Mircea Eliade YOGA IMMORTALITY AND ... - Brihaspati.net

the central problem of Buddhism: suffering and liberation from suffering, is the
traditional problem of Indian philosophy. The Buddhist proverb, sarvam dukham, sarvam
anityam, Everything hurts, everything is temporary "may well be adopted by the
Samkhya-Yoga and Vedanta (which on the other hand, sucedi6).
Better understand this position, seemingly paradoxical, that is to oppose both the
orthodox doctrines like the ascetic-contemplative disciplines, while taking on their
premises and their techniques, if we think that the Buddha is proposed formulas surpass
all the philosophers and recipes mystic of his time to free people from your domain and
open "step" towards the Absolute. If the Buddha endorses the ruthless analysis which the
Samkhya and Yoga submitted the pre-classic notion of "person * and psycho-mental life,
it is because the" I "has nothing in common with that illusive entity, the" soul " human.
But the Buddha goes further than the Samkhya-Yoga and the Upanishads, because he
refuses to posit the existence of an atman or purusha. In fact, deny the possibility of any
discourse on an absolute principle, and also denied the possibility of having an
experience, even approximately, the true self, while the man is not "awaken-tion."
Buddha also rejected the conclusions of the Upanishads theory: the assumption of a
Brahman, pure spirit, absolute, immortal, Ethem , identical to the atman, but did so
because this dogma was in danger of meeting with intelligence, and therefore prevented
the man awake.
Looking at things more closely, we realize that the Buddha rejected all philosophies and
contemporary asceticism because idola mentis considered that raised a kind of screen
between man and the absolute reality, the only thing verda-dero and unconditioned . That
the Buddha is not addressed in any way a negation of the ultimate reality, unconditioned,
but not everlasting alia the flow of cosmic and psycho-mental phenomena, while
avoiding too much discourse in this regard, the test number-ing canonical texts . Nirvana
is the absolute par excellence, the asamskrta, ie the compound has not been born, which
is irre-reducible, transcendent, but alia of all human experience. "We would argue in vain
that Nirvana does not exist on the reason that is not subject knowledge. No doubt,
Nirvana is not known directly in the way they are known color, sensation, etc.. Not
known indirectly through its activity, as is known in the organs of sense. But its nature
and activity are the subject of knowledge (...) (...) The yogi in a state of meditation (... )
becomes aware of Nirvana, by their nature, of his work. When he left contemplation, exclaims:
"\ Oh, Nirvana, destrucci6n, calm, great, escape!" The blind, the fact of not seeing
and the blue or yellow, have no right to say that they see not see the colors and the colors
.* Eriste not Nirvana can only be "seen" with the "eye of the saints" (ariyacakku), ie a
organo transcendent, not part of the world perish. For Buddhism, as for any other
initiation, the problem was in the lead and forge ways to get that "6rgano" transcendent
that can reveal to the unconditioned.
Recall that the Buddha's message addressed the suffering man, the man caught in the nets
of transmigration. To the Buddha, as for all forms of yoga, salvation only obtained
following a personal effort of specific assimilation of truth. It was neither a theory nor the
escape into any ascetic effort. It was necessary to understand and yet experimentarh,
"truth *. Now, as we shall see, the two sen-healers had its risks:" understanding "that"
threatened to give in simple theory, and "experimentation", to invade the ecstasy. But,
according to. Buddha, we can only "save" reaching Nirvana, ie surpassing the level of
human experience worldly and reintegrating the level of the conditioned. In other words,