|
| |
What is Enlightenment without Paradox?
Nondualism from a theistic perspective
Nondualist philosophy is examined from a theistic perspective,
considering the ideas of Andew Cohen in particular, to see what is
non-paradoxical and suitable for exoteric everyday application.
Cohen is found to have made significant developments in comparison
with traditional Advaita Vedanta, and these developments
clearly point toward a theistic viewpoint.
Nondualism has attracted renewed interest in the West in recent
decades, through the introduction of esoteric Hindu & Buddhist
religious philosophies, and with the support of writers such as
Ken Wilber and leaders such as Andrew Cohen. Traditional
nondualism, in its purest form, is generally taken to be that of
Shankara, and Georg Feuerstein summarizes
the advaita realization as follows: ''The manifold universe is, in
truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the
sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence
reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the
very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings.''[1]
These teachings are themselves to contribute to enlightenment, a
spiritual transformation in which the individual is profoundly
changed, to have some kind of liberation from 'the bondage of
conditioned existence'. These transformations may be sudden or
progressive, and those to whom it happens typically want to share
their fortune with others to lead in them in the same direction,
with the aim, inter alia, of easing them of their ignorance and troubles.
The well-known 'moral objection' to nondualism is that it does not
tell the unenlightened (or enlightened, for that matter)
how to live. Classically, the world is recognized
as being either completely unreal, or only partially real, and the
nondual teaching does not in any way address the ethical or moral
dimension of human life. Tradition in Hinduism deals with this issue by
restricting the individuals to whom the absolute teachings were
revealed to those who have already fulfilled demanding moral and
ethical qualifications for discipleship. And even more than that,
Shankara himself states that the qualifications for discipleship
also demanded an extraordinary degree of detachment from and
transcendence of worldly desires.
Now, however, nondualism is available to everyone who can browse
bookshops, libraries and websites.
Not a few these days are attracted to nondualism precisely because
of the disconnection between spirituality and morality, as they
see thereby the possibility of some kind of salvation for everyone
(including themselves) irrespective of their own moral life.
However, a modern sensibility has been brought
to bear on the subject, one that has been influenced by
Christianity, with the result that nondualism as taught today has
developed in interesting and subtle ways. The purpose of this
essay is to examine those changes, and compare them with what
might be expected from a theistic perspective.
Before proceeding, I remind you of the relevant essentials of what
it means for a view to be theistic. Theism is the
view that there is an Infinite Absolute that is the source,
sustainer and redeemer of creation. In particular this Source is
Love and Wisdom themselves, and just as these are the essence of
human spirituality, in the Source they are the essence of a Divine
Human nature, who is the Lord God of the whole universe. Rational
creatures living on planets are created to be distinct of the
Source, but are sustained and saved in their lives by conforming
themselves to receive the Love and Wisdom from the Absolute, not
just on Earth but everywhere necessary, in order to perform good
uses from love by means of wisdom. Such an account is derived in
most part from Emanuel Swedenborg[2], where it is intended
to be a account that is both rational and empirical, and which can be understood eventually without
paradoxes.
Avoiding paradoxes where possible is a good thing for two reasons.
Most fundamentally, it is desirable because, from a
contradiction, it is strictly possible to logically derive any
thesis whatsoever. The only way to avoid that is to have further
qualifying conditions; so why not make the situation clear from
the beginning? The second reason is that the promulgation of ideas
is much easier when they do not appear to have visible
inconsistencies.
The recent book 'Living Enlightenment' by Andrew Cohen[3]
attempts to make it clear to the lay person what it means to be
following the nondualist philosophy, and addresses many of the
problems generally found with this view. While Cohen starts from a
nondualist framework, and wants to keep that name and agree with
writers such as Ken Wilbur, it has been recognised [4]
that he has some differences with traditional nondualism.
Thus, Cohen develops
the philosophy in ways which we need to examine in more detail, but
still sometimes he resorts to asserting what are clear
contradictions, such as [3, p. 115] ''everything is
perfect and everything must change''. His initial response
is that this is only a contradiction 'to the unenlightened mind',
and he seems happy to remain in such a paradox. Since one of the
virtues of theism compared with nondualism is that it does not
attempt to include paradoxes, but rather seeks deeper
understanding through more redefined discrimination, the issues
which lead to these paradoxes and apparent paradoxes also deserve
particular attention.
Let us look at some of the practical advice that a modern
nondualist such as Cohen teaches, and consider each of them also
from the theistic viewpoint. In the order in which they appear
in [3], they are:
Our personality will spontaneously become a vehicle
for the manifestation of that One Self in time. The individual
self will become infused with the presence of a powerful and
transcendent singularity and will become a dynamic living
expression of that which is absolute in this world. [p. 9] Here,
as will be discussed more below, it is clear the individual person
does not disappear in practical nondualism, but
becomes a manifestation infused with the presence of God (the One
Self) in a way that is recognisably theistic. The theist
may quibble with 'spontaneously' since all the
detailed stages necessary known to be necessary, may change 'manifestation' to
'creation', and may remember that the 'absolute in this world' is
the immanent presence of God whose nature is Absolute and
not 'in this world'.
On the most fundamental, existential level,
your questions will be answered because when your heart breaks,
you experience an inconceivable, mind-transcending love
that reveals a breathtaking mystery that abides beyond time [p. 16]
Cohen is clearly talking about his and others experience of the
Infinite Absolute Love. But this is in the God of theism, as there is
little in original presentation of Advaita Vedanta that
even points to Love at all. It is the alternative bhakti
traditions which talk of love, and allowed to have residual
dualisms, since it is acknowledged that love must always be love
of others, never love of oneself (as theism also reminds us).
As long as we are blindly attached to and unconsciously
enslaved by any idea that is the expression of the fears and
desires of the individual or collective ego, which is the mind of
the world that we're living in, it will be impossible to live a
truly liberated human life. [p. 26] The theistic advocate could
not agree more, and may only differ in the means to correct this
situation.
The purification of the vehicle -
purification of the fundamental motives, conscious and
unconscious, in the personality. Only then will we be truly fit
to represent the glory of God without wanting even a small
fraction of it for ourselves. [p. 42] This 'purification of
fundamental motives' summarises rather precisely our task within
theism. The Theistic God is a God of Love, and he relates to us by
means of our loves: it is there in particular where we must purify
ourselves. And talk of 'representing the glory of God' is again
pure theism, since this is the the result of being successfully
conformed to receive Love and Wisdom: we become 'an image and
likeness of God', a representation.
As strange as it sounds, when some people experience
enlightened consciousness, it's not uncommon for them to conclude
that now, because they are free, what they do doesn't
matter. Some have even said things like: ''What the personality
says and what the body does is of no significance whatsoever -
it's all an illusion anyway. The only thing that is real is the
Self Absolute.'' [p. 42] Here, Cohen address the 'moral issue' of nondualism mentioned earlier. His answer is in part:
''the
spiritual dimension of life only becomes apparent through ...
profound human transformation. That unborn, unseen reality must
become manifest as you and I, so that this world that we're living
in will literally be transformed by it. And the only way that can
happen is if you and I become a living expression of that mystery
and glory, that One without a second, in this world. One without a
second means undivided. When there's only One without a second,
then only one thing will be expressed, and that is Love.''. This
is a good theistic presentation, if 'expression' is again
'representation' rather than identity (as it may have been read by nondualists), and if
'undivided' applied to God does not forbid
His sustaining of creation. Still, the essential feature for
Cohen, as for religious theists, is that ''[most of] spiritual
practice is about the purification of our motivation in
relationship to the human experience. That means we make the noble
effort to face and come to terms with the destructive nature of
our petty self-concern''. Cohen continues ''... in light of our
true identity as One without a second'', but theists merely change
this to '... in light of our true identity as sustained by the One
without a second'.
Cohen says ''The goal is to get to that point where the
personality naturally and spontaneously expresses a perfect and
seamless consistency of pure motivation. That means nothing is
hidden, there are no secrets, and nothing is personal.'' [p. 42]
and later ''with a ruthless integrity we must scrutinize our own
motives and make the honest effort to find out what our
relationship to life is really based on'' [p. 47] which again
summarise the spiritual tasks of the theist in the reformation and
regeneration of the lives by means of some self-examination.
This is provided 'personal' here is taken to refer to ego concerns
(selfish loves), rather than even the very existence of a person.
The descent of Grace is not sufficient by itself, Cohen explains,
because the conscious experience of divine presence usually grants us only
a temporary respite from the ego's endless needs and concerns.
That kind of experience, as inspiring as it may be, is just not
enough to set us free. [p. 59] This again is the theistic view;
that grace may remind us of our tasks ahead by giving us a
foretaste, but that the real task consists of living a life full
of faith and love.
As long as there is a human being who is walking and talking,
there is always going to be someone in there who is making the
choices. ... As long as there is a human being who is walking and
talking, there is always going to be someone in there who is
making the choices. [p. 63] Here, Cohen puts his finger on an
essential aspect of theism: that the Divine sustenance leaves us
yet free to make our own choices and decisions. We are all given
(at least) rationality and freedom to think and choose as if by
ourselves. It is these decisions which make us human, according to
both Cohen and theism, and therefore the regeneration of this
humanity must begin by taking responsibility for our choices.
Cohen distinguishes though and action:
''the door to liberation is found when you discover that the mere
presence of thought has no power whatsoever unless you believe
that it does. '' [p. 71] In theism, this statement becomes true
if we say '... unless you think from any intention ', which is to
bring the thought into the will. (In Cohen's book there is not a
fully fledged account of will and understanding.) In theism, one
of the spiritual practices is to view (but not adopt) the
multitude of thoughts that continually bubble into our minds. We
should examine them all, and only allow good thoughts into our
intention (the others we have to tell to get lost!) Cohen
summarises part of this by saying ''The right relationship with
thought is one in which we identify only with those thoughts that
are in line with our desire to be free.'' [p. 72]. In fact, we can
apply this to the thoughts that are in line with any desire for
what is good.
Cohen comes down hard on the Ego:
''Ego is the one and only obstacle to enlightenment. Ego is pride.
Ego is arrogant self-importance. Ego is the deeply mechanical and
profoundly compulsive need to always see the personal self as
being separate from others, separate from the world, separate from
the whole universe. Ego is a love-denying obsession with
separation, narcissism, and self-concern.'' [p. 81] Furthermore,
he says that ''it is only when we take the enormous risk of not
looking into it, of leaving the ego completely alone, that we will
finally be able to see it for what it really is.'' [p. 84] Here,
Cohen is apparently paradoxical, since earlier (p. 42) he talks of
purifying our fundamental motives, and if these are 'conscious and
unconscious' then clearly some of them are connected to the ego.
Cohen admits that his admonition to 'leave the Ego completely
alone' stems in part from 'the kind of teacher that I am' [p. 85],
and indeed the theistic viewpoint is that the reformation and
regeneration of the human person is a process of many steps that
begins by using ego loves (such as curiosity, ambition and the love of
knowledge) that may ultimately be discarded. Cohen speaks from
the nondualist tradition when he speaks of 'instantaneous
enlightenment', yet even in his own life it is clear that this was
not permanently won overnight.
In this section, we look at some statements of traditional
nondualism that still appear in Cohen's presentation, and consider
how they may be yet ever-so-slightly changed so as to be
consistent with theism, while keeping a spiritual impact in
form very similar to the original intention.
That's when there is no longer any distinction between the
inherent perfection of the Self Absolute and that response that is
its expression in the world of time and space [p. 17] According
to theism, everything good in the world of time and space is in
fact belonging to God: it appears as if it is our own when
we perform good act, but we must never claim ownership for
ourselves and to become 'as God' (Gen 3:5).
To the question ''The ego can claim enlightenment for
itself?'', Cohen replies ''Yes, and unfortunately it often does.
But if the individual's motivation is pure, if there is a
foundation of deep and profound humility, then the realization
will not be corrupted by the desire for personal gain, and that's
very rare indeed.'' [p. 21] It is clear that nondualism itself has nothing
in its logic to stop 'atman = Atman = Brahman' to be reversed as 'Brahman
= Atman = atman', and the Infinite claimed for oneself. Cohen's response
points to lack of personal gain, but this response begins to make
sense in a theistic framework where there is a distinction between
Divine and personal objectives.
Cohen describes an early experience as ''that all of
life is One that the whole universe and everything that exists
within it, seen and unseen, known and unknown, is one conscious,
glorious, intelligent Being that is self-aware. Its nature is Love
but it is a love that is so overwhelming in its intensity that
even to experience the faintest hint of it is almost unbearable
for the human body. I saw in that moment that there is no such
thing as death, that life has no beginning and no end.'' [p.
31-32] This wonderful experience is correct in almost every
detail to the theist, only one identification needs to be remade.
This, that really it is 'the life of the whole universe and
everything that exists within it ... is one Being that is
self-aware'. Since the Divine Life everywhere permeates and
sustains the whole universe, one may be forgiven for missing the
distinction between what is Divine (essentially infinite &
overwhelming) and what is created (essentially finite &
underwhelming).
Cohen sees our representation of the Divine as
like a mirror [p. 45] which should be spotless. In theism, the
manner of representation of the Infinite in the finite creature
is more complicated than as a mirror, and in fact takes a whole
biological body with all its myriad structures and functions to
represent God properly. Discussion of this, however, is beyond the scope of this
essay.
Our True Self is always paying attention in a
way that we are usually not conscious of. And when we discover
this Self - this mysterious depth that is already awake - we find
that which is miraculous. We discover who we truly are. It's the
Self that we cannot see with the mind, but when we experience it
directly we will understand what it means to be enlightened. And
when we liberate this Self that mysteriously sees and knows what
we cannot see or know with our conscious mind, we will begin to
respond to life in ways that, left to our own devices, we never
could. [p. 76] Cohen is here using the phrase 'True Self' to
refer to what theists call the internal spiritual mind. Most of
us only come to this state after death, but then Cohen's
description is remarkably accurate in describing a new 'heavenly proprium' (as Swedenborg calls it) that cannot be seen by our
existing natural minds.
Cohen talks of the revelation of ''true conscience'',
which is the unexpected manifestation of intense compassion. True
conscience emerges from that very same mysterious part of our own
self; it expresses a kind of care that the personality could never
understand. It's the true heart, which is not the heart that we
normally identify with the personality. [p. 77] Again we see
Cohen expressing views that could not have come from traditional
nondualism, but which clearly come from a person (or God) who
works in a theistic framework. As he says beautifully, ''The
degree to which we are able to liberate ourselves from
self-concern will be the degree to which we are able to recognize
that our true nature as human beings is love.'' He is only
mistaken in thinking ''It happens automatically. This is one of
the miracles of human life.'' It is well known that the God of
theism mostly operates behind the scenes.
In the impersonal view, which is the enlightened
perspective, the ego and the entire personal world that it creates
is not seen as being real. That world is revealed to be empty of
meaning, value, and purpose, ultimately serving only to perpetuate
the existence of a separate self that doesn't really exist. [p.
104] Cohen speaks from the nondualist tradition, but this is
immediately contradicted by the next page, which has a purely
theistic observation:
When that impersonal Self Absolute
begins to emerge in consciousness as a living presence, the
''personal," instead of being the impenetrable fortress that the
separate ego abides in, becomes a permeable vessel through which
the impersonal Self Absolute seeps into this world. [p. 105] It is the idea of
theism that the internal spiritual self can be modelled as
a vessel that receives the Divine sustaining influx. This
useful idea of a 'permeable vessel' is a development of strict nondualism toward the ideas of theism.
Cohen agrees that ''there's really nothing personal in either the
absolute or the relative dimension of our experience,'' [p. 105]
and insists that the ''enlightened perspective always points us to
that which is singular, empty of anything personal, and free from
any and all motivation that comes from ego.'' [p. 105] This reveals
a failure to recognise the true nature of person as constituted by
love and wisdom, a constitution that in theism applies primarily
to God as the Lord, and then derivatively to us as persons
sustained by influx. There is no 'ego compulsion' in the Lord, and
when we conform ourselves to his life there need be hardly any in
us either.
Cohen seeks ''That place of absolute singularity [which] is
where true freedom and enlightened understanding are found. That
is where the relative and the Absolute, the personal and the
impersonal, merge and become one. In that mysterious place, they
become one unbroken universal unfolding that is free from the
bondage of duality.'' [p. 107] Here, lacking the conceptual means
to discriminate Source and creation, or between personal loves and Infinite
Loves, Cohen has to resort to paradoxical assertions to make his
point.
Cohen ends with the contradiction mentioned earlier,
that ''This apparent paradox - that everything is already perfect
and everything must change - is the complete picture of what
enlightenment is all about.'' [p. 115] He says that paradoxes for
the unenlightened mind may still be in his system, because ''the
mind exists in and as duality itself, and therefore, by
definition, cannot see beyond it to that place where no duality
exists'' [p. 116]. Swedenborg as a theist agrees that a full
understanding of the genuine truth concerning spirit and nature
awaits the enlightenment at comes from the eventual awakening of
our inner spiritual mind, but would insist that partial or
'apparent truths' may still enter our understanding even now, and
may usefully portray spiritual reality without any essential
contradictions. This allows some kind of rational understanding of
spirituality, even if it is still incomplete. Sometimes, theistic
portrayal may be more indirect, using representations in the
structure of Sacred Scriptures, in order to allow a more external
understanding.
We see from this examination of Cohen's book ''Living
Enlightenment'' [3] that the actual practice and understanding of
'nondual discipleship' requires ideas that go
beyond traditional Advaita Vedanta. Many of these ideas turn
out to be very similar to those advocated by Emanuel Swedenborg in
his rational account of how theism should be understood.
Ian J. Thompson Department
of Physics, University of Surrey
12 January 2005 (wiewp1c)
- 1
- G. Feuerstein, quoted at
www.wie.org/j14/advaita.asp.
- 2
- E. Swedenborg, Divine Love and Wisdom, 1763.
Online at
www.theisticscience.org/books/dlw/dlw.html
- 3
- Andrew Cohen, Living Enlightenment, Moksha Press, 2002.
See
www.andrewcohen.org/store/item_b22.asp or
www.livingenlightenment.com
or http://www.enlightennext.org/
- 4
- See for example
http://www.geocities.com/brianperkins77/304difference.htm.
|
