Dr. Ranade has traced five stages of
this development, which he calls the "Ladder of spiritual experience".
The first stage is to mystically apprehending the glory of the Self within us
as though we were distinct from him. At the second stage, we must experience that
we are really the very Self and that we are neither the bodily, or the sensuous,
or the intellectual, or the emotional vestures; that we are in our essential nature
entirely identical with the pure Self. In the third stage of spiritual experience,
we come to realize that this Self is identical with the Absolute - Ayamatma Brahman
(Brih II.5.19). For the fourth stage, let us have a re-look at the second and
third. If I am the Self and the Self is the Absolute, then it follows syllogistically
that I am the Absolute - Aham Brahmasmi (Brih I.4.10). If "I" is identified,
"Thou" also projectively gets identified with Brahman- Tatvamasi (Chh
VI.8.7). This is the significance of the two most famous and most misunderstood
statements of reality. At the final stage, if "I" and "Thou",
that is the subject and the object are the Absolute, it follows that every thing
that we see in this world, Mind and Nature, the Self and the not-Self equally
constitute the Absolute. This leads to the grand synthesis of the Upanisads that
Brahman is very the "All" - Sarvam khalvidam Brahma (Chh III.14.1).
This logical synthesis of the opposites is the highest contribution to thought
from the sages of the Upanisads. In the field of metaphysics this synthesis of
the gross and the subtle is as radical as Einstein's mass-energy equivalence,
e = mc2 , in the field of physics.
It is not possible to do justice to the
body of knowledge which the Upanisads contain within the space available in the
scheme of this presentation. We will, however, refer to them as we discuss the
various systems of philosophy to show their indebtedness to the Upanisads.
The
Bhagvadgita is inset in the Mahabharat and is much later in time than the Upanisads.
But it has influenced the thinking mind not only in India but beyond its frontiers.
"It attempts to reconcile", says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "varied and
apparently antithetical forms of the religious consciousness and emphasizes the
root conceptions of religion which are neither ancient nor modern but eternal
and belong to the very flesh of humanity, past, present and future". It is
interesting to read the views of J.W. Hauer, an exponent of the German faith,
about Bhagvadgita. He says : "it gives us not only profound insights that
are valid for all times and for all religious life, but it contains as well the
classical presentation of one of the most significant phases of Indo-Germanic
history
It shows us the way as regards the essential nature and basal characteristic
of Indo-Germanic religion. Here spirit is at work that belongs to our spirit".
Bhagvadgita
is not concerned so much with philosophy as the correctness of action. The opening
section raises the question of the problem of human action. How can we live in
the Highest Self and yet continue to work in the world? It's importance lies in
the answer it gives. Bhagvadgita is both, science of reality as well as art of
union with that reality. Here we find a comprehensive synthesis of different currents
of thought - the Vedic cult of sacrifice, the Upanisad teaching of the transcendent
Brahman, the Bhagvat theism and tender piety, the Samkhya dualism and the Yoga
meditation. The method adopted is to put them side by side and show how they converge
towards the same end.
As regards the goal of perfection or attainment of saving
truth or apprehension of ultimate Reality, Bhagvadgita gives us three different
ways - by knowledge of Reality (gyan) or adoration of the Supreme Being (Bhakti)
or by the subjection of the will to the Divine purpose (karma). These are not
mutually exclusive. To borrow a phrase from Dr. Radhakrishnan the distinction
is on account of the "distribution of emphasis on the theoretical, emotional
and practical aspects". Bhagvadgita's biggest contribution to mankind is
its theory of disinterestedness, action without attachment to the fruit thereof.
Even mind in success and failure or inner poise leads to the state of Yoga, which
is true skill in action.
Part II
Jainism is a very old form of un-orthodox
or non-Vedic religion. It arose, in all probability , in the later Vedic period
and was revised by Vardhmana, styled Mahavira, in the sixth century BC. Vardhamana
born in about 540 BC, like his contemporary Buddha, was from a princely family
of north Bihar. He is considered as 24th in the line of path-finders or tirthankaras,
the first being Rishabhadeva.
Jainism believes in the eternal and independent
existence of spirit and matter or "jiva" and "ajiva". But
the spirit here is only the individual self and not the supreme self of the Upanisads.
Jiva is conceived as an eternal substance or "dravya" of limited but
variable magnitude, which is capable of adjusting to the shape and size of the
physical body with which it is associated for the time being. Empirical, knowledge
in its diverse forms is a manifestation of it under limitations caused by the
inanimate nature of a jiva. The ultimate aim of life is conceived as casting off
these limitations so that the soul may reveal its true nature of omniscience.
At this stage there is a mystic or direct intuition of all things. This full and
comprehensive knowledge is termed "Kevala-jnan". Jainism believes in
the theory of transmigration and reward and retribution is allotted according
to ones "Karma".
Ajiva, as the name indicates, includes all that
is devoid of consciousness or life. It is five fold : matter, time, space, dharma
and adharma. Matter is manifold, the ultimate stage of its being atomic. It is
as the aggregate of atoms that it becomes the object of common experience. Time
is infinite and all pervasive. All things are in time and all changes take place
in it. Space is viewed as extending beyond our world and like time it is also
infinite and all pervasive. Dharma and Adharma do not stand for religious merit
and demerit. They represent the principles of motion and rest.
Jainism has
elaborate theory of knowledge. It is conceived as self-luminous so that it shows
to the self not only objects but also itself. It is in two categories : mediate
or paroksha and immediate or pratyaksha. In the latter category, keval- jnana
is conceived as the highest form of knowledge, which does not depend on the cooperation
of any sense. All that it pre-supposes is the self.
The concept of ultimate
Reality in Jainism could be summed up in the phrase "Pluralistic Realism".
It is multiple in character. It is dynamic in that it keeps changing perpetually
yet retaining its identity throughout. There are two aspects to it: general or
samanya and, particular or vishesha. The relation between the two is one of identity
in difference.
From the above it is obvious that the concept of reality does
not exclude contradictory features. It amounts to saying that it is indeterminate
in nature. From this follows what is known as the Sapta-bhang or the doctrine
of Syadvada i.e. may be. We may state the various steps of the scheme : (1) may
be, a thing is; (2) may be, it is not; (3) may be, it is and is not; (4) may be
it is inexpressible; (5) may be, a thing is not and is inexpressible; (6) may
be, a thing is not and is inexpressible; (7) may be a thing is, is not and is
inexpressible. What a variety in skepticism !
As regards the practical part
of Jainism, two things stand out. It is pessimistic, though not ultimately so;
and it is also severely ascetic. The goal of life, as already remarked, is to
restore the soul to its pristine purity so that it may attain omniscience. The
discipline recommended for bringing about this consummation is threefold. It is
right faith (Samyagdarshan), right knowledge (Samyagjnana) and right conduct (Samyag
Charitra). Together these are known as the three jewels (tri-ratna). Dr. M. Hiriyanna
writes: "Jainism may deny the existence of a Supreme God, it retains the
idea of the divine as representing perfection". Dr. S. Radhakrishnan likens
the metaphysics of Jainism to Leibniz's monadism and Bergson's creative evolutionism.
Sidhartha,
born in 567 BC, better known as Gautam Buddha, came from a princely family. Much
disturbed by the transience and uncertainty of life, he left his royal privileges
to wander in search of truth. "Any man with imagination", says Dr. Radhakrishnan,
"will be struck with amazement when he finds that six centuries before Christ
there lived in India a prince second to none before him or after in spiritual
detachment, lofty idealism, nobility of life and love for humanity". It is
a miracle of history that his teachings spread far and wide on sheer force of
their logic, their simplicity, and their ethical appeal un-backed by the sword,
as we find in the case of Christianity as well as Islam. What is it and how it
happened? Let us look into this.
Buddhist thought evolved in India over a period
of thousand years. Three distinct phases are discernible in its evolution. Early
Buddhism, development of canonical literature and acquisition of monastic character
and Buddhism as religion.
Early Buddhism is viewed, essentially, as a protest
against over-ceremonialism of the time. For most men religion consisted in regular
ceremonial prayer and penance, purification and prohibitions applicable to almost
all relations of human life. Buddha, through his own sincere experience, felt
the hollowness of the most of beliefs which people regarded as articles of faith.
"There is no question", observes Dr. Radhakrishnan, "that the system
of early Buddhism is one of the most original which the history of philosophy
presents. In its fundamental ideas and essential spirit it approximates remarkably
to the advanced scientific thought of the nineteenth century". It was free
from dogma, priesthood, sacrifice and sacrament and insisted on an inward change
of heart and system of self-culture. Hegel compares the man of genius in relation
to his age to one who places the last and the locking stone in an arch. Such a
master hand was that of Buddha who undoubtedly is one of the greatest thinkers
of India. Dr. Radhakrishnan compares Buddha's relations with his predecessors
to that of Socrates to the Sophists. He proceeds to observe: "Buddha is not
so much creating a new drama as rediscovering an old norm. It is the venerable
tradition that is being adapted to meet the special needs of the age. To develop
his theory, Buddha had only to rid the Upanisads of their inconsistent compromises
with Vedic polytheism and religion, set aside the transcendental aspects as being
indemonstable to thought and un-necessary to morals and emphasise the ethical
universalism of the Upanisads." It may be noted that the roots of early Budhism
are firmly fixed in the soil of India's hoary tradition. Rhys Davids has beautifully
summed up his relationship with Hinduism thus : "Gautam was born and brought
up and lived and died a Hindu
there was not much in the metaphysics
and principles of Gautam which cannot be found in one or other of the orthodox
systems, and a great deal of his morality could be matched from earlier or later
Hindu Books. Such originality as Gautam possessed lay in the way in which he adopted,
enlarged, enobled and systematised that which had already been well said by others;
in the way in which he carried out to their logical conclusion principles of equity
and justice already acknowledged by some of the most prominent Hindu thinkers.
The difference between him and other teachers lay chiefly in his deep earnestness
and in his broad public spirit of philanthropy."
Buddha passed through
the known stages of penance, mortification of the physical self and all that.
But finally it was his intense spiritual experience which helped him to discover
the well known four noble truths (Arya Satya). These are the existence of suffering,
its cause, the possibility of its elimination and finally the way to accomplish
it. The system which Budhha enunciated is free from the extremes of self indulgence
and self mortification. There are two extremes, habitual devotion to passions,
to pleasures of sensual things on the one hand and habitual devotion to self mortification
on the other, which is painful, ignoble and unprofitable. The Tathagata suggested
the middle path, a path which opens the eyes and bestows understanding, which
leads to peace, to insight to higher wisdom, to "nirvana" or final deliverance.
This is the Aryan eight fold-path. That is to say : right beliefs, right aspirations,
right speech, right conduct, right mode of livelihood, right effort, right mindedness
and right rapture.
For an authentic account of early Buddhism we have to depend
on "Pitakas" or the baskets of Law. To settle disputes among the folllowers
of Buddha about the exact nature of his teachings, a council was called at Rajgriha
near Magadha. Kashyapa, the most learned among the disciples stated the metaphysical
position contained in Abhidhammapitak. Upali the oldest amongst them, gave the
rules of discipline found in Vinayapitaka. Lastly, Anand, Buddha's favourite disciple
narrated the stories and parables which find place in Suttapitaka. About this
basket of discourses or Suttapitaka as a whole, Rhys Davids says : "In depth
of philosophical insight, in the method of Socratic questioning often adopted,
in the earnest and elevated tone of the whole, in the evidence they afford of
the most cultured thought of the day, these discourses constantly remind the reader
of the dialogues of Plato
..It is quite inevitable that as soon as
it is properly translated and understood, this collection of the dialogues of
Gautam will come to be placed in our schools of philosophy and history, on a level
with the dialogues of Plato.
"When we pass from Upanisads to early Buddhism,"
says Dr. Radhakrishnan, " we pass from a work of many minds to the considered
creed of a single individual. In the Upanisads, we have an amazing study of an
atmosphere, in Buddhism the concrete embodiment of thought in the life of a man.
This unity of thought and life worked wonderfully on the world of the time. The
singular personality and life of Buddha had much to do with the success of early
Buddhism".
Early Buddhism is essentially a gospel of hope and not of despair.
It is positive and constructive. Milind Panha or the questions of Milinda, a work
which is standard authority in Ceylon (now Shri Lanka ), is not considered as
authoritative as the Pali Pitakas. In it, Nagsena seems to commit Buddha to a
negative dogmatism. Dr. Radhakrishnan asserts: "Suspended judgement was Buddha's
attitude, reckless repudiation was Nagsena's amendment." The early Buddhism
has three distinct characteristics, an ethical earnestness, an absence of any
theological tendency and an aversion to fruitless metaphysical speculation. Buddha
wished to steer clear of metaphysical discussions, at times responding with silence,
which was construed by some as negation. He would not like to pass judgement on
insufficient evidence. He felt moral life suffered due to peoples energies getting
absorbed in theological discussions and metaphysical subtleties. Buddhism is essentially
psychology, logic and ethics and not metaphysics. Whatever metaphysics we have
is added to it (abhidhamma) and not "Dhamma" as Buddha propounded.
From
psychological point of view, the phenomena of the world are divided into two classes:
(1) Rupino, having form, the four elements and their derivatives; (2) arupino,
not having form, the four elements and their derivatives. "Nam" and
"Rupa" are briefly used for the two categories respectively. The latter
involves phases of consciousness i.e. feeling, perception, synthesis and intellect.
The scheme shows pretty high development of the power of introspective analysis.
Buddhistic
ethics is a derivative of its elaborate logic and deep psychological analysis.
We have seen how the logic of the existence of suffering led to the analysis of
its cause and suggested a way out. The essential purpose of Buddha's teaching
is redemption from suffering. The goal of moral life is to escape from the pervasive
evil of existence. While "nirvana" is the highest goal, all forms of
conduct which lead to it positively or bring about an un-doing of rebirth are
good and their opposite bad. Buddhism insists on purity of motive and humility
in life.
As we examine the development of Buddhism as a religion, we observe
two distinct courses becoming discernible rather early. The orthodox party or
the Sthaviras initially take precedence over the Progressive Party or the Mahasanghlikas.
The question dividing them centres round the attainment of Buddhahood. The Sthaviras
held that it is a quality to be acquired by strict observance of the rules of
Vinaya. The progressives, on the other hand, maintained that Buddhahood was a
quality inborn in every human being, and by adequate development it was capable
of raising its possessor to the rank of Tathagata. The orthodox view is said to
be the lineal ancestor of Ceylonese Buddhism.
After Ashoka adopted Buddhism
two and a half centuries later after Buddha's death the phase of vigorous expansion
begins. All over his vast empire extending from the valleys of Kabul to the mouths
of the Ganga and from Himalayas to the south of Vindhyas, Buddha's edicts were
engraved on stone pillars. He sent missionaries well beyond his empire. The thirteenth
edict states that he sent missionaries to Antiochus II of Syria, Ptolemy II of
Egypt, Antigonos Gonatos of Macedonia, Magas Cyrene and Aalexander II of Epirus.
In the third century B.C. Buddhism entered Kashmir and Ceylone and penetrated
slowly in Nepal and Tibet, China, Japan and Mongolia.
It is a miracle of history
how a faith by dint of sheer logic and pursuation got such wide acceptance. Of
the two main branches Hinayan and Mahayan, it is the latter which had wider appeal.
Wherever it prevailed, India, China, Korea, Siam, Burma and Japan the indigenous
ideas were tolerated while it took care to teach them new respect for life, kindness
to animals and resignation. Dr. Radhakrishan observes: "So long as men conformed
to certain ethical rules and respected the order of the monks, Buddhist teachers
did not feel called upon to condemn the superstitious usages. It does not matter
what gods you worship, so long as you are good. The protean character of Mahayana
Buddhism is due to this tendency. In each of the countries where it was adopted
it had a separate history and doctrinal development". In this process Buddhism
deeply influenced the local faiths and in the process got itself enriched.
It
is not necessary to go into the details of the various schools of Buddhism. We
may however, mention that these are broadly four, two belong to Hinayana and two
to Mahayan. The Hinayana schools are the Vaibhasikas and the Sautrantikas, who
are realists believing that there is a self existent universe actual in space
and time, where mind holds an equal place with other finite things. The Mahayana
Schools are the Yogachara and the Madhyamika. The former contends that thought
is self creative and all producing. It is the ultimate principle and even the
ultimate type and form of reality. The latter is a negative critical system. The
Madhyamikas are considered by some as nihilists.
We will conclude after examining
the fall of Buddhism in India and its influence on Indian thought. Dr. Radhakrishnan
avers that the vital reason for disappearance of Buddhism from India is the fact
that it became ultimately indistinguishable from other flourishing forms of Hinduism.
When Brahmanical faith inculcated universal love and devotion to God and proclaimed
Buddha to be an avatara or incarnation of Vishnu, the death knell of Buddhism
in India was sounded. Buddhism simply passed away by becoming blended in Hinduism.
He calls it an invention of the interested to say that fanatic priests fought
Buddhism out of existence. It is true that Shankara and Kumrila criticised Buddhistic
doctrines but only to creatively improve upon it. "Slow absorption and silent
indifference", says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "and not priestly fanaticism
and methodical destruction, are the causes of the fall of Buddhism".
When
a system absorbs something else out of existence, it is only logical to conclude
that it cannot stay wholly its original self. The same is true of Hinduism. Influence
of Buddhism on Hindu thought is visible on all sides. Even Shankara was criticised
by the conservative thinkers as cripto-Buddhist. The influence of Buddhist ethics
is particularly marked. A respect for life, kindness to animals, a sense of responsibility
and endeavour after higher life got injected into Hinduism with renewed vigour.
The life and teachings of Buddha were such that they left indelible marks not
only on Hinduism but the entire oriental thinking. To recall the words of Dr.
Radhakrishnan: "His life and teachings will compel the reverence of mankind,
give ease to many troubled minds, gladden many simple hearts and answer to many
innocent prayers".