{"id":9197,"date":"2017-08-08T23:17:44","date_gmt":"2017-08-09T03:17:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gornahoor.net\/?p=9197"},"modified":"2021-08-08T00:20:40","modified_gmt":"2021-08-08T04:20:40","slug":"heroes-and-vibhutis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/?p=9197","title":{"rendered":"Heroes and Vibhutis"},"content":{"rendered":"

A happy life is impossible; the highest to which man can attain is an heroic course of life. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Then said his Lordship, “Well. God mend all!”–“Nay, by God, Donald, we must help him to mend it!” said the other. ~ Epigraph to Latter-Day Pamphlets<\/em> by Thomas Carlyle<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Great Man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for him like fuel, and then they too would flame. ~ Thomas Carlyle<\/strong><\/p>\n

Suckers try to win arguments, nonsuckers try to win. ~ Fat Tony<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Avatars<\/h2>\n

In Letters on Yoga<\/em>, Sri Aurobindo<\/strong> describes the Avatar as the \u201cone who comes to open the Way for humanity to a higher consciousness.\u201d The primary exemplars he mentions are Krishna, Buddha, and Christ, a theme that Valentin Tomberg developed in his quest for the Bodhisattva. Although Avatars have \u201cthe knowledge necessary for their work, they need not have more.\u201d Specifically, they need not know facts or theories that have no bearing on their mission, and should not be judged by those extraneous standards.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it is not the outer events of their lives that matter most, but rather \u201cthe spiritual Reality, the Power, the Influence that came with him or that he brought down by his action and his existence.\u201d Hence, the outward events of Christ\u2019s life are not as important as the spiritual power that has manifested long after his time. The hylic man is only concerned with the historical and material.<\/p>\n

Vibhutis<\/h2>\n

The Vibhuti, on the other hand, needs not to be aware of being a power of the Divinity. Nevertheless, he does embody some aspect of the divine, and \u201cis enabled by it to act with great force in the world.\u201d When judged by human standards, the Vibhuti may not be recognized as such. Aurobindo explains that<\/p>\n

they are not concerned with morality or immorality, perfection or imperfection according to small human standards or setting an example to men or showing new moral attitudes or giving new spiritual teachings. These things may or may not be done, but they are not at all the essence of the matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Vibhutis may be saints and sage, but they may also be men of action like a Julius Caesar or a Napoleon. There should be no surprises here since Caesar is considered one of the Nine Worthies<\/a>. Aurobindo explains that their faults don\u2019t matter:<\/p>\n

But do you really believe that men like Napoleon, Caesar \u2026 were not great men and did nothing for the world or for the cosmic purpose? that God was deterred from using them for His purpose because they had defects of character and vices? What a singular idea!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Idea of the Hero<\/h2>\n

Thomas Carlyle<\/strong> has written about Vibhutis, at least of a certain type, in On Heroes, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History<\/em>. This study is of value, Carlyle says, because<\/p>\n

Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modelers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world\u2019s history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now some of Carlyle\u2019s heroes are not at all appealing to me, and perhaps not to others. For example, I would oppose Oliver Cromwell. Moreover, Cromwell excited a derangement syndrome in his era: his dead body was exhumed, \u201cexecuted\u201d, and decapitated, the head being publically displayed for years. But that is not the point. Rather, we should ask, \u201cdid he create history?\u201d or \u201cwhat do we learn about leadership from him?\u201d<\/p>\n

Carlyle chooses his heroes from their roles in the world. Oddly, the sequence of roles represents a sort of \u201cdegeneration\u201d of castes. For example, the first is the Hero as Divinity, exemplified by Odin<\/strong>, a man-god who articulated a spiritual vision of the world. Next is the Hero as Prophet, no longer a man-god, but rather a messenger of God. This is Mohammed<\/strong>, whom Carlyle regards on a par with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament. Dante<\/strong> and Shakespeare<\/strong> are heroes as the inspired Poet. Luther<\/strong> and Knox<\/strong> represent the Hero as Priest; Johnson<\/strong>, Rousseau<\/strong>, and Burns<\/strong>, the Hero as the Man of Letters; and finally, Cromwell<\/strong> and Napoleon<\/strong> as the Hero as King. The word King means the \u201cone who can\u201d. The Hero begins with a god who reveals the inner nature of the Universe to the Scandinavians, continues with those who are the Prophet, the Poet, the Priest of God, and concludes with those who are active in the world.<\/p>\n

Religion<\/h2>\n

a man\u2019s religion is the chief fact with regard to him. A man\u2019s, or a nation of men\u2019s.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carlyle does not mean by religion simply a man\u2019s nominal affiliation. Incessant debates over creeds do not penetrate deeper than a man\u2019s \u201cargumentative region\u201d. The religious impulse goes much deeper:<\/p>\n

The thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is because:<\/p>\n

The thoughts they had were the parents of the actions they did; their feelings were parents of their thoughts: it was the unseen and spiritual in them that determined the outward and actual<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So Carlyle tries to get to the soul feeling of a religion, not its professed creed. As examples, he points out the characteristic feelings of various religious impulses:<\/p>\n