{"id":477,"date":"2013-07-13T01:28:15","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:28:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=477"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:28:15","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:28:15","slug":"57-the-french-revolution-vol-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17\/57-the-french-revolution-vol-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","title":{"rendered":"-57_The French Revolution.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n


\n
\nX<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\nHISTORICAL IMPRESSIONS<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n
\nThe French Revolution<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n


\n
\n
\n<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/span>
\nT<\/font><\/span><\/b>HE<\/font><\/b> greatness of the French Revolution lies not in what it effected, but
\nin what it thought and was. Its action was chiefly destructive. It prepared
\nmany things, it founded nothing. .Even the constructive activity of Napoleon
\nonly built a half-way house in which the ideas of 1789 might rest until the
\nworld was fit to understand them better and really fulfil them. The ideas
\nthemselves were not new; they existed in Christianity and before Christianity
\nthey existed in Buddhism; but in 1789 they came out for the first time from the
\nChurch and the Book and sought to remodel government and society. It was an
\nunsuccessful attempt, but even the failure changed the face of Europe. And this
\neffect was chiefly due to the force, the enthusiasm, the sincerity with which
\nthe idea was seized<\/span> upon and the thoroughness with
\nwhich it was sought to be applied. The cause of the failure was the defect of
\nknowledge, the excess of imagination. The basal ideas, the types, the things to
\nbe established were known; but there had been no experience of the ideas in
\npractice. European society, till then, had been permeated, not with liberty,
\nbut with bondage and repression; not with equality, but with inequality; not
\nwith brotherhood, but with selfish. force and violence. The world was not
\nready, nor is it even now ready<\/span> for the fullness of
\nthe practice. It is the goal of humanity, and we are yet far off from the goal.
\nBut the time has come for an approximation being attempted. And the first
\nnecessity is the discipline of brotherhood, the organisation of brotherhood;
\nfor without the spirit and habit of fraternity neither liberty nor equality can
\nbe maintained for more than a short season. The French were ignorant of this
\npractical principle; they made liberty the basis, brotherhood the
\nsuperstructure, founding the triangle upon its apex. For owing to the dominance
\nof Greece and Rome in their imagination they were saturated with the idea of
\nliberty and only formally admitted the Christian and Asiatic principle of
\nbrotherhood. They built according to their<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage -377<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nknowledge, but the triangle has to be reversed before it can stand
\npermanently. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

              The
\naction of the French Revolution was the vehement death-dance of Kali trampling
\nblindly, furiously on the ruins She made, mad with pity for the world and
\ntherefore utterly pitiless. She called the Yatudhani<\/span>
\nin her to her aid and summoned<\/span> up the Rakshasi<\/span>. The Yatudhani<\/span> is the
\ndelight of destruction, the fury of slaughter, Rudra in the Universal Being,
\nRudra, who uses the Bhuta<\/span>, the criminal, the lord of
\nthe animal in man, the lord of the demoniac, Pashupati<\/span>,
\nPramathanatha<\/span>. The Rakshasi<\/span>
\nis the unbridled, licentious self-assertion of the ego which insists on the
\ngratification of all its instincts good and bad and furiously shatters all
\nopposition. It was the Yatudhani<\/span> and the Rakshasi<\/span> who sent their hoarse cry over France, adding to
\nthe luminous Mantra, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the stern and terrible
\naddition "or death". Death to the Asura, death to all who oppose
\nGod’s evolution, that was the meaning. With these two terrible Shaktis<\/span> Kali did Her work. She veiled Her divine knowledge
\nwith the darkness of wrath and passion, She drank blood as wine, naked of
\ntradition and convention She danced over all Europe and the whole continent was
\nfilled with the war-cry and the carnage and ran with the\u00a0 <\/span>hunkara<\/span> and the attahasyam<\/span>. It was only when She found that She was
\ntrampling on Mahadeva<\/span>, God expressed in the principle
\nof Nationalism, that She remembered Herself, flung aside Napoleon, the mighty
\nRakshasa, and settled down quietly to her work of perfecting nationality as the
\nouter shell within which brotherhood may be securely and largely organised.
\n            
\nThe Revolution was also great in its men, filling them all with its vehemence,
\nits passion, its fierce demand on the world, its colossal impetus. Through four
\nof them chiefly it helped itself, through Mirabeau<\/span>, Danton<\/span>, Robespierre and Napoleon. Mira- beau initiated, Danton<\/span> inspired, Robespierre slew, Napoleon fulfilled. The
\nfirst three appeared for the moment, the man in<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage – 378<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

the multitude,
\ndid their work and departed. The pace was swift and, if they had remained, they
\nwould have outstayed their utility and injured the future. It is always well
\nfor the man to go the moment his work is done and not to outstay the Mother’s
\nwelcome. They are fortunate who get that release or are wise enough, like
\nGaribaldi, to take it. Not altogether happy is their lot who, like Napoleon or Mazzini<\/span>, outstay the lease of their appointed greatness.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n               Mirabeau<\/span> ruled the morning twilight, the sandhyii<\/span> of the new age. Aristocratic tribune of the
\npeople, unprincipled champion of principles, lordly democrat, – a man in whom
\nreflection was turbulent, prudence itself bold, unflinching and reckless, the
\nman was the meeting-place of two ages. He had the passions of the past, not its
\ncourtly restraint; the turbulence, genius, impetuosity of the future, not its
\nsteadying attachment to ideas. There is an honour<\/span> of
\nthe aristocrat which has its root in manners and respects the sanctity of its
\nown traditions; that is the honour<\/span> of the
\nConservative. There is an honour<\/span> of the democrat
\nwhich has its root in ideas and respects the sanctity of its own principles;
\nthat is the honour<\/span> of the Liberal. Mirabeau<\/span> had neither. He was the pure Egoist, the eternal
\nRakshasa. Not for the sake of justice and liberty did he love justice and
\nliberty, but for the sake of Mirabeau<\/span>. Had his career
\nbeen fortunate, the forms of
\nthe old regime wide enough to satisfy his ambitions and passions, the upheaval
\nof 1789 might have found him on the other side. But because the heart and
\nsenses of Mirabeau<\/span> were unsatisfied, the French
\nRevolution triumphed. So it is that God prepares the man and the moment, using
\ngood and evil with a divine impartiality for His mighty ends. Without the man
\nthe moment is a lost opportunity; without the moment the man is a force
\ninoperative. The meeting of the two changes the destinies of nations and the
\npoise of the world is altered by what seems to the superficial an accident.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 379<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

There are times when a single personality gathers up the temperament of an
\nepoch or a movement and by simply existing ensures its fulfilment. It would be
\ndifficult to lay down the precise services which made the existence of Danton<\/span> necessary for the success of the Revolution. There
\nare certain things he did, and no man else could have done, which compelled
\ndestiny; there are certain things he said which made France mad with resolution
\nand courage. These words, these doings ring through the ages. So live, so
\nimmortal are they that they seem to defy cataclysm itself and insist on
\nsurviving eternal oblivion. They are full of the omnipotence and immortality of
\nthe human soul and its lordship over fate. One feels that they will recur again
\nin aeons<\/span> unborn and worlds uncreated. The power from
\nwhich they sprang, expressed itself rarely in deeds and only at supreme
\nmoments. The energy of Danton<\/span> lay dormant, indolent,
\nscattering itself in stupendous oratory, satisfied with feelings and phrases.
\nBut each time it stirred, it convulsed events and sent a shock of primal
\nelemental force rushing through the consciousness of the French nation. While
\nhe lived, moved, spoke, felt, acted, the energy he did not himself use,
\ncommunicated itself to the millions; the thoughts he did not utter, seized on
\nminds which took them for their own; the actions he might have done better
\nhimself, were done worse by others. Danton<\/span> was
\ncontented. Magnificent and ostentatious, he was singularly void of personal
\nambition. He was satisfied to see the Revolution triumph by his strength, but
\nin the deeds of others. His fall removed the strength of victorious Terror from
\nthe movement within France, its impulse to destroy and conquer. For a little
\nwhile the impetus gathered carried it on, then it faltered and paused. Every
\ngreat flood of action needs a human soul for its centre, an embodied point of
\nthe Universal Personality from which to surge out upon others. Danton<\/span> was such a point, such a centre. His daily thoughts,
\nfeelings, impulses gave an equilibrium to that rushing fury, a fixity to that
\npregnant chaos. He was the character of the Revolution personified, – its
\nheart, while Robespierre was only its hand. History which, being European, lays
\nmuch stress on events, a little on speech, but has never realised the
\nimportance of souls, cannot appreciate men like Danton<\/span>.
\nOnly the eye of the<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 380<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

seer can pick them out from the mass and trace to their source those immense
\nvibrations. <\/span><\/p>\n

               One may well speak of the genius of Mirabeau<\/span>, the
\ngenius of Danton<\/span>; it is superfluous to speak of the
\ngenius of Napoleon. But one cannot well speak of the genius of Robespierre. He
\nwas empty of genius; his intellect was acute and well-informed but uninspired;
\nhis personality fails to impress. What was it then that gave him his immense
\nforce and influence? It was the belief in the man, his faith. He believed in
\nthe Revolution, he believed in certain ideas, he believed in himself as their
\nspokesman and executor; he came to believe in his mission to slay the enemies
\nof the idea and make an end. And whatever he believed, he believed implicitly,
\nunfalteringly, invincibly and pursued it with a rigid fidelity. Mirabeau<\/span>, Danton<\/span>, Napoleon were
\nall capable of\u00a0 <\/span>permanent discouragement,
\ncould recognise that they were beaten, the hour unsuitable, fate hostile.
\nRobespierre was not. He might recoil, he might hide his head in fear, but it
\nwas only to leap again, to save himself for the next opportunity. He had a
\ntremendous force of sraddha It is only such men, thoroughly conscientious and
\nwell-principled, who can slay without pity, without qualms, without resting,
\nwithout turning. The Yatudhani<\/span> seized on him for her
\npurpose. The conscientious lawyer who refused a judgeship rather than sacrifice
\nhis principle by condemning a criminal to death, became the most colossal
\npolitical executioner of his or any age. As we have said, if Danton<\/span> was the character of the French Revolution
\npersonified when it went forth to slay, Robespierre was its hand. But,
\nnaturally, he could not recognise that limitation; he aspired to think, to
\nconstruct, to rule, functions for which he was unfit. When Danton<\/span>
\ndemanded that the Terror should cease and Mercy take its place, Robespierre
\nought to have heard in his demand the voice of the Revolution calling on him to
\nstay his sanguinary course. But he was full of his own blind faith and would
\nnot hear. Danton<\/span> died because he resisted the hand of
\nKali, but his mighty disembodied spirit triumphed and imposed his last thought
\non the country. The Terror ceased; <\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 381<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

              Mercy took its place. Robespierre, however , has his place of honour<\/span> in history; he was the man of conscience and
\nprinciple among the four, the man who never turned from the path of what he
\nunderstood to be virtue.<\/span><\/p>\n

            Napoleon took up into himself the functions of the others. As Mirabeau<\/span> initiated destruction, he initiated construction
\nand organisation and in the same self-contradictory spirit; he was the
\nRakshasa, the most gigantic egoist in history, the despot of liberty, the
\nimperial protector of equality, the unprincipled organiser<\/span>
\nof great principles. Like Danton<\/span>, he shaped events
\nfor a time by his thoughts and character. While Danton<\/span>
\nlived, politics moved to a licentious democracy, war to a heroism, of patriotic
\ndefence<\/span>. From the time he passed, the spirit of
\nNapoleon shaped events and politics moved to the rule first of the civil, then
\nof the military dictator, war to the organisation of republican conquest. Like
\nRobespierre he was the executive hand of destruction and unlike Robespierre the
\nexecutive hand of construction. The fury of Kali became in him self-centred,
\ncapable, full of organised thought and activity, but nonetheless impetuous,
\ncolossal, violent, devastating.<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nII<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nNAPOLEON<\/a><\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\nThe name of Napoleon has been a battlefield for the prepossessions of all sorts
\nof critics, and, according to their predilections<\/span>,
\nidiosyncrasies and political opinions, men have loved or hated, panegyrised<\/span> or decried the Corsican. To blame Napoleon is
\nlike criticising<\/span> Mont Blanc or throwing mud at Kunchenjunga<\/span>. This phenomenon has to be understood and
\nknown, not blamed or praised. Admire we must, but as minds, not as moralists.
\nIt has not been sufficiently perceived by his panegyrists and critics that
\nBonaparte was not a man at all, he was a force. Only <\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 382<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

the nature of the force has to be considered. There are some men who are
\nself-evidently superhuman, great spirits who are\u00a0 <\/span>only using the human body. Europe calls them
\nsupermen, we call them vibhutis<\/span>. They are
\nmanifestations of Nature, of divine power presided over by a spirit
\ncommissioned for the purpose, and the spirit is an emanation from the Almighty,
\nwho accepts human strength and weakness but is not bound by them. They ate
\nabove morality and ordinarily without a conscience, acting according to their
\nown nature. For they are not men developing upwards from the animal to the
\ndivine and struggling against their lower natures, but beings already fulfilled
\nand satisfied with themselves. Even the holiest of them have contempt for the
\nordinary law and custom and break them easily and without remorse, as. Christ
\ndid on more than one occasion, drinking wine, breaking the sabbath<\/span>,
\nconsorting with publicans and harlots; as Buddha did when he abandoned his
\nself-accepted duties as a husband, a citizen and a father; as Shankara did when
\nhe broke the holy law and trampled upon custom and ācāra<\/span><\/i>
\nto satisfy his dead mother. In our literature they are described as Gods or Siddhas<\/span> or Titans or Giants. Valmiki depicts Ravana as a
\nten-headed giant, but it is easy to see that this was only the vision of him in
\nthe world of imaginations, the "astral plane", and that in the terms
\nof humanity he was a Vibhuti<\/span> or superman and one of
\nthe same order of beings as Napoleon.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

                The Rakshasa is the supreme and thoroughgoing individualist, who believes life
\nto be meant for his own untrammelled<\/span> self- fulfilment
\nand self-assertion. A necessary element in humanity, he is particularly useful
\nin revolutions. As a pure type in man he is ordinarily a thing of the past; he
\ncomes now mixed with other elements. But Napoleon was a Rakshasa of the pure
\ntype, colossal<\/span> in his
\nforce and attainment. He came into the world with a tremendous appetite for
\npower and possession and, like Ravana, he tried to swallow the whole earth in
\norder to glut his super- natural hunger. Whatever came in his way he took as
\nhis own, ideas, men, women, fame, honours<\/span>, armies,
\nkingdoms; and he<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 383<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\nwas not scrupulous as to his right of possession. His nature was his right; its
\nneed his justification. The attitude may be expressed in some such words as
\nthese, "Others may not have the right to do these things, but I am
\nNapoleon."<\/span><\/p>\n

\n               The Rakshasa is not an altruist. If by satisfying himself he can satisfy
\nothers, he is pleased; but he does not make that his motive. If he has to
\ntrample on others to satisfy himself, he does so without compunction. Is he not
\nthe strong man, the efficient ruler, the mighty one? The Rakshasa has Kama<\/span>, he has no Prema<\/span>. Napoleon
\nknew not what love was; he had only the kindliness that goes with possession.
\nHe loved Josephine because she satisfied his nature, France because he
\npossessed her, his mother because she was his and congenial, his soldiers
\nbecause they were necessary to his glory. But the love did not go beyond his
\nneed of them. It was self-satisfaction and had no element in it of
\nself-surrender. The Rakshasa slays all that opposes him and he is callous about
\nthe extent of the slaughter. But he is never cruel. Napoleon had no taint of
\nNero in him, but he flung away without a qualm whole armies as holocausts on
\nthe altar of his glory; he shot Hofer and murdered Enghien<\/span>.
\nWhat then is there in the Rakshasa that makes him necessary? He is
\nindividuality, he is force, he is capacity; he is the second power of God,
\nwrath, strength, grandeur, rushing impetuosity, overbearing courage, the
\navalanche, the thunderbolt, he is Balaram<\/span>, he is
\nJehovah, he is Rudra. As such we may admire and study him.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nBut the Vibhuti<\/span>, though he takes self-gratification
\nand enjoyment on his way, never comes for self-gratification and en- joyment<\/span>. He comes for work, to help man on his way, the
\nworld in its evolution. Napoleon was one of the mightiest of Vibhuties<\/span>, one of the most dominant. There are some of them
\nwho hold themselves back, suppress the force in their personality in order to
\nput it wholly into their work. Of such were Shakespeare,<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 384<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\nWashington, Victor Emmanuel. There are others like Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon,
\nGoethe, who are as obviously superhuman, in their personality as in the work
\nthey accomplish; Napoleon was the greatest in practical capacity of all
\nmoderns. In capacity, though not in character, he resembles Bhisma<\/span>
\nof the Mahabharat<\/span>. He had the same sovran<\/span>, irresistible, world-possessing grasp of war,
\npolitics, government, legislation, society; the same masterly handling of
\nmasses and amazing glut for details. He had the iron brain that nothing
\nfatigues, the faultless memory that loses nothing, the clear insight that puts
\neverything in its place with spontaneous accuracy. It was as if a man were to
\ncarry Caucasus on his shoulders and with that burden race successfully an
\nexpress engine, yet note and forecast every step and never falter. To prove
\nthat anything in a human body could be capable of such work is by itself a
\nservice to our progress for which we cannot be sufficiently grateful to
\nNapoleon.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n               The work of Bonaparte was wholly admirable. It is true that he took freedom for
\na season from France, but France was not then fit for democratic freedom. She
\nhad to learn discipline for a while under the rule of the soldier of
\nRevolution. He could not have done the work he did, hampered by an effervescent
\nFrench Parliament ebullient in victory, discouraged in defeat. He had to organise<\/span> the French Revolution so far as earth could then
\nbear it, and he had to do it in the short span of an ordinary life-time. He had
\nalso to save it. The aggression of France upon Europe was necessary for self-defence<\/span>, for Europe did not mean to tolerate the
\nRevolution. She had to be taught that the Revolution meant not anarchy but a reorganisation<\/span> so much mightier than the old that a single
\ncountry so reorganised<\/span> could conquer united Europe.
\nThat task Napoleon did effectively. It has been said that his foreign policy
\nfailed, because he left France<\/span> smaller than he found
\nit. That is true. But it was not Napoleon’s mission to aggrandise<\/span>
\nFrance geographically. He did not come for France, but for humanity, and even
\nin his failure he served God and prepared the future. The balance of Europe had
\nto be <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 385<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\n
\ndisturbed in order to prepare new combinations and his gigantic operations
\ndisturbed it fatally. He roused the spirit of Nationalism<\/span> in Italy, in Germany, in Poland, while he
\nestablished the tendency towards the formation of great Empires; and it is the
\nharmonised fulfilment of Nationalism and Empire that was the immediate future.
\nHe compelled Europe to accept the necessity of reorganisation<\/span>,
\npolitical and social.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n              The punya<\/span> of overthrowing Napoleon was divided
\nbetween England, Germany and Russia. He had to be overthrown, be- cause, though
\nhe prepared the future and destroyed the past, he misused the present. To save
\nthe present from his violent hands was the work of his enemies, and this merit
\ngave to these three countries a great immediate development and the possession
\nof the nineteenth century. England and Germany went farthest because they acted
\nmost wholeheartedly and as nations, not as Governments. In Russia it was the
\nGovernment that acted, but with the help of the people. On the other hand, the
\ncountries sympathetic to Napoleon, Italy, Ireland, Poland or those which acted
\nweakly or falsely, such as Spain and Austria, have declined, suffered,
\nstruggled and, even when partially successful, could not attain their
\nfulfilment. But the punya<\/span> is now exhausted. The
\nfuture with which the victorious nations made a temporary compromise, the
\nfuture which Napoleon served and prepared its early movements demands
\npossession, and those who can reorganise<\/span> themselves
\nmost swiftly and perfectly under its pressure, will inherit the twentieth
\ncentury; those who deny it, will perish. The first offer is made to the nations
\nin present possession; it is withheld for a time from the others. That is the
\nreason why Socialism is most insistent now in England, Germany and Russia; but
\nin all these countries it is faced by an obstinate and unprincipled opposition.
\nThe early decades of the twentieth century will select the chosen nations of
\nthe future.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 386<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\n               
\nThere remains the question of Nationalism and Empire; it is put to all these
\nnations, but chiefly to England. It is put to her in Ireland, in Egypt, in
\nIndia. She has the best opportunity of harmonising the conflicting claims of
\nNationalism and Empire. In fighting against Nationalism she is fighting against
\nher own chance of a future, and her temporary victory over Indian Nationalism
\nis the one thing her guardian spirits have most to fear. For the recoil will be
\nas tremendous as the recoil that over- threw Napoleon. The delusion that the despotic
\npossession of India is indispensable to her retention of Empire, may be her
\nundoing. It is indispensable to her, if she meditates, like Napoleon, the
\nconquest of Asia and of the world; it is not necessary to her imperial
\nself-fulfilment: for even without India she would possess an Empire greater
\nthan the Roman. Her true position in India is that of a trustee and temporary
\nguardian; her only wise and righteous policy the devolution of her trust upon
\nher ward with a view to alliance, not ownership. The opportunity of which
\nNapoleon dreamed, a great Indian Empire, has been conceded to her and not to
\nNapoleon. But that opportunity is a two-edged weapon which, if misused, is
\nlikely to turn upon and slay the wielder.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage\u00a0<\/span>– 387<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\nNotes on Bergson<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b> <\/span>B<\/b><\/font><\/span>ERGSON <\/span><\/font>–<\/font><\/span><\/b>
\n"philosophy of change".
\n"It symbolises<\/span> the protest of the modern
\nimpatient man of action against the great Platonic tradition in philosophy of
\nreason or intellect and static reality."<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>"It substitutes force for inertia, life
\nfor death and liberty for fatalism." "Physics and logic are
\nappropriate to the study of the inverse movement, matter, which is life or elan<\/span> vital pulverised<\/span> and its method is intellect and logic."
\n"Philosophy is the study of becoming in general and its method is
\nintuition." <\/span><\/p>\n

"Scrap
\nthe Platonic tradition and follow Plotinus<\/span>. ‘Ask me
\nnot but understand in silence as I (Nature) am silent and am not wont to
\nspeak’."\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>"A philosophy of evolution
\nitself evolving", "positive and empirical", "moulded<\/span> on experience, determined to base itself on solid
\ngrounds, a doctrine in no sense systematic, distinguishes different problems to
\nexamine them one by one… enemy of conventionality<\/span>
\n… antidote to the dogmatic finality of the traditional philosopher. "
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>A short-cut through "the
\nturning of the mind homeward, the coincidence of the human consciousness with
\nthe living principle"
\n        "The destiny of man will be realised because it is the nature of the elan<\/span> vital to triumph over matter and environment."
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\u00a0II<\/span><\/p>\n


\n
\n         
\nThe office of intellect is not to fathom reality, but to fabricate and preside
\nover action… intellect cannot comprehend life
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage – 388<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\nand reality. Intellect (logic) goes round the object, intuition enters into the
\nobject; one stops at the [absolute], the other enters into the absolute.
\n       
\nA philosophy of change? But what is change? In ordinary parlance change means
\npassage from one condition to another and that would seem to imply passage from
\none status to another status. The shoot changes into a tree, passes from the
\nstatus of shoot to the status of tree and there it stops; man passes from the
\nstatus of young man to the status of old man and the only farther change
\npossible to him is death or dissolution of his status. So it would seem that
\nchange is not something isolated which is the sole original and eternal
\nreality, but it is something dependent on status, and if status were
\nnon-existent, change also could not exist. For we have to ask, when you speak
\nof change as alone real, change of what, from what, to what? Without this
\n"what" change could not be.
\n       
\nChange is evidently the change of some form or state of existence from one
\ncondition to another condition. Otherwise, what is it? Is it itself fundamental
\nand absolute, not explicable or definable by any other term than itself,
\nperceivable and intelligible as the sole reality by a naked Intuition which
\nfeels and cries out "Change, reality" and then falls dumb and can say
\nno more? <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0         <\/span>An object changes, a person changes, a
\ncondition of things changes. But can it be said that the object is no real
\nobject but only a continuity of change, or that a person is not a person but a
\ncontinuity of change, a condition of things is not a condition and there are no
\nthings but there is only a continuity of change? This seems to be an
\nillustration of the besetting sin of metaphysics<\/span> – to exalt a word into a reality or an idea into a
\nreality without fathoming what is the reality which it tries to indicate. For
\nto label with a word or a name is not to fathom and to define, to erect a
\nconcept is not to fathom. Fathom for us then what is change before you ask us
\nto accept it as the only reality. You may say, "I have fathomed it, I have
\nseen it to be the one constant real, but do not ask me to define what it is;
\nlisten rather in silence to the silence of Nature and you too will
\nfathom." But what if so listening, I fathom other realities than change
\n– let us say, immutable being as well as mutable force, status as well as<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage -389<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

\nchange? To prevent that you plunge into speech\u00a0
\n<\/span>and not silence, into dialectics of the intellect instead of the undebatable<\/span> certitudes<\/span> of intuition, and so abandon your own methodology. If
\nintuition alone is to be used, then you must give a place to my intuition as
\nwell as yours, and all, however contradictory in appearance, must stand until a
\ngreater intuition comes in to put all in their place, reconcile,\u00a0 <\/span>include in a consistent whole.
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>In the world of our
\nexperience contradictories often complement and are necessary to each other’s
\nexistence. Change is possible only if there is a status from which to change;
\nbut status again exists only as a step that pauses, a step in the continuous
\npassage of change or a step on which change pauses before it passes into
\nanother step in its creative passage. And behind this relation is a duality’ of
\neternal status and eternal motion and behind this duality is something that is
\nneither status nor change but contains both as its aspects – and That is likely
\nto be the true Reality.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage -390<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

X HISTORICAL IMPRESSIONS   The French Revolution \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 THE greatness of the French Revolution lies not in what it effected, but in what it thought…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-17-the-hour-of-god-volume-17","wpcat-9-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}