A possible synthesis of apparently conflicting thoughts of Marx and Shankara
I have often wondered why when Marx and Shankara both were moved by same emotion of compassion their philosophies clash?
Friends have expressed disbelief or sarcasm at my audacious belief that Marx and advaita vedanta can go together. According to the doubters, whereas Marxism is based upon materialism world view, advaita vedanta’s base is Idealism; the two world views being incompatible to each other. I have also nursed doubts that If there is no commonality at the conceptual level bridging two philosophies, they are bound to clash at the application level.
Recently, however, after reading Marx’s own writings on the subject, I think I can see the bridge.
True, Marx and Engels refuted Idealism. Their critique of Idealism forms the part of Holy Family and German Ideology (Chapter II).
But Marx disagreed with Philosophical materialism too. Marx’s view on the subject is recorded in ‘Theses on Feuerbach’. Feuerbach was a materialist whose work Marx utilised but Marx came down heavily on the philosophical materialism.
The following para is from ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ (This can be read at: Theses on Feuerbach)
“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.”
So, on one side Marx was critical of idealism, which according to him, factors in the active role of man as the subject but fails on the count that there is no sensuous-empirical experience of the transcendent reality that Idealism proposes. On the other hand, Marx was critical of materialism because it considers man as a mere object, while ignoring the fact that man is the subject recipient of sensuous experiences.
It is true that almost 100% people have no sensuous-experience of the transcendental realm written and taught in glorious terms in scriptures. But what about the following two descriptions: from Bahiya Sutta and Mundka Upanishad?
Mundka Upanishad Verse 2.2.11
There the sun shines not and the moon has no splendour and the stars are blind; there these lightnings flash not, how then shall burn this earthly fire? All that shines is but the shadow of its shining; all this universe is effulgent with its light.
Bahiya Sutta
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Where water, earth,
fire, & wind
have no footing:
There the stars don't shine,
the sun isn't visible.
There the moon doesn't appear.
There darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahmana through sagacity,
has realized [this] for himself,
then from form and formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.
…
Both these verses describe a reality that is transcendental to space-time, experiencing which one is freed of pain.
It is possible that both these verses and numerous other similar verses are pure imaginations of poets. There is also a possibility that a Shankara or a Buddha, or a Meister Eckhart actually experienced the above. Probably out of a billion people one or two perchance have experienced a transcendental realm and may be out of a billion people, a hundred or a thousand people believe the truth of such a realm underlying the natural realm of space-time-objects known to all of us.
It is also certainly true that charlatans cheat gullible public with fake promises of heaven etc. because the truth of a transcendental realm cannot be readily ascertained. Yet, considering that mystics across time and cultures have spoken identically, I value the aforesaid verses as true.
Therefore, my resolution of the dilemma is as follows.
1. Marxism is valid and most appropriate for public sphere, because the philosophy holds true.
2. The teachings of great mystics also hold truth and I therefore engage in suitable practices to realise the same, in personal capacity.
3. I believe that the organised and the politically driven religious organisations are polluted with greed for money and power and are best avoided.
Did Tagore not sing “Walk alone ……”?
I have often wondered why when Marx and Shankara both were moved by same emotion of compassion their philosophies clash?
Friends have expressed disbelief or sarcasm at my audacious belief that Marx and advaita vedanta can go together. According to the doubters, whereas Marxism is based upon materialism world view, advaita vedanta’s base is Idealism; the two world views being incompatible to each other. I have also nursed doubts that If there is no commonality at the conceptual level bridging two philosophies, they are bound to clash at the application level.
Recently, however, after reading Marx’s own writings on the subject, I think I can see the bridge.
True, Marx and Engels refuted Idealism. Their critique of Idealism forms the part of Holy Family and German Ideology (Chapter II).
But Marx disagreed with Philosophical materialism too. Marx’s view on the subject is recorded in ‘Theses on Feuerbach’. Feuerbach was a materialist whose work Marx utilised but Marx came down heavily on the philosophical materialism.
The following para is from ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ (This can be read at: Theses on Feuerbach)
“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.”
So, on one side Marx was critical of idealism, which according to him, factors in the active role of man as the subject but fails on the count that there is no sensuous-empirical experience of the transcendent reality that Idealism proposes. On the other hand, Marx was critical of materialism because it considers man as a mere object, while ignoring the fact that man is the subject recipient of sensuous experiences.
It is true that almost 100% people have no sensuous-experience of the transcendental realm written and taught in glorious terms in scriptures. But what about the following two descriptions: from Bahiya Sutta and Mundka Upanishad?
Mundka Upanishad Verse 2.2.11
There the sun shines not and the moon has no splendour and the stars are blind; there these lightnings flash not, how then shall burn this earthly fire? All that shines is but the shadow of its shining; all this universe is effulgent with its light.
Bahiya Sutta
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Where water, earth,
fire, & wind
have no footing:
There the stars don't shine,
the sun isn't visible.
There the moon doesn't appear.
There darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahmana through sagacity,
has realized [this] for himself,
then from form and formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.
…
Both these verses describe a reality that is transcendental to space-time, experiencing which one is freed of pain.
It is possible that both these verses and numerous other similar verses are pure imaginations of poets. There is also a possibility that a Shankara or a Buddha, or a Meister Eckhart actually experienced the above. Probably out of a billion people one or two perchance have experienced a transcendental realm and may be out of a billion people, a hundred or a thousand people believe the truth of such a realm underlying the natural realm of space-time-objects known to all of us.
It is also certainly true that charlatans cheat gullible public with fake promises of heaven etc. because the truth of a transcendental realm cannot be readily ascertained. Yet, considering that mystics across time and cultures have spoken identically, I value the aforesaid verses as true.
Therefore, my resolution of the dilemma is as follows.
1. Marxism is valid and most appropriate for public sphere, because the philosophy holds true.
2. The teachings of great mystics also hold truth and I therefore engage in suitable practices to realise the same, in personal capacity.
3. I believe that the organised and the politically driven religious organisations are polluted with greed for money and power and are best avoided.
Did Tagore not sing “Walk alone ……”?