As opposed to Christianity, which was never tried (as Chesterton correctly reminded us), science was tried and failed. Such was the science of Galileo and Descartes of course; a three hundred years long experiment in the, otherwise short, history of human self-denial. There remains just one overarching question that is still waiting for an answer today: how did we get to this? How did we come to “the mess in which we find ourselves”?
In order to answer this very important question, we need to understand two objective elements, and two only; one is historical, the other counterfactual. The historical prerogative consists in knowing (to the point that it is realistic for us to know) what existed before it. The spurious effort is to penetrate (to the point that it is permissible for us to penetrate) the mind of those few men and women who saw, fugitively within, an alternative world receding into the present. Everything, you see, falls into one or the other category.
Take for example Burtt’s “The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science”, his is an insightful enquiry into the historical element. In very simple terms, he says, “we have followed Galileo and banished man [there is fragmentary evidence that in effect, he did exist before], with his memory and purpose, out of the real world.” (p.85). Similarly for, let’s say, Toynbee’s “Mankind and Mother Earth”, a meticulous account of how we came to eliminate everything that was of some biological value on Earth, until “no deadly enemy of Man now survived in the biosphere except Man himself.” (p.569).
The last two passages which you kindy quote are examples of the latter. The first could have been taken from one of the most inspired pages of “Le Comité Invisible”. The second is very sincere. We must not forget though, that the ultimate inner exploration (adhyātmavidyā) is journey of return, it culminates in samsāra for the Mahāyāna and central schools. It is either in the here and now or it is truly nowhere. As Bergson once put it, a hero is a madman who has found the way back home.
To me, “back home” has a somewhat self-contradictory ring. Home — yes; back — no. T.S. Elliot has captured my understanding much better when he writes:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And *know the place for the first time.*
In this connection, the following passage from the Mother’s Agenda (September 7, 1963) is worth quoting:
The other day ... I was led to explain my position from the standpoint of the materialist conviction...
For them, all the experiences men have are the result of a mental phenomenon: we have reached a progressive mental development (they are at a loss to explain why or how!), anyhow it was Matter that developed Life, Life that developed Mind, and all of men's so-called spiritual experiences are mental constructions (they use other words, but I believe that's their idea). It is, at any rate, a denial of all spiritual existence in itself and of a Being or Force or Something superior which governs everything....
Then I said, "But it's very simple! I accept your point of view, there is nothing other than what we see, than mankind as it is; all the so-called inner phenomena are due to a mental, cerebral action; and when you die, you die — in other words, the phenomenon of agglomeration comes to the end of its existence, and it dissolves, everything dissolves. That's all very well."...
"But then, once you are here on this earth and you have to go to the end, even if the end is nothingness, you go to the end and it's just as well to do so as best you can, that is to say, to your fullest satisfaction.... I happened to have some philosophical curiosity and to study all kinds of problems, and I came upon Sri Aurobindo's teaching, and what he taught" (I would say "revealed," but not to a materialist) "is by far, among the systems men have formulated, the most satisfying FOR ME, the most complete, and what answers the most satisfactorily all the questions that can be asked; it is the one that helps me the most in life to have the feeling that 'life is worth living.' Consequently, I try to conform entirely to his teaching and to live it integrally in order to live as best I can — for me. I don't mind at all if others don't believe in it — whether they believe in it or not is all the same to me; I don't need the support of others' conviction, it's enough if I am myself satisfied."
...
It's much easier to answer out-and-out materialists who are convinced and sincere ("sincere" within the limit of their consciousness, that is) than to answer people who have a religion! Much easier....
[After discussing some religious doctrines:] That's not the difficulty, it's that for religious people there are certain things they have a DUTY to believe, and to allow the mind to discuss them is a "sin" — so naturally they close themselves and will never be able to make any progress. Whereas the materialists, on the other hand, are on the contrary supposed to know and explain everything — they explain everything rationally. So (Mother laughs), precisely because they explain everything, you can lead them where you want to.
[Interlocutor: There's nothing to be done with religious people.]
No. And it's not good to try either. If they cling to a religion, it means that that religion has helped them somehow or other, has helped something in them which in fact wanted to have a certitude without having to seek for it — to lean on something solid without being responsible for its solidity (someone else is responsible! [Mother laughs]), and to leave their bodies in that way. So to want to pull them out of it shows a lack of compassion — they should just be left where they are. Never do I argue with someone who has a faith — let him keep his faith! And I take great care not to say anything that might shake his faith because it's not good — such people are unable to have another faith.
But with a materialist ... "I don't argue, I accept your point of view; only, you have nothing to say – I've taken my position, take yours. If you are satisfied with what you know, keep it. If it helps you to live, very good. "But you have no right to blame or criticize me, because I am taking my position on your own basis. Even if all that I imagine is mere imagination, I prefer that imagination to yours." That's all.
Dear Ulrich,
Thanks for your contribution, a lamppost in the adventure. Namaste 🙏🌻😊 Harrie
As opposed to Christianity, which was never tried (as Chesterton correctly reminded us), science was tried and failed. Such was the science of Galileo and Descartes of course; a three hundred years long experiment in the, otherwise short, history of human self-denial. There remains just one overarching question that is still waiting for an answer today: how did we get to this? How did we come to “the mess in which we find ourselves”?
In order to answer this very important question, we need to understand two objective elements, and two only; one is historical, the other counterfactual. The historical prerogative consists in knowing (to the point that it is realistic for us to know) what existed before it. The spurious effort is to penetrate (to the point that it is permissible for us to penetrate) the mind of those few men and women who saw, fugitively within, an alternative world receding into the present. Everything, you see, falls into one or the other category.
Take for example Burtt’s “The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science”, his is an insightful enquiry into the historical element. In very simple terms, he says, “we have followed Galileo and banished man [there is fragmentary evidence that in effect, he did exist before], with his memory and purpose, out of the real world.” (p.85). Similarly for, let’s say, Toynbee’s “Mankind and Mother Earth”, a meticulous account of how we came to eliminate everything that was of some biological value on Earth, until “no deadly enemy of Man now survived in the biosphere except Man himself.” (p.569).
The last two passages which you kindy quote are examples of the latter. The first could have been taken from one of the most inspired pages of “Le Comité Invisible”. The second is very sincere. We must not forget though, that the ultimate inner exploration (adhyātmavidyā) is journey of return, it culminates in samsāra for the Mahāyāna and central schools. It is either in the here and now or it is truly nowhere. As Bergson once put it, a hero is a madman who has found the way back home.
Thanks, Adrian, for your interesting remarks.
To me, “back home” has a somewhat self-contradictory ring. Home — yes; back — no. T.S. Elliot has captured my understanding much better when he writes:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And *know the place for the first time.*
In this connection, the following passage from the Mother’s Agenda (September 7, 1963) is worth quoting:
The other day ... I was led to explain my position from the standpoint of the materialist conviction...
For them, all the experiences men have are the result of a mental phenomenon: we have reached a progressive mental development (they are at a loss to explain why or how!), anyhow it was Matter that developed Life, Life that developed Mind, and all of men's so-called spiritual experiences are mental constructions (they use other words, but I believe that's their idea). It is, at any rate, a denial of all spiritual existence in itself and of a Being or Force or Something superior which governs everything....
Then I said, "But it's very simple! I accept your point of view, there is nothing other than what we see, than mankind as it is; all the so-called inner phenomena are due to a mental, cerebral action; and when you die, you die — in other words, the phenomenon of agglomeration comes to the end of its existence, and it dissolves, everything dissolves. That's all very well."...
"But then, once you are here on this earth and you have to go to the end, even if the end is nothingness, you go to the end and it's just as well to do so as best you can, that is to say, to your fullest satisfaction.... I happened to have some philosophical curiosity and to study all kinds of problems, and I came upon Sri Aurobindo's teaching, and what he taught" (I would say "revealed," but not to a materialist) "is by far, among the systems men have formulated, the most satisfying FOR ME, the most complete, and what answers the most satisfactorily all the questions that can be asked; it is the one that helps me the most in life to have the feeling that 'life is worth living.' Consequently, I try to conform entirely to his teaching and to live it integrally in order to live as best I can — for me. I don't mind at all if others don't believe in it — whether they believe in it or not is all the same to me; I don't need the support of others' conviction, it's enough if I am myself satisfied."
...
It's much easier to answer out-and-out materialists who are convinced and sincere ("sincere" within the limit of their consciousness, that is) than to answer people who have a religion! Much easier....
[After discussing some religious doctrines:] That's not the difficulty, it's that for religious people there are certain things they have a DUTY to believe, and to allow the mind to discuss them is a "sin" — so naturally they close themselves and will never be able to make any progress. Whereas the materialists, on the other hand, are on the contrary supposed to know and explain everything — they explain everything rationally. So (Mother laughs), precisely because they explain everything, you can lead them where you want to.
[Interlocutor: There's nothing to be done with religious people.]
No. And it's not good to try either. If they cling to a religion, it means that that religion has helped them somehow or other, has helped something in them which in fact wanted to have a certitude without having to seek for it — to lean on something solid without being responsible for its solidity (someone else is responsible! [Mother laughs]), and to leave their bodies in that way. So to want to pull them out of it shows a lack of compassion — they should just be left where they are. Never do I argue with someone who has a faith — let him keep his faith! And I take great care not to say anything that might shake his faith because it's not good — such people are unable to have another faith.
But with a materialist ... "I don't argue, I accept your point of view; only, you have nothing to say – I've taken my position, take yours. If you are satisfied with what you know, keep it. If it helps you to live, very good. "But you have no right to blame or criticize me, because I am taking my position on your own basis. Even if all that I imagine is mere imagination, I prefer that imagination to yours." That's all.