Part VI Abstract
In Part VI, I continue the
discussion that I began in Jung’s Later
Visions, Individualized Global Consciousness and Completed Individuation in
Light of the Yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. I begin by discussing
the meaning Jung gives to the unus mundus
and show its significant similarities, of which and differences to Sri
Aurobindo’s understanding of the Supermind as well as discernments. I include
in this discussion the process of ascent and descent, with emphasis on the
descent, which is common to the path of both Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, and
Jung. From there I discuss three variations of Advaita Vedanta, the path of Adi
Shankara, born in the eighth century CE, and credited with having established
Advaita Vedanta on a philosophic basis, the teachings of the Shankara lineage
in its contemporary expression, and then Śrī Ramana Maharshi’s popular
contemporary spiritual teachings. I draw some conclusions as to the limitations
of Advaita Vedanta in comparison to Sri Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s path of
Integral Yoga. Following this discussion, I continue my amplifications on
Jung’s Coniunctio vision from an earlier essay mentioned above, and
differentiate the Supermind consciousness from the Overmind consciousness,
while relating them to Jung, his
psychological work and, I believe, his having attained global knowledge.
Following that, I discuss a late dream of Jung’s, where he found himself in a
valley full of diamonds in terms of his post-1944 writings. This leads me into
a discussion of the qualitative value of numbers and their relationship to the unus mundus and the unity of spirit and
matter. In this part of the essay I include the Mother’s “vision-dream” of
creating a new world by way of manipulating living numbers and then
Norelli-Bachelet’s [Thea’s] esoteric use of numbers regarding the measurements
of the inner chamber of the Matrimandir. I do this, especially in order to
substantiate Jung’s and Marie-Louise von Franz’s views on numbers, although, in
the process, I acclaim the intrinsic value of the Mother’s achievement and
acknowledge the value of Norelli-Bachelet’s [Thea’s] claims.
The Limitations of Advaita Vedanta: Adi Shankara, His Lineage and
Influence
These considerations raise the
question of Advaita Vedanta, given Sri Aurobindo’s differentiation of Realistic
Advaita of The Life Divine from the
Shankara tradition, which he basically rejected as “it does not satisfy my
reason and it does not agree with my experience.” [36] Despite his remarks
Advaita Vedanta in one form or another continues to attract many people
including some disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. The rationale that is
often presented is that Sri Aurobindo’s second level of transfiguration is the
spiritual transformation and identity with That, and that is precisely what
Advaita Vedanta is all about. Although this may well be an accurate assessment,
as I have alluded to above, the attainment of the Overmind, let alone the
Supermind, requires both intense vertical realization but also a wide range of
cosmic consciousness.
Allowing for the fact that there
are many different paths to the Supermind, one of which may be Advaita Vedanta,
the question fundamentally is, in principle, does Advaita Vedanta typically
encourage such eventuality, or is it too narrowly focused on attaining non-dual
reality at the exclusion of an in-depth and broad psychological and cultural
development? One can appreciate the gift
of Advaita Vedanta in its emphasis on the One without a second and still bring
appropriate intellectual discernment to bear.
In the Advaita Vedanta Shankara’s
principle aim is for individuals to reveal or realize non-dual reality, the
Absolute, beyond all opposites including cause and effect. Shankara’s path of knowledge involves
discerning the eternal from the ephemeral and detachment from the fruits of
one’s actions. His path requires moral and spiritual discipline and an intense
aspiration for liberation. The primary scriptural texts concern knowledge,
while those dealing with action are seen as secondary, action considered to be
merely a means of self-purification. Although empirical knowledge takes place
within the realm of ignorance or avidyā,
according to the questionable reasoning of Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta, “as
consciousness, it is ultimately one with pure consciousness which alone can
remove avidya,” indicating the superiority of knowledge over action. [37] The
goal is liberation from the illusion of duality by attaining the status of
jivanmukti by way of identity with Brahma as Being, Consciousness, Bliss. The
missing ingredient is in this formulation is ‘Force,’ and the understanding
that in the manifestation, Consciousness-Force is constantly at work in life
experience. Meditation is also seen as subsidiary, and, yet, a means to attain
concentration of the mind, enabling reception of the light of
consciousness.
According to Shankara, there are
two categories of illusion, empirical illusion and transcendental illusion both
of which need to be understood as unreal and ultimately rejected in order to
attain liberation. With all empirical experience there are two factors, the
subject and the object, which Shankara perceived as being incompatible
opposites. He rationalized their co-existence by arguing that the only way
these contradictory opposites can unite is through the a priori categorizing
function of the mind and the power of Maya or Avidya, the transcendental
illusion. As all individuals are subject
to this Cosmic Illusion, he further rationalized, empirical life, which is
rooted in it and presupposes it, is also illusory. Illusion means wrong perceptions, wrong
knowledge or beliefs, opinions or dogma, whose essential nature is based on the
fact of super-imposition of the unreal on the Real, along with faulty cognition
and misapprehension or error. Error
involves identifying the unreal, which only appears to exist, with the Real,
where ignorance of the Real is due to non-apprehension and misapprehension.
By revealing the Real, Shankara
proposed, the unreal is cancelled and shown as false throughout all time, past,
present and future. This convoluted line of reasoning continued with the
explanation that the dilemma is that ignorance cannot be determined to be real
or unreal—not real because it is “cancelled by right knowledge, not unreal
because, for all practical purposes, “it gives rise to and sustains appearance.”
[38] Yet, he concluded that the characterization of the empirical object as
neither real nor unreal renders it false, justifying his principle
premise.
There are, according to Advaita
Vedanta, three levels of Being, (1) Brahma as ultimate Reality, (2) the
empirical world, valid according to our daily experiences, but not real in itself and (3) illusions such
as the rope mistaken for a snake and dreams, each of which is mistaken as real
until proven otherwise. Brahma is the underlying reality of the True Subject
and the True Object, which are One. Despite his principle assumption, Shankara
considered it illogical to accept the object in the case of true knowledge and
deny it in the case of the illusory and empirical knowledge. He consequently
accepted illusions like the empirical objects as objective, even though he
acknowledged that they come from an unreal order of being. There is, in
addition, ’non-being’ which does not appear as an object at all.
Thus, according to Advaita Vedanta,
before Brahma is revealed to the individual seeker, the world is, for all
practical purposes, real and cannot be classified as unreal, which means the
world has empirical validity, but not ultimate reality. By reality, Shankara
meant timeless reality compared to unreality by which he meant time-bound and
non-eternal. Whereas the underlying ground of the world is eternal Brahma, its
unreality is the superimpositions on Brahma, which are rejected on realization
of the Real. The superimpositions including cause and effect are mere
appearances and unreal. This means that there can be no real causal
modification and, therefore, no creation. For empirical reality, however, the
original Creation is considered to be valid, although, as if to justify the
fundamental assumption of Shankara’s system of yoga, only the cause is
considered as real and not the effect.
For Shankara, the two poises of the
Real, which are one, are the lower Brahma, which created the accidental
qualities of being, and the Supreme Real, which is independent of creation, yet
its underlying essence. The lower Brahma or causal principle, Iswara, is the
creator, protector and destroyer of the universe as well as the immanent
self. He is the personal Brahman and the
Lord of Maya. Iswara is the cause of creation, without which there would be no
world of appearances at all. The individual self or jivatman, understood as the
empirical ego, is also mere appearance and a product of avidya, ignorance, and
subject to the workings of the gunas. Although the concealing power of Maya
does not work on Iswara, His association with Maya is ultimately considered to
be unreal.
According to Shankara, although
Brahma’s essential nature is indefinable the best understandable definition is
Satchitananda, Existence, Consciousness, Bliss. It is transcendental unity,
indivisible, unique, eternal and changeless, beyond time as past, present and future.
It is independent of the world, free, and without relationship to the gross,
subtle or causal [cosmic] bodies. Any apparent relation of the Self to any of
these bodies is due to superimposition. Moksha or liberation is the immediate
experience of the Absolute, and not an effect of any causal factor, including
meditation, action of any kind or anything else. It involves the realization of
Brahma and the cancellation of avidyā,
or Ignorance to the point of unembodiment, even should one remain in the world
of appearances.
Given the ultimate illusory nature
of empirical reality, the question arises about the value of action, meditation
and the study of scripture to attain realization. If it is ultimately illusory,
why bother? Shankara’s answer was that karma culminates in disinterested action
and meditation as concentration culminates in a transcendent Samadhi. He
eventually also approved of idol worship and pujā rituals as a means to attain
the Real. According to him, action and meditation are subsidiary to the path of
knowledge, which emphasizes study of the scriptures. Yet, he surmised, despite
the ultimate illusory nature of the world, action can lead to purification of being
and meditation involving concentration, the possibility of receiving the light
of consciousness. Both action and concentration eventually cease as the path of
knowledge yields to indeterminate knowledge in the experience of the Absolute.
The Shankara Lineage of Living Shankaracharyas
Adi Shankara lived in the late 8th
early 9th century CE, and there continues to be a tradition and lineage of
living Shankaracharyas, spiritual heads presiding over four mathas located
throughout
The presiding deity of Kanchipurum
is the Goddess of Charity, Sri Kamakshi., an embodiment of the Parashakti.
Presumably the initiation of projects for social betterment and the
establishment of schools, hospitals and temples, which have an important place
in practice, are related to Her presence. In this version of the Adi Shankara
Advaita Vedanta tradition, the exercise of compassion and tolerance, social
service, and doing works for the common good is a way of
self-purification. Japa, Vedic mantras,
idol worship, and timely rituals involving the two Shankaras are also intrinsic
to the path. The Shankaracharya also supports high culture and there is
acknowledgement that Ambal [the Divine Mother] is “the embodiment of knowledge”
and, judging from the names of the two Shankaras, the goddess Saraswathi is also
recognized. [41] It is as if the Mother Goddesses and the empirical world are
taken very seriously, along with the goal of social improvement and development
of human values, even though the world is considered to be ultimately unreal.
Given adherence to the Adi Shankara tradition of Advaita Vedanta, however,
there is no recognition of the creative workings of the Divine Mother as
Consciousness-Force in the world or the possibility of new creation in time.
Overall, I am impressed with the
human concern and loving attitude expressed, and the presence of the Goddess
and Divine Mother that encourages the development of becoming more human
through self-purification and the propagation of high culture. I have personally had the priviledge of
having had several prolonged darshans with the present Shankaracharya of the
Kanchipuram math, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, as well as one prolonged
darshan with his successor, Sri Shankara Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. I consider these opportunities to have been
acts of grace, for which I am deeply grateful.
Śrī Ramana Maharshi’s Path of Advaita Vedanta
One of the most popular Advaitans
for contemporary seekers from both
Ramana Maharshi is reported to have
communicated to people according to their level of consciousness. To many
seekers he insisted that the world of empirical reality is not real and that it
is nothing but an illusory construct of the mind. As far as the individual is
concerned his method of self-enquiry, which he emphasized, was aimed at the
realization that ‘I am Brahma or the Self,’ and everything else one identifies
with including one’s body is illusory and not real. Although he had
householders amongst his disciples, their action and field of enquiry was
defined accordingly, and similar to devotees who lived at the Ashram in
Tiruvanamalai, Ramana saw the household as the aspirant’s place to “find the
root of karma and to cut it off,” rather than trying to rectify past karmas.
[43] According to Ramana’s advaitan account, Iswara is the personal and
manifest Brahman, Lord of Karma and ultimately unreal, whereas the real Brahman
is unmanifest and static. The goal for
all aspirants is to dissolve the “I” including the mind and the body
consciousness in the Self or real Brahman and transcend karma.
At first glance, Śri Ramana’s path
of self-revelation seems to differ from Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta, who
perceived the manifestation as ultimately unreal and subject to a fundamental
cosmic or transcendental illusion due to the categorizing function of the mind
and the power of Maya. However, this apparent difference may, itself, prove to
be illusory and based on undifferentiated thinking. Although the ajnani, the
person of ignorance, creates the empirical world through the mind, Ramana
insisted that, for the jnani, the person of knowledge although for nobody else,
the world is real. If that statement strikes the reader as ambiguous, then the
following logic will support that sentiment, and suggest Ramana’s teachings are
not so different from Adi Shankara’s after all.
The jnani, he argued, is the Self
and sees only the Self and, “seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self.”
[44] Yet, the detached state of the
jnani is such that it does not matter if the pictures on a movie screen as
metaphors of the empirical world “appear or disappear.” [45] He went on to say that jnanis need to hold
onto the Self in order not to be “deceived by the appearances of the pictures,”
where the pictures represent the world play in time.”[46] Whereas the pictures
represent the Self as manifestation; the screen without the pictures is the
unmanifest Self. Thus when the jnani grabs the movie screen to hold onto the
Self as substratum, he does not and cannot grab the individual pictures, which
are but a passing phenomena. Still, the world, for the jnani, is experienced as
not being apart from the Self as substratum and, argued, Śri Ramana, it is
accordingly real.
Despite his contention that, for
the jnani, the world is real, Ramana illogically understood the cosmic mind and
cosmic consciousness, which means archetypal phenomena as well as dreams, to be
essentially unreal and illusory. Thus, for him, the world is ultimately based
on a cosmic or transcendental illusion as it was for Shankara and therefore
unreal for the jnani and ajnani alike. Like Shankara, he also saw the Creation and the gradual process of
creation as a product of the Mind and unreal.
The manifestation, for him, rather, is due to instantaneous
self-revelation of Brahman. Thus,
consistent with the perception that the world and the Creation are unreal, he
is reported to have answered a seeker that “Activity is creation” and it is
“the destruction of one’s inherent happiness.” [47]
In fact, he generally discouraged
karma yoga, the yoga of action, which in his interpretation, involves “good
works” like social service as, he believed, it put too much emphasis on the “I”
as doer and others as recipients of “good action.” He rather enjoined “silence as the most
potent form of work” and encouraged the search for peace, “the natural state.”
[48] He saw concentration in order to eradicate thoughts as ineffective and
encouraged instead “withdrawal within the Self.” [49] Ramana’s recommended
method for devotees capable of the path of knowledge was self-enquiry, by way
of asking “who am I?,” meditation and inward concentration on one thought, or
better yet, the Self, absorption in the heart, japa or repetition of the name
of God, especially as “I,” but not the “I”-thought, which is a conceptual
product of the mind, and sat-sanga, association with the Guru and other
realized beings, and openness to grace. [50] The ultimate goal, as I indicated
above, is to attain the state of Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, where the
individual is fully absorbed in the Self and beyond all karma, yet can do works
in the world.
For the sake of differentiation,
the first poise of the Superman, its comprehending consciousness, is the One,
although it contains the multiplicity in potential, a reality that does not
come into consideration in the ultimate experience and state of being in the
Advaita Vedanta path of spiritual realization. The One in Śrī Ramana’s and
Shankara’s experience does not contain the multiplicity in potential or, if it
does, it is irrelevant and merely illusory. Although Śrī Ramana argued that the
world is real for the jnani, inasmuch as it is not real in-itself and, whether
it exists or not is immaterial, the metaphor for the empirical world of time,
or the metaphor of the pictures on a movie screen, seems to suggest they do not
have any substantial reality in themselves. In other words, the play of the
world existence and its unfolding is not supported by the Self in any
differentiated way and certainly not penetrated by the Self. As dreams and the
cosmic mind or archetypes are considered to be unreal as is the manifest
Brahma, the Self as dynamic process and acts of creation in time, let alone new
creation in time, are essentially unreal as well.
Ramana’s method of self-enquiry,
withdrawal and absorption in the heart-Self encourages the realization of the
static Self, but any dynamic meditation that creatively engages the dynamic
psyche is actively discouraged. There is no recognition of error as a path
leading to the Self, or for any possibility of individuals finding their own
personal relationship to a Living God. In fact, the individual jivatman in the
final analysis becomes absorbed in the One, and is not considered as a
potentially intelligent, creative and responsible centre of being with regard
to the world and its data of experience and consciousness. There is no
acknowledgement or recognition of the individual subject with self-presence and
capacity for consciousness related to experience, understanding and
self-transcending judgment that is cognitionally, morally, spiritually and
creatively authentic.
Final Thoughts on Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta has the great merit
of directing individuals and their lives towards That with the final goal of
immersion in the One without a second. It opens earnest individuals to greater
humanity and culture, spiritual knowledge and the discernment of feeling
through acts of service and devotion through bhakti. However, action is only
understood as a means of purification or living out karma and the relative
paucity of engagement with the dynamic psyche limits the potential for cultural
and psychological enrichment and expansion. Along with this, the negative
attitude towards the creation and creation as a gradual process also negates a
creative engagement with life or the possibility of the creation of a new
world.
Overall the logic of this line of
argument suggests that, despite the high value of aspiring for conscious
absorption in the Absolute, the path of Advaita Vedanta, at least as presented
by Adi Shankara and Śri Ramana Maharshi, does not satisfy the demands of
integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother or Jung’s path of
individuation. What, in fact, is
devalued is the full play of the creative unconscious and the Divine Mother in
the manifest world, the individual
jivatman as soul, with the delegated immanent soul and psychic being, being
insufficiently differentiated from the Great Mother. Although there can be
acknowledgement of the Goddess as the Parashakti, the creative
Consciousness-Force of the Mother is not discerned. In practical terms, what
could help turn Advaita Vedanta into Realistic Advaita is more highly
differentiated thinking, full recognition of the sensation function and the
value of the extraverted psyche, which, taken together, cannot accept the
rationalizations and dubious logic of Advaita Vedanta as it is now presented.
The final goal of Realistic Advaita
Vedanta according to Sri Aurobindo is complete realization of the supramental
transformation, which is, typically, preceded by overmental realization. Overmind consciousness requires experiences
of the Cosmic Mind, which, according to Advaita Vedanta, is illusory and
ultimately of no consequence. Sri
Aurobindo wrote that “It is… only by an opening into cosmic consciousness
that the overmind ascent and descent can be made wholly possible.” [51] He went
on to say that a “high and intense individual opening upwards is not
sufficient” as there must be, in addition, the need for a “vast horizontal
expansion of consciousness into some totality of the spirit.” [52] These
comments show how Advaita Vedanta, as it is now understood and practiced, is
misguided for disciples aspiring to a path of Integral Yoga and Realistic
Advaita Vedanta.
In the best of cases, Jung’s system
of psychology can be characterized as recalling contemporary individuals to
their instinctual earth, inspiring them to discover new values and open to wide
cultural horizons, all the while inviting intense spiritual aspiration. Jung himself embodied in a large measure
considerable depth of being, an exceptionally broad cultural awareness along
with an original creative spirit, as well as an intense vertical spiritual
aspiration that culminated in the experiences referred to in this paper. The exigencies of a psychologically engaged
psyche are complex and demanding; there is insistence on the goal of cultural
wholeness and the realization of the Self and unus mundus, but not
one-sidedness of any kind, including the exclusive goal of trans-cosmic
spiritual at-one-ment, no matter how high, as in contemporary Advaita
Vedanta.
References
[36] Sri Aurobindo (1970d), Letters on Yoga, p. 43
[37] Chandradhar Sharma (2007), The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy:
A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedanta and Kashmira Shaivism, Moltilal
Banarsidass, pp. 201, 165-218, passim
[38] Ibid., p. 175
[39] Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati
Paramacharya (1994), The Divine Voice,
Vol. 1: Discourses of his holiness
Paramacharya of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Mylapore, p. 40
[40] Ibid., pp. 23, 53
[41] Ibid., p. 53
[42] Ramana Maharshi (1988), The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Foreward by CG Jung, Shambala Publications,
p. xii
[43] Ramana Maharshi (1985), Be as you are: The teachings of Sri Ramana
Maharshi, Edited by David Godman,
[44] Ramana Maharshi (1988), Ramana
Maharshi (1988), The Spiritual Teachings
of Ramana Maharshi, Foreward by CG
Jung, Shambala Publications, p. 85
[45] Ibid., p. 85
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ramana Maharshi (1985), Be as you are: The teachings of Sri Ramana
Maharshi, Edited by David Godman,
[48] Ibid., p. 62
[49] Ibid., p. 65
[50] Ibid., pp. 64, 116
[51] Sri Aurobindo (1970c), The Life Divine, p. 950
[52] Ibid.