Why should things Exist? (Back to Advaita)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji and others,

 

I do find these discussions extraordinarily interesting, but I concur

with Sunderji that the topic of the month has been somewhat

submerged. That was supposed to be the Amritanubhava hosted by

Nirmalaji. I spoke with her the other day, and she agreed to

continue into coming months, just as ProfVK has been posting the

Soundaryalahari. However, she was also worried about a lack of

comments. I told her that I had difficulty asking questions because

I am more used to philosophy than poetry. I think something similar

may be true of others here. Anyhow, I do hope she continues, and I

encourage her to provide any comments of her own to help us with what

may be an unfamiliar literary form.

 

As for your disagreement with me, I welcome it wholeheartedly, as

long as everything remains cordial, as it has been doing very well so

far. When I first came to this list, I sometimes got annoyed with

the vehement disagreements of others. One essential aspect of

sadhana is to learn not to take anything personally. If we cannot

even do that, then we are spiritually infantile. At the same time,

caustic words get under everybody's skin, if only for a moment. Your

discussion so far has been a sterling example of civility.

 

I have read you comments carefully, and I consider them to be very

thoughtful and thought-provoking. I don't have much to say at this

point, so I will just post a few brief comments of my own.

 

(1) Please understand - as I think you do - that my passion for

reducing the apparent world to maya (or emptiness or whatever you

wish to call it) is in no way 'nihilistic' but is rather extremely

positive. Simply put, it reveals everything as consciousness, as

divine consciousness in fact, so that every trace of reality is

profoundly spiritual, and nothing that is real is distinct from the

divine essence. It is only the (apparent) non-divine which is being

annihilated.

 

(2) My passion for so-called philosophical 'idealism', as I have

described it, is not because it is some pet theory which I am

infatuated with. It is because it seems so eminently *reasonable* to

me. I know this is ironic, insofar as it contradicts the prevailing

materialistic ethos of science. Actually, idealism, or the belief

that reality is only consciousness in some sense, is the purest

expression of the scientific method, which is supposed to be based

solely on observation. But the main point is that I accepted this

philosophical view long before becoming engrossed in Eastern

philosophy. It is *distinct* from mysticism per se and stands on its

own. So I am not just grasping at philosophical straws in order to

come up with a shaky justification for certain spiritual beliefs.

Also, please remember that idealism means something very specific to

me, close to but not the same as Berkeley, and very different from

Kant or Hegel.

 

(3) Your comment that the second definition of vivartavada, which

emphasizes the real and unchanging nature of things (as opposed to

their 'vacuity'), leads to bhakti, is most interesting to me. This

is consistent with the fact that I seem to have little or no bhakti

in me. So you are probably on to something!

 

However, I would just reiterate that what you call 'vacuity' I call

reduction to the divine essence, which is pure consciousness itself.

It is not that objects are 'unreal' categorically, like a barren

woman's child. It is that they have all been dissolved into pure

consciousness, the very divine nature, which is an entirely positive

and spiritual affirmation. We may not be so far apart, even with

your second definition!

 

OK, those were a few 'brief' comments. Better stop. I do love your

comment that 'Shankara accused the Buddhists of not having learnt

grammar properly.' If the differences are merely semantic, then a

joyful spiritual reconciliation becomes quite possible, even

plausible.

 

I do want to reiterate to Ranjeetji something I said before, namely,

that there are indeed some problems with certain passages of the

Brahmasutra Bashya, as far as 'idealism' and 'Buddhism' are

concerned. As I said, I draw my main Advaitin inspiration from the

Vivekachudamani, the Ashtavakra, the Yoga Vasistha, Ramana and

Nisargadatta. They do agree with me, or at least that is my very

strong impression. That in turn makes me feel a bit skeptical about

certain parts of the BSB, but I won't pursue that so as not to upset

anyone here! :-) Maybe it's a matter of interpretation (i.e. a

commentary on a commentary!). Also, remember that Ramana clearly

spoke to different people in different ways, and this is an important

lesson as far as these discussions are concerned.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin