Having already written, or commented on, the Mandukya Upanishad at Tackingintothewind.net, I feel an urge to write something further as an explanation taking into account further study and contemplation. In particular this is intended to somewhat take into account, not new information, but my deeper understanding prompted by study of my teacher’s paper named A No-Image Image which he delivered, traveling from Austin, Texas in 1976 to a Symposium in Comparative World Humanities, at Michigan State University. This was sponsored by the Honors College, College of Arts & Letters, the University College and the Asian Center under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. A No-Image Image, the paper, is in pdf format and is hosted by Mr. Todd Katz at Desani.org.
Now, studying Desani’s A No-Image Image paper I was immediately struck at the obvious difference in his conclusions and commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad (MU), and the Vedas in general. My attitude at a first encounter with the MU was that I was blessed to have found an exposition of these ancient teachings that closely resonated with conclusions of my own developed over a life of study of the spiritual pursuits of these ancient sages. I’ve been concerned with and written about, for instance, Nagarjuna, Buddha, and have been – off and on – involved with the teachings of Professor Desani my entire adult life. Of course I have noticed his – let us say, nuanced – thinking on the ancients, on the ubiquities of charlatans, false prophets, gurus, and so on, but I must admit I glossed over them, and to my detriment, too. It is here I aim to somewhat correct this deficiency.
He expresses his skepticism, for instance, speaking of the matters heretofore brought to the reader’s/listener’s (referring to the Symposium) attention when he says, in conclusion, on page 39 of the paper: “It might strike a student of these matters — it does not strike eminent scholars and professors and propagandists and professionals… that a sage who is so destitute of knowledge…might not be much of a guru who can pronounce upon the essence of human personality, spiritual vision, ethical good, and fathom the purposes of the universe as well.”
A No-Image Image is only 39 pages and fully half is taken up by commentary resulting from questions by the Symposium attendees, as well as by footnotes. It’s a short paper but jam packed with the teacher’s personal observations supported by citations of scholars who have earned his respect, as well as by references to data, or knowledge, put forth by those with whom he is somewhat scornful. A constant refrain of Desani’s was scorn for those who merely had an academic interest in the subject of sadhana (spiritual pursuit) and those who actually practice, make the necessary effort.
My intention is to highlight, mainly for my own edification, as many of the references as will fit in this, well, let’s call it mea culpa. For I am guilty of delusion at my own hand, whereas, if you follow Professor Desani, many, maybe even most, of the so-called authorities on the traditions of the Indian sub continent were, to put it plainly, prone to over sell their abilities and the formulae for developing one’s spiritual growth put forth in the ancient traditions. Some were outright charlatans and some, no doubt, were victims of those who came after them who perhaps weren’t as pure in their intentions as the original expositors. For any system whatsoever there is no lack of inept hangers on. Christianity has its false prophets. Time passes and its detritus piles layer on layer of dross on top of kernels of authentic truth which we must, like an archaeologist, dig under, sweep aside, in order to expose the underlying gems. There were exceptions – Desani names them – which will be brought forward in due course.
An authentic search for spiritual truth results in a change in consciousness, Desani takes pains to bring this forward, and is necessarily preceded by ethical considerations and importantly, involves setting one’s ego aside. Humans are frail and never more so than when asserting their thoughts. We want certainty and that desire, it must be recognized, weakens us, makes us willing to, like fools, rush in where wiser men fear to tread. An authentic seeker will display circumspection. Desani puts it “if there were only one religion, we would have a partial view.” Holding to that perspective an understanding arises that one’s authority is not so strongly asserted as to shut down further discussion. Doubt becomes a kind of leavening. A hallmark of humility follows understanding that our measurements are likely a bit off so that a final answer is impossible. Obviously this is all the more true when the subject matter concerns the ultimate meaning and purpose of the universe. I think, too, that Professor Desani was not reluctant to challenge his audience, especially one like that of the Michigan symposium. Also, it is worth noting that in 1976 he was in his prime; the controversial nature of the subject matter thus appealed to him and was, I imagine, used as an ingredient to somewhat disturb the participants thus helping them out of their perhaps malconsidered preconceptions. Certainly this writer is somewhat surprised it has taken this long – 1976 to 2026 – for me to wake up to his intention; which I can thank Stephen Hawking, of all people, for that.
I might point out here that scientists tend to treat the work of their forbears as foundational to current theories. One just doesn’t hear of Isaac Newton being ridiculed for errors that he might have made in the formulation of the foundations of classical mechanics. I view the MU and the Vedas, and by the way, the writings of the ancient Rabbinic tradition, and the philosophy of the early Grecians, too, as the underpinnings of modern thought. Desani said once in conversation that we should take what is good of the past and use it as best we can to further our aims in the present.
So, as we get down to the “nitty-gritty”, the heart of these ancient writings, we see they purport to expose the very nature of the beginning and thus the purpose and meaning of the universe. Brahman, the personification of God is said – it is written – saw the creation of the universe. This proves consciousness, for without consciousness there is no seeing. Desani quotes the source, the unimpeachable authority, the Chhanogya Upanishad in this case notes that this “presupposes the existence of substance, self-existent, prior to and independent of Brahman. This conclusion, owing its viability to its own reasoning,will not be acceptable to Shankara.”
Desani states further that “A few, among us, cultivate vairāgya — dispassion and aversion to worldly possessions. Others identify themselves with the few and appropriate their sanctity, without undergoing the pains of it. I do not believe, imitative though they might be, that Hindu, Buddhist and Jain folk believe in world and life-negation. Allowing for exceptions, you might not meet a more grasping people. They are involved in the same enterprise as any people anywhere, including the Americans — to assert themselves and to pursue their own version of status and respectability.”
This could be said to sum up his main theme in this paper that the people who wrote and promote the writings of the Upanishads, to put it plainly, might be said to have had a poor grasp of the actual nature of the so called Ultimate Reality, and that the ideas of Brahman, Atman, Turiya, while maybe not completely false are presented as dogma. Desani says, a bit later, and this writer could not be more in agreement, “We might drop the discussion about the Atman and Brahman and leave all speculation about them to those who would pursue the Atman and Brahman. We might — this is my first conclusion — concentrate on ethical concerns and the real problems: among those being hunger, illiteracy, disease, want, and loss of dignity, and the fear and degradation which accompany these.” Very practical. Note also that he mentions the Buddhists did not concern themselves with Brahman; they ignored it. There are others, he mentions who ‘disapprove” of a supra ethical Brahman, We are “(urged) to accept a God with the attributes of love…(If) love or compassion is contained in one, it is manifested spontaneously, in words and deeds of love.” That is his second conclusion.
Perhaps Desani’s trouble with the Upanishads and of most of the systems of spiritual development derived from the “Indian experience” is the mystification or speculation of said systems, procedures. He seems to make exceptions for Buddhism, particularly Theravada Buddhism. He doesn’t say these do not mystify or speculate, but that, I think, is implied. I think he would include Patanjali’s treatise, the Yoga Sutras, too, as averse to mystification and speculation. An aside that the Yoga Sutra’s approach, some think, is like that of science.
Implied is that he considered Gaudapada and Shankara mystifiers, speculators…And others too. Essentially, this instruction is from his paper and the cited source is Theravada Buddhism, a practitioner ought to “concentrate upon, excluding all other thought — these themes are called formless (arūpa): and what one has is not a form but a concept, a notion. The necessary preparation for this practice is contemplation of a tangible object, such as a colored disk (kasina). Subsequently, one does without it, and recalls it, and projects it, as if it were (a tangible object), as far and farthest as one could reach, to one’s idea of endless space, and one’s idea of infinity of consciousness.” These are, he writes, mental and subject to the limitations of the practitioner’s and the teacher’s consciousness. “I am Brahma” — “Aham Brahmā asmi” — so considered, is a chita vriti, a conscious notion, a mode of consciousness, a thought, subject to arising and disappearing — and not a statement of fact. And it is at cessation of it — not arising and not disappearing — that there is silence. A visible
effect of the attainment is that you maintain silence.” Thus are developed the Buddhist Jhanas; these are states of consciousness which he is indirectly claiming some of the ancient sages were perhaps lacking. He goes on, in answering a question from the audience, to state “I regard the mantra part of the Vedas, and Vedānta, as a legacy from an ancient mystery religion. That part of the Vedas cannot be followed without a religious attitude. I have differences with the interpreters.” I suppose that in saying the above he is being critical of Shankara and Gaudapada for using “I am Brahman” as a statement of fact, not just a mere thought.
Here he pulls his punches a bit and might be blaming the “interpreters” more than the original thinkers for the noted deficiencies. He further states he has “…serious commitments to the Yoga-Sūtra (He is referring to Patanjali here) and to Therāvāda Buddhism. I have lived with this combination, as one does with the cultures of both the East and the West, regardless of the differences.” And, a bit farther “The issue is not God-consciousness of those who give us such an image of God or about any special relationship they might enjoy with God. The issue is the claim by some individuals that they can fathom all mysteries and the heart of God, too.” and pointedly, he says “One cannot imagine, by any standard an insignificant poet, as Shankara was — in any country other than Hindu India — being worshiped as an incarnation of God.” Ouch!
It might be fair to concede that the “claim” put forth by the Hindu writer really means that from the standpoint of the ultimate reality there is only one unitary source of all manifestation; meaning all relative existence, the world of “things, or forms,” has the same source and the same underlying reality and when we assert “I” it is that substratum that speaks and not the manifested body in which that “I” temporarily resides. Is this a form of insanity? One just does not go about saying I am the one true God. Obviously – and this from the standpoint of mundane existence – the writer is not the entire universe. So, it is not provable; neither is it dis-provable. This, however, could be said to distract from the real Truth, which one concedes is not accessible to embodied beings, at least not in a communicable form. We do not know. We cannot know. This we can, however, understand.
To come at this from a slightly different angle consider that what Gaudapada and Shankara are, perhaps ineptly, attempting to explain, admitting that the translators and commentators are probably performing a disservice, is that from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, assuming one can take that standpoint, is that everything that is is actually, apart from appearances, the so called substratum, and anything that manifests is really just and only a surface reality, so to speak, of that which actually exists. Think about it this way – the waves on the surface of a body of water aren’t unreal, they are manifestations of the water from which they come to be. Likewise in our world only the world in itself is real, has existence, everything in it is just an appearance of the world, an ephemera, an illusion, without any substance or separate reality of its own.
Thus it is that silence should be maintained for it is from silence that such thoughts arise and it is into silence that they merge upon being replaced by understanding. Thus fulfillment.
“With a fixed will, whatever a man wants to be, he will be. This statement is repeated in most Indian traditions.” He says this and then points out that it is not allowed, in spite of that statement, to, let’s say, add an inch to one’s height by “…visualizing. If that much cannot be attained…. then becoming Brahman might be a monstrously difficult aim, or it might be a sickening exaltation of one’s ego…without becoming greater than God.” He then allows it is “a legitimate sadhana (but only) for those with merits. The details of formless (arūpa) meditations would be found, and fully described, without mystification or speculation, in the Therāvāda texts of Buddhism.”
I think Gaudapada and Sankara and the others who subscribe to Advaita Vedanta are on the same path as myself, and all, who aspire to spiritual advancement. The universe allows for myriads of approaches to its mysteries and secrets. I’ve mentioned astrophysics – Steven Hawking. (interview at the link) According to those whose approach is scientific, so called quantum mechanics is said to mean “all quantum possibilities are, in fact, real. When we roll the dice of quantum mechanics, each possible result comes true in its own parallel timeline. If this sounds mad, consider its main rival: the idea that reality results from the conscious gaze. Things only happen, quantum states only resolve themselves, because we look at them.” That from Michael Hanlon. It’s not to far fetched to think there are universal possibilities that need to be individualized, localized to be meaningful. And though God might be said to hide in plain sight as the substratum, and does not do the things man does, think, etc., he is nonetheless there when we do them.
Govinda Vishnudas Desani, G.V. Desani, Professor Desani, writes in A No-Image Image that “…there is a promise of fulfillment contained in the symbol, the Buddha’s Peace. It includes the lokiya — the mundane blessings, the sukkha, the happiness part, that is our lot, too — and the lokuttara — the super-mundane blessing, which is his highest good, the conquest of dukkha, all suffering. His suggestion, relevant to the purposes of this symposium, is that true knowledge (yathābhūta ñāna) about an object — āramana, a mental or material object, an object of inquiry, interest or experience — cannot be had without refining our perception: and that cannot be if we do not abide by ethical laws (sīla) and follow mental disciplines, each of us individually.”