|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Fr. Glenn Morris OP “Faith and reason are the two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”. These opening words of our Holy Father’s encyclical, Fides et Ratio, can very well be applied to the body of Indian Philosophy. The faith of the indigenous Indian and his reason are the two wings which have been greatly responsible for the contemplation of the truth by the Indian spirit. India which has been the birthplace of the great religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, has tackled the basic questions of the human spirit, in its quest for meaning, in its search for enduring solutions to the questions as to the origin and end of beings, the problem of evil, the question of the after life and so on. This paper is divided into the following parts:
1. The requirements for a Christian Philosophy Man made in the image of God ("imago Dei"), with his immortal spirit, is constantly in search for a harmonious and meaningful life. Philosophy and philosophising, then, would be natural to a human being. This would be verified in all human beings regardless of any differences that may exist between them, be they based on gender, nationality or creed. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul, in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio (1998, abbreviated as „FR“) emphasises three requirements that should permeate a Christian philosophy of today (FR 80–84). Earlier (FR 76), he describes “Christian philosophy” as a “Christian way of philosophizing, a philosophical speculation conceived in dynamic union with the faith”. The first requirement asking that philosophy conform to its proper nature, is that it should recover its “sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life” (FR 81). Christian philosophers are called upon to supply a natural foundation for the unifying meaning of life as evidenced in the word of God and experienced as a natural religious impulse innate in every person. A philosophy which fails to do this, would be false and untrue to itself. The second requirement is that philosophy should “verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic Doctors referred” (FR 82). Any form of subjectivism or rationalisation which plays down or denies the ability of the human mind to know the truth of the whole of reality, comprising both the natural and supernatural, would not be able to guarantee the total and definitive truth of reality. If philosophy is to fulfil this task of guaranteeing the total and definitive truth of reality, then the third requirement certainly follows, namely “the need for a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range” (FR 83), capable of transcending empirical reality in its search for an ultimate, foundational truth. Our Holy Father emphasises the urgent and necessary need for mankind today to “move from phenomenon to foundation”(FR 83). However much the value of experience in revealing the depths of the human being, a philosophy which cannot transcend it or which shuns metaphysics would hardly be suitable to help us in understanding the truths of the ultimate reality and coming to a “unified and organic vision of knowledge” (FR 85). A Christian philosophy should not only be based on these postulates but should also be in “organic continuity with the great tradition which, beginning with the ancients, passes through the Fathers of the Church and the masters of Scholasticism and includes the fundamental achievements of modern and contemporary thought” (FR 85). Tradition, however, is not just a recognition or aping of the past, but it is a recognition of the “cultural heritage” which belongs to all humanity. In the succeeding paragraph Our Holy Father refers to this tradition as the “Christian tradition” which must be taken into account by contemporary philosophy (FR 86). St. Thomas plays a very important part in this tradition. Our Holy Father singles him out as an “authentic model for all who seek the truth” (FR 76), one who could “defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason” (FR 76). 2. Dangers to be avoided Our Holy Father then goes on to point out some risks that may come the way of a Christian philosopher of today. Some of these are worthy of consideration in the context of the present paper: 2.1 Eclecticism The first is eclecticism which involves the use of words and ideas drawn from different philosophies without concern for their precise meaning in their original use and their historical context (FR 86). The result would be a plastering of terms and ideas without any unified, coherent significance. 2.2 Historicism The second risk is historicism (FR 87) or the thinking that philosophical ideas have no value except in their historical context. The truth of these ideas would then be bound by time and culture with the result that every philosophy would be a closed chapter in itself, having no reference to any other philosophy either preceding or succeeding it. 2.3 Scientism The third danger would be from scientism which refuses to accept the validity of any form of knowledge other than that of the positive sciences. Philosophy would be dominated by science and technology leading to the belief that whatever is technically possible is therefore, for that reason, also morally possible (FR 88). 2.4 Pragmatism Not far from this would be pragmatism risking the emergence of truth relative to practical situations (FR 89). 2.5 Nihilism Underlying all these dangers is nihilism which is basically a denial of all objective truth (FR 90). 3. The value of an indigenous philosophy 3.1 Vatican II and Fides et Ratio Already in the Vatican Council’s Declaration, Nostra Aetate, the Church encouraged the study of philosophies and cultures other than that of Christianity as a means of enriching the faith. The encyclical, Fides et Ratio, is a further encouragement in the same direction. Greek philosophy, it cannot be denied, played a great part in the development of Christian theology but other approaches are not precluded. India gets special mention among the diverse cultural worlds with which Christianity has to interact today. Adverting to India’s ancient and rich heritage, we read: “In India, particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought” (FR 72). What is said for India is no less true for “the heritage of the great cultures of China, Japan and the other countries of Asia, as also for the riches of the traditional cultures of Africa” (FR 72). 3.2 Criteria Certain criteria will have to be kept in mind:
3.3 Openness of the Church We see here, then, an openness on the part of the Church towards being enriched by other than Christian cultures, an openness which respects the other cultures, an openness which beckons other cultures towards dialogue and research in the mutual enrichment of each other. Philosophy should be universal and not parochial. It cannot be confined and restricted to any particular tradition. Dialogue and not confrontation should govern the relationship between different philosophical traditions, each of which is willing to mutually understand and learn from each other. In the context of this paper, it can well be said that we have to move away from the traditional Eurocentric nature of philosophy and recognise the legitimacy of other types of philosophies. Christian philosophy has been greatly influenced by the philosophy of the West, whereas the philosophy of the East, associated with non-Catholic religions like Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Jainism, was relentlessly shunned as being inimical to the truth of Christianity, if not as the work of the devil himself. This “philosophical pride” (FR 4), along with a false assumption that there can exist no truth outside the Catholic Church, has been largely responsible for the non-appreciation and lack of respect, together with crass ignorance, of the truth of other philosophies. Perhaps Christian philosophy with its Eurocentrism has worn ‘blinkers’ for too long. Like Abraham of the Old Testament we need to leave behind the comfort of our philosophical tradition and open ourselves to be enriched by other ways of thought. 3.4 In India, philosophy and religion are intertwined One of the major problems one immediately encounters in Indian Philosophy, largely determined by the Hindu Scriptures, is the fact that philosophy and religion are so intimately intertwined. This could not be more true because in India, philosophy ("Darsana") emerges from religion ("Dharma") and attempts to fulfil the goals of religion. In the West, philosophy signified a ‘love of wisdom’ but in India it is signified by the Sanskrit, "Darsana", which indicates a viewpoint or outlook on life. Religion, signified by the Sanskrit, "Dharma", indicates not so much a revealed religion as in the case of Christianity and Islam, but as a way of life based on man’s reflection on life in all its various forms, be it within himself or outside himself in the world of external reality. Indian Philosophy addresses itself to the existential aspect of man’s life as a search for happiness by the elimination of misery. It thus shares the goal of religion and always has this religious slant, precisely because Indian Philosophy has as its goal, "Moksa" or liberation. If Western Philosophy arose out of curiosity or wonder, Indian Philosophy arose out of the lived experience of man. Further, Western Philosophy stresses knowledge for knowledge sake. Indian Philosophy, however, is not just something of an academic interest, urged on by intellectual curiosity. Rather it has the practical bent of providing a means of liberation from all forms of evil, moral and physical, in this life. This is so well summed up in the philosophy of Buddhism which takes the fact of suffering and misery as its starting point and seeks liberation from the same. In this sense, it is often said, that Indian Philosophy aims not so much at providing information as seeking the transformation of the quality of life by the liberation of the human person from every form of misery. 3.5 Upanisads Indian Philosophy, unlike its western counterpart, does not have many starting points but only one, namely the Upanisads. Every strain of Indian philosophy, even if holding contradictory views, is an interpretation of the doctrine of the Upanisads. It may well be said that all the different philosophies found in India are only a series of footnotes to the Upanisads. Details of the lives of the individual philosopher, his curriculum vitae, even if known, do not matter at all because all these are absorbed into the truth of his teaching. The history of Indian Philosophy, therefore, unlike that of the West, is not a chronology of the individual life and history of each philosopher, but rather a history of the philosophical thought of the various schools and traditions. 3.6 Some important topics of Indian philosophy and the corresponding problems and opportunities for a development of an Indian Christian Philosophy 3.61 Brahman If metaphysics is the heart of any philosophy, the central reality for Upanisadic philosophy is "Brahman", coming from the Sanskrit, "Brh" signifying that which ‘bursts forth’; it is the source or the origin of every objective being., of all material reality. At the other end of the spectrum is the individual self or "Átman". This is the source of every aspect of subjective reality, whereby one is conscious of oneself. However, the knowledge of oneself as an individual being, is a result of ignorance ("Avidya") as in reality it is identified and not distinct from Brahman. "Brahman" and "Átman" and their identification with each other form the two pillars of the whole Upanisadic metaphysics. In them is the material and the spiritual, the outer and the inner reality, identified, and the doctrine that there exists only one reality upheld. The identification of "Brahman" with "Átman" is expressed in the ‘great sayings’ ("Mahàvàkya") like “Tat tvam asi” (“That Thou art”) or “Aham Brahma asmi" (“I am Brahman”). Brahman or Brahman/Atman is the source of all being ("Sat"), of all consciousness ("Cit"), of all happiness or bliss ("Ánanda"): he is "Saccidánanda". The nature of the supreme reality, "Brahman", is expressed in two ways. It is either:
The distinction between these two aspects of the one and same reality is made due to the fact that not all human persons are capable of coming to a knowledge of "Brahman" in himself. Hence to regard "Brahman" as "Ishwara" is the result of the finiteness of the human mind which can only use the imperfect language of finite humans to describe a reality which, in itself as the fulness of being, defies all description in human terms. Infinitely and supremely transcendent in himself, he is brought down to a more comfortable level where one can relate to him as a person, even if absolutely perfect. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities If we accept the reality of the Absolute as embracing everything, conscious and unconscious, we would end up in a metaphysics of absolute idealism. Yet:
3.62 The World If "Brahman" is the only absolute reality does the world have any reality of its own? If so, how? This forms one of the most polemical questions among the philosophers of India. In the resolution of this intricate and delicate issue, one can distinguish between the following two doctrines with regard to the reality or otherwise of the world:
"Brahma-parinama-vada" accepts the world as real, since it is a real transformation of "Brahman" into the things of the world. This is the view of the Vedantic philosopher, Ramanuja, who took it from the teaching of the Sankya System which taught that the world was a real transformation of the eternal "Prakriti" or matter. However, Ramanuja substituted the reality of the absolute "Brahman" for the reality of "Prakriti". "Brahman-vivarta-vada" gives the world only the reality of an illusion. "Brahman" is not transformed into but only appears as the world. The world then would not have the metaphysical reality of being, but only the illusive reality of a phenomenon. Sankara introduces his doctrine of Maya to explain this view, associated with him. 3.63 The Doctrine of Maya For Sankara there can be only one reality. There is no such thing as another reality. He is the all perfect, unchangeable, transcendent being. The world then cannot have any reality apart from "Brahman". If "Brahman" is transformed into the world, he would be the efficient and material cause. This would imply a change in "Brahman", leading to Pantheism. Sankara, however, would preserve the absoluteness ("Vivarta") of "Brahman" as immutable while still maintaining the absolute dependence of the world on God. Maya is his necessary postulate to resolve this problem. Maya is the power of God whereby he creates the illusion that the world is real, just as a magician creates an illusory effect for his audience. Just as the illusory magic is dependent on the magician, so also the world, being illusory depends on the power of God. The world then, according to Sankara, would not be "Sat" or real being, nor would it be asat or non-being, it is incomprehensible ("anîrvacanyâ"); it has a being which however is relative and dependent on God. One would better appreciate the position of Sankara if one remembered that the only reality is "Brahman". The world then would be unreal, an illusion only in the sense that the world does not have the reality of "Brahman", namely that it is not subsisting being. It is for this reason that Buddhism holds for the doctrine of "Sunyavada" or the theory of nothingness where nothingness indicates something indescribable. The world does not have an existence of its own nor is it at the same time, unreal. All empirical reality is relative and dependent on "Brahman" or on the principle of causation (principle of dependent origination, "pratityasamutpada"). The Jains would say that all knowledge, in any form whatsoever, is purely relative ("Syàdvàda"). "Brahman" manifests himself differently in the things of the world, according to their degrees of excellence, dignity and power. The relationship between "Brahman" and the things of the world is not reciprocal. The things of the world have a real relationship of dependence on "Brahman" but "Brahman" does not depend on them. Like the reflection of the sun on the water in a pool: the reflection depends on the sun but not vice-versa. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities In the relationship between "Brahman" and the world, we can appreciate Sankara’s anxiety to maintain the immutability of God and also his infinity. Hence he introduces his concept of "Maya" which is caused by God. The world then is an illusion caused by God, but if God is causing an illusion, he does not cause an effect in its metaphysical reality. For Sankara then God becomes an efficient cause without an effect. On the other hand, we can also appreciate the position of causation taken by the Sankya philosophy and Ramanuja, that the world is a transformation of "Brahman". God is not only an efficient cause but also the material cause of the universe. The effect must be pre-contained in the cause. We would then have to face the situation of reconciling the infinite with the finite. Both positions want to maintain that the world is dependent on God, who is absolute being. The problem is about God being the material cause. This problem could be solved by the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo", where God is the efficient cause without being the material cause, while still having the being of the world totally dependent on him as the First Cause. God would still be infinite and immutable, while the world would not have the reality of God because it would be finite. The world that Sankara calls unreal and illusory ("Maya") St. Thomas would call finite, both thus preserving the world as something that is not eternal, not infinite yet depending on God for whatever reality it has. Without this dependence on him, the world is nothing, it has no reality of its own. If the same "Brahman" is manifested in different ways in different beings, and is "Brahman" like the subsisting being, then we would have something akin to the doctrine of analogy where all would bebeing but at the same time different. Also, we would agree that the relationship between God and creatures is nt reciprocal: it is real on the part of creatures towards God but only rational on the part of God towards creatures. 3.64 The Self or "Átman" There is no doubt about the existence of the self or the "átman". It is given in experience through the fact of consciousness. However the experience of the self varies according to the different states of consciousness as found in the waking state, the dreaming state, the state of dreamless sleep ("susupti") and finally a state of happiness called the "Turiya" state. It is only in this state of perfect consciousness that the self realises its true nature as "átman". The distinction is made between the empirical self and the absolute self. The empirical self is manifested in the former three states of consciousness involving a world of change, but the absolute or the true self is intuited only in the Turiya state of perfect bliss. Is this self ("átman") something that has an existence distinct from "Brahman"? Considering the fact that for the Upanisads there is only one reality, it is not possible for "átman" to have an existence of its own really distinct from that of "Brahman". In fact, it is identified with "Brahman". While "Brahman" indicates the objective aspect of the one reality, the "átman" signifies the subjective aspect of the one reality, "Brahman-átman". For this reason, Buddhism teaches the doctrine of "Nairátmya-vada" or the theory of the non-existence of the self. This theory cannot be taken in its literal meaning that the self is not existing, because the exponents would have to have a self to uphold this theory. All it means is that the finite self has no existence of its own. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities Here also we certainly could not accept the soul as being identified and having the same nature as God. The soul, being created, must have a lower degree of existence than its creator. It only participates in the being of the creator. As such it must be finite. However:
3.65 The Problem of Evil Evil is primarily the result of ignorance ("ávidya"). In the metaphysical systems which hold for the one and absolute reality, evil consists in projecting diversity in place of the absolute unity of all reality. The self thinks itself as really distinct ("ahamkara") from "Brahman". For Buddhism which holds for the theory of momentariness ("ksanika-váda"), evil consists in the self regarding itself as something permanent instead of one that is constantly changing, as does all reality. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities The problem of evil is not one that can be sufficiently explained as to its origin. The Upanisads say that the origin of evil is the postulation of diversity where there exists unity. Buddhism with its four noble truths ("arya satya") does not try to find a rationale for the existence of sufferng. It takes it as a fact of origin and cessation, and hence there must be a way to prevent and overcome it. Evil is regarded as the result of selfishness. When one creates a god of one’s own, or if one puts oneself before God, one naturally would stray away from the truth, resulting in evil. 3.66 Liberation or Moksa If evil is the result of ignorance ("ávidya"), then liberation follows on knowledge ("vidya or jnana"). When one obtains a true knowledge of oneself, then one attains liberation. This is brought about by an ethical process involving knowledge and action. Basically it consists in removing an attitude which promotes an affirmation of the identity of oneself ("aham-kára") as distinct from the absolute being. The Upanisads give us two broad means for obtaining "Moksa" or liberation. Various details were later added by other schools of Indian Philosophy. The first of these is the cultivation of detachment ("Vairagya"). If evil consists in the perversion of self-attachment ("aham-kára"), then liberation will consist in cultivating the virtue of detachment. The Upanisads give us a life-long process involving passing through the stages ("àsramas") of life. Later the Bhagavad Gita will give us the principle of supreme detachment, namely to perform one’s duty according to one’s way of life without seeking any reward. Kant would formulate it as ‘duty for duty’s sake’. The second great means is knowledge ("vidya") or ("jnana"). If evil is due to ignorance ("avidya"), then surely liberation will come about through knowledge ("vidya", "jnana"). A life of detachment ("vairagya") prepares the person for right knowledge. The Upanisads speak of a three-fold movement towards this goal, namely "sravana" (the study of the Upanisads under a guru), "manana" (a constant reflection on what has been taught) and "nididhyàsana" (deep meditation). It is at this level that one finally obtains that perception that the self is not distinct but is identified with Brahman ("aham-Brahma-asmi"). Buddhism also stresses the need for deep meditation and contemplation. But the heights of such knowledge is obtained through the process involving the eight-fold path of liberation ("astangika-marga"). Jainism, famous for its doctrine of non-violence ("ahimsa") stresses that liberation is obtained through the ‘three jewels’ ("tri-ratna") of right faith ("samyagdarsana") or a belief in the Jaina scriptures and their teaching, right knowledge ("samyagjnana") or the knowledge of the Jaina philosophy and practices and finally, right conduct ("samyak-caritra") or the right application of faith and philosophy to everyday life. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities The aim of the Upanisadic Ethics is precisely to realise the metaphysical identification between the soul and Brahman: "Aham Brahma Asmi". While we do not hold for the metaphysical identification between the self and Brahman, Indian Philosophy stresses many important points which are valid for a Christian philosophy. First of all, one sees the co-relation between faith and action. Only when there is a coherence between one’s belief and one’s behaviour can we hope to attain liberation. Secondly, one sees the great importance of selfless action. If evil is due to a misguided evaluation of the self, liberation is obtained only by correcting that in detached action. Thirdly, one sees the merits of meditation and contemplation in the attainment of liberation, moving away from the contemplation of the understanding of one’s self to a complete absorption into the divine. 3.67 Two classes of adherents The Upanisads, Buddhism and Jainism agree that the ideal of liberation cannot be attained easily by all. There is a difference between a higher knowledge ("paravidya") and a lower knowledge ("apara-vidya"), there is the ordinary believer and the ascetic or monk. The Upanisads are well aware that only some will know "Brahman" as "Nirguna Brahman" while a whole lot more will know him as the source of all perfections, as "Saguna Brahman". In Buddhism and Jainism more is expected of the monk and the ascetic than of the layman. One can see no problem in accepting a difference in the knowledge of the faith, and consequently its practice in the life of the theologian and that of the layman. 3.68 "Jivan-Mukti" and "Videha-Mukti" Liberation is not something that has to be experienced only after death. One can attain liberation even in this life ("jivan-mukti") which continues on after one’s death ("videha-mukti"). The Buddhists call it the state of "nirvana" and the person an "arhant". The Jains refer to such a person as a "siddha" or what we might term a ‘saint’. In all the various Indian philosophies the person who enjoys liberation in this life ("jivan-mukta"), lives a life of perfect peace and equanimity and is a model for others to follow. Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problems and Opportunities In keeping with the aim of Indian Philosophy at removing suffering, one can see that once one has made a fundamental option to follow the way of liberation, one hopes not to turn back. However, while we are still free to do so, we have to still keep ourselves open to the possibility of changing one’s mind even at the point of death. Nevertheless our experience shows us that a saint does not become a saint in the next life, if one does not manifest one’s holiness in this life. A saint always reflects the holiness of God in one’s life and is a model for others to follow. A saint manifests all the aspects of the person who has overcome suffering and who has attained liberation in this life. 3.69 Samsara and Karma Indian Philosophy realises that it is not easy for a person to attain liberation ("moksa") in one life. Provision is then made for a cycle of births and deaths called "samsara" or transmigration. The law which governs this cycle determining the type of life one is to have in the next life is the law of "Karma". Basically it teaches that nothing can happen in the moral and physical sphere without a sufficient cause. This cause is something that happened in one’s past life. It determines the joys and sorrows of this present life and these in turn will determine one’s life in the future. This however is not an eternal cycle as it can be broken by liberation ("moksa"). The details of one’s life then is something that is the effect of one’s own deeds. God is not the author of our joys and sufferings: we bring them on ourselves! Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy: Problem and Opportunities Reincarnation with the cycle of births and deaths, while suggesting the immortality of the soul, does not do justice to the dignity of the freedom of the individual human person who is adequately responsbile to make a lasting decision in life. The law of Karma is one that is postulated rather than metaphysically proved. It is, according to Fr. Jean L. Mercier, “a short-cut chosen by all Indian systems of philosophy to solve the problem of evil and suffering. The injustices and miseries of this life will find ample compensation in other lives. What is imperfect, frustrating and evil within the span of one life will have the chance of being overcome in as many lives as are necesary to obtain final salvation” (Jean L. Mercier, From the Upanisads to Aurobindo, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 2001, p. 7.). It thus promotes the belief in a moral order in the universe in which justice is the supreme rule. However:
4. Conclusion We have to face the fundamental question: can we develop a Christian Indian Philosophy using Indian categories of thought? Since this philosophy has to be “Christian” we are automatically restricted in our study. Our study of philosophy has to then necessarily be “the handmaid of theology” (“ancilla theologiae”). The truths of such a Christian Indian Philosophy will be determined by the truths of Christian theology. As such one can readily see that we cannot take over categories of thought, the significance of which are determined by an Indian theology, which holds for pantheism. However, we can find ideas which are similar and would help us relate to the philosophy and culture of our people. Such ideas when used well, can certainly be an enrichment for our own Christian philosophy and consequently our own theology. I will end with a prayer from the Brhadàranyaka Upanisad: Asato ma sad gamaya which translated means: Lead me from Untruth to Truth, © 9.5.2003, P. Glenn Morris OP. |
 |
|
 |
||