Truth from Gandhian Perspective |
- By Dr Rajkumar Modak*AbstractThough the term Truth is loaded with different meanings, its unified force is expressed when this very term represents the reality, as all the human beings of the world directly or indirectly have been searching for the reality. All the Indian philosophical systems as well as the religions have recognised the reality either as Truth or as the God and for them the realization of Truth or the God is the achievement of Moksa. When Gandhiji, recognizes ‘Truth is God.’, he proves the same sum by using such kind of formula which is the representation of the need of the time and this paper is an analysis of the uniqueness shown by Gandhiji. Human, being empirical as well as rational, is never satisfied when he gets knowledge in the form of information based on empirical enquiry or in the form of law or formula or sutra grounded on strong reasoning, because information, being hypotheses are not certain whereas, the strong reasoned grounded knowledge is certain but formal. In order to be satisfied, human beings develop another faculty which is, sometimes, known as surplus to him and this faculty is called spirituality. From this spiritualistic perspective, what he i.e., the human being is, actually, searching for, in order to be satisfied, is the ultimate Truth of life. This ultimate Truth of life, is, however, not identical with the Truth from the perspective of epistemology, where different theories such as Correspondence Theory of Truth, Coherence Theory of Truth, Pragmatic Theory of Truth and so on are entertained or from the perspective of logic, where truth value gets importance. Again, this kind of Truth is not just scientific Truths based on some methodological approvals. This kind of Truth, is actually, a higher kind which is to be realized through a deep contemplation where utilitarian mode is absolutely unnecessary; it is just like ‘searching for the Truth for the sake of Truth’ in order to get the everlasting pleasure and thereby to be emancipated or in other words, to achieve the Moksa from Indian philosophical point of view. It helps the human being to realize the ultimate Infinite Supreme Creator of the universe, the purpose of the universe and thereby, the purpose of human life. The most important fact is—the ancient Indian sagacious learned persons, from the pre-historic period, used to search this ultimate Truth of life either in a deep forest or in a cave. Though, this ultimate Truth of life is one, in Indian tradition, this Truth has been realized by the different philosophical systems as well as religions in different ways. Let it be noted that the Indians, from the beginning, never consider the starting point of philosophical enquiry is, just merely, depended on a speculative human mind, as conceived by the Western tradition; rather, it, is, inherently linked with the life where religion is closely connected with the life. It is actually the life and live philosophy as well as religion. That’s why, Professor Dasupta, in his book, The History of Indian Philosophy, Vol-1, P-71, has rightly pointed out, ‘The systems of philosophy in India were not stirred merely by the speculative demands of the human mind, but by a deep craving after the realization of the religious purpose of life.’ Side by side, Satkari Mookherjee, in his book, The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux, University of Calcutta, 1935, P-xl has remarked, ‘To keep up philosophy again in a water tight compartment and to prevent it deliberately from finding its fulfilment on religion constitutes an unpardonable case of moral cowardice, insincerity of purpose and shallow dilettantism.’ From this it is obvious, that if we want to get the features of the ultimate Truth of life following the Indian tradition, we are to start the voyage of our enquiry both through the way of philosophy as well as religion. Before delving the Gandhian notion of Truth, following the purpose of this paper mentioned earlier, let us consider how the different Indian philosophical systems analyze the concept of Truth. This will be help full to get a vivid picture cum uniqueness of Gandhian concept of Truth, though Gandhiji, being one of the great contemporary Indian philosophers, especially, known as the rejuvenator of the concept of ahimsa or non-violence. Being convinced on the dictum—'perception is the only source of reliable knowledge’, the Cārvāka system of philosophy, considers, from an excessively practical point of view, that the ultimate Truth of life is death i.e., Maraṇam eva apavargaḥ (Bṛhaspati Sutra). So, for the Cārvāka, the aim of life is to get the material comfort—raw happiness1 based on sense experience; because there are no souls (caitanya-viśisṣta-deha-eva-ātmā), no life after death, no God to be worshiped or the material cause of the world (svabhāvavād), no rules of karma are to be abided by, no hell or heaven2 and so on. Jaina philosophy, on the other hand, does not believe either on God or on any kind of permanent truth. They are in the opinion that there are seven kinds of conditional judgments—Somehow, S is P (syāt asti); Somehow, S is not P (syāt nāsti); Somehow, S is P and also not P (syāt asti ca syāt nāsti ca); Somehow, S is indescribable (syāt avaktavyam); Somehow, S is P and also indescribable (syāt asti ca avaktavyam ca); Somehow, S is not P and also indescribable (syāt nāsti ca avaktavyam ca); Somehow, S is P and also not P and also indescribable (syāt asti ca syāt nāsti ca avaktavyam ca). Only an omniscient person - kevala jñani has the power to obtain the immediate knowledge of an object in all its innumerable aspects. Though the doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda i.e., Dependent Origination is the foundation of all teachings of the Buddha, four schools of Buddhist philosophy keep firm conviction on four noble truths, because these are actually the axioms of Buddhist philosophy. Even the doctrine of Dependent Origination is the manifestation of the second noble truth. These four noble truths are—there is suffering i.e., duḥkha, there is a cause of sufferings i.e., duḥkha samudaya; there is cessation of suffering i.e., duḥkha nirodha; and there is a way leading to this cessation of suffering i.e., duḥkha nirodha gāminī pratipath. Among these four noble truths, the last one - there is a way leading to this cessation of suffering i.e., duḥkha nirodha gāminī pratipath leads to the noble eight-fold path—(i) right faith (samyag dṛṣṭi), (ii) right resolve (samyag saṇkalpa), (iii) right speech (samyag vāk), (iv) right actions (samyag karmānta), (v) righty living (samyag ājīva), (vi) right effort (samyag vyāyām) (vii) right thought (samyag smṛti), (viii) right concentration (samyag samādhi). As the Buddhist philosophers consider two kind of reality—saṅvṛti sat and paramārtha sat, what is called pratītyasamutpāda from the perspective of samsāra, is nirvāna from the point of view of reality. When the Nyāyā-Vaisesika upholds liberation (apavarga) leads to the absolute cessation of all pain and suffering owing to the right knowledge of reality (tattva jñāna) through four types of pramānas—perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna) and testimony (sabda), the Truth or reality (tattva jñāna) for them, refers to the knowledge of the permanent entities (nitya padārtha)—the atoms of the earth, water, fire and air; time; space; soul; mind; generality (sāmānya), particularity(viśeṣa) and the relation inherence (samavāya). But the Sāṅkhya philosophy believes in dualistic realism—puruṣa and prakṛti. Though puruṣa is (i) conscious, (ii) inactive, (iii) eternal, (iv) distinct from body, senses and mind, (v) beyond the whole world of the object, (vi) the witness of the changes and activities going on in the world; but the mahat as well as the other tattvas—buddhi or ahaṅkāra, five jñānendriya-s, five karmendriya-s, mind, five tanmātra-s and five mahābhuta-s are the product of through evolution only when prakṛti is associated with the puruṣa. The ultimate Truth through which liberation can be achieved, for Saṅkhya, is the discriminative knowledge (vivekajñāna) between puruṣa and prakṛti. Yoga philosophy, being allied with the Saṅkhya, believes, unlike Saṅkhya on the God and considers Yoga is the only way to be liberated i.e., to achieve the discriminative knowledge (vivekajñāna) between puruṣa and prakṛti. Saṇkara, being advaitavadi, upholds that the Brahman is the only Truth, the world is illusion or māyā. Unlike Saṇkara, Rāmānuja considers the God as the sole reality, both the conscious (cit) and unconscious (acit) objects are the parts of the God. When the God is pleased by the devotion releases the devotee from bondage. From the discussions mention above let us focus on what Gandhiji talks about on the Truth and how it helps a man to be liberated. In ‘Young India’ when Gandhiji says, ‘Truth is God.’, it will be wrong, if it is assumed that Gandhiji has derived this conclusion only of a sudden or arbitrarily. In fact, initially, young Gandhiji has a firm conviction on the premise — ‘God is Truth.’ In order to get rid of the sacred Indian religious tradition where the God has been called by many names. India, being the representation of divertive cultures and religions, from the beginning God centric. The vastness of the universe makes the Vedic Ṛsihis-s to be wandered and compels them to compose the Gāyatri mantra, the greatest mantra of the world — Om bhur bhuvah svah OM stands for the completeness, the Infinite, the Perfect and the Eternal. The completeness and the wholeness of all things are represented by the very sound OM. Not only that we have learned from our sacred sagacious teachers that the meditation should begin with OM and, end with OM in order to feel that the finite mind has the power to realize infinite. completeness as well as to be emancipated from the world of narrow selfishness. In the line Bhur bhuvah svah, though the term bhuh represents this earth, bhuvah represents the sky and svah represents the starry region respectively, the whole sentence is the reflection of the realization of that noble feeling— ‘you are born in the Infinite, that you belong not merely to a particular spot of this earth, but to the whole world.’ The third sentence – ‘Tat savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi’ is the manifestation of the mediation upon that adorable Energy of the Creator of the Universe. In fact, all the things of the world are created, sustained as well as destructed after the holly will of an Infinite Creator, not by any kind of law as conceived by science and this Infinite Creator must be worshiped through any form whatever it may be.3 Later on, however, the Creator of the universe who has been conceived as a Supreme being in the Vedic tradition has been worshiped by the Indians as the God who has many names as if He is a family member who always thinks the best for us and we are bestowed by Him. These many names of God are the reflections of the Indians, how they make their close relationship with the God. Gandhiji, for the sake of unification, at the time of his youth, calls ‘God is Truth.’ That’s why Gandhiji remarks, ‘In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But these one thousand names of God were by no means exhaustive. We believe and I think it is the truth that God has as many names as there are creatures and, therefore, we also say that God is nameless and since God many forms we also consider Him formless, and since He speaks to us through many tongues, we consider Him to be speechless and so on.’ (Young India) Now the point is: ‘Why does Gandhiji recommend—‘Truth is God.’?’ instead of recommending ‘God is Truth.’ Gandhiji has other options also through which the God could have been equated with. In case of Christian religion as well as Islam religion, the God has been equated with Love. But Gandhiji does not consider Love to be equated with the God, because he thinks, in English language. the term ‘love’ has many meanings. Not only that the term love sometimes designates passion which, for Gandhiji, is the mark of degradation. Let it be noted that if the meaning of the love were considered, from the perspective of a Vaisnava where the relationship between the God and the devotees has been considered through the forms(rasa) of Śānta, Prīti, Preya, Vatsala and Madhura; it seems that Gandhiji would have favoured the term Love. Later on, however, Gandhiji feels the term ahimsa could be used instead of the term love. But he keeps himself away from to do so, because at that time, there are seldom persons who could be able to get this point. Though, Gandhiji shows a firm conviction on ‘Truth is God.’, it is not free from any criticism as many persons are involved in killing the animals in the name of the Truth as well as the God. But this type of criticisms is not deeply argumentized. The importance of paying a firm conviction on ‘Truth is God.’ by Gandhiji lies elsewhere. It is a fact that Gandhiji has been influenced very much by Indian philosophical traditions where the term Truth represents the reality—sat. That’s why, for Gandhiji, ‘Truth is God.’ It is not just an explanation of either Truth or the God; it is, actually, the representation of the God, the essence of religion through the essence of reality or sattva or existence. Through this statement, Gandhiji not only makes a coordination between philosophy and religion, but also finds the strong relationship between reality and its beyond. Again, Gandhiji does not think that the term Truth, Love, Ahimsa and God are incompatible predicates, rather, for him, these are compatible to each other. In order to understand the compatibility of these terms, moral view point is necessary; because Gandhiji does not consider these terms as formal as these terms have practical utility. That’s why, he remarks, ‘what the voice within tells you’ is the realization of the Truth. But ‘what the voice within tells you’ is not merely the illustration to be guided by the emotions; it is the ‘inner call’ summoned by that Infinite Supreme Person whom we worship. ‘Inner call’ represents the purification of mind through which human being could achieve the ultimate aim of life if and only if he follows the right ways as stated by the different Indian philosophical systems. In order to get the ‘inner call’, what Gandhiji has recommended based on Indian philosophical traditions are as follows: one must go through the vow of Truth, the vow of Brahmacharya (purity), the vow of non-violence, and the vow of poverty and non-possession. Now, we are in a position to make a comparative study what Gandhiji has talked about the Truth. When he says that ‘Truth is God.’ he, actually, explores the unity between Truth and the God, because for him Truth represent the reality and it is the subject of searching for all the human beings. Not only that, in this case, he has been influenced by the Indian philosophical systems, though the existence of the God has not been supported by some Indian philosophical systems, in the one hand, and on the other hand, it has been observed that the God plays the efficient cause of the world. Now, the crucial point is—when Gandhiji declares, ‘Truth is God.’; ‘Does he use these terms ‘Truth’ and ‘God’ as alternative to each other?’ or in other words, ‘Is it possible to say that ‘Truth = God.’?’ Here, it seems that Gandhiji applies his experience of life as he likes to maintain the compatibility of the following words—Truth, God, Love and Ahimsa. In case of realising ‘Truth is God.’ Gandhiji accepts the ways of Truth, Brahmacharya (purity) and the vow of non-violence as like as the Jainism and Buddhism. But what he has added more is the way of poverty or non-possession. Here he actually, shows his uniqueness and reforms the Indian philosophical tradition, because at present time, it is not possible for a general person to follow the way of Sādhanā where the concerned person is bound to act as a Sanyasi. If any one has a firm conviction to realize ‘Truth is God.’, for Gandhiji, though he is rich, he has to scarify the enjoyment comes from the accumulation of the wealth, because the wealth can be accumulated, it can never be unified with the soul. In order to be unified with the Truth or the God or the Infinite Supreme being one has to be the non-possessor or the wealth. References
* Dr Rajkumar Modak, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, West Bengal | Email: skbuphilosophy@gmail.com. |