So
long as we try to understand the concept of rebirth using the faculties of the
mind, it is impossible to come to any solid basis. Due to the limitations of
the mind and its faculties of perception and understanding, we are left with
conflicting ideas and contradictory points of view. It is essentially
impossible for the mind to grasp anything that is outside its normal range of
focus and action, and clearly the operation of a universal process of
development using rebirth as a mechanism goes far beyond the normal scope of
the mental power.
In
reviewing the concept of rebirth, we need to be able to look at facts, assemble
data, and understand things in a logical and consistent manner. Most of us tend
to take things on faith, and devote little time to deep consideration of the
issues. This is particularly true for those who accept or deny the theory of
rebirth. The acceptance or the denial are generally based on little serious
consideration, but rather, on a packaged concept that we either accept more or
less blindly, or deny on the same basis.
“At
this point, it must be emphasized that philosophies like
Samkhya, Vedanta and Tantra should be used as a support for intuition and
not a rigid logical system for disputation. Our goal must always be
the verification of philosophies through one’s spiritual experience.” Sandeep September
29, 2012 at 10:34 am In
the ancient past, there have been disputes amongst prominent schools of Indian
philosophy over the nature of the Universe. I was referring to those disputes
in that passage.
I’ve
just finished Gilles Deleuze’s book Bergsonism (1990).
Here is my outline of the text: Deleuze’s
Bergsonism: Notes and Outline. Bergson suggested that the Absolute had to
be approached from two sides, the scientific and the metaphysical.
Science/Intellect considers the universe according to a series of states.
Metaphysics/Intuition considers the universe according to the
self-differentiation of a whole.
Sri Aurobindo: Heraclitus (1916-1917) Heraclitus-7
The
ideas of Heraclitus on which I have so far laid stress, are general,
philosophical, metaphysical; they glance at those first truths of existence,
devanam prathama vratani, [The first laws of working of the Gods.] for which
philosophy first seeks because they are the key to all other truths. But what
is their practical effect on human life and aspiration? For that is in the end
the real value of philosophy for man, to give him light on the nature of his
being, the principles of his psychology, his relations with the world and with
God, the fixed lines or the great possibilities of his destiny. It is the
weakness of most European philosophy - not the ancient - that it lives too much
in the clouds and seeks after pure metaphysical truth too exclusively for its
own sake; therefore it has been a little barren because much too indirect in
its bearing on life. It is the great distinction of Nietzsche among later
European thinkers to have brought back something of the old dynamism and
practical force into philosophy, although in the stress of this tendency he may
have neglected unduly the dialectical and metaphysical side of philosophical
thinking.
No
doubt, in seeking Truth we must seek it for its own sake first and not start
with any preconceived practical aim and prepossession which would distort our
disinterested view of things; but when Truth has been found, its bearing on
life becomes of capital importance and is the solid justification of the labour
spent in our research. Indian philosophy has always understood its double
function; it has sought the Truth not only as an intellectual pleasure or the
natural dharma of the reason, but in order to know how man may live by the
Truth or strive after it; hence its intimate influence on the religion, the
social ideas, the daily life of the people, its immense dynamic power on the
mind and actions of Indian humanity. The Greek thinkers, Pythagoras, Socrates,
Plato, the Stoics and Epicureans, had also this practical aim and dynamic
force, but it acted only on the cultured few. That was because Greek
philosophy, losing its ancient affiliation to the Mystics, separated itself
from the popular religion; but as ordinarily Philosophy alone can give light to
Religion and save it from crudeness, ignorance and superstition, so Religion alone
can give, except for a few, spiritual passion and effective power to Philosophy
and save it from becoming unsubstantial, abstract and sterile. It is a
misfortune for both when the divine sisters part company.
No comments:
Post a Comment