Dharma Bodhi of TMY (a Tantric group led by himself) lectures on the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Tantrism. Or perhaps "classical" Advaita, since Dharma believes that the advaitin current has changed a lot over the centuries, certainly in modern times, for instance by incorporating more and more "Tantric" practices. Indeed, one Advaita ashram actually invited *him* to teach them Tantric yoga practices.
In the classical version, everything is Brahman, and everything seemingly not Brahman is Maya or illusion. I suppose you *could* see it that way, but traditional Advaita went further and argued that Brahman is unconscious and inert. There is no "Shakti", no creative energy with which Brahman manifests the world...or the illusion! This raises a lot of awkward questions, covered in the YouTube clip above. One objection that came to my mind (or is it illusory non-mind) long ago is that Advaita suggests that the Divine is imperfect, since the only thing it can "create" (or dream up?) is samsara with all its death and suffering. That´s imperfect even if we assume that it´s only an illusion. Why can´t Brahman dream about a perfect world?
Dharma points out that although Advaita is "non-dual" (monist), there is nevertheless a tacit dualism in the system between Brahman and Maya, since the former seems to be in a permanent state of unconsciousness, while Maya is busy creating the illusion (including the illusion of consciousness). Doesn´t this in effect make Maya into a second "divine" principle? Meditation is difficult explaining using these metaphysics, since the human mind meditating is also part of Maya, yet advaitins are supposed to meditate (at least in some versions of the teaching). More commonsensically, Dharma just points out that it´s patently absurd to assume that there is no reality to what we see and experience around us: it´s almost a sociopathology. He believes that many Advaita groups are really cults, since nobody can really check whether or not the guru (or the students) have "attained" anything, the whole thing quickly devolving into taking his word for it, giving the teacher unlimited power over his acolytes. The idea that nothing is real can also lead to spiritual seekers dropping out, refusing to engage with the "illusory" world in any meaningful fashion.
More benign Advaita groups try to reach sudden and instant enlightenment by studying Shankara´s scriptures and various commentaries, giving the groups a "bookish" and intellectual feel. Still others give detailed instructions on how to meditate, the goal being to reach a state identical to dreamless sleep, during which you are conscious of nothing at all (there actually is such a teacher elsewhere on YouTube, Swami Tadatmananda). In Dharma´s opinion, this isn´t an accomplishment or realization at all. It´s not even particularly difficult to do. Animals do it all the time.
Dharma´s alternative view sounds like a mixture of Vajrayana and Shaivism, but then, some scholars argue that Vajrayana *is* a form of non-dual Shaivism in Tibeto-Buddhist garbs. The manifested world isn´t absolutely real, but it has a relative reality, like a mirror image. We are deluded as to our true nature (Shiva-Shakti), but a delusion isn´t the same thing as an outright illusion. When we realize our basic identity with Shiva-Shakti, we dissolve into rainbow light ("the rainbow body"). Maya is a creatrix, not a negative power - I get the impression that in TMY´s system, "Maya" is really the Shakti.
Another interesting piece of information is that Shankara was cast as a Tantrika by later generations, and that there are even Tantric texts attributed to him!
One thing that struck me when listening to Dharma´s presentations on this channel is that TMY claims to be a non-theist or a-theist system, yet there conception of Base (the ground of reality) sounds theist. The ground is said to be a *sentient* open spatiousness. It´s also consciousness conscious of itself through itself. But if this is the most basic nature of the cosmos, how on earth can it *not* be God? In some other clips, Base is said to have two characteristics, Compassion and Freedom. But only a personal god can feel compassion or understand freedom. Perhaps TMY has a very narrow definition of theism? As in: God is a 8-year old cowherd playing on a flute for a girlfriend too old for him? (Yes, that would be Krishna and Radha. And no, I don´t believe that either, although I suppose it would make the universe even more "Tantric" than it already is!)
With that little comment, I close this presentation.
Done some further reading. It seems Advaita Vedanta has several sub-schools, and the entire field is incredibly complex. A wild guess is that Dharma Bodhi is criticizing Sureshvara and the Vivarana school.
ReplyDeleteWow.