Philosophy and Spirituality are a lifelong commitment. It is not just another thought to be passed by. Thoughts have relationship with desire and Philosophy, with Duty. A dutiful philosopher, when we ask, We are reminded of Immanuel Kant.
Amidst many apocryphals about his idiosyncracy, We find him extremely digilant in his meticulous work. Philosophers deal with another problem that is actually the worst fear of any average man. It is that, their work is not considered work by the typical popular ideology. But, A philosopher does not care. He is the epitome of what could be called, "Nishkaam Karmayoga" or Detached action. A spiritual monk or otherwise, is not at all at par with the Philosopher. Since, today, A spiritual Monk is an accepted job in the capitalist system, A philosopher is not. A spiritual master, and mostly all of them, are actually status quoists, this is exactly what Capitalism wants, puppeteers of desire. Whereas a philosopher, especially, a rebellion Philosopher, he can be of any leanings, He can be a strict radical leftist, like Slavoj Zizek, or a strict spiritual master like Acharya Prashant or Osho, a conservative like Gandhi. Unfortunately, the world has not seen much better rebellion conservatives after Gandhi. As if, it is mandatory for the conservatives to be bootlickers of capitalism and capitalist class.
Gone are the days of noble Conservatives like Edmund Burke, Tolstoy and Gandhi. Now we see puppeteer clowns just either relativizing everything or using Nihilism to save traditional religious and cultural practices. That's why I think Philosopher can never become an ideologue and an ideologue is strictly a conservative. An ideologue can never be a philosopher for a simple reason that he can never leave Rebellion. Rebel is not a Philosophy, rather as if a truth of existence. Re-invention is the way life keeps itself on Earth.
Kant is the point of reflection of western philosophy because of what he did and what he wrote. People of India, Indocentric idiots as they are, say things like, Krishna already said what Kant said. To them, you know what you can say, I often say, "What Krishna said was in 700 verses, What Kant said took him 10 books." So, if you are someone with more than 2 braincells, and not filled with some stupid Pride towards your religion or culture, you will ask, what else has he written? How did he arrive at conclusions that he had arrived? What made him such a moral dutist in his Philosophy?
And if you are a little bit honest about Gyan, you will even try to inquire this, "What was Krishna's argument for reaching conclusions that he did. But the false God worship of an erstwhile intelligent human being, made Krishna out of the point of debates of Philosophy".
If Indians wish that their discourses should be included in the discourses of Philosophy, like Vedanta and Geeta, they need to first, shut their mouths of arrogance, their false god complex, their imaginary "Vishwaguru" self-perception.
If a serious discussion is to be held between Kant and Krishna, it has to be like two people of equal footing. Krishna is no god, he can at most be a philosopher, that too, will be decided by the level of his arguments. It will not be a discussion, undemocratic by nature, between a student and a teacher. Kant is not lesser than some mythical blue dude of 10000 years old.
Here is an example where I think both of them can learn from each other's discourses.
First, the Kant's Deontological discourse, summarized in a sentence, hard as it may be, is "Morality is not a discretionary activity, it has to be done dutifully. As to what is moral, is also a duty of the man to decide, but Duty is the base. Everything has to be done like a duty"
Krishna says, "Niraashi Nirmamo Bhutva..." or Duty has to be done with a certain hopelessness, a certain desirelessness.
Krishna is here, complementing Kant, by putting another layer to Duty. Duty without desire. How to do Duty without desire? Krishna, with his manipulative God complex, says, "Yat karoshi, Yat Naashi, Yajuhosi, Dadasi yat, yat pashyashi Kaunteya, Tat kurushwa Madarpanam", or "submit your actions to me, your duties to me!"
Zizek asks a wonderfully engaging question, "But if the God is evil, and his intentions are evil, is the job justified?"
Arjuna did not dare ask this question to Krishna. Krishna would have been stumped. Because, even he knew that there is no God. Krishna knew about God as a non-existent entity. He made up all this just to make Arjuna fight. This was a manipulation, a deception of the blue-skinned man.
Kant would have helped Krishna. Kant's Maxim that the Duty itself should not be at one's fancy, but to the submission of morals. And decision as to what is Moral is in his Universalization Maxim. And also, in his Maxim of duty itself. It is your duty to do what is moral, and also it is your duty to decide what is moral. Correct decision is a job well done and an incorrect decision is a job ruined.
I see, Krishna as Buddha and Kant as Acharya Nagarjuna. Every Krishna needs its Kant.
Every Buddha needs his Nagarjuna. Madhyamik Shunyawaad is not just another Philosophy. Buddha would have bowed down in front of this Great master, Acharya Nagarjuna.
This is the nature of truth. The truth giver and the truth asker are on the same footing. There are no gurus, there are no Gods, only seekers. Krishna would be one. Kant was one. I am one. This false Godification is the deed of the weak, the person of desire, the person who wants an imaginary figure to somehow work for his desires. Krishna did not work for his own desires. How will he work for yours?
"I repeat. There is nobody. Nobody will come to save you. You are alone with the abilities. You are alone with yourself. You are enough with yourself."
And a more uplifted person does not worry about the solitude. for him, the perspective of worry is about if the actions and duties are on track or not. He is not evoking false gods. He is not busy contemplating about Fate theories and how social conditions are stumping people or the desire list of success. He is busy working. He is in an undead state, a state of Death Drive or Todestrieb as Freud would have put it.
A man at action, a man at Nishkaam Karmayoga, is like an undead Zombie. He is not living life. To live life is to indulge hedonistically in its pleasures. To die is to run from it. To be undead is to be in the middle, where you are not living but working towards a goal.
Death Drive is how to live life, Nishkaam Karmayoga is Death Drive. An obsession that takes away all other small desires, whether you want a good wife, a good job, a good salary, a good this and a good that. Death drive is in the eyes of a workaholic pushing his limits. The Tej in his eyes is what Freud called Death drive. It is better than the drive of life. Living drive is stupid, it is just, let me eat, let me save myself, let me enjoy and let me reproduce. This is for animals. Death drive is for humans.
Here Freud is needed to explain Krishna. Without Philosophers, Spiritual masters will be lunatics blabbering. That is why, I say, it is high time, Indians should leave their Indocentrism and keep a neutral stance towards Europe and India. Both are knowledge systems and needs equal respect and engagement. As, Eurocentrism is just 200 years old. Indocentrism has histories of 1000 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment