Missing yourself means that you have been trying to become something, somebody. You have an
idea, and you are trying to fulfill that idea in your life.
All idealists live in agony.
It is not only the existentialist philosophers who are in agony. Of course they have brought the word
to great prominence for the simple reason that
this century has come as far away from nature and existence as possible: one step more and
humanity disappears. This was the longest distance possible – we have traveled it.
We have come as far away from ourselves as possible.
That’s why in this century a philosophy like existentialism became possible.
I showed one of the histories of existentialism to one of my old professors who must have studied
thirty, forty, years before. At that time the word ”existentialism” was not even coined. Sartre, Jaspers,
Marcel, were yet to be. He looked at the content and he could not believe it.
He said, ”Is this a book on philosophy? No chapter on God, no chapter on the proofs for God, no
chapter on religion, no chapter on the soul of man, no chapter on beyond death, heaven, hell. A
strange history – chapters on agony, meaninglessness, anguish, anxiety. These are philosophical
subjects?”
I said, ”You have missed forty years. You have completely forgotten that forty years have passed
since you were in the university studying philosophy, and after that you have never bothered
about what has been happening to philosophy. You are still remembering Aristotle, Kant, Hegel,
Feuerbach, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Bradley. You are still remembering these people who have really
faded out; they are simply no longer in. And any philosopher worth the name today is not interested
in God – he is interested in man. And to be interested in man brings all these problems, agony ....”
He said, ”But what is agony?”
I had to use his language, something from the past history of philosophy so that he could have a
little insight into agony. In the past there has been a great philosophical question down the ages.
The question was: between animals, trees, rocks, and man, what is the difference? Certainly they
all exist; as far as existence is concerned there is no difference. Certainly they all live – even rocks
grow.
The Himalayas are growing every year, one foot higher. The place where I was born was by the side
of a mountain range called Vindhyachal. It is thought to be the ancientmost mountain in the world. It
is almost a proved fact that Vindhyachal and the land around it came out of the sea first, because on
Vindhyachal corpses of sea animals have been found which are the most ancient. On the Himalayas
also they have been found but they are not so ancient. The Himalayas are the youngest mountains
in the world, and Vindhyachal is the oldest mountain in the world.
Just by the way, I am reminded of the story about Vindhyachal in the UPANISHADS. One great seer,
Agastya, went to south India, and had to cross Vindhyachal.
Vindhyachal was so high it was difficult for the seer, so he prayed to Vindhychal, ”Be kind enough to
just bend down a little and let me pass. And remain bending till I come back, because I will have to
pass again.” Agastya died in the south and never came back, but Vindhyachal is still bending. If you
see the mountain you can see, it is as if an old man is bending.
The story is beautiful, but it shows that Vindhyachal is really old, an old man who cannot even stand
straight. Mountains grow old or young; they are as alive as you are. Trees, animals, birds – as far
as life is concerned we may have different kinds of life but we all have a certain quality called living,
aliveness, which is similar.
So in ancient philosophy this has been a problem: Then what is the difference? Is there no
difference? There have been two schools. One said there is no difference; we are all alike, we
are part of one single whole – different dimensions, different branches, but we are all rooted in one
existence. These are the spiritualists who say that we are all one.
The other school is that of the materialists, who say that we are all separate, there is no organic
unity anywhere; existence is not one. According to the materialists, the word ”universe” should
not be used. The word ”universe” was invented by the spiritualists because it means ”uni,” one.
According to the materialists the right word should be ”multiverse” – many, not one. Everything is
separate, and there is no unity anywhere.
And how does this whole go on? – and in a such a tremendous harmony? This is where you will
see how logic can be fallacious.
The spiritualist says there is harmony because it is ruled by one God, or one universal
consciousness. One absolute being, one center, controls everything. That’s why nothing goes
wrong. Everything moves in an absolute harmony. And the universe is vast, it is immense,
immeasurable; still, everything goes on without any disturbance, without any discrepancy. The logic
seems to be solid, but it is not so.
The same logic the materialist uses. He says it goes on in such a harmonious way because there
is nobody who is controlling it. Whenever there is somebody who is controlling everything, there is
a possibility of failure, mistakes, errors. Nobody is infallible.
If there were one God controlling everything for millions of years sometimes He might fall asleep,
sometimes just for a change He might go for a morning walk. If it is being controlled by one being
then there is every possibility of a mistake. And during such a long period can you think that a
person will not commit any mistake? Just by mistake he may commit a mistake. And there are so
many things to be arranged and looked after – just look ....
Just the other day Vivek was saying to me – seeing a peacock with its feathers open, so colorful,
she said, ”God must be taking so much care to paint them.”
If God were really to paint all the peacocks of the world then you can be certain there would bound to
be a thousand and one mistakes. Howsoever infallible God is He cannot manage to go on painting
year by year millions and millions of peacocks. And not only peacocks, there are other birds, and
every detail has to be looked into.
idea, and you are trying to fulfill that idea in your life.
All idealists live in agony.
It is not only the existentialist philosophers who are in agony. Of course they have brought the word
to great prominence for the simple reason that
this century has come as far away from nature and existence as possible: one step more and
humanity disappears. This was the longest distance possible – we have traveled it.
We have come as far away from ourselves as possible.
That’s why in this century a philosophy like existentialism became possible.
I showed one of the histories of existentialism to one of my old professors who must have studied
thirty, forty, years before. At that time the word ”existentialism” was not even coined. Sartre, Jaspers,
Marcel, were yet to be. He looked at the content and he could not believe it.
He said, ”Is this a book on philosophy? No chapter on God, no chapter on the proofs for God, no
chapter on religion, no chapter on the soul of man, no chapter on beyond death, heaven, hell. A
strange history – chapters on agony, meaninglessness, anguish, anxiety. These are philosophical
subjects?”
I said, ”You have missed forty years. You have completely forgotten that forty years have passed
since you were in the university studying philosophy, and after that you have never bothered
about what has been happening to philosophy. You are still remembering Aristotle, Kant, Hegel,
Feuerbach, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Bradley. You are still remembering these people who have really
faded out; they are simply no longer in. And any philosopher worth the name today is not interested
in God – he is interested in man. And to be interested in man brings all these problems, agony ....”
He said, ”But what is agony?”
I had to use his language, something from the past history of philosophy so that he could have a
little insight into agony. In the past there has been a great philosophical question down the ages.
The question was: between animals, trees, rocks, and man, what is the difference? Certainly they
all exist; as far as existence is concerned there is no difference. Certainly they all live – even rocks
grow.
The Himalayas are growing every year, one foot higher. The place where I was born was by the side
of a mountain range called Vindhyachal. It is thought to be the ancientmost mountain in the world. It
is almost a proved fact that Vindhyachal and the land around it came out of the sea first, because on
Vindhyachal corpses of sea animals have been found which are the most ancient. On the Himalayas
also they have been found but they are not so ancient. The Himalayas are the youngest mountains
in the world, and Vindhyachal is the oldest mountain in the world.
Just by the way, I am reminded of the story about Vindhyachal in the UPANISHADS. One great seer,
Agastya, went to south India, and had to cross Vindhyachal.
Vindhyachal was so high it was difficult for the seer, so he prayed to Vindhychal, ”Be kind enough to
just bend down a little and let me pass. And remain bending till I come back, because I will have to
pass again.” Agastya died in the south and never came back, but Vindhyachal is still bending. If you
see the mountain you can see, it is as if an old man is bending.
The story is beautiful, but it shows that Vindhyachal is really old, an old man who cannot even stand
straight. Mountains grow old or young; they are as alive as you are. Trees, animals, birds – as far
as life is concerned we may have different kinds of life but we all have a certain quality called living,
aliveness, which is similar.
So in ancient philosophy this has been a problem: Then what is the difference? Is there no
difference? There have been two schools. One said there is no difference; we are all alike, we
are part of one single whole – different dimensions, different branches, but we are all rooted in one
existence. These are the spiritualists who say that we are all one.
The other school is that of the materialists, who say that we are all separate, there is no organic
unity anywhere; existence is not one. According to the materialists, the word ”universe” should
not be used. The word ”universe” was invented by the spiritualists because it means ”uni,” one.
According to the materialists the right word should be ”multiverse” – many, not one. Everything is
separate, and there is no unity anywhere.
And how does this whole go on? – and in a such a tremendous harmony? This is where you will
see how logic can be fallacious.
The spiritualist says there is harmony because it is ruled by one God, or one universal
consciousness. One absolute being, one center, controls everything. That’s why nothing goes
wrong. Everything moves in an absolute harmony. And the universe is vast, it is immense,
immeasurable; still, everything goes on without any disturbance, without any discrepancy. The logic
seems to be solid, but it is not so.
The same logic the materialist uses. He says it goes on in such a harmonious way because there
is nobody who is controlling it. Whenever there is somebody who is controlling everything, there is
a possibility of failure, mistakes, errors. Nobody is infallible.
If there were one God controlling everything for millions of years sometimes He might fall asleep,
sometimes just for a change He might go for a morning walk. If it is being controlled by one being
then there is every possibility of a mistake. And during such a long period can you think that a
person will not commit any mistake? Just by mistake he may commit a mistake. And there are so
many things to be arranged and looked after – just look ....
Just the other day Vivek was saying to me – seeing a peacock with its feathers open, so colorful,
she said, ”God must be taking so much care to paint them.”
If God were really to paint all the peacocks of the world then you can be certain there would bound to
be a thousand and one mistakes. Howsoever infallible God is He cannot manage to go on painting
year by year millions and millions of peacocks. And not only peacocks, there are other birds, and
every detail has to be looked into.
No comments:
Post a Comment