5 July 2012
Every day in our life we often
come across the faults committed by us or by others. If we are keen observer of
ourselves, then we can easily notice what wrong we did. We just require to
stop, think, realize and resolve within the time of no harm and
then move ahead with the enthusiasm to meet our goals and satisfaction. While I
was reading, I came to understand that, “A fault of character is wholly
different from fault of understanding. When character is just about going wrong
and has not yet formed into habit, there is always the possibility of remorse
and repentance. An emotion of greed or envy, after it has polluted an act, may
well bring on repentance in its train, and the person improves. But a faulty
understanding knows no mode of correction beyond itself. It is indeed true that
errors of emotion may become so frequent as to form into a habit and a
character so that the light issuing from understanding becomes increasingly
feeble”.
In such a case, the cure to a bad
habit must come from within the realm of habits themselves, although
understanding never ceases to be an aid, and a necessary aid. But insincerity,
bribe-taking, arrogant or degrading ambition, and the like, however
reprehensible, are not so disastrous to public life and private conduct as a
faulty understanding. A fault of understanding knows no remorse. It just keeps
on rolling. It may even exult in itself until disaster overtakes it.
This is not to say that effort to remove a
fault of character is any less necessary than that to remove a fault of understanding; this is only a plea to
consider folly or stupidity just as great an enemy of man as insincerity or
greed. The religious type, however, is depravedly interested in motive, and
will almost pardon a crime if no bad motives went with it (lack of mens rhea). But
who can tell of motives, for to delve into the human heart may be at one end
like diving into a fathomless sea and at another running after a mirage?
The science of motivology (motivation)
is either spurious or impossibly difficult to practice. Therefore, Knowledge
should concern itself more with faults of understanding. Without a doubt, bad habits
must be weeded out and character should improve. Even in this , the discerning
light of understanding is of the utmost importance, and in any case, faults
of character and of knowledge must be considered separately for purposes of
analysis. Why is it that such errors of understanding can creep into the
human mind and it is bedevilled but feels that it is right ?
I will refer you to some very
prevalent beliefs, particularly amongst us i.e. socialists. Some of us pertain
to the unity between theory and practice. What does this unity mean? It has
come to mean something to do with our ideas about the ideal and the actual as
two separate indentities, but we sometimes see our ideal in the actual, like children,
for whom the mother or the father is the ideal. The ideal and the actual then
tend to coalesce in some embodiment. This fallacy of idealization of the actual often creeps into man’s thought. Social philosophies also err in it. Every
one of us whether Hegelians, Marxists, Capitalists, or Gandhians are all
vitiated by this method of understanding. The European mind has sought to place
progress in historical events as they unfold themselves. Society is progressing
continually. Philosophies of continual progress err in seeing the ultimate
picture in the existing present.
I would like you to understand
that set of mind where It is not to sold something outside itself. It is like your own.
Conditions must be studied before
they can be improved upon. There is often no effort in the human mind to
investigate the real conditions but a frequent attempt to advise, exhort, and
give moral precepts. One should never identify what is with what ought to be. This
effort at identifying the ideal with the actual continues till death, and love
is mainly responsible for it, but it always results in the loss of the capacity
to investigate and understand. To the
communist, Russia is the manifestation of current progress and his unquestioned
ideal. Similarly, capitalists idealize progress in America. Thus the use of
critical faculties to see, to examine, and to understand degenerates into
idealizing a thing when seen in relation to something one likes or abusing it
when seen in relation to something one dislikes. Under such a fallacy, the
human mind either justifies or attacks but ceases to understand. In this
respect, people who accept non-violence are no different. They too merely
accept an ideal but do not understand it. The ideal is accepted in speech but
not the critical faculties.
To my knowledge and belief -- After
Mahatma Gandhi no man has made the attempt to accept an ideal through the mind.
You should be amply warned against trying to justify or attack. You should seek
to understand."
I am sincerely thankful for our Leaders to provide us a way to walk.
Regards.
