|
This Classic work is now copyright expired and therefore in the public domain. Cosmic Consciousness by Ali NomadIV SELF-NESS AND SELFLESSNESS
page 6 of 6 | page 1 | Cosmic Consciousness - home
There is another mistaken interpretation of the means of attainment of that state of liberation, which has been alluded to in so many varied terms. The fact that Buddha, like many of the Oriental Masters, sought the seclusion of the forest; the isolation, and simplicity of the hermit,--has given rise to the belief, almost universally held among Oriental disciples, that liberation from _maya_, the delusions of the world, can not be attained save by these methods.
Monasteries are the result of this idea, and this Buddhistic practice was adopted by the first Christian church, since which time the real purpose and intention of the monastery and the nunnery have become lost in the concept of sacrifice or punishment. The Christian monk almost invariably retires to a monastery, not for the purpose of consciously attaining to that enlarged area of consciousness which insures liberation, _mukti_, but as an "outward and visible sign" that he is willing to undergo the sacrifice of worldly pleasures at the behest of the Lord Jesus. Thus, the real object of retirement is lost, and the sacrifice again becomes in the nature of a "bargain."
In the Bhagavad-Gita, we find these words:
"Renunciation and yoga by action both lead to the highest bliss; of the two, yoga by action is verily better than renunciation of action. He who is harmonized by yoga, the self-purified, self-ruled, the senses subdued, whose self is the self of all beings, although _acting_, yet is such an one not _affected_.
"He who acteth, placing all action in the _eternal_, abandoning attachment, is unaffected by sin as a lotus leaf by the waters."
This is interpreted according to the viewpoint of the translator, even as, among an audience of ten thousand persons, we may find almost as many interpretations, and shades of meaning of a musical composition.
True, the Oriental meaning _seems_ to be the one that we shall cease to love friends, relatives, and lovers, abandoning them as one would abandon the furniture of one's household when outworn, and no longer of service.
We do not accept this interpretation.
To abandon one's friends, one's loved ones, yea, even one's would-be enemies is equivalent to leaving one's companions on a sinking raft and, without sentiment or remorse, save one's physical self from destruction.
No higher sentiment is known to struggling humanity than love of each other. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend."
Oriental or Occidental philosophy, whichever may be presented to the mind, as an unfailing guide, should be distrusted, if that philosophy prescribes the abandonment of lover, friend, relative, neighbor, brother, companion. That is, if we accept the dictionary meaning of the word "abandoned" as translated into English.
A western avatar has said:
"I will not have what my brother can not," and in this we heartily concur, not hesitating to say that until all human life shall accept and realize the fullness of this message, we shall not, as a race, have attained to the inheritance that is ours.
But shall we then believe, that the Oriental doctrine is erroneous? Not necessarily.
Errors of interpretation are not only natural but inevitable, and this interpretation of abandonment is in line with the idea of sacrifice (using the word in its old sense of paying a debt), which prevailed throughout all the centuries just passed--centuries in which the idea of God was estimated by the conduct of the kings and monarchs of earth.
A later revelation or dispensation has given what the Illumined One said was a "new commandment," and it is one more in accord with our ideals of godhood.
"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye _love_ one another."
But love, like everything which _is_, means much or little, according as the soul is advanced in knowledge, or is undeveloped.
Perfect and complete love is not selfish; it desires not possession, but union. There is a world of difference between the two words.
"The soul enchained is man, and free from chain is God," said Sri Ramakrishna.
And the soul is enchained by illusion--by mistaking the effect for the cause, and by regarding the effect as the real, instead of realizing the incompleteness; the limitedness; the unsatisfying character of the changing--the external.
Not that the pursuit of the external is sinful, but it is unsatisfying, while the soul that has caught a glimpse of that wonderful ecstasy of Illumination, has found that which satisfies.
Upon this point of attainment of complete satisfaction, and certainty, all who have experienced the consciousness we are considering seem to agree, according to the testimony here submitted.
Next | 