Showing posts with label Hegel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hegel. Show all posts
Saturday, June 30, 2012
(Where) Meeting is Parting must be
While watching TV on a Saturday morning, a sudden idea crept into my mind. It is (Where) Meeting is Parting Must Be. This is how human life is. Where there is meeting, there must be parting. Meeting point in human life has its parting point as well. In Hegelian language if Meeting is thesis, then Parting is the inevitable anti-thesis. And the process goes on.
Simple examples. Sometimes, while watching a favourite TV programme, we long this programme to continue further so that we can enjoy it but that does not happen. The programme ends in its stipulated time. Another example. When we go to meet somebody, a time comes when we have to say bye. These are some of the simplest examples; I will now proceed to complex examples.
Human life is in continuous movement. It cannot remain static. Human being is born, grows up, and dies, whether naturally or unnaturally. It cannot stop this process of nature. Hence, whatever one does in life, I am talking from the point of view of action, it must pass away. Action, the term itself denotes movement. We must do something ‘to do action,’ whether physical, vital or mental. When I am thinking about somebody or something, or when I am writing this column, or when I am tilling the field – all these are actions. And all these actions cannot be permanent. Perhaps here, my argument is similar to that of Buddhist argument of momentariness (Kshanavada). Life is in flux, in continuous flux, and there is nothing permanent, nothing eternal, nothing enduring.
If the whole life is in flux, if the life mechanism is in movement, then naturally all things in life, all activities, all meetings, are part of this process of momentariness. They cannot be permanent or eternal. Hence, when I meet a friend on the way to university, I must leave him after moments howsoever engrossing the interaction might be as he must have something to do, as I have to. And the process continues. Usually when a government is formed in a state by a political party, it must be in office for some years, then some other dispensation takes its place. Even in traditional kingdoms ruled by monarchs, the rulers had to cease from the thrones after their death, or old age, or by overthrow.
In fact I wanted here to emphasize some aspects of life linked to this central argument of momentariness. My point here is that howsoever precious a thing, a possession, a friendship, or a relationship we value, it must pass away, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then day after, if not this year, then after few years. This is the eternal law and no other law can change it, even the supreme science or technology cannot change it. Once we agree or rather once we appreciate this dictum, then there often appears (or will appear) a sense of urgency in our life. We will no longer take a view as the herd takes, rather our approach to life will be that of a spiritual scientist, as that of a Mahatma Gandhi or a Buddha.
Gautama realized this at the age of 20, and left his beautiful wife Yshodhara and son Rahul, the position of prince and all wealth a kingdom endowed on him. Later he became Buddha (enlightened). How many of us can really do this? A person who loves his family- wife, children, parents and other relatives- thinks as if things will endure eternally. But that does not really happen. Man behaves as if everything is permanent, but that is not the case. Even so called ‘permanent job’ is not permanent job actually, as one has to retire at the age of superannuation. My point is: Is it possible to take a broader approach to life, an approach by positioning ourselves on the sky, or on a mountain top, and see below towards the life? Is it possible to rise above narrow thinking, and think about the universal, the real, which is really mind boggling as mind often fails to grasp its breadth, than being lost in simple equation of mine and thine, I and you; the life we live is more stuffed with self-attachment, than with real love and sacrifice.
Adi Shankara calls this world Maya or illusion and he is right from one point of view. So far we do not comprehend this complex nature of working of things in our life and in the world, we will be submerged in a narrow pond, than in the all flowing, crystal clear river of life. It is like the heaven-sage Narad, who once being curious and fascinated to find and know the human life, turned to an actual man, but later found himself so much submerged in the narrow pond of life that he forgot his sainthood and had to be killed by Vishnu from this bondage. Life is bondage in that sense. It can also be a source of liberation. Once we understand it, it will be easier to free from this bondage. Till we do not understand, we will be in illusion as Shankara says.
I did not mean we should denunciate life, and turn into a corner of a cave and lose ourselves in blank meditation. It rather means a life full of activity, full of meaning and responsibility, free from bondage, free from narrowness, and free from submergence in this ‘narrow Naradic pond.’
Once we understand every meeting, means every meeting, howsoever short or long, must end in parting, our look will be changed towards life. A new realization will dawn as we will see everything, our daily activity, daily life, our relations within family and without family, internal as well as external, in a new sense. It will also bring to us that eternal understanding and flow of energy that instead of losing ourselves in trivialities of life, we will find ourselves myriad noble things to do in our life.
And in a close analysis we will find that meeting and parting are in fact two faces of the same coin that is life.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Some Reflections on Perfection
What is perfection, what are its elements, is there something called perfection, which are perfect, and can the transient things and beings be perfect? And lastly, can human being be perfect? If we analyze Plato’s Idea then we come to know that the idea is perfect, which lives in idea, which is not visible to us, but which exists, and all other things and beings are imperfect imitation of idea. There are many examples to illustrate this theory. One famous is, not this horse or that horse is the ideal horse, not perfect horse, but the idea of horse is the perfect, which must be the subject of equine science. The same argument goes further. It is an abstract thought, perhaps not amenable to empirical analysis. Then the argument goes, not everything is subject to empirical analysis, even the idea of perfection as well. The idea lives in the sphere of ideas, but It is, and It exists. Then comes the idea of agnosticism, which says that we cannot say whether there is something called perfect or something called God or not, we do not know is the answer.
Veda’s theory, or also in a different way propounded by Spinoza and Hegel is that every determination is a negation, and the Vedic equivalent is ‘Neti Neti,’ not this, not this. When we talk about something, or when we elaborate something, then we leave so many other things as well. As the Jainas say in their theory of Anekantavada, that the Truth, the Perfect is many sided reality, and we human beings with our limited knowledge and perception see only one aspect, and take it as the whole. But that is not the truth. It is like in Shankara’s language to perceive in rope the snake in dark, but that is not the reality. But, then can we see something perfect, something called perfection? But, then, perhaps we will need not limited knowledge, but a knowledge, a perception which has 360 degree vision of the things and beings, or the kind of humility what Socrates says, ‘I know that I do not know.’
The ontological proof of God says that God is perfect, and it is self-evident, a priori like three angles of a triangle equals to 180 degree, and for which we do not need proof. The existence of God is a self-evident axiom, which does not need any proof. The idea of God emanates in our mind shows itself there must be something or somebody, which is called God, which is perfect, the best, the beautiful, the knowledgeable, the wise, and so on.
Coming back to this idea of perfection, which various theories about God attempt to prove that God is perfect, the question emerges can human beings attain perfection? We have seen spurt of genius around us and in history, that there are great scientists, philosophers, who have unraveled many mysteries of the universe. But how far they have attained perfection? Is it possible for human beings to attain perfection, or is it something called chimera, or something too idealistic and abstract, which is an impossible chase for the ordinary, brittle human beings, who take birth, grow old and then die, like any other animal?
I read somewhere the famous philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote that mediation is where there is no meditator, implying that meditation is something so deep, and so immense and enthralling, that individual doing meditation loses the sense of self-identity or loses himself in universal identity. A person having this realization can vouch it, otherwise like A. J. Ayer call it non-sense, as it is not verifiable to logical analysis and empirical observation. But, when we study the lives of great people, we come to know that there are many things which are beyond empirical, or what Kant says transcendental, which are beyond the reach of both realist and empiricist paradigms.
I believe in the saying that all life is a movement towards higher goal. I read, ‘no human will can conquer against Divine’s will, let us put ourselves exclusively on the side of the Divine and the victory is ultimately certain.’ If we study it from its face value, it may appear as a call to sheer dogmatism and orthodoxy. But a deeper analysis completely changes its meaning. When it says Divine will, it is not the will of the narrow thinking of an individual, but an elevated thinking of an individual who identifies his will with the universal will. It moves the human animal to rise towards perfection, for that one needs a constant aspiration. This is not pure mysticism, or something pure tantric, or something old and outdated. This is amenable to practice. A person who has done meditation for 10 or 15 minutes with a composed mind and realized its power can obviously find the real sense of this argument and its kernel.
Veda’s theory, or also in a different way propounded by Spinoza and Hegel is that every determination is a negation, and the Vedic equivalent is ‘Neti Neti,’ not this, not this. When we talk about something, or when we elaborate something, then we leave so many other things as well. As the Jainas say in their theory of Anekantavada, that the Truth, the Perfect is many sided reality, and we human beings with our limited knowledge and perception see only one aspect, and take it as the whole. But that is not the truth. It is like in Shankara’s language to perceive in rope the snake in dark, but that is not the reality. But, then can we see something perfect, something called perfection? But, then, perhaps we will need not limited knowledge, but a knowledge, a perception which has 360 degree vision of the things and beings, or the kind of humility what Socrates says, ‘I know that I do not know.’
The ontological proof of God says that God is perfect, and it is self-evident, a priori like three angles of a triangle equals to 180 degree, and for which we do not need proof. The existence of God is a self-evident axiom, which does not need any proof. The idea of God emanates in our mind shows itself there must be something or somebody, which is called God, which is perfect, the best, the beautiful, the knowledgeable, the wise, and so on.
Coming back to this idea of perfection, which various theories about God attempt to prove that God is perfect, the question emerges can human beings attain perfection? We have seen spurt of genius around us and in history, that there are great scientists, philosophers, who have unraveled many mysteries of the universe. But how far they have attained perfection? Is it possible for human beings to attain perfection, or is it something called chimera, or something too idealistic and abstract, which is an impossible chase for the ordinary, brittle human beings, who take birth, grow old and then die, like any other animal?
I read somewhere the famous philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote that mediation is where there is no meditator, implying that meditation is something so deep, and so immense and enthralling, that individual doing meditation loses the sense of self-identity or loses himself in universal identity. A person having this realization can vouch it, otherwise like A. J. Ayer call it non-sense, as it is not verifiable to logical analysis and empirical observation. But, when we study the lives of great people, we come to know that there are many things which are beyond empirical, or what Kant says transcendental, which are beyond the reach of both realist and empiricist paradigms.
I believe in the saying that all life is a movement towards higher goal. I read, ‘no human will can conquer against Divine’s will, let us put ourselves exclusively on the side of the Divine and the victory is ultimately certain.’ If we study it from its face value, it may appear as a call to sheer dogmatism and orthodoxy. But a deeper analysis completely changes its meaning. When it says Divine will, it is not the will of the narrow thinking of an individual, but an elevated thinking of an individual who identifies his will with the universal will. It moves the human animal to rise towards perfection, for that one needs a constant aspiration. This is not pure mysticism, or something pure tantric, or something old and outdated. This is amenable to practice. A person who has done meditation for 10 or 15 minutes with a composed mind and realized its power can obviously find the real sense of this argument and its kernel.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Year Anew 2011
We welcome a new year. The year 2011, like the year 2010, will come to us, and will have 12 months with same names. It is true that the events will not be same as in the year 2010, but it is true that the events in 2011 will have their links, antecedents or causes or something there will be with the events in 2010. I do not say that the events in 2011 will be all related to the events of 2010, and there will not be new developments or ‘virgin’ moments, but there will also be developments which will be linked to the year 2011, then to 2012, and so on.
In fact the developments in their multiple dimensions take place in every plane of human life both collective and individual. In collective human lives – in the form of family, or villages, or clans, or nations or such larger agglomerations the developments will take place. And these developments as the developments in the relations among the common human entities will be either for good or for bad. It is certain that relations will not be static. In fact the relations, and particularly the human relations abhor any kind of statist tendencies, and so also among the relations between the nation states, or intra-state, or among regional organisations.
On a different scale the Idea will move further towards East, or as in the Hegelian dictum, the march of God on earth will move from west to east. But this movement is so perplexing, it is very difficult to confront it in very physical shape, and it will take many more years – that the West and East will be equals in all senses. When I say equals, I do not mean physical or quantitative equality, the nations are different, the cultures are different, and they will remain different. But it should be, rather it must be a relation in harmony, relation of harmony, not a relation of subordination and superimposition or subservience, or something like that.
Something similar will be happening or is rather happening in the individual plane. In this age of technology, when everybody can claim to the domain of knowledge and known, and in this era of connectivity and globalisation, the individual is at once a decider of destiny and a slave of his fate. The individual with superior knowledge and idea can also be a master of his fate. It all depends, or will depend, the kind of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom he or she has. Every individual obviously will react differently to different situations. Similarly the consciousness of the individual will determine his or her actions. A fundamentalist terrorist brainwashed by dogmas of a religion cares for nothing because he or she has no consciousness or has imposed consciousness which guides him or her for devious goals. Obviously it is a complicated question that why a terrorist becomes a terrorist? Or rather who is a terrorist – individual or any group who kills the innocent by means of gun or who swindles billions and makes millions deprived and dead?
The victims suffer many ways. They suffer everywhere, at every turn, without any recourse. Putting in a different way, the Kautilyan saying ‘big fish eats small fish,’ or might is right is the principle that guides most of the actions of the most of the people and most of the actions of national as well as international entities. But the common concern is that – when an individual in isolation is motivated to harm, it can be controlled, but when a man is motivated by opium of religion, or culture, or whatever having direct bearing with mass human life – that becomes dangerous.
Turning to a different principle, I remember what Sri Aurobindo says, that human life is bound to evolve towards better, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then day after. The descent of superconscious and ascent of human being to higher conscious are inevitable, as the evolution of man from primate was inevitable. But one may ask, whether this is pure mysticism, or is there any truth? It is a matter not to be argued, not to be seen from a rational angle, because it is something what Kant says beyond the rational. It is not irrational, but suprarational. It does not negate rationality, but transcends it while according it its due place. It is something to be realised not rationalised. If it is so, then it is possible that human beings can aspire to have a higher consciousness, which can provide strength and wisdom to work harder and wiser so that the killing of the innocent and maiming of the humanity by unnecessary wastage of resources in arms, nuclear weapons, and devious agendas. This is an important and interesting question, which needs to be pondered in the eve of the New Year.
Simply put, can we be good human beings by moderating our lower passions and related actions motivated by greed, anger, hatred, lust, craving for power and many such, and think of the other in a wider framework what in Sanskrit called ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,’ the whole world is one family. If we can think and act that way as individuals and impact our families and neighbours, and the larger communities that will indeed be a great step towards a better society undoubtedly. Or can we pledge – we will not harm others in thought or deed. If controlling thought process is difficult, then at least in deed. By doing so, we can contribute positively towards a better society in 2011.
In fact the developments in their multiple dimensions take place in every plane of human life both collective and individual. In collective human lives – in the form of family, or villages, or clans, or nations or such larger agglomerations the developments will take place. And these developments as the developments in the relations among the common human entities will be either for good or for bad. It is certain that relations will not be static. In fact the relations, and particularly the human relations abhor any kind of statist tendencies, and so also among the relations between the nation states, or intra-state, or among regional organisations.
On a different scale the Idea will move further towards East, or as in the Hegelian dictum, the march of God on earth will move from west to east. But this movement is so perplexing, it is very difficult to confront it in very physical shape, and it will take many more years – that the West and East will be equals in all senses. When I say equals, I do not mean physical or quantitative equality, the nations are different, the cultures are different, and they will remain different. But it should be, rather it must be a relation in harmony, relation of harmony, not a relation of subordination and superimposition or subservience, or something like that.
Something similar will be happening or is rather happening in the individual plane. In this age of technology, when everybody can claim to the domain of knowledge and known, and in this era of connectivity and globalisation, the individual is at once a decider of destiny and a slave of his fate. The individual with superior knowledge and idea can also be a master of his fate. It all depends, or will depend, the kind of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom he or she has. Every individual obviously will react differently to different situations. Similarly the consciousness of the individual will determine his or her actions. A fundamentalist terrorist brainwashed by dogmas of a religion cares for nothing because he or she has no consciousness or has imposed consciousness which guides him or her for devious goals. Obviously it is a complicated question that why a terrorist becomes a terrorist? Or rather who is a terrorist – individual or any group who kills the innocent by means of gun or who swindles billions and makes millions deprived and dead?
The victims suffer many ways. They suffer everywhere, at every turn, without any recourse. Putting in a different way, the Kautilyan saying ‘big fish eats small fish,’ or might is right is the principle that guides most of the actions of the most of the people and most of the actions of national as well as international entities. But the common concern is that – when an individual in isolation is motivated to harm, it can be controlled, but when a man is motivated by opium of religion, or culture, or whatever having direct bearing with mass human life – that becomes dangerous.
Turning to a different principle, I remember what Sri Aurobindo says, that human life is bound to evolve towards better, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then day after. The descent of superconscious and ascent of human being to higher conscious are inevitable, as the evolution of man from primate was inevitable. But one may ask, whether this is pure mysticism, or is there any truth? It is a matter not to be argued, not to be seen from a rational angle, because it is something what Kant says beyond the rational. It is not irrational, but suprarational. It does not negate rationality, but transcends it while according it its due place. It is something to be realised not rationalised. If it is so, then it is possible that human beings can aspire to have a higher consciousness, which can provide strength and wisdom to work harder and wiser so that the killing of the innocent and maiming of the humanity by unnecessary wastage of resources in arms, nuclear weapons, and devious agendas. This is an important and interesting question, which needs to be pondered in the eve of the New Year.
Simply put, can we be good human beings by moderating our lower passions and related actions motivated by greed, anger, hatred, lust, craving for power and many such, and think of the other in a wider framework what in Sanskrit called ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,’ the whole world is one family. If we can think and act that way as individuals and impact our families and neighbours, and the larger communities that will indeed be a great step towards a better society undoubtedly. Or can we pledge – we will not harm others in thought or deed. If controlling thought process is difficult, then at least in deed. By doing so, we can contribute positively towards a better society in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)