auro's synthesis of religion and politics

8/10/2019 Auro's Synthesis of Religion and Politics

1/10

The Task of Relevance: Aurobindo's Synthesis of Religion and PoliticsAuthor(s): David L. JohnsonSource: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 507-515Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1397720Accessed: 18/11/2010 19:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1397720?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1397720?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp


2/10

David L. Johnson The task of relevance: Aurobindo's synthesisof religion and politics

The issue of establishing a viable and relevant social order for India is onewhich has caused a considerable amount of turmoil on the subcontinent inthe last seventy-five years. The problems with both viable and relevantstem from the situation in which modern India finds herself-that of affirmingan eclectic culture shaped by thousands of years of Vedic and Puranic models

suddenly superseded by compellingmodels of social order from western

Europe. India in the twentieth century represents a traditional culture affirm-

ing social and political ideals simply pasted onto her past.Establishment of a viable and relevant social order demands, therefore,

either the discovery or the construction of some connecting links to the past.The imposition of the modern, alien ideals (however compelling they mightbe) creates a schizoid society-one which affirms ideals possessing no rootsin its own past and affirming a past which has nothing to do with the present.1

In this article I will look at one modern thinker who has tried to integratethe modern with the traditional in India. And to illustrate the dilemma ofwhich I speak I will show both the conceptual scheme upon which such an

integration of ideals is based and the apparent limitations of such a scheme.The analysis will show, I think, that modern concerns of nationalism, equal-ity, fraternity, liberty do not easily fit the Indian situation.

The thinker is Aurobindo Ghose, who from 1893 until 1910 participatedin the anti-British agitation in Bengal and elsewhere. Aurobindo is knownto the West primarily for his ponderous The Life Divine and for the dsrama

established by him and his companion of many years, The Mother, in Pon-dicherry, India. Interest in Aurobindo has increased recently with the be-

ginnings of an international community in his memory, called Auroville,located near Pondicherry. Aurobindo's political activism, however, is lesswell known, except to the early Indian nationalists who were inspired byhis writings. His literary work until 1910 consisted mainly of editorials sub-mitted to newspapers dedicated to Indian freedom-some of which were shutdown by the British authorities. The major source for Aurobindo's theoryof nationalism is Bande Mataram, a newspaper published in Calcutta between1905 and 1908. Two other papers, Dharma and Karmayogin, both publishedby Aurobindo, comprise additional materials.

Aurobindo used the newspapers as a vehicle for what the British re-

David L. Johnson is Assistant Professor of Humanities, Indiana State University, TerreHaute, Indiana.1 Agehananda Bharati in a recent article, Hinduism and Modernization, n Religionand Change in Contemporary Asia, ed. Robert F. Spencer (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1971) argues that modern Indian culture is eclectic in the sense of

attemptingto make itself

acceptableto

all, apologeticn that it is both

simplisticand

selective in its affirmation of the past, and technologically nformed rather than scien-tific in any theoretical sense. Bharati laments that the tradition is thereby abandonedand/or distorted.


3/10

508 Johnson

garded as extremist agitation. But Aurobindo's articles are not devoted tomere diatribe nor to the defamation of British character and government.Rather, he develops over the period of years a theory of nationalism which

integrates the goals of the nationalists with the religions of traditional India.Aurobindo constructs a theory of nationalism which revalues nationalist

activity into spiritual activity. That is, he constructs a theory which elevates

what the British saw to be revolution to the level of sadhana-spiritual dis-cipline. For Aurobindo nationalism is a religion. Such a view requires some

reinterpretation of traditionally asocial and apolitical concerns such as yoga,moksa, dharma, etc., into distinctly social and political concepts. Aurobindo,by a process of synthesis, integrates the traditional Hindu ideas with themodern ideal of national independence.

The integrative work is done at two levels. He first integrates and therebyrevalues traditionally asocial and apolitical concerns-yoga, moksa, etc.-with such modern

sociallyrelevant concerns as self-rule,

self-help,national

education, boycott, and revolution. Secondly, he justifies such a revaluation.The second matter demands for Aurobindo the construction of a cosmology-the reduction of the universe to a unity corresponding to the religious goal.Completion of the former task provides a rationale for nationalism compellingto the masses of India. The latter task justifies the former, both within termsof traditional Hindu philosophy and in terms of modern social and politicalthought. The result is a theory of nationalism which raises political concernsto the level of ultimacy for India's immediate present; in terms of the whole

system upon which the theory rests, the nationalist movement is the tempo-rary elevation of the penultimate to the level of ultimacy.

The systematic justification (the latter task) I will indicate first. Then Iwill show how Aurobindo reinterprets the traditional concepts. Aurobindo'smajor task is to unite or integrate the traditional religious goal (moksa)with the political or nationalistic goal (svaraj = self-rule). It is this majorsynthesis which provides the structure for his theory and which outlines the

path taken for realization of the goal. Aurobindo finds that the concept offreedom is common to both moksa and

svaraj. Moksa meansfor

the Hinduliberation. And svaraj assumes freedom from foreign control and con-straints. Since both concepts deal with freedom, they speak of basically thesame goal. To Aurobindo svardj is not mere political freedom, but a free-dom vast and entire, freedom of the nation, spiritual freedom, social freedom,political freedom. 2 Yet since svaraj is also related to the religious disciplineas a prerequisite to any yogic activity (related as self-rule or self-control),svaraj is also a prerequisite for any greater experience of freedom. Politicalfreedom as self-rule is therefore the first necessity for India. All other con-

siderations rest upon the realization of political freedom.2 Bande Mataram (hereafter cited as BM), 2/13/08.


4/10

509

It cannot be for a moment contended that we can again be spiritually greatwithout being politically dominant. The Indian of today is not the noble,heroic, and self-sacrificing Indian of a bygone age, only because with theloss of political freedom his soul has also begun to pine and wither. Thosewho allow others to take possession of their body cannot long remain in pos-session of their soul. There cannot be a more mischievous delusion than tosuppose that we can advance our soul by committing our bodies to the careof the foreigners.3

Political freedom is a precondition of the liberation which is the final goalof human existence. We do not desire political freedom for its own sake,but only and absolutely for the opportunities it offers for the cultivation ofour highest manhood . . . 4 Svaraj and moksa therefore unite. To realizeone is to proceed toward realization of the other.

But to provide a more stable foundation for the synthesis of the politicaland spiritual goals Aurobindo constructs another. He unites normally polarreligious points of view and practices to show that all Indians of the classical

age actually agree concerning the goal of existence (and, by implication,would agree with his synthesis). Aurobindo finds Indian religious philosophyreflecting two contrary positions: Devotionalism, which rests philosophicallyupon some dualistic cosmology (often Samhkhya), and the nondualism de-

veloped by Sahkara and his followers. The two can be seen as polar con-

ceptual schemes, since the religious goal is attained in each by theoreticallyexclusive means. In Devotionalism the goal is attained through prayer andadoration (bhakti) and results in a union with God. In the nondualist scheme,which

employsthe atman-Brahman rubric of the

Upanisads,the

goalis at-

tained by meditative knowledge (jiina) resulting in the experience of thesoul's liberation from the phenomenal world. The former view depends uponbelief in a personal God, the latter is not incompatible with atheism.

Aurobindo achieves a union of these polar religious conceptions by em-

ploying the language of the Srmhkhya o construct a cosmology which haspurusa and prakrti (spirit and matter) evolving out of the one Brahman. Mat-ter is united to spirit, and spirit is united to Brahman by the evolution thattakes place on the causal model of satkaryavada.5 The union of these different

conceptions of the universe implies that the phenomenal world of ordinaryexperience is actually the reality of Brahman evolved or transformed. Theunion of the religious points of view implies that devotion and meditation,bhakti and jinna, are compatible. The universe is thus conceptually unitedunder the goal of freedom; and the ultimate principle, Brahman, by evolution

3 The Right of Association, Speeches (Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1961 ed.), pp. 114-115.4 BM, 6/14/08.5 Satkaryavdda s one of the two major causal models in Indian metaphysics. Satkaryavadais the predominantly Hindu model which affirms that cause and effect are essentiallyidentical. The other model (Buddhist) is asatkaryavada, or non-identity of cause andeffect. The causal models are fundamental o Indian metaphysics since they provide thebasis for mapping routes to freedom.


5/10


6/10

511

considered alone. He therefore affirms both and constructs a new mode of

resistance-passive resistance. Passive resistance is a synthesis of violenceand nonviolence. It is a manner of coercion which temporarily eschews vio-lence but which, nevertheless, sees violence as a necessarily ever-presentthreat. The clearest, most dramatic, expression of passive resistance is the

boycott.Passive resistance through boycott is effective in that it strikes the Britishin two areas of greatest vulnerability, the economic sphere and the moral

sphere. Where the British had impoverished Indians through flooding marketswith goods manufactured in England, a refusal to purchase or to condone

purchase of such goods undermines the economic stability of a governmentcommitted to Rauberwirtschaft. But for Aurobindo the intention at the eco-nomic level is not merely retributive. It is moral and political as well. Byan organized and relentless boycott of British goods, we propose to render

the further exploitation of the country impossible. 6 And therefore boycottshould extend to all spheres of encroachment-the courts, the schools, the

police, the government agencies. The result of such activity is to be seen asmoral and spiritual.

The English have long been boycotting us in our own country. They boycottedour industries out of existence, they boycotted our noblest capacities intoatrophy by denying us any share in the higher activities of national life, theyboycotted us in the management of our affairs, in the defence of our country,in the making of its laws. Now boycott has commenced upon the other side,but it is not an act of retaliation merely; it is much more an unravelling of theEnglish web, a retracing of the steps towards perdition which we were forcedor induced to take.7

Aurobindo's theory of nationalism therefore elevates the nationalist causeto the level of ultimate concern. There can be no significantly religious activityapart from the concerns for national liberation.

Swaraj is the direct revelation of God to this people,-not mere political free-dom but a freedom vast and entire, freedom of the individual, freedom of thecommunity, freedom of the nation, spiritual freedom, social freedom, politicalfreedom. Spiritual freedom the ancient Rishis had already declared to us; so-cial freedom was a part of the message of Buddha. Chaitanya, Nanak andKabir and the saints of Maharashtra; political freedom is the last word of thetriune gospel. Without political freedom the soul of man is crippled. Socialfreedom can only be born where the soul of man is large, free and generous,not enslaved to petty aims and thoughts.... Spiritual freedom can never bethe lot of many in a land of slaves. A few may follow the path of the Yoginand rise above their surroundings, but the mass of men cannot ever take thefirst step towards a spiritual salvation. . . . When India was free, thousandsof men set their feet in the stairs of heaven, but as the night deepened and thesun of liberty withdrew, the spiritual force inborn in every Indian heart be-

6 The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, originally a series in BM 9-23 April 1907.7 BM, 8/7/07.


7/10

512 Johnson

came weaker and weaker until now it burns so faintly that aliens have takenupon themselves the role of spiritual teachers, and the people chosen by Godhave to sit at the feet of men from whose ancestry the light was hidden ....By our political freedom we shall once more recover our spiritual freedom.8

There are limits, however, to such a synthesis of religious goals with po-litical goals. The limits can be discussed as both inner limits and outer

limits. The outer limits concern the difficulties Aurobindo has reconcilingeither Muslim interests or British interests with his interpretation of thedivine intention. These outer limits, though of interest, do not speak specifi-cally to the problem at hand, namely, that of the need to reconcile traditionalIndia with imported concerns of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The innerlimits, however, speak more directly to the matter. They have to do, on theone hand, with a fairly technical problem in Indian philosophy associated with

resolving problems implicit within the Sdaikhya dualism with which Auro-bindo works. On the other hand, the inner limits also appear when Aurobindo

attempts a synthesis of yogic darsana (insight) and the scientific method. No

synthesis occurs, and Aurobindo opts for yoga as a way of knowing superiorto the scientific method of ascertaining certainty.

The former problem I will consider first. This problem is apparent whenattention is given to the kind of project Aurobindo has assigned himself, tobuild a conceptual scheme which can map a route to complete freedom at thesame time as it accounts for or includes rival schemes which it might con-front.9 Among the rival schemes are not only Muslim and Christian theologies

but the Western democratic political systems as well. The inclusion of thedemocratic ideals is indicated in the first part of this article. The requirementsof the former consideration, mapping a route to freedom, are complicated bythe fact that the scheme must possess both free and deterministic character-istics. It must combine freedom and determinism in such a way as to simul-

taneously allow for the seeker of freedom to act meaningfully for his goal (itmust recognize him as a causal agent) and to provide enough regularity and

predictability in the universe so as to allow the seeker the possibility of ex-

pecting regular sequencesof events in the world. The

system (byits

verynature as a scheme of salvation) must provide for regularity and order at thesame time as it allows the seeker some evidence that decisions and actionsinfluence events significantly for him.

The key problem, therefore, is one of the relations between things andevents within the universe; and the scheme must account for these relation-

ships in a manner which allows for the possibility of attaining the goal. The

8 BM, 2/23/08.9

I am indebted to Karl H. Potter and his Presuppositions of India's Philosophies (En-glewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963) at this point for insight into the structuresof Indian philosophy. Note particularly chapter 6, Freedom and Causation.


8/10

513

problem raised is one of causation. If strict determinism is posited by the

system, the seeker clearly is subjected to forces beyond his control, and his

ability to act for his salvation is negated. If, on the other hand, indeterminismis posited, the seeker is given no structure whereby he can steer his course

(or the course of the nation) toward realization of freedom.The model of causation adopted by Aurobindo and the use of the Sadikhya

distinctions between spirit and matter imply the limits of the scheme. The

satkaryavada model of causation posits everything manifest in the universe as

essentially preexistent in the primal cause. And the Samikhya distinction be-tween spirit and matter is that of a cosmic dualism-reality is dual andrealization involves distinguishing between the two components which are quitedissimilar. Aurobindo slightly modifies the Sdikhya dualism (if slightlycan adequately qualify the modification which results in a monism underBrahman rather than a dualism). By uniting matter and spirit and by as-

signing the spirit the role of overseer and enjoyer of material evolution, Auro-bindo clarified the relation between spirit and matter (normally Sarhkhyaphilosophers impale themselves trying to explain how matter is confused with

spirit in such a way as to cause bondage, since we normally do not confusedissimilar things but only similar things). Aurobindo makes spirit independentonly in the sense that it is prior to nature (matter) in the self-evolution ofBrahman. Spirit, therefore, is also the necessary and sufficient condition forsalvation. Salvation results from a process of reworking (or unworking) the

entanglements of bondage back to the freedom of spirit.The issue of progress to salvation, however, is precisely the issue which is

crucial. In spite of the fact that salvation as release is the concern of the sys-tem, the relation between bondage and freedom is in fact complicated by the

very model of causation intended to make conceptual sense of it. Aurobindo

successfully avoids, on the one hand, the problems inherent to the Sdazkhyadualism by uniting the universe under Brahman and positing evolution out ofBrahman to account for the material world. And on the other hand he avoidsthe problems of illusionism associated with Sarhkara's monistic explanation of

the universe by giving real status to the material world through the notionof evolution as satkdryavada. But what Aurobindo avoids by skirting problemsinherent to dualism and to nondualism, he resurrects in the issue of causation.If indeed, nothing can come to be which is not already existing in the primalcause, then there can be no path to salvation. Bondage cannot be escaped un-less it can be shown precisely how freedom itself is first contained in thebondage from which one desires release.

Aurobindo's alternatives in such a dilemma are either to explore the possi-bilities of some

pluralisticschemes

(give up synthesisand

reconceptualizethe

universe) or to change the method of reaching salvation. Changing the methodentails either removing the goal of freedom completely from the world of


9/10

514 Johnson

ordinary experience (the world of space-time-causality) or of making salva-tion entirely a matter of grace (positing divine intervention as a necessarycondition).

But either alternative ruins Aurobindo's scheme of uniting the spiritualwith the political. The former (pluralistic schemes) would end any attempt ata synthesis of religion and politics. The latter alternative (changing themethod of salvation) makes work for nationalism irrelevant to salvation. If,on the one hand, salvation is defined as beyond space-time-causality, politicalgoals and spiritual goals are unrelated. And if, on the other hand, a doctrineof grace is posited, no human act is of significance to the goal. The systemreaches its inner limits and an integration of spirituality and nationalism fails.

A second dimension of the inner limits to reconciliation of the traditionwith the modern world is apparent in Aurobindo's reconciliation of the scien-tific method with yogic insight. He recognizes that science and yoga are, at

certain points, rival epistemologies. Aurobindo's typical response is to includescience within the system-to absorb it. But he absorbs it not by synthesizingscience with the way of knowing available to the adept yogin. Rather hesubordinates science to yoga. He makes science and the conclusions of thescientific method into a witness for the conclusions of yoga. Science-par-ticularly psychology, and more specifically parapsychology-points to the

experience of yoga. The final result of such a confrontation with science isthe adoption by Aurobindo of the traditional Hindu authoritarianism, guru-vada. The man who would realize the

highesttruth must commit himself to

the guru as master, since the guru's private realization of truth is of greatercertainty than the certainty of public verification. Witness Aurobindo's recom-mendation of his theory:

The fundamental basis of this conclusion does not rest upon a mentally con-structed new thought, nor does it derive its authority from any ancientmanuscript, the proof of any written scripture or the formula of any philoso-phy. It is based upon a spiritual knowledge more integral, it is based upon theburning experience of the Divine Reality in the soul, life, mind, heart, andbody. This knowledge is not a new discovery but old and indeed eternal.10

Whereas such authoritarianism does not appear to be a limit which Auro-bindo ever recognizes, it may well be a limit for both his readers and for his

synthesis of modern with the traditional. If, indeed, the modern egalitarianand democratic concerns eschew authoritarianism of any type, the guruvadawhich Aurobindo advocates must be avoided as well.

The conclusion is that the religio-political synthesis fails. Aurobindo doesnot manage to reconcile satisfactorily the political goals of nationalism with

10 The Integral Yoga in the Upanishads, Sri Aurobindo Mandir Annual, No. 26(1967), p. 45. Translated by Niranjan. This article originally appeared in the BengaliDharma of 1909-1910.


10/10

515

the spiritual goals of traditional India. And it might be of some significanceto know that Aurobindo himself drops out of the nationalist movement in1910 to devote himself full time to the work of spiritual realization. Quitepossibly Aurobindo himself concluded (though never in writing) that spiritualconcerns and political concerns in India cannot satisfactorily merge without

significantly changing the traditionally espoused spiritual values and systems.So the question remains-how does India create a viable and relevant socialorder without cutting herself away from her rich heritage?

auro's synthesis of religion and politics

Documents