Philosophy of Life: Some Propositions

What is philosophy of life? The answer is uncertain. There is no single answer. It is like entering an ocean of debates; the end result being the beginning of the ocean. My argument against this will be human life can not survive in a vacuum. There needs to be debate and discussion, this is what makes the human being rational. It will be safe to argue that every individual has his own philosophy of life. It may also be safe to argue that philosophy of life changes from place to place, from situation to situation and from time to time. In my philosophy of life, I have the following propositions.

The first proposition is individual is fragile. However a strong and determined a person may be, there must be moments in his life when his determination melts, or he breaks down or feels weak. At the death of his wife, Kasturba, Gandhi bemoaned, “After sixty years of constant companionship, I cannot imagine life without her.” You can call it a sign of emotional chord that Gandhi struck at the loss of Kasturba but it shows the softer side of Gandhi who was otherwise considered a strong willed person who sat on fast for weeks together and fought non-violently the mighty British. I can give many examples. The great scholar and one of the founders of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim was devastated at his son’s death and this hastened his death. This fragility comes in many shapes – physical, emotional, moral, etc.

The second proposition is individual’s thinking and actions are molded by circumstances. No genius now says that a time will come when there will be flying machines as Roger Bacon had said centuries ago. We just fly. We do not think about travelling faster in aero planes, we just travel in them. We are no more worried about how to light our home as electricity is a quotidian thing. This was not the case hundred and some years ago. One of my friends in Minneapolis narrated how the older generations were confronting cold as they had to go outside their houses to attend nature’s call in minus twenty five degree Fahrenheit temperature and how they had to keep fire burning so that their house can be warm. These are now the past. These are some of the examples in collective life of the individuals. Even an individual’s personal thinking and behavior changes due to circumstances. Circumstances sometimes force an individual to do an act which he could not have otherwise done. We know extreme cases how an individual commits a serious crime, which he repents later. When I say circumstances I include these factors: individual’s state of mind at a given time, his place and status in society, his current location and the time, and his perception of laws and mores.

The third proposition is there is something in individual life which is not always in his control. You may call it fate or destiny. There is such an element in human life. The fate may include a eureka moment as in case of Archimedes or an apple falling on Newton’s head. One element brings these disparate incidents together is in none of these cases the person expected that particular incident will happen. I am not saying they are same. What I am trying to allude is the reward may not be always correspondent to a person’s work, the reverse maybe true. Shakespeare had said that some have greatness thrust upon them. I will give an Indian example. During choice of candidates for presidential elections in India in 2007, the ruling Congress party chose Karan Singh, one of the able candidates for the post. One of the coalition partners of the Congress, the Communist Party vetoed it arguing that Singh belongs to a royal family, and his aristocratic upbringing and his views on religion may not be suitable to the post. They proposed another candidate Pratibha Patil, who was a classmate of a communist leader. Patil was elected President.  

The fourth proposition is the most workable philosophy of life is inclusivism. A narrow minded person always finds faults in others and indulges in blame game. To add, a self-centered philosophy is not a better philosophy of life. I do not deny the importance of self, but there is a limit. I also believe in the dictum: a person who does not know how to help him can not help others. I am trying to extend the argument further. Gandhi comes here as an ideal. For him, all religions are like different rivers flowing to a sea or like beautiful flowers in a garden. For him, divisions on the basis of caste, color, religion, country are man made and they do not stand rational scrutiny. A person believing in inclusivism when sees a problem will first ask: how far am I responsible for this? How much have I contributed to this problem? How much can I help to resolve it? He will respect different views, different ways of life, though not necessarily succumbing to them. He will learn from others. To quote Gandhi, learn as if you are a student whole life.

The fifth proposition is humility is a greater asset than arrogance. I believe in the Socratic saying, ‘I know that I do not know.’ It is true that more an individual learns he becomes more humble. Swami Vivekananda articulated this proposition very well with the simile of well-frog. The frog living in the well can not see beyond the well. For the frog, the well is the universe, and there is nothing beyond that. A frog from outside fell down in the well. The well-frog asked the outsider: is your home bigger than this? The frog from outside said the outside world is too big, there is no comparison. The well-frog insisted that there can be nothing bigger than the well. The point I am trying to make is a person who wants to learn more must be humble; an arrogant person closes his mind for new knowledge.

I will stop for now. I will add few more propositions later. Perhaps the sixth one will be: simple living and high thinking. There is no end to human need; hence the better thing to do is to minimize the needs. I do not disagree with Aristotle that a person needs comfort and time to have useful reflections. But one has to find out ways how to find one’s comfort in such a way as to put minimal burden on nature and earth. The seventh proposition will be: one must contribute to society. I believe the society is our larger self. One needs to contribute to society in his own capability. A person who has no food needs to be busy to find means of subsistence. But a person who has no such worry should contribute to society. 

On the New Year

It may seem odd to write something on the New Year when the year is shedding one of its twelve legs. I understand that this perspective applies to the English new year, as there are many other new years which are yet to come – the Chinese celebrate it on 5th of February, the Hindus some time in March, etc. In that sense all these celebrations, if I may say, fall into a cycle – the cycle of new years or what I call the cycle of life. 

When I am talking about life, my mind goes to the saying of one of India’s celebrated philosopher, social servant and freedom fighter – Gopabandhu Dash. Dash (1877-1928) was fiercely independent in mind and spirit and despite having university degrees in those days and having opportunities to enjoy the life of high class preferred to be a dhoti-clad social reformer going from door to door to serve the poor. When the devastating flood affected the coastal Orissa Dash came out of his house to distribute relief to the victims. At that time his only son was bedridden with serious illness (those days medical facilities were horrible). His wife requested Dash not to leave their sick son on the verge of death, to which he replied (and I paraphrase), ‘thousands of my sons are afflicted by flood – whom should I serve: to this son or those thousands of sons suffering outside home?’ Gopabandhu left for serving the victims, and his son died. 

This is a brief background of Gopabandhu’s life – I have no intention to go into detail of his life, which is available in internet. I want to quote his message, which is quite apt for the New Year. Dash wrote in his poetic style, manav jeevan nuhain kevala barsha masa dina danda, karme jien nara karma eka tara jeevanara manadanda. To translate: the human life (and its worth) can not be measured by years, months or moments (which he lives), but only by the work (used broadly service to society) because human life can only be measured by the work he has done when alive. Dash not only wrote this but also walked his writing. I had already given one example. There are thousand such examples in his life. In the Gandhian language – his life was his message. He lived his philosophy. 

By bringing Gopabandhu to life on the occasion of the New Year I intend to do one thing – to remind myself and to my friends who read this – to think how far can we think and act in his way? How do we live our life worthy of a vision which we cherish – and which our successors will proudly remember and say that this person lived a worthy life – the life of a Gandhi, or Gopabandhu or Mandela or King Jr, or Newton, Einstein, or Wittgenstein – the examples are numerous. We may not want to be one of these worthy offsprings of the world, but we can be creative, productive, and humble in our own way. To argue in a lighter way, I bring here the famous song acted by Raj Kapoor, ek din bik jayega mati ke mol jag mein rah jayenge pyare teri bol, duje ke hontho ko dekar apne geet koi nisani chhod phir duniya se bol…(roughly translated - one day this fragile body will melt away (meaning death), but your actions will stay. Share others’ joy and pain, and in that do something for the world). Another song, acted by Kapoor, kisi ki muskurahaton pe ho nisar kisika dard mil sake to le udhar, kisiki vaste ho tere dil mein pyar jina isika naam hai bears similar message. Come here Swami Vivekananda who mightily pronounces: as you are born a human – leave an indelible mark on earth. 

I am reminded here the English film Death Has Become Her, which I watched few years ago. In that movie one of the protagonists Ernest denounces a magic potion, a drink of which makes human being immortal. There is a famous dialogue – Ernest to the prodding to drink the potion says I do not want to live artificially; rather I would live my life and die. These are not the exact words but something like which he said to his opponents. This is like Socratic way of saying (when the Greek philosopher Socrates was administered hemlock to die without his fault) – by dying I will remain alive and this jury will die while alive. There are many hilarious moments in the movie. (If I remember correctly) one of the women who had drunk potion met an accident and her body became scattered, she then collected her body into one. A movie full of comedies but with messages.

This is in brief my New Year reflections. I do not recommend that everybody must follow the example of Gopabandhu ditto – that is not the message. It is also not possible. The idea is to follow the spirit that guided Gopabandhu or Gandhi or Newton. If we can follow their examples in our own way and remain active, vigilant with seriousness to our work and surrounding and with compassion towards all, we can reasonably say that we can effect something positive in our life as well as for the world. I strongly reject the spirit of fatalism or a lazy attitude to life and in believing that a superior power will do everything for us – that is something I call negativism. Also, God does not help them who do not know how to help them. 

When I look at India, the place of my birth, I find (using the language of biology) malnutrition of these great spirits and surfeit of evil spirits – in terms of corruption and corrupt leaders, crime, religious orthodoxy, class and caste antagonisms. Field a few of Gandhis, Gopabandhus and Vivekanandas – all these problems and problem makers will vanish. There are attempts in this direction in recent months. We need more vigorous attempts. I am optimistic and positive about India’s future. Did not the great philosopher Sri Aurobindo proclaim during his message on the eve of India’s Independence that India is destined to be the Guru (leader) of the world? That leadership is the spiritual leadership, not a leadership backed by gun.

When I write these things on the New Year I may appear to lecture or give sermons – I actually look at things in a different way. These are messages to me as well. Human beings need guides like Gandhi but Gandhi can not lead human beings unless the human being wills to be led or to be changed. What I mean is: social transformation or change in the world is a collective effort, in which all, including I, have acts to perform.

Dialogue with God

I want to write on something called ‘Dialogue with God.’ Is it possible to have a dialogue with God? I think it is possible. We can have conversation with God, as we have dialogues with our friends, fellow human beings, our surroundings, as well as our inner selves. The most important thing that we need in this context is that we need to have faith, a firm faith, that there is God, and He is close to us, and we can have conversations with him. In this context, I remember the famous Saint of Kolkata (then Calcutta), Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, whose 175th birth anniversary is celebrated this year. Ramakrishna was famous for his dialogue, his conversation with Goddess Kali. And when his yet to be disciple Narendranath Dutt, later famous as Swami Vivekananda, did not believe the popular saying that the saint in Kali temple has seen and conversed with God, Ramakrishna made him realize God there. On another occasion when penury succumbed to the family of young Narendra, he went to Ramakrishna to seek wealth, and Ramakrishna sent him to Goddess Kali to ask whatever he wants.

My point here is that the once atheist Narendra became a strong believer in God, and a famous preacher of Hindu religion, starting from his famous Chicago address in 1893. Hence, the first requisite to have dialogue with God is to have the firm belief that there is God, who is all ears to us, kind and compassionate, and our friend , philosopher and guide. The second most important prerequisite is our sincerity that if I ask something God in earnest then he will reply. That seeking must be there. If I believe in God’s existence, but does not believe in God’s kindness, his eagerness to help us, his all attention to us, then there is no possibility that one can have dialogue with God. It needs the devotion and love of a Mirabai, or the kind of faith of Aranyaka or Upamnyu, that can lift one to the level, or to the sphere when one can have dialogue with God. And third most important prerequisite is that the seeker must not have any narrow mind, or narrow thinking that seeks God’s blessing for personal benefit. It is like asking for a penny, when the king is ready to offer his kingdom. Unless the seeker rises above petty thinking, above the circle of petty desire, and all its attachments, then it will be difficult to have dialogue with God. It will be like marching fast on the road towards the goal, but the feet are hanging on the air, which is an impossible proposition.

There is the famous case of Mahatma Gandhi, when he says that he received Adesh (order) from God to stop non-cooperation movement, or civil disobedience movement during the Indian freedom struggle. He used to say that he always listened to the inner voice, not to bland arguments of reason or logic. Similarly, the well known freedom fighter, and later yogi and philosopher, Sri Aurobindo, who left Kolkata for Chandan nagar (then a French colony) in 1910, he was saying that he suddenly left the place because there was the divine command, not any personal calculation was involved there. We have seen the results in both the cases.

Hence, there can be a dialogue with God. As there was a dialogue of Nachiketa with Yama, the God of death, similarly there can be a dialogue with God. Again this is not something which can be measured by means of reason and logic. When the Greek philosopher told the great Alexander not to come in front of sunlight to his request for bestowing everything, it is not something which can be explained very rationally.  Hence, I believe, it is absolutely possible to have dialogue with God, as we have dialogues with ourselves, with our inner selves and surroundings.

No doubt, it will be a very beautiful phenomenon, experience to have dialogue with God. It is the dialogue between ignorant and omniscient, between weak and oppressed (not by lack of wealth, but by many other evils) and the omnipotent, and between the brittle beings and transient beings with omnipresent. That will be a wonderful experience, perhaps the most wonderful, even than the great wonders of the world. Even if we think that way, and guide our actions and words in that way, as if there is a God who is looking us and our actions, who is more powerful than us, and always eager to protect us, then perhaps most of anxieties and sufferings that have grappled human beings will vanish. When the greedy will think that God is more wealthy, and it is not material wealth, but wealth of peace, wealth of happiness, that can give the true comfort to mind and body, then the greedy will not be greedy, but rather a servant of mankind as a servant of god, because he will rise himself above individualistic thinking, and guided by universal thinking. It is not foolishness or madness; rather it is the larger freedom, larger and wider than the freedoms offered by capitalism or socialism, which can make human beings wiser, healthier, and happier.