Mitch Blum

Once again, it’s time for some philosophical meanderings.

First, let me establish that I don’t have a strong pre-established position. I’m not wedded to any particular darsana and I’ve found interesting ideas in all four darsanas that I’ve spent some time investigating: Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, and Buddha-Dharma.

I really like Samkhya because I find it to be a brilliant, logical dissection of the universe. It provides a wonderful framework for further investigation. The delineation between Purusha and Prakriti makes perfect sense to me.

Yoga, obviously, is my passion. While others may find the Yoga Sutras to be dry or uninspiring, I find them to be fascinating. I’ve read many, many translations and commentaries and will continue to, as each one provides a different perspective on this practical technology. I certainly don’t agree with everything that Patanjali lays down, but I agree with the big picture and most everything he says. Most importantly, I practice daily, so that I can verify the results personally, rather than just relying on second-hand testimony.

Buddha-Dharma is very interesting. I’ve spent the least amount of time studying Buddhism, but I find the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path very majestic. I love the focus on sitting meditation but I’m not exactly on-board with emptiness, or the idea of non-existence of the soul. In my view, impersonal Purusa is pure awareness, the spark that gives life to beings and allows for consciousness. Now, if that’s the same thing as shunyata, then we’re cool. Otherwise, we’ve got a problem, here!

Vedanta, is quite compelling, from an intellectually standpoint, but there are a few lingering questions that I can’t get over:

1) How can this world (the material world, the phenomenal world, prakriti, etc.) not be real? Now, I can see people saying that it’s relatively less important than the spiritual realm, but the whole notion of maya doesn’t work for me. Yes, we are all composed of the same subatomic material. Yes, the world is perceived differently by different people. But to believe that this world doesn’t exist seems impractical and hard to fathom to me. We’re here now, right? Patanjali covers this argument in sutras 4.15-4.17 establishing that the material world is very real.

2) How can there be a Brahman and an Atman? If we’re all one, and individualization is a function of consciousness, and consciousness is part of prakriti, then why would pure awareness (Purusha, Brahman) individualize as Atman (Jiva)? And why the need for a creator god?

3) What’s the deal with reincarnation? Why do samskaras need to come to fruition or be eradicated? Why would pure awareness, which is attribute-less and formless, care about samskaras and make consciousness take on another material form? Awareness just IS it isn’t anything that we can define.

4) Why is Advaita so dismissive towards duality and dualistic practices? You can’t practice non-duality. It just happens. And the prepatory practices are all dualistic in nature. So why not accept the world as being real, practice duality and have faith that union will arise as a result? Why insist on only recognizing the destination and not the path?

###