The Philosophy of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard De Chardin (An Old and Rare Book)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

After enumerating the characteristic features of Indian thought Dr Radhakrishnan concludes: "Finally, there is the over-all synthetic tradition which is essential to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy. This is as old as the Rig Veda". That tradition has maintained itself. For, in his survey of the Contemporary Scene Prof. Jitendranath Mohanty still points out as being "the most striking feature... of modern Indian thought what may be called its 'spirit of synthesis' "". True, both authors use the same term in a somewhat different sense. For, while the former means a global approach to "the various aspects of experience and reality", the latter speaks of the prevalent concern with establishing a parallel between Indian and Western philosophy. This renewed spirit of synthesis finds its expression in countless studies on comparative philosophy. The present work, which confronts a modern Indian author with a French contemporary, thus takes its place within a dominant current of philosophical scholarship in India today.

To one however little acquainted with Teilhard de Chardin the resemblance with Sri Aurobindo imposes itself from the start, if but he chances to be conversant with the latter too. However, the parallel need not necessarily result from a fortuitous encounter; it could also be the fruit of research. A scholar setting out to com- pare either of them with eventual counterparts would infallibly trace the other. Their common concern with future evolution vouches for that. Yet, as broadly conceived a work as R. S. Srivastava's Sri Aurobindo and the Theories of Evolution does not mention Teilhard. And that for very good reasons. Teilhard or rather the publication (and translation) of his works is simply too recent to have found a place in a study which was already completed in 1955, though published only in 1968. At this hour, however, the comparison between Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard not only imposes itself as obvious, but as imperative.

The general topic of the investigation was thus fixed. But how to circumscribe a sufficiently precise field of comparison? For, both authors present many and different aspects. By focussing the attention on evolution as the central problem in Sri Aurobindo R. S. Srivastava has paved the way for a comparison with Teilhard, whose entire thought is equally dominated by that question. A progressive acquaintance with them further singled out their common pre- occupation with the future evolution of man as the main point of comparison. One could not, however, enter upon this special subject without first confronting both thinkers on evolution in general. Hence the two main parts of this book: Part One studies the general theory of evolution in both Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard and thus prepares Part Two, which deals with their respective views on future evolution.

The present study establishes a comparison between Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin with special reference to their philosophy of evolution. Though both were contemporaries, they do not appear to have been noquainted with one another. Still, there is an undeni- able similarity between the two. This may be explained by the fact that the Indian Yogi was influenced by Western thought, while the French scientist had a natural affinity for some aspects of Eastern spirituality. The resemblance, however, should not allow us to overlook the differences, which stem largely from their respective religious background.

For Teilhard, human evolution is a collective process of ascent, which culminates in oneness with God. At the Omega Point union is achieved between man and God. But this convergence of humanity on Omega results in its dissociation from the world. Union with God, then, is death to the world.

This, in our opinion, is a characteristically Western world-view inasmuch as it derives from the tenet of creationism. If the world originates from non-being, then it must be undivine. It cannot be assimilated with God, but will be relegated to its initial condition of non-existence. Spirit and matter, then, are irreconcilable. The world's creation out of non-being leads to a Weltanschauung which is not a very hopeful one. Its native deficiency irremediably prevents the world from being spiritualised and divinised.

As opposed to this, the Oriental seer would have the Superman realise the divine life on earth. Indeed, man as well as the world are not just a product of non-being: they are the very manifestation of God. The superhuman, then, will be realised in the human, within the world. The gnostic being does not have to dissociate himself from the world in order to accede to what Teilhard calls the 'noosphere', for the world is of God, and matter is a form of spirit, The Superman achieves not only 'Brahmic consciousness', but 'earth-consciousness' as well.