The Advantages and Disadvantages of an Individualistic Philosophy

There is, in the Upanishads, a continual emphasis on the fitness of the body and clarity of the mind, on the discipline of both body and mind, before effective progress can be made. The acquisition of knowledge, or any achievement, requires restraint, self-suffering, self-sacrifice. This idea of some kind of penance, tapasya, is inherent in Indian thought, both among the thinkers at the top and the unread masses below. It is present to-day as it was present some thousands of years ago, and it is necessary to appreciate it in order to understand the psychology under-lying the mass movements which have convulsed India under Gandhiji's leadership.
*There is an odd and interesting passage in one of the Upanishads (the Chhandogya): 'The sun never sets nor rises. When people think to themselves the sun is setting lie only changes about after reaching the end of the day, and makes night below and day to what is on the other side. Then when people think he rises in the morning, he only shifts himself about after reaching the end of the night, and makes day below and night to what is on the other side. In fact he never does set at all.'
93
It is obvious that the ideas of the authors of the Upanishads, the rarefied mental atmosphere in which they moved, were con-fined to a small body of the elect who were capable of under-standing them. They were entirely beyond the comprehension of the vast mass of the people. A creative minority is always small in numbers but, if it is in tune with the majority, and is always trying to pull the latter up and make it advance, so that the gap between the two is lessened, a stable and progressive culture results. Without that creative minority a civilization must inevit-ably decay. But it may also decay if the bond between a creative minority and the majority is broken and there is a loss of social unity in society as a whole, and ultimately that minority itself loses its creativeness and becomes barren and sterile; or else it
gives place to another creative or vital force which society throws up"
It is difficult for me, as for most others, to visualize the period of the Upanishads and to analyse the various forces that were at play. I imagine, however, that in spite of the vast mental and cultural difference between the small thinking minority and the unthinking masses, there was a bond between them or, at any rate, there was no obvious gulf. The graded society in which they lived had its mental gradation also and these were accepted and provided for. This led to some kind of social harmony and conflicts were avoided. Even the new thought of the Upanishads was interpreted for popular purposes so as to fit in with popular prejudices and superstitions, thereby losing much of its essential meaning. The graded social structure was not touched; it was preserved. The conception of monism became transformed into one of monotheism for religious purposes, and even lower forms of belief and worship were not only tolerated but encouraged, as suited to a particular stage of development.
Thus the ideology of the Upanishads did not permeate to any marked extent to the masses and the intellectual separation between the creative minority and the majority became more marked. In course of time this led to new movements—a power-ful wave of materialistic philosophy, agnosticism, atheism. Out of this again grew Buddhism and Jainism, and the famous Sans-krit epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, wherein yet another attempt was made to bring about a synthesis between rival creeds and ways of thought. The creative energy of the people, or of the creative minority, is very evident during these periods, and again there appears to be a bond between that minority and the majority. On the whole they pull together.
In this way period succeeds period with bursts of creative effort in the fields of thought and action, in literature and the drama, in sculpture and architecture, and in cultural, missionary and
94
colonial enterprises far from India's borders. In between, there
are periods of disharmony and conflict, due both to inner causes
and intrusions from outside. Yet they are ultimately overcome
and a fresh period of creative energy supervenes. The last great
period of such activity in a variety of directions was the classical
epoch which began in the fourth century after Christ. By about
1000 A.C., or earlier, signs of inner decay in India are very evident.
although the old artistic impulse continued to function
and produce fine work. The coming of new races with a different
background brought a new driving foi;ce to India's tired mind
and spirit, and out of that impact arose new problems and new
attempts at solution.
It seems that the intense individualism of the Indo-Aryans
led, in the long run, to both the good and the evil that their
culture produced. It led to the production of very superior types,
not in one particular limited period of history, but again and
again, age after age. It gave a certain idealist and ethical background
to the whole culturfe, which persisted and still persists,
though it may not influence practice much. With the help of
this background and by sheer force of example at the top, they
help together the social fabric and repeatedly rehabilitated it
when it threatened to go to pieccs. They produced an astonishing
flowering of civilization and culture which, though largely
confined to the upper circles, inevitably spread to some extent
to the masses. By their extreme tolerance of other beliefs and
other ways than their own, they avoided the conflicts that have
so often torn society asunder, and managed to maintain, as a
rule, some kind of equilibrium. By allowing, within the larger
framework, considerable freedom to people to live the life of
their choice, they showed the wisdom of an old and experienced
race. All these were very remarkable achievements.
But that very individualism led them to attach little importance
to the social aspect of man, of man's duty to society. For
each person life was divided and fixed up, a bundle of duties
and responsibilities within his narrow sphere in the graded
hierarchy. He had no duty to, or conception of, society as a
whole, and no attempt was made to make him feel his solidarity
with it. This idea is perhaps largely a modern development and
cannot be found in any ancient society. It is unreasonable, therefore,
to expect it in ancient India. Still, the emphasis on individualism,
on exclusiveness, on graded castes is much more evident
in India. In later ages it was to grow into a very prison for the
mind of our people—not only for the lower castes, who suffered
most from it, but for the higher ones also. Throughout our
history it was a weakening factor, and one might perhaps say
that along with the growth of rigidity in the caste system, grew
9 5
rigidity of mind and the creative energy of the race faded away.
Another curious fact seems to stand out. The extreme tolerance
of every kind of belief and practice, every superstition and
folly, had its injurious side also, for this perpetuated many an
evil custom and prevented people from getting rid of the traditional
burdens that prevented growth. The growing priesthood
exploited this situation to their own advantage and built up
their powerful vested interests on the foundation of the superstitions
of the masses. That priesthood was probably never quite
so powerful as in some branches of the Christian Church, for
there were always spiritual leaders who condemned its practices,
and there was a variety of beliefs to choose from, but it was strong
enough to hold and exploit the masses.
So this mixture of free thought and orthodoxy lived side by
side, and out of them scholasticism grew, and a puritanical ritualism.
The appeal was always made to the ancient authorities,
but little attempt was made to interpret their truths in terms of
changing conditions. The creative and spiritual forces weakened,
and only the shell of what used to be so full of life and meaning
remained.
Aurobindo Ghose has written: 'If an ancient Indian of the
time of the Upanishad, of the Buddha, or the later classical age
were to be set down in modern I n d i a . . . h e would see his race
clinging to forms and shells and rags of the past and missing ninetenths
of its nobler meaning.. .he would be amazed by the extent
of the mental poverty, the immobility, the static repetition, the
cessation of science, the long sterility of art, the comparative
feebleness of the creative intuition.'