(A disciple:) Communism began with a high ideal and it is certainly better than Fascism or Nazism.
Sri Aurobindo: In which way better? Formerly people were unconscious slaves, now under Communism they are conscious slaves.... They are bound to the State, the dictator and the party. They can't even choose the dictator. And whoever differs from them is mercilessly suppressed.... The whole thing whatever its name is a fraud. It is impossible to change humanity by political machinery; it can't be done.
from India's rebirth, part-V
14 comments:
Sri Aurobindo was very right about communism. We in West Bengal and they in Tibet now feel the touch of the monster.
Do you view the last statement as sort of support for libertarianism?
Debabrata, do you still live in West Bengal?
Manduka: you mean the last sentence quoted in the post? If so, by 'it cant be done by political means' SA is not making any cause for libertarianism. rather, he is making a case for Yoga. Human conditions can only improve by a transformation of the basic nature of man- I think thats his view.
Technically, that is the only deduction possible - agreed. It seemed to me that he wasn't fond of political machinery, or State's efforts for altruism.
no..if that was the case he wouldnt have participated in politics (of the freedom movement) or initiated its radical turn! nor would he have supported tha allies in the 2nd world war.
also just because he condemned communism (one form of government) as fraud, doesnt mean he disbelieved or discouraged altrusim in all forms of government.
what he is attacking is the false conceit of communists in claiming that they can establish the equivalent of the divine dispensation on earth, by purely political means and that they alone can do it!
altruism in government or good government is one thing and a conceited belief that one form of government is the most superior, with an adamant denial of all dissent, is completely another! the latter is common to all totalitarian systems. this is what Sri Aurobindo is attacking here and done so consistently in his writings.
His support for allies etc. only prove that he thought Governments could get destructive; not that they could constructively help.
BTW when you say support for yOga what exactly do you mean by yOga? It seems to me more like support of the karma+vAsana theory. That one should aim at the vAsanas - introspection/spiritual practices etc., rather than being forced by political machinery. Kind of "nigrahaH kiM kariShyati" ( bhagavad gIta 3.33 or somewhere near that ).
His support for allies etc. only prove that he thought Governments could get destructive; not that they could constructively help
its up to you to believe what you want to believe.
It seems to me more like support of the karma+vAsana theory. That one should aim at the vAsanas - introspection/spiritual practices etc., rather than being forced by political machinery
whatever are you saying? for once I dont understand one bit of what you are saying. 'It seems to me...'. what are you referring by 'It'? Yoga in general? or Sri Aurobindo's enunciation of it?
in any case, I leave those to you. I for myself take SA to be one of the greatest visionaries, thinker, freedom fighter and exponent of Yoga produced by modern India.
From your last sentence you seem to have assumed that I have written something bad about SA. That isn't true - I haven't written one word negating anything good about him.
By "it", I was referring to the it in :
it cant be done by political means' SA is not making any cause for libertarianism. rather, he is making a case for Yoga.
Namely, the last sentence of the post.
That SA was a great exponent of Yoga is independent of whether this particular sentence is about Yoga or not. The reason I questioned about Yoga in my previous comment is that the word "Yoga" has several meanings.
1. The state of doing karma skilfully and selflessly ( bhagavad-gIta : yOgaH karmasu kaushalam, samatvam yOgaH ucyatE etc. ).
2. The philosophy of Yoga as enunciated by Patanjali - including the eightfold path with yama, niyama etc.
3. I have read people ( for example drisyadrisya, I think ) write of Yoga as a union - of Jivatman and Paramatman.
4. Of course, the abused meaning - as haThayOga or some modern version of it.
I feel quite upset that a lot of people in the modern age - not the saints but lay people - use this word "Yoga" far too loosely. Often for anything and everything. The jargon one uses has to be defined or at least indicated. Which exactly of the four definitions above imply that humanity cannot be changed by political machinery? Or some other definition for yOga?
Which exactly of the four definitions above imply that humanity cannot be changed by political machinery?
It would be the verses from Gita you have quoted in #1 but the meanings of which are not what would appear from by your English translations of them.
in his 'Essays on the Gita' Sri Aurobindo discusses how 'karmasu kaushalam' is not mere skill in work- then even any clever thief could be called a yogi. rather, it is the skill in work that comes out of a conscious submission of the entire being to the Divine. it is the skill that comes out of the annihilation of ego, when the person acts as 'nimittamAtram' an instrument of the Divine.
similary 'samatvam' is not a mere mental concept that people can even cultivate from habit- rather the experience that comes when the Self is grasped.
when all humanity can grasp the Self and be transformed by that- not be lost in it, but rather participate in a conscious transformation of all that is in its lower nature by the powers of the Self-knowledge- only then can mankind's problems be effectively solved.
Had I not accidentally stumbled on this page I wouldn't have known that you had replied.
Okay, this comment is going to suck because it might come across as arguing against what SA said, venting frustration at saints etc.
What you are talking seems to be of a very high state where sAn.khya, yOga etc. merge. "Ekam sAn.khyam ca yOgam ca yaH pashyati saH pashyati".
A person who is already an apathetic faithless individual - how can that person submit himself/herself to the divine? Getting rid of the tamOguNa, say, becoming a clever thief or whatever, seems like a first step. Isn't that why Swamiji, Sister Nivedita etc. kept exhorting people to work and love our country?
So I think one should aim at skill and selflessness. However, only when one will become sufficiently ripe and suddenly snap off from the tree, will he/she be able to be perfect in skill and selflessness.
This constitutes one issue where I have trouble with most of our saints. They talk about high states, care about very advanced aspirants etc. Hinduism often seems to me to be a religion of spiritual elitism. When I went to the local catholic church I was amazed how they spent so much effort to see that the proceedings touched and involved the people present there.
Other than Swamiji ( in his Colombo to Almora lectures ) and Swami Ranganathananda ji, I don't know if there is one Hindu saint whose speech is directed at the common man. At fallen individuals like me, that is.
A person who is already an apathetic faithless individual
I wouldnt agree that even a faithless individual is 'pathetic'. borrowing from Sri Aurobindo's words, even the atheist and the agnostic are but the Lord- showing us that even our most refined conceptions about God and Truth still have their flaws as they are still conceptions and so will not appeal to all, thus pointing to us the inherent weaknesses of intellectual conceptions and goading us onwards towards the many-splendoured Truth.
So I think one should aim at skill and selflessness. However, only when one will become sufficiently ripe and suddenly snap off from the tree, will he/she be able to be perfect in skill and selflessness
ofcourse! nobody is excluded- I was just pointing out that Goal and end which alone can solve man's problems permanently. but that doesnt mean that there wont be transitions- infact evolution, transition is the way forward. in SA's words, Yoga involves an ascending series of plateaus thru which the spirit reaches the Goal. The person who has attained the Goal and one who is striving, all are Yogis- one is 100% Yogi, another is mabye 10%- why room for pessimism? isnt this the Gita view?
suppose you wish to walk to the Taj Mahal from Hyderabad and you are a cripple. what will you do? ofcourse you will begin by setting smaller goals- maybe first reach the next big city. but will that alone be your entire focus? all the while reaching Agra will be on your mind. otherwise you will end up in some obscure city and forget all about the Taj. similarly in Yoga the goal of 'karmasu kaushalam' has to remain at the back of ones mind even if the immediate goal is mere skill in works- but you cannot advise that one should forget all about the goal itself and just concentrate on such skill.
sidenote: you are mixing quite a few things badly here, garbling up th thought process- Manduka this is not what I expect from you. we were discussing SA's view on what can change the human condition- where did the question of indivifual pessimism come in?
Getting rid of the tamOguNa, say, becoming a clever thief or whatever, seems like a first step. Isn't that why Swamiji, Sister Nivedita etc. kept exhorting people to work and love our country?
not just them- the whole Hindu tradition states just that. keep moving forward- with the ultimate goal in mind, keep aiming at shorter term goals which will take you forwrad. this is the gist of the varnashrama system, this is the gist of dharma too.
This constitutes one issue where I have trouble with most of our saints. They talk about high states, care about very advanced aspirants etc. Hinduism often seems to me to be a religion of spiritual elitism
then really maybe you are focusing too much only on such 'high' teachings. I have never found another system like Hinduism in reaching out to the 'common' masses- what else is hatha yoga, what else is pranayama, what else is bhajan/sankirtan, what else are the puranas? man for that distant past until mind can peep, Hinduism has been creating scriptures, arts, poetry, music, dance, painting, everything to convey the truths of its Goal to the masses. I infact found it difficult in the beginning to find any 'advanced' texts- but now I find that even the most simple of Hindu texts have the most advanced concepts made accessible to everyone. man, have you found anywhere such a compassionate system as Tantra- where even the man with the most basest desires is not excluded from spiritual progress?
When I went to the local catholic church I was amazed how they spent so much effort to see that the proceedings touched and involved the people present there
well I havent found a gathering like Amma's or Swami Ramdev's in this respect.
Other than Swamiji ( in his Colombo to Almora lectures ) and Swami Ranganathananda ji, I don't know if there is one Hindu saint whose speech is directed at the common man
I again say- you better find out more and read them again! I find that almost every Hindu saint appeals to sadhaks at all levels of competence. even the great Gaudhapada acharya abandoned tradition to discuss Vedanta without shruti-pramana, purely on the basis of logic, just to reach out to the nastikas. SA devotes so much of his writing to this 'common man'.
At fallen individuals like me, that is
such pessimism!! even for argument, take that Swamiji alone has spoken about an aspirant 'like you' - then why dont you have faith in him? isnt his message, fiery message is that there is nothing like 'fallen' or 'lowly' or 'degraded'- erroneous maybe but never such things as fallen. the problem I think, is not that Hinduism or Hindu saints havent addressed the 'common man'. the problem is that this modern 'common man' just plainly refuses to accept the message addressed to him. he only wants to read about 'high states' and get discouraged. he is suspended in disbelief when he is told that those high states are his too and when he is presented with methods to attain them, if but he has faith. why faith, even without faith, take up and practice .01% of their teaching and verify their result- but this modern common man wnats everything to happen to him overnight and by magic. all results must come to him 1 nanosecond after he has uttered the Lord's name for the first time in his life. why Hinduism- nobody can help such a man but himself.
Garbling up the thought process? I didn't conflate SA's views with individual pessimism. My comment was a matter of fact statement about the present, I didn't say anything about my future. Why are you talking like leftists?
On the other hand, you are indeed garbling up the thought process - you are mixing pAramArthika with vyAvahArika, vyaShTi with samaShTi. samaShTi and pAramArthika are to me some fancy theorizations. I can't just like that believe in them/have faith in them just because Swamiji or SA said so.
My faith in saints is this much : their lives seem inspiring, I have a feeling that if I go far enough I might be able to realize that what they say is true. However, I distinguish this tenuous entity called faith from knowledge ( that I have of materialistic stuff, for instance ) as well as beliefs for which I have some amount of evidence ( eg. if the mind is controlled a person becomes happier ).
So all this pAramArthika/samaShTi stuff - even atheist/agnostic is God etc. - doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. And unless you have had some appropriate experience, I just can't think how you can make sense of such a thing either.
And I have replied to your pessimism allegation on my livejournal.
I found this quote appropriate to this discussion in an article I was reading today: 'The Lord has shown me that religion is not in fault, but it is the Pharisees and Sadducees in Hinduism, hypocrites, who invent all sorts of engines of tyranny in the shape of doctrines of Paramarthika and Vyavaharika' - Swami Vivekananda, in letters, p.41(I will try and locate the ref. online if possible)
Post a Comment