FATALISM AND PESSIMISM IN MODERN THEORIES

We are repeatedly informed that what we think and do is caused by some influence like heredity, evolutionary development, environmental pressure, social norms, mind-determining psychological conditioners and so on. Such scientific determinism would eliminate any understanding of our own potentiality for change. The defeatist sense of powerlessness would have pacified everyone were it not for that fact that there is something very healthy in us which enables us to resist even the seeming 'inevitable'. What that 'something' is does not fall within the pale of science.

All kinds of fatalism deny the power of the individual to transcend the inner and outer conditions of life, to alter oneself and to change society. To blame the ills of life wholly on society or 'the system', be it monopoly capitalism, socialism, an elite class or whoever, is to alienate oneself, making oneself a passive victim of factors beyond one's control. To deny personal responsibility, such as by blaming criminality exclusively on a social or political system, on a bad environment, material poverty and so on is a fallacy. This is shown by all those who had a similar start in life but were upright and honest instead. At most, such objective factors should only be called upon as 'extenuating circumstances'. By now the ills of self-defeatism and dependency upon others - not least on a State that is made responsible for many things - are becoming well-recognised.

Contributing to fatalistic science were three major theories that had great influence on most aspects of Western thought, though the major figures of Eastern thought remained unimpressed. Darwin's evolutionary theory makes the human being appear as a species arising by natural selection under given environmental conditions, our development being driven only by the biological necessity of survival. Freud's psychology of the unconscious similarly made a person virtually the victim of forces and drives largely, or even entirely, beyond awareness and control. In a parallel manner, Marx and Engels' ideas of 'historical necessity' also made the individual seem a powerless pawn of vast movements of societies according to mass economic trends. Wedded ideologically to scientism, as in the case of these theories with each their sweeping generalisations of universal scope, a powerful brew of flawed ideas arose that accented the powerlessness of the individual. It is now known how nearly communism seemed to achieve, and so virtually to prove, the individual's suppression. It is not yet widely understood, however, how a similar anti-transcendental mentality underlies the scientific biologism and psychologism that was laid down by Darwin and Freud and which live on in many and various shapes and forms in very much contemporary thought. Biologism is the attempt to interpret everything in terms of evolution and/or genetic and other micro-biological processes.

It has long been recognised that natural selection does not secure the survival of a species as such but its reproduction. There is a current resurgence in Darwinian theory due to its apparent relevance to new discoveries concerning genetic selection and the reproduction of pathogens and anti-bodies. Pathogens evolve genetically in response to anti-bodies in blood (human and animal etc.) and to new environments (such as bio-chemical drugs and other technological methods of combating pathogens), thus ensuring their own continued reproduction. The same applies to insects, most importantly disease-carriers that evolve new genes to survive insecticides etc.

However, key facts counteract this renewed faith in the idea that natural selection improves a species adjustment to its environment. For why does not the human species develop so as to eliminate its age-old weaknesses? These include back problems (due mainly to the shift from all fours to upright posture), birth genetic defects, diseases in general including cancer and simpler ailments like haemorrhoids or hernia. That natural selection has not led to human adjustment to the environment through the gradual disappearance or 'deselection' of these ailments is an argument against the Darwinian hypothesis. On the other hand, mankind can also manipulate the environment to adjust it to the organism's needs, which it does through medicine and many kinds of labour-saving and pain-reducing technology as well as social policies.

To see this technological 'extension of human limbs' - and computers as extensions of the human brain - as a result of natural selection is unreasonable, for human industry and organisation and such choices now open to mankind as the manipulation of genes - even in pathogens - are not 'natural selections' but rather represent the new dimension of human or 'artificial' selection. Darwinism is still only a natural scientific theory, not one capable of accounting for the purposes, or motives and goals, that are the chief distinguishing feature of policy choices. It has therefore at best very little relevance to the understanding of individual psychology or the study of human society and culture besides.

The main popular misconceptions arising from biologism come of its over-identification of human nature with that of animals. This is often to cover over the human potential to the 'higher life'. Human values, implicit and explicit, are a very large part of what goes to distinguish the human being from the animal; without them an individual's life is no better than that of any animal... and is probably even worse in vital respects. The body and the senses and certain other qualities of instinct and natural 'intelligence' are doubtless shared with animals, in which they are often superior to us. Yet the growth of human psyche is quite another matter with its unprecedented aims of self-knowledge, living according to values and striving towards the goal of evolution in realisation of the full potency of the Overself. These represent the 'first and final cause' of the growth of harmonious psyche. No form of scientific thought is capable of investigating this level of 'spiritual causation' because self-realisation is not an integral part of such thinking.

The predominance of determinism in the sciences has at the same time and perhaps paradoxically been counteracted by increasing popular belief in and assertion of the free will and by so-called liberal ideas about freedom on all social fronts. Today's excessive liberality, however, would give everyone a free pass to behave as they wish. This mistaken form of 'freedom' is confused mere license. It fails to observe sufficiently that all actions bring reactions, so that each person is always shaping their own future destiny. The only secure way of setting reasonable protective limits on personal freedom, lie in understanding the need for self-discipline and taking responsibility for oneself. Unless a person practices certain forms of self-restraint and mind-control, genuine spiritual development and self-realisation are impossible.

VOLUNTARISM IN PRACTICE

Pessimism as to the potentiality of self-change is based only on past experiences, particularly of a negative or pathological kind. Yet faith in the human capacity to change, even after very long periods of negative experience and behaviour, is also based on realism, a much broader form of empirical observation than allowed of by research that is largely bound both by and to much modern Western culture and scientism.

One classical objection to the view that humans may always be held responsible for their (conscious) actions is the argument as to psychological incapacity. This takes many forms. There are legal absolutions from blame due to 'mental illness' at the time of an act. There is the view that 'blames' the environment, such as a highly oppressive or deprived family background in childhood or being otherwise socially under-privileged.

All objections to the burden of responsibility, however, can have but limited application at best. They do not invalidate the thesis of voluntarism with its unavoidable consequence of responsibility. The fact that ideas of 'reduced responsibility' have been greatly widened in many ways and respects in the post-war era, both on psychological and sociological grounds, to include many more cases or types of circumstance and behaviour has itself contributed to the failure of people to take responsibility. Irresponsibility soon becomes to seem the natural and even right state of affairs. Worse still, this mystification of people's own actions has placed a burden on all kinds of therapists to try to cure them of failings and problems of which they alone can eventually cure themselves. These attitudes have become conventionalised, both by incorporation into many of the legal codes (particularly of 'liberal nations') and by institutionalisation in the treatment of mental health through many treatment methods, through norms, rules and practices in psychiatric hospitals and in the attitudes of the medical profession generally.

PERSONAL FREEDOM AND CONSEQUENCES

To be regarded as one's own master, responsible firstly to oneself, does not deny people's responsibility for their actions and the consequences. Paradoxically, therefore, responsibility to oneself includes responsibility to society, to which one is inseparably related. Vedanta recognises this in identifying the self in essence with the Overself, which is the true Self and which is also embodied in everyone.

Throughout life, the individual repeatedly makes basic or 'existential' choices, such as what course to pursue, what or who to become, how one wishes to live, which principles to follow, what to believe or not etc., and some of these may, whether through habitual accumulation or else through self-fulfilling experience, become virtually irrevocable. Even at the level of thought alone, tendencies can eventually become so binding that only a major personal upheaval may hope to alter their course. It is doubtless in the nature of humans that one's own being is an issue which may never finally be decided in life. If the personality has instead become rigid, it may simply be that the person has reaped the karmic consequence of ceasing to reflect over his own part in the changing world, but this is rather the living death of personality than natural growth towards human fulfilment.

At the same time, our destiny is contained, according to the theory of karma, in each our soul, which has both a fated and a voluntary aspect. According to fate - which has been pre-set as a result of our good and bad activities previous lives - we each live within personal pre-set limits for what we can experience and do in this life, depending exactly upon the overall set of the impulses and tendencies we bring into it.

Now, it is a fact that much of what we aspire to cannot be accomplished. It may be easier to see this by thinking of childhood and its many passing aspirations, mostly frustrated by 'reality'. In life as a whole there are few persons who achieve all they would have liked to and indeed many who do not realise even quite modest ambitions. The reason is often 'reality', which usually exacts various unwished-for labours from us and causes us to do or partake in many actions that, left to ourselves in an ideal world, we think we would have shunned. These very requirements of life appear as 'fated', and what at the time may well feel to be ill-fated (because going against one's easy-going grain) will often later in life be viewed quite differently. Yet people can and do aspire for what they choose and form the given quantities of their fate into a surprising destiny. According to the voluntary aspect of the doctrine of Vedanta, though we normally can only fulfil that which is within the objective limits set by the laws of karma, there is another alternative, to seek liberation from the world and its wheel of action and reaction..

Drawn between fatalism and voluntarism, perhaps, is the Hamlet-like uncertainty of purpose, the 'to be or not to be' inability to act positively because of the wavering mind and will. Of course, non-action is a form of behaviour too, and also implies choice and responsibility. These two extremes of behaviour could probably be shown to be strongly conditioned by circumstances of many and various sorts, from physical degeneration to inherent or acquired psychic weakness, from social or individual background to personal attitude, mentality and so on. In either case there will remain a certain moral responsibility for oneself, it being rooted in human consciousness itself.

One must be prepared to make real experiments. There is no other way of reaching an objectively-valid understanding of the psyche than through following the steps of growth and development of personality or character oneself from the 'subjective' personal viewpoint. Decisions of many sorts have to be made, with varying scope of consequences. The process of making up one's mind can be studied from many angles in view of the entire gamut of human considerations that can be involved, all depending on the matter in hand. What is essential to any decision of consequence is moral discrimination rather than practical effectiveness. Though information is almost invariably necessary in making effective, lasting decisions, the essential factor is the principle governing choice. If a decision is morally wrong, its proving highly effective only compounds the problem.

The word 'freedom' is so extremely vague that it can even have contradictory meanings, depending on the context or the purpose in which it is used. In asserting the freedom of the will here it is not to be taken as a call for freedom to do whatever one wants. It is simply a statement that we cannot fatalistically regard ourselves as automatons, not without sacrificing the very opportunities human existence provides. This implies that we already have the possibility of doing whatever we want - within given and determined conditions that apply variously to each individual case. Exercising that freedom, however, has consequences. Which consequences depend on the nature of the chosen act... good acts eventually produce good consequences, just as bad acts produce their own kind. If freedom is exercised selflessly in doing what is right, it leads to peace of mind and thus to the experience of inner freedom, which removes all sense of forces opposing one's will. If freedom is used to act just anyhow, or wilfully to err, this will sooner or later react upon one's experience. Because neither the outward nor the inner consequences can be avoided. They follow inexorably according to the law of karma, even though we may not yet have learned to appreciate or observe the connection to any large degree ourselves. Since freedom of the will (to do as one pleases etc.) is itself not true freedom, in what does true (or 'spiritual') freedom itself consist?

Freedom in any spiritual sense is related to the activity of the mind rather than the body, and subsequently to the heart rather than to the head. This can be exemplified further: the person who is free in a material sense to go wherever he likes or do whatever he wishes, but who is weighed down by cares and concerns wherever he goes and whatever way out he tries, shows how the body is only the vehicle of physical freedom. The mind, when not occupied by the pressing needs of providing a livelihood and what goes with it, may be free to roam here and there. Still, freedom of the mind does not necessarily lead to greater understanding, and thereby not to greater freedom.

SELF-DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL OF THE MIND

Freedom of thought, in the higher sense, does not consist in the ability to develop any idea or to pursue any thought wherever it may lead, but rather in the ability to become aware of the desires that drive mental activity and so to regulate them towards increased mental and emotional balance and, eventually, towards controlling impulses and mastering the drives that sustain the ego. This is inner freedom from mental bonds or desires, the push and pull of worldliness, which brings peace of mind while still engaging in the world.

The chief hypothesis concerning self-discipline is that it consists in the control of the mind and its many vagaries - and thus of the desires of which it is composed and the sense which awaken and fuel desires. This expresses a key practice in all Vedantic psychology. That development follows upon such self-discipline. This can be tested by direct experience through personal practice, not by detached empirical studies which are necessarily indirect. There are a variety of forms of such mental control, which include regulation the instruments of mind - the five receptive senses (jnanendriyas) and the active 'senses' or organs such as speech, locomotion, reproduction etc. (karmendriyas).

Thoughts tend to lead to words and acts. What then if thoughts we understand to be bad keep on returning to the mind? How does one not think them? Or how does one simply observe then without letting them affect one's feelings, words or acts?

The solution to combating undesirable thoughts will surely depend partly upon their origin. Some thoughts one feels or knows to be negative keep returning because one is reminded of them by repetitions of the same kinds of events in one's environment or of the unchanging behaviour of others towards oneself. One may be able to counter these with positive ideas - followed up in word and or act - thus of removing the cause of one's problem, troublesome or unwanted thoughts. If no ways of improving the situation prove feasible, there are still always alternatives as to how to master one's own mind.

How to avoid the tyranny of negative thoughts and feelings will vary with the situation. Anger can be avoided or reduced by going away from where it arises, or fetching and drinking a glass of water, looking at oneself in a mirror and other such means¹. Expressing one's negative thoughts is a very common solution, often also advised by many modern psychologists. However, expressing anger in words and acts can obviously rebound upon oneself when it does not serve any constructive or necessary purpose, which is probably most often the case. I suggest that, by reflecting carefully over experiences of the relations between thought, word and deed - primarily in one's own case and secondarily in that of others - one finds that much the same applies to all negative thoughts... they are almost always either unproductive of any good results or tend to bring about unwanted results. Mind you, it is admittedly very difficult to trace the influence of one's own words and acts on other persons and society at large because so many consequences remain unspoken or otherwise concealed from oneself.

It is known that so-called 'compulsive thoughts' can exert tremendous power over a person's behaviour, forming seemingly unbreakable habits of a lifetime, especially where strong phobias are involved (i.e claustrophobia, agoraphobia and many another variety). Nevertheless, much has been achieved recently in curing most kinds of extreme phobia through good personal communication combined with inventive methods of counselling and gradual acquaintance with the problem's specific aspects though planned activities. This shows that the mastery of compulsive thoughts is possible through sensible programmes of self-transformation, whether or not aided by persons of experience.

In the treatment of phobias and compulsions, it is widely known that cure does not depend simply on one's own will power, because the thoughts themselves simply overpower the will to alter them as soon as some stimulus that invokes them is present. Instead, correct thinking, and constructive action to face the problem squarely are usually the solution. Moralising and preaching are seldom have any effect other than a counter-productive one, for thinking must be both well-informed and constructively oriented so as to avoid any vicious circle of self-blame and consequent repeated unsuccessful attempts at the repression of problems. However, to grasp a negative thought 'in the bud' whenever it recurs and wilfully and then to reject it may also be possible. Rather than negate a thought, it is better consciously to entertain alternative thoughts... the more elevating, the more likelihood of success.

The question of the causes of thoughts of whatever kind is most embracing and is moreover one of which psychology and psychiatry still have only extremely patchy knowledge. However, most recurrent thoughts of an unwanted negative kind can be influenced by personal self-observation. One traces and analyses the mental-emotional or external outer factors that accompany, stimulate, sustain or extend them. Then sensible reason and some degree of planned action are a most natural way of dealing with problems of the mind.

As with all self-transformative work, it is doubtless also the most effective as regards time, effort and costs. Many methods are available through the literature for gradually changing the quality of different aspects of one's mental-emotional life. Broadening one's outlook in general is usually a key element, especially changing attitudes towards oneself and others in fruitful and practical spiritual ways. Once there is sufficient motivation - whether generated by pressures or self-generated - it tends eventually be followed up by the necessary wilful determination.

It seems clear that for success in life one must also have a long-term plan to raise the level of one's thoughts. This can include keeping the right kind of company to inspire this, the regular reading of elevating spiritual texts and avoidance of low cultural media of all kinds.

Some aids in practising self-discipline are as follows:-

1) Be aware of the importance of sincerity or authenticity of the thought. This gives it emotive or motivating power. Conviction as to the value of one's aim is necessary in self-discipline. One should have sufficient faith that any idea to be practised is the right one.

2) Compare one's thought, word and planned action so that they agree - otherwise there is an inherent conflict, a self-defeating activity.

3) Mind control requires long, sustained effort, esp. when interest lags and the mind wanders about and disperses attention to other matters. Various techniques can aid in this, from concentration training to keeping a spiritual diary and memorandum.

4) Practice the immediate rejection of any unwanted or 'negative' idea, which presumes commitment to right ideas. This is a matter of 'limiting the damage of doubt' once a decision has been arrived at... not allowing critical thoughts to disturb activities and goals already defined.

5) Ensure regularity of practise, that some set routine - preferably of fixed time and place - is followed. Time and place then become cues, for the practise decided on. Leaving spiritual practise to chance and the odd occasion is a recipe for dwindling efforts.'

'POSITIVE THINKING'

There are a variety of practicable techniques of self-discipline. One important of quality of mind that calls for self-discipline is the attitude of positivity, affirmation and acceptance, which is often now called 'positive thinking'. The originator of modern positive thinking was Emile Coué, whose 'auto-suggestivism' at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century is encapsulated in the famous phrase "Every day, in every way, I'm growing better and better." As common sense should make clear, this may well have some good effects but can also have some bad ones. It is a widespread doctrine in popular culture and in peripheral forms of psychology and spirituality. Many groups and sects have taken up naive ways of 'positive thinking', often with very doubtful results.

What is most often called 'positive thought' could more accurately be termed 'self-affirmation' In this meaning it consists in programmes for building self-confidence and wilful determination to succeed through repetitive affirmation of one's good qualities, latent abilities... raising the level of one's aspiration, even including attempts to mentally 'lift oneself by one's bootstraps'. Seldom do proponents of positive thinking distinguish which goals are beneficial or not, other than those which enhance the self-image generally. It should be evident , however, that there is a maximum limit to how far self-esteem can be lifted about actual achievement. It is sometimes quite futile to believe one can achieve things for which one is congenitally or psychologically simply quite unsuited. Nor does an enhanced feeling of self-worth itself last or prove beneficial in the long run if no actual self-improvements are made.

Positive thinking that affirms what is morally right is spiritually desirable and leads to more lasting personal benefits and peace of mind, rather than thinking devoid of human values and for material or worldly ends. Its value will vary according to what one thinks. There are many ideas and desires thought to be positive, which are neither and can also be quite to the contrary. The 'affirmation' of selfish and wrong ends is eventually detrimental to oneself and others. The subjective factor, if strong enough, can enable one to fulfil desires that prove not to be beneficial to anyone, being only desirable from the viewpoint of a person's ego and temporary fulfilment of selfish but ultimately unproductive desires.

Positive thought is actually beneficial when what one thinks is good, and that one knows just what it is good to think! This may seem obvious, but is it always clear what is a positive thought and a negative one? What may seem to be negative thoughts because of the verbal form one gives them, may have a positive content... and vice-versa.

What is a positive thought or a good motive is not a entirely a matter of subjective evaluation. If we believe in an impossibility, it will not come about however much we wish it to. False ideas cannot be affirmed until they become true. Unfortunately, such positive thinking also appeals to those having a form of mental derangement in which one denies reality and persists in denying a patent fact or believing in impossibilities. Both long-held beliefs and doubts can turn out to be mistaken. However, where a thought expressing a strong wish is positively sustained and especially if it is repeatedly reinforced over a long period of time - perhaps months, years or decades, it is extraordinary what can come about.

What is true or false about the realisability of human desires and ideas is a question on which the sciences, including psychology, have quite little reliable knowledge. What are the realisable limits in human life is always at issue.

'Don't think about it and it will go away' is an example of positive thinking. True up to a point, as it can be effective for hypochondria and psychic ailments like neurasthenia, paranoia, some degree of anxiety or depression... like fear about the possible developments and consequences of an illness. Ignoring illness can have psychic benefits and even bring about speedier physical recoveries and probably even trigger physical cure in some instances. Yet there is of course a limit beyond which it is sheer blindness to 'turn a blind eye' to unpleasant but unalterable facts. Having one's 'head in the sand' is the danger, so a policy combining 'feet on the ground' and 'head in the clouds' seems best. Without this one may deceive oneself about serious ailments.

Thoughts that we wish to weaken and avoid cannot always just be negated. This is shown by the near-impossible Doestoevskian test of standing at a corner and not thinking of a white bear for one hour. The more negatively or positively emotional force attached to our thoughts, the greater effect they will have, one way or another. All in all, balanced judgement is doubtless preferable to either naive positive or cynical critical thinking. Dispassionate judgement requires that both the pro and con sides of a matter be tested and weighed. In normal experience, faith is at least partially dependent upon the removal of doubt, which means analysis and evaluation of whatever is in doubt. Effective positive thinking does not fall into pessimism or optimism, but remains steady and emotionally unswayed.

There are countless instances recorded in world culture that a very powerful positive emotive idea - such as in intense prayer or the like - can lead to cures that are totally inexplicable medically. Doctors often label these 'spontaneous remissions', while those who have some religious or similar faith often label them 'miracles'. Both labels, however, demonstrate our ignorance of the true nature of such events.