Purusharthas-07_chapter2.pdf

7/27/2019 Purusharthas-07_chapter2.pdf

1/23

CHAPTER 11

WHAT MAKES LIFE HUMAN?


2/23

I. THE STORY OF RISHYASRINGA1. The Context

'Let noble though ts come to us from every side,' said the Rgvedic poet.1 Letus take this as a general permission to stan our discussion anywh ere. In this chapter,we propose to start the discussion of the problem of p u r u s h a rt h a s by relating theStory of Rishyasringa from the Mahabharata precisely because it brings to light animportar~t nsight regarding the interrelationship of the four pu ru sh art ha s.2

The story is told in the context of the Mahabharata which is regarded as theFifth Veda with its more than one lakh stanzas. Th e Mah abharata, it must be noted,has molded our character and civilization by its gospel of purusharthas which like agolden thread runs through all the complex movemen ts in the epic.

Why do we want to begin the discussion by narrating a story like that ofRishyasringa, i t might be asked. The reason for such a start is twofold. First of all, itbrings out an important point that we want to make in our thesis. Namely, theexclusive following of any one purushartha is fallacious and is bound to bedisastrous. Secon dly, the Story m akes the discussion audio-visual.

2. universifiability of the MessageBefore we go on to a narration of the story, a ~ 3 r dbout the universifiabilityof its message is in ord er. The point of the story is universifiable in the sense that

Rishyasringa's predicament is indicative of our typical human condition referred to atthe end of the Introductory Chapter. The special feature of the strings of argument inour discussion will be that it is considered against the background of Rishyasringa'spredicamen t. Th is special feature brings out the relevance and currency of thepurusharthas today and for tomorrow not necessarily because the Mahabharata is

15


3/23

scriptural but because the predicament of Rishyasringa and the issues involved thereinare universalizable.

As already hinted at, the story of Rishyasringa implies what we want to affirmin the thesis: That is, the pu m s h a r th a s give content to life, are interactional, formone single goal and thus lead to the ultimate goal of be in g m ean ing ful ly alive.

3. Lom asa Narrates the StoryThe Pandavas during their vanavasa (exile) went on a pilgrimage and reachedan ash ra m a (hermitage) called pun ny am at the bank of river Kaus hiki. At that time,

the sage Lomasa, the head of that hermitage, told Yudhistira this Story ofRishyasringa. I t may be summ ed up as follows:

Once upon a time there was a severe famine for want of rain in the kingdom ofAnga. How to save the country from this famine became a matter of serious concernfor the king. The only w ay out, according to the Brahman as who adv ise the king onsuch matters, was to fetch Rishyasringa, the young sage, to the kingdom .

Rishyasringa lived in a forest and led a life of perfect celibacy. By hisausterities, he had acquired the power to bring down rain wherever he went. He livedwith his father Vibhandaka. In such a systematic manner did V ibhandaka bring up hisson in the seclusion of the forest that he did not come in touch with any other humanbeing, man or woman!

Now, to bring Rishyasringa from such a seclusion to the kingdo m so that therewould be enough rain was a real problem for Lomapada, the king of Anga. After aseries of consultations with his courtiers, the king finally decided to send the mostcharming courtesans of the city to lull Rishyasringa to A nga.


4/23

Well equipped for the m ission, the damsels set out in a boat which looked likea floating hermitage and reached the river near Vibhandaka's he rmita ge. Mooring theboat in the river, the damsels entere d the periphery of the herm itage. Having secretlyascertained the time w hen Vibhanda ka would be away , one of the beautiful dam sels -let us call her Vaisali after the Malayalam Movie - entered the hermitage. And sheaccosted Rishyasringa the way the rishis (sages) of those days used to: "How are you?Are the penances of the rishis of the forest proceeding satisfa ctorily? Is your study ofthe Vedas progrcssing ...?"

Never before did Rishyasringa behold such a beautiful human form and hearsuch a sweet voice. The mom ent he beheld this graceful wom an, though withoutknowing that i t was a wom an! the instinctive urge for the com pany of the oppo site sexbegan to work on his mind. The youthful anchorite thought that she was a young sagelike himself.

"You seem to be a bright br ah m ac ha rin (celibate). W ho are you? Where isyour hermitage? I bow to you. W hat are the austerities you practice?" Th us saying,he rendered her the customary offe rings . But she said to him: "I am not worthy toreceive your prostrations, but let me reciprocate your greetings and salutations in themanner we are used to". So sayin g, she embraced him w armly, gave him fruits andsweets, decorated him with perfumed garlands, and served him with drinks.Embracing him again, she then gently slipped out of the hermitage fearing the returnof the sage Vibhandaka, but actually saying that it was time for her agnihotrasacrifice.

On return Vibhandaka found that the face of his hermitage as well as the faceof his son were clouded and disturb ed as if by a storm of passion. He was shocked tosee that the usual simple duties of the hermitage had been neg lected. Vibhand aka wasvery much troubled and asked his son to explain what had happened.


5/23

In his simplicity and ingenuity, Rishyasringa replied: "Abrahmacharin ofwonderful form was here. The beauty and swe etness of his voic e defy description.Listening to him and looking into his eyes filled my inner being with indescribablejoy and affection. When he embraced me - which it seem s is his customary greeting -1 felt a kind of happiness that I have never felt before, no, not even while eating thesweetest fruits. 1 long for his compan y; my heart pants to see him ...."

When Rishyasringa had thus brokenly expressed his new yearnings anddisturbances. Vibhandaka understood what had taken place. He told his son that itwas no brahmacharin 'but a malignant demon bent on beguiling them and hinderingtheir penances and austerities. S o he advised his son not to let such demons com enear him. Vibhandaka then comb ed the whole forest in vain for three days on end tofind his son 's fair visitors and returned ba ffled.

Then on another occasion when Vibhandaka had gone out to bring roots andfruits Vaisali again stole into the hermitage. As soon as Rishyasringa saw her hejumped up and ran t o greet her gushingly, like pent up water su rges out of a reservoirthat has sprung a leak.

Even without waiting for prompting this time, R ishyasringa w ent near her andafter the customary salutations said: " 0 shining brahmacharin, before my fatherreturns let us go to your hermitage."

This was precisely what she had hoped for and worked for. So together theywent and entered the boat which had been made to look like a hermitage and sailed forthe kingdom of Anga. When they reached Anga, the young sage surely knew moreabout the world and its ways than he had done in the forest.


6/23

The heartiest of welcomes awaited him in Anga. The king was delighted tosee Rishyasringa. And , as foretold by the Brahmanas, the mom ent Rishyasringa s ethis foot in A nga rain began to pour down, the rivers and lakes were full and the peoplerejoiced. The king gratefully gave his daughter Santa in marriage to Rishyasringa.

Th us all ended as had been planned. The king, however, felt uneasy becausehe feared Vibhandaka's wrath. 'fie sage might come in search of his son andpronounce a curse on the king. Therefore, in order to mollify Vibhandaka, the kinglined the route the sage would take with cattle and kind and instructed the cowherds incharge to tell Vibhandaka that they were all R ishyasringa's serv ants and had c ome towelcome and honor their master's father and to wait on him.

Guessing his son's whereabouts right, Vibhandaka crossed intervening riversand villages and marched to the capital of Anga as if to burn the king in his anger.But when he saw at every stage of his journey the magnificent cattle which belongedto his son and the respectful welcome by his son's servants, his angry mood meltedaway . A great welcom e awaited him in the capital. In the king's palace he waspleased to see his son with his beautiful wife Santa seated in state like the king of thegods in heaven. Vibhan daka blessed the king and he asked his son to join him in theforest after the birth of a son. Rishyasringa did a s his father bade him.

4. What Strikes Us First

The story ends with this note: "Like Damayanti and Nala, Sita and Rama,Arundhati and Vaisishtha, Lopamudra and Agastya, and Draupati and Yourself, Santaand Rishyasringa repaired to the forest in the fullness of time and spent their lives inmutual love and worship of Go d. This is the hermitage where Rishyasringa lived.Bathe in these waters and be purified. "


7/23

Let us for a moment 'bathe in these waters' in ord er to be purified. In this storythere are at least three things that strike us first. First of all it makes us laugh.Secondly it give s us a message. And thirdly i t throws light on the problem ofpurushar thas .

(i). T h e La ug ht er . Anybody can see that Vyasa, the author of this story, hasburst into a laughter. We too begin to laugh when we listen to how Rishyasringadescribes the new br ah m a ch ar in to his father. Now the question is: who is i t or whatis it that Vyasa is laughing at and is provoking us to laugh at? W e might think thatRishyasringa is the one Vyasa is laughing at. But we are thoroughly mistaken. For i tis his father who mad e him ignorant of ka m a. If so, the one to be laughed at isVibhandaka and not Rishyasringa.

Not only that. Not even Vibhandaka was free from K a m a and A rth a. By hisausterities he was supp osed to have gained control over his feelings. Though he wasred with anger at the loss of his son, we see that his anger subsided and graduallyreplaced by satisfaction at the sight of the wealth and prosperity of his son . Th us thepoet has added to the laughter. But Vibhandaka is redeem ed from this ridiculebecause it is said that instead of staying and enjoying with his son, he returned to theforest and directed his so n to follow him later.

If both Rishyasringa and Vibhandaka are thus absolved from ridiculousness,whom does the poet aim at? What is i t that he is trying to drive home to us? Th e poetis obviously laughing at any parent in our society who tries to bring up his child in amanner similar to the one adopted by Vibhandaka. Such children might develo p atendency to be attracted by prostitutes. Of course, Rishyasringa was, through thatprocess, lucky finally to get the king's daughter in marriage. But there is no reason tobelieve that all such young men would be that lucky.3


8/23

(ii). T h e M essag e. Thu s, the object of laughter in this story becom es amessage for us. The m oral is this: To think that one can lead a life of celibacy ifbrought up in complete isolation from sensual pleasures or if kept ignorant of them isa fallacy. In spite of all the precautions Vibhandaka took, at the slighte st provocationsthe natural instinct cam e out with all its might. So the pointle ssnes s of suchprecautions is obvious.

If so, what follows from this by implication is important for our discussion ofpu ru sh art ha s. Namely, addiction to any one pu ru sh ar th a to the exclusion of otherpu ru sh ar th as is bound to be disastrous. The Story of Rishyasringa m akes this pointabundantly clear. If i t is ridiculous to pursue one pu ru sh ar th a at the expense of theother purushartha(s), then the question of how the various purusharthas areinterrelated becomes crucial.

(iii) . T he Pro ble m of Pu n s h a rt h a s . The Story of Rishyasringa can and doesthrow light on the question of p ur us ha rt ha s. Th e story certainly im plies that the fourpu ru sh art ha s are not really ultimate ends but seem to be attitudinal means to anend. What then is that end? The end is indeed clear from the overall impression thestory makes, namely: th e well being of the kingd om of Anga. We m ay generalize itby saying that the end is to live in a m eanin gful m an ne r. To translate it into the Gitalanguage, the final goal is lok as am gra ha . We intend to confirm this point as we goalong.

(iv). Issues Sl ur red Ov er. Before we go ahead, certain issues in the storywhich do not interest us here need to be mentioned too, even though following themup might be rewarding. One such issue is: why did Vibhandaka bring up his son theway he did? It is said that his son was born of his sexual perversion. If so,Vibhandaka might have thought that at least his son should be spared of similar


9/23

tempting situations. But then, should the son pay for the sexual aberrations of hisfather? This is a question worth p ursuing, though not in this study.

Another issue is: Wh y did Vaisali consider herself unfit to receiveRishyasringa's prostrations? Is it sinful for a courtesan to receive the conventiona lkind of salutations? Th is again does not interest us at present.

5. The Basic Issues, Once AgainInstead of taking up questions of this kind, let us now look at some of the

basic issues the story .presupposes . Vyasa, the authcr of the story, is certainlylaughing at us, the present day soc iety. If so, as has already been said , our tend ency tofollow any one pu ru sh ar th a to the exclusion of other pu ru sh ar th as is reallyridiculous. Though ridiculous, this tendency of ours raises two important questions:(a) How do we get into this ridiculous situation? @) How are we to redeem ourselvesfrom this sorry state of affairs? Any satisfactory answer to these qu estions shouldtake into account the following issues.

(i). Why do the characters in this story live the way they do? W hat motivatesthem to act the way they do? Wh at ma kes life worth living as far as Rishyasringa isconcerned? What is good and what is right conduct in the case of characters likeRishyasringa? 'I am confused as to the ultimate goal 1 should be striving for' is theimpression Rishyasringa gives. In other words, the question boils dow n to this: Whatis the ultimate significance of human life?

(ii). The Indian classical tradition has spelled out the significance of humanlife in terms of the four purusharthas. If so, what exactly is the traditionalunderstanding of these four purusharthas, first in general and then in particular?What shall Rishyasringa make of i t in the context of his predicament?


10/23

(iii). How are the four p u ru sh a rt h a s related to each other? According to thegeneral tradition, the four pu ru sh ar th as are believed to be mutually exclusive and aresaid to be in an ascending order of authority. Is this understanding justifiable? W hatare the undesirable consequences of such an understanding? How d oe s it apply in thecase of Rishyasringa? Can it give practical guidance to Rishyasringa?

(iv). The story of Rishyasringa seem s l o imply that the sam ny as a way of lifeis better and superior. Is such a position tenable? Should one strive for sam ny as aand thus for m ok sha at the expense of the other stage s of life and go als of life such a sdh ar m a, a rt h a o r kam,a? This is an important question in the sense that to considerthe pu ru sh ar th as is to consider the sa m ny as a way of life. For, the ultimate valuesinvolved in both are the same. Not only that. Sa m ny as a h as been a way of life notonly in India but also all over the world.

(v). A distinction is often drawn between two different forms ofp u r u s h a r t h a s : the one as characteristic of our spiritual being and the other ascharacte ristic of our material nature. W hat is the point of this distinction? Is it, asordinarily supposed, between the good as intrinsic and the good as extrinsic orinstrumental, or is i t between the good as secondary and the good as primary? Or is itneither of these two but a third? When doe s a pu ru sh ar th a become representative ofour good: It has been said that a p u ru sh a rt h a becomes a representative of our goodonly when it reflects therein the spiritual elem ent. What if if i t doe s not? Do es it stillremain so even if i t does not reflect it? W hat are we to make of it in the case ofRishyasringa'?

(vi). Let us now focus the whole problem in a slightly different manner:What is the definition of pu ru sh ar th a? Pu ru sh ar th a literally means 'meaning oflife'. But i t is not m erely that: the nature of this meaning makes it a reason for ourrule of behavior. For, all the four goals are meant to motivate us to act. Wh ile the


11/23

first three p u n s h a r t h a s known as Yrivarga' constitute the earthly justification, thelast one, m ok sh a, constitutes the divine justification. Now the question is: How arethese reasons related to one another? How do they determine the p u n s h a r th a s ? Inother words, how are the fundamental goals and right conduct interrelated, and thattoo, in the case of R ishyasringa?

(vii). How should the interwnnectedness of the various pu ru sh ar th as betreated so that we may be absolved from being ridiculed? Even if we assume for thepresent that the pu ru sh ar th as do exercise mutual control and therefore they alltogether form one' pa ra m ap ur us ha rth a the question still remains: Are thep u ru sh a rt h a s really goals or merely mean s? If means, then what is the ultimategoal? Can lokasam graha , b eing me aningfu lly alive, be the final goal?

All these are issues that await content in subsequent chapters. Of these, let usnow turn to the first. Namely, the general question of the mean ing of life.

6. ConclusionAs far as the theory of purusharthas are concerned, the point of the story is

obvious: The well-being of the kingdom of Anga is the ultimate goal. Th is goal canbe generalized as log as am gr ah a. To abstract it further, to live is the ultimate goal.purusharthas are what make this goal meaningful, provided that they are takentogether as complementary. This means that any one pu ru sh ar th a if followedexclusively ceases to be a pur us ha rth a. Our task in subsequent chapters will be toexam ine philosophically this point the story illustrates.


12/23

11. MEANING OF LIFE1. Why this Clarification

Life is meaningful. This is one of the assump tions of the S tory of Rishyasringaas well as of the Theory of Purusharthas. Is this an unquestionab le assumption? Is lifereally meaningful? There is certainly room fo r this doub t. For , neither the schem e ofp u ru sh a rt h a s nor any other theory has explained in isolation all the secrets of the realand ultimate meaning of life. That is to say that the meaning of life is not som ethingthat exists already in all clarity; rather, it is something to be created and organizedfrom all that is given within the integral human situation. This is the basic impetusbehind ou r search for the meaning of life as it has been understood and lived out inour major philosophical traditions. Since p u ru sh ar th a means 'meaning of life' andform an integral part of Indian world view it is imperative for u s to clarify what w emean by 'meaning of life'.

2. Philosophical PessimismWhat exactly do we mean by meaning of life? Are we using the word 'life'

universally or are we looking for the meaning of life of a particular human being likeRishyasring a? Before looking at this distinction, we need to look into yet anotherquestion first: To ask w hat the meaning of life is, is to assume that life is itselfmean ingful. But w hat if, if there are people who doubt whether life has any meaningat all? As a matter of fact, There are philosophers who conclude that life ismeaningless, as is clear from the following examples.

It would have been better if the world had never existed. Th is is the positionof Arthur Schopenhauer. We take this exam ple from the western tradition simplybecause he is the best known pessimist in philosophy. According to him, life is abusiness which doe s not cove r its expenses.4

25


13/23

His chief metaphysical reason for this philosophical pessim ism is the idea thatexistence is based o n will which causes manifold w ants and desires leadin g ultimatelyto frustration. And his empirical reason for pessimism is the fact that the world is fullof pain and misery. In sho rt,in the words of Clarence Darrow, another pessimist, lifeis an 'awful joke's, 'a stupid fraud'6, and therefore no reasonable meaning can begiven to it.

Now co ming to the Indian Tradition, we find that there are in it So me thinkerswho bordered on philosophical pessimism. But fortunately they have survived it.Kanadan, a sage and philosopher, founder of the Vaisesi ka S ystem, seems initially toconclude that life is mea11in~less.7Similarly, Bud dha also felt pessimistic at the sightof pain and misery but later discovered the aryasatyas and thus survived thepessimistic outlook on life.

It is not our intention here to go into an appraisal of the types of pessimismjust summ ed up. Rathe r, i t is taken up so that one may not simply assume that life ismeaningful without giving some serious thought to it. When our discussion of themeaning of life becomes sharper we may find that philosophical pessimism isirrational. But we must arrive at this conclusion rather than assume it. That we mayfind that philosophical pessimism is irrational does not, of course, mean thatindividuals cannot have good reasons for feeling pessim istic conce rning their ownlives and purposes. Th e following distinctions we m ake wou ld clearly show thatphilosophical pessimism is unsustainable.

3. Two Things We Want to Know

Let us now focu s the problem this way: what do we want to know when weask whether life has a meaning? While asking thus, we want to know at least two

26


14/23

things. (i). Whether a particular person's life has (or had) any meaning . Th is isasking a different question indeed. For here we are asking whether certain purposesare to be found in hi sh er life.

(ii). The other thing we want to know when we ask whether life has anymeaning is: Whether there is a superhuman being who fashioned us human s alongwith other objects in the world in order to serve some purpose. In other words, to usean analogy, what we want to know is whether our role is something like that of astring in a lute in a symphony.

4. TheVedic DistinctionOften than not, we confuse these two things that we want to know while

discus sing the problem of the meaning life. Much of this confusion can be avoided ifwe bring in a distinction that the Rgveda makes . For the sake of conven ience let uscall this distinction the distinction betw een the Cosmic and the human.

Let us put i t clearly: We com e across the word purusha in the Rgveda for thefirst time. The re it is clear that the vedic Indians use the term purusha to refer to theuniverse as well as to man. This usage is parallel to the Vedic use of Rta meaning thecosm ic order as well as the human conduct. This distinction between the Co sm ic andthe Human is crucial for our understanding of the purusharthas which whe n renderedinto English means 'meaning of life'.

In the light of this Vedic distinction we can clearly see that there are at leasttwo sense s in which we usually employ the expression 'meaning of life' - the cosmicsense and the human sense. If we do not keep this distinction between the cosmic andthe human sense of the meaning of life in mind, confusion is likely to arise.


15/23

(i). Th e Cosm ic Sense. For instance, if we do not keep these two senses ofthe meaning of life apart, it becomes impossible, for those wh o w ant to, to d efend theposition that life can be meaningful even if there is no God and no afte r life. If wereject the theory of cosmic design w e can imm ediately infer that life is meaningless inthe cosmic sense. But from this it does not logically follow that a particular person'slife is mean ingless in the human sense.

Another exam ple of how th is distinction works is: Wh at do we mean, forinstance, when we ask whether history has a meaning? To ask this question is to usethe expression 'meaning of life' in the cosmic sense. Macbeth was giving a negativeanswer to this question i n the cosmic sense when he exclaimed that life " is a tale1Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, 1Signifying nothing". Wh at he wa s pointingout evidently was not that human life is part of a scheme designed by a superhumanidiot but that i t is not a part of any design at all.

(ii). The H um an Sen se. Whereas we are using 'meaning of life' in the humansense when we ask whether a particular person's life has or had any meaning. DidRishyasringa's life have any meaning? How d o we come to know wh ether his life hada meaning?

The answer is that we can know that his life had meaning provided we knowthat he devoted himself to a cause. We know that Rishyasringa devoted himself toascetic practices at least for a period and therefore we can boldly say that his life hadmeaning.

Or, let us take the obvious example of Gandhiji who devoted himself to thecause of 'sward'. Most of us would not hesitate to admit that Gandhiji led ameaningful life. Whether we a pprove of all that he did or did not is not the point here.The point here is that we mean at least two things when we say he led a meaningfullife. (a). That his life had an overall goal or goals that gave direction and coherence to


16/23

a great many of his actions. @). That he did what he did with a special zest that wasnot obvious before he became attached to his goal(s).

Here i t may be asked whether a single human life, taken as a whole, can haveone meaning, one purpose? It is not impossible for an adult individual to have justone large overriding purpose as is illustrated by Vibhandaka's life dedicated toasceticism or by Gandhiji's life dedicated to truth. But this need not be the case withmost people. Many people in fact have a variety of purposes proper to different timesin their lives. Rishyasringa had different goals appropriate to his life in the forest andin the palace.

In this connection, i t may also be asked: Can the human race as a totality havea goal in life, just as an individual can have one? To think of any such aim is noteasy, though comm unities may have aim s in comm on, for instance, praying f or rain inthe kingdom of Anga.

5. The Subjective and the ObjectiveIf commitment to a cause, purposefulness, i s what gives m eaning to a person's

life, then it implies a further distinction between the sub jec tiv e and obj ectiv e withinthe human sense of the mean ing of life. In the subjective sense, to say that a person'slife is meaningful is to say that he is attached to some goals provided that he do es notconsider them trivial and that these goals are within his reach. Wh ereas whe n wedeclare that a person's life is meaningful in the objective sense, what we are saying isthat he is attached to certain goals which are not only attainable but also of positivevalue.

Purp oses a n d Mea ningf ul Purp oses. In order to make this point clearer, weneed to bring in one more distinction with regard to individual human purposes.That is, w e need to distinguish between purposes and mea nin gf ul purposes. When

29


17/23

does a purpose become meaningful? A purpose becomes meaningful if it signifiesvalues. If not, it becomes meaningless, trivial. Bringing Rishyasringa to theKingdom of Anga so that there would be rain was a meaningful purpose for the kingLom apada. This means that values are what give s meaning to life. This, of course,doe s not mean that there is no place for play, for things trivial, in hum an life.

6. Without God and ImmortalityBefore we pass on we need to settle a connected question already hinted at:

Can life be m eaningfu1,even if there is no God and no after life? There are peoplewho answer this question in the affirmative. Is this position defensible? This questionis related to a problem to be discussed in a later chapter: Does life make sensewithout the goal of mo ksh a? Right now, let us limit ourselves to the problem of'meaningfu l' life without God and immo rtality.

Without the possibility of eternal life human life can have no meaning. Thi s isthe position the character Ivan Karamazov, an atheist, in Dostoevsky's novel, T h eBr oth er s Ka ram azo v, takes. For him, meaning is connected with value and valuewith eternal life. Therefore Ivan believes that the finitude of life is proof that it has nopurpose.

7. Eternity and PurposeThus, while som e hold that eternity is what give s meaning to human life, some

others argue that even eternal life would be without purpose. Wittgenstein puts thisquestion in the Tr ac ta tu s Logico-philosophicus:Is not the riddle of eternal life itself as much a riddle as our present lye ?


18/23

By way of commenting onfrom Dr. Jenny Teichm an's article,

What have time and ete rn iy got ro do with purpose? Ar e they all not completelydifferent things? For what reason should it be supposed that eternal things havemore purpose than finite things? For all we know, the universe may be eternal,matter may be eternal, energy ma y be eternal, but we annot tell whether they have apurpose, nor what such a purpose might be. Asking about the purpose of life,meaning of God's purpose in creating life, is much the same as asking about thepurpose of m atter or the purpose of energy. Although some people have claimed to beable f o answer these questions, I wiN put them to one side as being too dificu ltaltogefher.8

Dr. Jenny Teichman goes on to make a distinction between the possiblepurposes of a Creator and the known purpose of mankind. O ne of the implications ofthis distinction is: Even if we k now for certain that life was not brou ght in to being bya Creator for his own purposes, humanity could and would still have its ownpurposes and goals.9

If this is true, then the connection between the concept of purpose and theconcept of eternity is not obvious. If G od exists, his purposes a re different from ours.This means that there is no logical necessity that there should be Go d and after life inorder for us to have meaningful life. This is not to deny the fact that belief in God andafter life might be of use to people a s far as their practical life is con cern ed.

8. Is Happiness the Ultimate Goal?In spite of the variety of distinctions we have made so far, we haven? yet

critically exam ined the question: What is the ultimate goal of life? What does itmean to live out our lives with m eaning? What is the ultimate value that give s humanlife its value? What makes life worth living? We have only stated that, according tothe Story of Rishyasringa, the goal of life is to live and that the purusharthas are

31\


19/23

what make life worth living. But there is a strong and widespread view that it isha pp ine ss which is the ultimate goal of life. If happiness is what ma kes life worthliving then it comes in conflict with our contention that the ultimate goal of life is tolive. Therefore an exam ination of the view that happiness is the ultimate value iscalled for before we proceed any further.

That happiness is the ultimate goal and that happiness is what gives human lifeits value is a Utilitarian view. No matter whether they are optim ists or pessim ists, theutilitarians in general hold that everyone desires happiness above all else. If we askabout people who may have no hope of happiness, then some of them do not evenhesitate to suggest that such people should be 'helped to die'. Acc ording to theirthesis, people who cannot contribute to the happiness of others would also deservethis type of timely help.

But this utilitarian thesis does not stand to reason. For the thesis thathappiness is the ultimate goal of life is contradicted by the everyday behavior ofordinary people. Let me quote Dr. Jenny Teichman once again:

Ordinary people wish to go on living even when they are very unhappy. In realitypeople behave as if they believe that just being al ive is intrinsica lly goo d; in realityordinary people behave as if life itself is an ultimate va1ue.10

Is not this behavior instinctive, it might be asked. Yes, it may well be. Butbeing instinctive is not unreasonable. The desire for happiness is also instinctive. Toattribute ultimate value to happiness is like putting the cart before the horse. The factis that we instinctively desire to be happy because that helps us to stay alive, and notthe other way about. It is not that we instinctively want to stay alive in order to be


20/23

happy. T o use a simple analogy, we do not live in order to eat; rather, we eat in orde rto live, even though eating makes us happy and content.

If this is true, then it makes perfect sense to believe that life even withouthappiness is worth living. This implies that even an unhappy life has value. In fact,this is the position that Philippa Foot, one of the few philosophers who have discussedthe question of the intrinsic value of life, has argued for, against utilitarianism.According to her, i t makes perfect sense to believe that life w ithout happiness is worthliving. In her paper 'Euthanasia' she explains how and why it is possible to regardeven an unhappy life as having value.11 One of her important argum ents is this: Afterall what do we mean 'by a 'life worth living'? It means a life worth living for theperson w ho is living it. If this important point that Philippa Foot makes is valid, thenit does not matter whether or not your life is worth anything to anyone else. Forexample, i t does not matter whether or not Vibhandaka's life is worth an ything to theking of Anga, a s far as Vibhandaka is living his life.

9. Life has Intrinsic ValueIn sh ort, what makes life worth living is its intrinsic value. This is true even of

severely handicapped people. In other words, human life, happy or unhappy, i s itselfa good and has a value; this indeed is the way most people usually regard their ownlives.

Though we can confidently say that human life is good in itself, we musthasten to add that it must be an 'ordinary' human life in som e minimum sense. Whatdo we mean by this idea of 'ordinary human life'? It me ans a number of things: It hasa minimum of basic human goods; A person is not driven to work far beyond hishercapacity; He/She has the support of a family or community; HeIShe can hope to


21/23

satisfy his hunger; Helshe h as hopes for the future; Helshe can lie dow n to rest; andso on and s o forth.

To put i t differently,the goal of life is to live. And, to live means that we maynot die before our time; that we may survive and that, more than these, we m ay lov eour life, love others' lives and love one's and others' right to live. In short, four thingsthat make a life 'ordinary' and thus meaningful are: 1. A sense of purpose(motivation); 2. to have someone to love. 3. To have something to do 4. To havesomething to look forward to (hope). These are some of the things that thepurusharthas denote, as we shall see later. That is why we say that the purusharthasare what makes the goal of being alive meaningful.

Two things are obvious from the above observations. one is that the intrinsicvalue of life explicates the conceptual connection between the concep t of life and theconcept of good. For, the 'ordinary' human life just described above is good in itselfand does not necessarily have to be happy to be worth living. The other obvious thingis that Philippa Foot's conclusion concerning the intrins ic value of life fits thefeelings which most people have about their own lives. Thu s, it also follows commonsense - which is not a bad thing at all in philosophy. 'Just to be is a blessing, just tolive is holy,' said Rabbi Abraham Heschel.

10.Unexciting ConclusionsLet US now enumerate the main conclusions that emerge from our discussion

of the mean ing of life. One might find these conc lusions quite unexciting. Bu t thisunexcitedness is not a reason for rejecting it. For, they help solve many a problemthat arise in our interpretation of the purusharthas.


22/23

1. Life is meaningful both in the cosm ic as well a s in the hu man sense. 2.Some lives are meaningful both in the subjective and the objective sense. Gandhiji'slife may be taken as a fitting illustration of this kind of life. 3. Some lives aremeaningful in the subjective sense but may not be meaningful in the objective sense.One might interpret Vibhandaka's life in this sense with some justification. 4. Somelives are meaningful in the objective sense but may not be meaningful in thesubjective sense. The way Vaisali' life is conceived in the Story of Rishyasringa is acase in point. 5 . Some lives are at certain times not meaningful in either thesubjective or objective sense. The life of Judas after the betrayal of Jesu s is oftenunderstood in this sense at least by some christians. 6. Individuals can have goodreasons for feeling pessimistic, as is illustrated by the character Ivan Karamazov. 7.Philosophical pessimism does not stand to reason. 8. Even if we do not believe inGod , ife would be m eaningful. For examp le, few Bu ddhists believe in a god but theybelieve in the sanctity of life. So is the case with som e mem bers of the medicalprofession. 9. Life can be quite meaningful even if God does not exist and even ifthere is no imm ortality and eternity. This is evidenced by the live s of som e atheists.

11.Conclusion

Let us sum up what we have said so far in this section. Life is mean ingful inone sense or another. For, life has intrinsic value and therefore its goal i s to live. Andwhat give content to this goal are the pum sha rth as. How the pu m sh a rt h a s makemeaningful life possible shall become clearer as we go along. For the time being weassume the mutuality of the pu m sh a rt h a s. We will have to analyze this mutualitythough it has already been illustrated by the Story of Rishyasringa. Before thisanalysis, we shall examine the theory of pumsharthas first in general and then inparticular, in next two chapters that follow.


23/23

REFERENCESRg Veda 1.89.1Th e story is summed up from C. Rajagopalachari's M aha bh ara ta, pp.112-116. Thisstory is also found in Ram ay an a, and i s visually told in a recent popularMalayalam Movie titled 'Vaisali'.Sri. Kuttikrishna Mara r gives a detailed analysis of Vyasa'slaughter in his criticalstudy of Mahabharata in malayalam named Bharata paryatanam, pp. 107-114.Arthur Schopenhauer, Th e world a s Will an d Idea, London, 1883, VolI11, p. 383.Clarcnce Darrow, "Is Life Wo nh Living?" APamp hlet, Girard, Kansas, no date.Tolstoy's views as stated in A Confe ssion, th e Gospe l i n Br ie f and W ha t I Believe,translated by Aylmer Mande, London, 1940.Kanadan is the author of the Vaisesika S ut ra s which are pre Buddhistic. Hi s Su tr ascommence to explain virtue (dha rm a) according to which prosperity ( ab hy ud ay a)and salvation (nihsreyasa) are obtained.R. Balasubramanian and V. C. Thomas, eds., Perspectives in Philosoph y Religiona n d Art, Essay s in Honor o f Margaret Chatterjee, Indian Council of Philos ophicalResearch, New Delhi, 19 93, p. 63.Ihid.. p. 65.Ihid.

As quoted by D r. Jenny Teichman in "Philosophy and the Meaning of L ife" inPerspectives in Philosophy Religion an d Art, p. 65.

Purusharthas-07_chapter2.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Purusharthas-07_chapter2.pdf