Sri Aurobindo
Letters on Himself and the Ashram
The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Volume 35
Remarks on Public Figures in India
Subhas Chandra Bose [5]
Here is Subhas the despairer: “It is no use trying to argue with you. You are quite blind. Reason is but the slave of your faith. When I think how a person of your calibre can surrender his reasoning in this way, I feel like despairing of my country. Everywhere we find the same thing. You regard Sri Aurobindo as God Incarnate. So many regard Mahatma Gandhi in the same light. My own mother — whose sincerity I cannot doubt — has a guru whom she regards as God incarnate.” — Extract from a letter of Subhas Chandra Bose to Dilip Kumar Roy, dated Vienna, 23 December 1935.
As for the desperate Subhas, why the deuce does he want 
everybody to agree with him and follow his line of conduct or belief? That is 
the never realised dream of the politician; we, incarnate Gods, Gurus, spiritual 
men, are more modest in our hopes and are satisfied with a handful or, if you 
like, an Asramful of disciples, and even we don’t ask for that,— they come, they 
come. 


 So are we not nearer to reason and wisdom 
than the political leaders? Unless of course we make the mistake of founding a 
universal religion, but that is not our case. Moreover, Subhas upbraids you for 
losing your reason in blind faith, but what is his view of things except a 
reasoned faith; you believe according to your faith, which is quite natural, he 
believes according to his opinion, which is natural also but no better so far as 
the likelihood of getting at the true truth of things is in question. His 
opinion is according to his reason? So is the opinion of his political opponents 
according to their reason, yet they affirm the very opposite idea to his. How is 
reason going to show which is right? The opposite parties can argue till they 
are blue in the face, they won’t be anywhere nearer a decision. In the end he 
prevails whom the greater force or whom the trend of things favours. But who can 
look at the world and say that the trend of things is always (or ever) according 
to right reason — whatever this thing called right reason may be? As a matter of 
fact there is no universal infallible reason which can decide and be the umpire 
between conflicting opinions, there is only my reason, your reason, x’s, y’s, 
z’s reason multiplied up to the discordant innumerable. Each reasons according 
to his view of things, his opinion, that is, his mental constitution and mental 
preference. So what’s the use of running down faith which after all gives 
something to hold on to amidst the contradictions of an enigmatic universe? If 
one can get at a knowledge that knows, it is another matter; but so long as we 
have only an ignorance that argues, well, there is a place still left for faith 
— even, faith may be a glint from the knowledge that knows, however far off, and 
meanwhile there is not the slightest doubt that it helps to get things done. 
There’s a bit of reasoning for you! just like all other reasoning too, 
convincing to the convinced, but not to the unconvincible, i.e., who don’t agree 
with the ground upon which the reasoning dances. Logic after all is only a 
measured dance of the mind, nothing else.
So are we not nearer to reason and wisdom 
than the political leaders? Unless of course we make the mistake of founding a 
universal religion, but that is not our case. Moreover, Subhas upbraids you for 
losing your reason in blind faith, but what is his view of things except a 
reasoned faith; you believe according to your faith, which is quite natural, he 
believes according to his opinion, which is natural also but no better so far as 
the likelihood of getting at the true truth of things is in question. His 
opinion is according to his reason? So is the opinion of his political opponents 
according to their reason, yet they affirm the very opposite idea to his. How is 
reason going to show which is right? The opposite parties can argue till they 
are blue in the face, they won’t be anywhere nearer a decision. In the end he 
prevails whom the greater force or whom the trend of things favours. But who can 
look at the world and say that the trend of things is always (or ever) according 
to right reason — whatever this thing called right reason may be? As a matter of 
fact there is no universal infallible reason which can decide and be the umpire 
between conflicting opinions, there is only my reason, your reason, x’s, y’s, 
z’s reason multiplied up to the discordant innumerable. Each reasons according 
to his view of things, his opinion, that is, his mental constitution and mental 
preference. So what’s the use of running down faith which after all gives 
something to hold on to amidst the contradictions of an enigmatic universe? If 
one can get at a knowledge that knows, it is another matter; but so long as we 
have only an ignorance that argues, well, there is a place still left for faith 
— even, faith may be a glint from the knowledge that knows, however far off, and 
meanwhile there is not the slightest doubt that it helps to get things done. 
There’s a bit of reasoning for you! just like all other reasoning too, 
convincing to the convinced, but not to the unconvincible, i.e., who don’t agree 
with the ground upon which the reasoning dances. Logic after all is only a 
measured dance of the mind, nothing else.