Eternal India Encyclopedia

WISDOM OF INDIA

ETERNAL INDIA encyclopedia

of the universe. Morality must be referred back to man's innate rationality. Only then, man can be moral, spontaneously and voluntarily. Reason is only sanction for morality, which is an appeal to conscience, and conscience, in its turn, is the instinctive awareness of, and reaction to, environments. In the last analysis, conscience is nothing mystic or mysterious. It is a biological function, as such mechanistic, on the level of consciousness. The innate rationality of man is the only guarantee of a harmonious order, which will also be a moral order, because morality is a rational function. Therefore, the purpose of all social endeavor should be to make man increasingly conscious of his innate rationality. Any effort for a reorganisation of society must begin from the unit losophy of revolution, on the basis of the entire stock of human heritage, and then to elaborate the theory and formulate the principles of the practice of political action and economic reconstruction, therefore, can be called Radicalism. Radicalism thinks in terms neither of nation nor of class; its con- cern is man; it conceives freedom as freedom of the individual. Therefore, it can also be called New Humanism, new, because, it is Humanism enriched, reinforced and elaborated by scientific knowl- edge and social experience gained during the centuries of modern civilisation. Humanism is cosmopolitan. It does not run after the utopia of national .states. The one makes of the other a pious desire or wishful thinking. A cosmopolitan commonwealth of free men and women is a possibility. It will be a spiritual community, not limited by the bound- aries of national states— capitalist, fascist, communist or of any other ki nd— which will gradually disappear under the impact of cosmopoli- tan Humanism. That is the Radical perspective of the future of man- kind. From M. N. Roy New Humanism: A Manifesto Some think that the Communists are believers in violence and in [a] destructive programme. There are differences between my viewpoint and theirs. I have told them that their ideology is a good one. But I do not consider that Communism is itself attached to destructive work. great idea which is not found in any other earlier ideologies. But I do not want to discuss on this point. I had already written a small article discussing about Communism. I had referred to Marx in it as the Maha Muni or the great saint. By reading Marx there has been a great change in the minds of innumerable people. B ut I am surprised to hear that the Communists do not believe in the change of mind. This is an important point in which I differ from them. I ask them why they say that there is no room for change of heart in their philospohy while their own lives are examples for change of heart and, therefore, I consider Communism by itself is a very good and great thing. But what is the means to realise it?.... of society- from the root, so to say. Such an effort to develop a new phi- internationalism, which presupposes the existence of autonomous The Communist ideology is worthy of consideration. It contains one

a satya-yuga but it is yet to come and bound to come. Those who say

that satya-yuga is a matter of [the] past can be called traditionalists; those who believe that satya-yuga is yet to come are Communists. The traditionalists and the Communists are both believers in satya-yuga. One group describes the one that had passed away and the other that of the one yet to come. But what do I say? The past is not in my hands nor the future. The present only is in my hands, and, therefore, we want to make the satya-yuga a reality of the present.... Some of the Jan Sangh Party men used to meet me. They used to tell me: "You talk about ahimsa, but it will never be practicable in this Kali-yuga; it was only possible in the satya-yuga of the past." These are traditionalists. They do not believe that non-violence would go well with the present. They oppose us thus, while the Communists oppose us by saying that we are only wandering in an utopia. They say: "For the present we have to be prepared to make use of violence. But ultimately non - violence will come to prevail, that is, for achieving non - violence in the end we have to use a little violence today and we must be prepared for it. Therefore, you have to suspend your non-violence for a little." But if we are to prepare ourselves mentally for some violence today hoping that non-violence is bound to come at some distant stage, it is possible that non-violence itself would never be re- alised. In this way we differ. About the conception of satya-yuga there is no difference between us. There is no difference either in our conception of the ideal order of society and its nature. While saying this I pass over the minor differences. The Communists describe the new order of society which is to come or their conception of satya-yuga in the same way as the tra- ditionalists describe their satya-yuga and the paradise. I ask the tradi- tionalist to show me the steps to the paradise which attracts me. They say: "We can show you the steps but you can see them only after death." So if we are to reach their paradise we have first to die. What purpose will it serve me if I cannot reach it though their paradise attracts me? I ask the Communists also to tell me how to reach their paradise. They answer that I should now be prepared for some violence and killing. One says that paradise can be reached after death and the other tells me that the paradise will come after I kill another. Therefore both ways do not appear to be helpful to us. They also feel some difficulty in understanding us. They tell us: "What you preach is nice and good but you are not the first man to preach like this. Before you hundreds of prophets and seers had come and gone. You are only repeating what they had said. Will you succeed where Buddha and Christ could not succeed? Is the teaching of vio- lence in the Bible less than what you say? [The] Bible is already trans- lated in over [a] thousand languages. Even the soldiers who work in the army have their Bible in their pockets with them when they fight and die. They always have the name of God on their lips and read the Bible on Sundays. They forget it during the rest of the week. The world goes on in this way. What effect will your preaching have? If what you speak is something that is going to really happen you may demonstrate it before us. But we do not have faith." Their difficulty is that they cannot accept what we say though our idea may be perfect and appealing. But what is the use of going on arguing like this?

Some believe that there was [a] satya-yuga [age of truth] in which

there was no need for the state. Some others believe that there was never