Is Sartre’s Existentialism Contradicting Gita?

Acharya Prashant

7 min
743 reads
Is Sartre’s Existentialism Contradicting Gita?
They don't contradict each other. Existentialists like Sartre argue that humans cannot suppress consciousness and are 'condemned to be free.' We are born without a predetermined purpose—existence precedes essence. You exist first and must then discover your essence. In the spirit of 'Neti Neti' (neither this nor that), no external force can define your essence; it is your freedom to consciously determine what life is for. This summary has been created by volunteers of the PrashantAdvait Foundation

Questioner: You mentioned that if you exist, you have to fret about the future, and you often also mention Sartre, who talks about existential philosophy, which puts radical emphasis on personal freedom. I'm just assuming that is in the context of the present moment, and his words are, ‘Man is condemned to be free.’ I think that brings an existential angst.

On the other hand, Shrimad Bhagavad Gita talks about liberation of the ego and unity with nature. I don't have a clear sense of how these are exactly complementing each other and how they contradict each other.

Acharya Prashant: They don't contradict each other. You see, what the existentialists including Sartre were saying was that the nature of the human being is such that even if you want to suppress or disown consciousness, you will not succeed. So, man is condemned to be free.

And in that sense, Sartre would often quote a chair. He would take the example of a chair. He would say, ‘The chair's existence, its purpose, are all determined by somebody else.’ Form, purpose, everything is determined by somebody else. The chair exists for the sake of others. The chair has no volition over its present condition.

And the chair will also not mind, or if it does mind, we do not know. Whereas human beings, they are born without a predetermined purpose.

So, existentialism says that existence precedes essence. What does that mean? You exist and then you have to discover your essence.

Right?

Questioner: Right.

Acharya Prashant: Which means essentially in the language of ’Neti Neti’ that nobody outside of you can supply you with your essence. Right?

You are born as a baby and that's just existence. And then, it is part of your freedom to consciously determine what life is for. What life is for. Now, the nihilist would step in and say, ‘Life is for nothing.’ The absurdist would come and say, ‘It is impossible to reconcile a purposeful human being with a purposeless universe, which is fine. Even these three can be shown to be consistent with each other. That is all right.

But what you have to take from the existentialists is that they are very fiercely refusing any external dictation of human life and life's purpose. You're saying, ‘You and only you; Go and find out what this life is for.’ Your essence has to come from you, not from an external source.

Questioner: You can ask for a small clarification. So, I think there's mention of existential angst in his writings. And I guess, that can come from, you know, even choosing to operate from an internal campus. But I guess, from what I understood in the words today, and otherwise also, that there is less or almost no existential angst. I think when you choose to submit to your…

Acharya Prashant: Your nature is to be free and the society you are born in, the family, the education system, the economic system— they are commanding you all the time to follow, to serve, to just beat the common path. That's angst. In general, there is nothing around you to whisper in your ears that liberation is possible and that's angst. The external situations are never in sync with our inner natural demand.

The society that Sartre is coming from— France, Europe of the last century, you see— they were still not really so much attuned to Vedantic philosophy that they could declare right at the outset that Mukti is ’Swabhav’.

And because France was recovering from the travails of the second world war, it had become all the more important to rebuild, construct, give a structure to the nation and the economy and everything. Therefore, there has to be followership. Therefore, patterns have to be adhered to. And none of that can ever be in harmony with your inner nature to never follow any pattern or any dictum. Are you getting it?

And that's angst.

Something within me is not prepared to take lessons from anywhere. And yet the world is hell-bent on doling lessons at every step.

This one doles out lessons, that one does. And you know my grandmother, my teacher, my boss, my prime minister, my priest, all of them want to shape me in their predetermined ways and they also show me benefits and yet there is something within, that just won't agree. That's angst. That's angst.

Out of this angst, you got that cultural revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s. So much happened in Europe at that time. And that was definitely a revolution because we don't want to, you remember, ‘We don't need no education.’ That's that.

“All in all, it's just another brick in the wall.”

I don't want to just follow that same pattern. We don't need no education. Teacher, Leave the kids alone because everybody was trying to cast the newcomer in his own desire and image.

Questioner: Yeah, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think so. Well, I have a related question but I don't want to take time from other people.

Acharya Prashant: You may continue, please. Everybody will benefit.

Questioner: So, I think there's an idea from ten years or maybe twenty years ago from simulated reality that we are living in a simulated reality by Nick Bostrom. And I guess, he proposes three options in his paper.

I don't exactly remember the option but the conclusion was that there's an external agent that is controlling us and that could be seen as analogous to us submitting to truth in some way and liberation of the ego. But I don't know if there's any value in actually having all these different ways of thinking. Us being in a simulation and it challenges the concept of free will in some way.

So the question really is, ‘Is there value in trying to meld all these theories into one theory, or treat them as very separate?’

Acharya Prashant: The term is not really about sifting through the various theories or even trying to regularize or harmonize them. All spirituality begins from a single point—the point of suffering. If I am all right, joyful; being in a simulated world, then I don't need to challenge it. The problem is not whether or not, all this is virtual, simulated, real, fake, determined by somebody else, or is it a proxy life I'm living. All that is not really the central question.

The central question is, ‘Am I all right?’

Questioner: Yeah, I think the reason I said it is because you mentioned to see— ’sabko ek dekho.’ In other words, ‘Try to see things as unity, see diversity as a common expression of something more beautiful, more common.

So I think in that spirit, I try to put this forward but yes I think, I totally hear what you're saying. Thank you.

Acharya Prashant: Welcome.

This article has been created by volunteers of the PrashantAdvait Foundation from transcriptions of sessions by Acharya Prashant
Comments
LIVE Sessions
Experience Transformation Everyday from the Convenience of your Home
Live Bhagavad Gita Sessions with Acharya Prashant
Categories