- One of Aurobindo’s first statements, is that while science may have deduced the method where by atomic infinitesimals combine to achieve an end (H2O=water) they have failed discover how such a formula (or strategy) for such things managed to occur in the first place. How did this formula determine the appearance, substance, and material manifestation of water? (Ex. We see that a seed becomes a tree and can follow the line from start to finish, but we have not yet discovered how a huge oak can grow from such a small seed. I enjoy how he credits science with what amounts to a ‘good try’ on their part, but really no closer to ‘reality’.
What I like here is how Aurobindo applies this theory with a more relative approach when he speaks about human cognition, citing masters such as Shakespeare and asking how one man could have produced such masterful works like Hamlet, or Symposium. While we might dissect Shakespeare’s brain, will we ever be able to tell just exactly where he got his ideas from? Will we ever conceive just why his comedy and tragedy stuck with us and resonated in our brains to such a point that it is required reading through our schools? Why did his work offend? Why did it delight? Will we ever have a way of knowing? Scientifically, we could dissect Hitler’s brain, but would it give us a reason for why he acted to destroy the Jewish people as well as a number of other minorities? Pragmatically, Aurobindo agrees with science, referring to it as ‘correct and infallible in governing the process of nature’. But its flaw, as he puts it, is that science does not disclose the how or why.
- In his argument of Chance as a conceivable reason for existence, Sri talks about the dual nature of Chance, in which a paradox is created by the appearance of undeniable order on one part, and freakish, random acts on the other. An unreliable force acts at random and creates (and I would assume destroys) without any principale. Determining facts come through only as a matter of action reoccurring again and again until something happens. His problem with this hypothesis is the infinite number of possibilities that could occur from such an arrangement are such that it is unlikely anything could have evolved from such chaos and disorder. For Aurobindo, there is too much in this world that insists on an acting order or sense of will for mere Chance to be responsible for everything. He argues for the mechanical necessity of Nature, how it works according to it’s own preconceived will (on this point even Aquinas commiserated).
By this example, we see that in order for the random acts of Chance (which are repetitious) to work, the same outcome that is predictable in nature would be unlikely to occur more than once. In fact his argument against Chance and Necessity tie together so well they are practically inseparable. What Aurobindo really argues for hre is a sense of tranquility and reassurance. How could anything form from Chance and chaos? Well that’s obvious. It couldn’t. Something had to exist which was assured of it’s own intentions so as to be able to maintain order through an infinite number of possible outcomes. Something with a steady ‘hand’ so as to guide evolution and all of existence to the place it is currently at and where it will eventually go.
- While one might believe that the previous argument would favor a Judeo-Christian God just as easily as a Hindu Brahman, in this argument against the likelihood of an extra-cosmic being (I.E. God), Aurobindo first states the reason for an extra-cosmic being would be as such for it use a blank canvas for it to create upon ‘dumb and obedient’ beings that are subservient to it’s will. If all things around us are the thoughts of an extracosmic Divine will which is responsible for all mater, artistry, law and order than there need be no evidence of his existence. It would be capable of interring a manner of Itself into all beings, evolving them far enough to believe in It’s existence and nothing more.
If this were true, than why would this Divinity create so many unappealing results within it’s universe. This would also turn the Divinity into a pawn in it’s own game, and like Chance, relax to infinite possibilities. Answer: It wouldn’t. it would be content with it’s own companionship and thusly exist within itself and nothing else. Nothing else would be needed. But this is not the nature of us. Humans are intelligent being, capable of learning and developing on a multitude of levels. Why would such beings exist if they were not needed? If God was all internal than why would anything outside of God exist? Aurobindo’s answer is that nothing does. For Aurobindo, there is Brahman, an all encompassing deity that not only comprises the universe, but everything within it. He solves the conundrum by the statement that Brahman is all things and all things are Brahman.
- This assumptions removes many of Aquinas’s statements such as an original Mover, original Cause, and Non-existence. Brahman is both the mover an inherent in that which is moved. This follows scientifically that Brahman is the potentiality which is originally there in all things. Brahman is the original Cause for existence, due to the fact that he is existence personified. One could even say that Brahman is Evolution, the driving force that makes all things progress or digress.
For Aurobindo the only finite acceptable reason is an involved Consciousness, one which builds upon it’s own Energy as a means of evolution and manifestation, to ‘expand’ or build ‘within’ itself the entire universe. It does this by creating it’s own opposition through which to ‘mature’ and yet the entire time is fully and utterly aware of it’s own strategy to this end. He goes on to state that the mechanical appearance of nature (it’s necessity) only appears that way, working within it’s own confines to continue the learning cycle. (Essentially, Aurobindo is considering the universe to be a living being) Tags: aquinas, asking, aurobindo, brahman, college, god, good, greatest concievable being, philosophy, powerful, questions, universe