Hinduism - A Spiritualist's View Point - Continued ....

After going through my views in the post of Febryary 18, 2009 on "Hinduism - A Spiritualist's Viewpoint", my friend V K wrote the following piece explaining his point of view with wonderful ease.

“First of all thanks for inviting me to share your blog. On atheism and agnosticism I thought I should say something.

"The issue of Atheism raises another question - non-believer in what? God - as people normally understand and pray? If the answer is yes, then a large number of saints generally categorised as Hindus are non-believers. Buddha was a non-believer and so was Shankaracharya. When People asked Buddha what is the ultimate reality his reply was 'shunya'. When the same question was asked from Shankaracharya he said 'neti neti iti brahma'.

"The word "Upanisad" means rahasya. It perhaps means that what people believe to be real is not real and what is real cannot be known. Perhaps what they said was a form of agnosticism as they believed that one cannot know what is the reality which is known only when one is liberated and what we call real - be it God or the world or the self - are all unreal and untrue. When it comes to calling self and the world as un-real we have no difficulty. But when, following the same teachings, it comes to calling God as un-real we are scared.

"In fact a true believer is one who believes in all three - self , world and God as un-real. In my opinion a believer is one who is agnostic as he understands his limitations in knowing the truth. He is definitely spiritual as he never challenges the existence on the ultimate - unknown, un-definable.

"The moment we say anything about him we limit him as all our words have limited connotation.I do not know how far do you agree with my views. But I am yet to find any convincing answer which goes beyond this stand.”

The great contemplation behind these beautiful words evoked the following response from me:

“I am mighty impressed to read your views. These demonstrate a contemplative mind, trying to succinctly analyse whatever is put across. I have absolutely no dispute with what you say. It could be that the Super-Self (God), the small Self (the Atman) and the world (existence) all are un-real (in the sense that the common substratum, if any, cannot be realized through any deliberate exploration). Else, it could be that all are real (as Kashmir Shaivism teaches). Or, there could be various sets of belief systems propounding that one or more of these are real.

“To me it does not matter what view a person does subscribe by way of either belief or disbelief. What matters is the sincerity of the search process that has culminated into that particular view. The choices, each one of us have, are infinite. As long as one holds on to a particular choice steadfastly and tries to explore the underlying truth he is bound to learn from his experiences and go further.

“The spiritual path calls for unparalleled dynamism. "Experience" is of paramount importance. Those who finally attain the goal (enlightenment) become beacons of light for all others. The light of their enlightenment begins to shine through not just their words (teachings) but also through their movements (and even silence) and begins to remove the darkness of ignorance of those whose lives are touched by them.

“I may emphasize again that this does not happen so much by teachings (weighed in terms of intellectual input or knowledge). It happens through transmission of a grain of experience. Words are too insignificant on the path. What matters is transformation, felt by the heart.

“On the intellectual plane, Buddha's proclamation of "SHOONYA" gels very well with Shankaracharyya's shout of "Neti-Neti-Iti-Brahman". But if this kind of isolation through negation propelled separatism were accepted as the only paramount thought what will explain Buddha's call for "Compassion" and Shankara's bhakti-filled cries of "Shivo-Ham, Shivo-Ham".

“Neither are wrong in their apparently contradictory stands. As I have sometimes experienced in meditation, this creation and creator are one. When the experience occurs it could be through the process of neti-neti and also iti-iti. It could be through negation or transposition. The experience is beyond words and, as you have very rightly pointed out, cannot be circumscribed in words. When ever we try to express the reality in words, it becomes limited and hence un-real.

“Each one of us has to grow through a process, decided by God (one might call it our own "free will" through various life times). Accordingly, we inherit a particular belief system (or frame of mind). However, when we put our belief system to test, we encounter experiences that challenge that particular belief system itself. This kind of constant interaction engineers change in our thinking and we let go of one belief system to be replaced by another. This is the secret of growth. This is how people rooted in dry knowledge are gently guided towards bhakti (devotion) and those well-established in the duality generated by bhakti are induced to embrace knowledge and thereby accept non-duality.

“We have to start somewhere. So any belief system is a good starting point. But, we must decide, if we will just remain at the starting point clinging to a particular belief system that does not lead us anywhere. Or, we would act with courage and change the belief system if the situation or the experience so demands. Most religious beliefs, if not backed by open questioning, lead to communities stuck in the chains of rigid dogma. This is why the spiritualist does not embrace the religion. He embraces the prophet instead.

“Also, on the spiritual path what is required is not allegiance to a belief system but allegiance to our experience. Belief systems and intellectualism have not bestowed enlightenment up on anyone. Experience (direct perception) has. This is why in our tradition we call the study of the path as “darshan” (direct seeing) and not “philosophy” (love of knowledge).

“There is one more point that I would like to make before parting. What you say about the Upanishads is true. An Upanishad is rahasya. Rahasya effectively means mystery. However, the mystery if any is not at all deep. The word Upanishad itself reveals it. "Up" means near or close. "Shad" means sitting. Thus, Upanishad means "sitting close". This is significant.

“Upanishads always underline a very intimate dialogue between a Master and his disciple. The disciple is of pure mind, free from all intellectual chatter. So, his mind is completely open. He is ready to receive the Truth. Also, he is sitting at the feet of an enlightened Master. The Master knows that the disciple is ready.

“Now, the Master speaks. His words are not emanating from an ordinary mind, deriving its thoughts from intellectual and information based knowledge. His words are coming from deep knowing, a direct perception of the Truth. They have the power of enlightenment (of the Master) obtained through the deepest state of samadhi.

“The eager disciple receives these words, as they are, without any interpretation of his own whatsoever. The result is miraculous. The disciple instantaneously attains the same status as that of the Master. The disciple becomes one with the Master.

“This happens through preparation of emptying the mind. These days, we are full of the mind. So it is difficult to rise above the mind and perceive the Truth as it is.

“Whether a believer or non-believer, every one knows that a silent mind is an aware mind that can go behind the fluff and access the juice.

“Whatever I say is also a product of the mind. When silence is experienced the debate or even the desire to put up one's case will disappear.

“Let's strive to have a silent mind.”