The first sentence of the
criticism runs thus “No theory
of creation is ever likely to be
true; for it implies
transcendent causes. The
category of causality has scope
only within the empirical. A
transcendent cause is really no
cause.” Thus creation is not;
transcendent causes are not; and
since the empirical being is
not, there can be no causes
either there.
Creation-theories are
humanizations of the truth, a
story and not truth. Our truth
is, there was only Being and
anything that appeared (why, the
Absolute knows! at some place)
was illusory. God made truth or
was truth and man made error
.This in short is the theory of
Prof. Malkani. Now why did man
appear? illusorily to whom? to
himself(?) or to Brahman the
ever undeludable? Whose is this
story or this humanisation, and
for whom is this story of
creation or illusory appearance?
The whole self confident
assertion of No Cause,
Transcendent Cause, Story,
Appearance is itself no better
than stories of an intellectual
dialectic and as such the
reactions of the human
intellect to the evanescent
Reality in an opposite
direction. Two persons can play
at the same game of rejecting
the human and criticizing the
intellect.
Prof. Malkani concedes that Sri
Aurobindo’s theory of
creation is not like the old
story of mechanical creation as
the potter does his pots. Indeed
he holds that the
Brahman becomes the world and
thus the world is not a
magician’s illusory projection
as in mayavada. Then he draws
out a series of thirteen items
of the process of evolution from
out of Brahman the saccidananda,
through a first movement into
the Supermind out of its primal
poise which exhibits the
immanent or implicit
multiplicity in Saccidananda.
But this supermind exhibits just
one and not all the
possibilities of the
Saccidananda though it is
aware of all of them. Prof.
Malkani considers that this is
fraught with difficulty. The
infinite possibilities in the
Saccidananda cannot be
present at the same time; he
contends that if these are
implicit nothing new is
created, and straightaway
proceeds to say that no real
putting forth can occur (italics
mine). Certainly on the same
count Maya is a real putting
forth of appearance, for surely
a new thing is real;
the entire structure of the
Mayavada collapses by this
admission, which he brought into
the criticism of a theory which
holds that Brahman really
creates and creating means only
manifesting one of many infinite
possibilities in this particular
creative period, and in this
there is nothing unreal. The
real is both the possible in the
Absolute Divine as well as the
actual in terrestrial evolution.
The second complaint made by
Prof. Malkani refers to the
arbitrariness of choice in
choosing to create this
particular possibility rather
than any other possibility. And
he states that ‘Sri Aurobindo’s
idealism is not based upon the
truth of existence but
the arbitrariness of the
limiting idea–let there be such
and such a thing.’ This is
criticism of a kind that has
been used against Leibnitz too
for his stating that the present
one is the best of all possible
worlds, a contention which he
upheld by the theory of
divine beneficence. If
Freedom be the essence of
reality, then the
manifestation of this Freedom is
what makes the choice possible
and it cannot be held that
freedom is arbitrary. There is
at least a beneficence at work
in the universe, whereas the
theory of Mayavada is a mockery
of the Absolute Brahman, and as
for the truth of
existence, it is indeed as real
as the actual act in Prof.
Malkani’s way of argument when
he defends a position of utter
inconsequence to reality which
he straightaway dismisses or
cancels with his magic
arbitrariness of maya. The
protest against the
impossibility of reconciling
being with freedom of force is
again his difficulty and
it is not for one who knows how
to act and live or exist or plan
or evolve into the higher rungs,
or for the matter of that for
the Real Idea of the Artist
(even the most humble) which
proceeds to actualize itself
limited only by itself and not
by the arbitratriness of Prof.
Malkani’s wish to create without
thought a delusion or illusion
in order to gratify his own
licence in logic.
Nor again is the third objection
valid, that awareness is already
reality and there need be no
actuality aware of the actual
creative activity of the artist
or sculptor, and it also betrays
a lack of insight into the
delight of creativity. He makes
much of the distinction between
the possibility and the known,
and says, that possibilities are
conceived and not known, and
thus betrays the
misunderstanding into which he
had fallen of not taking into
account the nature of the
Saccidananda and the
Supermind which perceive all
possibilities and do not infer
them or conceptualise them and
thus do not hypostatize essences
into existence, to use the
convenient distinction that
George Santayana has made. The
reality of the planes or levels
in the Created or manifested
Brahman gives the clue to the
distinction between the
possibilities in the Supermind
and Saccidanada which permits
one possibility to work out
itself in all the planes; this
possibility may be only in
freedom and the individual many
too in freedom work out this
Real-Idea which works its way
spontaneous from within them and
does not appear as the command
of a deity or arbitrary fiat of
the Divine. The
spiritual society or Nature or
being does not tolerate
arbitrary fiat and exacts
freedom for each and all as the
condition of a self-revelation
that shall culminate in the
Delight that is Evolution into
the Divine. It is because it
works under and within each one
of the Divine multiplicity that
there is freedom to err or sin
or ascend or descend and each in
a way contributes towards the
divine delight, for each is
indeed superconsciously moving
towards the Divine
Manifestation on all levels. It
cannot be stated that Sri
Aurobindo is contradicting
himself when he states that
‘world is a maya because it is
not the essential truth of
infinite existence, but only a
creation of self-conscious
being… The world is not the
essential truth of That, but
phenomenal truth of its free
multiplicity and infinite
superficial mutability and not
truth of its fundamental and
immutable unity” (p. 256); for
Sri Aurobindo is merely pointing
out what is clearly understood
in any evolutionary theory or
value question, that the
multiplicity is the phenomenal
status of the Oneness and the
world is a phenomenal status of
the real and is a real
phenomenon. It certainly does
not mean that the cosmos does
not represent the real truth of
being; it represents it truly
and eternally as much as the
Oneness; only there are two
forms of the self-same Brahman.
The supreme mystery of the
Divine Nature consists in the
supreme relationship of
togetherness or inseparable
oneness of the world and Deity,
souls and Gods, and this may be
expressed as the relationship of
sarira-sariri or eternal
oneness in eternal multiplicity.
Lila is the essential delight in
sarira or multiplicity of
the sariri of the Eternal
oneness, and the primacy of
sariri or Oneness is always
there in creation as well as
prior to creation, aloka
or loka.
The fourth objection then is
against the view that the world
is conscious Birth of That which
is beyond mind into forms of
itself; for Prof. Malkani
contends that “while it is to a
certain extent intelligible” to
accept that God’s thought is
constitutive of reality. “it is
not intelligible how that which
is already true in God comes
further to birth in the forms of
a mental, vital and material
cosmos,” either the latter is
non-existent in God in which
case their creation would be
pure conception or if they are
already in some sense existent
in Him, where is the scope for
creation at all?” His own
solution is to say that the
world was never created at all
or that it is a conceptual
figment.
All the arguments of Prof.
Malkani can be referred to the
principle of vivarta-vada,
a species of asatkarya-vada,
which says that things appear
otherwise. The learned writer
does not see the mote in his own
eye while he challenges the beam
in others when he writes (and we
are forced to remark, unkindly
to be sure) naively ‘But what do
we mean by manifestation? We can
only mean making appear.’ The
question will naturally arise
making appear to whom? “It
cannot be God.” Why not, we
rejoin, for it is precisely the
will and knowledge of the
Divine to manifest to Himself
for His own Delight that which
is possible to Him and in Him.
The whole difficulty for the
learned critic consists in this
impossibility of self delight
and self-willing, for to him all
these in his system mean
limitation, error and do not
exist. For whom is Maya, we ask,
in a system that cannot explain
appearance of the world, unreal
or real? The whole criticism
smacks of inability to
comprehend the difference
between the unmanifest and the
manifestation to be not a
difference in reality,for both
are equally real, but the
moreness in the one or
transcendence in the one and the
immanence of the transcendence
in the effect. Sat-karya-vada
means in Samkya and
Visistadvaita and Sri
Aurobindo’s philosophy nothing
more than what it affirms, the
reality of the cause as well as
that of the effect; the effect
is the exhibition, revealment of
that which was in subtle state
in the cause. The suksma
becomes sthula. There is
nothing absolutely new and birth
is merely the statement of the
emergence to our limited and
even planal vision of that which
is in the bosom of infinity of
the Divine. Every birth is a
passage from one plane to
another and this is what is
stated to be the truth about
initiation, conversion or
avatar-phenomena. It is a
figure that represents the stage
at which the soul has arrived in
the process of ascent or
descent into actuality that is
the phenomenal jagrat,
waking consciousness. The next
charge of parinama-vada
affecting the very nature of the
Divine is equally full of flaw;
for, though the effect is a
change of cause into
effect-nature, this change does
not affect the Saccidanda
and Oneness-nature of God at
any time. Sri Ramanuja got over
this problem by holding that the
sarira or
cidacid-visista-Brahman and
not Brahman changed from the
causal to the effect state; and
the objection that one part
cannot undergo change whilst the
other remained changeless, is
groundless for the change is
shown to be not affecting
thereby the main sariri
or Brahman; in Sri Aurobindo’s
philosophy we can see that, as
already stated, the parinama
is of the self-extension of the
Divine which does not affect the
self-concentration in Himself;
the multiplicity is not opposed
to oneness and the parinama
affecting the many is supported
by the saccidananda and
oneness of the Brahman. Prof.
Malkani’s argument proceeding
through disjunction of either
or–that is, “either it is
created by God through an act of
His will or God is the ground
and reality of world–essentially
misses the principle of the
System, and this either-or
business is a device of the
intellectual logic that is
incapable of precisely seeing
what alternatives are real
alternatives, as Sri Ramanuja
has so splendidly shewn in the
opening lines of the
Mahasiddhanta. And it is the
essential trouble of Advaita Vedanta to
have placed the world neither in
God nor outside Him but in His
illusion; and it bespeaks lack
of ordinary humour to speak of
placing the world somewhere
neither outside nor inside
Brahman. The mystical insight is
amazingly beyond the grasp of
the critic’s mind.
Tadejati tadu naijati taddure
tadvantike.
Tadantarasya sarvasya tadu
sarvasyasya bahyatah.
No more this and this has been
throughout stated in ever so
many ways in the Upanisads.
Further, pray what is the
meaning of the statement in the
same Upanisad which speaks of
the establishment of things in
their true forms from
sempiternal years:
Yathotathyato arthan vyadadat
sasvatibhyah samabhyah
Thus the essential reality of
the universe is granted by the
mystical insight and our
ordinary understanding even does
not belie it and no argument or
testimony upholds the doctrine
of vivarta-vada or
asatkaryavada or mayavada
in the sense understood by
theorists.
The other questions about the
nature of the Supermind and the
Saccidananda are
questions that labour under the
first cloud of misunderstanding
about the nature of poise,
understanding, creativity,
reality and possibility, and
these are explained by Sri
Aurobindo himself in his
Life Divine so completely that
no further explanation can and
need be given. But one question
under (10) calls for a remark:
“For if the delight of being is
logically prior and if it is
also full and complete, then
there is no scope for the
delight of becoming “ (p. 263);
the delight of being may be full
and complete and this does not
imply anything more than this
that there is complete
purnatva in its perfection;
and the delight of becoming is
a variation of the purnatva
in the enjoyment of its
multiplicity-possibilities. The
whole fact is a mysterious
movement of the Divine and we
can only quote the scriptural
statement.
Purnamadah purnamidam purnat
purnamudacyate-
Sri Ramanuja’s theory however
does not involve this
explanation because of his
acceptance of the redemption of
the Individual souls as one of
the greatest concerns of the
Divine Lord which makes His
assumption of creativity as a
redemptive act. The true
philosophy of reality cannot but
be a philosophy of the Divine –
a philosophy of Religion. Sri
Aurobindo’s philosophy of Divine
Life shows the supreme creative
manifestation of the Process as
an ascent of the souls, the
eternal multiplicity of His
nature, moving through the
planes which have been fashioned
by His descent for this delight
in Becoming of matter, life,
mind, overmind, supermind and
others till finally they realise
in the Supermind the delight of
the many gathered up in the
events of an ascent which now
registers happiness and delight
in every movement and action as
the instruments of the Divine
One superconsciously known by
them. The pains and pleasures,
the avoided reactions or the
avidly searched for responses or
objects equally reveal the
supreme ecstasy in which both
are perceived as the
interweaving of the delights.
The contention that knowledge,
this knowledge alone, can put an
end to all our present suffering
is correct, but this knowledge
is not the Advaitic’s
recoil-knowledge, nor are the
sufferings surmounted in the
manner he wishes but in the
transvaluation of these and an
ability to respond from delight
to all the stimuli of the Divine
Universe; for, then, in that
supermind plane man is face to
face with the Divine Universe.
It is somewhat candid to say
that Sri Aurobindo’s theory is
after all Vedantic, and the only
quarrel between the Mayavada and
his theory consists in the
interpretation of the world and
the real nature of Sachchinanda;
this is certainly a vast
difference.
Prof. Malkani has of course
taken great pains to answer the
questions raised by Sri
Aurobindo’s theory, and this is
in one respect due to the
present writer of this criticism
having drawn pointed attention
in the Philosophical
Quarterly 1942 to the
importance of Sri Aurobindo to
modern philosophical
re-construction of Vedanta.
Prof. Malkani has thus rendered
service to Vedanta in general,
though, frankly speaking, he has
not been able to show any
advantage to the
Spiritual life by his defence of
an Abstract Absolute that can
bear no reality and expunge all
evolution, growth, progress,
perfection in the name of
Supreme Intuition, which is not
proved by any mystic without
equivocation.
It is indeed true that Mayavada has
a great exponent in the Maharsi
Sri Ramana of Tiruvannamalai;
and he holds that the world is
maya, a conceptual construction,
and the reality that has to be
known is the self, the self that
appears as all things,
illusorily. The question of
spiritual value is implicit in
this. Know the self, what you
are and who you are; then you
can say which is and which is
not. The real for you is the
central fact as to who you are
who suffer and struggle. In this
sense, then, the urgency, the
poignancy and therefore the
reality or rather actuality of
pain and confusion, this
infinite tossing of the soul in
griefs and rounds of
frustrations, cause one and
should indeed cause one to
address to oneself the
fundamental question about the
nature of the self or who? Sri
Ramanuja clearly initiates this
catharsis in his Yoga called
Mahayoga. But it is precisely
this Mahayoga that has to
culminate in the Purnayoga. It
is in this sense that Advaita of
Mayavada gives a grand schooling
to thinkers and students of
Yoga-albeit negative.
This negative attitude is an
impermanent status; and though
this negative status described
as nirvana and moksa are
sought to be explained as not
merely negative but positively
as bliss by certain modern
interpreters of Buddhistic
thought, it is what it denotes
but negatively. The passage from
the impersonal of nirvana to the
suprapersonal is the passage
that entails the depths of the
Ananda. It is not certainly
denied that the negative has not
charm and even a kind of deep
delight not comparable to the
human and as different from it
as anything, being a revolution
in the very structure of
experience; but deeper and finer
and richer is the Superpersonal
Divine which manifests the
Divine to the illumined vision,
no longer under the throes of
recoil and passed beyond the
impersonal universal. As a
modern Russian writer has
stated: “There can be no greater
error than to interpret mystical
experience in terms of monistic
metaphysics. Monism postulates
rationalization, a mental
process rather than experience.”
“The idiom of mysticism is
founded on love rather than
precepts.” “Mystical experience
is a triumph over creatureliness–an
achievement which cannot be
adequately described in terms of
theological concepts. Thus
theology interprets this as
pantheism, whereas it is nothing
of the sort, but something
dynamic and inexpressible.” (Spirit and
Reality: N. Berdyaev). It is
thus clear that when Sri
Aurobindo affirms the
supreme possibility of Divine
immanence in the human which
entails a restoration of the
human now transfigured into a
divine-nature, the mystery of
real universal indwellingness in
the terrestrial human
personality is explained. There
is no impossibility in the
Divine Evolution as it is the
logical outcome of the Creative
History of the Divine which has
so far levelled up the microcosm
to the human level. In Sri
Aurobindo’s Philosophy its
authentic realisation is
affirmed as the core of New
Spirituality.
To live on you past cultural
capital is to end in bankruptcy
and pauperism. The past has to
be used always as mobile and
current capital for some larger
profit, acquisition and
development, and to gain we must
spend, we must part with
something in order to grow and
live more richly,–that is the
universal law of our existence.
Otherwise the life within will
stagnate and perish.
Though the Spirit is eternal in
its essence and in the
fundamental principles of
harmony immutable, its actual
rhythm of its self expression in
form is ever mutable; immutable
in being and the powers of its
being, but richly mutable in
life, that is the very nature of
the spirit’s manifested
existence.
(From
Sri Aurobindo’s “Is
India Civilised”).
