Part 1 of a 3-part essay by Dr. K. Sadananda, AchArya at Chinmaya Mission, Washington.

Science is Objective

The word science is derived from the root ‘scire’, meaning to know. Hence science really means knowledge which reveals a fact or truth. In Sanskrit, ‘vid’ means to know, and ‘veda’ means knowledge. Combining these two statements we can say that Veda means science. Vedanta means that which reveals the ultimate knowledge or absolute truth. From this, it follows that Vedanta is the ultimate science. This is not a fanatical statement but a statement of fact, as in ‘Light travels at 299,792,458 m / s’. This is not an opinion or belief but just plain fact, whether one believes it or not. We will examine here why Vedanta is the science of absolute.

Epistemologically, the word ‘knowledge’ without a qualifier, cannot be defined. The qualifier objectifies the knowledge as in ‘knowledge of Chemistry’ or ‘knowledge of Physics’, etc. It is always knowledge of something. It can be knowledge of the physical or phenomenal world, or knowledge of some subtle entities such as emotions, thoughts, intellectual concepts, etc. The former can be considered as the knowledge of gross entities that can be known via sense input, while the latter can be called the knowledge of subtle entities and can be known without the need of any sense input, or can be inferred indirectly from the sense input.

For example, I can have knowledge of a force, which is subtle, when work is being done. We know that there is a life-force (praana Shakti) by the expression of life activities. What exactly life is, even doctors cannot define as it is imperceptible; but yet they can certify whether one is alive or not by examining life’s grosser expressions. In essence, from action we can deduce the driving force for that action. A change of state, for example, involves a driving force, even though the force itself is imperceptible. Hence Vedanta says that one becoming many involves a driving force, which it calls as maayaa shakti or the force of maayaa. The point is that all forces can be inferred from the change of state, although they are imperceptible.

Pure knowledge without any objectification cannot be defined. In fact, any definition involves objectification. Conversely, only objectifiable entities can be defined. Vedanta says that all objectifiable entities are inert, or that conversely only inert things can be objectified. Hence all knowledge that we are familiar with is knowledge of objectifiable entities, and therefore knowledge of qualifyable entities or of inert entities. Science, in common parlance, means only knowledge of objectifiable entities, or inert entities, either gross or subtle. For example, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Biology, Medicine, etc all pertain to objectifiable sciences or sciences of grosser entities that are measureable or quantifiable by sense input data using objective tools. Even when we are examining or quantifying living beings using objective tools we are only examining either body parts which by themselves are inert, or activities at the grosser level to deduce that they are living beings.

Subtler sciences such as Psychology, Philosophy, Logic, etc., are not amenable directly to sense input, and therefore are not ascertainable or quantifiable by objective tools. One can infer to some extent by the behavioral trends but they remain somewhat speculative and not assertive. A philosophy or even logic can be built based on axiomatic statements. For those who are familiar, there is the famous Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory for axiomatic systems. It states that all mathematical systems are axiomatic, and although self-consistent, they remain incomplete and therefore cannot be proven.

Analysis of How knowledge Takes Place

In the knowledge of every object, three aspects are involved; a) the subject knower, b) the object known, and c) the means of knowledge that connects the two. These, in Sanskrit, are called pramaata, prameyam and pramaana, respectively. Pramaa means knowledge and knowledge that is falsified later by a better or stronger pramaana is called bhrama or false knowledge. Thus, using pramaana, a pramaata can know a prameyam. Let us take a simple example: I want to know if there is chair in the hall. To gain that knowledge, I need to go and see. I, the conscious entity, am the knower or pramaata, the chair is the object of my knowledge, prameyam, and the means of knowing or pramaana is perception that involves the sense of sight. For the pramaana to operate, my eyes should be functioning and my mind should also be present, in addition to any other secondary requirements such as sufficient light in the room for me to see. Suppose, if the room is pitch-dark, I would not know if there is a chair or not. Thus the existence of the chair in the pitch dark room is indeterminate; that is, it may be there or it may not be there. The uncertainty, here, is due to the inability for the pramaana (sense of sight) to operate. Thus objective knowledge can be established only if all the three, the knower, known and the means of knowledge, are operating. Without the knower and the means of knowing, the existence of the object cannot be established.

Hence Vedanta ascertains that the existence of an object is established by the knowledge if its existence, which requires a pramaata or a conscious entity. If I or no other conscious entity is present in that room to ascertain the existence of the chair in that room via direct or remote instruments of perception, the existence of the chair or any other object remains uncertain. It may or may not exist.

Thus the fundamental requirement even for objective sciences that involve only objectifiable entities that use objective tools is that there must be a conscious entity to make the knowledge assertive or in technical jargon to make it deterministic rather than just probabilistic. In the above example, the existence of the chair in the hall cannot be established until I or some other conscious entity sees it. In Sanskrit, the word for indeterminacy is anirvacaniiyam.

Suppose I ask, while you are in the pitch dark room, is there a gaabaabuubu in that room? You cannot answer that question even if the room is lighted. You will ask first, what is gaagaabuubu or what does it look like, or what are its attributes? Name or naama and attributes (starting with ruupa or form, etc.) go together in defining an object. If I do not know what is gaagaabuubu I cannot say it exists or does not exist. Naming involves knowing; and without the knowledge, existence of any particular object cannot be established.

In addition, even if the conscious entity or pramaata is present, the knowledge of existence of the object cannot take place unless the pramaana or means of knowledge operates. In the above example, if my sense of sight is not operating or if my mind is elsewhere, then I still would not know whether the chair is there or not, even when the room is lighted. For example, in the deep sleep state, the existence of any object, nay the whole world is indeterminate or anirvacaniiyam, since the instruments of perception, the senses and the mind, are folded or essentially not functioning. Thus, even though I am there and objects may be there, there is no knowledge of their existence. The objects here include the grosser objects like room, bed and my body, but also the subtler objects like mind and the thoughts. Hence, without the mind present, no knowledge of the objective world takes place. Therefore, to summarize, any knowledge or science involves the subject I, the object this, and the connection between the two via a pramaana or means of knowledge. All three must be present for science to operate.

To be continued…

Q: At the end of the day, what does knowledge of self give us ?

It does not help answer the burning question of why the appearance/dream/mAyA that we are experiencing as humans or animals exists.

(I am not clear on this one but..) It appears that even though one attains knowledge of self in one janma, he/she can actually become a cockroach in the next due to karmic effect, i.e. we are not really liberated from the birth-death cycle.

The only benefit I do see in a janma where one attains knowledge of self is that such a person might lead a life devoid of misery in the mind as they sail through good and bad times (although they may still experience physical pain).

A (Sitara): In Advaita Vedanta we ask the question “who or what is the true Self” because we trust (in the scriptures and/or statements of those who claim to have answered this question for themselves) that the true Self is one without a second, meaning the true Self is all there is. So knowledge of the true Self, i.e. Self-realization, equals the realization that the perceived world is nothing but the Self alone. As to why it is perceived as world and not as the Self there are many answers within Advaita Vedanta and in Sri Atmanandaji’s Direct Path. I cannot sum them up in a few sentences, as they belong to an extended teaching methodology. I recommend, for a taste, to watch an interview with Greg Goode.)

 As to your second point: For the one who has attained knowledge of the Self, the law of karma has become irrelevant. He/She has gone beyond this concept, which is for teaching purposes only.

 The third point you make shows that your main interest is in the first three puruShArtha s (security, well being and ethics) and not yet in mokSha the fourth puruShArtha – mokSha defined as per Advaita Vedanta. There is nothing wrong with the first three puruShArtha-s but for those who focus on them there is no inclination to Vedanta yet. Vedanta is for those who focus on mokSha. They again belong to the group I mentioned in the first paragraph: they ask the question “who or what is the true Self” because they trust that the true Self is one without a second, meaning the true Self is all there is”.

A (Ramesam): Perfect.

 The conclusion that you have come to, viz. “The only benefit I do see in a janma where one attains knowledge of self, they might lead a life devoid of misery in the mind,” is technically called ‘mukti’ or ‘liberation.’ After all, what is liberation? To be liberated is to be free from the after effects of all the actions that go on with a ‘me’ or without a ‘me’ being posited there.

 The results of any action, whether good or bad, have necessarily to be faced by ‘me’ as long as I am the doer of that action. There is no escape from the consequences so long as I claim ownership to the instruments of action (my body-mind) or doership for acting (my agency). That’s the inviolable law of Nature (niyati). The Nature’s Law cannot be altered. So Advaita, cleverly solves the problem of misery by magically evaporating the ‘me’ and not the actions or the natural laws.

 Therefore, Advaita teaching is completely useless to help us in our day to day problems that are concerned with the presence of a separate and distinct ‘me’ like:

1. My Balance of payments.
2. My Children’s education,
3. My Relationship issues with the spouse or neighbors, friends and so on,
4. Fixing My broken leg in an accident,
5. My being stuck in Natural disasters,
6. Injustices or insults heaped on Me for no apparent reason (in My opinion),

etc. etc. etc.

And agreeing to all that, if you ask what is the guarantee that Advaita would grant ‘liberty’ from misery, the probability of successfully attaining the end is almost next to nothing!

That is why I hold that “Advaita ends the ‘sufferer’ but not the ‘suffering’ per se.”

For a more detailed exposition on this theme, please see the Power Point Presentation titled “Inquiry in Science and Vedanta”.

 But, on the other hand, if you are a serious investigator yearning to know what is the “really real” (satyasya satyam) of the world (which includes this ‘me’ also), and not worried about your immediate problems of health or the next meal, then read the three articles starting from:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/Process-Models-and-Practice-Methods-In-advaita-–-Part-XXIII.ashx

 Just as, on waking up from a dream, the dream world is not found anymore, you will realize that the ‘me’ too disappears on clearly ingesting the teaching of Advaita Vedanta. Anything happening less than that would mean that the ‘me’ is still continuing with its likes and dislikes, its receivables and rejectables and its preferences and judgments etc.

 The signs of the dawning of true understanding are: The whole world which thus far seemed to be out there separated from ‘me’ and to be acting as an antagonist, appears to be the facilitator and one with the ‘me.’ Desires diminish, disinterest in social interactions grows, and you tend to accept things as they happen without let or hindrance. No special struggle is made to arrest the inevitable dis-ease, decay and death of the perishables (including the body). A sense of relinquishment envelops you. Even the desire to be free disappears, for there is nothing out there to be free from! One will then begin to laugh away at the childish tales of janma and rebirth. Polemical debates on mAyA and ignorance appear like high school kids’ quarrels.

Unless that happens, it is audacious to believe that one has really grokked the teaching of Advaita. What one can do till then is to focus 24/7 one’s attention on being aware – to be aware of the thoughts rather than their content, to be aware of perceiving rather than what is perceived. When it is clearly realized that there is no ‘me’ in here, it must be also be obvious that there is no ‘doer’ to do anything with a motivated purpose or goal. After all, it is Awareness which has exploded into this variegated and colorful multiplicity and it is Awareness that implodes back again to its pristine Beingness. It is the fisherman who has cast the net and it is up to him to fold back the net. The actions of the net or the fish in it do not decide when the net is folded back into the boat. That is the complete surrender to that One Awareness that I am.

A (Ted):

Q: At the end of the day, what does knowledge of self give us?

Ted: It frees one from suffering.

Q: It does not help answer the burning question of why the appearance/dream/mAyA that we are experiencing as humans or animals exists.

Ted: True. There is no reason for experience. There simply obtains the existential irony that inherent in pure awareness is the deluding power of maya, ignorance, which makes pure awareness appear to be something that it’s not, a circumstance that upon further consideration nullifies the “why” question altogether since nothing is actually happening since, given the fact that reality is non-dual, nothing other than awareness exists and thus no essential change in the nature of reality is possible.

Q: I am not clear on this one, but it appears that even though one attains knowledge of self in one janma, he/she can actually become a cockroach in the next due to karmic effect, i.e., we are not really liberated from the birth-death cycle.

Ted: Actually, one who attains self-knowledge realizes that he is not the apparent individual person he appears and had formerly taken himself to be. Rather, he knows himself to be atma, pure awareness, which is not subject to birth and death and, thus, does not reincarnate.

Moreover, the idea that the apparent individual person reincarnates is a mistaken understanding of the concept of reincarnation. The apparent person one seems to be does not transmigrate to another body. Rather the vasana-bundle that was associated with the apparent individual’s subtle body migrates to another subtle body that can serve as a suitable vehicle for any vasanas remaining in the karmic account from which that vasana-bundle originally came and continues to be associated.

Following the logic of the previous explanation leads to the inevitable conclusion that the vasanas are not personal. Though they associate with and express through the mind-body-sense complex that constitutes a particular individual and, moreover, can be reinforced, neutralized, or even generated by means of the apparent choices and actions of that apparent individual, the source of all vasanas is the macrocosmic causal body, which is personified as Isvara, and thus are essentially Isvara’s tendencies manifesting through the vast array of apparent individuals whose mind-body-sense mechanisms serve as vehicles for their expression.

Regarding the concept of reincarnation, therefore, we can say that on the one hand the notion is completely erroneous, or to paraphrase Krishna’s comments in the Bhagavad Gita it is an explanation intended to provisionally satisfy the minds of the ignorant.

On the other hand, it is true that the jiva or apparent individual person is never free of the cycle of birth and death. In order to properly understand this circumstance, however, we must realize that the jiva is a universal entity. Though it looks like there are innumerable jivas, there is in reality only one, for all jivas are essentially the same. The gross bodies of all are made of the same five elements, the subtle bodies of all are constituted of the same component functions, and the causal bodies attributed to all are actually portions of the same universal causal body. Moreover, maya is a power inherent in pure awareness and will forever serve as the conditioning agent by means of which the apparent reality is projected time and again through an interminable cycle of manifestation and dissolution. Hence, the universal jiva will continue to manifest indefinitely despite the eradication of avidya, personal self-ignorance, in any given individual jiva.

This topic is actually a perfect example of how Vedanta is not an “either-or” proposition, but rather a “both-and” understanding that is dependent on one’s ability to navigate between the relative and the universal perspectives, to understand experience from not only the apparent individual’s point of view, but also those of Isvara (i.e. the macrocosmic mind) and Brahman (i.e. absolute, non-dual awareness), though technically speaking Brahman, limitless conscious existence, has no particular point of view or definable scope of being.

From the jiva or apparent individual’s point of view within the context of the apparent reality, the jiva does seem to be a discrete entity whose subtle body is on a transmigratory journey through a series of gross bodies that afford it the appropriate circumstances through which to express, experience, and eventually exhaust the vasanas stored in its causal body. As long as the jiva takes itself to be a karta, a doer, it reaps the results of its karmas, actions, in the form of punya, merits, and papa, demerits. Essentially, these merits and demerits take the form of vasanas, impressions, that add to or reinforce those already stored in the causal body and inevitably enter the subtle body when the appropriate circumstances for their expression present themselves either within the context of the jiva’s present incarnation or a subsequent one, where they manifest as raga-dveshas, likes and dislikes, that compel the jiva to act (i.e., think, speak, behave, and pursue particular objects) in an effort to satisfy them.

No limited object obtained or limited action executed by a limited entity (i.e., the jiva) can produce a limitless result, however, and, thus, no object or action is capable of providing the jiva with the permanent peace and happiness that is the essential, albeit usually unconscious, goal of all the jiva’s deeds. Hence, all of the jiva’s vasana-driven endeavors only cause suffering and the accumulation of more vasanas that eventually must find expression. In this way, the jiva remains bound to the wheel of samsara, the cycle of birth and death, from which ultimately only self-knowledge, the understanding that nullifies the erroneous notion of individuality along with its twin aspects of doership and enjoyership and thus closes the jiva’s karmic account, offers emancipation. Harboring no more karma that requires circumstances in which to fructify, the jiva’s journey ends with the dissolution of both the subtle and causal bodies into pure consciousness.

From Isvara’s point of view, the jiva’s journey never ends. That is, any particular apparent entity’s transmigratory journey to self-realization or quest for moksha, ultimate inner freedom or liberation from all sense of limitation, ends with the eradication of avidya, the microcosmic aspect of maya that takes the form of personal ignorance. However, due to the fact that it is an inherent power in awareness and as such is unborn or beginningless and hence endless, maya itself persists indefinitely and will continue to condition pure awareness and make it appear to be something it is not by projecting “upon” it the appearance of the apparent reality, replete with innumerable jivas, each of whom owes their personal character to the constellation of vasanas he or she has drawn from the universal pool of vasanas that is the macrocosmic causal body or, in personified terms, Isvara. For this reason, jivas will continue to manifest as apparent entities until the time of pralaya, universal dissolution. In this sense, there is no end to what might be referred to as the “universal jiva,” the archetypal apparent individual entity.

From Brahman’s perspective, of course, there is nothing other than pure awareness, and therefore the whole notion of reincarnation is a moot point, for nothing is actually happening, no essential change has ever occurred. No entity was ever bound, and no entity need be freed.

Q: The only benefit I do see in a janma where one attains knowledge of self is that they might lead a life devoid of misery in the mind as they sail through good and bad times even though they may experience physical pain.

Ted: This is the point of self-knowledge. While pain and pleasure persist, suffering ceases. That’s a pretty powerful consequence.

But you are right. As long as you don’t mind suffering, self-knowledge is not necessarily worth the fuss.

A (Martin):

1. The question ‘what does knowledge of self give us?’ is philosophically weak, ambiguous, and/or irrelevant – a) What kind of benefit is meant? b) To whom? c) Truth is its own benefit (and ‘truth will make you free’).
2. Why does mAyA, etc., exist? In other words, the play of forms, the dance of life (Lila), or the tragi-comedy that life seems to be for the questioning, forlorn individual – with its successes and tribulations, hopes and disappointments, and the inevitability of death of the body.  A good question, but it has no positive answer, unless from mythology and literature, including sacred literature (‘I was a hidden treasure and wanted to be known’). Advaita teaches that the idea of mAyA is false, and though it is not the same as ignorance (avidyA), is its consequence. The reality of the world of phenomena (appearances) is merely subjective, illusory (vyavahAra, or mithyA), but not completely unreal, its essence or substrate being reality itself. The laws of karma and reincarnation are mythology (interesting, but why bother?)
3. If one attains knowledge of self, then there is no longer a separate self and, consequently, nothing to achieve or attain by that ‘self’. Once the puny, self-absorbed ‘self’ disappears (and it is a good riddance!), something much larger, incommensurable and indefinable, takes its place.

A (Venkat): Shakespeare wrote “Life’s but a waking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.  It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Life has no point, no meaning. We are born alone and we will die alone – in between we fill our lives with goals, attachments, predilections – in order to attain some meaning, some sense And we measure ourselves against the yardstick of what others around us say is important, imbibed through years of conditioning. All this to ameliorate the darkness of the unknown that inevitably awaits us.

You talk of the cycle of rebirth – but we do not understand what our current life is about, let alone any putative rebirth. And what is it that is reborn as a cockroach? Your mind with its current characteristics and likes / dislikes? An individual soul – but do we even know what that soul is now, in this birth?

Life has no point, no meaning . . . EXCEPT perhaps to try to understand its mystery. And the greatest mystery is the subject – what is it that we truly are. So at the end of the day, self-knowledge strips away all that societal conditioning has hitherto taught us is important, and leaves us naked, open to discovery. It may not answer the question of why this life, but it does answer the question of who lives and how to live.  And as you rightly say, we are told that a by-product of this, is peace and equanimity.

Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living”.  Quite so.

A (Dennis): Self-knowledge removes Self-ignorance and it is that which makes us think we are limited, unhappy, doomed to old age and death. With Self-knowledge we realize that we are not human, living in an inhospitable world; we are brahman. The world appears as separate because of our ignorance. On gaining Self-knowledge, we realize that its substance is nothing but brahman.

From the perspective of the ignorant person, there is rebirth (possibly as a cockroach) and we are subject to karma. With Self-knowledge, we realize that there is no person, no birth or rebirth, no death, no creation.

Part 3 of a 3-part essay by Dr. K. Sadananda, AchArya at Chinmaya Mission, Washington.

(read part 2)

What is Absolute Reality?

Vedanta defines the absolute reality as that which can never be negated at any time, trikAla abhAditam satyam. As an example, let us analyze a chair made of wood. Is that chair really real (satyasya satyam) or only transactionally real? When I dismantle the chair or break it into pieces, it is no more a chair. What was there before and what is there now is only wood. Hence wood is more real than chair. Chair is only a name for a form of wood arranged in some fashion to serve some purpose, and gets negated when the form is destroyed. I can do this without breaking the chair into pieces. I can cognitively say that there is really no chair there but what is there is only wood currently in the form of a chair. Chair is only transactionally real but not really real; and what is more real than chair is wood, the material cause for the chair.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says every object is nothing but just a name for a form with some function (nAama, rUpa and kriya); and it has no substantiality of its own. For example, if one looks at the wood carefully, it is just an assemblage of organic fibers; and there is really no wood there. Thus chair is dismissed and wood is considered as more real and then wood is dismissed and organic fibers are considered as more real. Organic fibers in turn are an assemblage of molecules which are just the assemblage of atoms, which in turn are assemblage of electrons, protons and neutrons, etc. At each level the name and form or nAma rUpa resolves into something else which is much more real than the previous state. The search for fundamental particles is still going on. In essence, we still do not know what chair really is as one form resolves into the next form. Vedanta says there is no real material substantive for any object. However, in these investigations what remains non-negatable that seems to fulfil the definition of the absolutely real is that which is present all the time, and without which no investigation of any object is possible. That non-negatable one is the very inquirer, who is a conscious entity, without whom no investigation of reality can take place.

Vedanta says I negate the whole waking world when I go to the dream state, and negate both waking and dream states, when I go to the deep-sleep state, and negate that state when I am awake. Each state negates the other. However, I can negate each state but cannot negate my own presence in each state. The states can change but I remain changeless. I play the role of a waker in the waking state, dreamer in the dream state and deep-sleeper in the deep-sleep state. The roles that I play keep changing, but ‘I’ remains the same, like an actor who is playing different roles in different scenes. Vedanta says I am the only one in the universe who is absolutely real; where ‘I am’ should be understood as a pure existent-conscious entity, and not the role that I play in each state. Thus each role has relative reality in that state but I am the absolute reality independent of any state or experience in any state. I am the subject, the conscious entity that cannot be objectified. Hence I cannot know myself as an object of my inquiry, since I am the subject in all objective knowledge.

The analysis of the perception discussed above shows that I am that light of consciousness that illumines every thought, and which is the locus of the objects that I perceive. In the waking state, the waking world of plurality forms the object of my knowledge; in the dream state, the dream world of plurality forms the object of my knowledge; and in the deep-sleep state the homogeneous absence of knower-known duality forms the object of my knowledge, and which also expresses as absence of any suffering or as reflected happiness.

Recognition of Myself

 While I play the role of waker in the waking state, and dreamer in the dream state and deep sleeper in the deep-sleep state, and I am neither a waker nor a dreamer nor deep sleeper since they are only roles in each state. Then who am I that is independent of the roles that I play? This forms the fundamental inquiry and Vedanta says I am pure existence-consciousness, which is limitless, and which is pure happiness since any limitation cause unhappiness. I can only experience the three states, waking, dream and deep-sleep states, where I am playing the roles of waker, dreamer and deep-sleeper. As long as I am in the BMI (body, mind, Intellect), I cannot but play the roles. I have to discover my true nature by negating the superficial roles that I am playing, while still playing, by claiming ‘neti, neti’ or ‘not this and not this’, since any ‘this’ is only name, form and function. Thus I arrive at the truth that I am pure existence-consciousness-limitless (sat-chit-ananda).

Logical analysis also indicates that the happiness that I am seeking comes from myself only. Yet, I mistake myself, with the limited body, mind and intellect, as ‘I am this’, in each state, and suffer the consequence of that identification. Hence Vedanta, as a science of absolute truth, analyzes the fundamental human problem, and declares that by identifying myself with what I am not, I take myself to be mortal, ignorant and unhappy. Vedanta points out that, being pure existence, I am eternal or unchanging; being consciousness, I am pure knowledge (without qualifications) that we said is undefinable; and I am of the nature of pure happiness, since I am infinite or limitless or complete.

In all human pursuits, I am trying to solve these three problems: I do not want to be mortal, I do not want to be ignorant and I do not want to be unhappy. These cannot be solved by any pursuits. At the same time, I cannot give up the pursuits. The entire rat-race is fundamentally to achieve these three. In essence, I am trying to solve a problem where there is really no problem to begin with. And every effort to solve a problem-less problem has become a fundamental human problem. The only solution to this problem is to recognize that there is no problem to begin with, by claiming myself to be pure existence-consciousness-limitlessness or as Bri. Up says – aham brahmAsmi.

Hence Vedanta becomes the absolute science of reality, since it reveals the absolute truth that transcends time and space. Bhagavatpada Shankara says this in the following cryptic manner:

brahmasatyam, jagan mithyaa, jiivobrahmaiva naaparaH|
anena vedyam tat shaastram, iti Vedanta dindimaH||

In essence he says that: a) the absolute reality is Brahman or infinite, b) the world is only transactionally real and not absolutely real and c) I am that Brahman. That by which all these three can be known is the real science (tat shAstram) and this is what Vedanta declares.

Finally, Vedanta also says that knowing this one knows, in essence, everything. On the other hand, in the relative knowledge or in any objective science, strange it may sound, the more one knows the more ignorant one becomes. The reason is obvious. In the example of chair, we still trying to find out what chair really is; and this is true with any object in the universe. In any objective field of science, the more one inquires about the truth, the more it opens up with the result that I discover that what I know is very little compared to what I do not know. My ignorance grows more than my knowledge. My area of specialization becomes narrower and narrower, the more I enquire into the nature of reality. Thus my ignorance of the subject grows faster than my knowledge.

Every scientific paper ends with the statement that a lot more study is required to understand the problem. That is the nature of all objective sciences. On the other hand in Vedanta, a student asks his teacher – Sir, please teach me that knowledge knowing which I will know everything – kasminno bhagavo vijanaate sarvam idam vijnaatam bhavati. The teacher is happy to teach that absolute science of Vedanta, knowing which one feels that he knows the very essence of everything. Hence Vedanta forms the absolute science, while all other objective sciences reveal only relative truths. The Bri. Up says that all objective sciences come under the umbrella of avidyA or ignorance only, since the ignorance increases with knowledge in any given field. These objective sciences however play an important role in the transactional world for the proper transactions. However, considering these relative sciences as absolute, and the absolute science as a belief system, only reveals our ignorance.

(Another salVo in the ongoing battle over jIvanmukti, j~nAna phalam, pratibhandaka-s and prArabdha – see Knowledge, Action and Liberation and Knowledge, Action and Liberation – AV)

The following is an extract from Chapter 7 of Vidyaranya’s Panchadashi:

indra-jAlam idaM dvaitam achintya-rachanAtvataH
ityavismarato hAniH kA vA prArabdha-bhogataH

[7:174] Never forgetting that the world is unreal and its cause unascertainable, the wise man stands secure from harm in the midst of the enjoyment of his fructifying karma.

nirbandhas tattva-vidyAyA indra-jAlatva-saMsmRRitau
prArabdhasyAgraho bhoge jIvasya sukha-duHkhayoh

[7:175] The function of knowledge of the real is to promote (constant) remembrance of the fact that’ world is unreal; that of the fructifying karma is merely to provide the jIva with experience of pleasure and pain.

vidya-rabdhe viruddhyete na bhinna-viShayatvataH
jAnadbhir apyaindra-jAla-vinodo dRRishyate khalu

[7:176] The knowledge of the spiritual truth and the fructification of prArabdha karma refer to different objects and are not opposed to one another. The sight of a magical performance gives amusement to a spectator in spite of his knowledge of its unreality.

jagat-satyatvam ApAdya prArabdhaM bhojayed yadi
tadA virodhi vidyAyA bhoga-mAtrAn na satyatA

[7:177] The fructification of karma would be considered to be opposed to the knowledge of truth if it gave rise to the idea of the reality of the external world; but mere enjoyment of an experience does not imply the reality of what is experienced.

anUno jAyate bhogah kalpitaiH svapna-vastubhiH
jAgrad-vastubhir apyevam asatyair bhoga iShyatAm

[7:178] The imaginary objects seen in a dream become sources of joy and sorrow to no small extent; we therefore infer that the objects of the waking state can do the same (without being real).

yadi vidyA.apahnuvIta jagat prArabdha-ghAtinI
tadA syAn na tu mAyAtva-bodhena tad-apahnavaH

[7:179] If knowledge of the real destroyed the world it would be incompatible with the continued presence of the fructifying karma. But it does not do so. It “destroys” the world only in the sense of producing the conviction that it is a mere illusory display (a mAyA).

anapahnutya lokAs tad indra-jAlam idaM tviti
jAnanty evAnapahnutya bhogaM mAyAtva-dhIstathA

[7:180] People know a magic show to be unreal, but this knowledge does not involve the destruction of the show or deprive them of their enjoyment of it. It is the same with one who has the conviction that the objects of the world are a mere illusory display (a mAyA).

yatra tvasya jagat svAtmA pashyet kas tatra kena kam
kiM jighret kiM vaded veti shrutau tu bahu ghoShitam

[7:181] But (against all this it will be said that) there are many passages in the shruti which teach such doctrine as “but when he has become the Self of all this (universe), then who will see what and with what organ what will he smell, and what will he say?” Vide, for example, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.14 and IV.3.19-32 and Chandogya Upanishad VII.24.1.

tena dvaitam apahnutya vidyodeti na chAnyathA
tathA cha viduSho bhogaH kathaM syad iti chechchRRiNu

[7:182] Therefore, (the argument will run,) spiritual vision depends on the destruction of the phenomenal world and occurs in no other way. This being so, how can the illumined man enjoy the objective world?”

suShupti-viShayA mukti-viShayA vA shrutis tviti
uktaM svApyaya-saMpatyor iti sUtre hy ati-sphuTam

[7:183] Our reply is: “The shruti-s upon which this objection is based apply to the states of deep sleep and ultimate enlightenment.” This is clearly stated in Brahma Sutra IV. iv. 16. ‘Ultimate enlightenment’ here means liberation after death (videha mukti). As explained in the Brahma Sutras IV.4.16, the shruti-s in question do not apply to liberation in life (jIvanmukti).

anyathA yAj~navalkyAder AchAryatvaM na saMbhavet
dvaita-dRRiShTAvavidvattA dvaitAdRRiShTau na vAg vadet

[7:184] If this is not accepted, we cannot account for the efforts to teach made by such sages as Yajnavalkya. Without a knowledge of duality they could not teach, and with it their illumination could not be called Complete.

If there were no recognition of duality teaching would be impossible.

 From: Panchadashi: Treatise on Advaita Metaphysics, Vidyaranya (Tr. H. P. Shastri), Shanti Sadan, 1982. ISBN 978-0-85424-018-0.

Y – I can not parse your meaning, i.e. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Still have no idea what you are trying to say.

X – What I’m trying to say is to point at core insights within Eastern philosophy (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism), particularly in advaita Vedanta – but also in Christianity and Islam in their highest metaphysical conceptions. If you are not interested in any of this, that’s alright.

Actually, whatever science – and its highfaluting ‘scientific method’ – is is shot through with difficulties and controversies, including the sacrosanct falsifiability principle (or dogma). Just read the Wickipedia article on this (and on rationality, etc.) and the respective positions of Khun, I. Lakatos, and P. Feyerabend among others. You must know something about all this already if you are scientifically inclined.

Y – What “core insights”?  There is nothing insightful about making up unevidenced tosh, anyone can do it and each piece of tosh has exactly equal validity, none.

And with regard to your ludicrous and unfounded “criticism” of the scientific method, I have one response, yea shall know them by their fruits.

X – Tesla understood the Sanskrit terminology and philosophy and found that it was a good means to describe the physical mechanisms of the universe as seen through his eyes. It would behoove those who would attempt to understand the science behind the inventions of Nikola Tesla to study Sanskrit and Vedic philosophy.” ~Toby Grotz, President, Wireless Engineering – See more at:http://www.scienceandnonduality….

(Apparently) ‘Tesla was unable to show the identity of energy and matter, this did not come until Albert Einstein published his paper on relativity, which was known in the East for the last 5000 years.

Tesla’s vision of the wireless transmission of electricity and free energy has been postponed for almost one hundred years now.

Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger regularly read Vedic texts.
Heisenberg stated: “Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta. Vedanta is the conclusion of Vedic thought.”

The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas.

Niels Bohr got the ball rolling around 1900 by explaining why atoms emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation only at certain frequencies.
Then, in the 1920′s Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), an Austrian-Irish physicist, who won the Nobel prize, came up with his famous wave equation that predicts how the Quantum Mechanical wave function changes with time. Wave functions are used in Quantum Mechanics to determine how particles move and interact with time. –

Schrödinger wrote in his book Meine Weltansicht:
“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins [wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition] express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”’

I call those: ‘insights’ (you were asking me): the ancient Vedic seers’ and contemporary physicists’ (and sages – a word you won’t like). ‘Choleric’: related etymologically to black bile (one of the four humors of Greek and ancient philosophy). From your frequent spouting of words such as ‘tosh’ (never heard it before), I am wondering whether you are of that temperament. Nothing wrong, and no harm meant. But I am thinking that I should finally be done with you, that is, with this issueless dialogue. Do you reciprocate (so you have the last word)? I have enjoyed our exchange, thank you. Regards,

Y- Comment: “I got as far as “relativity”, which was known in the East for the last 5000 years.”
Go away you utter loony.   [End of dialogue]

“The intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups…literary intellectuals at one pole – at the other scientists, and as the most representative, the physical scientists. Between the two a gulf of incomprehension.”

“A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? “- C.P. Snow (in the 1960s)

S (who does not ‘subscribe to absolutes’):

There is no purpose to life. We are just a huge collection of molecules, much like a river or a forest – except that we are sentient. In the larger scheme of things, none of us matter – we all die and get recycled – unless our technology can keep advancing fast enough, and even that can only last until the heat death of the universe.

There is no transcendent purpose (at least none that I have figured out), but you can create your own purpose to life. You are your mind – which is a consequence of your brain, and you have control over a machine with highly complicated sensors and actuators (your body). And you can do whatever you want with it. But of course, you would want to have some level of comfort – so life in society is almost always necessary. And that requires that you respect the law and work to make enough money to cover your basic needs. What that work is, how long you do that, what you do with the wonderful machine that you have control of – that’s all up to you.

M. May be, in a sense, we are our minds, but there is a conception (not a consensus) that consciousness is beyond the mind, and that the world (bodies and minds) is ‘inside’ it, instead of being the other way around – a number of physicists subscribe to this notion or understanding. Can you call them ‘irrational’?

S. My problem with such ideas is, one can imagine tons of different “realities” that cannot be observed in the physical universe. So I tend to stay away from any consideration of spiritual or other alternate universes unless I find good reason to. I do acknowledge the possibilities, but in the absence of evidence, I’m placing all my bets on the physical universe.

M. I understand, and respect, your position. The evidence for what I am saying is ‘internal’, introspective, but not irrational by any means. Ontology and phenomenology (an orientation or approach within philosophy) deal with this. In principle there are not, cannot be, many realities, only one – one that includes all other ‘realities’. You can call this ‘monism’ or ‘non-duality’, and, of course, it is not science, as this term is ordinarily understood, but philosophy or metaphysics, which includes within itself ‘philosophy of science’, and also ‘philosophy of art’, ‘philosophy of mathematics’, ‘philosophy of mind’, etc.; the scope of philosophy is wider, and its methodology and epistemology are necessarily different from that of science. There certainly can be a convergence between philosophy and science, according to different viewpoints and interests, but the relationship with each other continues to be a disputed territory. It much depends on one’s temperament and up-bringing as to how to view things and weigh whatever evidence one contemplates.

Truly,empirical science doesn’t need the support of philosophy or religion, but neither does philosophy or religion need the support of science: they are neither complementary nor competitive. At most, there can be a harmonious accommodation, or a continuumn, as R. Puligandla (‘Reality and Mysticism’) has suggested.

Q: Should a person have compulsorily experienced nirvikalpa-samādhi in order to know that he has a mind which is prepared for jñāna? In other words, is experience of nirvikalpa-samādhi a must as a sādhana?

Responses from Venkat, Martin, Ted, Shuka and Dennis

A (Venkat): Nirvikalpa-samAdhi is an experience of the absence of objects, for a finite period of time, which the experiencer eventually exits to re-perceive the world.  As it is not permanent, it is not real.  Any temporary experience that is witnessed cannot be a pre-requisite for j~nAna – since j~nAna is the permanent dissolution of the illusory I-thought.

“Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja. What is body consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body consciousness. What does it matter whether the body consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.” – Sri Ramana Maharshi

 “In thinking of what can’t be thought some form of thought is involved. So too that last remaining mode of thinking must be given up, to stand in truth where I abide.” (Ashtavakra)

 When you begin to think of the unthinkable, the mind is thrown into a state of nothingness, accompanied by a sensation of peace as pleasurableness. This state is called samadhi which is nothing but a thought form. Ashtavakra and all other jnyanis advise you with one voice to ignore it altogether. According to the jnyani, one can never get out of one’s own real nature, whether in samadhi or in the waking activities. Therefore the jnyani is indifferent about both.” – Sri Atmananda

A (Martin): ‘Compulsory’: Obligatory, required.

 That the experience of nirvikalpa-samAdhi cannot be compulsory in the course of one’s investigation of ultimate truth and reality should be obvious. In fact, the intention towards or pursuit of such experience is itself an impediment, since it is the limited ego which so desires or intends, thus becoming tied up to that desire. The exception is any kind of ‘samAdhi’ – be it brief periods of complete peace with or without thinking or mentations – which are spontaneous, unsought for. Whether it is then a bonus in the course of one’s spiritual life is besides the point.

 The following is a very apt description of (nirvikalpa) samAdhi by the sage Atmananda Krishna Menon in his ‘Spiritual Discourses’. At the end of the quotation reference to knowledge by the mind in contrast to the experience itself is quite relevant. On the other hand, ‘complete elimination of the mind’ is a strong statement which many will take exception to, but my surmise is that the author’s emphasis is on transformation, rather than elimination, of the mind.

 VEDANTIC CONCEPTION OF SAMADHI (55)

 Samadhi, as a result of the process of absorption, does not by itself take you to the Reality. Shri Gaudapada says: ‘Take away the mind from its tendency to go to samadhi to enjoy happiness and also from its tendency to enjoy the so called happiness supposed to be derived from sense objects, and it leads you to the goal.’

 But how can this be done by the mind itself? It is never possible to reach the goal by any amount of effort on the part of the mind itself. By effort, you can prolong the duration of the samAdhi to a certain extent and do nothing more. The complete elimination of the mind is what you have to obtain, somehow.

 For this, some principle higher than the mind itself has to be depended upon, namely the higher reason. Its function is discrimination. The higher reason proves to you that it is not from the mind itself that happiness is experienced in samAdhi, and that there is no enjoyer there. It is your own real nature of Peace, standing in its own glory, when the mind is temporarily stilled. It proves that the mind in any form only obscures the Reality. When you understand this correctly, your dependence upon the capacity of the mind to take you to that sublime Reality crumbles. This is how the mind is to be eliminated from the scene.

 Samadhi is all right if the mind understands that samAdhi is complete identity with non-dual Atma, where there is neither the enjoyer nor enjoyment. And when the mind knows that, it is itself changed.

A (Ted): The idea that nirvikalpa-samAdhi, a state in which no thoughts arise in the mind, could be used as a sAdhana, a spiritual practice, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the nature of the mind. The appearance of thought-forms, the essential constituents of the mind, is not under the control of the jIva, the apparent individual person. Thoughts are the offspring of latent impressions abiding in a state of dormancy within the causal body, which enter the subtle body or arise in the mind unbidden as a result of the inviolable law of karma. For this reason, nirvikalpa-samAdhi is not an experience that can be controlled and, thus, used as a repeatable practice.

 Admittedly, nirvikalpa-samAdhi is a highly revered experience—or, perhaps more accurately put, non-experience—in the spiritual world. It not only speaks to one’s having cultivated a sattvic, or sufficiently pure mind, but also is referred to by Vidyaranya Swami as “a raincloud of dharma” due to the fact that it allows for the spontaneous exhaustion of scores of vAsanA s. Since all experience is by nature limited (i.e., has a beginning and comes to a close), no experience itself can offer one the permanent peace and happiness that is the ultimate end sought through all of one’s spiritual pursuits. The value of experience, therefore, is not the quality of the experience itself, but the knowledge that is gained from it. In this regard, however, nirvikalpa-samAdhi is about as helpful and the state of deep sleep because the intellect is not functioning while in the throes of it. While the state is an accurate reflection of the unmodified limitlessness of the self, the intellect itself has resolved into a state of dormancy in the causal body, and therefore is not available to process the experience (or non-experience) and glean from it the knowledge it holds concerning the essential non-dual nature of reality and one’s true identity as limitless awareness.

 The experience of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, of course, can be quite valuable in terms of one’s sAdhana if it is “used” correctly. In other words, subsequent contemplation of the “experience” of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, the experience of the temporary absence of the appearance of any thought-forms in the mind, may bear fruit if one is able to “see” (i.e., understand) by means of subtle analysis that the “experience” was simply a reflection of the limitlessness that is one’s own essential nature and that such is the ever-present “background” or “screen” of pure awareness on which all thought-forms are projected. Nevertheless, Vedanta offers a litany of prakriyA- s, methods for analyzing experience, that allow one to reach an understanding of the true nature of reality. In one sense, we might say that each of these prakriyA- s produces an experience of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, so to speak, but none necessarily annihilate all thinking for an extended period of time. The bottom line is that the “experience” of nirvikalpa-samAdhi as such is not a requirement for self-knowledge.

 The fact of the matter is that nirvikalpa-samAdhi is your true nature. You are pure awareness. The mind-body-sense complex that you erroneously identify as yourself is nothing more than an inert mechanism that spontaneously performs a variety of functions—namely thinking, feeling, and doing—when illumined by awareness (i.e., you). The subtle objects or vRRitti-s, thought-waves, arising within the scope of the component of the mind are not yours. They are projections of mAyA. You, all-pervasive awareness, are by definition incapable of executing actions, and thus you, awareness, are not thinking thoughts. You, awareness, are always and ever completely thought-free. When you, by means of the mechanism of the mind, are able to clearly discriminate between yourself and the objects/thoughts appearing within the scope of your being, then you will recognize yourself as the thought-free being you already are. And, ultimately, when you have fully assimilated the knowledge of your fundamentally thought-free eternality (i.e., unborn and self-luminous existence that is altogether transcendent of the parameters of time and space, which are themselves but the two subtlest apparencies) despite the presence or absence of objects/thoughts, you will stand with unshakeable conviction in your true identity as pure, limitless awareness, and thus “attain” the freedom that you already have.

 In this way, you will “see” that simply by virtue of the fact that it is your essential nature, you are already always and ever “experiencing” nirvikalpa-samAdhi.

A (Shuka): I am quoting Swami Paramarthananda from his commentary on verse 2.3.10 of Kaṭha Upaniṣad. 

 “In the previous mantra, Upaniṣad had mentioned the necessity of mind control or concentration of the mind known as citta-ekāgrata, a mind that is free of wandering and preoccupation. In order to achieve this, the scriptures have already mentioned two sādhanas, among which one is saguṇa Īśvara upāsanā, and the other is aṣṭāṅga yoga abhyāsa. A person is supposed to have gone through them before coming to jñāna-yoga. Such a person will require only śaravaṇam and mananam to gain jñāna and jñāna niṣṭhā. However, in present times, both these sādhanās are not usually practiced, thus citta-ekāgrata is lacking. So, SM alone is insufficient for jñāna-niṣṭhā and hence nididhyāsanam is required…. upāsana is bheda-dhyāna, while nididhyāsana one does abheda-dhyāna, till such time that the bheda-jñāna is removed not only from the conscious mind, but also from the sub-conscious mind. 

 This nididhyāsana can be done in two ways, either through brahma-rūpa-abhyāsa, which is re-hearing, re-writing, teaching etc; or through samādhi-rūpa-abhyāsa, a constant meditation in samādhi upon the thought “I am that Brahman which is sarva adhiṣṭhānam, or jagat is mithyā”. 

 Vidyāraṇya Swāmi in his book Pañcadaśī in 7th chapter, says that brahma-rūpa-abhyāsa is better and superior to samādhi-rūpa-abhyāsa. Only those who do not get the full impact of the teaching, but take it mechanically as academic information, require this samādhi-rūpa-abhyāsa. 

 Mantras 10 and 11 of this chapter talks of samādhi-rūpa-abhyāsa-nididhyāsanam alone, talking about it as yogaḥ. The state of highest absorption, in which the mind and sense organs remain without distraction, where I the meditator and the object of meditation have become one, is called nirvikalpaka samādhi. Śaṅka inroduces these two verses saying that this samādhi is required for citta-ekāgrata but does not produce jñāna by itself.”

 Śuka – thus it is clear that samādhi experience is required for those to whom the full impact of the teaching is not generated. That judgment, I suppose, is subjective.

A (Dennis): I’m not aware of any such requirement specified in scripture. I would say not. Of course, a good degree of mind and sense control is required (as part of sAdhana chatuShTaya sampatti) before the mind is capable of taking on board the teaching of Advaita. But nirvikalpa samAdhi is a practice of Yoga or neo-Vedanta and leads nowhere. Meditation is perhaps necessary – it is certainly an invaluable practice for the mind – and NS may well come as a result of this. But it is important not to be diverted or seduced by the experience; only Self-knowledge matters in the final analysis.

Here is a quote from ‘A-U-M: Awakening to Reality’: “Swami Paramarthananda jokes that it is called nirvikalpa samAdhi if you are in a sitting position and sleep if you are lying down! And, if you think about it, they do have to be the same – you cannot have two types of non-duality! The bottom line here is that enlightenment cannot be an experience. We are already the non-dual Self; we just don’t know it. Accordingly, enlightenment has to be simply Self-knowledge.”

Do the Vedas really contain any advanced knowledge as so many people claim they do?    QUORA

15.3.15 – I’d say the Vedas contain the most fundamental and ‘advanced’ knowledge there is, though mostly portrayed  in the form of paradox (analogy, metaphor, story, etc.), so that one has to crack the code in order to find the wealth hidden in them. That knowledge is not like empirical science, which is cumulative and provisional, and which could be said to be somehow contained in it, even if in embryonic or potential form. That knowledge or perspective is metaphysical rather than mystical. According to the Vedas there is one and only one reality: consciousness (brahman, the Absolute, etc.), which pervades the whole universe; it is immanent in it as well as transcendent… “the smallest of the small, the largest of the large”. It cannot be measured out or understood by the mind, for which it is ineffable, but it is that by which the mind comprehends… it cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks… it is eye of the eye, ear of the ear, mind of the mind, as expressed in the Upanishads.

Modern physics is having a hard time trying to explain away what consciousness is in terms of physical phenomena (neuronal activity in the brain), but consciousness is not just an irreducible phenomenon or datum; it is reality itself, everything being comprehended in it (theories, doubts, projections, emotions, things, thoughts, intelligence, observer and observed, you and I). The part (for instance, an ‘external’ observer) cannot understand the whole into which he/she is enclosed. For the Vedas, to repeat, reality is one, and contemporary physics is trying to find out in which way it is so (‘theory of everything’, ‘unified field’…). Not all physicists are reductionist, some of them having seemingly mutated into philosophers with a workable understanding of the core of Vedic teachings.

Q: In advaita, we use the recall of a “good deep sleep” as a very important argument for proving continued presence of awareness… the question is, how does this recall happen? We have a process in advaita by which ‘the presence of a pot is known’. How is deep sleep known? Or – How is the fact that one slept well, recalled?

Responses from Dhanya, Ramesam, Martin, Ted and Dennis

A (Dhanya): When I was a child, there was a TV show I liked to watch.  It was called ‘You Are There.’  As I recall, the show depicted a famous scene from history, and then ‘you’ (meaning in this case the narrator), magically showed up in the scene and got to ask the historical figures all sorts of questions.  (I guess I should Google it to make sure I recall the details of the show correctly).  Anyway, I do remember that I enjoyed the show, and often these days recall the title, because one could ask oneself the question, ‘How is anything known?’ and the answer would be because ‘You are There!’  The whole point of deep sleep in the teachings of Vedanta is to is highlight ‘You are There’  Your nature is consciousness, i.e. that by which anything is known.  The absence of any thing is also known.  Thus one can recall the fact that one slept well.  Why?  Because You are There.

A (Ramesam): When I say “I see a pot (out there),” the “I” in the sentence refers to the waker (or dreamer). This process of cognition is called as ‘Direct perception.’ The perceiver (subject) obtains the knowledge of the percept (object) through the direct means of using the sense of vision.

The knowledge or experience of deep sleep is not strictly speaking a “recall” based on memory. The waker who says that he slept well was actually not present during deep sleep. By definition, deep sleep is when the waker is absent as the experiencer. Hence deep sleep cannot be known through direct means like seeing a pot or a tree. It can be known through inference only. Hence the knowledge that “I slept well” is inferential.

How exactly is the inference about deep sleep made?

The scriptures and experts follow two different routes in their explanation. The more popular approach is the one followed by mANDUkya upaniShad. Comparable to the awake state sentence “I cognize a pot,” the corresponding sentence made with respect to deep sleep in this approach is to say: “I cognize ignorance (in deep sleep).” According to this approach the really real cognizer is someone different from the waker (dreamer) and deep sleeper. He is the fourth (turIya). This Fourth one is the true “I.” The followers of this approach tell us that the waker “I” is only a fallacious entity and they exhort us to know the true “I.”

The teachers of the second route (taittirIya, aitareya upaniShad-s) suggest that the waker “I,” who was actually absent during deep sleep, is an imposter when he explains away his own absence saying “I slept well.” The true “I” is actually deep sleep Itself when the true “I” is being Itself – happy, peaceful and timeless. Hence the true “I” knows Itself in deep sleep. There is no other thing to be known in deep sleep.

Perhaps a simple common sense approach that “I” as the true knower have always been present irrespective of the fact whether it is awake, dream or deep sleep state is to ask oneself: Am I ever aware of my own absence? The answer should be obvious.

For more details on deep sleep, please read ‘DEEP SLEEP KNOWINGLY’ – THE KEY TO BRAHMAN’ here. You can find an exhaustive discussion on deep sleep in a series of posts on “The Enigma of Deep Sleep” at the Advaita Academy site ( http://advaita-academy.org/Blogs/ramesam.ashx# ).

A (Martin): Mind does lapse from time to time – such as in deep sleep and during brief periods between thoughts or mentations – even though its nature is to be constantly active. Consciousness, however, is ever present, also during deep sleep, even if mind has no recollection of it. Mind is consciousness with thoughts; consciousness without thoughts is still consciousness.

Mind may remember this or that experience, which happens through time, but Consciousness is beyond time, and does not need to remember anything. It is the background to all experience and the ultimate knower or witness. Thus, mind does not know or witness deep sleep. This is known through intuition or higher reason.

A (Ted): The memory of having slept soundly arises in the mind in the same way that any other conceptualization does. It arises spontaneously as a vRRitti, a thought-wave, in the antaHkaraNa, the subtle body or mind, and is illumined by awareness and, thus, made known. This thought-wave is the offspring of a vAsanA, a subtle impression, left in the chitta, the storehouse of impressions of one’s past experience, or what we might call the unconscious mind as a result of the experience of deep sleep.

Though we say that the mind has resolved entirely into the causal body or avyakta, the unmanifest state, during deep sleep, this does not mean that the mind ceases to exist. The mind is not an object, per se, that could cease to exist. The mind is simply the name we give to the continuous stream of objective phenomena that appear within the theater of the subtle body when illumined by awareness. In this regard, we might say that in the deep sleep state the mind is reduced to its most elementary form, which obtains as a single, extremely subtle thought of avidyA, pure ignorance. In other words, the mind has taken the form of a single thought entirely “colored” by AvaraNa shakti, the veiling power of mAyA, and entirely absent of the influence of vikShepa shakti, the projecting power of mAyA, which is the power responsible for appearance of all the vast array of nAma-rUpa, names and forms, that constitute the manifest universe or apparent reality in both its gross and subtle aspects.

Though the mind is not present in the sense that it has no cognition of objects, it is present, so to speak, as the capacity for relative knowing within the “field” or scope of being of absolute non-relational awareness. Thus, even the unmodified state of deep sleep leaves a subtle impression of limitlessness that can be inferred as having obtained as an extremely subtle known object once the mind reassumes its function as the relative subject-knower in the waking state.

A (Dennis): Consciousness is always present, throughout all so-called ‘states of consciousness’, including deep-sleep, anaesthesia, etc. It is the turIya of the Mandukya Upanishad. When we say that we ‘slept well’, what we mean is that our sleep was not disturbed by periods of wakefulness or dreams. In fact, we could say that we were ‘aware of nothing’. And this is not an inference, based upon some memory; rather it is certain knowledge. And the only way we could have such knowledge is that Consciousness was present. Consciousness reflects in the mind to animate the body and senses but these are resolved in the deep sleep state; there is only Consciousness, knowing nothing – it is the bliss of ignorance. Since there is no subject-object differentiation, the deep-sleep state is ‘without division’ – nirvikalpa.

If you are looking for a vyAvahArika explanation of the mechanism, I suggest you are doomed to failure! An explanation for ‘knowing a pot’ is possible (though all is mithyA) because pot and ‘knower’ are both in the gross, vishva realm. But when you ask ‘How do I know that I slept well’, you ask a meaningless question. You are trying to ask how the waker ego knows that the deep-sleeper ego did not know anything. But waker-ego, dreamer-ego and deep-sleeper-ego are distinct states which can never interact. Waker and dreamer can ‘pass messages’ via the mind but the mind is resolved in deep-sleep so not available for this.

Of course, who-I-really-am is none of these but the Consciousness that pervades them all. I am present throughout but I do not ‘know’ in any objective sense; I simply know.

Should I stop enquiring???????

Vijay Pargaonkar

(मुञ्डकोपनिषत्) MundakaUpanishat 3-2-9

“Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed……….”

My search for Brahman started with aparokshAnubhUti (supposedly written by Shankaracharya) where it is stated that knowledge of liberation is obtained through enquiry. It then goes on to explain what constitutes enquiry:                                                               (अपरोक्षानुभूती) aparokshaAnubhUti (Shloka #11 & #12) (translation by Vimuktananda)

“Knowledge is not brought about by any other means than Vichara (Enquiry), just as an object is nowhere perceived (seen) without the help of light”.

“Who am I? How is this (world) created? Who is its creator? Of what material is this (world) made? This is the way of that Vichara (Enquiry)”.

Advaita – prescribed Self Enquiry is done through shravanam (listening) & mananam (reflection) of Upanishads & Prakaran Granthas (expert commentaries). As i started digging deeper into Shruti & commentaries, i am beginning to feel that the very Enquiry itself is turning into an obstacle.

PanchadashI by Vidyaranya, one of the advanced Prakaran Grantha, cautions that dwelling on this world which is mithya (not real) and annirvachniya (beyond real and unreal) will only suck you into more confusion. The best thing to do is to ignore it!

(पञ्चदशी श्रीविद्यारण्यमुनि) panchadashI by Vidyranya – Chitradeep 6.0 (Swahananda translation) - 138. By raising objections to the wonderfulness of Maya we do not solve the mystery. Besides, we also can raise serious counter objections. What is essential is that we should eradicate Maya by systematic enquiry. Further arguments are useless, so do not indulge in them. 139. Maya is an embodiment of marvellousness and doubt; the wise must carefully find out means and make effort to remove it. 143. Even if all the learned people of the world try to determine the nature of this world, they will find themselves confronted at some stage or other by ignorance. 146. In the end you will have to say, ‘I do not know’. ….

And regarding Brahman, Shruti seems to be saying to me that i can never know Brahman:

(केनोपनिषत्) kenaUpanishat 2.3 (Nikhilananda translation) – “He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know It”.

(बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत्) brihadAraNyakaUpanishat 4.5.15 (Madhavananda translation) – “When to the Knower of brahman, everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as ‘not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived….”

In fact, the very concept of bondage & liberation is being ruled out:

(मान्डुक्योपनिषत गौडपादकारिका) mandukyaUpanishat gaudpAdkArikA 4.98 (Gambhirananda translation) –“All jIva-s are ever free from bondage and are pure by nature. They are ever illumined and liberated from the very beginning.  Still the wise speak of the jiva-s as capable of knowing (‘the Ultimate Truth)”.

(मान्डुक्योपनिषत गौडपादकारिका) mandukyaUpanishat gaudpAdkArikA 2.32 (Gambhirananda translation) –“There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth”.

(वसिष्ठयोग) vasisthaYoga 6-2-192 sums it all: Rama said ….”There is no seer, no object, no creation, no world, and not even consciousness; no waking, nor dreaming, nor sleep. What seems to be is also unreal. If one enquires, ‘How has this illusory perception of unreality come into being’, such an enquiry is inappropriate. Illusion does not rise in consciousness which is incorruptible”.

I understand that experts can qualify and interpret these verses in different ways to come to different conclusions. But for me personally, i see a message that is coming loud and clear: Any attempt to know Brahman (as an object) will only create more duality and therefore ignore/drop desire to know Brahman and the same thing goes for the maya. In other words, just ignore what was said in the beginning (about Enquiry) and just drop it! Only then you will REALLY KNOW IT or BE IT.

The question for me now Is ~

Is there anything to-do/not-to-do to know/not know/be Brahman???????????????

Bloggers and visitors please respond!

The Self cannot be ‘known’ in any objective sense because it is the ultimate subject – there is no other subject that could know it. This is why science can never tell us anything about the Self. Science works by collecting data and analyzing it; formulating theories and then using them to predict what will happen when data are gathered in a different situation. This can never be applied to Self/brahman, because brahman has no data.

Strictly speaking, vichAra refers to investigation into ‘things’ so that Atma vichAra is effectively a contradiction in terms; the Self is not a thing. Spiritual investigation has to be done rather differently. The correct term is shAstra mImAMsA and it is really scriptural ‘investigation’ that we must conduct in order to find out about the Self. Monier-Williams translates mImAMsA as “profound thought or reflection or consideration; investigation, examination, discussion”. The philosophical branch that studies the Upanishads etc at the end of the Vedas (Vedanta) is called uttara mImAMsA. (uttara means “later, following, subsequent, concluding” but also “superior, chief, excellent, dominant”.)

We ‘discover’ the Self by removing ignorance. If someone holds up a screen in front of our face and then brings an object to show us, but keeps it behind the screen, we can say nothing at all about the object. However, as soon as the screen is taken away, the object is revealed to our senses and the perception takes place automatically. Similarly, knowledge of the Self is obscured by ignorance but as soon as that ignorance is removed, the Self is immediately self-evident; we do not have to do anything to ‘investigate’ it.

Scripture functions like a mirror. When we look into a mirror, we do not literally see our face and body, we only see an image of it. Yet this enables us directly to perform whatever actions are required on the body itself – combing the hair, shaving and so on. We do not shave the image but the actual hair on the face. Similarly, the scriptures do not directly represent the Self but the information therein, when explained by a qualified teacher, directly enables the ignorance in our mind to be removed, revealing the Self-knowledge which is as though hidden beneath.

Actions will never bring about Self-knowledge, since action is not opposed to ignorance. Nor will practices such as meditation or prayer. As Swami Paramarthananda puts it, meditation will only bring about quiet ignorance.

As Shankara puts it (if he was the author of vivekachUDAmaNi v.13): “It is through reflection over the words of a truly benevolent soul that one comes to a knowledge of reality, and not through bathing at sacred places, charity or hundreds of breathing practices”. [1] I.e. it is through shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana and not through asking ‘Who am I?’ that one gains Self-knowledge.

[1] The Crest Jewel of Wisdom; viveka-chUDAmaNi, commentary by Hari Prasad Shastri, Shanti Sadan, 1997. ISBN 0-85421-047-0.

Q: What is the relationship between memory and superimposition (adhyAsa)? In the metaphor of rope and snake, we say that we fail to see the snake clearly, because of inadequate light – there is partial knowledge and partial ignorance. When we superimpose a snake on the rope, we are drawing on fear and memory. We must have seen a snake (or image of one in a film or book) before in order to be able to mistake the rope for one. Similarly, we mistake brahman for the body and the world etc.

 But what about a baby or someone who has no memory as a result of brain damage? Is there still superimposition in this case?

Responses from Ted, Venkat, Ramesam, Martin, Sitara and Dennis

A (Ted): We have to bear in mind that the example of a rope being mistaken for a snake is an analogy, and as is the case with any analogy, the example is imperfect. In the example, the snake image is based on a previous experience of the mistaken perceiver.

 In terms of mistaking the body-mind-sense complex as well as the innumerable other objects that constitute the manifest universe for Brahman, however, we are dealing with something a little bit different. Whereas in order to mistake the rope for a snake, one must have previously seen a snake, the projection of the apparent reality (i.e., the manifest universe in both its subtle and gross aspects) is not based on experiential memory, but rather results from the mind’s ability to recognize the “cosmic blueprints” that abide in dormant form in the Macrocosmic Causal Body, which is personified as Isvara, and are made manifest through the conditioning that maya upadhi, the limiting adjunct of causal matter, puts upon Brahman. That is, the mind is an instrument that is designed or a mechanism that is “programmed” to recognize these forms and, thus, is able to discern their apparent existence within the cosmic soup of pure potentiality (i.e., the unmanifest realm or “mind of God,” if you will) from the data it receives via the perceptive instruments/organs.

 Another way of looking at it is that all forms are part of vyavaharika satyam, the transactional reality, which is Isvara shrishti (i.e., God’s creation or the projected consequence of Brahman conditioned by maya upadhi). Thus, it’s not that the objects don’t exist. They are simply not real. By analogy, a clay pot exists, but it is nothing other than clay and, thus, its existence is entirely dependent on clay. Similarly, the myriad forms of the manifest universe exist, but they are nothing other than Brahman and, thus, their existence is entirely dependent on Brahman. As these forms have no self-nature independent of Brahman, they cannot be said to be real, for that which is real is by definition that which cannot be negated or resolved into any substrate more fundamental than itself.

 In this regard, then, the objects seen by the baby or the brain-damaged individual have a tangible existence within apparent reality, and so both the baby and the brain-damaged individual are capable of seeing what is appearing before their eyes by virtue of their perceptive organs and not by means of memories that are superimposed on Brahman.

 Remember also that Brahman is pure, limitless, attributeless awareness. Whereas in the analogy of the rope being mistaken for a snake, the form of the rope provides the basis for the projected snake, in the context of the manifest universe, there is no underlying form that is similar in character to that which is superimposed upon it. While the perceptive organs are programmed to integrate sensory data and cohere it into seemingly tangible objects, Brahman is pure awareness in which the manifest universe appears like a hologram due to the avaruna shakti or veiling power and vikshepa shakti or projecting power of maya, which is an inherent aspect of its very own being. So, it is not the case that the baby and the brain-damaged individual are misinterpreting an object. They are simply victims of the conditioning influence of maya, which account for both the projection of the manifest universe and the avidya or personal ignorance that makes the apparent person take the forms to be real rather than simply apparent or dependent entities whose essential nature is non-dual Brahman.

A (Venkat): The import of Vedanta is that you are Brahman, pure consciousness / awareness. On this pure consciousness is superimposed an illusion that you are a particular body, with a set of feelings and thoughts, and observing an external world around you.  So the separate individual person / body that you imagine yourself to be is itself the superimposition. Consequently the baby or person who has brain damage are themselves superimpositions on the substratum.  They are not real, and neither are you in the sense of being a ‘someone’.

A (Ramesam): Q: What is the relationship between memory and superimposition (adhyAsa)?

 Shankara posed the question, kO ‘yam adhyAsO nAma — what is adhyAsa? in his introduction (called adhyAsa bhAshya) to brahma sUtra-s. And he himself answered thus:

smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadrishTAvabhAsah.
paratra           =  elsewhere
avabhAsah      =  appearance
smRRitirUpah  =   similar to remembrance;
pUrvadRRishTa =  seen previously

The first two words tell us what adhyAsa is and the latter two give the reason. Thus adhyAsa can be said to be something “memory-like (smRRiti rUpaH)” but not exactly a recall of the memory of a thing seen previously.

 The mistaken cognition need not always be out of fear as in the example of superimposing the snake on the rope. The mistaken cognition can take place out of other feelings like love/attraction/greed also. The metaphors of a lover mistaking a pole in the dark as his lady love or a person mistaking the nacre as silver while on a stroll to the beach serve to illustrate the play of other emotions.

 Therefore, adhyAsa may be defined as “atasminh tadbuddhiH“, the cognition of ‘one thing to be something else.’ Or broadly speaking, adhyAsa is an error in our cognition.

Whereas all the Indian philosophical schools of thought accept the occurrence of error in our cognition (*), they differ with respect to their view on what causes the error.  I discussed these aspects briefly in the article, “Process Models and Practice Methods in Advaita – Part 3” which I wrote two years ago. The article can be found here: http://www.advaita-academy.org/Articles/Process-Models-and-Practice-Methods-In-advaita-%E2%80%93-Part-IIl.ashx

 Q: Similarly, we mistake brahman for the body and the world etc.

 Going by the Upanishadic dicta like “Everything is brahman,” “There is no multiplicity here,” “I am brahman” etc., the body and the world are brahman! So the more technically correct expression for the error in cognition is: Our mistaken cognition is that “I” am contained within this limited body-mind here and there is a world out there external to ‘me.’

 Further, our mistaken view that “I” am confined within the body is not necessarily out of fear as in the example of the snake on the rope. No scripture really definitively identifies the cause for this mistaken appearance of the world because the highest truth is that a world has never happened. However, intellectually oriented Vedantins provide some speculative reasons in order to appease the mind of an inquisitive seeker who believes in creation and takes the apparitional world to be real. They say that the appearance is due to beginningless ignorance, past karma, mAyA, lIla etc. etc. You may see my Blog Post on why we see a world and not brahman here: http://beyond-advaita.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-come-we-see-changing-world-and-not.html

 With regard to superimposing the world on brahman as per the metaphor “snake on the rope,” it is interesting to ask where exactly is the snake. Yogavasishta has an eye-opening discussion to clarify this aspect. Sage Vasishta says that the preposition “on” is used only as a concession. When there is nothing there except an imagined snake, how can one talk of its origin, life or death or spatial location (like “on” a substratum)?

 Q: But what about a baby or someone who has no memory as a result of brain damage? Is there still superimposition in this case?

 Very good Questions indeed.

 We have to distinguish here the worldview of a baby and that of an adult whose memory is damaged. Several scientists like Prof. A. Gopnik studied the working of a baby’s brain. It appears that the baby has a unitary experience of the entire sight without any fragmentation of what is seen into several distinct parts with different shapes and identities. In fact, it is we, adults who teach the babies to differentiate various colors, shapes and objects and also teach them the way to differentiate things. Does it mean that the babies live as brahman? Maybe not.

 The memory loss in an adult brain can happen either due to a pathological reason (virus, lesions, tumors etc.) or due to accidents. The life of Clive Wearing, a Professor of Music in England is well documented by his wife (a movie is also made). He has no memory of what happened even in the preceding minute. His case of memory loss is due to viral infection. The case of HM who lost his memory in an accident is well studied in the USA by Neuroscientists. Dr. Oliver Sacks described many cases of people who lost their memory due to various other pathological conditions. In addition, there are peculiar psychological cases where a patient denies the presence of a physical body for herself (Cotard’s syndrome) and other types of prosopagnosia. I did write on this subject (for example, see “Living in the Moment Eternally — 1” here: http://www.advaita-vision.org/living-in-the-moment-eternally-1/).

 Yes, a jIvanmukta, who is said to have attained Self-Knowledge, lives ever in the NOW, historylessly. The scriptures tell us that a full-fledged jIvanmukta (brahmavid variShta) does not cognize objects (padArdha abhAvana) and does not discriminate between valuables (gold) and worthless things (say, the shit of a crow). Does this mean that a jIvanmukta has no operative memory? Maybe not.

 The sine qua non to pursue Self inquiry using the tools provided by Advaita Vedanta is that the seeker must have a mature and healthy body and mind. Advaita teaching may not be able to help a person who is suffering from one or other pathological problems if the seeker is unable to pursue a regimen of rigorous philosophical enquiry. I have discussed these issues at different places and will be happy to provide more details offline through e-mail.

[(*) For a discussion on Errors in cognition by Shri S.N. Sastri, please see: http://www.omjai.org/Sankaracharya+-+Adhyasa+Bhashya&structure=Home ]

A (Martin): This can be answered from two different stand-points: 1) lower or empirical knowledge (vyavahara), and 2) higher or metaphysical knowledge (paramartha).

 1) From the perspective of lower knowledge, memory is related to a functioning brain in a particular individual, concretely in the net-work of synapses between a large multitude of neurones. The mechanism is not entirely understood (proteins are at the base or matrix), but things such as location of memories within the brain are being investigated and mapped out by Neuroscience (the hippocampus is one of the locations).

 Superimposition (of the real on the unreal, and vice versa) is a natural predisposition of the human being – it is not learned – and, as far as one may observe, it becomes operative from about the age of 2 yrs. (I will not go into superimposition as a device for teaching Vedantic doctrine). The suggestion by the questioner that previous experiences (e.g. having seen a snake or a picture/movie thereof in the past) is in a correct line.

 The second part of the question, concerning the example of a) the baby and b) the condition of someone having sustained brain damage, has been partially explained in the first case (the baby).

 The sense of separation becomes apparent from about that age, giving rise to the sense of multiplicity (me and my brother or sister, etc.) related to congenital superimposition. Whether horror of snakes is inborn, I prefer to leave it aside.

 The question of brain damage has to do with the quantity of the damage, as in cases of stroke or Alzheimer disease.* As stated before, superimposition (adhyAsa) is always present, except for the ‘enlightened’. A severely damaged brain is non functional. Period. The person may not be conscious or aware of practically anything (his mind being shut off), but Consciousness being universal and all-pervading, that half-dead (or completely dead) body is not ‘other than’ Consciousness itself, strange as it may sound.

 * (From Quora) ’Post-injury, the progressive brain deterioration that may occur likely reaches a tipping point, after which the loss of function “suddenly” becomes obvious. Depending on the type and severity of the traumatic brain injury (TBI), it can accelerate memory loss or increase a person’s chance of succumbing to Alzheimer’s disease’.

 2) Higher knowledge.

To what has been said in the last paragraph, the only thing that needs to be added is that, from this perspective (intuition or anubhava), multiplicity being unreal, there is no adhyAsa or superimposition, no time involved, thus no memory, and no ignorance. Only Atman-Brahman ever existing.

A (Sitara): Memory, or in a broader sense mind, is needed for superimposition to occur.

 The mind knows about (nothing except) body-mind-world. Memory being a function of the mind means that all memories necessarily have to be of body-mind-world.

 Brahman on the other hand cannot be an object of the mind/memory. The mind (to start with) is ignorant of there being something beyond itself and the objects of perception. So it cannot but superimpose body-mind-world onto Brahman – which is not accessible for perception, other than the rope in the analogy.

 I do not know whether a baby or someone without much memory would ever react to a rope as if it was a snake. If yes, I suppose that this would be an indication that instincts come into play here. It would mean that the superimposing mind draws on the sUkShma prapa~ncha and does not refer to individual memory.

 I would imagine, though, that such a reaction would be possible only if the snake really behaved snakelike, not if the object was still and unmoving. Otherwise for a baby or a brain damaged person there would be far too many similar objects that could be confused with a snake.

A (Dennis): The mechanism of perceptual error is one of the key issues for Indian Epistemology. The example most frequently encountered is that of seeing silver in the nacre of a shell. Mistaking a rope for a snake is similar – both are examples of seeing an object as something totally different. The other type of perceptual error is mistaking an attribute – an example of this is seeing the transparent crystal as red because of the proximity of a red cloth. But essentially there is an illusory appearance upon a real substratum in both cases. Since knowledge of objects is based purely on the attributes that the senses manage to gather during observation, doubts and errors can arise. Depending upon which philosophy you take, there are at least 7 different theories which try to explain what is happening in detail.

The two schools of (pUrva) mImAMsA claim that the ‘silver’ misperception arises from memory (although they argue about the mechanism). But in essence, as far as I can make out, what they claim is that there is a failure to discriminate between the object and the memory (of the wrong object). They claim that all knowledge is valid so that any error is caused by ‘non-apprehension’ rather than misapprehension.

The nyAya philosopher thinks that we actually perceive the wrong object. Because of insufficient light, defective vision or whatever, we fail to see the actual object and instead somehow see the remembered object instead. The wrong object must actually be seen because, they say, it would not be meaningful to say that we saw an absolutely non-existent thing.

sAMkhya philosophers claim that the error arises because we see the shell as both real and unreal – real as the present object and unreal as remembered silver – and fail to apprehend the distinction.

The vishiShTadvaitins believe that there really is silver in the shell and that a defect in the vision of the one who ‘misperceives’ causes them to see the particles of silver instead.

The mAdhyamika Buddhist believes that everything is unreal so all that is happening here is that we are seeing an unreal thing superimposed upon another unreal thing, as a result of our particular vAsanA-s.

The vij~nAna vAda Buddhist thinks that all appearances are manifestations of (momentary) Consciousness so that silver is just as good (bad) as shell as far as the perception goes.

And so we come to the Advaitin’s view of things. Suitable arguments are offered against all of the above theories. What Shankara says is that, in the case of an erroneous conclusion from the perception (e.g. seeing silver instead of nacre), we are ‘mixing up’ real (there is an object) and unreal (it is silver). Partial knowledge gives us the former and partial ignorance the latter. The partial knowledge comes from the real object. The partial ignorance comes from a memory, which has no real object as its substratum; instead the remembered object is superimposed upon the present, real object.

The perceived object (silver) is not real, because when we go closer, pick it up etc, it is found to be nacre – the silver is sublated. But it is not unreal either, because we perceive it. (Hence the Advaitin theory is called anirvachanIya khyAti – apprehension of the indefinable). Nevertheless, Advaita rejects those theories which talk about confusing the real shell with remembered silver because we actually see the silver here and now, in front of us, not as some image in memory. If there were not an actual (mis)perception of silver, the mistake would not be made.

So we actually see silver. When we bend down to pick it up, we realize our mistake. The silver perception is sublated and we now know that it is nacre. The silver was not unreal – because we experienced it; but it was not real either, because the subsequent examination found it to be nacre. It was mithyA (in the context of the nacre).

The nyAya philosopher argues with the Advaitin, trying to claim that the silver which is seen is the real silver previously seen, taken from memory and superimposed on the nacre. As noted above, the Advaitin rejects this, saying that we actually perceive silveriness now, in the object. Because ‘silveriness’ is the predominant attribute of silver, we thus conclude that the object is silver. It is thus a real and present attribute that we see, not a previously seen total object.

And this, I think, is the key to answering the question. We see an attribute and correlate it with any memories we might have of things which possess that attribute. Silveriness is thus highly likely to make us conclude that it is silver, if we do not know better. In the case of the rope, in a situation (country) where we might have reason to fear snakes, poor illumination of a coiled-up rope may well make us suspect a snake – if we know what a snake is. Even if we haven’t actually seen one (in a zoo, for example) we have probably seen them on TV or in a book. However, a baby or toddler may well not have seen one and I suggest that, in this case, he or she will NOT think it is a snake. They are unlikely to be fearful of the thing – maybe they will suspect it is a discarded umbilical cord…

(If you want to read lots more about perception and error, read Acharya Sadananda’s series on ‘Knowledge’, edited by myself – http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/intro1.htm.)

VEDĀNTA the solution to our fundamental problem by D. Venugopal

Part 20 looks at the defining requirements of a good teacher and at the distinction between subject and object.

There is a complete Contents List, to which links are added as each new part appears.

(Also discusses Buddhism versus Advaita; analysis versus experience; need for practice)

Q: Your work is both beautiful and rigorous, and I’ve appreciated your continuous efforts to continue the much-beloved tradition of Advaita Vedanta.

As I consider devoting myself to the path of Advaita Vedanta, I find that I keep coming up against a few constant, nagging protests:

First, it seems that the tradition and methodology (although I also assume that there is quite a lot of variety of how Vedanta is taught and realized) is overly academic and scholastic, at least as I view it from the information that I’ve gleaned during my research.  The unfolding of the teaching of Vedanta seems to leave the student engaging in a lot of analysis, rather than a deep exploration of how they genuinely experience the world, which lacks transformative power because it remains something objective.

Second, according to some of the sources that I’ve gleaned, it seems to place Vedanta on an extremely high pedestal, as something engaged in only following years of other preparatory practices.  But modern practice appears to demonstrate that such preparation, while helpful, is not necessary.  I cite websites like “Liberation Unleashed” and Scott Kiloby’s excellent work which show that directly exploring and inquiring into the truth of statements like, “All there is is pure awareness,” etc., can still be highly transformative outside of the context of a more robust regime of spiritual purification and development.

My fear is that if I follow the traditional route, I will end up entangled in these preparatory practices.  I’ll just be getting the appetizer for years before getting the meal, in other words, but, in my opinion, why wait?

Is this perception true (given that there will be a lot of diversity)?  Do most AchArya-s make their disciples engage in such practices for prolonged periods of time before discussing Vedanta?

I have heard you and many other teachers in the traditional Advaita lineage say things like, “Unless you have a very pure mind…” or “Unless you are highly developed…”  etc., the practice of Vedanta will be fruitless.  But, if you read the logs, for example, of the website “Liberation Unleashed,” you will find some very impure people – depressed, addicted, desperate, you know, the usual seeker lot!, who come out transformed after only a few days of directly looking into their experience.

I appreciate your thoughts on this and your generosity in helping so many confused seekers.

A: Thanks for the kind words!

A qualified (sampradAya) teacher is never academic. But it is certainly true that a lot of the books around ARE overly academic. If you look at the books in the library pages – http://www.advaita.org.uk/library/library.html – probably 60% of them are written by university types as theses or critiques, with far too much Sanskrit content and lots of refutations and affirmations rather than unfoldment. So you do have be very careful when purchasing a book on Advaita that sounds as though it ought to be good!

Good teaching does not encourage analysis; it elicits recognition.

The correct (i.e. the one that works) approach to Advaita is the traditional one – shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. There is no question about this. But not everyone is immediately able to assimilate the teaching. A degree of sAdhana chatuShTaya sampatti is necessary. Again, this is a proven fact. Someone with no qualifications will simply not ‘get’ it. But it does not require ‘years of preparation’ before you can embark upon listening to/reading Advaita. You can still gain Self-knowledge. The only thing is that you will not immediately gain the full benefit (jIvanmukti).

Exploring and inquiring is extremely unlikely, on its own, to bring about enlightenment. You will not discover that everything is brahman by looking! And simply hearing the words, without the methodology, is not very useful. You may well read of “very impure people – depressed, addicted, desperate, who come out transformed after only a few days”. You also read about alien abductions and people who communicate with angels…

Q: Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly and thoughtfully.  It has clarified a lot.  I think that I should also be honest about my current situation, which might help you better situate me: I am a Theravadan Buddhist considering to change my views and practice to Advaita Vedanta.  I still have many reservations, and would appreciate your thoughts:

It seems to me that Advaita Vedanta has the wrong question and goal.  The teaching aims at Self-Knowledge, which does not necessarily equate to the ending of suffering (which, as a Buddhy, is top on my list! – a very personal agenda indeed).  If happiness is the aim of Advaita Vedanta, and not Knowledge, then shouldn’t we be asking, “What is suffering/happiness?  What is its cause?  What is its cessation?  What causes its cessation?” instead of “Who am I?”  Does the Knowledge of the Self still not eradicate the arising of suffering?  Doesn’t the arising of suffering indicate that the conviction/knowledge of the Self is not yet firmly established in the mind of the seeker?  And what I mean by suffering is any mental affliction, pain, or anguish arising.

I read very conflicting statements, sometimes by the same people in the same book! (James Swartz comes to mind) about this.  On the one hand, for example, he writes that there is only happiness when the Self is realized, and then later he writes:

“Enlightenment is the hard and fast knowledge that I am Awareness and as such I am already free of desires so their presence or absence has nothing to do with me. Realize your nature and let desire be desire.”

I realize that you did not write this, but it’s just an example of something I’ve read repeatedly.  To me, Self-Knowledge just sounds like a belief, but if there continues to be suffering, then it just sounds like a bit of a cop-out to say, “Yea, there is suffering, but it’s not me, I am desireless.”  If that statement were true, what would cause suffering to arise in the first-place?

On the other hand, so much in the Advaita Vedanta tradition and the Vedas and Upanishads makes so much sense, is so beautiful, intricate, and rigorous, that I just keep thinking to myself, “There has to be a reason the rishis chose to focus on Self-Knowledge, because they were, and countless yogis and seekers following them, ultimately seeking liberation.”

Thank you again for your time.  This is a particularly crucial turning point for me, a time in which I’m understanding both Buddhism, Advaita, and, ultimately, the path of freedom in ways and with a depth and clarity hitherto unimagined.  Having someone knowledgeable to discuss and question about these things has been invaluable.

A: As you obviously know, the ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is only Brahman or Consciousness if you prefer. And who-you-really-are is therefore That. It is the person (who can be regarded as ‘reflected Consciousness’) who realizes this. Once it is realized, it does not mean an end of pain and empirical unhappiness. But it is now known that these things do not happen TO you; rather they happen IN you, as part of the endless play within apparent creation. You now know that YOU are not affected by them, whatever happens. ‘Suffering’, as I understand it, occurs because you believe it is happening to you; that who-you-really are is somehow being diminished by the events. Interpreted in this way, it is possible to say that suffering does end.

Similarly, desires do not end on enlightenment. These result from the particular nature of the person. Prior to enlightenment, the belief is that my happiness is dependent upon those desires being satisfied. After enlightenment, it is known that I am already perfect and complete and that the outcome of any desire has only limited, temporal, empirical value – and this does not really matter at all because all this is mithyA.

Hope this helps!

www.quora.com/How-could-we-merge-absurdist-and-Buddhist-philosophies

M. Provisionally we could put side by side ‘absurd’ (or illogical) and ‘unprovable’, even if they are not synonymous; and the main tenets of all religions are such. They are not ‘rational’. On the other hand, neither science, ‘common sense’, or rationality are the ‘end all’. There are many things that escape explanation with the current state of our knowledge and understanding.

Paradox is a term related, one way or another, to the above. Just consider the following:

i) “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”. Niels Bohr (famous physicist)

ii) Is there anything more absurd to ordinary understanding of the world and us than the following (taken from my blog): “That truth, put into words, is paradoxical: you are all (as Consciousness) and ‘you’ (as perceived individual) are nothing, or a phantom; you are the final witness, but ‘you’ are not a witness; the world is illusory (as appearance), but in essence is reality itself. That revelatory, transcendental experience is non-transferable, not provable to another.”

GL. If by absurdism you mean acknowledging that there is no absolute truth, then zen buddhism when asked what is enlightenment, answers “6 pounds of flax”, which is, I believe, trying to point out that absolute truth is impossible.

M. You probably mean ‘impossible to demonstrate, or to know, with the ordinary mind’, but ask a zen buddhist if it (absolute reality or truth) is impossible to grasp, to grok.

GL. I think the point of the flax koan is that you can’t know satori with certainty.

M. Is it not rather that the experience cannot be explained – or transmitted – with words, being ineffable? Such is a transcendental experience, where there is no individual per se present.

GL. Isn’t “ineffable” the same as saying we can’t know with certainty?

M. No, it means ‘inexpressible’, the experience being overwhelming (rather than being too sacred – another meaning).

GL. If you can’t describe it, then it isn’t knowable.

If it is purely a matter of experience, then there is no way for me to know you are experiencing something the same way I am. Color is ineffable. You experience red and green the way you do, and I experience it the way I do. And unless we have an objective test for color blindness, there is no way to know if you see what I see. Some people see color when they hear sound. And as long as that experience is ineffable, there is no way to know if we see color the same way. Only when we establish some objective explanation and some objective testing can we know with certainty if we are experiencing similar things.

M. You refer to what are called qualia, but I am not sure how far you want to go (can nothing be known? In what sense?) Most empiricists/scientists tend to disregard this question or deny that it presents any problem for their physicalist stance. In non-duality, which is what interests me, there are not, cannot be, any objective tests referable to either external or internal experiences of what generally is understood as reality (the world and oneself) except, perhaps, in one’s facial expression and/or demeanor. That agrees with what you say about qualia but, aside from non-duality (or as a preliminary to it), it doesn’t mean that there cannot be agreement, concurrence, in the realm of thought, sensations, and feelings. Two people reading the same book or page – if they are on the same wave length (let’s say interest in non-duality, or in a particular modality of art, like Baroque or modern) – will have similar thoughts and feelings. Language is for communication – even about the understanding of non-duality (like zen) – but certain experiences cannot be communicated, such as particular intuitions or epiphanies, regardless of what we understand as qualia, though related to it.

Part 7 of the commentary by Dr. VIshnu Bapat on Shankara’s Tattvabodha.This is a key work which introduces all of the key concepts of Advaita in a systematic manner.

The commentary is based upon those by several other authors, together with the audio lectures of Swami Paramarthananda. It includes word-by-word breakdown of the Sanskrit shloka-s so should be of interest to everyone, from complete beginners to advanced students.

Part 7 begins the section on Atma vichAra – investigation into the nature of Atma – and in this part specifically asks the questions ‘What is true knowledge?’ and ‘Who is Self?’. There is also a hyperlinked Contents List, which is updated as each new part is published.

dUra

Continuing the reposting of blogs from Advaita Academy, here is one from 2010. It is interesting to note that I have not further encountered this word since then! So it was a one-off. Nevertheless, it remains an interesting one and has a useful message.

I encountered a new Sanskrit word recently and its use and interpretation are quite enlightening. No doubt we are all familiar with those statements in the Upanishads which extol the extreme virtues of brahman. For example, in the Katha Upanishad, we have “the self is lesser than the least, greater than the greatest” (I.ii.20). And in the Isha Upanishad, we have “Unmoving, it moves faster than the mind” and “unmoving, it moves; is far away, yet near; within all, outside all” (verses 4 and 5). (These quotes are from ‘The Ten Principal Upanishads’ by Shree Purohit Swami and W. B. Yeats – a poetic rendering.) Then again, in the Kaivalya Upanishad (v.20), it is said “I am smaller than the smallest; I am the biggest, I am everything…”

These apparent contradictions are intended, of course, to break down our tendency to try to define that which is indefinable. I suppose you could think of it as the advaitic equivalent of the Zen koan. By presenting us with something which, on the face of it, does not make sense, we are forced to think laterally. And there is then a possibility that our minds may leap to a new understanding.

In the muNDakopaniShad (3.1.7), it is said about brahman that it is ‘subtler than the subtlest, further than the furthest and yet near at hand’. The Sanskrit phrase for ‘further than the furthest’ is dUrAt sudUre. The word dUra means ‘distant, far, remote (in time and space), a long way off or a long time ago’. So brahman is even further away than a very far place. The message here is that there is no point in trying to get there. The seeker who is searching for brahman is never going to find it, no matter how far or for how long the search takes place. But brahman is near and is also limitless; there is nowhere where brahman is not. This is like the metaphor of the lady who has lost her necklace. I do not need to look for brahman because I am brahman. Indeed, as long as I am looking elsewhere, I am not going to find it.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that I simply need to stop seeking. If I do that before I have genuinely realized the truth, then brahman effectively remains ‘farther than the farthest’. It is not that I have to go anywhere, but I do have to acquire this knowledge. Similarly, brahman is not something to be reached in the future – I am brahman now; it is just that I do not realize this. If I wait for it to happen in the future, I will be waiting for ever. It is not that I will become brahman; it is that the mind will appreciate that this is an already existent fact. When this happens, this event is called enlightenment.

Moreover, it is not a question of acquiring facts in the way that one might learn chemistry for example. Brahman is not objective knowledge and has no attributes for one to discover. It is not anything that can be known; it is that by which everything else is known. It is your Self, here and now.

In the Buddhist perspective, the ego or self as ordinarily considered in Western traditions (i.e., as soul or person), is a non-self, actually a non-entity (anatta). Hence the suffering, which stems from an experience -ultimately illusory- of separation and vulnerability.

Here we have to consider two things. First, according to Mahayana Buddhism, Adi-Buddha, equivalent to Dharmakaya – the highest metaphysical, or divine, level – represents that unique Being or Divine ‘State’, pervading all manifestation as Buddha-nature; and second, the notion of the Self (Atman, derived from the Hindu Vedanta) is not only compatible with that view, but also with that of the Spirit in Christianity and in Islam.

As to the soul (metaphysics and theology), though intrinsically perfect or whole in itself (one could add: in ‘primordial man’ –the purusha or Hiranyagarbha of Hinduism)- it experiences imperfection, self-limitation, anxiety and doubt in its state of (aparent) separation -the ‘fallen state’. Being, not just potentially, a ‘focal point of the Universe’, yet it becomes, through ignorance and self-will, the subject of illusions, attachments, and passions which lead to that predicament. Its condition is thus ambivalent; it can orient itself upwards (or towards the centre) – to ‘holiness’ and integration – or downwards, pulled by its ‘lower nature’ (nafs in its lower stages, according to Sufism). The end result will be either self-denial, or self-assertion; self-giving, or ego-centeredness. Inevitably, this latter tendency, based on ignorance, can only lead to an unwanted result: dispersal, disintegration, and suffering. Alas!, on the whole, if not in principle, psychiatry is not interested in this distinction or dichotomy; but let not anything else be said about this at this point.

From the viewpoint of advaita vedanta, all of what is described in this paragraph – and what follows – pertains to the empirical, relative (ontological and epistemological) level: mithya (or vyavahara), in other words.

Furthermore, going beyond Buddhist doctrines without contradicting them, we may conclude that to be ‘possessed’ by the ego (ahamkara) at its most virulent extreme, that is, as either aggressive or defensive, is tantamount to being demented, ‘out of one’s mind’, ‘besides one’s self’. It is to be possessed by the ‘devil’, as a force underlying and encouraging the ego. The latter, however, is not unopposed, for there is a persistent battle going on ‘inside’, the ‘devil’s opponent being none other than the Spirit or Self, bearer of the true light. But what could that ‘devil’ be other than ignorance and delusion?

The battle, or warfare, takes on many forms, and the subject is all too frequently only dimly aware of what is happening, the archenemy being a master of disguise and seduction. Skirmishes, rather than open confrontation, are the rule, and often there are lulls: temporary and/or apparent armistice, appeasement, ‘negotiated peace’. None will give up though – opportunities for regeneration and reintegration or for further descent into chaos will always be there.

This battle has as its aim the possession of the ‘heart’ of man, he who is placed ‘halfway between heaven and earth’. He is indeed the field of battle –his body and his feverish or deranged mind; feverish through desire and passion, and deranged because of ignorance and stupidity. We say ‘mind’ because, in his actual condition –beginningless ignorance- man does not know his real nature, which is unsullied, pure Consciousness. The two engaging forces pull in opposite directions, one of them upwards, towards liberation, the country of light and abundance, and the other downwards, towards further enchainment, to the netherworld. The confrontation will end only when it has been decided, in Plato’s words, “which shall rule, the better or the worse” (this quote borrowed from A. K. Coomaraswamy).

All this, of course, and again, is mithya – a lie from the highest perspective, even though it appears to be so real.

Note: This discussion follows on from the last question on ‘Finding a Teacher’ (apart from the introductory paragraphs).

Many seekers think that the essence of enlightenment is ‘experience’; that they need to actually experience something for themselves before they can be regarded as enlightened. In line with this, they denigrate the notion that a teacher can convey whatever it is that the seeker needs by simply talking to them, answering questions and so on. Even worse, they feel, is the idea that enlightenment can be gained by reading a book!

Maybe the term ‘Self-inquiry’ is largely to blame for this misconception. Seekers attached to this idea think that subjecting their own experiences (perceptions, ideas, theories etc) to close examination is somehow the key.

Whatever is the case, such seekers are seriously confused and need to distinguish carefully between ‘experience’, ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. Below I provide a question and answer discussion I had early last year with a reader on this general subject. But first I would like to give an example from my own experience, which (for me) provided a very clear distinction between these three. (And I refer to this example in the question and answer session.)

The experience occurred about 30 years ago. You will have to bear with me as it takes a little while (and two diagrams!) to explain.

I used to attend philosophy lectures at a school called SES, which holds its talks in rented buildings scattered about the country. At this time, they were held in a house on a circular avenue as in the first image above. I always approached along the road at the top, turned left into the avenue and then clockwise to the school. On leaving, I always returned the same way – anti-clockwise, then right and right.

Then, one night, for some reason, I carried on in the same, clockwise direction and then turned left, and then right at the main road as usual. Except that I suddenly hit some traffic lights that had not been there before and I realized that I was somewhere completely different! I soon recognized where I was and took corrective action but I was completely mystified as to how I had got there. This was the ‘experience’ stage. I had the experience but missed the meaning, as T. S. Eliot puts it in ‘The Four Quartets’!

I puzzled over this for some days, wondering if I had had some sort of mental blackout or been so involved in thinking about the lecture that I hadn’t been paying attention and went the wrong way for some reason. But I did not really believe that; I believed that there had to be some simple explanation.

And then, at some point, that explanation came to me and I knew beyond any doubt what must have happened, even though I had not looked at a map or spoken with anyone about it. The actual layout of the avenue had to be as shown in the second diagram. And so it was of course. But the point is that, when the answer came to me, it came as certainty, not as some working hypothesis or plausible explanation.

This is the certainty of knowledge rather than belief. All of the information has to be there in the mind. In this example, the data concerning starting point, end point and location of the school were all there; I just hadn’t seen the connection. The realization comes of itself when your mind is ready. You simply know that there is no other answer, even if you cannot look at a map to check your conclusion. If you have the belief (of the reality of non-duality) already, you have presumably had sufficient shravaNa. You simply need to give yourself more manana and nididhyAsana.

Knowledge, according to Western philosophy, occurs when you believe something and that belief is both justified (by experience and reason) and true. In order to become Self-realized or enlightened, you have to subject the ideas of Advaita to doubt and questioning and repetition and consideration etc until such time as your beliefs become knowledge.

The continuation of Q. 380 – Finding a teacher – now follows:

Q: I have read many books which of course all point in the same direction but describe the process of getting there in many different ways, what to avoid also seems to vary widely. I try to avoid those that frankly bitch about other processes and I still haven’t figured out what Jiddu Krishnamurti expects us to achieve; his process seems equivalent to Arthur Dent learning to fly.

I seem to have an affinity with Hinduism and have started reading the Bhaghavad Gita ‘as it is’ and a book on Advaita Vedanta I downloaded on my kindle.

I have a peculiar ‘accidental’ spiritual background so my development is erratic and I’m worried that I could very easily get in trouble again. Started out atheist then accidentally suffered precognition that terrified me, thought I was going to go insane. Had more precognition, nine years worth, went to spiritualists – no good, went to Protestants next door – no good. Have been looking for 10 years for explanation, haven’t found anything except Aldous Huxley in his Perennial Philosophy stating that these Siddhis are just a distraction. If it wasn’t for those Siddhis I would know a lot less than I do now though.

A: ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ is not Advaita but Dvaita. There are hundreds of translations/commentaries on the Gita and most cannot be recommended for someone beginning to find out about Advaita. What is the kindle Advaita book you are reading?

I think it is mainly the Yoga philosophers who address the question of siddhis but they are also dualistic. As you say, they are an unfortunate distraction for the most part.

Q: The Kindle book is called ‘A Guide to Hindu Spirituality’ by Arvind Sharma. I found it through ‘World Wisdom, The Library of Perennial Philosophy’. 

I don’t want a system that uses siddhis. I need someone who acknowledges the reality of them, in order to know how they operate and can deal with them. They hopefully know to differentiate between intentional and accidental psychic phenomena. Protestant Christians don’t seem to differentiate, which is why I’m avoiding them (not that I need much excuse). The intentional aspects are prone to ego and moral problems, therefore are distractions and harmful – I get that. The accidental are very confusing, longer lasting and much more powerful in effect than the intentional, but whether they are distractions or pointers is unclear at present. 

I’ve had more experiences than precognition and cumulatively I do feel manipulated or pushed towards something by something. The only thing I can accept (believe?) for certain is that the human subconscious has access to or is part of something that has its own consciousness. Whether this bigger consciousness is behind the manipulation I have no idea. I get the impression that the meaning/purpose of life is to achieve conscious awareness of the subconscious and all that goes with it. Sorry about the Jung type terminology.

A: According to Advaita, there is no ‘this consciousness’ and ‘that conscious’ or ‘larger consciousness’; there is only Consciousness. And you are that. Experiences are irrelevant; only knowledge matters. Advaita recognizes siddhis but has no interest in them at all; just ignore them, as they are experiences. If you are interested in finding out more about Advaita, I suggest reading my ‘Advaita Made Easy’. It is short, simple and cheap and will teach you the absolute basics. If, after that, you have questions or want to ask more, please get back to me.

Q: I bought and read your book today; it was similar in content to the other book I bought on Kindle.

Whatever I write below is only intended as logical intellectual type problems, like marking a philosophy essay. It’s not intended to be a criticism of you, your book or Advaita Vedanta, as it is in India. I do question your inadvertent western mentality that makes the same mistake that you yourself say:

“Modern western teachers are attempting to circumvent the introductory explanations and mental preparation and present the bottom line conclusions of Advaita. This is not possible and only leads to confusion.” (Accuracy is subject to me being able to read my own writing.)

Your book and every book in English (written in English or translated) does this exact same thing as far as I’m concerned. I understand what you have written, intellectually, I have been reading similar things for years, and it never gets any further than an intellectual knowledge.  Without real teachers it will probably never get any further either.

I do really have an atheist background, never have been Christian or anything else.  I haven’t been to Tibet, India, met the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa etc, have never been to weekly seminars with gurus. I do however “treat the search for the truth (as) being the driving force (of) my life”. My psychic experiences, though worthless to many, have led me to realise that reality isn’t what I believed/assumed it was.  As “only knowledge can remove ignorance”, my knowledge from experience, removed my atheist ignorance at least. And logically, my experiences couldn’t have happened if all humans etc weren’t interconnected in some fashion – “you and I are the same”.

“We are never asked to accept anything that is contrary to reason or to our own experience.” If experience is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter does it? For me, reincarnation and karma are contrary to reason and experience, but I’m happy to leave those alone.

I’m not in some big impatient rush to experience enlightenment. I think the slower the better. But if this ‘enlightenment’ isn’t an experience, are you suggesting that something just happens for some unknown reason, sans teacher? So I can continue reading and intellectually understanding and one day, it will sink in of its own accord? I’m differentiating between intellectual knowledge and a sort of instinctive knowledge from experience, like gnosis. I experienced absolute knowledge during my first precognition experience. (I might have the terminology wrong, but I received absolute knowledge that I would see someone, then half an hour later I did, that’s when I got the traumatic shock and feeling that I was about to go insane). I always assumed that enlightenment was some kind of gnosis/absolute knowledge, but without the trauma – hopefully.

Regarding the first paragraph above, there is another aspect of your Western mindset that is causing problems for me in that I still feel frustrated. You have taken on the western prejudice and assumptions regarding psychic phenomena and are grouping it all together, and have never investigated it for yourself, intellectually. I understand the prejudice but it is limiting. There is the feeling that Eastern religions have adapted their teachings to fit the Western mindset, make it acceptable and take out all the ‘superstitious mumbo jumbo’ and any negative aspects, make it intellectually appealing. It has succeeded; for me in particular it’s almost as useless as Christianity in effect, sans teachers of course.

A: Sorry you are feeling frustrated over this. If it is any consolation, traditional Advaita talks about the process taking many lifetimes, not just a few months or even years. (I entirely agree with your statement regarding reincarnation, however, although that is not in any way a condemnation of Advaita.)

Your initial point, actually misses the point, although I accept responsibility for this. My statement about circumvention refers to the Western style satsang and neo-advaita. My own approach is (intended to be) strictly in accord with traditional teaching.

But all that is beside the point, really. Your problem seems to be a belief that ‘enlightenment’ involves some sort of experience – a ‘sudden flash of light’ if you like. This is not the case. But you are right, it is more than what we usually call ‘intellectual understanding’. In fact, I think we often use that term when we DON’T really understand. “I understand intellectually, but…” It is a bit like the difference between belief and knowledge. I used an example from my own experience to illustrate this in answer to a question last year sometime, and I think this might help here.

Regarding psychic phenomena, I don’t think I have made any judgmental statements anywhere. I have just said that Advaita considers that they are irrelevant in a pursuit of Self-knowledge. In fact, it is more than that: they are likely to be a distraction and thus counter-productive.

As far as Eastern teaching adapting to a Western mindset, yes – I am consciously (and I dare say, unconsciously too) trying to do this. ‘Original’ traditional teaching of Advaita is totally scripture-based and heavily laced with Sanskrit. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to glean much from such an Indian teacher without significant Sanskrit background. There is also the cultural background – rituals etc. This is also taken for granted by most Indian teachers and the Western listener will understand very little. If you want the unadulterated version, you will have to go and live with an Indian family for some years first, as well as learning some Sanskrit!

Q: I have to admit that I’m confused, not just by you, I’ve been confused since the mid ’80s.

For most people there seems to be a gap between intellectual understanding and knowing. Do they close the gap by believing in stuff? If they do, could I suggest that the gap is wider when you experience absolute certainty that isn’t related to any prior belief?

This certainty convinced me that belief is bogus, because the certainty came without prior belief, therefore logically, belief is irrelevant as well as annoying.

Do we manufacture belief ourselves and hope we don’t go insane? I’ve come across this idea that belief is some great leap into the unknown, is that true? If it is true, then I’m risking more horrific experiences.

So what’s causing all my confusion and how am I supposed to bridge this gap?

You didn’t show any overt prejudice against psychic stuff, you just ignored it. I don’t mind so much if I can understand why, other than what you’ve said already which doesn’t explain much in particular.

I don’t think about enlightenment much really as it seems impossible, probably because I don’t understand what it is. I assumed it had some certainty/gnosis attached in some way, otherwise how would you know you had achieved it?

If I could understand what happened I would be happier, but that understanding seems to depend on me entirely and I don’t like that, but I’ve got used to being my own authority in a way. If following Advaita Vedanta depends on my own understanding to bridge the gap, I won’t like it much either, but I’ll do it if I have no other choice.

A: My apologies! I seem to have confused the issue by giving my pictorial example. I produced that originally to clarify the difference between belief and knowledge and I was trying to apply it to your problem of the difference between intellectual understanding and knowledge. They are not really the same. You will have encountered the terms shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. The first is what corresponds to intellectual understanding. You follow the arguments and understand what is being said – but you are not entirely convinced. This is where the second stage comes in – subjecting those ideas to doubt and questioning, and not being satisfied until all those doubts have been resolved. Once that occurs, you can call it enlightenment, but far better is simply self-knowledge. The third step is to go over it all again, talk and/or write and/or teach the material until that outlook is intrinsic to your life.

Faith is involved to the extent that you resolve to temporarily take on trust the things that the teacher tells you until such time as manana is finished. It goes without saying that you only give this trust to someone you have reason to believe is trustworthy.

I can understand that your psychic experiences have been a powerful influence in your life but you need to try to drop them. All experiences are irrelevant to Advaita, psychic or otherwise. They are all mithyA.

(My own views on this are also irrelevant but, because you ask, I used to be very interested. I have had a totally inexplicable incidence of precognition. But I have also read such books as ‘The Hundredth Monkey’ and it is difficult to ignore such persuasive argument.)

There has been much healthy debate recently on the Advaita Vision Blog about Liberation, who or what is a jnani or jivanmukta, and what it means to follow traditional Advaita. The theme of this post is that we cannot resolve such questions without first gaining a clear understanding of the body-mind and its role in the context of Liberation. What follows are some reflections inspired by a spirited discussion with Ramesam, with due credit to him for stimulating many of the thoughts below. Any errors or possible misunderstandings are entirely my fault. Or perhaps not, since “Words fall back from it.”

We face a paradox when we try to understand Self-Knowledge from the point of view of a “person in the world.” Over and over again, the mind will try to turn That which it seeks into an Object, so that it may be examined. Yet what is sought is not an Object, has never been an Object, and can never be objectified. No matter how hard “you” try, “you” are never going to “see the Self.” This is simply because the body-mind instrument itself is but an Object. The Subject is trying to see Itself but all it can see is the objective body-mind and its sensations. How can it make any sense then to speak of “directly experiencing the Self”?

The body-mind is just another apparent thing arising in Consciousness, like the tree in the yard or the stone on the road. All such apparitions are subject to transformation and are temporal in nature. The acorn, sapling, and full grown oak are all equally just objects arising in Consciousness. The same is true for the embryo, infant, child, and adult human, all just one complicated Object apparently arising and transforming in Consciousness, and therefore no more Real than a dream of pink elephants under the bed. Is there any more value in talk of Liberation for our apparitional body-minds than for our pink dream elephants?

Listen to Wei Wu Wei, from Ask the Awakened, (p: 161):

A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream. “What are you?” I cried to them as they drifted by. 

“I am a bubble, of course” nearly a myriad bubbles answered, and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed. 

But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered, “We are this stream,” and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude.

The body-mind of any person is just another bubble on the river. There can be no freedom for this body-mind bubble. (That’s because “Moksha” is not freedom for the person, but rather freedom from the person, not freedom from Samsara, but freedom despite Samsara.) And when the bubble pops and the body-mind is no more, the amount of water in the river will be precisely the same as before and nothing at all of importance will have been lost. Therefore any talk of “my enlightenment,” as though it were some property that an individual could possess, is entirely from the point of view of the bubble and not the stream.

The above line of discourse may raise a problem. Are we saying that jivanmukti is a non-existent concept, that there are no Liberated sages after all? Are we deviating from the traditional teaching of Advaita on this important topic? Before we try to say anything further about Liberation, perhaps we should take a closer look at what we mean by “traditional teaching.” Strictly speaking, can we call it “following the tradition,” if we are not going the whole nine yards? If we are not joining an ashram founded by Shankara, becoming a renunciate, remaining strictly celibate, striving to take the orange robe, and so on, can we still legitimately claim that we are following “traditional Advaita”? Does not the system taught by Shankara require full renunciation in a literal sense?

On the other hand, we can use the idea of a “tradition” more loosely, in order to distinguish a full and well-rounded teaching based on the traditional texts from teachings that are incomplete or not rooted in tradition. This is fine, but shouldn’t we still be honest with ourselves and admit that we are picking cherries, simply taking from the tradition what we think works for us and rejecting the rest as non-essential? For example, how many traditional Advaitins take seriously nowadays Shankara’s quaint commentary on the Northern Path and Southern Path taken by the “soul,” etc.?

If we take literally the orthodox criteria found in the scriptures, then the only qualified jnani are those (a) celibate and without a family, (b) sitting in isolation someplace, (c) never taking any action to fend for themselves and only accepting what comes along. What of Nisargadatta Maharaj then? Do we take the position he was not a jnani because he was married, had children, ran a business, engaged with the world on a daily basis? Has any Liberated sage in history ever truly matched the glowing descriptions of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras?

Many say that Ramana Maharshi provides us with the classic example of a jivanmukta, and some want us to believe he had no Ego, did not have thoughts or even a mind, or that he did not “see the world of duality.” All these claims are perhaps necessary to match the scriptures, or at least a common interpretation of those scriptures. But is this not merely the projection of dualistic concepts onto the non-dual Reality?

To all outward appearances, Ramana had a rich personal and inner life, and it certainly seems illogical to assume otherwise. He possessed an extraordinarily calm and sattvic mind, yes, the “still center of the turning world,” as some have said, yet an operative and fully engaged mind nonetheless. The man read newspapers and talked about the content of the articles with other people present. He testified in court, directed an ashram, conducted daily interviews, and wrote texts. None of these things would be possible for someone who had no thoughts ever arising in his mind. It is we who are trying to fit Ramana to our interpretations of scripture on jivanmukti. He did not speak of himself in such terms, because he knew the body-mind Ramana was just another Object arising in Consciousness.

Further, we can legitimately ask: Does the traditional description for a jnani apply across the board for all times, places, or cultures? What would happen if we whisked an alleged jnani from his remote cave and placed him in the middle of Kansas with $10 and no map? How would he fare? Robert Forman made this point in his wonderful little book, Enlightenment Ain’t What It’s Cracked Up To Be. Forman notes that if most so-called sages (whether they be from the Advaita, Buddhist, or Tao traditions, etc.) were taken from the environment in which the culture supports their renunciate lifestyle and then plopped down in the USA somewhere, they would not be able to function or survive and would quickly start appearing to be a lot less holy. We don’t take kindly here to people sitting around in caves expecting food to be brought to them, and it’s an obvious point that modern life in the West is far more complicated than life where all one’s basic bodily needs are met without much effort. Sam Harris also tells a funny true story along this line, about a revered Indian sage brought to America to teach a group of pupils. The sage in question discovered ice cream for the first time in his life, and suddenly took to demanding it for breakfast every morning. Before long he was sent packing.

Perhaps things are different now and “jnani” or “jivanmukta” looks different in the West? Let’s not forget that Maya is always far more clever than we allow for. Maya is what makes the impossible possible. So maybe it’s totally possible (from the relative point of view) that there are liberated sages who have wives, families, busy lives in the world, and so on, and the so-called traditional descriptions no longer apply. Perhaps Liberation is simply a matter of non-attachment to the distractions of the world, and does not necessarily require the elimination of distractions that are never taken to be Real anyway.

That said, we also have to be careful to watch for misunderstandings about Liberation and the body-mind. There are many “gurus” who present enlightenment as a spiritual lollipop, a blissful treat for the body-mind to experience and enjoy. Such teachers always seem to have a great epiphany story, and the “how I became enlightened” episode is usually in the first chapter of the book, or one link away from the home page of their website.

Some tell us we can have both Liberation and still enjoy Samsaric life, have our cake and eat it too. No need to give up my house, my loved ones, my world, my name? I can keep all these things and still have my glorious enlightenment experience at the same time? Where do I sign up? The problem with the lollipop approach is that it doesn’t set you free. There remains the nagging sense that nothing has been solved at all. And, that will always be the case until all possessive notions like “I,” and “me,” and “mine” take a hike.

If you think you “get” Advaita but you’re still searching for answers and looking for Liberation, that just means you still think the body-mind is Real and you remain attached to it on multiple levels, including the subconscious or subliminal. The seeker is taking the view of the body-mind looking for enlightenment or spiritual wisdom and attainment. Therefore he or she is still looking from the jiva point of view, from a sense of lack and limitation, and seeking to reduce or remove that limitation in order to become whole and complete again. A jiva who is still trying to “attain enlightenment” is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The key to understanding enlightenment is to realize there is no such thing as enlightenment in Reality.

Further, you can try if you like, but there is no point to working toward becoming a bigger and better bubble on the river, looking for “spiritual advancement” in measured steps with signs and checkpoints along the way. Instead, all that is needed is to stop any focusing on the bubble and just float there on the stream. The realization is already there, “I am nothing, I am everything, and I don’t have to care what any others think because in Reality there are no others.” The body-mind bubble then just peacefully plays out its remaining existence, not worried at all about “achieving Liberation.” There can be no salvation for these bubbles anyway, these forms arising and subsiding in Consciousness. Yet the forms are also just Brahman, so what does it matter? There is no actual separation between the apparent forms/objects and the substrate, and therefore no need for salvation.

It may be that all we can really say is that in Reality there is no “one” to get it and therefore no “one” to become Liberated. Or as David Carse put it in Perfect Brilliant Stillness, “The lights are on, but nobody’s home!”