Part 1
The Great Chain
Ravindra Svarupa Dasa endeavours to help devotees
understand a certain mentality which he calls 'modern historical
consciousness, often encountered when dealing with modern intellectuals
and academics. He shows how this consciousness arose out of the
breakdown of the worldview that dominated Europe from the second
until the eighteenth centuries. That worldview had striking similarities
to the Vedic world picture that ISKCON devotees have learned from
the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa suggests that
in preaching Krsna consciousness we are not introducing something
new in Western thought; rather we are bringing back to Western thought
something it has lost.
The mentality I call 'historical consciousness' stands as one of
the pillars of the modern outlook. Historical consciousness is the
disposition to perceive every human and natural phenomenon as something
given birth and form by the actions of historical forces; indeed
such phenomenon are viewed as essentially temporal, constituted
by a process that is articulated in developmental and evolutionary
terms.
This sort of thinking is second nature to modern
people. They seek to understand things in the world by delving into
their pasts, by learning how they got that way over the course of
time, how they grew and developed historically. The systematic application
of such historical consciousness is the common ground of three great
patriarchs of the modern world, Darwin, Marx and Freud, who propounded
theories of historical development to explain the natural world,
human society and individual human psyche respectively. While people
may disagree about one such theory or another, they do not question
the historical outlook itself and are apt to assume that it is the
natural and self-evident way of looking humankind and the world.
Yet, as will become apparent, historical consciousness has emerged
fairly recently in European history. In other words, historical
consciousness is itself an historical phenomenon.
'Cause' implies that it has an origin, and whatever
has a beginning will also have an end; indeed the word 'cure' suggests
that it should end. In some respects, therefore, this is
an historical account of historical consciousness itself, and it
may be that I will participate quite lavishly in it even as I advocate
its demise. However true this is, I do not believe this makes it
contradictory or hypocritical.
As a modern thinker, my mind has been thoroughly
steeped - even pickled - in 'modern historical consciousness', although
I recognise this inherited mentality as 'non-Vedic'. Having now
engaged myself in the practices of Krsna consciousness, I could
simply wait for it to go away along with other forms of material
conditioning. However, one discovers that when modern historical
consciousness comes under the sustained scrutiny of its own gaze
- when historical consciousness is examined historically - things
are uncovered that help free oneself from its grasp. Srila Prabhupada
compares such a procedure to felling a tree with an axe whose handle
is fashioned from the tree's own limb. It is therefore important
to recognise that this particular way of viewing the world does
have a history. It started to develop in Europe during the latter
half of the eighteenth century, reached full flower in the nineteenth
and, of course, continues largely unabated today. Yet modern thinkers
who see the historicity of everything, tend to overlook the historicity
of their own historical consciousness. They fail to recognise it
as contingent, peculiar and subject to destruction - even self-destruction
- in the course of time.
Modern historical consciousness arose as the chief expression
of a vast shift of consciousness that took place in Europe in the
eighteenth century. To understand the particular form it took, we
have to first look at the standard worldview that had dominated
Europe from Christian times up to that date. The general conception
of that worldview is summarised in the expression 'the great chain
of being'. The history of this important idea was investigated by
Arthur O. Lovejoy, an American philosopher, Arthur O. Lovejoy. He
published his work under the title The Great Chain of Being:
A Study in the History of an Idea (Cambridge: Harvard University,
1936; paperback reprint, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960). This
book originated as a series of lectures delivered at Harvard University
in 1993. Lovejoy's impressive study established him as pioneer in
the field of 'history of ideas' and at the same time established
the history of ideas as a recognised academic discipline, an event
that in itself was a benchmark in the advancement of modern historical
consciousness.
Lovejoy traces the idea of the great chain of being
back into its entrance into Western culture through Plato (especially
the famous fifth and sixth books of Plato's epic work, The Republic).
The idea of the chain of being is ultimately connected with the
concept of what we will call here the Absolute Truth: that is, the
self-existent ultimate source of all there is. This concept is clearly
articulated in Plato's dialogue on cosmology, the Tamaeus.
Although Plato suggests that direct spiritual experience
lies at the foundation of his doctrine of the Absolute Truth, philosophically
he arrives at this concept through a sustained process of abstraction;
gradually rising from the concrete individuals of sense experience,
through the realm of the 'forms' or 'ideas', to the Absolute Truth
itself.
Many people are vaguely acquainted with the Platonic
idea of an unchanging realm of 'ideas' or ideal 'forms' - the Greek
word for 'idea' or 'form' being eidon. When 'Platonic form'
is mentioned to an ISKCON devotee, he or she usually thinks of rupa,
believing the 'realm of ideal forms' to be similar to Goloka Vrndavana,
with all its different spiritual forms or bodies. This comparison
is quite erroneous, however, as in Plato's realm of 'forms' there
are no individuals but rather a collection of abstract essences,
each of which corresponds to a class name. For example, there are
no cows or humans in the physical sense but there is a single 'form'
for 'cow' and one for 'human'. In other words, when you have the
word 'cow', there's some objective essence of 'cowness' that corresponds
to that word. Therefore, all the individual entities denoted by
the word 'cow' must share a common essence.
According to Plato, this essence has an eternal existence
independent from all particular cows. Cows may come and go but go-tva,
the 'form' of cow, remains and is found with other such abstract
essences in a higher realm of 'ideas'. Incidentally, the philosophical
doctrine that the essences or referents of class names objectively
exist outside the mind in some way or other, is called 'realism',
the opposite doctrine being 'nominalism'.
There is some truth to Plato's realism. Although the
transcendental realm of Vaikuntha (vadam padam) scarcely
resembles Plato's realm of ideas, the realm of forms does seem to
closely correspond to what the Vedic traditions regard as existent
- the Vedas themselves.
It is said the Vedas are eternal, while the material
world is temporary. It may be asked how this is possible when the
Vedas contain the names of temporary entities -'Indra', 'Candra'
and so on - all of whom are destroyed during the dissolution. The
answer is that the names of the demigods, as well as other names
like 'tree', 'cow' etc., are names of types - or rather archetypes
- which are instantiated in concrete particulars whenever there
is a creation.
The Vedas therefore contain the blueprints and
assembly instructions for all creation in the material world. Brahma,
the created creator, becomes impregnated with the Vedas (veda-garbha
) and thus inspired, brings into manifestation the material world.
Interestingly, the Timaeus of Plato also posits a creator
god - known as demiurgos in Greek - who has a vision of the
Absolute Truth and of the form, and is able to insubstantiate those
forms in pre-existing matter, thus imposing order on chaos. According
to the Bhagavatam, Lord Brahma ( the Vedic creator deity)
has a similar direct vision of Vaikuntha and Goloka Vrndavan (as
recorded in the Brahma-samhita), but Plato gives no indication
of any knowledge of a realm of transcendental variegatedness; the
Absolute Truth is described in impersonal terms The Platonic realm
of ideal forms, which is subordinate to that Truth, does not therefore
(as some devotees have claimed) correspond to the spiritual world
(although it seems to closely parallel the Vedas). It is
also possible to find a correspondence between the Platonic forms
and the creative potentiality latent in the brahmajyoti .
We know from the Vedas that the brahmajyoti contains the
bija (seeds) for all the species in the world, and that Brahma
creates by making the various seeds manifest. The biya seems
to be like a Platonic form, at least as these forms are understood
in later Neoplatonism (where they are thought to possess a creative
potency).
By a process of abstraction, Plato arrives at the
idea of a realm containing a multiplicity of ideal forms or separated,
abstract essences. He carries this speculative ascent still further
and concludes that all these forms must have a single, ultimate
source, which is the Form of the forms themselves. For example,
each individual cow is a cow by virtue of its participating in the
form of 'cow'. In the same way, each form is a form by virtue of
its participating in the Form of forms. The process of abstraction
is thus carried one final step further to the Form of all forms,
the essence of all essences. Plato called this 'the Form of the
Good'. In fact, three different names are given to this ultimate
source - the Good, the True and the Beautiful.
This triple characterisation corresponds fairly closely
to the Vedic characterisation of Brahman as sat (the Good),
cit (the True) and ananda (the Beautiful). The Form
of the Good is thus extremely abstract; the source of everything
it can be defined only by negation - it is completely ineffable,
or inexpressible, in words. At the apex of Plato's ontology - and
at the root of much of subsequent European theological thought -
is a fairly standard version of the well-known impersonal Absolute.
The Form of the Good is perfect, self-sufficient, self-contained
and needs nothing other than itself. Yet it boils over, as it were,
effervesces, and out of the immutable One devolves the world of
changing things. Here's a single entity without name, form, diversity,
multiplicity of any sort, and then out of it wells, in a falling
away from perfection, a multiplicity - initially of abstract essences,
the realm of the forms. Those forms then engender a further multiplicity
and instantiate themselves into a gross material world of concrete
individuals.
Lovejoy points out that two contrary tendencies are
fused in the Platonic idea of the Absolute. On the one side, there
is an 'other-worldliness' which produces the idea of a remote, detached,
self-contained, self-sufficient Absolute in no need of any other
creature, any other thing, or, indeed, of any world at all. On the
other side, there is the idea of an Absolute that needs to create,
to express itself, to bubble over with joy or zest, to become many.
In the Platonic scheme, the impersonal Absolute cannot,
of course, make a free decision to create; rather, the world flows
from it out of its own necessity.
Lovejoy clearly detects a contradiction in Plato's articulation
of the impersonal Absolute. In all consistency, there should be
no creation at all. Emanation entails a personal Absolute, a being
which completes itself, attains self-fulfilment, in relationship
with others. Therefore, the linking of a world, or creation, with
an impersonal absolute is not acceptable, as Sankaracarya later
realised.
Sankara is more single-minded and consistent than Plato
in analysing the implications of the 'other worldliness' that produces
the conception of the impersonal Absolute. He believes that Brahman
does not produce a world, being devoid of energies, one without
a second. The world is false, therefore, an illusory superimposition
on the Absolute and not an emanation from it - but that's another
story!
An influential Neoplatonic school of thought arose
during the Hellenistic period which resulted in the platonic concept
of the Absolute and its emanations undergoing further development
and dissemination. From there it decisively entered into mainstream
Christian thought through two theologians: St. Augustine (who prior
to his conversion was greatly influenced by the writings of Plotinus,
a pagan Neoplatonist) and a mystical theologian who wrote under
the name of Dionysius of Areopagite. This latter name originally
appears in the Acts of the Apostle as that of the convert made by
St. Paul while the latter was preaching at the Hills of Mars in
Athens (Areopagus). The writings of Dionysius - four treatises of
mystical theology, deeply Neoplatonic in nature - originally surfaced
in Europe around AD sixth century. Christian authorities accepted
them as the works of a direct disciple of St. Paul and therefore
considered them highly authoritative. It was not until the seventeenth
century that scholars looked more critically at these writings,
concluding that the ideas they contained indicated a much later
date of origin. The author is now thought to be a fifth century
Syrian monk, referred to as 'pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite'.
The writings of 'psuedo Dionysius' are notable for a
radical theology of negation and the elaborate articulation of the
idea of 'hierarchy' (derived from the Greek hieros [holy]
and arche [order], and meaning 'sacred' or holy 'order').
According to the hierarchical theory, the structure of being is
a divine order with God as its origin and cause. From the Absolute
the rest of reality proceeds in the form of ordered, graded steps,
each step further from the origin bringing a unit decrease in being
or power. At the top of the hierarchy is the One, the ultimate perfection;
at the bottom is chaos. A good theologian will conclude that the
span from the lowest level to the beginning of the hierarchy is
infinite.
According to The Heavenly Hierarchy of Dionysius,
God is followed by the Angelic hierarchies which consist of nine
tiers in descending rank: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations,
Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels,and Angels. Medieval
Christians took angels very seriously with each rank thought to
be responsible for running a corresponding level of the material
cosmos, which was also hierarchical in structure and consisted of
a descending level of spheres centred on the fixed earth. The outer
edge was, according to Aristotle, the primum mobile, which
imparted motion to the spheres below. The primum mobile was
followed by the fixed stars then Saturn Jupiter, Mars, the Sun,
Venus, Mercury, and the Moon.
Dionysius also found a correspondence between the
angelic and celestial hierarchies, and the ecclesiastical hierarchies
here on earth. In this way, everything has its proper place within
the whole. Those entities higher up the ladder, closer to God, partake
more of the divine nature - have greater perfection - than those
below, yet everything is perfect in its own place.
During the middle ages and beyond, European thinkers
continuously thought about the implications of the idea of the great
chain of being. One of the consequences of this is the notion that
there could be no gaps, no missing forms, in the hierarchical ladder
of creation. This 'principle of plenitude' was inspired by the idea
that the production of the world out of the Absolute proceeds by
necessity and not by arbitrary, capricious decree. If that is so,
what particular forms does it produce? There can only be one answer:
all possible forms. If some forms were absent, creation would have
been an arbitrary, irrational act; however the Absolute is, above
all, logical and rational, hence the principle of plenitude.
Creation therefore exhibits a lavish profusion of
forms organised unto a unified, rational order of being - a single
overarching hierarchy. The hierarchical order of the whole is in
turn mirrored within each of its sub-divisions. Each category of
beings neatly reflects the order of the whole - hierarchies nested
within hierarchies. As God is supreme among all beings, so the king
is supreme among men, the lion among animals, the eagle among birds,
the dolphin among aquatics, gold among minerals, ether among elements.
Thus the magnificent and awesome order of creation, in which the
same clear stamps of the divine exhibits itself everywhere, opens
itself to the contemplative mind which in turn receives a great
deal of satisfaction in meditating on its fullness, rationality
and sublime harmony.
The eventual collapse of the great chain of being
- which Frederick Nietzsche later described as the 'murder of God'
- was an immense and revolutionary change in consciousness, which
was so profound that modern Westerners now have to approach their
not-so-distant past as something completely foreign and strange.
It is also interesting to note that the worldview of the Gaudiya
Vaisnava tradition, recently exported from India into the West,
should so profoundly resemble that of the great chain of being which
dominated the West for so long.
One of the most elegant and concise descriptions of the great chain
of being was expressed by Alexander Pope in a poem composed at the
end of the eighteenth century:
Vast chain of being!
Which from God began,
nature's ethereal, human, angel, man,
beast, bird, fish, insect, what no eye can see,
no glass can reach, from Infinite to thee,
from thee to nothing
In the modern era of rapid turnover in ideas and ideologies, the
sheer persistence of the idea of the great chain over the centuries
may seem astonishing. For example, early in the fifth century Macrobius
presented this condensed version of Plotinus's doctrines:
Since, from the Supreme God Mind arises and from Mind,
Soul, and since this in turn creates all subsequent things and
fills them all with life, and since the single radiance illuminates
all and is reflected in each as a single face might be reflected
in many mirrors placed in a series; and since all things follow
in continuous succession, degenerating in sequence to the very
bottom of the series, the attentive observer will discover a connection
of parts from the Supreme God down to the last dregs of things,
mutually linked together and without a break. And this is Homer's
golden chain (from Jupiter) which God, he says, bade down
from heaven to earth.
Naturally the theory of the great chain underwent a great deal
of development and modification over the years. For example, an
attempt to cement the Christian revelation of a personal creator
onto the Neoplatonic concept of impersonal emanation met with limited
success. In orthodox Christian thought, creation has to be an act
of free will, yet whenever theologians tried to think about creation,
the idea that it was an emanation born out of necessity arose.
There is one aspect of the chain that has not been considered by
philosophers such as Lovejoy. It is intrinsic within the Platonic
and Neoplatonic concept that not only is the chain a structure descending
from God but it also serves as a ladder of ascent for the soul going
back to God. In the Christian context, this path of ascent could
only be followed in contemplation, as the mind rose step by step
to the summit. In the original Platonic and Neoplatonic context,
however, the chain was not only a path for contemplation but also
for the ascent of the soul through the process of transmigration.
Christian philosophers retained the idea of the chain
as a path leading up to God but the Church rejected the allied doctrine
of transmigration of the soul. One of the consequences of this was
eventually an increasing sense of stasis, of frustration. The possibility
of evolving up the chain through one's improved karma is
absent - you are stuck where you are. The hierarchies of human society
are seamlessly part of the cosmic universal hierarchy, and gradually
the whole system began to seem enormously oppressive to many people.
The idea of transmigration having been
rejected, individual progress within the world system was also ruled
out. The concept of the great chain naturally supported an ongoing
social and political conservatism; the perfection for each person
consisted of conforming to the requirements of his own place and
not striving to rise to another (an idea also found in the Bhagavad-gita).
However, people still need some sort of prospect for progress. The
loss of the notion of transmigration, once an integral part of the
idea of the chain, turned the social conservatism of the hierarchy
into oppression; when in frustration common people sought to overthrow
kings and nobles for self-advancement, they brought down with them
the whole cosmos, and the chain collapsed.
This event was part and parcel of the disappearance
of the Absolute Truth, the God of Parminides Plato and Plotinus,
the root of existence as a coherent, divinely ordered structure.
On their deepest level, Shakespeare's great tragedies, Hamlet and
Othello, chronicle this collapse; their protagonists face the most
dire consequences when they transgress the proper actions of their
ordained place in the divine scheme. This is why Othello says of
his chaste wife: 'When I love thee not, chaos is come again' and
the villain Iago expresses explicit disbelief in the idea that any
of us have ordained natures or essences, proclaiming that it is
only in our wills that we are what we are. Edmund, the Bastard,
the villain in King Lear, has a new vision of nature - one not of
order and harmony but of strife and struggle, a nature whose gods
will 'now stand up for bastards!' Shakespeare's villains all speak
modern philosophy: the foundations were shaking even in his time
and he felt it deeply. His heroes peered into the abyss.
Lovejoy has an interesting observation to make about the collapse
of the chain; because it had structure, it did not simply plunge
the world into chaos. If the chain can be imagined as a rigid ladder,
when it lost its transcendental mooring in the divine it did not
crumble into a disordered heap but rather fell over onto its side.
Retaining its sequential hierarchical structure, the chain became
temporalised; its axis was no longer the vertical, ontological axis
from chaos to God but a horizontal axis from the primitive chaos
of the past to present human development and the future progression
towards greater and greater perfection. This transposition of the
axis of the chain of being is the origin of modern historical consciousness.
|
Print
this page |
