The practice of philosophy

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In message #34863 of Jan 24 (Re: Why Transmigration?), Shri

Sankarraman asked if the description of a changeless knowing

presence is "not also an assumption", just like "the idea that there

is transmigration of an individual entity".

 

So far as I understand Advaita enquiry, its description of a

changeless knowing presence is not meant as an assumption upon which

any intellectual conclusion is to be constructed by some formal

reasoning.

 

Instead, when the enquiry speaks of a knowing presence that

continues through change, what's indicated by this speaking is a

reflective implication of mental beliefs whose correctness is being

investigated. Here, the enquiry points out that the very idea of

change implies an underlying consciousness that stays unchanged

through changing appearances.

 

Of course, as Shri Sankarraman points out, if that unchanging

consciousness is understood as an intellectual conclusion, then it

defeats the very purpose of investigating beyond all mere

descriptions and ideas to their underlying truth.

 

For that purpose, the idea of an 'unchanging consciousness' has to

be understood quite differently -- as a 'lakShaNa' or an

investigating 'pointer', which uses its intellectual description to

point at a target that is to be found beyond.

 

In short, as Advaita describes its basic ideas, the ideas are meant

to raise reflective questions that are targeted at an underlying

truth in which all descriptions and ideas and all questions are

ultimately dissolved.

 

When such undermining questions are asked about someone else's

descriptions and ideas, then that is merely theoretical -- in so far

as it serves to reinforce one's own theorectical constructions, at

the expense of someone else.

 

But when one's own beliefs are genuinely in question, then that

questioning is directly practical. For then one's own understanding

is at stake, to uncover its mistakes and to achieve a clearer

understanding thereby. Such a clarification then gets naturally

expressed, in truer feelings, thoughts and actions that

spontaneously arise from clearer understanding.

 

To my way of thinking, that turned-back questioning is the actual

practice of philosophy. There is of course a negative side to such

questioning, which has been described in the traditional metaphor of

a big thorn being used to remove a little thorn.

 

The big thorn is a philosophical idea like 'unchanging

consciousness'. It is used to remove the small thorns of partial

descriptions and ideas found limited by petty ego in our changing

personalities. After its use to remove a small thorn (of some

partial description or idea), the big thorn (of a philosophical

idea) must also get somehow removed before impartial truth is found.

 

For a more modern metaphor, we can also think of philosophical ideas

as powerful and highly concentrated pesticides, meant to kill off

various pestilential errors of conception. Just like a properly

effective pesticide, a philosophical idea requires extremely precise

targeting; and when its killing job is done, it must destroy itself,

without leaving any trace of residue.

 

Or, to put this negative aspect in a piece of verse:

 

All thought of truth is pesticide:

which, when its killing job is done,

must finally destroy itself

and leave no tainted residue.

 

If not, it too becomes a pest

that needs more killing pesticide.

And thus the pestilential thought

of ignorance that must be killed

keeps ignorantly thinking on.

 

But this negative aspect is meant to be pursued so far that it

destroys all negativity, and thus leads to a truth that is

uncompromisingly positive. The positive aspect is described in a

Malayalam stanza by Shri Atmananda:

 

cintikkyum vastu veccinta

ceytAl cinta nashicc uTan

cit-svarUpam prakAshikkyum;

vishva-vibhrAnti mArakam.

 

[if someone thinks considering

the principle of thought itself,

then all at once thought is destroyed.

It's thus that consciousness is found

to shine by its own knowing light:

as one's own truth, where all the world's

confusions are found clarified.]

 

Negative or positive, descriptions are of course inadequate. In the

end, they serve their purpose only when they have been left behind.

Sorry to have gone on so long about this paradox.

 

Ananda