Monism or Non-dualism

[Guest guest]

Further insights into the use of words

Monism and Non-dualism (advaita) by Swami Vivekananda.

 

~~~~~~~~~This email contribution from Sister Gayatriprana~~~~~~~~~

 

Thank you for your comments on advaita vs monism. I reviewed Swamiji's use

of these two words, and there is no doubt that he used monism mostly in the

West, where he may have picked it up from intellectual circles (though he

did use it at the Parliament of Religions before he met William James, etc.

Of course, he could have heard it from Professor Wright's circle of

friends). Also, the professors at Harvard seemed to have been familiar with

advaita, because he was asked questions on that subject.

I note that he tended to use advaita when he was giving lectures to scholars

or close devotees or communicating with scholarly types like Sturdy or

Nivedita. Monism is used more often in more casual presentations. For

example, his lecture at Harvard contains only advaita, while his discussion

with the professors and students uses monism (of course admixed with

advaita, a word they themselves used freely ). Interestingly, his use of

the word was very marked in Practical Vedanta, although the other London

lectures were more formal and used advaita. He used monism most in

California, which may go along with your idea that he was using the current

"buzz" words in the West. That is also what I think; I have noticed on many

occasions that Swamiji uses the language of whomever he is addressing.

 

What is also curious is that his use of monism in India occurs mostly in

his early lectures from Colombo to Almora. By The Vedanta in Lahore,

however, monism disappears entirely; again, this lecture was packed with

references to advaita and contains a powerful formal discussion of the

subject. What that suggests to me is that his "Western style" carried over

into his early work in India, but within a year had completely disappeared.

Or, possibly, that his audience was less traditional and scholarly than the

Lahore audience which was, after all, convened by Tirtha Ram, a professor of

mathematics. I have noticed ,when I look at how he translated mantras from

the Upanishads and Gita, that in oft-quoted verses he would carry over

certain "Western" words to which he seems to have taken a fancy and weave

them in with more traditional words in his translations.

 

What I have found in connection with these words fits all of my previous

discoveries about Swamiji's use of language. With this particular pair of

words, however, I would like to look into Swamiji's use of monism, as that

is the problematical word in our present context. I believe looking at some

of these instances might be quite revealing. I am quite sure that Swamiji's

primary goal was to convey meaning to his audiences and he used whatever

words would do that. In India, he knew that advaita would say everything;

in the West, monism is where it was at , at least with certain audiences -

and just how he used it for his own purposes is what I would like to

discover. Unfortunately at present I do not have time to go into how his

Western contemporaries were using the word, but I know the likes of Paul

Carus were using it freely and it was current in German philosophical

circles.

 

I am sure he made no mistakes in his choice of language. This was a master

wordsmith and a supreme spiritual teacher, who did not stand on formalities

if that would obstruct the flow of transmission to his audiences.

Furthermore, he had the capacity to infuse familiar words with totally new

meaning. This I have also documented on a number of occasions. Following

leads like this has brought me to several aha moments in understanding

Swamiji's thought.

 

I do not think any of these findings negate the conventional distinctions

that we ordinarily make, especially in Indian circles, between advaita and

monism.

 

I will share anything interesting I find in my sleuthing.

 

Cordially,

Gayatriprana