Commentaries of Rajasevasakta V. Subrahmanya Iyer From the posthumous collections of Paul Brunton Edited by Mark Scorelle, 1999 2 3 CONTENTS 1.Beyond Yoga 1,2,6,(mixed) Beyond Yoga, Fallacies of Religion, and Reason 12.The Doctrine of Mentalism 13.The Illusion of World Experience 14.The Illusion of Ego Experience 16.The Ultimate as Truth 17.Ethics 17.Karma 17.Politics 17.Indian Sociology 18.Sagehood as an Ideal 19.Doctrine of Non-Causality 22.Panchadesi 23.Sanskrit Terms 24.Srimad Bhagavatam & Last Message of Krishna 25.Buddhism 27.Selected Works of Sri Sankaracharya 27.Sri Sankara 27.Brahma Sutras 28.AUM 29.Swami Vivekananda & Sri Ramakrishna 30.Modern Indians 31.Ancient Indians & Their Schools 32 V.S.I. Personal 33.Counsel:(General) 33.Counsel:(Literary) 33.Counsel:(Journal) 34.Kant 36.Ancient Europeans 37.Modern Westerners 38.Modern Western Schools 39.Guadapada Mandukya Karika(full commentary) 41.Vivekachudamani(full commentary) 42.Drg Drsya Viveka(full commentary) 40.Ashtvakra Samhita(full commentary) 43.Upanishads 44.Bhagavad Gita ..H.H. (late) Maharaja of Mysore, Interest in Literature ..Worship of Bali, One of India's Seven Immortals ..Ralph Barton Perry "Lectures" ..Six Natural Steps Leading to Philosophy ..Letter to G.R.Malkani ..Exerpts from the Mahabharata ..exerpt from John Lewis "Introduction to Philosophy" ..Letter to Mr.Hooper ..Letter to Sir J. Jeans ..Selected and Approved Exerpts ..Letters to P.B. ..Letter to Dr.E.J.Steiner ..Letter to Hallet ..Letter to Sir Herbert Samuel ..Letter to Spaulding ..Philosophy,Metaphysics,Examination Papers ..Newspaper Interview ..The Use of Philosophy ..Exerpts from Thomson's Introduction to Science & Darwinism & Human Life ..Letter on Reason and Logic ..Reply to Nicol Reid's Article ..Address to Aurivedic Medical Students 4 ..Forward to "Outlines of Indian Philosopy” (Kannada Book) 5 CHAPTER (1) BEYOND YOGA. ON LIGHT How do you see various objects, scenes and persons during your dreams? If the dream world were covered with darkness you can never see it. Therefore there must be a light in the dream world. This light is similar to the light (joti) seen by the yogis in samadhi. Yogis claim to live hundreds of years. Where is even one who can prove it? Not one has really done so. I do not believe it. The gross world is merged into the mental world in the sense that when it is analyzed, it is found to exist inseparably in and as the mind alone. All "spiritual" planes are really mental: those who regard them as different or higher are deceiving themselves. If Yoga gave occult powers, why did not the yogis of India during the past thousands years use their powers to fight the battles of India and protect her from invaders? Why did Krishna, after 18 chapters of instruction in various kinds of Yoga, in the Gita, at the end tell Arjuna to go and fight? Why did he not tell him not to fight but to use yogic power? Instead of asking the yogis like Aurobindo and the charlatans like Meher Baba "Where is the proof?" people meekly say "He is such a great man. What he says must be true." Reclusive Gurus who permit themselves to be seen only a few times a year, who remain silent for 6 days in the week, or who will not converse with disciples for more than two minutes are doing this in order not to be properly examined, tested, and their imperfection found out. If anyone says that God is doing this or that or has such and such qualities, he is telling a lie. Did he go and see God doing it? To know what "seeing" means is most difficult. Scientists are not sure how much of mind-interpretation goes into the simple act of sight. Therefore when any mystic is dogmatically sure about the validity of his visions, we can only smile. There are at least 100 commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. Each one goes on spinning yarns imagining as he likes what the meaning may be. But once you have studied scientific vedanta you will know what Krishna really meant, you will see that there is only one possible interpretation, irrespective of your opinion or imagination. When these mystics come and tell you about their visions, and revelations and "realizations" the best thing is to keep quiet. They do not seek to test the truth of their experiences and will abuse you if you criticize them; they want their vanity satisfied. 6 The less brains people have the more they will tend to follow a single man. Therefore the more ignorant they are the easier to get them into a religious fold. Islam is so strong and popular because it makes no demand on the intelligent: It simply requires belief in Muhammad. Has it ever struck a Muhammedan to doubt whether his religion is true? Muslims particularly never use their reason because they start and conclude that Islam alone is true, because they never question. Theological philosophers say God is a perfect being, but they have never known God, never proved his existence; hence their ascription of perfection to Him is purely self-imagined. Our reply to religionists is that if we have to test truth in the next world only, we have no proof, so keep your doctrines; we do not want to follow them. Is impossible to prove the existence of God by any reasoning: you can only say "I believe." The most rational position is that of the agnostic, "I do not know." Yoga and mysticism are primitive things which appealed in the past to early races; now they indicate undeveloped mind when they are taken for truth! If the yogis have power of knowing the future, why did they not warn the Hindus that the marauding Muslims were coming to particular places, and thus enable the former to muster their armies there in time to save the people? The bombs which fell on Warsaw Cathedral during German invasion whilst people were praying should have revealed to them how fantastic were their ideas of God. If it does not open their eyes, what can we do? They lack brains. I agree from a practical viewpoint with Gandhi's constant calling on God as his guide, because he is a clever politician, and knows that to sway the masses he must invoke religion. What else can he do? The poor people are not intellectually developed so it is useless to invoke their capacity to think. Gandhi is justified by results. But philosophically his statements cannot be proved. According to their imagination, is the paradise or heaven of religious believers. But where people have got a little thinking capacity, they begin to disbelieve through the contradictions of various contending orthodox claims and descriptions. Mystics see visions of gods and goddesses and adepts according to their own vasanas (im- pressions remaining unconsciously in the mind from past karma). To those who assert this world is "the expression of a divine power" I retort, "How do you know?" There are two kinds of telling a lie. First of which you are conscious. Second of which you are not aware. In the second class belong those religionists who talk of heaven, God, etc. as though they had seen them to exist. The possibilities of scholastic or mystic argument are endless. If one says "Brahman is Nirguna" another will reply, "No, he is Saguna! If one says "This religion is higher" another will reply, 7 "No, it is lower." It is impossible to get anywhere with such talk because both sides are merely imagining. We cannot see fully into another human being's mind. How then, can you see into God's mind and assert that God wishes this or that, plans so and so? This is nothing but imagination, which is nothing but telling lies. If you say God is the Creator, then we have right to say, "Why did your God create me to put me through all these troubles? He cannot be my friend; he is my enemy." Even if it is objected that one's life is untroubled, then one cannot escape death. For mysticism or religion you can interpret texts as you like, in whatever way that pleases you, you simply imagine away. Philosophy does not begin with Brahman: that has to be proved, not assumed. Hence, so-called Indian philosophers who take Brahman for granted are not philosophers at all. Lots of Indian philosophers will teach you that all is yourself, but none of them can show that this is so, none has analysed it scientifically, none can prove it. Our method is rational proof, so that you arrive at knowing truth i.e. Gnana; theirs is mere dogma, parrotism, repetition of what they read in scripture. Authoritarianism merely assumes as true what another says, but what has yet to be proved. Poets are open liars, their trade is to exaggerate, only they want to tell pleasant lies. How do you know that the Vedas knew the truth? How do you know that the man you quote knew the truth? I ask mystics, How can they know that their happiness is the highest? May it not be that there is a higher one beyond their experience? You may believe in a position, but you are required to prove the truth of your belief. A belief is a feeling, truth is knowledge. The best way to deal with opponents is to ask them first to state the grounds for their position. How do they know theirs is true? This should silence them. Disappointments in religion or mysticism or even science imply error or ignorance.