Chapter I

SUFFERING AND AFFIRMATION IN LIFE

The pre-historic man, as far as we can conceive of him,

might have led a really perilous life with myriad hostile agencies

lurking in the dark, waiting for an opportune moment to terminate all

his achievements thus far. In such harrowing circumstances, it would

have become necessary for him to reassure himself by asserting his

indomitable will to tide over hardships and to keep the torch of life

burning. As a rational being, his mind could register the wonderful, yet

incomprehensible phenomenon of a driving force a t work behind the

innumerable organic and inorganic changes taking place around him.

Naturally enough, prompted by the sense of loneliness and the feeling

of insecurity, he came to worship that unseen power which he thought

was somehow instrumental in shaping his destiny too.

The immutable soul's prayer to transcend calamities and

to attain fulfilment in its mission on the earth is seen as early as in the

Vedic hymns :

God made the rivers to flow. They feel no weariness.

They cease not from flowing.

They fly swiftly like birds in the air. May t

my life flow into the river of

bonds of sin that binds me. Let . .

be cut while I sing : and let not my work end before 'its'..' -- fulfilment. 1

The problem of suffering and its consequent impact on

human endeavours have always baMed theologians and philosophers

the world over from the dawn of history. The different postulations

pertaining to the existence and ennobling of human life, all take for

granted the presence of suffering in its myriad manifestations as

retarding forces set against the human will in its search for perfection.

All great religions of the world have consistently stressed the value of

suffering as a means to redemption. The great Bhagavat Gita which

exhorts us to follow the path of 'Karma Yoga' unmindful of the

material rewards it may bring, does not deign to decry the sufferings

and sacrifices that such a course is likely to demand from its devotees.

The author llkens the world to a battlefield and says that labouring,

struggling and surviving in it, even to the point of sacrificing

everything held so far dear to the heart, is something essential, and

moreover we are dutybound to do so. What amounts to greatness is not

essentially winning the battle, but putting up a tough stance of

resistance :

Sukha-dukhe same krtva labhalabhau jayajayau tat0

yudhaya yujyasva naivam papam avapsyasi.2

"Pleasure and pain are to be treated alike, like gain and

loss, or victory or defeat. What is important is the readiness to

struggle. If that is fulfilled, you incur no sin."

All the six traditional Indian systems of thought namely,

Gautama's Nyaya, Kanada's Vaisesika, Kapila's Samkhya/Patanjali's

Yoga, Jamini's Purvamimamsa and Badarayan's Uttara mimmamsa

have tried to define the nature of the universe in their own different

ways. All these systems have accepted the authority of the Vedas and

hence are essentially Brahminical. Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, the

renyowned exponent of Indian philosophy, has pointed out that, even

though these systems are apparently contrary to one another in their

methods of approach, they all agree on certain basic precepts. The

acceptance of the authority of the vedas by all the six systems implies

that they have drawn from a common reservoir of thought. All of these

systems agree that life cannot be comprehended in its fullness through

logical reasoning.

"There is something transcending the consciousness of the

self .... All the systems have for their ideaq complete

mental poise and freedom from the discords and

uncertainties, sorrows and sufferings of life ... The

difference between self consciousness and super

consciousness constitute all the difference between man

as he is and man as he ought to be. The stress is always

on from 'being' to 'becomingt-in other words, on the

affirmation and ennoblement of life.3

Hinduism treats human beings as of paramount

importance as the species is considered the end-product of a long cycle

of evolution. The individual self evolves by casting off the old and unfit

body through death and assuming a new one. In the Kathopanishad,

Yema tells Nacicetas that "like corn the mortals ripen and fall and like

corn are born again."4 Though physical evolution becomes complete at

the human level, psychic evolution continues and ultimately man

comes to realize that sense perceptions and the pleasures derived from

it are all really transient and that non-attachment to the objects of the

meterial world is the real and only source of eternal bliss. Suffering is

regarded, not as any specific feature of life, but as life or existence

itself. Our own Karmas shape our destiny and even the creator does

not bypass this external law. Again the Karmas are said to be due to

attachment (Kama) and the source of this attachment is traced to

ignorance (Avidya). Thus ignorance becomes the root cause of all

suffering. The Hindu eschatology does not regard death as the wages of

sin acquired by a human being during his lifetime; it is rather a

liberator. "This body surely dies," says the Chandokya Upanishad, "but

the living self does not die."5 By ascribing immortality to the soul and

asserting the possibility of rebirth or re-incarnation, the human beings

are fortified against the fear of death, which the existentialists regard

as the ultimte destiny of man. This assurance of the continuity of life v

distinguishes Hinduism from the Semitic religioy which consider

human life as a closed entity with set patterns of birth and death.

The Samkhya and Yoga philosophies hold that all

experiences are sorrowful. All intellectual activities are fraught with

some degree of painful feeling. The sum total of the sorrows is much

greater than that of the pleasures. Moreover pleasures only strengthen

the poignancy of the sorrows. Only the realization of this ultimate

truth can enable a man to seek deliverance from such sorrows :

Unless a man is convinced of this great truth that all is

sorrow, and that pleasures are temporary, whether

generated by ordinary wordly experiences or by enjoying

heavenly experiences through the performance of Vedic

sacrifices, are quite unable to eradicate the roots of

sorrow, he will not be anxious for Mukthi or the final

uprooting of pains.6

Both Kapila and Patanjali are convinced that the

ordinary ways of removing sorrow by seeking enjoyment will not work

ultimately. A seeker of true bliss should turn his back on the pleasures

offered by the world and look forward to heavenly guidance. When the

mind is tuned to higher thinking, he will realize the extensiveness and

causes of sorrow and reach a stage a t which he becomes immune ta

suffering and sorrow. Patanjali however goes a step further and

asserts that mere philosophical brooding is insufficient to tide over this

difficulty. He recommends the practice of living higher and better

modes of life by steadying the mind on its subtler states to eradicate

the habits of ordinary life. As one scales the heights of

superconsciousness, one comes to give up what one has adopted as

good and try for that which is still better. Such a seeker alone is

destined to enjoy perfect bliss as he becomes a liberated self.

The belief that the world is full of sorrow finds its

strongest expression in Buddhism. The Buddha's diagnosis of the

human predicament presupposes that life is suffering (dukha) To him ,

the very existence is pain. Craving or attachment has been identified

as the root cause of all sufferings. Since what we desire is

impermanent, changing and perishing, the object of our craving will

bring us only disappointment and sorrow. Buddhism stresses the

transience of all pleasures in contrast to the permanence of all worldly

sorrows. However, as long as we live, we have to learn to brave the

sufferings and setbacks in life with an unshaken poise of mind :

Beneath the stroke of life's changes,

The mind that stands unshaken,

Passionless, unsorrowing, secure;

This is the greatest blessing."

The Buddhists believe that the only way to avoid sorrow

is to cultivate a sense of detachment from worldly possessions and to

lead a life of righteousness, observing austerity in thought and action.

Aa one becomes more and more aware of the impermanence of the

material world and its implications, one tends to substitute for the

ignoble craving for worldly things, the noble aspiration for the security

of Nirvana. Hajime Nakamura, the great Buddhist scholar says that

the Buddha never quite faces the contradiction b'etween his

"rationalistic psychology of non-self and his uncritical acceptance of re-

birth or transmigration."a The Buddha, it seems, was only concerned

with the ways of escaping from this world of suffering and sorrow.

Jainism being a non-theistic system does not tackle the

question of suffering in the context of the Semitic religions. But it

raises and tries to answer the specific question why man suffers. An

individual suffers as a result of his past 'Karmas'. To be born in this

world itself is a suffering, which comes to us as a consequence of our

past 'Karmas'. Jainism takes this belief in 'Karma' to a personal level

to trace specific actions responsible for specific sufferings. 'Moksha' is

defined as a complete cessation of birth and rebirth and all consequent

suffering.9 The stress is always on the point that the individual

acquires his sufferings due to his actions. Worldly life may be happy or

miserable in accordance with one's past 'Karmas'. But viewing life

from a broader perspective, the Jains hold that a human being is

destined to suffer due to the imperfections and limitations of a worldly

life. Hence we have to get rid of the continuous chain of birth and

rebirth. Attainment of knowledge and performance of non-attached

actions will lead to the final deliverance of the soul. Like Hinduism,

Jainism also stresses the immortality of the soul.

Originated in India as a religion during the fifteenth

century, Sikhism can be viewed as the offspring of a spiritual marriage

of Hindu devotionalism with Muslim mysticism. The Sikhs hold the

Almighty as Omnipotent, Unique and Immortal. By God's order men

are high or low, and whatever pain or pleasure is one's due, is

something pre-ordained.

By His order men are high or low

By His order they obtain pre-ordained pain or pleasure

By His order some obtain their reward.

By His order others must ever wander in transmigration.

All are subject to His order. None is exempt from it.10

Even while accepting the presence of suffering as a'

reality, Sikhism does not try to trace its root cause. It is believed that a

person who lets truth into his soul alone is fortified against the

onslaught of evil, and is able to lead a virtuous He. Kindness to one's

fellow beings, steadfast devotion to God and a life strictly in

accordance with the teachings of the Guru will pave the way to peace

and happiness.

The Indian systems of thought are all agreed upon the

tenets that must be adhered to for transcending worldly sorrows and

attaining salvation. When a man attains a very high degree of moral

greatness, he has to strengthen and prepare his mind for further

purifying and steadying it for the attainment of his final ideal. There

are indeed divergences in certain details and technical terms

employed, but the means to be adopted for the attainment of supreme

bliss are everywhere essentially the same. For a person nurtured in

the Indian systems of thought, death holds no terror. His belief in the

immutability and immortality of the soul and the transience of the

material body gives him the necessary strength to face the hazards of

life. He is not tormented by the thought of a Divine judgement that

imparts physical punishments in a life after death. For him, strict

adherence to one's 'dharma' opens the golden gate to salvation. His

religious texts constantly remind him to mend his ways and shed petty-

selfish motives and live for the larger good of the community a s a

whole.

n The Semitic religiods with their stress on the being of a

living God who metes out reward to the virtuous and punishments to

the wicked posit an entirely different view of life. Like all other theistic

creeds, Judaism takes God as all powerful, just and merciful and hence

it has to account for the presence of suffering in this world. Suffering,

taken as a natural evil is indirectly attributed to the sin committed by

man. Suffering thus becomes a punishment meted out to sinners by he

God Almighty. The prophet Isaiah makes this clear when,,says: "Woe

unto the wicked: it shall be ill with him; for the reward of his hands

shall be given him."" But this does not explain the undeserved

suffering the innocent very often undergo while the wicked are seen to

prosper. This leads to another aspect of the problem of evil-the problem

of retribution which the prophet Jeremiah himself seeks in anguish:

You have right on your side, Yeklweh

When I complain about You

But I would like to debate a point of justice with you

Why is it that the wicked live so prosperously?

Why do scoundrels enjoy peace?l2

It seems that Judaism treats this problem as a mystery

which cannot be unveiled by human beings. Inscrutable are the ways

of God and it is not for man to decipher, much less criticize those ways.

The great prophets of ancient Israel summon the people to return to

proper ethical conduct and proper relation to God. They repeatedly

remind the people that only a virtuous life will lead to their final

redemption. The text of prophet Jeremiah's speech on the eve of the

destruction of the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babilonians,

holds out the promise of hope for the people of the captive nation and

punishment for the sins of the usurpers:

Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured

and all your foes, every one of them,

shall go into captivity.

Those who despoil you shall become a spoil

and who prey on you, I will make a prey.

For I will restore health to you.

And your wounds I will heal, says the Lord.13

The promise of redemption and its eventual fulfilment

becomes one central component in the doctrinal dimension of ancient

Israel and is seen transferred to Judaism.

The basic tenets of Christianity view the trials of life with

equanimity and teaches its disciples the ways to overcome those trials

with steadfast faith in God. The Book of job is a clear enough

indication in this direction. God had absolute faith in the steadfastness

of Job, but to convince Satan, he puts Job to several severe tests. Ilis

sheep, his oxen, servants, children and all his belongings were taken

away from him, yet Job never cursed his creator. God then inflicted the

worst kind of diseases on him. Even his wlfe persuaded him to curse

and disown God, but Job only said, "What? shall we receive good a t the

hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?"l4 The Bible also holds forth

divine blessings to those who successfully endure temptation:

Blessed is the man who endureth temptation for when he

is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the lord

hath promised to them that love him?l5

The early Christian theologians held a somewhat

pessimistic view of tihis worldly life as an imperfect entity fraught with

evil and suffering. They laid the supreme goal of human life as the

union with God, which can take place only in a future life. It was

St.Augustine who first attempted a logical explanation of the presence

of evil in the form of suffering and pain. He maintained that if God has

created and pre-determined every thing, and is at the same time an

absolutely good being, he has willed everything in the best interests of

his creations and so even evil must be good and necessary in its own

way. Like the "shadows in a picture, which contribute to the beauty of

the whole, evil is indispensible to the goodness of the world."'6 God

could have altogether omitted evil from the scheme of things, but he

preferred to use it as a means of serving the good, and the essential

goodness in man is only enhanced, once he learns to successfully

combat the trials and tribulations posed by evil. This idea of braving

the temptations and coming out purer of heart is mentioned by Milton

in Paradise Lost. When Adam warns Eve of the possibility of temption

by the Evil one, Eve replies that it is better to face the trial and come

out successful than dwell in perpetual fear of the Evil one:

Who rather double honour gain,

From his surmise proved false,

Find peace within, favour from heaven

Our witness for the event.11

The message of Christ is that it is possible for us to

conquer the world, the flesh and the devil and attain perfection. God

had endowed Man with free will. Adam and Eve were free to sin or not

to sin. It is only because they chose to disobey God by surrendering

their will before evil that they came to forfeit divine grace, thereby

earning suffering and deprivation as punishment for their sin.

The Islamic teachings too assert the idea of a divine

assurance of reward to those who tread the path of righteousness and

bear the yoke of suffering with patience and punishment to the

deviants. As a monotheistic religion, Islam, repeatedly emphasises the

absoluteness and all-powerfulness of God and maintains that there is

nothing in the world that God has not created. God's ways are

inscrutable and as such, man's sole duty towards God is an

unconditional, absolute submission to his will. Suffering is to be borne

with perfect piety. The Quran seems to decipher at places God's

purpose behind the creation of suffering a s a trial or test of man's faith

in God. It asserts that by inflicting pain and suffering on.people, God

actually wants to test their endurance and the depth of their faith in

him. Thus says the Quran:

There are some among men who serve God on an edge.

If good befalls them, they are well-content,

If a trial befalls them, they turn completely rand.

They have lost this world, and the next.

That is an unmistakable loss.18

It can be seen that this view of suffering, as something

ordained by God so that people will tread the path of righteousness is

akin to the Christian concept of suffering as evident from the Book of

Job. In Sura 17, the Quran presents a single code intended to structure

human behaviour. This code, both by injunctions and prohibitions,

summarises all the major concerns in the ethical dimension of Islam's

sacred writings. It bears a close resemblance to the Decalogue of the

Hebrew Bible in its directives about attitudes and character, especially

kindness, integrity and humility.

One of the oldest religions of the world, Zoroastrianism

professes a positive attitude regarding suffering and redemption.

Ahura Mazda is the one and Supreme God who is pictured as all

powerful, wise and good. He is also the creator and preserver of this

universe. Prophet Zarasthustra, also known as Zoroaster is the

founder of the religion and Zend-Avesta is the basic religious text. The

life in this world is presented as a battlefield where two forces, the

force of good represented by Spenta Mainyu and the force of evil

represented by Angra Mainyu, also called Ahriman are perpetually

a t war with each other. However, the final victory is on the side of the

force of good as the evil will ultimately be vanquished. Zoroaster

proclaimed that man by birth is endowed with a free will and is

expected to choose the side of the forces of good fighting against the

forces of evil. For t h ~ s , man has to lead a life of righteousness. Those

whose good deeds exceed the evil ones are sent to heaven while those

whose deeds are predominantly evil are sent to hell to suffer for their

misdeeds. Damnation to hell is not absolute and the person so

condemned can hope for redemption, after he has endured his term of

punishment. Zoroastrianism stresses the basic ethical values of good

thought, good word and good action.

The notion that there is a divine agency that catches the

evil-doers in its meshes for proper punishment is an ancient one

adopted by many primeval communities. Taoism also makes use of this

concept of a divine arbiter who creates a system of reward and

punishment for the actions of individuals. The Taoist books of

discipline are all unanimous in saying that those who seek.immortality

must set their minds on the accumulation of merits and the

accomplishment of good work. Their hearts must be kind to all other

beings. Their hands must never injure life, and their mouths must

never encourage evil. They must also consider the successes and

failures of others as their own. Taoism also lays down strict norms

regarding the things a person must do inorder to escape divine

retribution. For every evil action of a person, there is a corresponding

reduction in the term of life of the person concerned. If the evil-doer

dies before all his evil deeds are punished, his posterity is destined to

suffer for his misdeeds. Thus the attempt is to relate the cause of

suffering to one's own evil actions in this world. This cynical approach

to life is in &rect contrast with the ethics of Confucianism which has

traditionally been interwoven with education and with aspects of

popular religion. It advocates the philosophy of how to conduct oneself

humanely and decorously in society, and so has done much to shape

Chinese interpersonal relationships. It has aspects of a religion and yet

a t the same time can also be viewed as a system of scholarship. The

stress is always on a rationalised social order through the ethical

approach, based on personal cultivation. Confucianism aimed a t a

political order nurtured by a moral order and sought "political

harmony by trying to achieve the moral harmony in man."l9 Here we

see the distinction between politics and ethics getting abolished for the

creation of a social order in which each one has a keen sense of

responsibility towards one's fellowmen. Confucius had absolute faith in

human capabilities and believed that the kingdom of God is truly

within the man himself. Any man, he maintained, who wants to

cultivate his personal life should start out on a hunt for the best in his

nature and chase it steadfastly. While acknowledging the presence of

suffering, confucius makes it mandatory on the part of every human

being to try his best to alleviate the distress of his neighbour. This

positive approach of the betterment of society stands distinguished

from the negative pessimism of Taoism.

Thus it may be seen that the major religiodrof the world,

while acknowledging the presence of evil and suffering as realities tG

be confronted within this earthly life, are also keen to prescribe means

by which such suffering can either be eliminated or circumvented. The

problem of suffering and its redemption has always been a dominant

subject in philosophic discourses. Socrates, while acknowledging the

presence of :ril in its myriad manifestations, lays stress on man's free

will and intellect which enable him to choose right. He believed that

knowledge of right and wrong is, for man, not a mere theoretical

proposition, but a firm practical conviction. No man can be expected to

voluntarily pursue evil. Thus fortified with the knowledge of what is

good for him, he is prone to pursue a virtuous course of Me, which will

"make life painless and pleasant."20 Aristippus later gave a new twist

to this pleasure theory of Socrates, paving the way for the hedonistic

school of philosophy which advocated the pursuit of pleasure as the

only end in life. Antisthenes, on the other hand, exaggerated the

Socratic theory of virtue by establishing the supremacy of acquiring

virtue for its own sake, without any concern for the rewards of

pleasure. His teachings were later developed by the Stoic school of

philosophy.

Aristotle maintained that the highest good for man is self-

realization, which for him, is just the opposite of selfish individualism.

Man attains nobility only when he gratifies the supreme part of his

being by promoting the interests of his fellow beings. While pleasure is

the necessary and immediate consequence of virtuous activity, it is not

the end of life. The hlghest happiness is to be obtained from a life of

contemplation, which is the "most self sufficient, the most intrinsically

worthwhile way of life."" Man, as a rational being, is expected to act

with a clear end in view. The stoic school of philosophy founded by

Zeno around 300 B.C. also extols the above concept of Aristotle. As

opposed to the hedonistic and ego-centric philosophy of the Epicureans,

the Stoics down to Seneca and Marcus Aurelius conceived the universe

not as a mechanical-casual series, but as an organised rational system.

The Cosmos was, for them, a harmonious unity, with man as a spark of

the divine fire. Hence it follows that man is expected to work in

harmony with the purpose of the universe, to seek to fit his own

purposes into the larger design envisaged by the divine purpose and to

reach the highest possible measure of perfection. Marcus Aurellus in

his Meditations, stresses the need for performing the duty assigned to

one without fear or favour:

Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do

what thou hast in hand with perfect and simple dignity,

and feeling of affection and freedom and justice; and to

give thyself relief from all other thoughts. And thou wilt

give thyself relief, if thou doest every act of thy life as if it

were the last, laying aside all carelessness and passionate

aversion from the commands of reason, and all hypocrisy

and self-love, and discontent with the portion which has

been given to thee.22

The Stoics also held that the will of the Man is free to

make the right choices. Hence if evil befalls him, it is because of his

own wrong judgement or false opinion. It is quite significant, in this

context to remember Bertrand Russell's remark that the Stoics

command our admiration for their courage in the face of danger and

suffering and indifference to material pleasures.23

The sixteenth century Dutch philosopher Benedict

Spinoza also advocates this doctrine of doing one's own duty without

attachment as the only means by which the highest happiness can be

attained. It is expected of every man to perfect his knowledge of the

universe in all its diverse aspects. Acquisition of this supreme

knowledge will enable a man to free himself from hate and fear, anger

and envy, even from love and hope, pity and repentance. He who

knows the true causes of things or sees them in their necessary

relations to God, will love God without even the ambition of a

reciprocal love on the part of the Almighty. In this sense, Spinoza's

concept of the ideal man bears remarkable resemblance to the portrait'

of the 'Stita Pranja' so admiringly delineated in the Bhagavat Gita.24

The Philosophy of Negation has its most cynical exponent

in Schopenhauer, the eighteenth century German thinker. His

magnum opus, The World as will and Idea published in 1818

presents some of the most damaging strictures ever pronounced on

man's endeavours to transcend sufferings to affirm the value of a

worldly life. Schopenhauer held the view that all satisfaction or what

are commonly taken for happiness, gratlfy us only negatively by

restraining suffering. Life is basically evil because as soon as man is

freed from want and suffering, ennui descends upon him, which urges

him on to diversions resulting in more suffering. The higher the

organism in the biological scale, the greater it is destined to suffer. As

consciousness ascends, pain also increases and reaches the highest

degree in those human beings endowed with the highest intelligence.

Commenting on this philosophy of pessimism, Will Durant opines that

there is of course a large quantum of egotism

denunciation of life:

Perhaps our supercilious disgust with existen

for a secret disgust with ourselves: We have

bungied our lives, and we cast the blame upon the

'environment' or the 'world', which have no tongues to

utter a defence. The mature man accepts the natural

limitations of life: he does not expect Providence to be

prejudiced in his favour; he does not ask for loaded dice

with which to play the game of life.25

Much of Schopenhauer's pessimism can be justly

attributed to his own unfortunate living conditions. He could never

forgive his mother who, after her husband's death, opted for free love

and moved out, leaving her only son in the seclusion of a boarding

house. Schopenhauer himself had abandoned his only child to

illegitimate anonimity and had come to lead a lonely Me, rejecting

women, marriage and friendship.

The Hegelian precepts view the struggle of life as the law

of growth. Character is built in the storm and stress of the world and a

man comes to exercise his full potential only through "compulsion,

responsibilities and suffering."26 Even pain has a rationale behind it as

it is a stimulus to life. Hegel also held that life is not made for

happiness, but for achievement. Nietzsche takes this zest for

achievement at a personal level and maintains that the goal of human

effort should be not the elevation of all, but the development of finer

and stronger individuals. He takes a sort of sadistic pleasure in

reflecting that it is in man's nature to enjoy evil and suffering in this

worldly life. Defining man as the "cruellest of animals", Nietzsche says'

that man has always revelled a t the sight of tragedies, bulEghts and

crucifyings. Man invented the tortures of hell and he is able to put up

with the suffering on this earth by contemplating the eternal

punishment of his oppressors in the other world.27 On the other hand,

Gerkegaard, hailed as the fountainhead of modern existentialism,

precludes the Hegelian concept of the radical unification of thought

and being from his theory of existence. It can be seen that though

Kierkegaard propounds no system of ethics as such, a spirit of moral

earnestness pervades his philosophy. His ethical philosophy is

individualistic by its insistence on ethical choices confronted by each

individual. The responsibility of the choices rests with each individual

and the choice once made is irrevocable and hence presents him with

the necessity of subsequent decisions. Man is the only animal for

whom existence is a problem. Kierkegaard points out that being a man

is, "not like being an animal, for in man, the individual is more than

the species."2* There is no innate drive for progress in man. Every

stage that man reaches, leaves him discontented and perplexed and it

is this perplexity alone that urges him forward to seek new solutions.

Existentialism as a philosophic movement is often

thought of as a revolt against all the philosophic systems that had thus

far ignored or lost sight of human existence. This voice of dissent rose'

almost concurrently from different parts of Europe llke Germany

(Martin Bubber), Russia (Solovev, Berydaev), France (Sartre, Camus)

and Spain (Ortego and Unamuno). The roots of this movement can be

traced back to pre-World War I period, when almost similar sensitivity

was at work in the writings of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Dosteovsky.

Existentialism 1s however no abstract philosophical system, but a

compendium of voices originating from a specific mood resulting in a

certain style of philosophising. It is the philosophy of crisis as it

interprets the whole of human existence as a succession of critical

situations, each fraught with danger. It is essentially a philosophy of

disillusion and despair, but it does not impute evil to the ultimate

Being. It is a philosophy of nihilism which literally reduces all human

endeavours to naught. Karl Jaspers, Gabriel Marshel, Martin

Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre of different times and different

nationalities could be taken as representatives of this system of

thought.

Jaspers held the view that the real subject matter of

philosophy ought to be not ideas, but the human personality itself,

struggling for what he termed as "self-realization."

One can speak of other things only in relation to man, i.e.,

one can speak only of what he encounters, of what serves

him and what is beyond his powers ....29

Like his predecessors, Kierkegaard and Heidgger, he too

subscribed to the view that the freedom of the individual in all his

choices and his resultant absolute responsibility are the chief

deliverances of existential elucidation. He advocated the use of

scientific knowledge in the search for a philosophic understanding of

man and the world. His philosophical method, though conceived more

broadly than that of Heidegger's sounds the same notes of anguish and

despair so characteristic of all forms of existentialism. Like Jaspers,

Marshel too believes that it is a mistake to start with the idea of the

essence, as is common in traditional systems of philosophy. He also

tries to project the necessity of overcoming the radical dualism and

antithesis which infect the old systems of thought, like subject and

object, thought and being, intellect and will, the self and the God. He

attempts to transcend the opposition between the subject who asserts

the existence of being, and being as asserted by the subject. He further

speaks about the union of the self with the Transcendent Being, which

is God. Man achieves this transcendence only through his unqualified

acceptance of God's transcendent existence. The existential philosophy

espoused by Marshel possesses religious overtones which can be

contrasted with the atheistic existentialism of Sartre. So also, the idea

of the being of man and the being of God conceived of as two separate

entities can be compared to the dualistic philosophy in vogue in

Hinduism before the advent of Adi Sankara on the scene.

Martin Heidegger, whose name is commonly paired with

that of his contemporary Jaspers, evolves a system of existentialism in

his book Being and Time. On considering the problem of being in its

tempoial and historical character, he comes to the conclusion that the

existence of the individual is finite and temporal and that this finitude

and transience give his existence its peculiar character. Like Jaspers,

he too believes that the question about the essence of man is more

important than the problem of Being. According to him, the whole of

human existence is permeated by tragic anxiety or anguish, (Angst)

induced by the sense of the inevitability of death. He speaks about a

kind of transience an individual may achieve through resolute

decision, but unlike Kierkegaard, he does not attach any religious or

theological connotation to this transformation. In the final stage, an

individual achleves time transcendence of his present momentary

existence in his anxiety and care for the future and especially in lus

preoccupation with death.

Whereas the analysis of human existence is a means to

realize the supreme subject or the transcendent or the Being for

Kierkegaard, Jaspers and Heidegger respectively, it is an end in itself

for Sartre, who repudiates God by his atheistic ontology and rejects

essence in favour of existence. To him, the very notion of God is self-

contradictory and relegates religious beliefs and theological dogmas to

a limbo of pure mythology. Man is a being who exercises his liberty

and generates ideals for himself and projects himself into the future.

This process invariably results in anguish, a sense of alienation and

despair. This philosophy of the ultimate doom stands in dikect contrast

with the type of existentialism propogated by the theists who believe

in a cosmic drama where birth, life and death are made meaningful by

the great denouement of the Redemption. A Christian existentialist

like Marshel, in spite of his saer ings , is able to see the

meaningfulness of suffering, in the light of the crucifixion and

resurrection of Christ. The theists and atheists alike try to explore the

basic conditions of human existence and the meaning one can draw

from it. Their fear is that if philosophy does not concern itself with

human existence, man would never be in a position to understand his

real self or destiny and thus become prone to total disaster.

The material world theory had its exponents in India as

far back as the seventh century B.C. The Charvaka School of

Philosophy which flourished during the sixth and seventh centuries

B.C. held that the external world of which man is a part exists

objectively. It is an entity that exists independently of any form of

consciousness. Man's perception of the objects or phenomenae of the

outside world is the only source of knowledge and that the nature of

man's life and activity is determined by the particular condition of his

life and not by any external agency. Kanada's Vaiseshika, Kapila's

Samkhya and Goutama's Nyaya systems of philosophies too subscribe

to this world view, tbough they apply divergent theories tb reach this

conclusion. They held that the combination of the four elements, fire,

water, earth and air are the basic ingredients of all objects of nature,

both material and spiritual. The soul is an entity endowed with

consciousness and it does not exist outside the body. A man's death

signifies simultaneous destruction of both consciousness and soul, as

consciousness itself is the result of certain process of combining

material elements. By ascribing undue importance to sense

perceptions, they maintained that the results of man's cognitive

activity in the form of abstract thinking as "untrue or a t any rate

unreliable containing subjective arbitariness and errors."30 To them

the source of all evil is a cruel and unjust society. The law of Karma, is

just another invention of the priestly class and idle philosophers to

subdue the common people. Charvaka's main purpose was denouncing

the Brahminist ideology rather than creating any consistent system of

philosophy. S. Radhakrishnan sums up the thought content of the

Indian atheist tradition, which has many things in common with the

Epicurien philosophy:

While life is yours, live joyously

None can escape Death's searching eye;

When once this frame of ours they burn

How shal! I ever return?31

What marks out Indian atheistic philosophy is its robust

optimism and the determination to live this life to the full, fearless of

any external agency that weighs and prescribes punishment for human

aberrations. This freedom and fearlessness that the atheists enjoy are

in a way a t par with the Vedantist's affhmation of life on the ground

that the reality of the world is an instance of 'Maya', as the world is

dependent on, or a copy of, "The Reality." J.Krishnamoorthy, an ideal

synthesis of the Vedantic thought and modern existentialism notes:

To understand the world, we must understand ourselves

.... We are the world. We are going to find the process of

understanding ourselves, which is not an isolating

process. It is no withdrawal from the world because you

cannot live in isolation.32

The existentialists' belief in the doctrine of duality and

the acceptance of death as the ultimate limit situation and the seal of

man's finitude spreads a general pall of gloom over the whole of their

existence. Moreover, the long chain of sufferings one is subjected to in

the course of life becomes doubly poignant, knowing the ultimate

destiny which offers no redemption. The belief in the principle of

Advaita, which makes the subject, one with the absolute and the belief

that man is constituted of the five elements constituting the universe,

dispels the sense of mortality and alienation froin the Hindu thought.

The world to him becomes a means by which he realizes his own

mortality.

Philosophy in India is defined as 'Darsana' or vision, in

the sense that it is capable of giving a vision of the ultimate reality.

The ancient systems of Indian Philosophy trace the root cause of pain

and suffering to ignorance regarding the nature of the real. As the

average human being is unable to make a distinction between the real

and the unreal, they wrongly develop an attachment to the unreal and

the transient and thereby earn suffering. The contemporary Indian

philosophers, however, adopt a slightly different perspective from the

traditional way of thinking that undermines the material world life:

This shift in emphasis is discernible, not only in the teachings of

academic philosophers like Sri Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan, but in

popular humanists like Tagore and Gandhi. Tagore and

Radhakrishnan try to analyse the existential condition of man and

assert that in spite of the care and ang-iish, fear and boredom, life is

worth living. Aurobindo, though convinced of the ultimacy of the spirit

over the living body, stresses the importance of the earthly life as a

part of the divine plan and hence in no way inferior to the life of the

spirit:

Earth-life is not a lapse into something indivine, vain and

miserable, it is the scene of the evolutionary unfolding of

the being which moves towards the revelation of a

supreme spiritual light and power and joy ....z3

Even when accepting the metaphysical concept of the 'law

of Karma', Sri. Aurobindo interprets it as a moral law which makes the

actions of the individual account for his happiness as well a s his

sufferings. "Each man reaps what he sows", he tells us. "From what he

does, he profits: for what he does he suffers."34 Radhakrishnan,

likewise attributes two aspects to 'Karma' a retrospective aspect which

has a connection with the past and a progressive aspect which exerts

its influence on the future. He argues that eventhough the "cards in

the game of life are given to us, over which we could exercise no choice;

we are free to play it to win or lose the game.35

Tagore regards death as a stage that gives to life, an

onward direction. It is the supreme lesson in giving up the narrow

egoistic outlook on life. It is also a symbol of man's craving for

perfection. Tagore conceives of man as a storehouse of infinite energy

which constantly impels him to go beyond his present status. He also

identifies this energy as the Divinity present in man:

We have seen men conquering pain by undaunted

prowess, plunging into fiery ordeals only to march

forward with triumph. What striving is this? This power

that lies behind is neither physical or mental, it belongs

to the inward self where man is united with God.36

It is however in Mahatma Gandhi that we find a fine

synthesis of the traditional and the modern interpretations of the

Indian view of life. Gandhi belongs to the class of Neo-Vedantist

thinkers including Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda and Tagore.

His socio-political ideology has its firm footing in the Vedanta

philosophy that there is but a single universal essence animating all

human beings and therefore, a law applicable to one person has to be

applied to all and vice-versa. He believed that eventhough man

appears to be selfish and, to some extent brutish, hls essential nature

is not so. Human nature is bound to respond to any noble and friendly

action. Like Sri.Aurobindo, he gives a moral interpretation to the law

of Karma, emphasising its pragmatic and ethlcal value. To him, belief

in the law of karma enables one to make adjustments and adaptation

in life. It makes a man benevolent, loving and moral even in the midst

of hatred and strife. Taken as a moral law, it holds one's actions

directly responsible for one's happiness and sorrows in life. The

realization that our present actions determine our future nature and

status creates the faith that it is man himself who etches out his own

destiny. This realization in turn makes it obligatory on khe part of a

man to improve his actions so that he becomes conscious of the divinity

latent in him. thus faith in the essential goodness of man and man's

natural urge for the improvement of his status, becomes the core of all

Gandhian concepts.

Notes

Betty Radice and Robert Baldick, ed. The Bhagavat Gita. Midd1esex:Penguin Books, 1962) 11

Swami Tapasyananda,ed. Sr imad Bhagavat Gita (My1apore:Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1988)56

S.Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol.11 (New De1hi:Oxford University Press, 1982)25

The Kathopanishad I:6

The Chandokyopanishad 6:11:3

S.Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol.1 (London:AUen and Unwin,1977)363

The Dhammapada (Hyderabad:The Andhrapradesh Police Academy 1990)64

Hajime Nakamura, Buddhism in Comparative Light (New De1hi:Motilal Banarasidas,l986)46

Kedarnath Tiwari, Comparative Religion (New DelhkMotilal Banarasidas, 1987)80

Ninian Smart & Richard D.Hecht, eds. Sacred Texts of The World (Bath:Macmillan Publishers Ltd, 1982)331.

Isiah, 3.10

The Book Of Job, 10:3

Jeremiah, 30:3l

The Book Of Job, 2:10

James, 1:12

Frank Thilly, A History of Philosophy (Allahabad: Central Publishing House, 1994) 180

John Milton, Paradise Lost.Book.M London:Macmillam Publishing Co, 1972)93.

Surah, 22: l l

19. Lin Yutang, The Wisdom of Confucius (New York: Carlton House, 1938)6.

20. Frank Thilly, A History of Philosophy (AUahabad,Central Publishing House,1994)71.

22. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.Book 11, Para.5

23. Bertrand Russell, The Wisdom of t h e West (London: Rathbone Books Ltd, 1964) 265

24. The Bhagavat Gita,Chapter.II Verses 55-58

25. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1927)374

28. Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death (Princeton: Walter Lowrie, 1941)198

29. Karl Jaspers, The Perennial Scope of Philosophy trans. Ralf Manheim.(London:Routledge and KeganPaul Ltd, 1950)50.

30. V.Brodov, Indian Philosophy i n Modern t imes (Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1984)89.

31. S.Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol.1 (London:George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1977)281

32. J.Krishnamoorthy, The First a n d Last Freedom (London:Victor Gollencez Ltd.,1969)48

.............. 33. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Pondicherry:1955)606 34. ......... 718

35. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954)75

36. Rabindranath Tagore, Personality (London:Macmillan and Co, 1948)38