If we take the world as it is, it is impossible to explain it in any way which will give meaning to the ends and aims of the activities of men and of humanity. We can discover no trace in the world of any purposive development which might lend significance to our actions.
~ Albert Schweitzer, Civilisation and Ethics
We could take the world as it is but that would condemn us, as Dr. Schweitzer points out, to a life of insignificant actions. With no support for our opinions other than the individual will, discourse becomes futile and arguments are nothing but the disguised will to power. Most, recognizing this, will seek a transcendent explanation and settle for some form of belief. The few will be drawn to the transcendent by transcending the individual will and will then recognize a form of knowing superior to both critical thinking and sensory awareness.
To show the conformity of the Principle of Logos to the Primordial Tradition, I provide the following quotes—almost at random—from Indian Philosophy by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. There was a time, actually not so long ago, that every point mentioned below was accepted by every man of sound mind in the West.
- Man cannot live on doubt. Intellectual pugilism is not sufficient by itself. The zest of combat cannot feed the spirit of man.
- If the unassisted reason of man cannot attain any hold on reality by means of mere speculation, help may be sought from the great writings of the seers who claim to have attained spiritual certainty.
- The acceptance of the Veda [revealed scripture] is a practical admission that spiritual experience is a greater light in these matters than intellectual reason.
- Reason is subordinated to intuition. Life cannot be comprehended in its fullness by logical reason.
- As the difference between mere consciousness and self-consciousness constitutes the wide gulf separating the animal from man, so the difference between self-consciousness and super-consciousness constitutes all the difference between man as he is and man as he ought to be.
- The philosophy of India takes its stand on the spirit which is above mere logic, and holds that culture based on mere logic or science may be efficient, but cannot be inspiring.
- The real is not the universe extended in space and time; for its nature is becoming and not being.
- All the systems aim at the practical end of salvation. The systems mean by release (moksa) the recovery by the soul of its natural integrity, from which sin and error drive it.
- All the systems have for their ideal complete mental poise and freedom from the discords and uncertainties, sorrows and sufferings of life.
Finally:
It is a fundamental belief of the Hindus that the universe is law-abiding to the core, and yet that man is free to shape his own destiny in it.
“The real is not the universe extended in space and time; for its nature is becoming and not being.”
He ought to know the best, he became president.
kadambari:
“This is hard to explain, in classical Indian culture the erotic abounds and is given its due place, but it is always placed under higher ideals.”
Exactly D’s view. In “The Four Aims of Life in the Tradition of Ancient India” he emphasizes the need to harmonize the four [virtue, success, pleasure and liberation] both within the individual and in the structure of society.
@above in regard to Tagore
I meant to say even if he did not read enough of European literature not written in English
The Western understanding of the erotic in classical Indian literature is usually misguided. After the Islamic invasions, Indian society changed and many Muslim customs influenced India such as covering women and so on (it is warm in India and Hindus traditionally hardly wore clothes). My husband notes that in Kashmir it is Muslims who have the most restrictions but the highest divorce rates and other “phenomena” which is punishable by death in their culture. Hindus are quite reserved in this respect but they are not “repressed”, although Islamic influence has affected the culture in a negative way with respect to these things, especially the position of women.
I think it is for these reasons that we can never identify with Sufi poetry, the crying, the longning and all the tear dripping, which stems from a kind of repression…If you look at Indian texts such as the Kama Sutra, they are almost written with a kind of detachment as it were, the puropose of which is to help husband and wives have a happy marriage! So even at the most sensual, there is always a higher sense pervading the literature. This is lost to most Westerners…
@above
This is hard to explain, in classical Indian culture the erotic abounds and is given its due place, but it is always placed under higher ideals.
@James
“He mentions R. only once, just one name among Aurobindo, Tagore, and Vivekananda. Tagore, by contrast, he specifically singles out as knowing only English authors.”
Hindus just see the above for what they were and not all knowing. Vivekananda is important because he stressed the need for Hindus to be more aggressive when it came to their interests and stressed that passivity is not a strength.
Tagore wrote poetry of the kind that is possible only in India. Yeats acknowledged he never thought poetry could be written in this fashion. However, Tagore is almost entirely lost in translation.
But even if he did not read enough English literature as Danielou puts it, he understood India, and that is most important.
As for Tagore knowking only English authors, I suppose this is the Frenchman Danielou speaking. Yes it is unfortunate that our part of the world is restricted to English literature and philosophy owing to the language barrier. German philosophy and Russian literature is much more interesting to read for me.
I have not finished reading Danielou just a few pages, so it is stashed for when I can afford the time!
But from my study of the French language and literature, I am not that drawn to it. I have always felt there to be a material, sensual base to it. Interesting Evola thought the same when he quoted Tolstoy making the comment: “For the French a woman comes before everything else. They are a weak and degraded people. Doctors say all consumptives are sensual.” Muslim culture is also based on control of female sexuality and Hindus feel they are sensual in a way Hindus are not.
This is hard to explain, in classical Indian culture the erotic abounds and is given its due place, but it is always placed under something higher ideals…
avove: “we are present all shudras” (that is people who are not free)
Let us study history, political science, science, economy, live worthily in this world, fulfil the grihasthashram
– the householders’s duties – and then the vanaprasthashram and its philosophic dawn might come…
Sound reasoning which was never followed, but vague ideals were placed first with the rest to follow and one can see the results today…
Here is the full paragraph:
About the books on Vedant philosophy, well, I fear it is not opportune that such men should be busy with such things. The Americans need Vedant philosophy, and so does England; for they have developed their life to that fullness, richness and manliness- to Kshatriyahood and so stand on the threshold of that Brahminhood, wherein alone the capacity to read and realize such philosophy can co-exist. But India has not. We are at present all??
?? ? and cannot claim access to the Veda and Vedanta. That is the underlying idea why shudras were not allowed to Vedas; not certainly not, for cruelty, nor for narrow or vested interest- otherwise ?????? ? would not have been written by the very Brahmins expounding the same philosophy more lucidly. We, as a Nation, are unfit for these sublime thoughts, for it is well known that Bajirao I I was a great Vedantist and that is why, perhaps, he could not see the difference a kingdom and a pension. Let us study history, political science, science, economy, live worthily in this world, fulfil the??
?????? – the householders’s duties – and then the ????????? and its philosophic dawn might come.
@James
Here is an interesting thought of Savarkar I came upon while reading his letters from prison: He says India is not ready for the Vedanta (when he wrote!):
“The Americans need Vedant philosophy, and so does England; for they have developed their life to that fullness, richness and manliness- to Kshatriyahood and so stand on the threshold of that Brahminhood, wherein alone the capacity to read and realize such philosophy can co-exist. But India has not. We are at present all??
?? ( the script does not transliterate but the word is “we are all shudras”)? and cannot claim access to the Veda and Vedanta. That is the underlying idea why shudras were not allowed to Vedas; not certainly not, for cruelty, nor for narrow or vested interest- otherwise…”
Interesting thought! He was a very smart man, and handsome too when he was young, wish they had followed him as a leader, India might have become something…
“Alain Daniélou became a disciple of the renowned sannyasi Swami Karpatri. He studied traditional cosmology and metaphysics with Vijayanand Tripathi, and the vina with Pt. Sivendranath Basu for several years. On Swami Karpatri’s orders, he was initiated into Hinduism with the name Shiva Sharan. ”
His comments on R. et al. and his Hindu studies can be found online here:
http://tinyurl.com/255s4dm
@James
Here is Stein’s interactions with Pandits in Kashmir, I don’t see any contamination issues, he seems to have interacted fine with them and worked with them on manuscripts so he could translate the Rajtarangini…
Buhler the German Sanskritist was also in Kashmir and these people seem to have had different experiences…
The Kashmiri manuscripts have an interesting history….Many were taken to make a dam once by the Sultan and were spotted floating in the water (there are made of bamboo with ink not easily erased) by some foreign Indologists…
http://www.siraurelstein.org.uk/legend.html
R. was the President of India once, at least he was a man who commanded respect. Look at India’s leaders today, and look at India’s President hand picked by the chairman of the Congress party they say, who wants to hear her speak? I would take R anytime over the kinds that infest Indian politics today…
I am really curious who were these Pandits that Danielou met, where were they from? Kashmiris also had interactions with many foreigners such as Aurel Stein who seems to have gotten along fine with them and was popular amongst them, there are different regions in India, and even the Pandits from different regions vary…
According to D. such “anglicized Indians” were not just cut off from secondary matters, or rather that these were not merely ‘secondary.’ By their dress, food, etc. they would have been outcastes to traditional pandits, and so would not have been able to learn anything from such original, authoritative sources. Of course, in most cases they weren’t interested in such ‘primitive’ and ‘dogmatic’ sources, and sought learning through “up to date” English authors.
He mentions R. only once, just one name among Aurobindo, Tagore, and Vivekananda. Tagore, by contrast, he specifically singles out as knowing only English authors.
D. of course is contrasting this with his own ‘going native’ approach. Even so, he could only attend lectures by sitting in another room, so that his Brahmin wasn’t contaminated by this European. This made sitar lessons rather difficult!
He basically just says that he “had nothing to learn from them” which of course would be consistent with R. being, somehow, JUST as accurate as D.’s own teachers. His main criticism was of authors who thought India needed to “learn from the English” or modernize or “adapt evolutionary perspectives” etc., such as Aurobindo or Vivekananda.
And of course, my point remains that even if R was Anglicized the quotes show that the, say, pre-War Anglo was far more traditional than what we have on hand today.
Murti’s was one of my favorite books in grad school, when I was trying to get my Neo-Platonic and Hegelian teachers to take India seriously. I even spent a summer at Chogyam Trungpa’s Naropa Institute taking a course in Madhyamika Philosophy. I don’t recall any evidence of his being aware of Guenon, and the book seems to have disappeared in my travels. Makes sense conceptually, but how involved with G. was he?
The issue of bohemianism vs. traditional cultures is thorny, but as I’ve mentioned here before, D. says he found far more freedom to live his rather bohemian lifestyle [traveling through 30s India with his boyfriend in silver mobile home] in traditional India than in Europe, Britain, or Anglicized India. It was not “acceptance” so much as that being European, he was ineligible for marriage anyway, so his private life was of no interest. Don’t ask, don’t tell?
I’ve never gotten around to reading Danielou, so I don’t know in what sense he means that. If he means that R. did not know village culture, or manner of dress, or folk dances, etc., then that seems somewhat secondary. To be “Traditional” in a non-traditional world means to move forward, not backward; so what is critical is one’s “spirit”, or manner of thinking and seeing the world. Coomaraswamy was also western-educated, yet was a “traditionalist”. Paradoxically, he lamented the loss of folk arts and crafts in India, yet his own personal lifestyle was quite bohemian.
R.’s descriptions of the six Vedic schools matches up with Guenon’s; and they both differ from the wikipedia article. R. refused to include modern Indian philosophers on the grounds they were inadequate and brought nothing new to the game. I assume he had in mind the likes of a Vivekananda and so on.
Furthermore, R’s pupil Murti in his Central Philosophy of Buddhism was well aware of Guenon and his project.
James,
Radhakrishnan has written a book on Indian philosophy, which is much better than what comes out of India these days. It is interesting that a man like Savarkar is treated like a fanatic these days when that is hardly the case: Savarkar went out of his way to bring the Dalits into the fold, and he was the only leader that understood that a nation has to understand first what it stands for, has to understand its identity, before it can produce anything worthwhile or produce any greatness. The British understood that he was dangerous and capable of leading people in a direction that would prove dangerous for them which is why they placed him under strict scrutiny from the very start. Savarkar was courageous, he was the real patriot, along with people like Tilak, Bose and Patel. The British knew that people like Gandhi and Nehru were no real threat to them, and this is why they did not restrain them that much. The British were smart in this respect.
Savarkar is branded a fanatic, when that is hardly the case when you actually read what he wrote. It is unfortunate that Indians have followed the way of Gandhi and Nehru, Gandhi urged Hindus to read and learn the Koran, and for Muslims to read the Gita, he was totally out of touch with reality. He had never read much, and did not understand history and had a peculiar interpretation of Hinduism, it would have been much better if he died of natural causes before inflicting the damage he did, an idiot ended his life when he was about to die anyway. Gandhi’s death affected the reputation of Savarkar, even though he was acquitted of any involvement. He offered an alternative to what Gandhi and Nehru stood for. Now the Congress has branded this great man a fanatic. It is a shame, the French wanted to erect a statue for him because he had escaped from France when he was detained, but India’s own government has not given approval. This is how India treats its great men, and why it does not deserve people like Savarkar…
Danielou I think includes Sir R. among the out-caste Victorian educated “leaders” of Indian independence who knew nothing of Traditional India. All the more reason to be impressed by what the ordinary man of reason once thought without doubt or challenge.
Today, of course, articulating such sentiments would bring sneers of “I bet you love Sarah Palin and kill and dress your own food.” Eventually they will be illegal, since they indicate you are likely to shoot an abortionist.
“We could take the world as it is but that would condemn us, as Dr. Schweitzer points out, to a life of insignificant actions. With no support for our opinions other than the individual will, discourse becomes futile and arguments are nothing but the disguised will to power. Most, recognizing this, will seek a transcendent explanation and settle for some form of belief. The few will be drawn to the transcendent by transcending the individual will and will then recognize a form of knowing superior to both critical thinking and sensory awareness.”
EXCELLENT REMARKS!KUDOS!