Philosophy and sadhana (and Yoga Vasistha)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji,

>Perhaps, instead of merely theorizing about idealism,

>we should ask a practising idealist, like Benjamin,

>what his experience is, in this regard. Of course

>different idealists would give us different answers.

>But, if Benjamin is listening, I'd be interested in his take.

 

 

To be honest, I did not read this entire message carefully, as I feel

the discussion is getting a bit stale. Perhaps I am being a bit

unfair, but it seems to me that Michaelji is trying to milk too much

out of a few ambiguous lines in the Brahma Sutras Bashya, which were

disposed of so brilliantly by Sadanandaji some time ago.

 

Besides, a lot of the problem in this 'idealism' debate revolves

around the use and misuse of terminology. That is true of philosophy

in general, and it becomes tedious to have to redefine one's terms

each time.

 

So this time, I will offer something different. Lately, I have

become quite enthusiastic about the (longer) Yoga Vasistha (trans. by

Swami Venkatesananda), in which I read, on page after page, an

'idealistic' view which sounds like it's taken right out of my head.

This is without doubt a classic of Advaita, as attested to by Swamis

Sivananda, Chinmayananda and countless others. Let me simply present

a few excerpts, all spoken by Vasistha to Lord Rama, and readers can

make of it what they wish:

 

 

"I shall now declare to you the creation and its secret. For, it is

only as long as one invests the perceived object with reality that

bondage lasts..." (p. 41)

 

"This same infinite self [brahman] conceives within itself the

duality of oneself and other. Thence, mind arises, as a wave arises

when the surface of the calm ocean is disturbed. But please bear in

mind that just as a bracelet of gold is but gold ... the qualities

and nature of the created ... are inherent in the creator. The mind

is non-different from ... the infinite self." (p. 41) (Advaitins are

often confused about this subtle point.)

 

"Even as the mirage appears to be a very real river of water, this

creation appears to be entirely real. And, as long as one clings to

the notion of the reality of 'you' and 'I', there is no liberation."

(p. 41) (That last sentence is also pure Buddhism, by the way.)

 

"Even as the dream objects are experienced only by the dreamer, the

objects of perception are experienced by the perceiver." (p.42)

(This and much else here is classic Advaita, as found in, e.g., the

Vivekachudamani.)

 

"Surely the created (like a bracelet) is of the same substance as

that of which it was created (gold). The Creator's thought being the

cause of this manifold creation and the Creator himself having no

physical body, the creation, too, is truly of the nature of thought,

without materiality." (p.43) (This, my friends, is idealism, pure

and simple. Please surrender. All resistance is futile!)

 

"The Creator is also of a dual nature: consciousness and thought.

Consciousness is pure; thought is subject to confusion. Hence, he

appears to come into being (arise), though he does not so arise ...

Though all these forms [created by thought] are of the nature of pure

intelligence, on account of self-forgetfulness [of their true nature

as consciousness] ... they freeze into physical forms, even as

goblins ... The Creator, however, is not [in his inner nature]

subject to such delusion [only the Jivas imagined by the Creator] ...

The materiality of the creation is like a castle in the air, an

illusory projection of one's own mind - imaginary." (pp. 43-44)

 

 

"Even as empty, inert nothingness is known as space, mind is empty

nothingness [and thus so are the creations of mind, namely, the Jivas

and the so-called material world]." (p. 44).

 

Note: Here is a nice confirmation of the Mahayana Buddhist notion of

emptiness. As I have often said, this only refers to the emptiness

of the external world, which is a necessary step to realizing our

nature as pure consciousness. Buddhism seems to consist of a certain

subset of ideas found in the Yoga Vasistha, those ideas necessary for

liberation but which dispense with any kind of God-notion. Even for

Advaitins, Ishwara is unreal from the nondual standpoint, as

Sadanandaji has so brilliantly explained. And as a scholarly detail,

the image of the castle in the air reappears in the famous Mahayana

sutra known as the Lankavatara (the foundational sutra of Zen), as do

many other ideas of the Yoga Vasistha, such as the following one.

 

 

"The entire universe if forever non-different from the consciousness

that dwells in every atom ... the object exists in the subject. But

when this notion of object is firmly rejected ... then consciousness

alone exists without even an apparent or potential objectivity. When

this is realized, evils like attraction and repulsion, love and hate,

cease in one's heart, as also the false notion of the world, you, I,

etc. Even the tendency to objectify ceases. This is freedom."

(p.44)

 

(Ananda, do you remember how I said that perceptions are only

illusory and not-self when invested with a trace of objectivity?

Otherwise, they are clearly nothing but consciousness in themselves,

and the world to which they seem to refer is utterly non-existent.)

 

 

"The Lord can be realized only if one is firmly established in the

unreality of the universe even as the blueness of the sky is unreal

.... Only when the creation is known to be utterly non-existent the

Lord is realized." (p.46)

 

 

Just look at how much we have seen in a few pages! I could go on and

on. This work is a motherlode of nondual wisdom. And amazingly, it

is written in the same clear and modern language which we find in

Ramana and Nisargadatta, even though it is thousands of years old.

It is simply not true that 'mystical' writings must sound like

mumbo-jumbo. The true sages of ancient times had minds as clear and

sharp as ours, indeed much more so. I do recommend this excellent

book, which is not expensive.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin and others,

 

Thanks a lot for posting this Benjamin. It's again, reflecting my

own view as well. I would just like to comment on some two or three passages,

that I found particularly enlightening, as a Vajrayana Buddhist practitioner.

 

"I shall now declare to you the creation and its secret. For, it is

only as long as one invests the perceived object with reality that

bondage lasts..." (p. 41)

 

Here again everyone can see clearly the same idea expounded by

Ramana. Reality is relative, it is only the Jiva that is in ignorance who

infuses a sense of reality.

 

"This same infinite self [brahman] conceives within itself the

duality of oneself and other. Thence, mind arises, as a wave arises

when the surface of the calm ocean is disturbed. But please bear in

mind that just as a bracelet of gold is but gold ... the qualities

and nature of the created ... are inherent in the creator. The mind

is non-different from ... the infinite self." (p. 41) (Advaitins are

often confused about this subtle point.)

 

This resounds much like what my teacher has taught me about the

Universe being 'holographic'. This term may sound odd but the teaching is

simple: every part of the Universe contains the whole. Every individual may be

seen to exist inside the Universe, or otherwise, the Universe may be seen to

exist within every individual. Here we come to the so-called 'idealism' which

is no more than pragmatic practicality. When individual consciousness is seen as

the center, the Universe is peripheric, i.e., it is created or dependant upon

this consciousness. When the objective Universe is attributed reality by the

consciousness, and thence becomes the center (or predominant factor), like we in

bondage do, then there is objective reality and our consciousness, because it is

not seen as the center, is seen as a product of this objective reality. This

wrong view of our actual stand brings then, along with it, mind, death, birth,

etc. If consciousness is a product of the objective reality, then it is but a

transitory phenomenon, but if consciousness is seen as the cause and supreme

reality, then it is the objective reality which is a transitory phenomenon

happening in consciousness. In brief terms I have here been able to summarize my

view about this.

 

"Surely the created (like a bracelet) is of the same substance as

that of which it was created (gold). The Creator's thought being the

cause of this manifold creation and the Creator himself having no

physical body, the creation, too, is truly of the nature of thought,

without materiality." (p.43) (This, my friends, is idealism, pure

and simple. Please surrender. All resistance is futile!)

 

I think Buddhism might hardly be called 'idealistic' and yet this

same exact notion is found in the first verses of the Buddhist Abidharma Pitaka:

"Know, monks, that everything is created by mind, sustained by mind, destroyed

by mind, dependent of mind." This brings to the same point: no objective

reality outside of consciousness.

 

Joy and good wishes,

Fred

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Gonzales.

 

You summarized as follows in your post # 20124:

 

"Surely the created (like a bracelet) is of the same substance as

that of which it was created (gold). The Creator's thought being the

cause of this manifold creation and the Creator himself having no

physical body, the creation, too, is truly of the nature of thought,

without materiality." (p.43) (This, my friends, is idealism, pure

and simple. Please surrender. All resistance is futile!)"

 

I note the following from what you said:

 

There is a Creator.

There is the created.

The Creator doesn't have body.

However, the Creator has a thought.

 

I am a bit confounded here. Are you talking about idealism and

laughing at it? Or, are you summarizing your understanding of the

Ultimate Truth?

 

If it is the latter, then of course, there is resistance - not futile

but very logical, because your statement still implies a duality

between the Creator and his thought. As advaitins, we cannot impute

any thought to the Creator, to be understood as Consciousness in this

context. Our understanding is "CONSCIOUSNESS IS, thoughts and

material objects are". Not the reverse. This implies that thoughts

and material objects are verily CONSCIOUSNESS and the apparent

duality surrounding them is due to an error in understanding. The

error is inclusive of the one suffering from it as long as that one

remains objectifiable and that sufferer and any infinite regression

imputed to him are again CONSCIOUSNESS in ultimate analysis.

 

When we talk of the created therefore, there is no differentiation

demanded between thoughts (mental vrittIs - the so-called internal

world) and the external world of solid material objects, forces and

laws governing them. All fall into the "other than me" category

because all of them are objectifiable. So, why all this bother

about 'materiality'? Isn't it in acknowledging and accepting this

differentiation that idealism falters in contrast with advaita?

 

Well, if you were talking only about idealism, then what I have

written above is sufficient to demonstrate that such an idealism is

not an Advaitin's means!

 

About the so-called disputes between Advaita and Buddhism, Anandaji

has give us the right advice in his post #20132, which exemplifies

advaitic equanimity. Let not idealism now drive a wedge between the

two!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair