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.
