The Journal of the Bihar Research Society: Volume 42 - Bihar
Research Society - 1956 - But since Aurobindo's theory
of the Godsent leader is vitally influenced by the concept of the Instrument
(Nimittamatram) as found in the Gita, hence there is a cardinal difference in
his notion of the transcendence of morality and that ...
What’s also worth noting is the strong similarities
between both of these schools and certain developments in contemporary
philosophy, such as the immanentism of Deleuze, or my own networkological
thought. These issues will be discussed at another time… A This Worldly
Vedantaism
There are many reasons why such an approach, in
either it’s Buddhist or Vedantist flavors, has much to offer us today. While
Buddhism clearly favors metaphors of emptiness and extinction of craving, and
Vedantaism favors metaphors of plenitude and fullness, they ultimately aim
towards identifying with the non-dual, the non-limited, that which is beyond
spacetime, beyond craving, the ego, that which is the principle of the all
beyond limitations. There are many parallels here with various strains of Sufi
thought, as well as Hellenist Neoplatonism, both of which may have been
influenced by the more ancient Indic tradition, even as it modified itself in
relation to various influences as well.
There are, however, some legitimate potential
objections to such an approach to the world. Firstly, what if this is all made
up? That is, just as we might say that the Big Bang is the most real, we could
also say that it is the least real thing there is. None of us have ever seen
the Big Bang. It’s the furthest thing from our everyday lives. Might this not
be living for a fiction? Building upon this notion, Nietzsche argued that many
traditional philosophies and religions are “life-hating,” because they value a
world we never see over the world we do, this world, and as such, are examples
of “otherwordly-isms.” Is Vedanta life-hating and otherworldly?
On the one hand, perhaps it is. Certainly
followers of Hinduism and Buddhism often remove themselves from the world and
its pleasures. Many are celibate. They seem to live “in the clouds.” But
perhaps this is just a historical relic. Maybe it might be possible to imagine
a “this worldly” Vedantism or Buddhism. For in a sense, it does seem that the
world has two poles of “most-real-ness,” namely, from one end, the Big Bang,
but from the other end, each and every one of its concrete aspects in
experience. Might it not make sense to play both angles, both sides at once?
If Brahman is the most free, the principle of
everything, then perhaps true liberation isn’t merely to identify with this,
which would certainly give freedom from the cravings of this world. But perhaps
it also means to extend this freedom to all maya, all the illusions. Perhaps
this is compassion beyond that to mere persons, but to all matter. Maybe we
need to make the world more Brahman, and bring liberation not only to our
minds, but all the world of experience. A this worldly Vedantaism, which aims
to liberate not only experience, but even matter from its limitations. An
activist Vedantism.
As I’ve come to realize, as I continue working on my
own work on developing a networkological, relational approach to philosophy,
while learning increasingly about non-western philosophies, is that a
this-worldly, activist version of what Buddhism, Sufism, Vedanta, and
Neoplatonism propose is precisely what the networkological project aims at.
One could make the argument that this is already
latent in Vedanta. But there is without doubt an individualistic focus in
Hinduism and Buddhism, despite the fact that both are ultimately about
dissolving the ego. That said, change happens inside, not outside. Then again,
it does seem that the only reason why Brahman would have for giving rise to the
world of maya would be precisely to lead it to liberation from its limitations,
and the work of Sri Aurobindo, a Neo-Vedantist, works to integrate Vedantism
with an evolutionary approach to the world.
The Mahayana Buddhist spin on these issues, seems to
emphasize precisely the fact that the advent of the Buddha is precisely this
saving compassion for all manifesting in the world. Sufism takes this further,
and sees this as in fact the very purpose of creation as such, which is to say,
the lifting of the veils, which transforms the individual, annihilating them as
they merge with the limitless freedom and power of God. While these are clearly
different traditions, the similarities between their notions of liberation are
striking. Hindu forms of this, including Vedanta, deemphasize the collective
and compassionate, even though this is latent within it, while Mahayana
Buddhism and Sufism emphasize this more collective end of things, and this can
be seen materially as well. Buddhism makes the alleviation of suffering it’s
primary emphasis, and gives rise to monasteries for monks, while Sufism
emphasizes the love of God for creation, and gives rise to massive lodges and
orders. Vedanta emphasizes lifting the veil of ignorance over alleviation of
suffering, and doesn’t give rise to more organized collectives to the extent of
Buddhism or Sufism. While compassion and collective action in the world are
implicit in some ways, they are less emphasized. That said, a Vedantic critique
of this might be that these approaches emphasize the Ishvara side over that of
Brahman itself. Certainly in Sufism, God as that which is Beyond Being presents
itself in theophanic form to speak to us in a language we understand, and in
Buddhism, the manifestations of the Buddhanature in so many Buddhas and
Boddhisattvas are there to give us something to hold on to, so that we hear a
message put in terms that we will more easily understand.
While such comparativist discussions are necessarily
oversimplifying, they do allow for the potential to see the overall projects of
Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism as having many strong commonalities,
something which has been advocated and recognized by figures within these
traditions, such as the famed Vedantic scholars Swami Vivekananda and Ananda
Coomaraswamy, Sufi scholars like Seyyed Hossain Nasr, western Sufi converts
such as Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon. While Buddhist scholars are perhaps
less comparativist in this sense, because Buddhism doesn’t see itself as a
religion at all, the issue of exclusivity is less pressing, and Buddhism has
coexisted with many of these more doctrinally exclusive formations, and the
similarities in many of these projects has been noted by prominent Buddhists
such as the Dalai Lama. What’s more, many scholars have noticed strong
commonalities with classic Chinese Taoism, particularly as manifested in the
writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. While these issues cannot be addressed
here, they are certainly worth pursuing more systematically elsewhere.
