philosophical knots

admittedly, as Swami Vivekananda says in one of his lectures on jnana yoga, all philosophical systems are ultimately mental constructions and thus every system will have its limitations. to use one of Ram Swarups expressions, some of these systems (shall I say those which are more theologies or opinions rather than philosophies), even appear to be contradictory and revolting to man's higher or larger synthetic reason. but even among systems that do appeal to this inner reason, there is room for difference and confusion.

for me personally, and perhaps many of the modern students of the Hindu philosophy who are self-schooled in the texts of its different sects, this is a big problem. I have always found the logic of Advaita Vedanta quite complelling and appealing. But I have often had difficulty reconciling its ultimate conclusions with other reasonable ones. For example, if ultimately the Truth is pure consciousness, it would appear as being a passive witness. But then where do the objects it witnesses come from? So it seems reasonable that the ultimate Truth is rather a pure consciousness+power. A sort of playful power should inhere in it. But this was my conjecture- the Advaita vedanta schools that are current would rather describe this phenomenon as the mysterious and unexplainable Maya which both exists and doesnt exist within Brahman.

Being devoted to Ramakrishna however, I would accept that beyond these conceptions, Brahman and Sakti or power, are one and the same, rather like fire and its burning power. Also as Sri Aurobindo explained, this sort of dual power, of being the witness as well as the projector, is of the very nature of the ultimate and this cannot be understood by the ordinary mind. He calls it consciousness-force. I just called it Advaita Ishwara-vada (or Ishwari-vada maybe ?) and was content at accepting it that way. So I thought, that should be left to experience.

It seems however, that this position which appeals to me, that of 'Sat-ChitShakti-Ananda' as the ultimate triurne, rather than just 'Sat-Chit-Ananda' is that of tantra too. More significantly it is also that of Tripura Rahasya, a text held highly by one of modern day Advaita greats, Ramana maharshi. I have had occasion to read from this beautiful text and it has captivated me.

Here is an article which elucidates this Tantric position and compares it with that of modern Advaita Vedanta. An excerpt:

To the Vedantist the world appears as such to the ignorant owing to his ignorance and in the last analysis it is resolved into Maya which is not identical with Brahman and is material; but to a Tantrist the world is real and is expression of the Chit Sakti or Free Will of the Lord and is really spiritual in essence like the Lord Himself. In the last resort it turns back into the Chit Sakti which is never withdrawn, for the Will (svAtantrya) remains, even after the world has disappeared. The Vedanta system has had to fall back on the doctrine of Vivarta, because it denies in a sense svAtantrya to Pure Chaitanya.