False views

The universe was never created.
Matter, energy and consciousness are one.
There is no center, no periphery, no end to time and space.
Seeing is interpretation.
All statements about ultimate truth, including this one, are a lie.
There are multiple ways to apprehend reality
But not taking into account the error of our seeing,
and not glimpsing the unity in the diversity,
Leads us astray.

The problem is that almost everything that is written, fiction or non-fiction, philosophical or scientific is based on fallacy. It either assumes a reality that is incomplete and prejudiced, or it tries to speculate absurdities. It isn’t necessary to understand everything, or grasp the whole truth, but only to be deeply humble; with a reserve that permeates our consciousness and the way we express. I find it painful to read books that are based on wrong assumptions, or presume to express truth. Gurus and writers of “spiritual” books are usually the worst offenders, because they cast aside all humility. Without humility, we will never understand anything. There is absolutely no guarantee that we ever will, in any case, but a full guarantee that false understanding closes the door to new learning.

Spiritual Teachers

I like to think of myself these days as being without a teacher. I’ve decided to find my own way, during the years ahead, to draw my own conclusions, etc. And I realise I have grown a little dull, not just to the lure of teachers, but also somewhat to the magic of life itself. And I think that this dullness set in a long time ago, and was preceded by confusion. When I look back on life I don’t see things with much clarity, but as a confused sequence of events, though the outline is perhaps becoming clearer.

Be that as it may, there have been a few times that I have sensed the magic emanations that we associate with more enlightened beings. The first time was with Swami Vishnudevananda. Though there was always a parallel sense that there was some flaw – maybe ambition, perhaps anger, as well as considerable gullibility. But there was also a sense of purity, deep sincerity, inner strength, devotion to his own teacher, the ability to look at the world from a different perspective than the rest of us, a sense of mission, a sense of his being in and coming from another place. At the time I knew him, I and most of the people who were involved with him were very young. Immature. Deferent. Cult material. It probably irritated him beyond measure to be around people like us, and one could sometimes feel his exasperation, just as we were occasionally exasperated with him.

At the time, I was aware that he was the only teacher that could somehow captivate my attention. His talks, though he would repeat things a thousand times, were full of life, enthusiasm, interest. His voice and its tonality were full of passion and feeling, his facial expressions were animated and rich in their variety and expressivity. He was a real showman, he but also hit you with his sincerity. His laughter was infectious, and his compassion was palpable. Other teachers would be dry and boring. They would speak about spiritual ideas or values but could not bring them home to me.

His behaviour would be unpredictable. I remember one time we managed to get him a valuable slot of a few minutes on Israeli live radio, and instead of using every minute wisely with a focused message that might pull in hard-nosed Israelis, he began with long minutes of vedic chanting. The radio announcer must have been stunned or nonplussed. It wasn’t something you could interrupt, you couldn’t shut him up or just pull away the mic.

When he did speak to the press, I would feel annoyed that often what he said would feel logically inconsistent or misplaced. But then I would find that he had been able to get through to people anyway. His message would reach them in a way that I didn’t anticipate or expect.

When you would say something to him or ask him a question, you might try to predict or imagine his response, but you could be completely off. There was an oracular quality, sometimes, about what he would say.

In a different way, I have been similarly able to respect Thich Nhat Hanh as a teacher. I was never privileged to meet him personally. Only to see him on stages, usually from afar, and, since he would divide his talks between English, French and Vietnamese, sometimes in translation. But if ever a sage expressed his sagacity in every movement, every gesture, every glance – even without any word or movement whatsoever, you feel that that he is expressing wisdom and truth. But when he does speak, his words are brimming with intelligence and compassion.

A senior student of Swami Vishnu who I knew quite well, and who himself seemed to possess almost supernatural power, would say that one of the marks of a sage was that they would be multi-dimensional. They would have somehow that extra dimension that we cannot grasp but can sense. That’s sort of how it is, I guess.

Swami Vishnu, and some others that I have known would say – and I think this has a scriptural source that one of the marks of a true teacher is compassion. The presence of it is usually felt. If this quality is absent, then one should not approach that person for guidance.

Dharma as a spiritual practice that can maybe save the planet

I. Separation and underlying unity

The world, the universe, reality, can be said to exist both in diversity and in unity. In diversity it exists as a conglomeration of separate semi-autonomous parts. These semi-autonomous parts are governed by laws of self-preservation. But ultimately they depend upon and are absorbed back into the underlying unity from which they have arisen. The universe of things is intimately connected – no thing exists independently. It is joined not only by what we think of as physical “laws” that govern the way in which the parts interact with each other (gravity, magnetism, etc.) but also at a deeper level, in that all of these “things” are manifestations of the same underlying field of existence/consciousness. Each “thing” is not a partial but, in its essence, a full expression of the underlying field.¹ This underlying field is what gives rise to the universe of things in the first place; the universe depends upon it for its existence.

Wrong vision

As members of this universe of parts we cannot directly comprehend the underlying unity while simultaneously seeing ourselves and the world as autonomous independent beings. We either see the forest or the trees. However, seeing the one without seeing the other makes our vision of the world incomplete and therefore mistaken, and this has consequences for the way that we relate to our fellow beings, for our behaviour in and towards the world.

Our wrong vision of the world is based on:

a. The basic semi-autonomy of every member of the universe, and the inherent instinct of every individual for self-preservation. In humans, as in other creatures, this manifests as basic drives to satisfy hunger, protect oneself from danger, reproduce, etc.²

b. Extensions based on this semi-autonomy. Thinking of ourselves as existing independently, as separate entities, we adhere to responsibilities towards children, parents, our community, etc. and find a necessity to compete against others for our survival. For our survival and well being, we try to gather around us persons and things, which we must then defend.

Our wrong vision of the world leads to:

a. The inability to see the underlying unity (because we are duped by our conception of the world in terms of division and separation).

b. Seeing the world through a filter and prioritizing action. For the sake of convenience we draw a separation between ourselves and the universe, and distinguish the universe into separate parts. Conceptually we draw distinctions between what is important and less important, what is real and what is false, etc. Out of the myriad objects, the myriad interactions between them, and the events and causalities in space and time, we identify what is important to us in terms of our limited world view and the need to defend ourselves and compete. Our wrong vision is therefore self-supporting and self-confirming; our egoistic vision builds upon itself and further conditions us. Our conditioning further blinds us to underlying harmony, unifying love and laws of cooperation upon which the holistic systems of our biosphere depend.

c. Rivalry, conflict, warfare. Whereas the universe actually depends upon an underlying unity and the symbiosis and mutual cooperation of everything that manifests within this unity, an inability to see this unity leads us into competition, rivalry and conflict.

d. Increasing levels of destruction of our biosphere. Whereas the universe depends on the underlying unity and coexistence of everything in it, a world-view that insists on self-autonomy and perceived separation, eventually brings about the destruction of the elements that it needs for its own existence. Whereas a vision of underlying unity enables a self-sustaining harmony, a vision of separation leads to ultimate destruction. Although in an earlier age it was possible to continue without seeing this, in our Anthropocene age, in which the world is becoming unlivable for the creatures that live within it, in which a tenth of all species in currently facing imminent extinction, it is now possible to see the final consequences of our wrong vision and resultant wrong action. We can now understand that without a radical revision of our actions, based on correct vision, we will be unable to continue.

Overcoming wrong vision

Because we see the world as a subject – object reality, in which we, as subject, exist in a world of other beings or things, we are unable to see the unitary whole upon which the perceived world depends. However, not being able to see the unitary whole does not imply that this does not exist. It also does not mean that we are unable to sense its existence, based on all that we see. In the same way, astronomers can predict the existence of an unseen celestial body by measuring its effects upon other bodies that can be seen. Some scientists, based on their observations, have come to the conclusion that the universe is conscious, or constructed of consciousness. Ordinary perception of the world can lead to the understanding that it is controlled by laws that spring from an underlying unity. The more that we learn about nature and our biosphere, the more we understand that it expresses an inherent harmony and equilibrium. Without this, the world would not be able to exist or continue. The biosphere is threatened when these laws are not respected.

The role of mysticism

In an earlier age, it was more difficult to identify the cause of our misery as a consequence of wrong vision. It was less easy to grasp this rationally because the end result, which we can now see clearly, was not so obvious. Such a conclusion was however reached through the intuition of mystics and sages, through meditation and samadhi. Intuited understanding is difficult to conceptualize intellectually or express verbally and, when it is expressed, often leads to contradictory expressions in various theories and schools of thought. This has resulted in the various darshanas of Indian philosophy, various schools of Buddhism, and similarly contradictory expressions among Islamic, Christian and other mystics, etc. There is no consensus on whether reality consists solely of pure consciousness, the void, is in a relationship of subservience to divine will, etc. However, there is an underlying agreement that our everyday perception of the world is in error and that selfish, unprincipled, egoistic behaviour is destructive. There is further consensus that action should be non-selfish, as expressed in the injunction to “love thy neighbour/companion as our self”.

The mystic vision of sages and the founders of the our religions has been expressed variously through scriptures that carry the injunction towards virtuous and altruistic action. If our actions were truly based on these agreements, we would exist in a state of harmony between each other and our world. However, this is not the case.

The mystics who gave expression to these scriptures had an intuited, integral vision. An integral vision, i.e, one that is not simply rational or intellectual, transforms one’s world in such a way as to produce a harmony at all levels of one’s being. It governs our behaviour and informs one’s actions in a way that a merely rational or intellectual understanding fails to do. There is no question of being at odds with one’s vision because any will to act in a way that contradicts it disappears.

From integral vision to religion

When we comprehend a thing rationally or intellectually, or try to obey religious injunctions out of belief, we introduce the possibility of inner conflict. Our conscience may tell us one thing, but our desires and cravings have a life of their own. So either our actions will be imperfect, or we will fail totally. Our actions may result in partial compliance, non-compliance, hypocrisy, lip-service or repressive behaviour that results in mental aberrations or maladies.

Religions, ethical codes, human laws, have largely failed in their mission to keep egoistic behaviour at bay, create peaceful societies, prevent wars, or create a sustainable future for humankind and our fellow creatures.

Self realisation as a way to effect change

Because of the failure of religions to effect real change, some thinkers have come to the conclusion that there will be no real transformation unless individuals can attain to the same integral and intuitive realization as that of the saints and sages and founders of the religions.

There are several problems with this aspiration.

a. It is impractical to hope that, in the conceivable future, a large mass of people will attain an integral vision that comprehends the underlying unity. The obstacles are great, as is proved by the small number of people who have been able to attain this throughout history. Even with good intentions and diligence, it seems that such a true realization is exceedingly uncommon.

b. There appear to be issues with the attainment of the unitary vision itself. Some who have been able to comprehend the underlying unity have afterwards been unable to function in the real world. Traditional brahmanic scriptures themselves have proclaimed that those who attain to the state of nirvikalpa samadhi die quickly.³ Those who do go on living may embrace a monist vision that upholds the underlying unity, while declaring the “world of things” to be unreal and invalid. Whereas previously they were unable to see the forest for the trees, they are now unable to see the trees for the forest. A real transformation of the human condition requires the ability to see the world in its diversity as well as in its underlying unity.⁴

c. The unitary vision is not a communicable experience at all. This is reflected in the contradictions in the way that the various sages have described or extrapolated from their experience. It is also reflected in the refusal by many sages to discuss their experience. It is therefore not practical to expect that any individual realisation will lead to real change at the level that is required to transform our plight.

d. There is real urgency to our problem. We are creating untenable conditions for our continued existence on the planet. We are destroying our biosphere. We are setting the ground for multiple disasters as competition over basic resources like water, land, food and air will grow acute to the point of open warfare. We are not even aware of the multiple ways in which pollution, destruction of habitat, climate change, depletion of resources, overpopulation, etc. will interact. Although we know that disaster is looming, we are unable to reverse or even mitigate the practices that lead to it. Our failure to act is a result of our wrong vision.

Dharma

The failure of human laws to create a peaceful world and sustainable future

The laws that govern the universe of things are themselves the manifestation of the unitary existence-consciousness that underlies reality. These laws govern the way the manifest universe interacts with itself. They are based both on the need and tendency of the individual for self-preservation and upon the underlying cooperation and bonding between individual and individual within the universal whole. In eastern philosophies there is the view that the universe functions according to an overarching law of dharma, and within it each individual operates according to his own prescribed dharma within this macrocosmic reality.

Our understanding of the laws that govern the universe is imperfect and this imperfect understanding, often first expressed in religious scriptures, lies at the basis of our human laws. In codifying the laws that govern us, we have tried to mimic cosmic laws, both in the attempt to safeguard the rights of the individual and in the attempt to create harmony between individuals, in society and in the world.

Though the law books are the outward expression of our original attempt to mimic laws that govern the universe, we are also guided by a personal moral compass. This is based on learned behaviour with regard to societal norms, codes of morality received through education and an inner voice which we call conscience. Our behaviour is therefore affected by the fear of punishment through our legal systems, by the wish not to transgress societal norms learned through education, and by our inner voice. Yet none of these have been enough to create peace with our neighbours and fellow beings nor a sustainable future for humankind.

Dharma as a training and a sadhana

We cannot, with the best intentions, create a sustainable future while viewing the world through the lens of our egoism. If we obey laws because we fear punishment, or obey unwritten rules based on the fear of being ostracized from our society, or act according to a wish not to feel ashamed of ourselves, we are still acting within the field of our egoism. We cannot transform our relationship with the world unless we are able to transform our wrong vision. Transformation won’t come about through the fear of punishment but only through a positive sense of participation, cooperation, empathy and love. As seen in Buddhism, and sometimes in other paths like yoga, the practice of dharma is a training or a teaching, towards an intuitive and integral understanding of oneness, rather than a cultivation of obedience to ethical prescriptions and injunctions. Practiced in this way, dharma, such as the five precepts (pañcasila) noble eightfold path of the Buddha, or the yamas and niyamas at the basis of Patanjali’s system of raja yoga, becomes a form of sadhana (spiritual discipline).

Dharma as a tool for transformation

The practice of dharmic sadhana gives us the opportunity to change our relationship with our fellow beings and the world from a state of competition to a state of cooperation and equal participation. This depends not only upon good intentions but the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Interaction with our fellow beings is not simply a matter of following what is lawful, socially acceptable or even unconscionable, but a matter of acquiring skills such as nonviolent communication, the ability to listen and interpret the subtle signs expressed by others, as well as empathy. Environmentally sustainable practices requires a knowledge of how to choose the least damaging or most beneficial course of action, based on science, economics, mechanics, and whatever else is relevant to the case. Living as a good citizen of the 21st century requires awareness and knowledge.

The value of following a practice of dharma as a sadhana is that it provides the only response that can be helpful in the critical stage that we have reached. The situation in the world requires immediate action that is based on the acknowledgment of the underlying unity of all things, because our wrong vision of division has created the problem we now face. Dharma means, among other things, the performance of effective action that is based on correct vision. This is exactly what we need, and basically the only thing that can save us.

Conclusion

This article reasons that our view of the universe as divided into separate objects is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental unity. It states that it is this wrong vision that has led to the current crisis we are facing. It casts doubt on claims that the situation can be be changed through solely personal transformation and suggests the practice of dharma as a more practical method of tackling our problems and transforming the world. It claims that the practice of dharma is also a sadhana, i.e. a means to gaining an integral understanding that the “world of things” depends upon underlying unity.

purnam adah, purnam idam purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate (Brihadaranyaka Upanisad 5.1.1) ↩︎
It is sometimes stated that our basic instincts themselves correspond to our threefold inner nature (described in philosophies that derive from the Upanisads as existence (sat), knowledge (chit), bliss (ananda): That our desire for self-preservation and long life is an expression of sat. That our unquenchable thirst for knowledge is an expression of chit, and that our unsatisfiable lust for enjoyment is an expression of ananda. ↩︎
Sri Ramakrishna said the one who attains to this state leaves his body after 21 days. (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna). ↩︎
See “The Eternal and the Individual”, Chapter 3, The Life Divine, by Sri Aurobindo and elsewhere. ↩︎

Among the devotees

I think I will stay about another week here in Tiruvannamalai. I arrived on May 13 to stay with an octogenarian friend in his home close to the ashram. I spend about four hours a day there, in a self-imposed schedule of meditation. The ashram imposes no strict rules upon visitors, or even guests who stay there. But there is a faithful community of devotees, Indian and foreign, who spend a good part of their day in its halls and grounds. Hebrew readers can see Tomer Persico’s article about it, or look at the pictures.

It’s my fifth visit to Tiru, but I know less about the town than most others where I’ve spent this amount of time. I’ve visited the grand old temple of course (once), climbed up Arunachala as far as the caves, and circumambulated around the hill (13 km) a couple of times, though not barefoot like a true believer.

Tiru, May 27 2019

D. in the evening pointed out the peacefulness of the place where he lives and said that “this moment would not return again.” He seems to be wishing me to enjoy the moment and make the most of it, and there is something in what he says, since my responses to it are for the most part fairly dull. Also, Dorit, in our phone call, asked me if I found this a place of inspiration. I was unable to give an unequivocal answer. I guess, for the most part, I do not feel anything special, and the annoyances are as great as the advantages. So it is hard to say. I feel for the most part peaceful in the ahsram halls, but not exactly inspired.

In addition, I have begun to develop some criticism for Ramana’s approach. I think it is an incomplete realization, that requires a follow up in real life. It starts with the self and does not seem to end in any broad vision of unity or kinship with others / the other. There is no other. and yet there is.

From an ecological viewpoint, it is true that a person possessed of self-realization will have few wants, will live on the bare minimum, which is what is required on our ravaged planet. But if one wants to live as a responsible world citizen and bring about change to a world confronting ecological disaster, something more is needed.

There was a sudden change in the weather this afternoon; blustery winds that brought the temperature down suddenly be several degrees, and a little rain. Quite refreshing.

Tiru, May 26, 2019

Did a little work for the office in the afternoon. Quite a hot day today. I’m thinking how to create an autonomous personal space in the cosmos, and am partially succeeding at this here in South India. My sitting mat defines this personal space. My bag has all the few things that I need: sitting mat, filter water bottle, phone – which does just about everything. Perhaps I should use it for keeping this journal. And, back in the house, a few more things. I think this may be the trend in the coming difficult age of enforced austerity, as the world becomes harder to inhabit. South India is certainly a good testing ground for global warming.

Sannyasa has meaning only in the context of adwaita vedanta, but it stems from a much older tradition of parivajak and hermit ascetics These too were masters at managing with the bare minimum of possessions, while living in a totally independent way with the cosmos. Because there is of course no true ability to live in any self-contained way: one takes as one’s garb the earth, its waters, the sky. We are simply seeking a modern paradigm for this.

Tiru, May 25 (evening) – 26, 2019

Found myself growing really exasperated with D. tonight. The dissonance between his assertions of nondualism and his constant disparagements of everyone around him is the salient feature of his discussion. As if there are two themes: Bhagavan (God) and the others (devils). I wonder if he is suffering from some form of paranoia (though his fears are actually well founded)? This does not go at all well with his philosophy. It would be better to acknowledge a failure to realize his understanding than to travel with this, pretending all the while that the universe is a figment. It’s obviously very real to him.

Slept poorly, with this and other thoughts. The “Good Night” anti-mosquito stuff gave me a headache. Read part of a Toma Persico article that Dorit sent, about his stay in Tiruvannamalai. It’s true, on first sight, what he says about the over-seriousness of many of the Western disciples, who look like gnarled pieces of wood. Persico quotes Alan Watts: Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.

Tiru: May 25, 2019

If the matter of liberation is not a personal thing, I wonder if it is actually important for there to be a mystical supramental realization of the truth, as long as one is acting according to the principle of interbeing, acting in a selfless, non-egoistic way?

From the perspective of the universe, this would seem to be more important than a half-baked, occasional semi-realization of the truth, or worse, a misguided vision. Because, from the point of view of universal well-being, it is not true that “nothing matters”. The universal does matter. Where this line of thinking falls down is that it is quite likely that one will make mistakes if the vision is not complete. But if one makes a sincere attempt to understand holism, and the interplay of forces, this is still likely to be more useful than, again, a half-baked mystical vision. Actually, holism is not “rocket science”. There is not a lot to understand, on a basic level. It is more true when it relates to the nitty-gritty of, say, our personal choices as consumers. But it is less true with regard to our interactions with people and nature at a direct level.

In Buddhism, this universal vision, or the acting according to the good of the whole, or the aligning of action with cosmic principles, is the wheel of dharma, the noble eightfold path. In Hinduism, it is similarly the duty of the individual to live life according to the principles of swa-dharma. But acting for the good of the whole is common to all the religions, with differing interpretation of what this actually means. Religions usually only need to take a wider view, beyond speciesism, to consider the good of the earth, in an age in which we are destroying it. It is this element of urgency which makes me think that we cannot afford to wait for mystical experience, but must rely upon our intelligence and act now.

Tiru: May 24, 2019

The individual observer sees other individuals and neither are real, in the sense that neither are complete. The web that unites them, the substratum, is not seen or intuited. The substratum is interbeing. When the element of interbeing is there, the differences dissolve. The completion works like a cancellation, because what remains is consciousness without object. The danger is that it then appears that the universe is illusion. This is not so, because it actually does exist, though not in the incomplete way in which we observe it. So the state of apprehension of the interbeing actually carries the same danger of wrong perception as the normal perception of the world of differences. Both visions are flawed. One must not allow the world to disappear, as it were. It would be better to maintain even an intellectual or rational understanding of holism, because it would permit positive action, which is necessary in order to change our damaging influence upon the world caused by our wrong action. At the very least, spiritual practice must be based on thes understanding throughout, becasue the pitfalls, in this very subjective field, are great.

The question is whether the matrix of consciousness should be presented as a kind of forest, in which the trees have a common root system, each growing up, individually, from this unitary base, or rather like a system of objects within a common universal web. The latter is closest to representations of the universe; the cosmos of galaxies and star systems, each affected by forces such as gravity, magnetism, etc., so probably should be approved. No one cosmic body is acting independently; all are locked in a cosmic dance. This is the way in which we interact with each other, with nature, though there is the illusion of independence. The wrong vision is just this. And there is the tendency not to see the whole due to the infatuation with the individual components – or to see the whole and then not to see the individual. We fail to see the forest for the trees, or the trees for the forest. Either way, we should not search for an agent that is independent of the universe that is acted upon from within, though within and without are part of our illusion.

Tiru: May 23, 2019

Sitting in the first hall at the Ashram. A man is sitting next to me reading a newspaper. People seem to do what they want here. Earlier, in the place where the newspaper reader sat, was a man who read aloud Sanskrit slokas. The temple as coffee shop. I set up my stall here, cloth for the floor, bag, water bottle, mala. Self-contained. Mostly doing nothing. Sometimes doing japa. Staring into space. Seldom dozing or dreaming, as it is better to stay awake and observe.

I listen respectfully to D’s advice regarding vichara (self-inquiry), while realizing that it is not my practice. Just as I have listened to many others in a similar way. Perhaps I’m ineducable. But it is correct to be respectful of a person’s deeply held spiritual beliefs, rather than engage in disputes. Especially when they are more advanced in their practices than I am in mine. But previously discussion has helped me to come to what little insight I have attained.

At some point I will need to explain to D at least my practice, rather than go on pretending to be doing something that I am not doing. What I’m trying to develop is very important. It may not be unique. But it is somewhat necessary to arrive at it by my own steam.