Pariprasna

Srimat Swami Tapasyananda Ji (1904 – 1991) was one of the Vice-Presidents of the

Ramakrishna Order. His deeply convincing answers to devotees’ questions raised in spiritual retreats and in personal letters have been published in book form as Spiritual Quest: Questions & Answers. Pariprasna is a selection from this book. Pariprasna

QUESTION: How are the points of difference regarding the concepts of God, World, and Sadhana of the different schools to be reconciled? What is the relevance of this synthesis of philosophy in spiritual life?

MAHARAJ: The question is probably how the synthesis of the varying interpretations of these concepts in the three systems of Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita is to be accomplished. No such reconciliation is needed if the synthesis is sought at the experiential level and not at the interpretative level. These systems of philosophy mentioned are not the same as the dualism, qualified dualism and monism representing ways of spiritual apprehension to aspirants. It must be remembered also that Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita are not purely philosophies. They are as much religions too. Or they are a kind of religion supported by certain philosophical standpoints. Just as religions have their particular dogmas, mythologies and rituals, philosophies too have their concepts with particular meaning-content attached to them. They can retain them just as religions can keep up their dogmas and forms of worship, even if a common goal for them is accepted. All troubles arise when we equate the systems of religious philosophies known in India as Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita, with dualism, qualified non-dualism and monism as ways of spiritual apprehension.

The relevance of it is this: We can approach these philosophies as intellectual frameworks for people with differing philosophical outlooks. An intellectual framework is always necessary for people whose thought has been stimulated by study. Otherwise all aspects of their mind would not be properly integrated and to that extent Sadhana will not be effective. When faced by these different philosophies, the human mind thinks that only one of them can be true and the others are either false or are inferior conceptions meant for dull-witted people. That which is suited to an aspirant’s outlook—and there are clear philosophical outlooks like realism and idealism imbedded in people’s intelligence—or that in which he is traditionally brought up is taken up and studied. In order to strengthen his conviction in the truth of his philosophy, the refutation of the other philosophies may seem a necessity for him and he indulges in it with gusto. It is more or less the same as in the case of religions. The crusading spirit and the controversial spirit spring from identical misconceptions. Now if a synthesis of these philosophies is accepted at an experiential level, leaving to each its own intellectual framework, people will not develop this acrimonious and intolerent spirit. This will help their Sadhana also.

But it must always be held in mind that we are not downgrading any of these philosophies by this synthesis. For example, non-dualism, as an experience of effacement of individual consciousness in the contemplation of the Supreme Spirit is the citadel of Advaita Vedanta. What Advaita Vedanta does is to conceive and interpret this experience in the light of its tradition. The same experience

could be interpreted in terms of the traditions of Visishtadvaita and Dvaita systems of philosophy, which are not however to be identified with mere qualified non-dualism and pure dualism mentioned earlier. If this outlook is carefully maintained, one can study all these systems.

As a rule, a spiritual aspirant is above the propitiatory conception of dualism. He will generally be at the stage of qualified non-dualism, which may be better described by the technical term Bhedabheda, identity-in-difference. It accepts unity and diversity as facts in the Supreme Being, but diversity does not in any way affect Him or compromise with His infinitude for the reason that He is the Supreme Spirit and not a material entity to be subject to and, limited by, a system of logic based on sense-perceptions. God is here both transcendent and indwelling and all entities exist because of Him and there is no entity that is not included in His being. In His all-comprehensive unity, the individual Sadhaka has his distinct entity, by virtue of which alone he is able to commune with Him in worship and devotion. For him it is necessary to accept God as the unity in the multiplicity. A liberal interpretation of the Dvaita and Visishtadvaita philosophies can be accommodated in this outlook. At the acme of communion through love and surrender, the aspirant’s consciousness may be absorbed in the Supreme Spirit. Its interpretation will depend on the metaphysical tradition of the interpreter.

As distinguished from this, there can also be a pure Advaitic Sadhana based upon the theory that the ultimate realization of unity means not only unity in consciousness but unity in entity itself. In this form of Sadhana, this sense of unity with the Supreme Spirit is taken as the basic ontological fact and the Sadhana takes its stand on this fact from the very start and rejects all multiplicity as apparent, which means non-existent actually.

To help in strengthening him in this consciousness and produce absolute conviction, a philosophical framework suited to it is started on such moot points as: a) Is unity something attained by effort or is it a basic nature which is only covered by ignorance? b) Does unity mean unity subordinating all diversities or sublating all of them? c) Is the sense of a unity of consciousness attained in Samadhi indicative of unity of entity or only of consciousness? d) Has the individual any ultimacy in spite of such unity in experience? e) Is the world real or only an appearance?

A host of such problems are taken up and discussed without arriving at any final conclusion acceptable to all because of the basic difference in outlook. If these discussions are meant only to strengthen one’s Sadhana, they are beneficial, but if they are meant for confusing or refuting others in a spirit of controversy then there is no better way of wasting time from the spiritual point of view.

Generally the philosophy suited for most Sadhakas is a philosophy of identity-in-difference. There may however be a rare few who are suited for pure monistic Sadhana.

As for the attitude of one who has renounced the world, it is better for him to understand that none can renounce the world, so long as he is in the world. He can renounce self-centred values and relationships. If he has truly done so, he will develop an intense craving for the Supreme Being and he will serve in the world in the spirit that the Lord resides in it. Work in and for the welfare of the world will then become an auxiliary to this Sadhana. Renunciation of the world is real only to the extent one has a craving for the Divine and antipathy for self-centred values.