Dear James,
It’s been quite a while since I’ve been in touch with you. I remember that you said, during a recent webinar, and I paraphrase, that you have noticed that some of your students get to a place in their sadhana where they think that they have ‘realized the self’ and that they just drift away. Further, you said that you thought it would be far better if they would communicate with you regarding their understanding since, in many cases, what they think of as ‘realization’ is something that is not the case. Perhaps I have been such a student and I, therefore, submit my understanding to you for your review in the form of a doubt that I have about what I do understand.
My lingering doubt which is centered around the significance of ‘I’. I only use quotes around ‘I’ to distinguish it from what normally passes for I, myself, me, Edward, the identification of awareness with the BMI. I won’t keep using quotes as I go on since I know that you will understand the distinction from the context in which I appears – you taught me the distinction… As I understand it, and not only intellectually, I am awareness, I = awareness. I know myself as I. Awareness knows itself as itself, not as an object, but as self-effulgent, ever-present existence-consciousness-love. I am that I am. Tat Tvam Asi. Jivo Bramaiva Naparah. I am the self, Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all beings. This knowledge of myself as I, as identical with I, is not the same as knowing this body since this body is an object known to me. As I write, I am aware of, witness the writer and the writing. The words appear in me, point at me who cannot be objectified, and finally stall, become mute. And yet I shine, beyond the words, behind the words, in the words, in time, beyond time.
My doubt: But I am so ordinary! How can I be the self? Where is the ‘cosmic consciousness’, the union with God if I simply AM? Where is the infinite bliss if I simply stand as the witness? I am so ordinary. I am devoid of qualities so what distinguishes me? All that I can say about myself is that I AM. What is there notable about that? What must there be that is notable? How does this understanding, if it is in fact understanding, account for anything extraordinary? I am so ordinary.
So I sit here now, overcome by peace, permeated by peace, content in my ordinariness.
With Love and Gratitude,
Hi Ted,
The contentment that permeates Edward jiva is you, awareness. It is ordinary only with reference to the idea that there is something extraordinary. But there is actually nothing ordinary or extraordinary about it. It is just isness, being. What isn’t permeated by being? Water “permeates” the extraordinary ocean and the ordinary wave. What word encompasses everything that is? The mind slaps dead labels like supermarket price tags on what is, but isness is seeing, which is alive and pregnant with meaning that can never be quantified, qualified, defined or measured. Isness shines. We only call awareness ordinary because, feeling small and inadequate, people under the spell of ignorance want to be distinguishable from others and from their small thoughts about themselves. They want to be notable. But awareness is only notable because it is un-notable, a “royal secret” to quote the Gita.
Ted: “Where is the ‘cosmic consciousness’, the union with God if I simply AM? Where is the infinite bliss if I simply stand as the witness?””
James: See the language. What does cosmic mean? It only means something with reference to something local and particular. How real is something that depends on something else for its existence? Concepts are Maya. Yes, they exist but they are as good as non-existent because they depend on seeing, on you. Concepts are revealed because you shine. They exist but they borrow their being from existence itself, from you. Being and seeing/shining are concepts too but they refer to experience itself. Experience is being/seeing (sat/chit). You can’t eliminate it because it is unborn, nothing comes before it, nothing follows it. Both the particular and the universal are conceptual, not actual. You, awareness are non-conceptual. You are actual. You see. You are. What can be joined to anything else if everything is just one thing? What is infinite without finite? If there are only women can you call them women?
A transcript of Swami Tattvidananda’s talks on Ramana’s Sat Darshanam arrived within a few minutes of your email. It speaks to this seeing. I have attached it to this email. Give my love to Sally.
Much love,
James
P.S. Now that we have the upgraded website we want to mine the thousands of satsangs to create a series of online booklets on the basic teachings and improve the search function, which requires writing some code that is obviously beyond me. If you have a few spare euros and would like to contribute to this project, it would be much appreciated.
