"People mean nowadays by a philosopher not the man who learns the art of mastering his passions or adding to his insight, but the man who has cast off prejudices without acquiring virtues".
- Antoine de Rivarol (1753 - 1801)
This would still apply, it seems to me, to many modern philosophers and intellectuals, as well as to many fake gurus of the East and West. Advaita is easy to twist into this kind of empty doctrine, if cut free from its traditional moorings.
I would like to think that the School will always represent an alternative approach, regardless of any transformations it may go through. What about you?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Modern philosophy circa 1800
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I can see two ways of looking at this:
1) according to the tradition, the individual would have already been schooled in basic morality and lived a householder existence in the first of the two ashramas, yes? So the individual wouldn’t have received the Advaita teaching until the third stage of life? This, of course, has problems when translated to the situation in our modern world. None of us are qualified to hear the teaching anyway, according to be Western, non-Brahmin, etc.
I read a Christian a while ago talking about the rise of ‘Eastern’ teaching in the West. His argument was that the knowledge “I and my Father are one” is the result of long discipline and grace. Prematurely giving this concept to people led to gross misunderstanding. Sri Ramakrishna said something similar about people thoroughly identified with the body going round saying “I am Brahman”.
So I can see the argument that you cannot give the teaching to those unprepared for it. I believe this was also the argument from traditionalists in India against the Maharishi coming to the West? So we can draw two possible conclusions from this:
- either Eastern knowledge becoming widespread in the West was a mistake as it would result in much gross misunderstanding OR
- the Maharishi and others were responding to an intuitive calling for change, that the West (even though mostly living ‘unprepared’ lives) should be given the teaching.
2) Following on from this is another perspective – I shared an experience back in the July 29 ‘Catching the Chameleon’ post. This was the realisation (in the ‘rat-run’ example) that the situation of ‘a someone’ who was trying to ‘practice patience’ was madness. The true patience was a by-product of the mind being still. Very probably, all good qualities are a product of the mind being still? I think many Advaitins are saying this. To ‘practice patience’ is simply more ahankaric activity.
There is a Sri Ramana excerpt which I read yesterday on this very subject. I will find it and post it but the gist was that the divine qualities are automatically inherent in the deeper experience of your real Self. The Self supports them by its very nature. The demonic qualities are all associated with ahankara. I can only speak from transient experience of these things but it is known. When I am still then any good qualities flow from this. If I am not still then any amount of ‘practising something’ is simply more ahankaric activity and doesn’t benefit me or anyone else.
There is only a problem with all this if Advaita is presented or understood as a ‘theory’. But I think Advaita is saying something much subtler than this. It isn’t a theory which allows the Crowlian axiom “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” It is saying that the nature of the Self is such that any moral or good/divine qualities must flow from deeper experience of its presence. So then the task becomes ‘know thyself’ and the rest will take care of itself.
I also un-coincidentally just read something similar in the Maharishi’s commentary on chapter one of the Gita. Krishna doesn’t take sides. He is, in one sense, completely indifferent. But his very presence lends support to the Pandavas. The activities of dharma happen naturally when he is there. This is just beginning to reconcile something previously incomprehensible for this individual.
Kapila,
For me as well! I think this is a really important question.
On your earlier point, I think that the Indian reluctance to teach to the West springs from its context as a local teaching. The impulse to try to find a way to do so nevertheless is, it seems to me, the right approach. What we need is a universal teaching, not a local one. Probably that involves a move on both sides.
The old image of the blind man (the West) who carries the lame man (the East) is probably quite good, because it points out that both have their limitations and needs. Lameness is (in the story) indeed a limitation. I would say that the lameness of the East (India) is its relative immobility and indifference to the needs of the ignorant, which results in a fairly backward and unruly society.
The blindness of the West is of course its being lost in materialism. Its non-lameness is its efficacy and evolved democracy (the least bad form of government).
from Arthur Osborne's biography of Sri Ramana:
A devotee. Krishna Jivrajani, once asked..."It is said in books that one should cultivate all the good or daivic (divine) qualities in order to prepare oneself for Self-realisation".
And Sri Bhagavan replied: "All good or daivic qualities are included in jnana (knowledge) and all evil or asuric qualities in ajnana (ignorance). When jnana comes all ajnana goes and all daivic qualities come automatically. If a man is a jnani he cannot utter a lie or do anything wrong. It is, no doubt, said in some books that one should cultivate one quality after another and thus prepare for ultimate moksha (deliverance), but for those who follow the jnana or vichara marga (path of enquiry into 'who am I?') their sadhana (practise) is quite enough in itself for acquiring all daivic qualities; they need not do anything else."
It may, however, be asked how accessible the vichara is in fact...a devotee asked, "Is it possible for all seekers, whatever their spiritual equipment, to adopt straight away and put into practice this method of enquiry in quest of the Self? And that he replied: "No, it is intended only for ripe souls. Others should get the necessary training and practice by adopting such other methods as are suited to their individual development, mental and moral."
K - I just found this a revealing excerpt with regard to the 'preparation' vs 'pure advaita' debate.
This reminds me that real danger comes not from the untutored ignorant, but from the skilled and graceful seducer.
To take one example: the Devil and Christ in the wilderness. As you will recall, Christ was offered the whole world, a very tempting morsel.
Dorian Grey sold his soul for eternal youth, the only visible legacy being an increasingly dissolute portrait in the attic.
We are all potentially vulnerable to this. Our Achilles' heel is not that which we think is weakest, but that where we have a blind spot (as did, indeed, Achilles' heel). It masks our greatest desire (mastery over the world, eternal youth, the power to make gold, etc).
I recall this now in the context of the forgoing discussion. Powering up an individual may lead to disaster unless the good and the true are brought up at the same time. Most people are too weak to do more than irritate their companions with delusions of grandeur. But occasionally a charismatic and powerful man (and it's always a man)persuades his followers to jump off a cliff.
That's why one should be wary of power and powerful individuals. And, on the other side of the plate, be careful what teaching is given, and to whom, and when.
Laura - I confess I was intially quite disturbed by your response here. Although I appreciate what you are saying about misuse of power, I can't relate that back to thread of the discussion.
When the SRM excerpt refers to divine qualities I was understanding this to mean as in Ch16 of the gita: fearlessness, purity of heart, charity etc, not powers. If that's where you're coming from? I'm not sure.
Coming back to experience: back on the last week I attended, I was aware of being more centred in a deeper experience of myself. From this place, the almost constant level of 'background' anxiety I carry vanished. This was, again, an experience to suggest that fearlessness is a quality of that state, not something brought about in another way.
But I'm not rejecting the other approach. The above is still just a transient experience & there are plenty enough of the Gita Ch16, v4 qualities still to contend with. I presented both approaches as a question, not a conclusion. I believe as SRM implies that it is 'horses for courses' or maybe different courses for the same horse depending upon the inner state and circumstances? It's just apparent here that a stressed 'doer' is completely unnatural and I can let go and trust myself. The essence of what we all are, despite appearances and experiences to the contrary is essentially good.
Kapila - there's an example of this in Good Company whereby a man was told by his teacher that God was in everything. He walked along the road mulling over this and, seeing an elephant coming towards him, told himself, 'I am God, the elephant is God, God cannot hurt God,' and continued walking towards the elephant. The elephant's mahout shouted at him to get out of the way but he contunued thinking about God and kept on walking.
He met the elephant and with a sweep of his trunk the elephant threw him to the side of the road, leaving him battered and bruised.
Limping (we may suppose) back to his teacher the man related this event. His teacher said that, though God was in him and in the elephant, he was also in the mahout and the mahout had told him to get out of the way.
But he hadn't, he had disobeyed God and had therefore received no more than he deserved.
The moral of the story is, of course, that giving knowledge to the ignorant may be received incorrectly, and lead to wrong action or even disaster.
This is not of the same magnitude as Faust or Christ and the Devil, but it doesn't take much to extrapolate the connection, remembering that Lucifer had been an angel. By the way, I'm not, even by implication, referring this to anybody or anything we may know.
The other point is of interest, I think, and that may be seen as an Achilles' heel. You may have a better metaphor. If all knowledge is there and available, what is it that stops us knowing? We call it a blind spot but more often it's the size of a blanket.
I was brought up sharp by this the other evening when looking for some photographs. I searched everywhere and it was only when I'd exhausted the possibilities that I remembered clear as a bell where they were and went straight to them.
This is such a common example that it hardly bears repeating. It's almost as though one has to run through the menu of everyday concerns before the light dawns.
Kapila - I saw Cymbeline last night at the theatre - a very 21st-century production with all the gory bits left in.
A thread that runs through so many of Shakespeare's plays is deception and jealousy, instigated by an agent such as Iago and playing on the vulnerability of a main player. The drama unfolds and eventually there is a resolution - this may be death but, as in Cymbeline, the lovers are reunited as true lovers must.
I mention this because, alongside the divine qualities, are those of the mundane, passionate world. The trick for the way of the 'householder' must be to marry the two, so that each informs and nourishes the other.
By the way, in early/mid February Ramayana plays at the Lyric, Hammersmith.
Laura,
I would put quite a different interpretation on the story of the mahout, which is not to relate the guru to Lucifer (giving a little knowledge to someone to destroy them), but to reflect on the tendency of the beginner on the way to believe that they understand much more than they do.
I don't think that the Indian tradition has scare stories about the dangers of knowledge. I feel that the disciple in this instance could be learning something very useful here.
I've overstretched the analogy for which apologies if there's been misunderstanding. My interpretation of the man/elephant/mahout story is the same as yours.
Laura,
I thought that metaphor had just got away from you. Pesky things!
Yeah.... galloping elephants!!!
Post a Comment