Indian Philosophical Overtones in the Theistic Existentialism of Karl Jaspers

The eastern and western perspectives on the concept of self differ in many respects and the questions regarding the human self continue to be the issues of discussion among the philosophical thinkers concerned with human existence. While the ancient Indian philosophy asserts the immutability of the self, Existentialism, the post-war philosophical development emphasizes the ever-evolving quality of the self. Again human self and human nature are considered as two separate entities by certain philosophers while they are regarded as identical by some others. The concept of human nature underwent a change during the post-war years. William Golding, the Nobel Prize winner, who can be regarded as the representative of his age, held in his writings, the view that human nature is inherently evil. But the Indian Vedantic view lays stress on the innate pure joy, ananda of human nature. Besides the differences, there are similarities too between the eastern and western philosophical thinking. Dr. V. K. Chari, observing the spiritual kinship among the eastern and western thought currents, remarks: there are many ideological similarities among Oriental literature, the neo- Platonic doctrines, Christian mysticism and the philosophy of the German Idealists such as Kant and Schelling( American Literature of the Nineteenth Century 33). The eastern and western philosophical pursuits coincide at various points of their development and polarise at some others. An interest in the concept of the self as well as an objective knowledge of the world leads the comparatively young philosophy of existentialism to discussions which evince the spiritual similarities it is having with the Vedanta philosophy of India. It is common that the philosophical thoughts that emerge from the socio-cultural climate of each age make their marks on the literary productions of the respective ages. The existentialist kind of philosophising came to prominence in experimental literary writings of the writers of the post-war period of despair and disillusionment. The Russian novelist Dostoevsky, the French writer Samuel Beckett and the German writer Rainer Maria Rilke are the prominent writers in whose writings the treatment of existentialist questions occurs. Samuel Beckett, like most of the existentialist writers who have used existentialist themes consciously in their literary writings, mainly deals with the elusive nature of human consciousness- the self/ego and its perception/construction of reality and the essential incommunicability of individual human experience (Contemporary Literary Theory 119). Thus literature too has benefitted from the existentialist kind of philosophising which has added a more profound quality to the narrative art of literature. Though existentialist philosophy can be traced back to Socrates, its major exponents are the nineteenth century philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard and the twentieth century thinkers Martin Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre. According to Kierkegaard, the Father of existentialism, who believed that subjectivity is Truth the nature of individual human experience remains incommunicable to others. Therefore, the

answers to the questions regarding the reality of human existence and human self are never absolute but rather relative. In existentialist philosophy, the self of an individual is supposed to evolve in course of time as it is his existence that precedes his essence. Philosophical questions regarding ones self and meaning, according to the existentialist philosophy, arise from the situation in which one is placed. But the philosophising beginning with comprehending ones situationremains in flux as ones situation is a continuous flow of worldly activities and free choices. So existentialism asserts that human self is ever evolving and it does not have any fixed characteristics. The theistic existentialism of Karl Jaspers too stresses that the true nature of the self is not defined by any essential qualities or features. On the other hand Indian Vedanta asserts that the true nature of the self is pure knowledge or suddha bodha which remains unaffected by external forces. Though such difference of opinion exists between the two courses of thinking, their affinities can be found in other arguments. Search for being starts from ones situation which is an indeterminate possibility. When the individual tries to confront ones self by illuminating ones situation which is not static, self will also be an ever evolving one. Whatever being one finds in ones situation, it is an object. But it is not easy to confront ones being as one could confront things by standing apart. If one asks the question, Who am I? to oneself, an adequate answer cannot be reached. Whatever definition is given to the I or self, there will always be the I for which ones self becomes an object. Because, the question Why cant I understand myself? asserts the fact that there will always remain a being that is I which is in search of ones self. Jaspers says that the being, when it is conceived as an object by the thinking subject I, it can be called an objective subject. When the being is conceived as the subject itself it is the subjective being. When this being is conceived in the abstract independently of its being an object for a subject, it is called being-in-itself. This being-in-itself is not accessible to anyone; because ones thought of it will turn it into an object. Jaspers therefore concludes that the being can be considered as three, the objective being, beingin-itself and the subjective being. They are not three independent beings, but three inseparable poles of the being one finds oneself in. One may assume one of the three beings to be the being. All these thoughts about being, spring from the thinkers existence. And Jaspers equates ones existence to ones consciousness. That is why he says, to analyse existence is to analyse consciousness. Ones self, according to Jaspers, is ones consciousness of temporal existence in the situation one finds oneself. He asserts: For me, nothing can be without entering into my consciousness(The Existentialist Reader 57). Therefore things exist only as objects of consciousness and I too thus exist only as an object of consciousness. Something exists for me only if one is conscious of its existence. Thus it is ones consciousness that decides whether an object exists or not. In Indian philosophy, a similar argument emphasizes, Manomatram jagatsarvam(The Yogavasistha of Valmiki 4-35-19). It is only the presence of conscious mind that acknowledges the existence of everything in this world. It means that in the absence of consciousness nothing exists.Again in the Mandukyakarika of Sri Gaudapadacharya, it is asserted that the world which seems to be

a separate entity than oneself, is a creation of the mind: Manodrushyamidam dwaitham yatkinchitsacharacharam (III-31). The role of the conscious mind in evoking an objective knowledge of the world is emphasized in many of the Vedantic teachings. Jaspers considers consciousness as self-reflexive. He says that it not only aims at objects but turn back upon itself. Thus ones consciousness is not only conscious but self conscious at the same time. Jaspers calls the consciousness of objects as the object part and self consciousness as the subject part of ones consciousness. Though sometimes one may become absorbed in the outside world and its objects and forget oneself and lose ones self consciousness for the time being, most often consciousness and self consciousness remain together. Regarding the coexistence of self consciousness and objective consciousness, Jaspers remarks: there always remains a last subjective point and impersonal and purely formal I-point which a thing will confront by existing- that is to say, for which the thing will be an object. Conversely, I cannot so isolate my self consciousness that I know myself alone: I exist only by confronting other things. There is no subjective consciousness without an objective one, however slight (The Existentialist Reader 58). According to Jaspers, it is impossible to have ones self consciousness in isolation. He asserts that knowledge of the self is relative. In order to know oneself, one needs the help of other beings. As existentialism declares, it is only in relation to others that one can define oneself. Such an interdependence of consciousness and self consciousness is not an essential condition in eastern Vedanta philosophy for pursuing ones self. In order to realize the dynamic self which is identifiable with the cosmic self, an objective consciousness is considered an impediment since self quest is an inward exploration. In the perspective of Vedanta, self consciousness and consciousness of other things remain independent. Self can be realized as suddha bodha (pure consciousness) in which the self and the knowledgeof the self remain the same. Then there will not be any subject-object relationship of the person who knows and the knowledge that is known. This state of independent self knowledge is called Thureeya state in Vedanta. But in the presence of this independent knowledge of the self, the self does not stand apart to know the self, but the self remains as the knowledge of the self itself. About this being and the being known and their togetherness, Jaspers observes: My own being differs radically from any being of things because I can say, I am. But if I objectify my empirical existence, this is not the same as I-in-itself. I do not know what I am in myself if I am my own object; to find out, I would have to become aware of myself in some way other than cognitive knowledge. ( Emphasis added. The Existentialist Reader 56)

When Jaspers points out that one has to know oneself in some way other than cognitive knowledge, he is implying at the limitation of the cognitive knowledge and the inadequacy of cognitive methods to realize the self. In the eastern philosophy of Vedanta also, the limitation of the senses, mind and intellect to comprehend the self is emphasized in The Bhagavad Gita: Indriyani paranyahu Indriyebhyaha param manaha Manasasthu para buddhihi Buddhehe parathasthu saha ( III, 42) It is the advice of Lord Krishna to Arjuna to realize the transcendental nature of the self. He says that it is with the five senses that one perceives the external world. All these sensory perceptions could be received and comprehended by one, only if ones mind too is active in the act of comprehension. The intellect which is beyond the mind helps one distinguish between good and bad. Thus knowledge of the external world is received by one with senses, the mind and the intellect. But knowledge of the inner self cannot be grasped through the senses, mind or intellect as the self is beyond the reach of any of them. Though the methods adopted by the eastern and western thinkers for the search for self differ, there are similar concepts regarding the achievement of knowledge of the world. When Vedanta states that it is the conscious mind that imbibes the knowledge of the outside world, the existentialist philosopher too emphasizes that things exist only as objects of consciousness. In the case of realizing the self, Jaspers theistic existentialism points out the necessity of seeking some way other than cognitive knowledge to achieve knowledge of the self. Vedanta philosophy also points out the limitation of cognitive knowledge while discussing the doctrine of the self and asserts that self can be realized by going beyond the knowledge of sensory perceptions and the faculty of the mind and intellect. Thus Vedanta declares that knowledge of the self is not a kind of knowledge that could be reached through theoretical perceptions but a knowledge that could be realized as an inner experience. Both the external world and the individual self are explored in the eastern and western world with similar concepts regarding the senses, the conscious mind and the intellect. In the theistic Existentialism and in Vedanta neither the world nor the self are defined in an objective way, but they are declared as entities which could only be subjectively understood. Works Cited Fisher, William J. et al., eds. American Literature of the Nineteenth Century: An Anthology. New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing House, 1955.

Gaudapada, Sri. The Mandukyakarika. Trans and ed. Swami Gabhirananda. Kerala: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1987. Goodman, W.R. Contemporary Literary theory. Delhi:Doaba Publications,2004. Gupta, Kanta.ed. The Yogavasistha of Valmiki. Vol.2. Delhi: Nag Publishers,1998. Mac Donald, Paul S.,ed., The Existentialist Reader: An Anthology of Key Texts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. Sastri, Alladi Mahadeva. Trans.The Bhagavad Gita: With the Commentary of Adi Sri Sankaracharya. 1897. Chennai: Samata Books, 1995.