all the states under the rules of a totalitarian superpower. Regardless of the desirability of one of the two structures above the other, in the present situation it looks as if neither of the two will come into realization without a great catastrophe on our planet, since it is the very solidarity and ethical responsibility for the totality of the human race which is lacking today. Every real ethic derives from a feeling of a responsibility based on the experience of participation in the greatest and highest totality. In our time we realize that the great religions, evolving from the spirit of what Karl Jaspers called the axis of history, have created each their own concept of transcendence or God, as well as their own system of rites and institutions. The validity of their ethics is mostly limited to their own followers. Viewed from the broad standpoint of the unity of the human race and the universality of the holy ground of human existence, we must conclude that they are great human efforts to include human life in a broad transcendental holy order, which gave direction and ultimate value to human life. In this sense, however, they have not been able to achieve a universal solidarity, and to create the most comprehensive ethics for human life. A new and broader solidarity as well as ethics has to arise, expressed in a broad system of law for the whole world and the whole human race, to bring order out of the crisscrossing political, economic and other conflicts of our time. For the achievement of such comprehensive solidarity and ethics, the human mind and its individual, social and cultural expression have to go through a new all-inclusive transformation. This does not mean that the great achievement of science and technology since the Renaissance is of no relevance at all for the further development of life on our planet. On the contrary, the coordination and cooperation, the mutual understanding and responsibility which should be created by the new solidarity and ethics must safeguard the essence of human creativity for a further expansion of his physical as well as his spiritual life. It is even possible Page-252 that the rational and objective spirit of the Renaissance will help modern man to clear his existing religions from their excessive mythological overgrowth and from their burden of superstitions, which through the centuries have prevented the breakthrough of a real unity and solidarity. On the other hand, it is also clear that man with his great scientific, technological and economic achievements is facing a terrible blind alley of self-destruction if he is not able to bring his terrestrial progress and prosperity to a higher stage of human spiritual development, which is only possible in the experience of the broadest and highest transcendental solidarity and responsibility. It might be that the great thinkers and religious figures of our age, such as Sri Aurobindo, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Muhammad Iqbal, who although they have been impregnated with the progressive secularism of modern culture, did not lose their yearning for the great transcendence, and in their life and struggle attempted to realize the great synthesis, are the great forerunners of the new epoch. Page-253 Contemporary Humanism* C. I. Gulian IN our time, the evolution of political events, as well as of science and *- culture, obviously confirms that no international problems could be solved without the assiduous participation of all nations, big or small, without the international help of educated people, whose opinions are rooted in the humanist approach to life. If in other times, during the Renaissance, for example, humanism strictly limited to cultural preoccupations was the appanage of an intellectual minority, nowadays it is close to the vital problem of human unity, of peaceful coexistence, of economical cooperation and exchange of spiritual values. Little by little, the narrow European conception of humanism being an European doctrine changed. Scholars, travellers, artists and politicians, discovered the humanism of the ancient Asian and African civilizations, understood that humanism is an universal conception of man's capacities and values. In our time, defined by the earnest problem of peace, humanism can contribute an important share to the solving of litigious problems, the clearing of misunderstandings, the striving against racial discriminations* the avoiding of the grounds that maintain conflicts and animosity between people. Contemporary humanism has representatives around the world and it necessarily includes, as one of its most important tasks, the promotion of political and cultural agreements between all the nations. Although, due to historical conditions there still exist major discrepancies between the developed countries and the not yet fully developed, for a rational and humanist mind it is obvious that these differences are not everlasting, have not their origins in some incapacity of one or another nation but in the unfavourable conditions of their existence. Our epoch is characterized by the disappearance of the notions of "destiny" and "fatality" as conditioning the progress of any nation. The technical-scientific revolution has a great influence upon the fast development of the till now underdeveloped countries. In a not too far future, new countries will know a powerful economical, scientific and cultural
Page-254 swing, gaining a more and more important place in the world. I think that starting from this point, from this realistic image of the twentieth century world, we may consider the theoretical and practical problem of what humanism and the humanist culture can bring to the achievement of human unity. Without making an excursion in the history of humanism, I think that we must emphasize the new characteristics, specific to the contemporary humanism in comparison with the ancient or modern one, that developed until some hundred years ago. Then two major events in the European history occurred; the Paris Commune and the foundation of the First International of workers. I think Lenin was right in considering these events as the beginning of contemporary history. In antiquity as well as in modern history, from the Renaissance till now, humanist thinkers discussed with particular interest the problem of personality. The debates concerning the notion of man were a natural protest against the suppressing of man's free spiritual development in the absolutist feudal conditions and later on in those of capitalism. Modern humanist thinkers sketched an ideal of personality undoubtedly superior to the antic or medieval one. From Leonardo da Vinci to the representatives of German neo-humanism Goethe, Schiller, Herder the ideal of personality has an unquestionable progressive ground. Marxism as well as the great Eastern and Western humanism showed why man can be found only among those who create material and spiritual values, among those who fight in order to save and promote the valuable sparkle of any simple man's soul. Marx and Engels showed that the proletariat has the historical task of achieving man's emancipation. The working class is asked to liberate'besides itself, the whole society, the totality of the working masses. It has to suppress any kind of slavery and exploitation. / The individual's liberation is not possible without the people's liberation. The Indian philosopher, Vivekananda, stressed the point that authentic humanism is indestructibly related to the stir up of the masses for a dignified existence. He said: "Freedom of thought and freedom of action are the unique conditions of life, development and welfare. India's sole hope is in its people. The upper classes are morally and physically dead". As early as the end of the nineteenth century, Vivekananda had the prophetic conscience of the world-wide, international character that social and political problems have acquired in our time. He said: "Problems that twenty years ago were matters of a single nation, cannot be solved nowadays in a national limit any longer. These problems get gigantic proportions, impressive forms and could be solved only if considered in Page-255 the wider conception of international politics, international laws, international associations and international organizations. This is the slogan of our time. This is the manifestation of solidarity". Humanism implies a deep concentration on the awakening, moulding, education and achievement of man's conscience. These processes must be understood not as matters in "themselves", as the sterile expression of some "divinization" of man, of the individual, but as problems related to the historical task of creating a world where everybody should be able to lead a happy and peaceful life. This does not mean in the least a diminution of man's claims towards himself, but only the opening of the largest spiritual prospect for as many people as possible, for the masses who create material and spiritual values, who create history. But plainly it shows the growth, not only of the amount of the possible impersonations of personality, but also the claims towards what we call personality. The basic principle of contemporary humanism states that the accomplishment of personality is possible only by performing the social duty, by making his own the ideals of the community. Not everyone who displays energy or talent can achieve a personality, but only the one who serves through his work and creation the goals of the community. In his excellent book, The Discovery of India, translated also in Romania, Jawaharlal Nehru writes: "For me, the real problems remain the problems of the individual and of society, of a harmonious existence, of the concordance of the inner life of man with his surroundings, of the settling of connexions between different individuals and groups, of the eveilasting accomplishment of man, the problems of social progress and of the endless human queries", (op. cit., p. 25). I consider as particularly interesting that Sri Aurobindo connected the goal of spiritual self-improvement with the scope of national freedom and independence. He understood with a special clear sight that a well balanced personality cannot grow out of a contradiction with the social fight, with people's needs, or a careless attitude toward them, as we unfortunately can find in our time in the representatives of individualism. When still young, Sri Aurobindo linked his activity and spiritual evolution with India's national movement. He attributed to the term "svaraj? Page-256 tion of culture did history put such a difficult task as bringing together values that may seem incompatible: to dwell in one's self and to be devoted to the social welfare. In the speech Sri Aurobindo made at Uttarpara, after being discharged from prison, he said: "It is an error, we repeat, to think that spirituality is a theory divorced from life." Sri Aurobindo's life and activity have been guided both by the fervent aspiration of being a fighter for the political independence of his country and the wish to help the suppression of the obstacles that separate people. This capacity for combining personal spiritual values with national, political and humanitarian values, seems to me a particularly striking characteristic of Sri Aurobindo's personality. In general, in Europe, Yoga is understood as a way to meditation, to concentration, with no other purpose but isolating the individual. Therefore, Yoga is considered a means for purely personal spiritualization in no way connected with social duty, to political and social struggle, to the future of mankind. By his personal example, Sri Aurobindo showed that the meaning of Yoga can be quite different from the subjectivist conception of personality, as we find it in Europe in the existentialist conception. There are only a few instancesas Sartre's and Camus'where we do find a conception that goes beyond subjectivism, implying the understanding of the needs of men's struggle for an improvement of their life. Sri Aurobindo wrote in Karmayogin: "Our business is to realise ourselves first and to mould everything to the law of India's eternal life and nature. We believe that it is to make Yoga the ideal of human life that India rises today; by the Yoga she will keep the strength to realise her freedom, unity and greatness, by the Yoga she will keep the strength to preserve it." Sri Aurobindo's humanism appears as a link between Indian and European humanism. The European humanism has now left the individualist, subjectivist, path rising to look into the future of mankind without alienating its traditional ideal about the general development of personality. I think that Sri Aurobindo's humanism is one of the most typical manifestations of Indian spirituality, a vision of life in which dharma has the meaning of social duty. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote about this central ethical notion: "In India, the ancient general name for religion was arya dharma." In fact, dharma means more than religion. The origin of this word means "to keep together". It is the notion of ethics that includes a code of morals, of an honest and decent life, as well as the entire bulk of man's duties and responsibilities. Speaking of the Mahabharata, particularly Page-257 of the Bhagavadgita, Nehru explains again the notion of dharma, stating with much competence: "No true happiness can exist without dharma, and no society either. The goal is the common welfare, not the welfare of one group, but of the whole world." To strengthen his statement, Nehru quotes a particularly significant verse from the Mahabharata, which could be taken as the motto of our meeting:
Up to our time, the epoch of people's struggle for their liberation from the colonialist yoke, the realization of this humanist ideal the unity of nations, as expressing their freedom and equality was not possible. Up to our time only criticism of colonialism was possible, and it was done by humanists like Goethe, Forster, Fourier, Marx. There was also the dream of a universal society in which equality, democracy and free development should reign. This is what Campanella, Thomas More, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Robert Owen, Marx, Auguste Comte and many other thinkers wished. Sri Aurobindo was one of those noble and at the same time clearsighted minds of our time, who saw the important part played by the nations of Asia in their struggle for freedom and their place in contemporary civilisation. In 1947, in his message, speaking about his dreams and ideals that were beginning to come true, Sri Aurobindo said: "Another dream was for the resurgence and liberation of the peoples of Asia and the return to her great role in the progress of civilisation .... The third dream was a world-union forming the outer basis of a fairer, brighter and nobler life for all mankind. The final dream was...the dream of individual perfection and a perfect society." Sri Aurobindo understood in this sense the creation of the asrama: "not for the renunciation of the world, but a centre and a field of practice for the evolution of another kind and form of life". These aspirations of Sri Aurobindo meet the most progressive conceptions of contemporary humanism on the improvement of personality. The problem of personality raises that of the impact of various forces, psychological, ethical, pedagogical, and political. Today personality is seen as grounded in a bio-psychological base, but equally determined by norms, values, social and cultural milieu, and historical epoch. Currently the majority of psychologists, at the front rank of whom are the leaders of social psychology, refuse to study man apart from his social activities, including his norms of behaviour. Out of profound experience, too, the great writers have strongly Page-258 affirmed that this integration of social norms is the essential feature of personality formation. Thus Goethe, who, for example, writes that "personality is the supreme good", shows in several essays as well as in the development of certain of his characters the way in which he came to understand the formation of personality. He emphasizes the naivete and the hazards of encouraging people to lose their individuality. Every person has his characteristics, even peculiarities and oddities. However, to achieve personality, he says, the problem is one of developing our common characteristics rather than our idiosyncracies: "Unsere Eigenschaften mussen wir kultiwieren, nicht unsere Eigenheiten." In his youth, Goethe himself had participated in a movement called "Sturm und Drang", which defended with pathetic ardour the ideal of nature, of unfettered growth of the individual and revolt against confinement of the spirit. However, he soon saw that this approach provided no solution to the problems of life, and that unbridled and anarchic freedom brings with it the risk of loss of personality. According to Goethe, the formation of personality depends on outgrowing subjectivity, achieving equilibrium, sublimating one's idiosyncracies, and cultivating one's virtues. To the humanist and democratic thinkers from Goethe to the present day, this ideal of personality, far from being reserved for an elite minority of race or birth, is a freely accessible ideal for all humanity. Gordon Allport, one of the contemporary psychologists who is said to have done the most to reestablish the value of the self and of personality development, has clearly shown (1953) the errors and illusions inherent in experimental behaviorist psychology when it persists in closing its eyes to the phenomena of personality, of freedom, and of worth. Allport has proved that when personality is founded on a prejudice based in conception and methodology, it disappears. It decomposes or is reduced to impulses or instincts which are determined by outside stimulation. In this last analysis, everything comes from without. The second prejudice guiding positivist tendencies is what Allport calls geneticism. It presupposes that what is primary in experience infantile experience is more important, more fundamental, than that which occurs later. Hence the belief of many psychologists that the essential qualities are formed in what is learned, fixated, conditioned in infancy. And Allport says, "This belief places the greatest obstacles in the way of the theory of growth and development of personality." Let us give All-port, other writers such as Dewey, Wundt, Goldstein, Cantril, Lacky, and Revers, to whom we can add Mace, Maslow, Murray, and, among psychoanalysts, D. Rapoport, Heinz Hartman, Fromm, and so on credit Page-259 for understanding that personality is formed, not once and for all time, but as a continuing process. "Personality does have certain stable traits, but it is subject to endless modifications. We should strive to study the pattern of these modifications of growth and individualisation." Ethics and present-day social psychology lead to the conclusion that personality can develop only when it is based on social obligations which are founded upon the primacy of collective ideals. It is not enough to expand energy, to show ability, in order to attain personality in the ethical sense; so rich in meaning, personality expresses itself only when it devotes its actions and its creative energy to the collective good. We do not deny that in contemporary philosophy, German existentialism represents a subjectivist position. We also consider infinitely eloquent the avowal of the philosopher Jaspers (1964), who in his old age said: "the great folly of my youth was to scorn the State without taking the trouble to consider what might be a better State...in the individual, in his inherent particularities, in his conceptions and the conduct of his life (which is capable of deviation even to the point of strangeness), there is still hidden something which draws him toward society". We give the name "personalities" to all those people who distinguish themselves by their efforts, their activities, their works, their devotion, their energy, their talents, and their insights, and who consecrate their gifts to realization of the needs of society. To make oneself conspicuous does not make one a political, artistic, or scientific personality. A personality is one who, able to grasp the historical compulsion of society's political and spiritual standards, applies them more intensively and brings about a new and creative solution to the problems of his times, one who, in the giving of his talents, distinguishes himself by the intensity and the force with which he devotes his abilities to the service of the collective good. Only such a one has the right to be called a true personality. Intense realization of personality implicitly rejects all uniformity, all casting in a mould. All society counts among its members some who are more and some less capable, more and less energetic, more and less active, and so on. There is diversity of ages and aptitudes; there is also the will to participate. It would be absurd to want to negate preferences or ideas, to make man an automaton bereft of all personality. In the process of self-realization, a subjectivist sees only a dialogue of the individual with himself and the will to reach the depth of his desires, his appetites, or his impulses, taking nothing else into account. In the humanist conception, self-realisation comes about through the dialectic interaction between the individual and the society in which he lives. Page-260 I must stress the fact that as an European, I completely share this humanist ideal, this wide vision, this craving of man and society for perfection, this idea of a universal culture, in which Asia and Africa, Europe and America, should learn to know and appreciate each other as well and lastingly as possible. Page-261 Human Diversity and Human Unity* James F. T. Bugental
SRI Aurobindo gave much thought to the relation of the individual and the collectivity, to the function of ethical ideals in according to both their places, and to the spiritual perspective lying back of these concerns and offering the ultimate ground for resolving the apparent paradox of the human condition. This paradox is, of course, that man is by his very nature at once a part of all other men and apait from all other men. Unlike many philosophers and sages, Sri Aurobindo did not attempt to deny this condition by rejecting the significance of individuality; rather he embraced the paradox and made it integral to his conception of the further potentialities of human and transhuman being. In this brief paper, I want to offer some speculations in what I hope is a spirit congenial to the Aurobindian pou sto and directed toward the examination within the current scene of the significance of human unity and human diversity. I shall not resolve the many problems involved, but perhaps I can suggest some perspectives that can add to our understanding of the common psychological processes underlying overtly contrasting human values and endeavours.
THE POSSIBILITY OF WORLD DISASTER The central issue of our times and of the foreseeable future is man's inchoate struggle to survive as an evolved species. There can be little doubt that the potentiality for a global catastrophe now exists. It is possible that the forces which will determine whether or not such a doomsday occurs are currently in motion in terms of attitudes, values, investments, and habitual ways of thinking and acting. Of course, global catastrophe has been the forecast of gloomy sages in every generation. It is a familiar experience to read a quotation foretelling the end of the world and then having the source revealed as some
Page-262 prophet who lived a hundred or a thousand or more years ago. The usual implication is that such unhappy predictions are misguided, untrusting, and rather foolish. However, we need to remind ourselves that disasters have occurred repeatedly in man's history disasters that quickly or more slowly swept away most, if not all, of the known world. Rome fell, as did Babylon, Crete, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the great states that had lasted thousands of years on the Indian subcontinent. The dire forebodings too often have proven accurate. Additionally, we need to recognize that never before has man haa the technology to initiate such a general and lasting catastrophe. We not only travel faster and over greatei distances, build more and higher structures, and do most things on a larger scale and at a quicker pace, but we also destroy, pollute, and overpopulate with greater efficiency and universality. However, our situation may not yet be irrevocable. If the next decade escapes collapse, there is more likelihood that what we do now and in the coming five years could affect the odds for survival in the 1980s. Again, if we avoid disaster for 20 years, the impact of an awakened human concern during the next two decades may be significant for the turn of the century. But it is by such relatively small steps that the issue will be turned or lost. We are at Kairos, a crisis point in history. We cannot take cautious steps; we must be bold, imaginative and decisive, or our cause and our dream may be lost; man himself may go into oblivion.
THE WORLD MACROPROBLEMS
Man is confronted with four global problems, each of which has the potentiality to affect profoundly the course of history for centuries or even millennia to come. The nature and perhaps even the existence of human life 50, 100, or 500 years from now is going to be affected by whether or not and how we deal with each of the issues. The term "world macroproblem" has been suggested (Harman, 1970) for these kinds of concerns to convey that they have planet-wide significance and to direct our attention beyond the more symptomatic level of specific questions to more underlying confrontations. The following four possibilities are of such an order of magnitude and pose such a clear and imminent threat to all of us that they may be called world macroproblems. Page-263
CONTROL: THE KEY TO SURVIVAL
What will tip the balance in the direction of man's survival and further development? How can we escape catastrophe? All aspects of the world macroproblems are rooted, in some important degree, in human unreadiness to participate in the courses of action necessary to overcome their causes and to reverse the human contribution to continuing or worsening the conditions. If such problems are to be reduced or eventually overcome, effective and widespread constraints will have to be placed on what individuals and groups do: Cities must not empty raw sewage into waterways, families must restrict the numbers of their children, and nations must cease the spread of radioactive waste. Such controls in every area must be effective on a scale we have not known before. The two main forms of the concept of control are: (1) control that is
Page-264 imposed on a person, and (2) control that he exercises of himself. This is the fateful dichotomy with which we will be concerned. When we think about the meanings of the concept and experience of control in human affairs, it becomes evident that the occasion for control arises because we men differ from each other. If we were all alike, we would not have to control one another. It is because one man wants to work while another wants to play, one wants to cut wood while another insists the forest be preserved, one nation contends for an area of land that another insists is its own, one group is designated by society to protect the community from invaders while another group undertakes to fish and hunt, and so forth. It is our diversity that gives rise to contrasts, variety, conflicts, and complementary functions. We seek to prevent unwanted consequences of this diversity by creating controls of one form or another. Thus, the concept of control has meant a process whereby the wishes of one person or group are carried into effect by the actions of another person or group. For our present purposes, we want to go beyond this perspective to view control in a wider context. For example, the sculptor wields his tools with exquisite control to produce a statue, the jazz musician demonstrates great control as he improvises a chorus during a late night session, and the tennis player has control when he hits the ball exactly where he chooses. All of these are instances of control in which there is discipline in the service off reeing potential. Too often we think of control as limitation or even prevention ; too seldom do we think of it as modulation, facilitation, and opportunity providing. A frequently overlooked point is that freedom and limits have a complementary relationship and that control is a term we use in describing that relationship. Where there are no limits, there is no freedom. Discipline is not a bad word when properly understood ; discipline is an aspect of control. Conflict, confusion, frustration, and disappointment have come about because the necessary relationship between freedom and limits is little recognized. Illustrations of "limiting" (or "boundary condition") cases are: When limits are so tight that they permit nothing this is the sense of control as in the elimination of forest fires there would be no permitted freedom, but there would be complete freedom in the sense that anything the controlled person did was a statement of his freedom. Thus, the prisoner in solitary confinement exercises his freedom by shouting, fantasy, or suicide. The other extreme is the hypothetical circumstance in which nothing limits action. This is illustrated in "free fall" or weightlessness such as the astronauts experience. It is evident that a man outside a spacecraft and unable to reach it would be completely helpless. Page-265
THE MECHANOMORPHIC IMAGE
The underlying meaning of the objectification of man (Matson, 1964) has been that we have come to conceive of our essential nature as being machine-like. R. H. Waters (1949) suggested the term "mechanomorphic" to characterize this view. The mechanomorphic view of man holds that the human being is essentially a device for processing inputs (stimuli) and reissuing them as outputs (responses), and that what occurs within the person is determined solely by mechanistic processes derived from instincts, physiological drives, and patterns of habits. In a meaningful way the world macroproblems are rooted in among other sources this mechanomorphic view of man.This view has functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and nowhere is this more evident than in the sense of futility and impotence with which we are confronted almost daily. We can bring no true hope and dedication to understand and solve world problems as long as we continue to view ourselves as rather feeble machines caught in the interplay of powerful world influences. In brief, a fundamental contribution to the explosion of industrial and technological change is made by human attitudes and values that foster, tolerate, or inadequately resist a view of man and his world in which this runaway macroproblem can exist. It is this view of man and his world that constitutes the world psychopathology, a symptom of which is the world macroproblem. Such a mechanomorphic view of man and his world is sick or pathological as long as it is allowed to dominate men's perspectives in their relations with themselves, each other, and the environment. When the mechanomorphic is recognized as but one of a variety of ways by which man and his world may be described, we will have begun a corrective course. From the foregoing it will be evident how central both to our diagnosis of the problems we confront, and to any prescriptions for their alleviation, is an understanding of this pervasive and destructive mechanomorphic image of man. This mechanomorphic view is characterized by premises explicit or implicit such as the following:
Page-266
THE HUMANISTIC IMAGE
The humanistic image of man is as ancient as man himself, although it has been eclipsed frequently for periods by other conceptions Hellenistic rational man, medieval spiritual man, Marxian-capitalistic economic man, and in recent American academic history the behaviourist's mechanomorphic man. It is characterized by such attributes as the following :
Page-267 Human beings intend something always; they are not inert, empty, or passive instruments of external forces. Feelings and emotions, as part of the total experience spectrum, are particularly important in the meanings the person attaches to his life's events. Men are pro-active and not just reactive. They move out and toward, not simply avoidantly or in search of a homeostatic state. Men may act for immediate and selfish gratifications at times, but they also act in terms of long range and synergic values at other times. Man's ability to dream, to imagine what might be, and thus to transcend the immediate is an inherent and too little appreciated part of his nature. There is much more that is potential to the world of human experience than we know. We must keep open to the possible and the latent. The subjective is as important as the objective or more so. Both are necessary to a rounded view of human behavior and experience and to efforts to improve the human condition. Such uniquely human processes as the use of experience and judgement, aesthetic valuing, imagination, personal sensitivity, and interpersonal empathy are important to preserve and to be given their proper places in the human scene. Human beings are always, when given the opportunity, creating fresh responses to familiar situations and exploring new potentialities that have not been opened previously. Any society and social structure that is to last must make provision for constant evolution and innovation. The differences among human beings provide rich possibilities for opening awareness and understanding of ourselves and our world. We must resist the attempt to force a right/wrong choice on such diversity and must instead seek its (sometimes hidden) potentialities. Conflict is a normal product of human diversity and is not intrinsically undesirable. We need to learn better ways of accommodating to it and using it to advantage. The human being is essentially a creature in-process rather than a fixed entity. Growth, change, evolution, are of its nature. The subjective experience of being is usually more important than the product of that being. Page-268
SUMMARY We have postulated that the world macroproblems threaten man's continued development and/or his continued existence. If man is to survive and continue to evolve, he must solve the problem of his diversity. All conceivable solutions seem to require greater control over what men experience and what they do. Throughout man's history, he has exercised control by imposing the will of a few on the lives of the many. There is the possibility of re-conceiving man's nature in such a way that there may be hope for developing a society based on self-directed control. As a preliminary contribution toward such a reconception, this paper has argued for broadening our conception of the nature of control, for recognizing the Page-269 diverse bases from which action may issue, and for rehumanizing our scholarly and scientific perspective upon human beings. These are meager beginnings indeed for a truly immense task. It is so important a task, however, that we must bring to bear whatever we can. It is certainly consonant with the teachings of Sri Aurobindo to argue that ultimately man's diversity is integral with his unity, that man's continual evolution as a person and in his cultures is toward that same paradoxical unity in diversity and diversity resolved in unity, and that ultimately the spiritual levels of man's being give us fresh and meaningful perspectives to contemplate his present situation. Page-270 V. Madhusudan Reddy
'T'HE solution of the problem of human unity lies in the soul of man. It is the realisation of the inner or spiritual freedom and oneness that can create a perfect human order. It is only upon a deeper brotherhood, a spiritual comradeship, that human unity can be founded. Our civilisation is on the decline. All around there is misery, helplessness, frustration and disintegration. Perhaps it is time when another consciousness should intervene, when a new dimension of Reality should reveal itself to set things right. The goal of evolutionary Nature is the manifestation of the highest spiritual consciousness on the earth. The present civilisation has no doubt built up a terrestrial temple for the Supreme but it is the excessive preoccupation with the material, physical and the vital that has been responsible for the growing aberration and psychological suffering. The time, occasion and choice are now, There is but little doubt that mankind has now entered upon the most critical phase of international living. It is necesssry for the leaders of the political destiny of the world to realise*where exactly they stand on the path of human unity. We have passed the stage of righteous wars and of waging wars to end wars. Events seem to work for the realisation of two different possibilities, the distribution of the earth into two or three great empires, power blocs or political and economic hegemonies, or a confederation or union of free nations. The latter, however, depends upon the extent to which the major powers are prepred to recognise the right of small nations to work out this destiny in accordance with their innate genius and aspiration. Today mankind faces a dim and ambiguous future; it is facing a great moral and intellectual crisis. All such crises, as Sri Aurobindo points out, are a prelude to a greater reconciliation, and mark the advent of a better world-order. In Nature's evolutionary march there are no sudden miracles;
Page-271 it is a slow but sure working out of a glorious destiny. The French Revolution brought about an end to the rule of the privileged church, the absolute monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. It put into power the bourgeoisie class which easily got converted into the new aristocracy of the intellectuals, and aligning themselves with the former leaders of society gradually came to control the commercial life of the society. By the end of the century this was followed by the rise of the labour class. The two great wars proved beyond doubt that the labour movement was not for a better economic and social status for labour, but 'the substitution of labour for wealth as the social basis and the governing power'. Mankind has to go a long way for human unity, which presupposes a radical change of human psychology. Leader-nations of humanity must take a bold leap into the future, abolish the past foundations of exploitation, inequality and strife, and using the energies of free life and unity initiate an entirely new social and political order. It is such acts of faith and courage that will build the edifice of human unity. Only a change in the spirit a radical change of consciousness can carry humanity to the fulfilment of its destiny, that of unity and progress. The unification of the race is a thing decreed; it is the goal of evolutionary Nature. Man, by nature, is a gregarious animal. Man's life crystallises and develops around different groupings. The earliest and the most persistent unit of his social life has been the family. The other groups the clan, the tribe, etc., regional and territorial bodies, etc., are the extensions of this original unit. All these and other social entities are eventually absorbed in the nation unit which has proved as stable a unit as that of the family. It is the fully organised, selfish and aggressive nation-unit that' has today become a barrier to a larger unification of the race. But, according to Sri Aurobindo, "the conversion of an original animal association into a community of gods" is man's destiny; the progress itself "may be a devious round leading from the easy and spontaneous uniformity and harmony which reflects Nature to the self-possessed unity which reflects the Divine".1 For the fulfilment of this destiny the larger unification of mankind Nature proceeded in the past on three main lines. The first was the political that led to the formation of Empires. Although it obliterates parochial differences and local narrownesses, it overgrows into a monster-metropolis making the constituent subject races, dependencies and colonies weak, sterile and helpless, and eventually brings about its own collapse. The Roman Empire is a typical example of this line of experiment. The second was the racial; and Pan-Slavism, Pan-Arabism and Pan-Jewry are some of the more important attempts of Nature in this
Page-272 line. The basis of this movement being uncertain, these expressions have been inadequate and infructuous, for a pure race is a myth. The third was that of religion. Here too the basis has failed in unifying humanity, as amply demonstrated by the Roman Catholic Church. Even a federation of religions cannot succeed, for at best it can only create a moral atmosphere and not be compelling or absorbing. In our own times a new attempt to unify the race seems to gain currency, that of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It attempts to cut across all barriers of race, religion, nationality and even family, and to unify and consolidate mankind in a single, stream-lined, and fully organised and centralised system. Here, too, there is a movement towards decentralisation. Yet another wider grouping is also being attempted, that of a free union of free nations based on identity of interests. Nature has yet to evolve an ideal relation between the individual, the family, the nation and humanity at large resulting in an ideal grouping of them all with a pre-established harmony among all. The malady of our age lies in its over-emphasis on politics. Unfortunately all our historians try to reconstruct our past in terms of politics wars, conquests, etc., rather than in terms of social, cultural and spiritual achievements. The world has a deeper meaning than what is seen on the surface, a secret and sacred purpose, and it is in the discovery and fulfilment of this that the human spirit finds its ultimate harmony and peace. It is "in this spiritual wealth and welfare" that civilization attains its end, "and not in a prolific production of materials, not in the competition of intemperate power with power".1 The Upanishads declare that Matter is Brahman, Annam brahma, the Supreme manifested in the material world. The Infinite therefore will have to be sought not only in the intense depths of spiritual consciousness but also in the world of extension. It is this faith in the infinitude of human spirit, in the omnipresence of Brahman in the terrestrial world, that is the hallmark of integral Vedic culture. In fact, the whole world is one and indivisible ekam sat, neha nanasti kinkana "They who seek to drive in a wedge anywhere, who are busy laying some kind of cordon sanitaire across countries and nations or cultures and civilisations, in the holy name of a bigoted ideology, are, to say the least, doing a disservice to humanity; indeed, they are inviting a disaster and catastrophe to the world and equally to themselves."2 The distinctions and differences of yesterday have no place in the world of today and much less in the world of tomorrow. Race, religion, nationality or ideology can no longer divide mankind. Evolutionary Nature seems to point
Page-273 in this direction and rapidly obliterate all frontiers of division and separation. The spirit of the age seems to insist upon human unity and harmony among the nations of the world. Modern man is once again in search of his soul. The history of this secret search is indeed man's true history as it is also the secret burden of human existence. The lives of saints and seers as well as the high and luminous epochs in the life of nations and peoples are a testimony to this endless adventure of the human spirit. It is in the light of the inner ethos that a people must solve their problems of life and existence. It is time that considerations of economics, politics and science take the back seat where they really belong and allow the enlightened and the spiritual to bring about the desired difficult alchemy, the transformation of society. Driven by inconscient mechanical forces, the modern man seems to be fully preoccupied with his external life. As a result of this, in spite of his immense increase in his material and mental capacities, his inner growth seems to be arrested. This imbalance between his physical life and his inner life is reflected in the deep crisis, in the psychological anarchy which mankind is facing today. A corresponding inner development alone can help humanity out of the impasse. The cause of the malady being psychological, the cure too must be found in the inner life of man. It is only when the outer life of man is welded with his total inner being that sanity can be restored. It is only by entering into the inner spiritual nature and bringing forth the luminous force and light of the Truth-consciousness, and transforming by its power his lower vital nature, that man can save himself and the world. All around there is a great intellectual and moral bankruptcy, an atmosphere of disappointment and disillusionment, and the failure of great ideologies as well as of science. The U.N.O. exists more as a mockery of human unity than as an effective forum for promoting a new world order. In a way it seems to be faithful on paper to its sterile charter of human rights offering a transparent cover and passive support for the political domination of the earth by the Big Five. The expectation of even an economically transformed society and its complete regeneration through its agencies is still a distant and vain hope. The political neo-imperialist powers are unwilling to abdicate their authority to any genuine international organisation. Only the rebirth of man into a higher nature and a complete rejuvenation of the life and mind of humanity can bring about human unity. It is a change of spirit alone, a total spiritual transformation of the race that can be the foundation of a higher and better human existence. The old world structure is inwardly weakened and sick and is devoid of any sustaining self-confidence. Page-274 It augurs well at least for some more time to come "that a great nation marked out as one of the coming leaders of humanity has taken a bold leap into the hidden gulfs of the future, abolished the past foundations, made and persisted in a radical experiment of communism, replaced middle class parliamentarism by a new form of government and used its first energy of free life to initiate an entirely novel social order. It is acts of faith and audacities of this scale that change or hasten the course of human progress. It does not follow necessarily that what is being attempted now is the desirable or the definite form of the future society, but it is a certain sign that a phase of civilisation is beginning to pass and the Time Spirit preparing a new phase and a new order".1 The communist idea may take some more time to make inroads into the psychology of the race, but there is already a remarkable acceptance of the socialist principle. The two great forces of the future that hold the promise of a new world order are the intellectual idealism of Europe as embodied in socialism and the spiritual resurgence of Asia. The evolution of a socialist order and the simultaneous realisation of the spiritual oneness of the race will surely build up the base for human unity. No doubt the mind of Europe has laboured through the ages to arrive at an idea of human perfectibility or progress expressed "in the terms of an intellectual, material and vital freedom, equality and unity of close association, an active fraternity or comradeship in thought and feeling and labour", but no social machinery, howsoever perfect it may have been, has yet been able to combine all the component parts of this progress into a real reality in practice. Democracy, "a system of political liberty and equality before the law, has helped only to a levelling as between the higher orders, the competitive liberty of the strongest and most skilful to arrive, an inhuman social inequality and economic exploitation, an incessant class war and a monstrous and opulently sordid reign of wealth and productive machinery".2 And socialism too which claims an equality as absolute as can be fabricated by reason, social science and technology does not succeed very much better than democracy, for whatever equality it achieves is only at the expense of liberty. The truth is that nothing can be realised in life that is not sought to be realised in the spirit. As Sri Aurobindo observes, "It is only if men can be made free, equal and united in spirit that there can be a secure freedom, equality and brotherhood in their life. The idea and sentiment are not enough, for they are incomplete and combated by deep-seated nature and instinct and they are besides inconstant and fluctuate. There must be an immense advance that will make freedom, equality
Page-275 and unity our necessary internal and external atmosphere. This can come only by a spiritual change and the intellect of Europe is beginning to see that the spiritual change is at least a necessity; but it is still too intent on rational formula and on mechanical effort to spare much time for discovery and realisation of the things of the spirit."1 Asia has not made any such endeavour to emancipate her peoples, has not tried to perfect any such social machinery for economic progress; her effort was to discover a spiritual and inner freedom that carried with it the realisation of equality and spiritual oneness. This endeavour was limited to the life of the individual and by no means universalised. The result, as Sri Aurobindo says, "was a disparateness between the highest inner individual and the outward social life, in India the increasing ascetic exodus of the best who lived in the spirit out of the secure but too narrow walls of the ordinary existence and the sterilising idea that the greatest universal truth of spirit discovered by life could yet not be the spirit of that life and is only realisable outside it. But now Asia enduring the powerful pressure of Europe is being forced to face the life problem again under the necessity of another and a more active solution. Assimilative, she may reproduce or imitate the accidental experiment of industrialism, its first phase of capitalism, its second phase of socialism; but then resurgence will bring no new meaning or possibility into the human endeavour. Or the closer meeting of these two halves of the mind of humanity may set up a more powerful connection between the two poles of our being and realise some sufficient equation of the highest ideals of each, the inner and the outer freedom, the inner and the outer equality, the inner and the outer unity. That is the largest hope that can be formed on present data and circumstance for the human future. But also, as from the mixing of various elements an unforeseen form emerges, so there may be a greater unknown something concealed and in preparation, not yet formulated in the experimental laboratory of Time, not yet disclosed in the design of Nature. And that then, some greater unexpected birth from the stress of the evolution may be the justifying result of which this unquiet age of gigantic ferment, chaos of ideas and inventions, clash of enormous forces, creation and catastrophe and dissolution is actually amid the formidable agony and tension of this great imperfect body and soul of mankind in creative labour".2 Today more than ever before, mankind seems to be in a position to make a conscious effort to fulfil Nature's secret urge for human unity. The ideal unification of the race would perhaps first allow the human peoples to form their own groupings according to their natural divisions of locality, race, culture and economic convenience. But this easy, rational and natural
Page-276 solution does not seem to find its way. The antipathy, mistrust and hostility of nations, races, cultures and religions towards each other threatens to take mankind away from its cherished goal. Yet out of this very chaos and frustration will emerge a new light, and a new law of life which would be the true basis for the higher progress of the race. In this great adventure, India with her spiritual culture must turn towards this supreme objective and lead humanity towards unification through the spiritualisation of life. Page-277 |