AUROBINDO
Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a philosopher-yogi and leader in the movement for Indian independence, emphasized the human spirituality and obstacles to spiritual transformation inherent in modernity. He developed a theory of social organization which facilitated individuals living the ‘life divine’ in full realization of Brahman by the discipline of yoga. In applying philosophical principles to Hindu teachings he concluded:
“The problem of thought… is to find out the right idea and the right way of harmony; to restate the ancient and eternal spiritual truth of the Self, so that it shall re-embrace, permeate, and dominate the mental and physical life; to develop the most profound and vital methods of psychological self-discipline and self-development so that the mental and the psychical life of man may express the spiritual life of man through the utmost possible expansion of its own richness, power, and complexity; and to seek for the means and motives by which his external life, his society and his institutions may remold themselves progressively in the truth of the spirit and develop towards the utmost possible harmony of individual freedom and social unity.”6
Aurobindo declares the world of things and selves is nothing less than the manifested power of the Spirit. He explains the different levels of the empirical and the rational (Shankara’s maya) as ‘play’ by the Absolute who is nonetheless ever pure and perfect existence. The evolution of the universe is the returning of the manifested powers to their source, Brahman. As these powers move towards their source, evolution moves to progressively higher forms of life and consciousness. In other words, the unfolding of the universe and its contents is in fact the evolution of a single entity, Spirit, and as such, cosmic evolution is neither blind nor deterministic.
The significance of this theory for humanity is quite profound; we too can evolve to a higher kind of being and participate in, and even partially direct this evolution. The purpose of human existence is to achieve a higher level of self-consciousness in order to transcend oneself just as lower entities evolved to the level of human existence. This is done, according to Aurobindo by dedication to the practice of self-discipline (yoga). But this opportunity depends on a social structure which enables the conditions for man to reach beyond himself – namely justice and freedom.7
CLOSING THOUGHTS
We seldom learn so much from one short essay. Koller offers us not only a method (or the method) to find at least pragmatic truth in considerations of metaphysics and ultimate reality, but also two poignant, real world, examples. The practical philosopher, in short, must adopt philosophical positions consistent with logic and his or her experience as a living being. We conclude that experience and experiencing are integral factors in finding meaning within reality.
And perhaps because each of our experiences of being human is distinct, we are justified in taking slightly different philosophical positions in matters of happiness and the meaning of life. We also recognize a corollary; we should vary our experiences and probe them deeply for truths that can survive tests of self-contradiction by logical analysis. Koller has taken us far on the road to a practical understanding of the meaningful life.
—————————————————
6Koller, John M., Oriental Philosophies. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1970. ISBN 684-13668-6, page 100.
7Ibid., pages 100-102. Like Radhakrishna, Aurobindo applies philosophical analysis of Hindu scripture to create a practical philosophy, here not only of individual behavior, but of governance as well.
—————————————–
Having trouble leaving a question or comment? E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com
Koller now surprises us with some ‘metaphilosophy’:4
Koller contends that philosophy strives to eliminate theoretical errors about the nature of reality by showing that the implications of such errors lead to contradictions. Thus logic and argument when combined with immediate experience offer reliable understanding regarding the practical and the ideal as well as the material and the spiritual. This, he believes, is why Indian philosophy lacks developed skepticism and materialism – both fail under closer scrutiny – skepticism because the proposition that nothing can be known is ultimately unsatisfactory and materialism because it defies logic and experience.
“It is a type of experience which is not clearly differentiated into a subject-object state, an integral, undivided consciousness in which not merely this or that side of man’s nature but his whole being seems to find itself. It is a condition of consciousness in which feelings are fused, ideas melt into one another, boundaries broken and ordinary distinctions transcended. Past and present fade away in a sense of timeless being. Consciousness and being are there not different from each other. All being is consciousness and all consciousness being. Thought and reality coalesce and a creative merging of subject and object results. Life grows conscious of its incredible depths. In this fullness of felt life and freedom, the distinction of the knower and the known disappears. The privacy of the individual self is broken and invaded by a universal self which the individual feels as his own” – Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan1
His internal virtues of desirelessness and wisdom and his external virtues of humility and freedom from avarice and ill-will towards others is elegantly succinct. His theological assertions of a divine order or pattern underpinning the universe and the blessedness that comes from our alignment with it is profound. And his emphasis on meditation using the mantra of Self-enquiry, “Who am I?” will surely permit some followers to achieve his notion of ‘illumination.’
But perhaps the greatest divergence between East and West comes down to differences in their traditional concepts of enlightenment. For the Maharshi, as for most Eastern spiritualists, enlightenment is total tranquility and the direct experience of oneness of self and cosmos, while in the West it refers to refined knowledge and understanding of the many aspects of reality. I believe the practical philosopher should… and ultimately must … seek both in pursuit of the fully meaningful life.
The reader may wonder whether I have tried this approach, and indeed I have … on several occasions. Unfortunately I was not successful in sustaining the ‘I’-thought. I did find the practice calming, even to the point of drowsiness. However, no degree of concentration on the first question and redirecting by the second seemed to keep my mind from wandering or dozing off. One problem for me was the propensity to mentally hear or visualize the individual words “who,” “am,” and “I”. I found this distracting me from the wordlessness I suspect is necessary, though such interference did sync up nicely with deep breathing (inspiring during the words and expiring in between). I also found the question “What am I?” intruding in; perhaps this is natural for the Western philosopher.
Eckhart Tolle’s three gateways to the Now, or Eknath Easwaran’s suggestion of a mantra (such as “Om” or “Lord Jesus Christ”) or the use of a sacred passage (I always liked the 23rd Psalm). Perhaps that is not a surprise since these methods also seek single-pointedness. My failure does not disprove the value of any of these techniques including Self-enquiry – I may just not be sufficiently primed or disposed for Eastern meditation, or I may simply need more practice or require guidance from an experienced practitioner.
unrevealed thoughts and feelings, and deepest of all, the pure awareness and unadulterated consciousness that is immediately recognizable in a newborn, which I call the ‘primal self.’ I believe this is the Maharshi’s ‘ Awareness which alone remains- ‘that I am.’ It may take some effort for the reader to distill it out from the fully constructed self, but it is and has always has been there, and as the Maharshi tells us, it precedes existentially our recognition of the physical body and the turbulent mind.
“Meditation consists in thinking that one’s self is Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.” – The Maharshi restates perhaps the most fundamental principle of the Upanishads – “Tat tvam asi” – Atman. Our inner self or ‘soul’ is identical with the spiritual underpinning of reality or (capital S) ‘Soul.’ Both encompass being, consciousness, and complete happiness, blessing, bliss. The portal to this conjunction of souls is meditation, which for him is epitomized in his method of “Self-enquiry’ – the subject of the next post.
There is a lot here. First the Maharshi believes in the existence of God. Second, the divine is immanent in the world and the active administrator of reality. Third, God’s administration involves ‘three (cosmic) functions,’ or fundamental processes: creation, preservation, and destruction (consider the cycle of living things – birth, life, and death) or more completely, the ‘five-fold divine activities’ (pañcakrtya) including two more processes, thus: “creation, maintenance, annihilation, concealment, and blessing… The first four concern the evolution of the world and the fifth is the cause of salvation.”23 Fourth, the word ‘governed’ suggests the Maharshi believes human actions should be guided by the divine blueprint. Fifth, karma, the inevitable consequences (reward or penalty) of the actions of mortals in life (and, for Hindus, in prior lives), relates to being in accord with the design of the deity. Sixth, “God has no resolve” may mean God will not interfere with humans who, in fact, have the free will to align with the divine plan or not… subject to karma however. Last, the passage closes with both a theological principle and a warning: only God is immune to the cosmic law of karma.
On the other, I worry the second part may express an anti-intellectualism not unlike that of some early Christians who balked at Greek philosophy as flawed, unnecessary, or obsolete – arguing revelation superseded human reason and the intellectual heritage of antiquity. Like Aquinas, I disagree – truth (even mystical truth) should be compatible with human reason. Philosophy, science, and literature also offer myriad benefits to the meaningful life not possible from scipture and spiritual discipline alone. There is also an implicit contradiction here: if all one has learned is to be forgotten, then the teachings of the Maharshi must also be forgotten.
hyperbolic self-preservation (the egoity ‘I’ – (a great term, don’t you think?) – which leads to the evils of selfishness and disregard or harm of others. Egoism, in the largest sense, is the most salient cause of evil in our world. If one can overcome the distorted instinct underpinning the egoity ‘I’, virtue fills the void, and as the Maharshi teaches: ethics is an attribute and pervasion of the divine. I see this principle as the Maharshi’s version of the Golden Rule.
the mind as an endless progression, regression, and repetition of thoughts. Eckhart Tolle, in his book The Power of Now, points this out as well, arguing that most of our thoughts are non-productive, and that stilling the mind is the means to tranquility. To some extent we can all confirm this since when drifting off to sleep,we observe thoughts decreasing, calmness emerging, and the mind fading away. I also note the implicit corollary principle that the mind is 
This assertion by the Maharshi appears ambiguous, perhaps intentionally. I am not quite sure he is denying there is an actual world separate from our inner self. In any case, I believe that the existence of a world outside ourselves is a belief of very high certainty.22 Like Kant, I allow that we project from our individual mind our particular idea of the world as filtered through our senses, and that we do not perceive ‘things-in-themselves,’ but, again like Kant, I do not doubt those ‘things’ in fact exist. It may be the Maharshi is saying something similar.
“What exists in truth is the Self alone.” – Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
The basic proposition of Who am I? (Nan Yar) is straightforward enough: the direct path to liberation (enlightenment?) is by a process called ‘Self-inquiry.’ That is to say one can achieve mind control and eliminate interfering thoughts by a disciplined focusing of the mind on the fundamental question of one’s own identity – literally asking oneself, “Who am I?” And if the mind wanders to other thoughts, redirection is achieved by asking oneself “To whom do they arise?” This astonishingly simple, yet challenging, approach permits access to the single-pointedness that launches one on the path to freedom from perplexity and suffering.
