Experience (1/2)

Article: Experience (1/2)

by Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Maharaj

There are many schools of atheist philosophers. The most famous atheist in Indian philosophy was Carvaka Muni. His philosophy is paralleled by the extreme atheists of Western philosophy. According to their opinion, consciousness is the by-product of the chemical combinations of different material substances. With the dissolution of this physical body, neither soul nor consciousness remains.

Only the physical combination of the different elements of the body remain. Just as the combination of different chemicals produces something more than the individual chemicals themselves, the physical combination of different material elements produce consciousness. With the dissolution of this fleshy body, nothing remains. This philosophy was first propounded in the West by Epicurus.

Then comes the Buddhist school of philosophy. They say that when the physical body is dissolved, the subtle body, the mental system, goes on to take another birth. The Buddhists admit transmigration from one body to the next, or reincarnation. According to them, although this body may vanish, we must enter another body according to our karma. If we work in a particular way, then the subtle body, the mental system, dissolves, and nothing remains. According to the Buddhists, there is no soul.

Sankaracarya s philosophy is similar with a slight difference. The Buddhist school says that the individual soul does not exist. According to them there is no permanent individual soul. Sankaracarya has also said that no permanent individual soul exists. But Sankaracarya says that conscious substance (Brahman) exists as the ultimate reality.

This is the difference between Sankaracarya and the Buddhists. According to Sankara, consciousness itself is true; it is only the consciousness of separate existence that is false. In his view the individual soul is only a reflection of the conscious substance which is the ultimate reality. With the dissolution of the mental system, each soul s consciousness of individuality vanishes; it is nonexistent in that ultimate plane of reality.

He gives the example of the moon and its reflection in a mirror. Remove the mirror and there is no reflection. His view is that all individual souls are reflections from a common source: Brahman, consciousness. So Sankaracarya says, in reality individual souls are one and the same with Brahman.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu s interpretation of Vedanta is different from Sankaracarya s. Sri Caitanya says that we have to accept the Vedic truth in its entirety, without any modification. Sankaracarya has accepted only a few Vedic aphorisms which constitute a partial representation of the truth. His four principle expressions taken from the Vedas are aham brahmasmi: I am Brahman; tat tvam asi: Thou art that; so ham: I am that; and sarvam khalv idam brahma: Everything is Brahman.

Sri Caitanya analyzed the meaning of the aphorism sarvam khalv idam brahma, as follows: According to Sankaracarya, everything is one. He says brahma satyam jagan mithya: ÔSpirit is true, the world is false. Sankaracarya says that brahma (spirit) exists, and that sarva (everything) does not exist.

If this is actually true, and everything is one, then why does the question of existence or nonexistence arise at all? In the aphorism sarva khalv idam brahma, sarva everything exists, and brahma spirit also exists. In this expression, many exists and one also exists. There is many and there is one.

Again, if everything is one, then the question arises, to whom are we speaking? For whom have the Vedas come with this advice? Both the relative and the absolute exist together; they are coexistent. The absolute and the relative are also represented in the Vedantic aphorism tat tvam asi: Thou art that. Tat or that is there and tvam you is also there.

Both variety and unity are found represented in the aphorism tat tvam asi, but Sankaracarya accepts one and rejects the other. His explanation is therefore a misinterpretation of the original meaning of the Vedanta-sutras. It is not a proper interpretation of the Vedas, because he has thrust his own idea or conception forward in the

name of the Vedanta. Sankaracarya s interpretation of Vedanta is artificial. It is selfish and provincial.

This is the refutation of Sankaracarya given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and as far as we are concerned, it cannot be seen otherwise. If we try to follow the interpretation of Sankaracarya, then what meaning can be found in this statement of the Upanisads: Yato va imani bhutani jayante yena jatani jivanti? The Absolute Truth is He from whom everything is coming, who is maintaining everything, within whom everything exists, and into whom everything enters at the time of annihilation.

What does this mean? Does this statement say that the Absolute Truth is non- differentiated? It is sufficient for our understanding to accept its direct meaning. The self- explanatory meaning of these words is sufficient to understand this simple statement of the Upanisads?

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeats Sankaracarya through common sense. This is the unique characteristic of his argument. He defeats his philosophical opponents not with difficult, abstract, intellectual arguments, but with common sense.

When Sri Caitanya wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of Narayana over Siva, he said that one may just consider the position of the Ganges. The Ganges is the water that washes the feet of Narayana, and yet she rests on the head of Siva. From this, we can easily use common sense to see which of the two holds the superior position.

When Sri Caitanya wanted to show that Krsna is greater than Narayana, he pointed to the example of Laksmidevi. She aspires after the association of Krsna. Although she has everything with Narayana, still she has some aspiration for the company of Krsna. On the other hand the gopis have no attraction for Narayana. When they meet Narayana, they pray that by his grace, their devotion to Krsna may be enhanced.

In this way, by applying common sense, intuition, we may judge the nature of reality. Intuition will be far more helpful than abstruse argument. Vedanta confirms this in the aphorism tarko pratistanat: Argument can never help us reach any real conclusion. Rather it is only intuition and common sense that can really help us. This is the recommendation of Sri Caitanya, and this is how he refuted many scholars, including even the great all-conquering digvijaya panëita of Kashmir.

Student: The Buddhists say that after one transcends sensory experience he will find that underneath it all there is actually no foundation of life. One will find that there s nothing there but the void. According to their teaching, after our experience is removed, there is no soul, no basis of existence. How do the Vaisnava acaryas deal with Buddhism?

Sridhara Maharaja: In South India, and especially in Andhra Pradesh, there are many Buddhist scholars. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu met the Buddhists when he was passing through South India. Caitanya Mahaprabhu says veda namaniya bauddha hoila nastika:

Because the Buddhists do not accept the Vedic scriptures, they are considered atheists. Sankaracarya, in a hidden way, also preaches on behalf of the Buddhists. The difference between them is that Sankaracarya admits the existence of Brahman as the fundamental reality, whereas the Buddhists say that ultimately nothing exists.

The Vaisnava acaryas disagree with both Sankaracarya and with Buddha. They say that the jiva is an individual eternal soul. This particle of spiritual energy known as the jiva or spirit is tiny, like the dust-particles of earth or the pencils-rays of the sun. There is the Supreme Infinite Soul or Consciousness, and the finite sparks of consciousness.

Their relationship may be compared to the relationship between a great fire and the sparks that emanate from the fire. The sparks that emanate from the fire may become covered by darkness, but when they re-enter the shelter of that great conflagration, they are again perfectly situated.

To refute the atheism of the Buddhists, we may look to the modern European philosopher Descartes. Descartes said, I doubt everything. Whatever you say, I doubt. Then, Descartes says, the question that arises is, Does the doubter exist True or false? You have to start your search for truth from there. Who am I?

To whatever truth is related, whatever idea is stated, one may say, I oppose that statement. I doubt it. Then the question arises does the doubter exist, or is he nonexistent? If he is nonexistent, then there can be no question of doubting. If one takes the position of an extreme skeptic, he must explain his own position. He may assert, Whatever you

have said, I doubt; but he must discern whether or not he really exists. That must be the starting point for any further inquiry.

And what is the doubter? Is he an atom? A particle of dust? Is he without knowledge? And if so, then how has he comes to assert doubt? This question should be examined. Whenever one may doubt, the question must be asked, Who is the doubter? Is he conscious? Does he have reason? Has he any existence at all? Or is he imaginary?

Is it matter that is submitting the question? Or is a unit of consciousness asking the question? What is the origin of this question? Who is asking the question? Has it come from the conscious region? If it has, then what shall we consider as the basis of existence? Consciousness or matter? A fossil or God?

Before the First World War, I was a student of law at President s College in Calcutta. In my senior year I studied philosophy under a professor named Mr. Stevenson. He was a German scholar, but during the war he took Indian citizenship. His class dealt with ontology and psychology.

Professor Stevenson s language was very simple, and he used fine arguments to make his point. He gave four arguments against atheism, one of which I find very useful: Consciousness is the starting point of everything. Whatever you say presupposes consciousness. Any statement presupposes consciousness.

If we examine the fossil, what do we see? It is black, it is hard, it has some smell, some attributes, but what are these things? These are all different stages of consciousness. Without the help of consciousness, no assertion can be made. No assertion is possible at all. One may say that the fossil is the most elemental substance, but a fossil means what? Some color, sensation, hardness, taste; but the background is consciousness.

After everything is analyzed, we will find that it is an idea. This is Berkeley s theory. Everything is an idea in the ocean of consciousness. Just as an iceberg floats in the salt ocean, so the fossil is floating in the conscious ocean. Ultimately everything, whatever we can assert, whatever is within the world of our experience is floating like an iceberg in the ocean of consciousness. This point can never be refuted.

I have had personal experience of this. When I was twenty-three, I had some deep and natural indifference to the world. At that time I had an experience of the reality of consciousness. I felt the material world floating on consciousness just as cream floats on milk. Conscious reality is much deeper than the apparent reality of our present experience. The world of experience is like cream floating on milk which is the mind. This physical world is only the visible portion of reality floating over the mental world.

I felt this myself. When there is a huge quantity of milk, the cream that floats over the milk and covers it is very meager. In the same way, I could feel at that time that this physical world is only a meager portion of reality, and that the subtle world, which is at present in the background, is far more vast. The mental world is a huge and vast reality, and the physical world is a small cover over that mental world.

Whatever can be perceived by the eye, the ear, the tongue, the nose, the skin any of the external senses is only a covering of reality. In Srimad-Bhagavatam Prahlada Maharaja says, na te viduh svartha-gatim hi visnum, durasaya ye bahir-artha-maninah. We are making too much of the covering of reality, we are devoting our minds to the external coating bahir-artha-maninah but we do not dive deep into the eternal substance. If only we were to dive deep into reality there we would find Visnu.

The most peaceful substance is within, but it is covered, just as milk is covered by cream, and we are making much of that cover. The real substance is within, just as fruit is covered by its skin. What we experience at present is the cover, the skin, and we are making much of that, ignoring the very substance which the cover is protecting.

The primary step in the search for truth is to penetrate the covering and find the knower within. And then begin our analysis. What is he? Is he an atom like an atomic particle of dust? Or is he a fantastic atom in the conscious plane? At first we must approach reality in this way. There is the knower and the unknown, the inquirer and the inquired.

Try to find yourself. Then gradually, you will come to know that you are the soul, the particle of consciousness within. And just as you are spirit covered by matter, the whole world is also like that; the spiritual reality within is covered. Upon realizing your self as spirit soul, you will be able to see

that everything is a part of consciousness. Within the world of consciousness, worlds of different sorts of experience are floating. In the conscious sea, the sun, the moon, trees, stones, human beings, our friends, and our enemies are all floating. As we approach the spiritual plane, we will find it to be nearer to our real self. And in this way, we will see that matter is far, far away, but the soul is near.

Try to conceive of reality along these lines. Soul, spirit, consciousness, is nearer to the soul and you are a child of that soil. Matter is far, far away. But the interrupting planes are so close together that we don t see the nature of spiritual reality, just as if you put your hand over your eye, you can t see the hand. But if the hand is only one foot away, we can see it very clearly. Sometimes what is very close, we cannot see. I may be able to see so many things, but I cannot see myself.

Although the Buddhists and other atheists argue that consciousness is a material thing, I say that there is no material thing. If I am to answer the question of whether or not consciousness is produced from matter, then I shall say that nothing is material. Whatever we feel is only a part of consciousness. Everything is an idea.

We are concerned only with consciousness from the beginning to the end of our experience. Beyond that we cannot go. Everything is an idea: the stone, the tree, the house, the body all are ideas. The plane of consciousness is very much closer to us than we perceive. And what is shown as a particular thing is far away. We are involved only with ideas. We can t go outside that. Everything within our experience is a part of our mind.

Subjective Evolution of Consciousness / The Play of the Sweet Absolute