Haldane's Humanism- In the Light of the Vedanta

Haldane's Humanism

IN THE LIGHT OF THE VEDANTA

BY R. NAGARAJA SARMA, M.A.

The demise of Lord Haldane, news of which appeared in the press some days ago, removed from amidst contemporary philosophers and thinkers a strikingly outstanding figure, and in the course of the following discussion, I propose to attempt a brief exposition of the philosophy of Humanism that was nearest to the heart's desire of Lord Haldane, and evaluate it in the light of the leading and cardinal doctrines of the Vedanta. Uncritical reflection generally imagines a divorce between Philosophy and active participation in the secular concerns of life, but, Lord Haldane has given the world what is perhaps the best restatement of Hegelian Philosophy–Hegelian Philosophy stamped with the indelible imprimatur of Lord Haldane's own virile, dynamic personality–notwithstanding the fact that his life was crowded with brilliant achievements in secular concerns relating to the law and statecraft of England, the most significant of which was his Lord Chancellorship.

I

Lord Haldane's political enemies have never hesitated to accuse him of pro-German sympathies, and I can even now recall at this distance of time some vitriolic and needlessly outrageous paragraphs about his pro-German sympathies which appeared in the pages of the "National Review" edited by L. J. Maxse. Philosophy, in the sense of an earnest quest after Ultimate Reality, is a perfect stranger to prejudice and predilection, sympathy and sentiment. It knows nothing of colour-bar or race-hatred. The attack on Lord Haldane’s pro-German sympathies is merely an indication to what extent hatred of Germany and everything connected with it, had been deep rooted in the minds of some of the Englishmen in the memorable days of the European Armageddon. Lord Haldane paid little heed to irresponsible accusations and personal vilifications. It is the rarest privilege of man that he is endowed with the power to reason, to speculate, to philosophise, and to construct systems of thought or a body of doctrines about the nature of Ultimate Reality, about God, and His relation to the world of Finite Humanity, of organised and unorganized matter and spirit. The privilege should be enjoyed and put to the best possible use. What does it matter if a particular German thinker and philosopher had created a profound impression on Lord Haldane's mind and influenced his philosophy? Trite as it might seem to over-exacting and fastidious critics, it is true nonetheless that Truth should be welcomed wherever found. Artificial barriers of caste and creed, colour and convention, nature and nationality, cannot obstruct the spreading of Truth, and there is no wonder that the essentially truth-loving mind of Lord Haldane was sympathetically drawn towards a German thinker and philosopher, who had appeared to him to have built up a system of thought, which would adequately account for the facts of life and satisfactorily explain the relation between God and the world. Such a system of philosophy might be 'made in Germany' patented in Great Britain or manufactured in the intellectual laboratories of much maligned or Mayo-maligned Mother India. It is only the quality, the ability to satisfy the deepest spiritual demands of man, that will determine the fate of a system of philosophy in the last analysis. The inner consistency of the parts of a given system of speculation, the functioning of the parts in the interests and in the service of the whole, the totality, from the standpoint of logical system-building and the ability of it to quench the spiritual thirst, and reward the aspirant's quest with a grasp or a vision of the Ultimate Reality from the standpoint of practical Religion and Philosophy, are the only reliable and valid criteria by the application of which the value and significance of an intellectual frame-work of a philosophical system can best be judged. I shall endeavour to show as I proceed in this discussion howthe central doctrines of the Vedanta stand the foregoing test. Lord Haldane found that Hegelian method as well as the Hegelian doctrines could be regarded the most satisfactory in the light of the criteria proposed, and in the light of the scientific facts and theories made familiar by the efforts of positive scientists.

II

It would facilitate our understanding the Humanism of Lord Haldane if the leading doctrines of Hegelianism are briefly stated at the outset. The imposing idealistic movement of Germany was resolutely championed by Kant. Notwithstanding the undoubtedly significant services rendered to philosophy by him, he left unsolved the riddle of the Universe in a dualism between Phenomena and the Noumenon–The Thing-in-itself, between sense and understanding, necessity and freedom, and so forth. Fichte and Schelling followed him. Fichte regarded, to maintain intact the Kantian Idealism, that nature was merely a negative condition against which Spirit has to contend to reach the level of self-consciousness. Schelling did not approve of this. He sought to maintain that the fundamental Reality is the one Ideal Principle which manifests itself in the natural and spiritual world alike. Fichte represents one extreme in his anxiety to assign no higher or better status to nature than that of a negative condition against which Spirit struggles. Schelling stands at the other extreme of finding the real in a co-equal unity of nature and Spirit, neither of which could enjoy any preference or pre-eminence as a manifestation of the one Ultimate Reality or the Absolute.

Hegel appeared on the scene at this stage, and attempted an expression of the nature of Ultimate Reality as the Unity of Self-consciousness, a right apprehension of which would do justice to nature and Spirit, to finite and the Infinite, to man and God. James Hutchison Sterling, who more than anybody else has accomplished a great deal in popularising Hegelianism among the English knowing people, points out in his ‘Secret of Hegel’ and elsewhere, that the most important quest undertaken by Hegel was: "What is the one Idealistic Principle to which he might reduce all?" Let there be no relaxing of the vigour of the quest. Hegel was in serious earnest about it. Everything should be reduced to and shown to be a form of thought. All things were forms of thought. But then a standard is required. A form of thought should be found which, when applied to things, would reduce them to itself. What then is thought? The special nerve of thought was a triple nisus. The movement of thought was from simple apprehension to Judgment and from Judgment to Reason.

Throughout the exposition of his system, Hegel uses the dialectic method. We advance from notion to notion through negation. Every notion has within it the germs of the opposite of itself, to which it passes. The notion and its opposite are reconciled and held in a higher synthesis which is a richer notion.

That is the quintessence of the Hegelian dialectic. The system of speculation has been fashioned on the method of dialectic. I The Hegelian Science of Logic deals with the thought-forms or thought-determinations which underlie all phenomena, natural and spiritual. 2. In the "Philosophy of Nature" Hegel sketches the development of Nature, of the real world by a process of particularization or externalization. 3. In the "Philosophy of the Spirit" an account is given of the development of the world, of concrete Spirit as we come across it in Art, Religion, Morality, etc. The Absolute is at first pure, unadulterated thought. In the next stage, we have its heterization, or externalization in world and nature. In the third stage, the Spirit becomes self-conscious and breaks as it were the barriers of heterization. Such are the inevitable vicissitudes of the Absolute–The Spirit.

III

There is no doubt that Lord Haldane had been deeply impressed with the profound philosophy ofHegel. Though he disclaims any desire to play the part of an apologist of Hegel or any other philosopher (P. 12 Gifford Lectures 1902-03) forthe matter of that, it is clear Haldane's admiration for Hegel whom he styles "the greatest master of abstract thought that the world has seen since the day when Aristotle died," (IbidP. 312) is too deep and profound for words. Haldane got his inspiration from Hegel. He however did not rest content with a mere reiteration ofthe truths of Hegelianism. Thought is never static. Its movement is quick and even imperceptible. Science has advanced and is still advancing by rapid strides. Each new age brings on its own discoveries about natural phenomena. Progressive philosophy simply cannot afford to ignore scientific discoveries. It should endeavour to explain and account for them in a systematic manner. Lord Haldane has restated and reinterpreted Hegelianism in the light of scientific facts and theories that had become the cherished possession of the fashionable Intelligentsia of the time.

IV

Lord Haldane delivered two series of Gifford Lectures, one in 1902-3, and the other in 1903-4, entitled "Pathway to Reality." He raised the question–"How, in the commencement of the twentieth century, ought we to conceive God?" God cannot be anything less than the Ultimate Reality. The service that philosophy can always do is to subject the categories of the special sciences to test from the standpoint of Ultimate Reality. That Ultimate Reality is God. Haldane writes–"To me it seems that by God we mean, and can only mean, that which is most real, the Ultimate Reality into which all else can be resolved and which cannot itself be resolved into anything beyond; that in terms of which all else can be expressed and which cannot be itself expressed in terms of anything outside itself." (P. 19. Ibid.) He dismisses the idea that God can be regarded as First Cause. For the relationof cause and effect applies onlyto events that occur ina space-time-series, and the forms of time and Space mightfall within the Real instead of conditioning it. Nor is it Correct to define God as a substance. He isto be defined as the Subject or the Ultimate Reality. The most profound relationship is that of being object to a subject. The idea of purpose or end isthe most dominant. At different stages or levelsof experience we have differentends to realise, different purposes to fulfill, and different ideals and aspirations that have to be translated into practical politics. Experience is analysed and studied from different standpoints such as scientific, ethical, political,economic, and religious. The different standpoints reveal different ends after which humanity strives. The ethical end isnot the same as the political. Nor is the economic the same as the aesthetic. Different ends necessitate the employment of differentcategories and conceptions. None of them could be regarded as Ultimate Reality. Their reality isconfined to permanent relativityto the end or purpose. Change the end or the purpose, the categories would change too. The nature of UltimateRealitycan be grasped only when we havecriticisedthe categories and ascertained their intrinsic limitations. Lord Haldane has undertaken such a Critique of the categories. The categories of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Psychology are subjected to a searching examination and their inadequacy to grapple withthe problemof Ultimate Reality exhibited.

V

1921 witnessed the publication of Lord Haldane's "Reign of Relativity" And in a year the book had run into four editions so that 1922 saw the publication of the Fourth Edition with paragraphs added after the author had a personal discussion withEinstein about Relativity. Lord Haldane points out that throughout the "Reign of Relativity" the central theme of a search after the nature of Ultimate Reality which guided the plan and procedure in the Gifford lectures, had been steadily kept in view. What are the conclusions arrived at in the volume? Knowledge is the subject-matter of the book, and the relativity of reality to thecharacter of knowledge should be strictly kept in the forefront. The First Part deals with the Einstinian theory of Relativity, in its mathematical and physical-science ramifications. The Second Part deals with the metaphysical foundation of Relativity. The Third part is devoted to a discussion of other views about the nature of the Real. The Fourth Part is concerned with a discussion of the relationship between the individual and his environment, and the fifth, the concluding part, fittingly ends with an exposition of the relation between the Human and the Divine. Let me sum up what is in this volume relevant most intimately to the question assigned a prominent place in the Gifford Lectures. What is the nature of the Ultimate Reality? Lord Haldane Writes: "The consciousness of man is not a different thing from the consciousness of God. Man and God are not numerically distinct subjects in knowledge. They are the one foundational mind disclosing itself in different degrees or logical stages in the progress of reality, but as identical throughout divergences in form... " (P. 402 ‘Reign of Relativity’.)

VI

The Philosophical doctrine of relativity of reality to knowledge worked out in the "Reign of Relativity" is developed further in a volume entitled "Philosophy of Humanism and other subjects," published in 1922. Lord Haldane explains that the purpose of the volume is to examine and show that the standpoints of the different branches of knowledge are adequate to account for particular aspects of Reality, but the relativity itself points in the direction of a higher synthesis in which Reality as a whole figures for philosophy. Haldane comes to the conclusion that Reality is indissolubly and inseparably one with knowledge, but it is not a mental construction. It has no meaning either, except in reference to the setting which thought gives to the particularism involved in all knowledge. Humanism is an interpretation from what is perhaps the highest standpoint from the level of which entirety is surveyed. The categories of Mathematical Physics, Biology and Psychology, are examined and Shown to be utterly inadequate to a grasp of the nature of Ultimate Reality. Knowledge deals with what is concrete, and unique. Haldane repeatedly emphasizes that the Ultimately Real is neither mere subject nor mere object, but both fall within an activity and are distinguishable by reflection. Subject and object are taken up in a higher synthesis. We come across instances of Humanism in Art, Literature and Religion, etc.

VII

It would now be possible to get a general idea of the Philosophy of Lord Haldane. It is not superfluous to recall that the problem of philosophy was what was raised for discussion in the course of the Gifford Lectures. Man can never rest content until he grasps the nature of Ultimate Reality. God is the Ultimate Reality. Knowledge is foundational of Reality. There are different orders in reality as in knowledge. The relativity of reality to knowledge is the basic fact. The special sciences have their own categories. But the moment their application is sought to be extended to other provinces, other orders than those for the handling of which they were reflectively devised, their inadequacy becomes patent. They simply prove to be hopelessly inadequate to deal in any manner with the nature of Ultimate Reality. The Ultimate Reality is the reality of Self-consciousness, the Absolute Idea of Hegel. Through the instrumentality of a dialectic, a spiritual dialectic if youplease, man will progressively realise the nature of Ultimate Reality. For, it is one Foundational Mind that discloses itself in man and God.

VIII

How does the Philosophy of Lord Haldane stand comparison with the leading doctrines of the Vedanta? He has not made any use of the Vedanta in constructive building up of his system on the foundations of Hegelianism. It is only in one place he refers to the teachings of the Upanishads. He observes that, in the Upanishads, metaphysical problems are not discussed in what they in the West would call a sufficiently systematic fashion. (P. 93. Philosophy of Humanism). It is unfortunate that such an acute thinker as Lord Haldane should have entertained the impression that, in the Upanishads, metaphysical problems have not been discussed in a sufficiently systematic fashion. Obviously he had no access to the Sanskrit originals, and Haldane's idea of Upanishadic philosophy must have been derived from English or German translations of the Upanishads, or from contributions and articles in the technical English periodicals like the "Mind", to which some of our modernised and westernised English educated persons are in the habit ofcontributing articles, studies and discussions, etc., dealing with topics of Indian Philosophy, the original texts on which are equally a sealed book to the latter. It is difficult to see what Haldane understands by the term "systematic fashion as usually called in the West." But, one can easily discuss the question with reference to Haldane's own mode of philsophising or system building. He tells his readers that the problem of Relativity had occupied his thoughts for a period of over forty years. (Preface VII. Reign of Relativity). He had so incessantly and with such concentration thought of the problem that the thinking out led to the system being committed to writing. In the Gifford Lectures, he raised the problem: "How ought we to think of God in the 20th century"? He found that God can never be anything less than the Ultimate Reality. God cannot be regarded as the First Cause. For the concept of causality falls within the Real instead of determining and conditioning it in any way. Nor can God be regarded as substance. He should be defined and described as subject. Orders and degrees are discernible in knowledge as well as reality. Relativity of Reality to knowledge which is foundational and beyond which it is finally futile to attempt to penetrate, is the central theme of Haldane. Each special science has its own subject matter to analyse, dissect, experiment with, and study and speculate upon. Each science has its own categories in terms of which it seeks to express the fraction of reality methodologically separated for purposes of investigation. The categories cease to be valid ipso facto, the moment you extend their application beyond their own legitimate sphere. Haldane has undertaken a critique of the categories of the different sciences, like Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Psychology, and exhibited their inadequacy to a grasp of Reality as a whole. He concludes that a right apprehension of the full significance of the theory of Relativity would engender a spirit of toleration, mutual good-will, sympathy etc. We are asked to think of Reality at the highest points where it reveals itself in a progressive onward march.

Now what is the system exhibited in such a line of thought and speculation which has justly elevated Haldane to the highest rank among statesman-philosophers? He takes human knowledge as he finds it. It has various degrees and orders. It realises itself and fulfils itself through the instrumentality of a dialectic of the Hegelian type, and shines in all its glory and splendour of self-consciousness. It is one Mind that manifests itself both in man's and God's consciousness. Haldane has endeavoured to construct a systematic whole, the foundation of which is knowledge.

The seers of the Upanishads have placed before themselves a similar task. Chronologically the Upanishads appeared in the history of speculation long long before Haldane and Hegel who inspired him. The Upanishads are full of dialogues, discussions and debates conducted by aspirants engaged in metaphysical quest. Their problem is the same. They desire to grasp the nature of Ultimate Reality. What is the UltimateReality?Whatis its nature? Can man ever fully and adequately grasp its nature? The upanishads reveal unmistakeable attempts to think out the problem in all its ramifications and implications. They have their own systems of speculation. But of course one does not come across any hard-and-fast divisions of a text or a volume into chapters, etc., and that is hardly sufficient to blamethe seers of the Upanishads for lack of systematic speculation. If systematic philosophising or consistent metaphysical speculation means a search for Ultimate Reality and an examination of the relation between finite man, the Universe, and the Ultimate Reality, to one another (I fail to see what else it could mean at all), the Upanishads realised long ago the need for such a search and faced the problem boldly and courageously at a time when philosophy had not degenerated into classroom stuff, and when philosophers had not become book-makers caring for advertisements and newspaper reviews.

IX

Lord Haldane has nowhere in his works made clear why metaphysical investigation shouldbe undertaken at all. Is the investigation undertaken in response to a genuine thought-need which cannot be allowed to remain unsatisfied? Is it the duty of every rational being to undertake it at some stage or other of its evolution? Such a question is perfectly legitimate. The men and women of science tell us that metaphysical investigation is only weariness of the flesh. The unsophisticated man in the street, obliged to earn his scanty livelihood by the sweat of the brow, can hardly be expected to interest himself in an inquiry concerning the Ultimate Reality. The proximate reality is to him sufficiently arresting, compelling, and engrossing. Is metaphysical investigation a luxury? Is it to be attempted only by superannuated pious souls with one foot in the grave already?

The Vedanta differs from the Humanism of Haldane in the metaphysical investigation is rendered more or less obligatory on all as the result of an equally obligatory study of a revealed body of texts, by the former. The preliminary study of the texts in question would kindle the spirit of enquiry in the minds of the aspirants, which would subsequently be maintained at a high level of activity till the nature of Ultimate Reality is made an object of direct apprehension. It is a valid argument which was adopted by the Charvakas, the Sophists, and others that eating, drinking, enjoying, and merry-making constitute the essence of life. How is that argument to be refuted? Encounter with the hard and stubborn realities of life might bring on disillusionment in the case of some. A realisation of the utter insufficiency of the needs and satisfactions of mundane existence might dawn on a reflecting mind of itself. Or it might arise as the result of friendly counsel. It is well somehow that there should be a permanent reminder to humanity, at least the reflecting portion thereof, about the imperative necessity there is for quest after Ultimate Reality being undertaken sooner or later. Such a reminder is to be discerned undoubtedly in the body of texts known as the Sruti. It is nothing derogatory to the dignity of the lord of creation that such a reminder is there. Man is too often apt to forget and even deliberately ignore the need for quest after Ultimate Reality.

The civilised nations of the West today do badly need such a reminder. If the values and standards of evaluation that obtain in the West in affairs, national and international, be any criteria for the determination of the way in which philosophy has actually influenced life, one would, not be mistaken, should he regard the up-to-date civilized nations of the West as not being very particular about the "Practice of the Presence of the Infinite." A criticism of the categories employed by the various special sciences will make no appeal. Their inadequacy is at best, if proved, only negative. It would never awaken the need for a quest after Ultimate Reality. Lord Haldane, peradventure, might have agreed to philosophy being labeled "Science of the Ultimate Reality", but the difficulty in the passage from proximate reality of routine daily life to Ultimate Reality has not been removed by him. The outlook of the Vedanta is different.

Quest after Ultimate Reality is rendered more or less obligatory and a perusal of the discussion of this topic in the opening paragraphs of Appayya Dikshita's ., "Siddhanta-Lesa-Sangraha" is sufficient to convince impartial students of philosophy that the Vedantic outlook in this matter is better grounded and more compelling than that of Haldane's Humanism.

X

It is, however, in the solution of the problem of God that the Vedanta appears to possess special advantage over Haldane's Humanism. God cannot be considered to be the Cause of the Universe. The concept of causality has a limited application only in the special sciences wherein the Inductive deterministic postulate holds sway. Its applicability cannot be infinitely and indefinitely extended. It is prima facie inadequate to deal with the problem of the nature of Ultimate Reality. That is the fundamental position taken up by Lord Haldane. It has doubtless a tinge of Hegelianism in it. It is easy to grant that God can never be anything less than Ultimate Reality. But further questions are inevitable. Man is made to lose his way first and then return to his original Home in the Infinite after a prolonged career of spiritual discipline on earth. The nature of man is not far removed from, and alien to, that of God or the Ultimate Reality. There is a fundamental kinship. Now, are not all these and such others mere assertions which can as easily be rejected and overthrown as affirmed and accepted? How is man to know at all he has strayed far away from his original Home? How is he to know that his nature is not different in kind (though of course there is a terrible difference in degrees) from that of Ultimate Reality? Notwithstanding any number of critiques of Pure and Practical Reason, there is no end to ratiocination and argumentation. If a statement is made that the nature of Ultimate Reality is to be grasped by man, a counter-assertion is always possible. The recent controversy in the West about the teaching of Darwinism in schools and universities only shows to what a ridiculous extent ratiocination and argumentation can be carried on by interested parties anxious for victory in a debate, or eager to ride one's own pet hobby horse. Taking one's stand on reason, ratiocination, and, argumentation, and these alone, it is impossible to grasp the nature of Ultimate Reality. Such a conclusion has been indicated in the discussion contained in sutra 2-1-11 of the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana. The nature of the Ultimate Reality would appear forever to lie beyond the pale of pure reason, ratiocination and argumentation. We all understand the Oxford Dictionary meaning of the terms "Ultimate" and "Reality" but the entire trouble which philosophers and laymen experience lies in the matter of actual realization of our own identity or even kinship with the Ultimate Reality which, in the language of Haldane, is foundational. Reason becomes bankrupt. It admits of a number of alternative solutions to the problem of Ultimate Reality. Each has the support of reason and logic. Logic absolute can confound any number of jarring and warring sects. That is why the Vedanta firmly holds that Sruti or a body of Revealed Texts is the only valid authority which reveals the existence of some Ultimate Reality, the nature of which has to be known, investigated and inquired into. Haldane's Humanism, in common with the western systems of thought, shares this defect of an exclusive emphasis on reason as a guide in matters spiritual and metaphysical.

XI

Pandits like Prof. A. B. Keith of the Edinburgh University do not hesitate to accuse the Vedanta of an uncritical faith in the validity of a body of revealed texts. It is so easy to be critical. But so long as the majesty of reason is respected, the reasoning of one person or leader of a thought movement is as good and valid as that of any other. Alternative solutions are possible for the problems of philosophy. That is why even at the risk of some repetition, it is necessary to point out that the Vedanta takes its stand on the firm bed-rock of Sruti or a body of revealed texts which alone is capable of revealing the nature of Ultimate Reality.

Lord Haldane has ever insisted that God can never be regarded as a Cause. For the concept of causality is bound and narrowed down by the relativity of reality to knowledge. It cannot apply to Ultimate Reality. But the Vedanta believes that God is best understood as the Author (you may use the term Cause) of this Universe. Whatever highly evolved minds think, the best way of making one understand the nature of God is to regard Him as the Author of the starry Heavens above. We are deeply impressed withthe mystery of existence. Systems of planets exist. Some are yet in the stages of formation, in the shape of nebulae. The Author of this all is God. There is absolutely nothing wrong or uncritical in resort to such a description of the Majesty of God.

The author of the Vedanta Sutras attempts a definition of God from some such standpoint. "Janmadyasya-Yatah". We live, moveand have our being in a world of men and things governed by certain laws of behaviour. The world of organised and unorganised matter and spirit should be created or should have been created. Otherwiseit could not have been brought into existence of its own accord. Nor could it have sprung up from nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing comes nothing. The author of the world is God. Not merely that. Creation has to be accounted for. Created worldshould be protected, guarded, and continued to develop and work out its appointed destiny. When the world has run on its course, it must dissolve and must perish. Janma is creation or coming into being. Sthithi is continued existence of that brought into existence. Nasa is the final destruction. The Author of all these is God. No doubt, on a view like this, countless further questions crop up protean-like. Is this the best of all Possible worlds? CanGod, themost perfectBeing, bringintobeing,a worldwhichisfullof imperfection, evil, and misery? What isthe placeof EvilinGod’s Universe? Triteas itmightappear, such questionsare bound toSuggestthemselvestoenquiringminds. Thedoubtsand difficultiesthat assailthemindsof piouspersons like. Parnell'shermitcannotbe so easilylaidtorestby a doctrine thatconsiders knowledgeto be foundational.FaithinDivineJusticeisindispensable. FaithisjustifiableonlyifGod isviewedas theCreator of theUniverse, and thereforeitscause. TheVedanta didrealisethatsomespecialconceptionof causalitywillhavetobe resortedto. TheAdvaitins, theMonistsof theVedanta, holdthe Brahman to be the Nimitta as Wellas the Upadana karana of theUniverse. Brahman isthematerialas wellastheefficientcause. Thedifference betweenthe Vivarta and the Parinama Vada, according towhichlatter Brahman transformsitselfinsome measure to createtheUniverse, and according totheformerof which Brahman retainsintactitspristinePurity, reality, individuality, etc. and yetgivesrise Somehow (inthesense of Bradleyan"Somehow")toan appearance of cosmosand cosmicevolution, growth, destruction, et hoc, istoowell- knowntoneedany repetitionin the PresentContext. In theconceptionof God's authorshipof theUniverse, theVedantaismore logical, Consistentand satisfactoryfromthestandpointof a piousaspirant who has faithinDivineJusticethan Haldane'sHumanism.

XII

TheUltimateReality, Whoseessence isfoundationalknowledge, hasthroughthe advanceof ages becomeSubjecttoa Process of heterisation, inthelanguageof Hegel. Haldaneholdsa similarview. Thedifficultyis as oldas ancientGreekand Eastern speculation. Howdidtheone ParemenidianBeingbecomemanifestas themultiplicityand pluralityof theUniverse?Thequestionreappears in Platoand Aristotle. Ittroubled Spinoza. Kant had to face it. Hegel and Bergson were confronted with it. The Vedanta, especially the Advaita Vedanta, resorts to the doctrine of Maya to account for the apparent pluralisation of the One Fundamental Reality. The Realistic and Pluralistic systems do not feel any difficulty in the matter. They assume some principle of matter like the Sankhyan Prakriti which is set over in co-operation with the Spirit. The Dualism is no red rag, or bogey to them. In Monistic systems the problem of the one and many is solved through the help of the doctrine of Maya. In the Adhyasa-Bhashya, Sankara points out in a brilliant manner that the ordinary affairs of life are transacted on the basis of a colossal Cosmic Error. Its riddance is the goal of life. The aspirant endeavours to reach it. Knowledge, genuine knowledge, of the real nature of Brahman will dispel the ignorance, that is the root-cause of the appearance of plurality, multiplicity and difference, discord and disharmony, Unless therefore adequate explanation is forthcoming of the ‘why,’ of the Absolute or the Subject manifesting itself as plurality of the world, Haldane's Humanism should be considered to be weak. I can anticipate an answer that the ‘why’ of things can never be answered. But that is hardly convincing.

XIII

Haldane's Humanism is not able to account for the palpable difference and inequality among individuals in the matter of congenital endowment, equipment, opportunities, etc. whereas the Vedanta, holding fast as it does to the doctrine of Karma, succeeds in some measure to justify God's ways to man. According to the moral and ethical standards obtaining in a particular age, we find that the sinner not unoften prospers like the green-bay tree. The virtuous are vanquished. One is born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. Another earns his scanty living by the sweat of the brow. Surely some explanation is needed why this should be so in this God's best of all possible worlds. The Vedanta formulates the hypothesis of Karma which is individual as well as collective. In any given series, the present existence is the outcome of the past and moulds the future. Deeds good and bad done in an earlier existence determine the present, which in its own turn paves the way for the future. I have elaborated the significance of the hypothesis of Karma in the course of my article in the London Quarterly, ‘The Quest.’–July Number of 1927.

XIV

It would be easy to evaluate other aspects of Haldane's Humanism in the light of the Vedanta, but I consider I have said enough on the subject with reference to cardinal life. It does not, however, explain so many facts of life. There is, for instance, world-wide exploitation, political and economic, of the weaker nations by the strong. Lip-sympathy there is plenty. We have not yet heard the last of the lynching of the Negroes. The Kellog Peace-pact notwithstanding, European nations are preparing for a future war more devastating than that of 1914. I wonder if Humanism would justify all such aberrations of the Ultimate Reality. But the Vedanta with its doctrines of Maya and Karma might perhaps satisfy a pious soul. Well, the Karma and the Maya doctrines do not counsel abject submission to any stereotyped order of religious, moral, or political existence. They are perfectly consistent with progress, reform, and regeneration. A right apprehension of the significance of the Vedantic doctrines will engender the will to maintain our own against odds, however formidable. The Triveni is the organ of modern Indian Renaissance, and I believe it is the duty of those who guide the Renaissance movement to place in the forefront dynamic ideas of Indian Philosophy and evaluate their claims in the light of systems and doctrines that obtain and hold sway elsewhere. That cannot be done in a day or by a single individual. Translations of the philosphical classics of the Vedanta would alone enable the westerners to see what Indian Philosophy stands for. That is work forthe futureby a syndicate of scholars and thinkers. Meanwhile, let me conclude this discussion with the expression of a hope that the Indian Renaissance, forwhich Triveni stands sponsor, would usher in an era of progress and power and prosperity, an era which would witness a rational transvaluation of all old and crystallised values, and a bold and courageous repudiation of false values that have so far engendered nothing but a slave mentality with a pathetic lure forcopy-book maxims and political claptrap. One has already begun to feel the refreshing influences ofthe dawn ofthis New Era.