Once you know exactly what you want, there is no choice. ~ Swami Dayananda Saraswati
Clarification
I need to clarify an earlier post in which I quoted Paul Sedir. I remarked how similar the thoughts were to Rene Guenon’s. In checking the original source, I see that Sedir was in fact referring to Guenon’s position, not his own. Now both Sedir and Rene Guenon used to move in the same Martinist circles, but abandoned that path – Sedir for Christian mysticism and Guenon for the Sufi version. Curiously, Sedir regarded his path as the one of action, in opposition to Guenon’s path of contemplation, very much as did Julius Evola. But this will have to wait until after Evola’s complete essay is made available.
Guenon said the same of Sedir that he did of Evola: viz., they simply did not understand. For Guenon, the traditions are ultimately the same, hence Christian esoterism could be no different from the Vedanta. So this is the third installment on the “I”, this time from the point of view of Shankara, the foremost spokesman for the Vedanta.
Vivekacudamani
The Vivekacudamani, or Crest Jewel of Discrimination, attributed to Shankara, is a collection of cryptic verses. Here I am relying on the commentary of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, who has a presence in the West, including a study group in South Florida. This particular teaching is very much knowledge based, i.e., as opposed to some special experience, e.g., of enlightenment.
Yet this is not knowledge in the scientific sense, or knowledge of particular things. Rather it is knowledge of the Self. The Self is never an object, words cannot point to it, eyes or the mind are not necessary to know it. An object is self-revealing, i.e., it makes itself known through the senses. The self, however, is known because it is self-evident. An object may come and go; the self is always present, eternal, self-existent. Because man is born ignorant, he does not know his true Self.
So what are the conditions required to overcome ignorance? They are three:
- The status of a human being
- The disposition of one who longs for freedom
- Being under the tutelage of a teacher
Knowledge is possible to man since he has free will. Even then, it is rare to desire liberation; most men desire security and pleasure. Therefore, heaven is more suitable to them, since there are no obstructions such as exist in the corporeal human state. Yet the disposition is insufficient without the proper guidance and true teachings. These conditions, says Shankara, are due to the Grace of the Lord.
The desire for liberation requires a conversion, specifically a “cognitive change”, or an “intellectual conversion” as Guenon puts it. Simply put, it is a matter of obtaining the right knowledge. The teacher keeps the student on track, discouraging useless pursuits and idle curiosity. Gradually, the student seeks nothing but liberation, and that in the form of knowledge of oneself. Only then can one pursue the inquiry, such as that described by Mouni Sadhu.
There is the problem of recognizing a teacher: “to find out a teacher is to find exactly the teaching. … it is known by whether that person makes you see that you are free.” First of all, the teacher needs to know the teachings; that is at least objectively verifiable. Ultimately it depends on the grace of Ishwara (personal God), which Dayananda says must be earned.
So that leads to the next verse. To earn grace requires manly qualities and mastery of the Vedas. The ranks are thinning out. Dayananda includes courage, sacrifice, and renunciation among those qualities. Here he makes the odd claim that women, too, can have these “manly” qualities. Thus, in practice, he does allow women to lead his study groups. I have my opinion on that and you can have yours.
Freedom is always freedom from what you consider bondage, or better said, from what bothers you. Death and pain bother you, so they keep you in bondage. A lack of self-confidence bothers you, as does any feeling that separates a person from everything else; the sense of separation is a delusion. There are two ways of living:
- The life of activity, seeking to fulfill desires
- The life of renunciation, seeking to become free from the hold of desires
The human being is endowed with intellect, or Buddhi, whose purpose is to understand the goal of life. Every adult should know that from analyzing the experiences of life, otherwise he is wasting his human birth. In a traditional society, there are many examples of renunciates; this keeps the ideal always in view. In the modern world, there are few examples and, when they are noticed, are held up for ridicule. On the contrary, desires are inflamed leading to useless lives of frenetic activity. Even the call to liberation itself becomes just one more desire alongside a nice car, a loyal dog, and a fat 401K.
Shankara proposes some activities: study the scriptures, engage in altruistic activities, participate in rites, and worship the gods. Ultimately, however, what is necessary is the knowledge of the oneness of the self. The Atma is self-evident, but that it is Brahman is not known. The knower himself must dissolve in the wake of the knowledge of Brahman.
Conclusion
This is just the beginning, but a beginning that can only start with an intellectual conversion. There is much to do: develop virile qualities, study scriptures and other texts, develop a longing for liberation, understand your bondages, and so on. Make the decision between the two ways of living. The first is full of choices, the second leaves a man with no choice.
But back to the main point. Is there a comparable teaching in the West? The notion of the Person is clearly equivalent to the atma, i.e., the subject that is never an object. The remaining steps are just as clear: study the Scriptures and the writings of Saints and Doctors. Make salvation your goal, not worldly pursuits. Worship God, practice the works of mercy, and so on.
The final deliverance would then be this: the Person is God. The Western Tradition may not put it that way, but it comes close. This is a topic that will arise later. Nevertheless, Giovanni Gentile, working with just the precepts of the entire range of Western philosophy recognizes that ultimately Spirit is one. Hence the Spirit must be the Absolute. This is all a good start.
I agree.
My concern lay with choosing Christianity as a result of misapprehending other traditions. In contrast, choosing It because It is one’s own, with all the truth of those other traditions (perhaps expressed more intelligibly), is a beautiful thing. The difference between loving a woman because one imagines all others to be bald, and loving her for her.
On a related point, I don’t question that some traditions may be closer to the Truth than others.
Santiago – your post only strengthens the case for Catholicism – if Vedanta is truly the same teaching then why look far away for something that is nearby ?
Thank you for those links
I am perfectly aware of Guenon’s thesis, but I am pointing out that he uses the Vedanta as a Universal language to which all “dialects” (which in his view would be theistic religions) must lead. That is the Abrahamic faiths, for example, despite their “dialects”, actually speak Vedanta, the latter remaining a pure language, unhindered by such ‘dialects’. And if the representatives of a tradition do not speak Vedanta, but insist on the irreducibility of their language, then he claims it is because of ignorance.
I, for one, believe that not every spiritual expression is reducible to the Vedanta.
Anyway, this can be a long discussion and it is not my aim to lead to such. I just wanted to point out an inconsistency in Guenon’s scheme and that despite his brilliancy and my great appreciation for him, his word should not be considered as final, a phenomenon which I have witnessed in some places.
It is questionable whether the Indians aimed at being “absorbed into nothingness”.
An alternative reading of Vedanta may be offered, reiterating that the “traditions are ultimately the same”, in the context of the Vedas and the West (which I hope is relevant to the title post).
Consider the Rig Veda. While it may appear to include divergent accounts of death and creation, the following is of interest:
Rig Veda (9:113.10): “where the zenith of the sun is found, where food of the spirits and satisfaction is found, there make me immortal”.
Rig Veda (10:14.7-8): “Go forth on those ancient paths our ancient fathers passed beyond…Unite with the fathers, with Yama, with the rewards…in the highest heaven. Leaving behind all imperfections, go back home again; merge with a glorious body”.
These instances (the second being a funeral hymn) suggest the Vedic understanding of immortality includes a “glorious body” in “the highest heaven”, conceived of as a home-coming, as opposed to disincarnate dissolution. These elements all appear consonant with the Christian faith (especially if one adds the centrality of ingesting Soma in attaining immortality – potentially Eucharistic).
Also:
Bhagavad Gita (2:12): “…we all have been for all time: I, and thou, and those kings of men. And we all shall be for all time, we all for ever and ever.”
This may, again, contradict the claim that one is to dissipate into nothingness.
In this light, Vedic references to the loss of egoic separateness may be read as corresponding to St. Paul’s “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).
Mihai, this lecture by David Bentley Hart (Orthodox theologian) may also be of interest to you: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Compare it to a comparable lecture by a yogi on satchidananda (which means the same thing) and then decide which path is superior.
Sedir’s primary book is Initiations.
Sedir discusses Guenon explicitly in History and Doctrine of the Rose Croix. Guenon claimed that Sedir misunderstood him; you can judge for yourself.
Mihai, it cuts the other way, also. Specifically, it is unnecessary to turn to alien religions such as the Vedanta since everything necessary is already close at hand. Those who cannot recognize the truth here, will certainly not recognize it elsewhere. It has been one of the goals of Gornahoor to make that explicit. I see there is some ways to go to accomplish it and time is running out.
I have a wholly orthodox friend who likes Guenon but calls him a “Vedantic writer”. But that doesn’t mean he is contradictory. Guenon does not see esoteric unity and Vedantic metaphysics as contradicting each other. His principle is that referencing different traditional forms is like speaking multiple languages, and Sanskrit (which has apparently fleshed out metaphysics the fullest) will be able to fill in where the French language lacks important concepts. Here, he reaches to Vedanta because the Western tradition does not have much to say about the reality of the multitude of traditional forms. If the reader objects to that use of Vedanta, the reader will object to borrowing from other traditions in the first place and will refuse to believe anything in the book, which is why Guenon insists that the role of metaphysics is to make explicit preexisting principles that the reader already believes.
On the matter of diversity: G.K. Chesterton has a funny essay where he accuses the Greeks of forcing a single model of beauty on us, whereas in his opinion, all people should excel at being the best exemplars of their type and should not force themselves into other types. This is actually pretty close to Guenon, Schuon, and Evola. I don’t get how that relativism squares with objective good and evil (Schuon’s explanation appears incoherent to me), but I expect I will learn a lot about it when I study Vedanta this winter.
There is a sort of a contradiction in Guenon’s thought: he says that all traditions say the same thing, but somehow the Vedanta (in the light of Shankara’s teaching) is taken to be the standard by which the adequacy of other traditions is measured. Doesn’t this imply a supremacy of the Vedanta over all the others, which would make them an incomplete exposition of truth ?
If Christian doctrine differs, it is considered to be the result of an exoteric and incomplete understanding. Why couldn’t it be the other way around ? As far as I can tell, this is just a result of Guenon’s personal preference or mental constitution. In this case, I agree with Robert Bolton and Philip Sherrard, that to force all spiritual expression into Vedantic non-dualism is to use a procroustean bed.
PS: I would be interested to read Sedir’s version regarding his path. Any sources?
Interestingly, my own turn to Catholicism was based in part on my seeing it as a pathway of action – the way of the crusading knight – and also a means of empowering myself through the fact that I can remain myself while being united with God and not just absorbed into nothingness as the Indians teach.