> [ An excerpt from a recent message sent to a wonderful friend,
> relating to a discussion we'd had at Extreme Pizza in San Rafael,
> California, USA .... ]
>
> A psychological observation (not a philosophical argument!): I think
> there is a niche or archetype in the human mind that longs for
> certainty about the most important things. �It is this niche
> (methinks) that the Ontological Argument was hoped to fill. �(Whatever
> philosophical niches it may have been hoped to fill, this, I think, is
> the PSYCHOLOGICAL niche that prompted the explorations that resulted
> in that argument.) � I think Kant's critique of the argument -- as I
> understand it, that it errs in supposing 'existence' to be an ordinary
> trait, like 'redness' or 'roundness' -- is compelling.
>
> My reading of Sri Shankaracharya (often referred to simply as
> "Shankara"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara) is many years
> old, but many of his basic thoughts have stayed with me.
>
> I have heard it said that Shankara (ca. 800 CE) had articulated the
> essence of Descartes' "Cogito" 800 years before Descartes, and I seem
> to recall thinking this correct as I read his work.
>
> I think the philosophical edifice of Shankara also provides a means of
> "enlarging" the "Cogito" into what I have called the "Super-Cogito"
> As it happens, this "Super-Cogito" provides the satisfaction for the
> archetype that the Ontological Argument was hoped to provide (in my
> opinion).
>
> The components of this enlarging or transcendence of the Cogito are
> these, as I see it, are these:
>
> 1) The Cogito itself, whereby the certainty of the existence of the
> "ordinary" self is established.
>
> 2) The four classical "Mahavakyas" of the Upanishads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%%C4%%81v%%C4%%81kyas):
>
> � �=== 1. Prajnanam Brahma - "Consciousness is Brahman" (Aitareya
> Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
> � �=== 2. Ayam Atma Brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya
> Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
> � �=== 3. Tat Tvam Asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of
> the Sama Veda)
> � �=== 4. Aham Brahmasmi - "I am Brahman" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
> 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)
>
> One never has to embrace these sublime utterances dogmatically -- as
> transcendental as they sound (and they truly are), they are really the
> most practical, bread-and-butter observations entrusted to the
> spiritual aspirant. �It's as if the Upanishadic sages are saying to
> us, "jot these four statements on an ethereal piece of paper, and
> store them away in your mind -- as your meditation experiences become
> greater and greater, these statements that seem so obscure to you now
> will come to have immense value (practical as well as philosophical)!
> [Please note, I am not *arguing* for this here, just stating the
> "invitation to introspection" extended by the yogic tradition -- the
> ancient dictum that "the sages have but one argument: 'come and see'
> ".]
>
> Armed with these two components, Sri Shankara invites us to consider
> carefully this self of which he and Descartes have made us certain.
> Initially, it will see to be quite limited. �It will see small
> compared with the Universe that appears to contain it. �The knowledge
> available to it will seem puny compared to the limitless realm of
> things that might come to be known.
>
> But the more we approach its imagined limitations, the more we see
> that they are illusory. �Walking toward what appears to be a wall of
> limitation to the north, we find that that wall recedes as we approach
> it, and finally its phantom image disappears altogether. �The same
> happens as we approach the apparent walls to the south, to the east,
> to the west, and so on. �One after another, they yield to our
> heightening yogic concentration. �We had thought ourselves to be
> "indoors" within tiny boxes, but we find that we have actually been
> "outdoors" in the limitless all along!
>
> The Ontological Argument approaches God from without, as some "other"
> thing; the "Super-Cogito" realizes God from WITHIN, as the truest and
> best Self!
>
> (To be sure, one has to exercise some care along the way! �If the tiny
> ego-self pops onto the Rightful Throne of the Transcendental Self, we
> will witness a pitiful megalomania -- perhaps solipsism, or perhaps
> the more familiar Luciferian urge of the tiny-self to lord itself over
> all other tiny-selves and all other things.)
>
> Of course, the full certainty one longs for is not obtained until full
> Enlightenment is attained -- but one acquires something almost as
> satisfying quite early: CERTITUDE as to the Divine nature of the
> Self. �Even a slight whiff of the fragrance of the Divine is enough to
> set the mind at ease, to ensure it that the path upon which it has
> embarked is among the best paths it might have chosen.
>
> Like a mathematical limit, as one moves further and further toward
> Enlightenment, ones certitude approaches certainty. �Late in the
> process, certitude and certainty become practically indistinguishable.
>
> Is the Greater Self -- Emerson's "Oversoul," the "Paramatman" of the
> Vedic sages -- identical with God? �Does the "drop" of the individual
> consciousness merge fully into the "ocean" of Divine consciousness?
> Or does it retain some distinctness? �Of course, this is one of the
> most intricate and fascinating controversies within Indian philosophy,
> entailing different answers from such thinkers (as I have understood
> or misunderstood them) as the historical Buddha (no need to address
> God), Sri Shankaracharya (the Self and God are ultimately identical),
> Sri Ramanujacharya (the Self or the community of individual selves
> will always retain some distinctness from the Divine Totality, though
> they will always approach it more and more closely -- asymptotically,
> as it were), Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ("simultaneous oneness and
> difference," "achintya-bheda-abheda tattva"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda
> )
>
> Though this ancient controversy is lively, and though one will find
> parallels in western philosophy -- all the way from the ancient Greeks
> to the most recent thinkers -- it speaks very well of the Indian
> tradition that the spirit of the debate has gone on mostly without
> hostility. �I remember what a friend told me about the Tibetan
> tradition -- that when a visitor would come to Tibet from the outer
> world, he or she was greated with, "Friend, from what honored
> spiritual tradition do you come?"
>
> Ah, if only our struggling, potentially glorious little species could
> learn to disagree without being disagreeable -- to realize that we
> might learn so much from those who disagree with us! -- we might just
> take a quantum jump upward!
>
> Metta.
>
> --
> Bretthttp://www.100bestwebsites.org/
> "The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
> Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites