Dancing with Madhya Nandi 1 Madhya: Ah, such enthusiasm! My gosh, friends, it would require a greater genius than myself to keep up with the varied nature of your comments! Bruce: There are no geniuses here, Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a matter of time and attention, which we apportion according to the propensities of our nominally individual incarnations. Greg: However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed. Upon crossing the river, the boat, the rider, and the river as well disappear into the Self. This is agreed upon by virtually all teachers in the non-dual traditions. Madhya: Check your sources on this, Greg. There's nary a Buddhist alive who would ever use the word 'Self', (capitalized or not) to indicate 'enlightenment' or any experience of the absolute of the transcendental variety. The word Self connotes a metaphysicalized statement: a hypostatization ofabsolutistic experience that cannot absolutized. Bruce: As Sri Ramana might have put it, such semantic distinctions are surely "for scholars." Because my first communicative influence in such matters was J. Krishnamurti, the use of "Self" in the capitalized sense was and remains anathemic to me as a writer, and I find the Buddhist avoidance of such terms quite energetic and effective as pointing. When we postulate "Self," "Brahma," or "God" we unavoidably diminish that which thought actually cannot touch, let alone grasp. Communicative preferences aside, I have every confidence that the perceptual states of Sri Ramana and Gautama Buddha were identical in essence. Madhya: Enlightened Shaivites would not describe their enlightenment in such terms. We simply say: I Am. We experience all experience as our own body. We don't disappear at all--we vibrate with the effervescence of our own. No taoist would characterize enlightenment experience as above. Neither have Christian mystics that I have read. Bruce: Let us not confuse charactarization -- yet another communicative preference -- for substantive difference in consciousness itself. No "ism" has a monopoly on "the effervescence" you note, it is a natural aspect of the state that all authentic sages point toward in their distinctive ways, that distinction being one of communicative emphasis rather than conscious state. Madhya: Now, our friend Harshaji is trying to get away with a lot in his statement. Bruce: Harshacharya contains multitudes, none of whom have in my experience ever been evasive. Madhya: First, he says that the boat will arrive and leave us where we no longer need the boat, the river and so forth. However, the 'place' that Harshaji claims the boat will take us is none other than the vedantic metaphysical interpretation for that place. Bruce: ...and you know this exactly how, Madhyaji? Madhya: So, we've got a lovely statement with a number of underlying assertions that are vedantic interpretations of Experience. Of course, this is fine. So long as one does not undertake to claim that ALL experience will result in EXACTLY THE SAME interpretation. Bruce: To dispense with this in the most universal manner I can muster, "interpretation" is yet another instance of communicative preference. To find the commonality that underlies such apparent differences, it surely behooves us to see through to the authentic resonance between and behind what are, after all, merely words. Tim: Madhya, I must ask you, from what authority do you speak? Has someone sanctioned you as a realized sage? Since you seem to value authority yourself, I must ask, what are your qualifications for making the statements you have? Madhya: Now, Tim, why do I need sanctioning to recognize a value judgement when I hear one? Harsha's statement: "Meditation and Samadhi are wonderful and yet can lead to an imagined spiritual superiority and hierarchy." is a VALUE judgement. It is not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. Bruce: Of course it isn't -- but do read Harshacharya's sentence with the close attention it deserves -- he indicates a possibility of (rather than a causal relationship to) a certain ilk of outcome. I don't know of any "empirical evidence" to the contrary, and frankly have found it to be true often enough to see it as a very cogent and worthy admonition. Madhya: This may be Harshaji's opinion. That is fine, but then Harshaji ought to state it as his opinion, rather than a 'declaration of fact.' Bruce: If more than one formal meditator or nominal experiencer of samadhi manifests the noted imaginings, it is factual. For this reader, that condition has been more than satisfied. Madhya: Or, perhaps he ought to offer further clarification and evidential support to explain why he makes this value judgement. Bruce: I reiterate that it is not seen as such here, indeed it is verified as factual though long experience. Every course of life is different, so of course your mileage may vary. Madhya: Tim, I took some effort in my post to include several examples and quotes from widely accepted spiritual masters, historical and contemporary--from various traditions--that supported my claim that meditation and samadhi are indeed excellent 'communions' with the Divine, or Absolute. Bruce: Here I would advise we tread carefully -- if we read with the requisite attention we can find there is no contradiction between your claim and Harshacharya's admonition. To whit -- "meditation and samadhi are indeed excellent 'communions' with the Divine" and "can lead to an imagined spiritual superiority and hierarchy." There is no contradiction between the claim of benefit and the admonition concerning the possibility of egotistical outcome(s). Many a monstrosity of what Tim calls "spiritual materialism" is a skilled meditator for whom samadhi has occurred. Madhya: And, I added my own 'witness' as our friend Harsha did, to that list. Why then, Tim, do you ask your question? Bruce: I can understand Tim's response, but will leave it to him to answer. Madhya: Harshaji wrote "Clever logic and beautiful words are fine and might be useful. But they are of no use in becoming silent." My view is that most of what passes for jnana is "clever logic," (only not so logical).... Bruce: Who decides "what passes?" Madhya: ...and that while beautiful words may be spoken about boats and rivers and 'self', this may have nothing to do with the use value of these words to lead seekers toward enlightenment. Bruce: ..or not. I'm glad you included "may." Unless one has a natural propensity toward jnana, one cannot comment usefully on what may be of "use value" to such a person. Madhya: In order for jnana to work at all, one must make the immediate 'leap of faith' that the metaphysical presumptions inherent in the jnana view of Reality are correct, for that is the foundation of jnana. Bruce: I have no knowledge of jnana in the formal sense, but in essence I do not see it as a "view of Reality" at all, but rather an approach to perception of a reality that in essence is no different from the nominal culmination of dozens of other so-called paths. Let us not confuse divergent vehicles with a common destination. Madhya: In my view, they are incorrect, and my perspective is that attempting to gain practical experience of the Absolute cannot be served by the "clever logic and beautiful words" of vedantic jnana. Bruce: View noted -- and undoubtedly correct for one without an innate propensity for jnana. Madhya: Vedanta is, in my view, pseudo-nondualism. It just doesn't wash. Bruce: Dueling "isms" is about as far from the inclusive spirit of this Satsangh as can be imagined from here, but you are of course welcome to your view. Madhya: Harshaji wrote "However one comes to it, one has to leave it behind. The boat used to cross the river is of no use after the river is crossed." This sounds nice. But the writer of this passage pretty much paddles only one canoe. Leading one to ask, when one has reached the other side and abandoned all ways and means, does h/she then also truly leave behind the canoe and the river? Indeed, the question must be asked, "Can one ever truly leave the canoe at all?" The metaphysical presumption, (clever logic), imbedded in the above assertion is that 'getting there' is a static 'being there' and that implies the assumption that there is nowhere else to go. This may be fine for some, I don't deny this. But it is NOT the wholesale experience of all who experience "enlightenment" nor can it be. Buddhist master Labsant Gyatso says: "Awareness can go from almost a blank mind, almost no awareness whatsoever, to an infinite feeling, an infinite awareness. It can increase without any limit whatsoever." Bruce: As seen from here, this master's statement is simply an attempt to describe the "other side" of Harshacharya's "river." Crossing the river does not imply camping out on the shore forever. :-) Madhya: You will forgive me, friends, if I cannot address all of your many concerns regarding my post(s). But allow me to say that if I have appeared to be arrogant to some, let me apologize. This is not my intention. Like most of you, I discourse for the love of writing and of dialogue and of God/Self/No-Self/Christ/Allah/Shiva/Kali.... Bruce: Baba Nam Kevalam, Madhyaji Much love -- Bruce