The role of philosophy

Fr. Glenn Morris OP
The problems and the particular opportunities in philosophical formation and work in the Order among nations with a non-western philosophical tradition

Abstract

This talk begins with three requirements for a Christian philosophy as spelt out by our Holy Father’s encyclical Fides et Ratio (FR), namely its „sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life“ (FR 81), its verification that the human mind can „come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adæquatio rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic Doctors referred“ (FR 82), and thirdly its „genuinely metaphysical range“ (FR 83). Certain dangers are to be avoided: a) eclecticism, b) historicism, c) scientism, d) pragmatism, and e) nihilism.

While developing an indigenous philosophy certain criteria are to be kept in mind. The first is the universalitv of the human spirit, present in all cultures. Secondly, the Church cannot abandon what she gained from her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought, and thirdly, care should be taken lest the legitimate defense of the uniqueness and originality of any thought be confused with the idea that a particular cultural tradition should remain closed in its differences and affirm itself by opposing other traditions (FR 72).

The author asks for a consideration of traditions of philosophy other than that of the European tradition. He deals mainly with the Indian philosophical tradition. One of the prime difficulties is that religion and philosophy are so intimately intertwined. This is true only because Indian philosophy (Darsana) serves to fulfill the aims of religion (Dharma) as the liberation from all suffering, physical and moral, in the life of man.

Indian philosophy has only one starting point, namely the Upanisads. The only reality is Brahman-Atman, the identification of all material and spiritual reality, the origin of all being (Sat), of all consciousness (Cit), of all happiness (Ananda): he is Saccidànanda. Brahman is described as either Nirguna, devoid of all qualities, or Saguna, full of perfection. Christians can see a similar doctrine in describing God by the way of negation and attribution.

The world is seen as being totally dependent on Brahman, being either a real transformation of Brahman or only an illusion of Brahman. Sankara introduces the doctrine of Maya to show that the world is an illusion of Brahman. However, Christian philosophy can still maintain the dependency of the world on God by showing that the world is finite and created ex nihilo. The same would be true for the doctrine of the soul (Átman). The Upanisads present the Átman as being identified with Brahman. In fact, evil is the wrong belief that Brahman and the Átman are two distinct realities. This arises from ignorance (avidya). Liberation (Moksa) is obtained through knowledge (jnana or vidya). The two broad means are detachment (vauragya) and the transcendent knowledge whereby one removes all thought of oneself and realises one’s identity with the divine. Christian philosophy would accept the co-relation between faith and unselfish action. Indian philosophy would hold for liberation both in this life and in the next. It, however, holds for the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation to show that liberation is not always possible in one lifetime only. Christians would not accept these teachings, but would accept one’s being responsible for one’s actions and its fruits.

In conclusion, one can see that one cannot blankly take over Indian concepts which are significantly determined by Indian theology, which holds for pantheism. But keeping in mind the aim of Indian philosophy as liberation from suffering, Christians can see many ideas which are akin to Christian philosophy and would make it more relevant to India’s people and culture.

© 1.5.2003, P. Glenn Morris OP.