You are happy when you are not trying to be happy. —Zen Saying
A couple of articles on this blog have touched on Vedantic principles in the context of depth psychology, but in this article I’d like to focus solely on a question regarding the Vedanta spiritual tradition, a question I affectionately refer to as my Vedanta dilemma.
Vedanta recognizes two experiences of reality: Brahman and Maya. Brahman is the Universal Consciousness, the Absolute Reality, the formless, boundless, nameless Godhead from which everything is created. Brahman transcends time, space, thought, and form. Brahman is eternal consciousness and eternal love. Brahman is the deep oneness from which springs everything that you and I can name. Brahman cannot be named or defined; it transcends all naming and defining.
Maya is a world with which we are much more familiar: our day-to-day experience of separateness, multiplicity, conflict, suffering, craving, and all that is attached to ego, emotion, thought, and the distinction between “me,” “you,” and “them.” Maya is marked by endless cycles of pain and pleasure, calm and anxiety, hunger and satiation.
Maya is said to be illusory in that the separateness and multiplicity that are its hallmarks are illusions masking the deep oneness that connects all things (i.e., Brahman).
The Vedanta masters teach that our proper spiritual path is to see through the illusion of Maya and to enter the timeless, thought-less experience of God-consciousness. They say our goal is to come to Brahman experientially and nonintellectually through various yogic and meditation practices. These practices, when mastered, allow us to experience our true, unfettered nature, our divine essence, our pure consciousness, our oneness with Brahman. Once achieved, the veil of Maya is lifted, and we have a direct encounter with God-consciousness.
Conceptually, I find this all very reasonable. In fact, intuitively I know it to be true. But here is my Vedanta dilemma:
By definition, any intellectual distinction between Brahman and Maya, as I have done above, is more Maya. Musings on the nature of Maya and Brahman are done in the realm of thought and the inevitable dualities and multiplicities that are the hallmark of Maya. My distinction between Brahman and Maya is yet another pitfall of Maya, since it bespeaks of dualistic thinking.
If Brahman is truly Brahman—that is, if Brahman is the oneness of all things—than what I call Maya must also be Brahman.
But we haven’t gotten to my real dilemma. I’m actually okay with the paradox that Maya must also be Brahman. I’m even okay with defining Brahman as something beyond defining.
My Vedanta dilemma is: What should I now do?
If I pursue the yogic practices described by Vedanta teachers, I continue to be bound by Maya, since I am in essence saying: I’m not there yet. I haven’t achieved Brahman yet. I’m working towards something which as of now is out of my reach.
But to define Brahman as out of my reach is to fall into Maya’s web of illusion. If Brahman is Brahman, then it is not out of reach at all. It is right here, right now, everywhere. Wouldn’t it be more proper to say: I am already that. (By “I,” I don’t mean the ego-I, I mean my consciousness.) That is, I am already here, now, and everywhere. (Tat tvam asi, as Hindus say. Thou art that.)
Following this line of thinking, I would go on to say that I need not do a thing. I already am that which I seek, and to seek it is to be caught up in the illusion of separateness. Therefore, I will let go of my yogic practice and rely only on insight—not an intellectual insight, but a kind of sudden, transporting, here-and-now experience that is beyond all verbal description. Since my yogic practice is inherently fettered by Maya, I can put it aside and just somehow get it, right here, right now, in a way I will never adequately describe in words.
That is my Vedanta dilemma. Should I do my practice or should I do nothing and just get it? And the fact that I have boiled down this discussion into an either-or question shows that even my dilemma is probably not valid because I’ve steered myself into another dualistic way of seeing the problem.
Ah, Maya.
Vedanta recognizes two experiences of reality: Brahman and Maya. Brahman is the Universal Consciousness, the Absolute Reality, the formless, boundless, nameless Godhead from which everything is created. Brahman transcends time, space, thought, and form. Brahman is eternal consciousness and eternal love. Brahman is the deep oneness from which springs everything that you and I can name. Brahman cannot be named or defined; it transcends all naming and defining.
Maya is a world with which we are much more familiar: our day-to-day experience of separateness, multiplicity, conflict, suffering, craving, and all that is attached to ego, emotion, thought, and the distinction between “me,” “you,” and “them.” Maya is marked by endless cycles of pain and pleasure, calm and anxiety, hunger and satiation.
Maya is said to be illusory in that the separateness and multiplicity that are its hallmarks are illusions masking the deep oneness that connects all things (i.e., Brahman).
The Vedanta masters teach that our proper spiritual path is to see through the illusion of Maya and to enter the timeless, thought-less experience of God-consciousness. They say our goal is to come to Brahman experientially and nonintellectually through various yogic and meditation practices. These practices, when mastered, allow us to experience our true, unfettered nature, our divine essence, our pure consciousness, our oneness with Brahman. Once achieved, the veil of Maya is lifted, and we have a direct encounter with God-consciousness.
Conceptually, I find this all very reasonable. In fact, intuitively I know it to be true. But here is my Vedanta dilemma:
By definition, any intellectual distinction between Brahman and Maya, as I have done above, is more Maya. Musings on the nature of Maya and Brahman are done in the realm of thought and the inevitable dualities and multiplicities that are the hallmark of Maya. My distinction between Brahman and Maya is yet another pitfall of Maya, since it bespeaks of dualistic thinking.
If Brahman is truly Brahman—that is, if Brahman is the oneness of all things—than what I call Maya must also be Brahman.
But we haven’t gotten to my real dilemma. I’m actually okay with the paradox that Maya must also be Brahman. I’m even okay with defining Brahman as something beyond defining.
My Vedanta dilemma is: What should I now do?
If I pursue the yogic practices described by Vedanta teachers, I continue to be bound by Maya, since I am in essence saying: I’m not there yet. I haven’t achieved Brahman yet. I’m working towards something which as of now is out of my reach.
But to define Brahman as out of my reach is to fall into Maya’s web of illusion. If Brahman is Brahman, then it is not out of reach at all. It is right here, right now, everywhere. Wouldn’t it be more proper to say: I am already that. (By “I,” I don’t mean the ego-I, I mean my consciousness.) That is, I am already here, now, and everywhere. (Tat tvam asi, as Hindus say. Thou art that.)
Following this line of thinking, I would go on to say that I need not do a thing. I already am that which I seek, and to seek it is to be caught up in the illusion of separateness. Therefore, I will let go of my yogic practice and rely only on insight—not an intellectual insight, but a kind of sudden, transporting, here-and-now experience that is beyond all verbal description. Since my yogic practice is inherently fettered by Maya, I can put it aside and just somehow get it, right here, right now, in a way I will never adequately describe in words.
That is my Vedanta dilemma. Should I do my practice or should I do nothing and just get it? And the fact that I have boiled down this discussion into an either-or question shows that even my dilemma is probably not valid because I’ve steered myself into another dualistic way of seeing the problem.
Ah, Maya.
Indeed.
ReplyDeleteBrush strokes are not the experience of seeing an amazing painting. But that doesn't make them useless ;)
I would recommend pausing/slowing the intellectual exercises (jnana yoga) and exploring some of the other limbs deeper. Asana, pranayama, dharana, etc., until you find a combo that takes you there.
Thank you, Oliver. Do see my follow-up article on the topic. Thanks for your insights!
ReplyDelete