|
The Sanctity of the Individual
THE
sanctity of the individual, the value of the human person is one of
the cardinal articles of faith of the modern consciousness. Only it
has very many avatars. One such has been the characteristic mark of
the group of philosophers (and mystics) who are nowadays making a
great noise under the name of Existentialists. The individual
personality exists, they say, and its nature is freedom. In other
words, it chooses, as it likes, its course of life, at every step,
and Creates its destiny. This freedom, however, may. lead man and
will inevitably lead him, according to one section of the group, to
the perception and realisation of God, an infinite in which the
individual finite lives and moves and has his being; according to
others, the same may lead to a very different consummation, to
Nothingness, the Great Void, Nihil. All existence is bounded by
something unknown and intangible which differs according to your luck
or taste, – one would almost say to your line of approach, put
philosophically, according either to the positive pole or the
negative, God or Non-existence. The second alternative seems to be an
inevitable corollary of the particular conception of the individual
that is entertained by some, viz., the individual existing
only in relation to individuals. Indeed the leader of the French
school, Jean-Paul Sartre – not a negligible
playwright and novelist – seems to conceive the individual as
nothing more than the image formed in other individuals with whom he
comes in contact. Existence literally means standing out or outside
(ex+sistet), coming out of one-self and living in
other's consciousness – as one sees one's exact image in another's
eye. It is not however the old-world mystic experience of finding
one's self in other selves. For here we have an exclusively level or
horizontal view of the human personality. Page – 348 The personality is not seen in depth or height, but in line with the normal phenomenal formation. It looks as though, to save personality from the impersonal dissolution to which all monistic idealism leads, the present conception seeks to hinge all personalities upon each other so that they may stand by and confirm each other. But the actual result seems to have been not less calamitous. When we form and fashion each other, we are not building with anything more substantial than sand. Personalities are thus mere eddies in the swirl of cosmic life, they rise up and die down, separate and melt into each other and have no consistency and no reality in the end. The freedom too which is ascribed to such individuals, even when they feel it so, is only a sham and a make-believe. Within Nature nothing is free, all is mechanical law – Karma is supreme. The Sankhya posits indeed many Purushas, free, lodged in the midst of Prakriti, but there the Purusha is hardly an active agent, it is only an inactive, passive, almost impotent, witness. The Existentialist, on the contrary, seeks to make of the individual an active agent; he is not merely being, imbedded or merged in the original Dasein, mere existence, but becoming, the entity that has come out, stood out in its will and consciousness, articulated itself in name and form and act. But the person that stands out as part and parcel of Prakriti, the cosmic movement, is, as we have said, only an instrument, a mode of that universal Nature. The true person that informs that apparent formulation is something else. .
To be a person, it is said, one must be apart from the
crowd. A person is the "single one", one who has attained
his singularity, his individual wholeness. And the life's work for
each individual person is to make the crowd no longer a crowd, but an
association of single ones. But how can this be done? It is not
simply by separating oneself from the crowd, by dwelling upon oneself
that one can develop into one's true person. The individuals, even
when perfect single ones, do not exist by themselves or in and
through one another. The mystic or spiritual perception posits the
Spirit or God, the All-self as the background and substance of all
the selves. Indeed, it is only when one finds and is identified with
the Divine in oneself that one is in a position to attain one's true
selfhood and find oneself in other selves. And the re-creation of a
crowd into such
Page – 349 divine individuals is a cosmic work in which the individual is at best a collaborator, not the master and dispenser. Anyway, one has to come out of the human relationship, rise above the give-and-take of human individuals – however completely individual each one may be – and establish oneself in the Divine's consciousness which is the golden thread upon which is strung all the assembly of individuals. It is only in and through the Divine, the Spiritual Reality and Person, that one enters into true relation and dynamic harmony with others. The truth of the personality is not to be found in its horizontal, but vertical dimension. The Existentialist speaks of the existence (standing out) of the human person as a transcendence. But real transcendence is not so much in coming out as in going up and beyond. To be outside oneself is not always to transcend oneself: to be above oneself is the real transcendence. Man is a true and free person only when he is lord of Prakriti, dominating and commanding Nature, when he is identified with Ishwara, the supreme Person, the Master, and becomes an incarnate will and consciousness of His. The soul in ignorance and in ignorant relation with others must rise and envisage its archetype in the Supreme Divine, as a free formulation of an Idea-Force of the Infinite.
If we do not keep in view this vertical transcendence
and confuse it with immanence, we are likely to arrive at queer
conclusions, as for example, one Existentialist says: polarity being
an essential truth of the reality, the law of day and night is an
eternal and immutable law and therefore, God cannot subsist as pure
love; there must be also anger in him. In fact, God too is a becoming
God as the human being. The limitation of such a view,
characteristically Germanic and intellectual, is evident. Page – 350
|
