|
|
August 25, 2002
REVIEW: Epitome of confusion
OUSPENSKY (1878-1947) is an epitome of confusion which was prevalent in the field of philosophy in the early twentieth century. Thinkers were trying to break loose from essentialistic philosophical systems which had so coercively taken possession of peoples minds for the previous few centuries. The element common to all the systems was their insistence on being the only valid way of understanding reality.
Leaving aside the Hegelian tradition, intellectual thought was pre-occupied by Cartesian dualism, and efforts were focussed on reducing spirit to matter or vice versa. There were so many ideas brewing in the cauldron of European tradition that Ouspensky, a lesser mind than Freud or Jung, went around wandering in the arena of thought, hardly being able to decide as what lead he should follow to reach the abode of the ‘real’.
Peter de Maanovich Ouspensky, born in Russia to a soldier father and an artist (painter) mother, must have inherited traits of both parents, i.e., regimentation and free spirit. Not surprisingly his philosophy is a mix of both. He studied Mathematics, an exact science, turned to journalism, an opinionated discipline and then, being a restless soul, turned to theosophy.
Like some of his contemporaries he tried to develop an admixture of religion, mysticism and science, considered it to possess profundity, apparently because he lacked professional rigour in any area of thought. That he was intelligent and could have developed into a robust thinker is evident from his books The fourth dimension (1909) Yoga (extinct) and his magnum opus Tertium organam? (Eng. tr. 1923) which purports to deal with space, time, relativity, gnosticism, cosmic consciousness and which, unfortunately, proved to be a non-starter.
It seems as if Ouspensky himself realized that his efforts have not taken him any where, he started meandering for a miracle, an occult or agnostic experience. Some think that he succeeded, but many more say that he got lost on the way.
Shehzad Ahmad is the optimist and thinks that Ouspensky has still some thing to offer, though professional philosophers would ignore him with a benign smile, as if they do not want to waste their time discussing the ‘philosophy’ of Ouspensky. As an agnostic, Ouspensky has not left an order (silsila) behind him and it is difficult for any one to relate to him as a sufi master. For a scientist he is out of date, and for a philosopher of religion he is irrelevant.
His only relevance is to an uninitiated literate apologetic who still wants to prove the existence of God and life hereafter from the theory of relativity. I am reminded of a famous physicist of Pakistan (not Abdussalam) who once tried to prove the existence of jahannam (hell) by measuring galactic distances, (we have not learned any lessons from philosophy of science).
Let me turn to the five lectures which Shehzad Ahmad has translated and which are, what he calls, extra-curricular psychology. It is difficult to summarize these lectures, because they contain countless ideas strewen all through them. Ouspensky believes that present day psychology is a low level of knowledge. For him Psychology is the ancient-most discipline. His description of the subject points to another area which is closer to gnosis, an area which has been intentionally excluded from psychology as a science discipline.
Ouspensky is not concerned with psychology as a science. He uses it as a means to reveal the mysteries of ‘becoming’ and the possibilities of human evolution. By evolution he means the development of the inner faculties through which a person transforms oneself into a different ‘type of being’. It is a process of knowing oneself, a process though which he transcends his/her mechanical existence into a totality of consciousness. This sort of transformation cannot be achieved by every one, because human kind in general lacks motivation to do so. They are content with a routinized life and achievements. It requires an extraordinary effort to get initiated into a realm beyond every day self existence, which is only an illusion of self-unity.
The procedure to achieve this transformation requires a new definition of terms such as evolution, consciousness, will, self knowledge, thinking processes, emotions and feelings, instincts and gender. That Ouspensky has been able to set all these concepts with their new nuances into a complete system of philosophy or metaphysics is questionable.
He is not a systematic theoretician like Ibn-al Arabi (d. 638,h) nor a practising sufi like Abul Hasan Ali Hajveri (d. 470,h.) or Shahabuddin Suharwardy (d. 636,h.). The practices which he suggests are a mix of various systems interspersed with terms used by different positive sciences and psychological disciplines. For instance in his third lecture he tries to lay down the condition which a person must fulfil to achieve the non-mechanical existence.
He claims (wrongly) that science does not know that human beings do not work to their maximum capacity and that there are possibilities that human ability can be enhanced to higher levels. The primary condition is to know one’s own, propensities and possibilities. (How one is to know them Ouspensky does not say).
He admits that it is not possible to lay down all conditions which have to be fulfilled for a person to ascend on the scale of ‘spiritual evolution’. One of the condition is the establishment of a ‘school’ where such training can be imparted. Such a school cannot be established in countries governed by dictators (Russia, Germany, Italy and Turkey during the days of Ouspensky).
Here he quotes ‘Law of Manu’ which, he thinks, provides the foundations to understand the socio-political conditions for a progressive society. Ouspensky does not admit a pluralistic perception of being. There is only one way of understanding the real which is through a ‘system’, without and beyond this system all knowledge is chimerical, which may be helpful for ordinary living, but which is not knowledge in the real sense of the word. Unfortunately the modern reader will not be able to comprehend the essence of these lectures: they are pathetically confusing.
In the second half of the twentieth century special skills to analyze metaphysical problems and understand ontological and cosmological issues were developed from the analytical point of view. In the light of which Ouspensky’s thought would be characterized as confused and mixed up - the product of a rambling mind searching for a reality which may or may not be there to find.
I may be slightly harsh in judging Ouspensky’s philosophy, but looking at it against the backdrop of sufism or yoga, both of which are very strong systems of thought and praxis it does look naive and elementary. Naturally when some one tries to create an intercultural amalgam it becomes problematic. Every culture has its nuances and it may be well nigh impossible to translate the concepts of one culture into another. To understand any cultural system one has to ‘live it’ however partially it may be. Using modern tools of science, or modern language of psychology for understanding yoga or tasawaf would be faulty hermeneutics.
Reviewer’s email: sjw@uit.edu
Ouspensky: neend aur adat ke khalaf
By Shehzad Ahmad
Sang-e-Meel Publications, 20 Shahrah-i-Pakistan, Lahore Tel: 042-7220100.
Email: smp@sang-e-meel.com
ISBN 969-35-150-4 296pp. Rs250
|
|
|
