Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism

8/13/2019 Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism

1/5

Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism

of Karl Jaspers

The eastern and western perspectives on the concept of self differ in many respects andthe questions regarding the human self continue to be the issues of discussion among the

philosophical thinkers concerned with human existence. While the ancient Indian philosophy asserts the immutability of the self, Existentialism, the post-war philosophicaldevelopment emphasizes the ever-evolving quality of the self. Again human self andhuman nature are considered as two separate entities by certain philosophers while theyare regarded as identical by some others.

The concept of human nature underwent a change during the post-war years. WilliamGolding, the Nobel Prize winner, who can be regarded as the representative of his age,held in his writings, the view that human nature is inherently evil. But the IndianVedantic view lays stress on the innate pure joy, ananda of human nature.

Besides the differences, there are similarities too between the eastern and western philosophical thinking. Dr. V. K. Chari, observing the spiritual kinship among the easternand western thought currents, remarks: there are many ideological similarities amongOriental literature, the neo- Platonic doctrines, Christian mysticism and the philosophy ofthe German Idealists such as Kant and Schelling ( American Literature of the NineteenthCentury 33). The eastern and western philosophical pursuits coincide at various points oftheir development and polarise at some others. An interest in the concept of the self aswell as an objective knowledge of the world leads the comparatively young philosophy ofexistentialism to discussions which evince the spiritual similarities it is having with theVedanta philosophy of India.

It is common that the philosophical thoughts that emerge from the socio-cultural climateof each age make their marks on the literary productions of the respective ages. Theexistentialist kind of philosophising came to prominence in experimental literary writingsof the writers of the post-war period of despair and disillusionment. The Russian novelistDostoevsky, the French writer Samuel Beckett and the German writer Rainer Maria Rilkeare the prominent writers in whose writings the treatment of existentialist questionsoccurs. Samuel Beckett, like most of the existentialist writers who have used existentialistthemes consciously in their literary writings, mainly deals with the elusive nature ofhuman consciousness- the self/ego and its perception/construction of reality and theessential incommunicability of individual human experience ( Contemporary Literary Theory 119). Thus literature too has benefitted from the existentialist kind of

philosophising which has added a more profound quality to the narrative art of literature.Though existentialist philosophy can be traced back to Socrates, its major exponents are

the nineteenth century philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard and thetwentieth century thinkers Martin Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre. According toKierkegaard, the Father of existen tialism, who believed that subjectivity is Truth thenature of individual human experience remains incommunicable to others. Therefore, the


2/5

answers to the questions regarding the reality of human existence and human self arenever absolute but rather relative.

In existentialist philosophy, the self of an individual is supposed to evolve in course oftime as it is his existence that precedes his essence. Philosophical questions regardingone s self and meaning, according to the existentialist philosophy, arise from the situationin which one is placed. But the philosophising beginning with comprehending one ssituationremains in flux as one s situation is a continuous flow of worldly activities andfree choices. So existentialism asserts that human self is ever evolving and it does nothave any fixed characteristics.

The theistic existentialism of Karl Jaspers too stresses that the true nature of the self isnot defined by any essential qualities or features. On the other hand Indian Vedantaasserts that the true nature of the self is pure knowledge or suddha bodha which remainsunaffected by external forces. Though such difference of opinion exists between the twocourses of thinking, their affinities can be found in other arguments.

Search for being starts from one s situation which is an indeterminate possibility. When

the individual tries to confront one s self by illuminating one s situation which is notstatic, self will also be an ever evolving one. Whatever being one finds in one s situation,it is an object. But it is not easy to confront one s being as one could confront things bystanding apart . If one asks the question, Who am I? to oneself, an adequate answercannot be reached. Whatever definition is given to the I or self, there will always be theI for which one s self becomes an object. Because, the question Why can t Iunderstand myself? asserts the fact that there will always remain a being that is Iwhich is in search of one s self.

Jaspers says that the being, when it is conceive d as an object by the thinking subject I ,it can be called an objective subject. When the being is conceived as the subject itself it isthe subjective being. When this being is conceived in the abstract independently of its

being an object for a subject, it is called being-in-itself. This being-in-itself is notaccessible to anyone; because one s thought of it will turn it into an object. Jasperstherefore concludes that the being can be considered as three, the objective being, being-in-itself and the subjective being. They are not three independent beings, but threeinseparable poles of the being one finds oneself in. One may assume one of the three

beings to be the being. All these thoughts about being , spring from the thinker sexistence. And Jasper s equates one s existence to one s consciousness. That is why hesays, to analyse existence is to analyse consciousness.

One s self, according to Jaspers, is one s consciousness of temporal existence in thesituation one finds oneself. He asserts: For me, nothing can be without entering into my

consciousness( The Existentialist Reader 57). Therefore things exist only as objects ofconsciousness and I too thus exist only as an object of consciousness. Something existsfor me only if one is conscious of its existence. Thus it is one s consciousness thatdecides whether an object exists or not. In Indian philosophy, a similar argumentemphasizes, Manomatram jagatsarvam (The Yogavasistha of Valmiki 4-35-19). It isonly the presence of conscious mind that acknowledges the existence of everything inthis world. It means that in the absence of consciousness nothing exists.Again in the

Mandukyakarika of Sri Gaudapadacharya, it is asserted that the world which seems to be


3/5

a separate entity than oneself, is a creation of the mind: Manodrushyamidam dwaitham yatkinchitsacharacharam (III-31). The role of the conscious mind in evoking anobjective knowledge of the world is emphasized in many of the Vedantic teachings.

Jaspers considers consciousness as self-reflexive. He says that it not only aims atobjects but turn back upon itself. Thus one s consciousness is not only conscious but selfconscious at the same time. Jaspers calls the consciousness of objects as the object partand self consciousness as the subject part of one s consciousness.

Though sometimes one may become absorbed in the outside world and its objects andforget oneself and lose one s self consciousness for the time being, most oftenconsciousness and self consciousness remain together. Regarding the coexistence of selfconsciousness and objective consciousness, Jaspers remarks:

there always remains a last subjective point and impersonal and

purely formal I-point which a thing will confront by existing- that is to

say, for which the thing will be an object. Conversely, I cannot so

isolate my self consciousness that I know myself alone: I exist only by

confronting other things. There is no subjective consciousness without

an objective one, however slight (The Existentialist Reader 58). According to Jaspers,it is impossible to have one s self consciousness in isolation. He asserts that knowledgeof the self is relative. In order to know oneself, one needs the help of other beings. Asexistentialism declares, it is only in relation to others that one can define oneself. Such aninterdependence of consciousness and self consciousness is not an essential condition ineastern Vedanta philosophy for pursuing one s self. In order to realize the dynamic selfwhich is identifiable with the cosmic self, an objective consciousness is considered animpediment since self quest is an inward exploration.

In the perspective of Vedanta, self consciousness and consciousness of other thingsremain independent. Self can be realized as suddha bodha (pure consciousness) inwhich the self and the knowledgeof the self remain the same. Then there will not be anysubject-object relationship of the person who knows and the knowledge that is known.This state of independent self knowledge is called Thureeya state in Vedanta. But in the

presence of this independent knowledge of the self, the self does not stand apart to knowthe self, but the self remains as the knowledge of the self itself. About this being and the

being known and their togetherness, Jaspers observes:

My own being differs radically from any being of things because I

can say, I am . But if I objectify my empirical existence, this is not

the same as I-in-itself. I do not know what I am in myself if I am my

own object; to find out, I would have to become aware of myself in

some way other than cognitive knowledge. ( Emphasis added. The Existentialist Reader 56)


4/5

When Jaspers points out that one has to know oneself in some way other than cognitiveknowledge, he is implying at the limitation of the cognitive knowledge and theinadequacy of cognitive methods to realize the self.

In the eastern philosophy of Vedanta also, the limitation of the senses, mind andintellect to comprehend the self is emphasized in The Bhagavad Gita :

Indriyani paranyahu

Indriyebhyaha param manaha

Manasasthu para buddhihi

Buddhehe parathasthu saha ( III, 42)

It is the advice of Lord Krishna to Arjuna to realize the transcendental nature of theself. He says that it is with the five senses that one perceives the external world. All thesesensory perceptions could be received and comprehended by one, only if one s mind toois active in the act of comprehension. The intellect which is beyond the mind helps onedistinguish between good and bad. Thus knowledge of the external world is received byone with senses, the mind and the intellect. But knowledge of the inner self cannot begrasped through the senses, mind or intellect as the self is beyond the reach of any ofthem.

Though the methods adopted by the eastern and western thinkers for the search for selfdiffer, there are similar concepts regarding the achievement of knowledge of the world.When Vedanta states that it is the conscious mind that imbibes the knowledge of theoutside world, the existentialist philosopher too emphasizes that things exist only asobjects of consciousness. In the case of realizing the self, Jaspers theistic existentialism

points out the necessity of seeking some way other than cognitive knowledge to achieveknowledge of the self. Vedanta philosophy also points out the limitation of cognitive

knowledge while discussing the doctrine of the self and asserts that self can be realized by going beyond the knowledge of sensory perceptions and the faculty of the mind andintellect. Thus Vedanta declares that knowledge of the self is not a kind of knowledgethat could be reached through theoretical perceptions but a knowledge that could berealized as an inner experience.

Both the external world and the individual self are explored in the eastern and westernworld with similar concepts regarding the senses, the conscious mind and the intellect. Inthe theistic Existentialism and in Vedanta neither the world nor the self are defined in anobjective way, but they are declared as entities which could only be subjectivelyunderstood.

Works Cited

Fisher, William J. et al., eds. American Literature of the Nineteenth Century: An

Anthology . New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing House, 1955.


5/5

Gaudapada, Sri. The Mandukyakarika . Trans and ed. Swami Gabhirananda. Kerala:Sri

Ramakrishna Math, 1987.

Goodman, W.R. Contemporary Literary theory . Delhi:Doaba Publications,2004.

Gupta, Kanta.ed. The Yogavasistha of Valmiki . Vol.2. Delhi: Nag Publishers,1998.Mac Donald, Paul S.,ed., The Existentialist Reader: An Anthology of Key Texts.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Sastri, Alladi Mahadeva. Trans. The Bhagavad Gita: With the Commentary of Adi Sri

Sankaracharya . 1897. Chennai: Samata Books, 1995.

Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism

Documents

Transcript of Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism