Sushan wrote: ↑May 12th, 2023, 8:21 am
Your thoughtful analysis underscores the myriad philosophical and religious traditions that grapple with the concept of the ego and the ultimate nature of the self. It is indeed a subject of deep contemplation across diverse schools of thought. You rightly highlight the profound influence of Advaita Vedanta on Western philosophy, emphasizing the idea of ultimate reality being intimately connected with the individual self.
Expanding on this, Alan Watts' perspective on the ego, as outlined in his book, resonates with the Advaita Vedanta perspective on non-duality - the idea that the individual self (atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are one and the same. This understanding of the ego as an illusory construct aligns with the Vedantic philosophy of transcending the ego to recognize the inherent oneness of existence.
Simone Weil and Arthur Schopenhauer, as you've mentioned, also resonated with these ideas, suggesting that there's a common thread running through these different philosophical systems despite their varied cultural and historical contexts. They've all grappled with the ego's nature, its illusion, and the ultimate reality of interconnectedness.
Our big problem and the reason for our non-acceptance, the taboo of knowing who we are, as Watts says, is the influence of Roman Catholic and subsequently Protestant religion with its puritanism, and as I have said in this forum, the separation of the sacred from the profane to such a degree that Christianity is reduced to posturing, which is one of the things Jesus criticised amongst the pious of his day. The reaction to the awareness of being an expression of God should cause humility rather than the arrogance and self-importance that is often associated with the statement, and threatened to get Jesus stoned and finally he was crucified. Watts says, “no Hindu can realize that he is God in disguise without seeing at the same time that this is true of everyone and everything else (p. 19).”
I had a long conversation with a friend of mind in America about Schopenhauer, who was particularly drawn to the idea of the unity of all things, which he saw as a central insight of Advaita Vedanta. This was a big revelation for my friend who said he sang “Hallelujah” for a day on realising it. The realisation that this insight was also present in the mystical traditions of other cultures, including Christianity, gave him great joy and he started re-reading Schopenhauer, and saw it as a key to unlocking the deepest truths about reality. In particular, Schopenhauer saw Advaita Vedanta as offering a solution to the problem of suffering, and believed that the ego, with its desires and attachments, was the source of suffering, and that the only way to overcome suffering was to transcend the ego and realize the unity of all things. In this sense, he saw Advaita Vedanta as a practical philosophy that offered a way to attain inner peace and liberation from the cycle of birth and death. My friend and I returned to Watts books, as well as the books Schopenhauer referenced in "The World as Will and Representation," and had several insightful conversations via video.
Sushan wrote: ↑May 12th, 2023, 8:21 am
As for the implications, should this understanding of the ego as an illusory construct be widely adopted, it could indeed foster a more harmonious and cooperative society. Recognizing our inherent interconnectedness and oneness could engender a deep sense of empathy, compassion, and mutual respect. It could also shift our approach to conflict resolution, environmental sustainability, and societal equity, among other things.
Absolutely, and it has taken me down many other paths, including reading about Husserl, the father of phenomenology, which was suggested to me by Thrasymachus in the thread Any Buddhists out there? Of course, Watts says that “Irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. Faith is, above all, open-ness—an act of trust in the unknown (p. 11).” This has made me use the label “universalist” rather than Christian, because, although I initially come from Christianity, the recognition of the truth of this teaching made me realise how warped Christianity had become, and how much conflict and suffering it had caused in its ignorance. But the same can be said of the irrevocable commitment to any religion, and even Buddhism, generally regarded as a religion of peace, and like Advaita Vedanta, sees the realization of the unity of all things as a path to liberation from suffering, there have also been instances in history where Buddhist monks have been involved in political and military conflicts. One example, in ancient Japan, reveals that some Buddhist monasteries had their own armies and engaged in battles with rival sects. The unity of all things as a path to liberation from suffering seems to need to be free from such final commitment.
Sushan wrote: ↑May 12th, 2023, 8:21 am
However, it's important to note that while this perspective can offer profound insights, it also requires a deep level of self-awareness and personal transformation, which may not be easily accessible or appealing to all. It might also be challenging to implement on a large scale given the diversity of human experiences, beliefs, and cultural contexts.
As philosophical explorations continue, it's critical to appreciate the variety of perspectives and the richness they bring to our understanding of the self and reality. The goal is not necessarily to find one "correct" view but to continually deepen our understanding and empathy towards ourselves, others, and the world around us.
“Whatever seems advantageous or disadvantageous for our survival, our social status, and the security of our egos governs what we choose to notice” says Watts (p. 33). He points out that the dichotomy of life is more a dance of interdependence, a giving and taking, with each side at one time up or another time down. But our modern world cannot accept that. “There are many other ways in which the game of Black-and-White is switched into the game of “White must win,” and, like the battle for survival, they depend upon ignoring, or screening out of consciousness, the interdependence of the two sides (p. 41).”
If we don’t realise how interdependence works, we may just make the world into an even worse hell than we have already managed to do.