Peter: In reading back our conversations, and seeing your answers, I see my questions/assumptions – probing, like a ‘uh?’ to ‘ah!’ 🙂 Maybe there is not much more to say for now, actually, and knowing that you are also very busy; the length and content of this mail may as well be useless. Tell me if it is.
Sundari: I spent a lot of time on your email and have replied in more detail. It took a while to work through as it was very long. I have edited it quite a bit, removed some things that were not necessary to reply to, and moved some things to improve the flow of ideas and make it easier to understand.
Peter: In part, this is a response to an article posted on Shiningworld, about Qanon, conspiracy, and political tensions. There is something about it which matters, or seems to; more for sadhana, then the exact sort of problem – as any problem will do, and this happens to be ‘mine’. But – it’s soooo samsaric, too many words, and off track. Soon I have a bit of money so I finally can download from Shiningworld, everything I can get my hands on and proceed from there. It should make my questions more to the point.
Sundari: At the heart of the conspiracy theorist issue is fear, especially fear of change. Samsaris are always insecure because of the nature of duality being so unpredictable, but on top of that, we are living in very uncertain times in so many ways. Conspiracy theorizing is an interesting phenomenon to observe because it’s so obviously predominant tamas, but it is also, rajas playing out. Those two trouble-making gunas never work alone. There are no solutions in mithya and by whatever name we label the current problems, our problems have one source, only, and that is duality, identification with the body/mind, which causes all suffering and so much dissatisfaction. We can spend lifetimes unpicking humanity’s progress or downfall in all areas of endeavour, but we always come back to the same place.
As ever, the gunas are running the show. If you believe in the ‘Kali yuga’ theory, ignorance is having a field day. We have both written extensively on the social media/Trump/Conspiracy subject so need to repeat it all here. I have at least three long satsangs on our website commenting on what is unfolding from the perspective of Self-knowledge, James has a few too. It offers a great opportunity to do inquiry into discrimination, dharma and karma, as well as how the gunas play out.
Peter: On shining-world I saw a piece that analyzed the conspiracy-thought, more in the context of Trump and Biden; to which I can agree with. Because I hear this ‘language-use’ stemming from the above, also from those few people I know, who are also seekers – my old beef with these ideas spring up, a strong tendency to ‘set straight and restore’ how language operates in the minds of younger generations who never knew the difference between ‘thinking for oneself’ and ‘critical theory’. Well-meant on my part, yet wisdom-wise, fairly clumsy, would I start writing in this context.
Sundari: It is undeniable that the lack of critical thinking faculties amplified by social media contributes a great deal to the current worldwide state of affairs. But this problem does not only afflict the young; most people have not developed their minds to think clearly. Sadly, our society does not educate people to develop independently verifiable, evidence-based research and analytical skills, to practice exercising judgment, and to use language with accuracy. If it were, we would be seeing less of the madness going on, with people losing all ability to agree on what constitutes ‘truth’. None of it is new of course, it’s just the way ignorance is unfolding, it just seems much louder and ubiquitous now because of social media. If you have not read it, I attached my comments on the topic. What else is there to say or understand? Self-knowledge gives you 20/20 vision about everything, in every moment.
Peter: In certain conversations, I sometimes am able to bring back to them what it means to think, use the intellect – not ‘rationalizations’ or cold-ness. Many people think/feel that thought is a fake and cold thing, which it can be, of course, hence the trouble.
Sundari: The intellect is an especially important tool, and we all need to develop it to think critically. We are not born with a highly developed intellect, although some people have a natural propensity to think well from a young age. However, as much as having a finely developed intellect is, we need to develop emotional intelligence as well to function properly as humans. The problems raging in society, the ‘us vs them’ populist ideas are nothing new; it’s just the same old age-old dissatisfaction. Thanks to rajas and tamas, fear and desire, these ideas are part and parcel of duality. Today these eternal grievances have found social media as the perfect platform to shout them out into the void. It is all so silly because all everyone wants is to be happy, no matter what we believe to be true. In mithya, everything is subjective. But even so, there are or used to be, rules that guided what we all believed to be factual. Not so anymore.
We all need to develop the ability to think critically, along with the ability to manage our emotions. Emotions can be enormously powerful; they can make or break our lives. People whose lives are run by their feelings are just as (if not more likely) to have chaotic suffering lives as people who cannot think well. Generally, the people who are influenced by the craziness on social media are people whose emotions run their intellects. They have lost or never developed critical thinking, the ability to discriminate between fact and fiction. They think whatever they believe is true. Their thinking mentality is enslaved to irrational fear-based emotion.
Peter: I see the particular vasana’s. One is smoking, obviously. One is deliberate thinking, which I didn’t see as a vasana until now. It brings joy but also stresses, as a leftover of disappointment and failure. It felt tamasic, destroying what I felt as good, turning out to be useless – which in part is true, it is useless, even though also good; a ‘leading-error’, as you said, which is very helpful. Suddenly I saw a lot more of these types of errors. Deliberate thinking is good, but well, depending on what.
Sundari: There is nothing wrong with deliberate thinking. Certainly, it is better than impulsive reactive thinking. If you want to live a good life as a jiva you had better make friends with your mind as the quality of our lives is largely dependent on the quality of our thinking. But as you say, deliberate thinking about what? We can think deliberately about things that are a waste of time and mental energy.
Self-inquiry requires a critical thinking mentality, one that is facile and willing to challenge our personal thinking mentality, what we think we know or believe to be true. If you are too attached to your own ideas, Vedanta will not work for you because you are no longer the boss. If your ideas do not agree with the teachings, it’s your ideas that are wrong, not the teachings. The problem is that most people have a predetermined way of thinking set by their mental filters, the vasanas, a mold into which thinking is poured and which only comes out one way—the way that fits personal filters. So, even deliberate thinking is very uncreative and restricted. If this is the case, it is very difficult to assimilate the teachings or anything else that does not fit with a personal thinking mentality.
Vedanta encourages you to think creatively and independently, to challenge your typical personal thinking mentality. Independent from what? From the conceptual subject/object split born of identification with the physical body, which produces suffering. And what kind of thinking is that? It is not impulsive involuntary thinking, habitual automatic thinking, or even deliberate thinking. If it can be said to be thinking at all, it is spontaneous thinking based on the actual experience of what you are in every moment. It is thinking based on seeing what is. Seeing is not thinking. It is experiencing.
Peter: That is why, now in hindsight, I send you that text, which is basically an attempt to understand space, which is fine, but was also a means to escape, and to defeat, the ideas I was ‘taught’ but rejected: ‘you are subjective in nature, truth does not exist, unless in flux-mode; ‘your opinion’ – to which you have a right, personally, democratically, politically; freedom. I had no opinion, nor did I care to have one.
Sundari: It’s ok to have opinions, everyone does. After all, there is no such thing as the definitive truth about anything in anything in mithya as stated above, everything is subjective, apart from the fundamental laws of physics, perhaps. Just be aware of your opinions and don’t take them too seriously. The ideal is to have opinions that are in harmony with Self-knowledge. Great thinkers through the ages have espoused powerful ideas about the meaning of life, but unless they had Self-knowledge, and most did not, it all just boils down to a subjective opinion about objects, no matter how brilliant, nothing more. I am sure we have discussed the difference between knowledge of objects (anything mithya) and Self-knowledge?
1.) No other knowledge can negate Self-knowledge, it is what remains when everything else is negated. Whereas object knowledge—which is based on experience, feelings, beliefs, and opinions—is always changing, is imminently negatable and debatable. Self-knowledge is not based on knowledge gained through personal experience or opinion, although it may confirm both, depending on your level of maturity as an inquirer. Self-knowledge is the one and only knowledge that is always true; it is always good because it depends on the nature of the Self, Consciousness—which is always present and unchanging. It is the only thing that is always present and unchanging. It is true in all three phases of time, past, present, and future, and all three states of being, awake, dreaming, and deep sleep. This is fact, not fiction, and true regardless of what you believe or say.
2.) Self-knowledge is different from knowledge of objects, because it is subject and not object-based. You cannot be an object for yourself. You are the knower, the subject, so you cannot turn around and become the object. Why? Because objects are not aware, so by becoming an object you stop being the subject. In other words, if you were to become an object, you would stop knowing, stop being aware. That is why Self-knowledge is not the regular kind of knowing which is fallible and subject to doubt. And why Self-knowledge does not mean entertaining any different notions about yourself. In fact, it is more like being free of ALL notions about yourself with the full recognition that while those notions may continue, none of them are binding. They are like a non-binding contract that exists only for momentary convenience but does not limit or even define your action in thought, word, or deed.
Our subjective interpretation of experience or any object is not knowledge unless it stands independent of our experience, feelings, beliefs, opinions. Knowledge of objects (subtle and gross) is not knowledge unless it is true to the object. If it is “my” knowledge, then it is my interpretation of an object (pratibasika), which is not necessarily knowledge. Ignorance (or my point of view) causes me to see or experience objects in a certain way because of “my” conditioning. People believe that ignorance is knowledge because they believe that what they experience is knowledge. It may be knowledge, but it may not be.
It is so interesting, and sad, that so many brilliant minds had and have no clue about the true nature of reality. Their words and teachings through the ages may have inspired many good things in society, but ultimately, they are powerless against ignorance unless they are based on Self-knowledge. This is the problem with religion, philosophy, psychology, science, etc. So, have opinions, but know that they are just opinions. We always know the difference between our worldly opinions and Self-knowledge, though Self-knowledge informs all our opinions and provides the logic for them.
Peter: The adharma is what I could/cannot not compute – still can’t actually. It has been a riddle, next to and basic part of all the things I have tried to comprehend, before Vedanta. Now I – as jiva, but more as Self, is saying; ‘Clear up, the answer might become obvious – and will be of no issue; clear the drizzle.’ To this voice I reply ‘Ok Sir, right now Sir, sorry !…’ with a big smile.
Sundari: Understanding dharma is fundamental to moksa, or living a good life, for that matter. Dharma trumps moksa because moksa is not possible without dharma. And while it may seem that some people get away with adharmic values, that is never true. There are laws or codes, dharmas, that govern human behaviour, Isvara built them into program or humanity would have destroyed itself a long time ago. We suffer when we break these laws, even if it seems like in doing so, we are getting what we want. Nonetheless, humanity seems pretty determined to destroy itself.
Dharma is a complicated topic because our personal and situational dharma is individual, but universal values, such as non-injury, fairness, honesty, etc., are not. They apply to everyone all the time, regardless of whether or not these values are part of our lingua franca or whether we abide by them. There is no avoiding the karma that comes from going against these values (adharma), although how karma plays out is often hard to understand from the purely human perspective. We are limited to thinking within the program, and to a lifespan view. Isvara is out of time, and as the giver of the results of action, has infinite possibilities to make sure we receive the results of our actions, our karma, and work it out.
Adharma is anything that goes against Isvara’s universal laws (samanya dharma), and our own personal svadharma/svabhava (dharma according to your inborn nature). This is where it can get complicated because you could say it is dharmic for you, for instance, to act on your beliefs or feelings, whatever they are. Which it may be, and it may not be. As I said above, the people signing onto crazy conspiracy theories online are convinced that if they believe something, and if their sources of information say it is true, it must be true, regardless of any evidence or facts to the contrary. So many terrible things throughout human history have been perpetrated by people who believed they had the right to act on their ideas, that they had ‘justice’ on their side.
If acting on your feelings involves breaking universal laws or doing things that are against your inborn nature, it is not dharmic no matter your personal circumstances or beliefs. That said, dharma is complicated because though it is one because this is a nondual universe, it can be interpreted in three ways: universal laws or samanya dharma, visesa dharma or situational ethics, and svadharma, which is doing what is right for you personally. I recently wrote a satsang on the topic titled Dharma and Conspiracy theories.
As for my previous statements on ‘cleaning up’ your karma, it means doing what is necessary to make sure that all our actions are in line with all three dharmas. The first place to investigate regarding dharma is what values underpin our lives. We cannot follow dharma if our values are not in keeping with universal values, the highest of which is non-injury. If we have broken dharma in any way, then we must make amends, if we can. Keeping your karma clear means always following dharma in thought word and deed, meaning causing no injury.
James likes to say he keeps his karma like a little dog on a short lead, right at his feet. We keep our karma clean and pure because we value peace of mind, and breaking dharma always results in very unpleasant blow-back karma, which does not bode well for peace of mind. Also, as the Self, although there is no karma for you, there is no benefit to breaking dharma because everything is you. We value non-injury because there is only the Self. Everything you do, good or bad, is done to you because there is only you. So why would you injure anyone?
Peter: Thus, I go with what you say; ‘Do what you can, even if it’s just thirty minutes a day dedicated to inquiry. Make sure you start the day off with some kind of devotional practice as part of your sadhana.”
In the morning and evening, I’ve been reading satsangs, comments, and Upanishads. During the day ‘all things Vedanta’ are the measure of all events. But a stiller and quieter (morning) devotion, makes me see the necessity and beauty of devotion, dharma, love, the love that I am, and feel and know, to be, just so. No negation. This has been the point of departure I felt always and anyway – but something cynical covered this, to a degree – so, Thank You! < it is essential.’
Sundari: Good for you.
Peter: You said: “If there are still hidden desires in the mind trying to find answers in the world it will hold you up. I think all inquirers go through this stage, at least most. That is why nididhyasana is the most difficult and longest stage of inquiry”. My issue is ‘justice’ – a leftover but still (the) will to make a case against the errors in thought, within metaphysics. As if I can and as if that should be done; a ‘future thing’, it seems. I see the ‘shape’ of the case, but to go with that makes no real sense. Some time ago I said that I can and do drop this occupation with philosophy. I do, but at times, apparently, the matter comes, and I start writing, inspired rajas, perhaps. It is hard to stop, but I can bend it, also slowly, towards Vedic understanding, or as self-inquiry towards self-knowledge. That’s fine. Sometimes a nice poem comes out of that.
But, when I walk with my dog, in nature, or just sit and enjoy the fireplace in the evening, self-inquiry is simpler, and often obvious, free and vast. (the other ‘stuff’ is ‘past-stuff’ which acts up, needs dissolving – but there is no wish or desire for them, nothing to keep).
Sundari: Philosophy is interesting, as is much of what falls under the banner of ‘metaphysics’. I understand how it could inspire poetic thoughts. It’s fine to delve into other systems of thought or teachings if you are very clear about the distinction between ignorance and knowledge. There is no other system of teaching for the Self that is totally independent of subjective ideas, i.e., contamination. They teach ignorance as knowledge and without realizing it, you may swallow ignorance with knowledge, and it will derail your self-inquiry. So, it is probably better to stick to Vedanta, at least until Self-knowledge is firm.
Peter: I watched a few documentaries of Ramana – it eased also the above; all that weighty ‘importance’. What James means when he says that Ramana didn’t teach, I get – although he did teach, I mean, he is the self and insofar life is nothing but a teaching, he taught. For a person with a ‘simple’ mind and pure heart, while living around Ramana, it may be enough to realize – I believe anyway, in a few words. It’s more subtle than how I put it here, of course.
Sundari: James didn’t say Ramana didn’t teach because clearly, teaching took place. Ramana continues to have a great effect on many inquirers to this day, but although Ramana was a jnani, he was not a qualified teacher of Vedanta and never claimed to be. Ramana didn’t make clear the distinction between Yoga (action/experience) and Vedanta (Self-knowledge) and their relationship to each other, so his devotees generally have a knowledge and an experience confusion (see Chapter 2 of James’ book The Essence of Enlightenment) which could be easily removed by the satya/mithya teaching.
Ramana made it abundantly clear that moksa was discrimination (jnana) alone i.e. the discrimination between satya and mithya , like Nisagardatta, didn’t clarify the distinction between original Pure Consciousness (satya) and the reflected self (the ‘I sense’) which is mithya. Ramana said that there is always a ‘functional’ ego, ahamkara (the “I sense”), but he didn’t clarify that ‘I sense’ is the reflected self, not THE Self. So, people try to ‘cling to the ‘I sense’ as a practice which boils down to clinging to something that is apparently real, i.e., an object known to you, the Self. How can I cling to the ‘I sense’ when I am the I? Who is doing the clinging? Ramana bhaktas want to get rid of the ego, which is a yogic notion that came from Patanjali. The Subtle Body, which is eternal, is created by Isvara in conjunction with Maya. It has several functions, one of which is the ‘I sense.’ It is always present, even in deep sleep where it is unmanifest. It is not the jiva’s creation so the jiva can’t destroy it.
What James said is that Ramana did not teach according to the methodology of Vedanta. But he certainly taught Vedanta according to what he was asked at that moment; his teachings fit the inquirer’s level of understanding. Sometimes that caused confusion because he seemed to give different answers on the same topic. But as we have often explained, Vedanta is a progressive teaching, and it addresses the inquirer at each stage of their self-inquiry. As the teachings assimilate all seeming paradoxes or inconsistencies fall away. But Ramana never explained that.
Peter: You said: “Until Self-knowledge fully obtains, during the fire-fly or incubation stage when the knowledge is still firming up, it seems to go on and off. It doesn’t of course, it is just that ignorance is tenacious and highly resistant. It comes off in layers over time and with a commitment to your sadhana. To negate the jiva requires understanding that it is a program in the mind of Isvara. Therein lies all ‘the work’ of inquiry, and no easy task.”. This is not at all easy – I am so happy that ‘therein’ is ‘there’ and also see over the edge of the cup, as it were. Which I feel as confidence, a sense I luckily had in spite of ignorance, and begin to recognize as the self, all along. I am happy to leave jiva-thought, and replace it with knowledge.
Sundari: Self-inquiry is not easy, but if the mind is sufficiently qualified for it, self-confidence grows naturally as Self-knowledge assimilates and removes ignorance, the smallness, and tunnel vision of the ego. There is no problem being a jiva when you know your true identity is the Self, there is no contradiction. Obviously, you cannot be the Self and the jiva, but the jiva is the Self, even if the Self is not the jiva.
Peter: This I keep for later – unless you think I shouldn’t. I often ‘forget’ jiva, whether it is the jiva who doesn’t want to think about himself – even if he does, of course, hello … precisely that sentence, which goes for so many things. I (who..?) find this odd, I’ve noticed before when reading that. It cannot be otherwise, but something about it goes ‘huh?’ and jiva feels not to be ‘ready’, or something like that. But when Jiva, Self, and Isvara blend, even dimly so, it’s all fine. You once said, (shortened) ‘ what it means for jiva – to be self ‘ – which cleared up a lot, immediately …
Sundari: It is not complicated being the Self, it is simply a matter of logical reasoning. But as logic can and is used in the employ of ignorance, what being the Self actually means for the jiva is very subtle and counter-intuitive.
Peter: You said: ‘The more subtle teachings on Maya are important at your stage, so perhaps you do need to inquire further into the two theories on creation, the cause and effect, and the non-origination theories. I think we have discussed that, but if not, I can send you satsangs on it. I have attached a satsang for you on prakriti’.
This is very interesting – it also takes care of the ‘justice-problem’, for me. The first time I read the non-origination teaching, I felt such a release on so many levels. Laughter came; ‘I knew it! – but such a short burst of recognition isn’t enough. The text on prakriti and other more subtle texts are doing wonders with this mind. Thank you. Next round I’ll make sure to be shorter and somewhat wiser.
Sundari: Yes, indeed it is such a great relief for the ego to finally understand that this is all a setup, there is nothing to worry about. Everything is fine. Keep up the good work!
Much Love,
Sundari
