reflective abstraction from mental activity. Still there are some superstitions: for example, many beginners try to “stop mind’ but really they “loose intellect’ or block any possibility to develop their reflection. It is nonsense. This is a difficult topic for neophytes in the most spiritual traditions. It creates wild fanatics and open vacancy for different sects. Sure, when a person suppress his intelligence as personal ability to discriminate between real and unreal, such idiot rejects the gift of self-awareness which is necessary even in order to follow a guru. In the last case, namely his intelligence will keep a disciple on the way giving him spiritual benefits until he will cut off all unreal and transitory. To accept and follow his guru, a disciple must be able to recognize his reality and concentrate on it for a long time. He will develop his intelligence in the process of following because he wanted to follow a real guru only. Thus, direct self-realization happens spontaneously when you follow Reality itself.
We can use similar pairs of terms in Sanskrit (Buddhi – Manas) and in English (Intellect – Mind) in order to fix this principle difference within our mental field. Both Western and Eastern philosophers use them in the same sense. Buddhi is intellect as primary ability to discriminate between real and unreal, true and false. It is the direct projection of sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss). Manas is mental activity for analytical systematization of sensory data and for planning to reach some particular goals. All people have more or less developed manas due to education while the most people have their buddhi in a latent state, and they are even not interested in its awaking. However, buddhi can be developed by spiritual practice only. Sometimes it can be activated in extreme situation, when a person faces a contradiction which cannot be solved by mind only. It is no wonder, that a serious illness often becomes the starting point for deepening of consciousness. Being sick, a person can see difference between real and unreal much easier, especially coming to the border between life and death. For this reason, Vedic sages often mentioned sickness as a kind of tapas (austerity); it can serve as another “props’ for fast development of discriminative power. Nevertheless, it can be done by attentive contemplation without extremities.
Intellectual “Blade’
Every function is developing under optimal “workload’ only, therefore, it would be naïve to hope on intelligence as God’s gift without proper efforts. God gives you legs but if you move by car you will become invalid soon. God gives you eyes but if you see through spectacles you will become blind soon. In the same manner, God gives you intellect but if you do not make proper conclusions and do not take responsibility for your decisions, you will become an idiot soon. Notice, I mean buddhi (intellect) rather than manas (mind). Let me remind some quotations from classic Western philosophy which are suitable for building a “bridge’ between two different cultures. According to Hegel, philosophy requires to remove all “idle opinions’ of an individual mind (manas) in order to follow “immanent rhythm of notions’ as they really exist within purified mentality. The starting point of his dialectic logic was a contemplation of Pure Being! According to Fichte, a developed intellect can observe the “facts of consciousnesses’, while they are hidden from usual mind by illusory thinking. So, it is not the Eastern approach only. Western culture also needs Darshan, or the direct vision of Reality as such, which is above formal thinking about Reality creating its images. Yoga philosophy suggests development of buddhi by improvement of attention. We see similar suggestion in Western philosophy: to develop high intellect instead of using low mind, which is not fit for acceptance of high Reality and cannot discriminate between real and unreal.
Your intellect is developing in personal experience of reflection (nothing to do with common thinking or education) and spiritual practice. However, its directions are different or even opposite in Western philosophy and Indian darshana. Let us compare the beginning of both traditions: “Meditations on Primary Philosophy’ by Descartes (the founder of classic Western philosophy) and Upanishads (basic texts of traditional Vedanta philosophy). Their methodologies seem to be similar at the start: both are looking for true Reality increasing doubts in everything – physical body, emotions, current thoughts and collected ideas. Descartes also agreed with illusory nature of his knowledge and all appearing conclusions! The divergence of two ways was located namely in activated intellect, answering the question how to apply buddhi? Descartes discovered buddhi as foundation for his doubting: “I think, therefore, I exist’. Next, he restored the whole structure of universe (thoughts, emotions, material thinks) on this founded base, coming back to the world. In opposite, Upanishads turned buddhi to its source in sat-chit-ananda because a self-realized person would be not interested to deal with illusory matter anymore.
Now, let us see how both traditions developed till getting some shaped results in XX century. In modern times, great Yogi Sri Aurobindo started his sadhana, but he did not stop his mental and social activity. He simply shifted up at buddhi level to the background of Reality using his ability to discriminate between real and unreal as the very root of any contradictions. If any thinking appeared, he kept his mind open to opposite thinking. Finally, the prestige of mind fell down, since there was nothing permanent in its flow. His understanding of Vedanta was non-canonic being deepened in his book “The Secret of the Veda’. Founding his new-age Integral Yoga, actually he worked as Adwaitist turning his intellect (buddhi) to super-intellect (sat-chit-ananda), or real Self of everything. Now, look at the top of Western classic philosophy in Hegel’s dialectic logic. It starts from basic unity of pure Being and pure Nothing, discovering inlaid contradiction in their unity. Balancing primary contradiction brings the discovery of a new contradiction. In this way, pure Being of pure Consciousness serves as the foundation for further concretization. The huge logic structure is constructed by the principle “unity of opposites’. Vedantic Self is represented in the notion of Absolute Subject as “unity of subject and object’. All contradictions disappear at the end.
This comparison demonstrates the primary difference between philosophy and spiritual practice, in the manner of using buddhi. Both thinkers worked at the level of buddhi – not manas! Both were able to discover the source of buddhi in the highest being-consciousness-bliss. Though Hegel actualized only being-consciousness, he was appreciated as a great “mystic’ by many spiritual workers. However, their personal connections to Reality were different: philosopher Hegel observed the reality of unreal while spiritual master Sri Aurobindo worked to improve real within unreal; the last expected that unreal material would demonstrate its reality by itself. Both balanced contradictions between real and unreal in one Reality. Both purified their individual thinking (mind or manas) abstracting intellect from all phenomena. Sri Aurobindo spent three days observing his mental field and merged into Nirvana. Hegel dedicated his “Phenomenology of Spirit’ to similar observation (explaining difference between mind and intellect) and started “The Science of Logic’ from the only word: “Being’. According to spiritual reality, as soon as he began to think about Being from position of conscious being, the whole sphere of “pure ideas’ appeared as the matrix for materialization. For this reason, a professor called Hegel’s logic as a “partita for trance’. It makes sense.
Intellect and Guruism
Can a real guru ask his disciples to suppress their buddhi and become unreasonable? Actually, when a guru teaches meditation he suggests one-pointed concentration stopping thoughts. It becomes the process of developing buddhi (intellect) for his disciples. There are some initiations when thinking stops in the presence of a saint who has the vision of Reality. But it is impermanent because it needs support from disciple’s buddhi while it is not developed yet. If disciple follows Guru-Yoga, going by the way of unity with his guru, this is the same situation. He needs to develop attention to a guru in the same degree as if he would develop attention to Reality itself. No matter, how you use your buddhi, – to recognize Reality itself or to recognize Real Guru, – both methods are effectual for your development. Reality helps as a guru, forcing to do what is necessary. But if you are stupid, no one guru will help you. For example, Ramakrishna merged to Reality both his disciple Vivekananda (spiritual person by his nature) and his servant (kind non-intelligent person). Both were impressed