O: I had spoken with Sundari because it is difficult for me to follow James’ talks because my level of English is not very good. I had asked her if she knew of any teacher or guide who could teach me in Spanish. The truth is that I don’t know how Vedanta’s methodology is, nor do I know if the physical presence of the teacher is essential or not, I only approached it through some texts by Nisargadatta, Krishna Mennon and Ramana, but I find it very difficult not to get lost in The texts. Do you have any advice to give me about the practice, or if I should find a teacher? Thank you!
Sundari: Dear O, in addition to Rafael I have asked another inquirer, Fernando, who lives in Peru, to help you. Feel free to communicate with whomever you prefer. I do not know your level of understanding, but from what you say here you are finding the teachings confusing.
Here are some instruction which you will hopefully find helpful.
1. The Methodology of Vedanta
Vedanta is a progressive teaching which meets the inquirer at their level of understanding, but certain qualifications are required. These are explained in James’ book, The Essence of Enlightenment, which is freely available on our website, in publications, under translations. Please make sure you read it, as it unfolds the methodology very carefully. You need to have the correct foundation to understand the texts, and follow the steps carefully if you want self-inquiry to work for you.
2. Presence of the Teacher
What is most important is that you are properly taught Vedanta by a qualified teacher capable of wielding the teachings correctly and without ego involvement. A person claiming to be a teacher without the full understanding of the whole methodology of Vedanta, or worse, who has an ego investment in teaching, will definitely confuse you.
If you have the opportunity to spend time with a qualified teacher it is very good, though there is no real boundary between you and the teacher, or guru. Guru literally means one who dispels the darkness and in doing so, reveals that the Self is the only guru, because this is a non-dual reality. You do not need to lean on a genuine Vedanta teacher and if you do, we are not doing our job. We are just mouthpieces for Isvara, for the Truth. It is not our truth or based on our experience, although it confirms both. We do not want disciples or followers because we do not teach the ego, we teach the self.
Whether we are physically with you or connecting via technology, the knowledge is wielded in the same way. We see you as the Self, as non-different. Vedanta is a teaching tradition based on friendship and equality. If the mind is prepared and qualified and you are firmly dedicated to self-inquiry, Self-knowledge will do “the work” of removing ignorance.
Nobody can do ‘the work’ of self-inquiry for you, it takes a burning desire for freedom to commit to self-inquiry. As James is fond of saying, Vedanta is the court of last appeal for those fortunate souls whose karma prepares them for moksa, freedom. And there is one more factor to consider, grace. It is only by the grace of Isvara that anything happens–and grace is earned.
3. Atmananda Krishna Menon, Ramana and Nisargadatta
Atmananda Krishna Menon was chief of Police turned Vedanta teacher. He taught traditional Vedanta but he used experiential language, which is a problem because it can cause a lot of confusion. He had a problem with the Vedanta lineage and hated sannyasins, so he taught according to his own methods.
Although Ramana and Nisagaradatta were jnanis neither were not proper teachers, and did not claim to be. Ramana didn’t make clear the distinction between Yoga and Vedanta and their relationship to each other, so his devotees generally have a knowledge and an experience confusion (see Chapter 2 of James Swartz’ book, The Essence of Enlightenment, or How to Attain Enlightenment, translated in Spanish) which could be easily removed by the satya/mithya teaching. Satya is that which is real, defined as always present and unchanging, the Self/Consciousness. Mithya is the apparent reality, that which is not always present and always changing, meaning the jiva or person, their world and all objects, subtle or gross. An experience such as a thought or feeling is a subtle object known to the Self.
Ramana bhaktas have the idea that the ego is a problem for moksa when it is present and not a problem when it is gone, is ignorance (avidya) i.e. duality. The ego is only a problem if the mind is incapable of non-dual thought, meaning, the identification with the body/mind (objects). Reality is non-dual Consciousness i.e. you (satya). By the grace of Maya it appears in two orders; satya and mithya. The ego, the ‘I sense’ is in the mithya dimension. Anything in the mithya dimension does not affect or negate satya, just as the table in a wooden table does not negate the wood. If you weigh the wood and subtract the weight of the table, the weight of the wood is the same.
Satya, you, are always free of mithya so there is no reason to get rid of mithya, the ‘I sense.’ The problem is due to a confusion of the word ‘I sense’ and ignorance. The ‘I sense’ is an effect of ignorance that remains when Vedanta reveals the fact that you are limitless awareness. Although it remains, it is as good as non-existent because the I sense has no effect on you, as I mentioned. The ‘I sense’ is an essential component of the Subtle Body, because you can’t do actions unless they are motivated by a thought (“I want” or “I don ‘t want,” for instance); that’s the way Isvara has set it up.
Ramana himself made it abundantly clear that moksa was discrimination (jnana) alone i.e. the discrimination between satya and mithya. Nisagardatta didn’t clarify the distinction between original pure Consciousness (satya) either and the reflected self (the ‘I sense’) which is mithya. His idea that the Absolute is ‘beyond’ Consciousness may have very well have been his translator’s clumsy rendition of the semblance (pratibimba) teaching i.e., the satya/mithya but it certainly isn’t helpful.
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. In the case of Ramana bhaktas they want to get rid of the ego, which is a yogic notion that came from Patanjali. Ramana said that there is always a ‘functional’ ego, ahamkara (the “I sense”). 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.
Vedanta advises ‘clinging’ to the thought “I am limitless non-dual Awareness,” not to the ‘I sense’ because contemplation on it in the context of the satya/mithya teaching sets the inquirer free in so far as moksa is the discrimination between the self and the ‘I sense.’ To say that moksa is discrimination implies that the ‘I sense’ is not a problem. The ‘I sense’ is like a ray of sunlight with reference to the sun itself. There is no contradiction. They share the same nature, light.
When one’s discrimination is clear, the ‘I sense’ doesn’t ‘drop away;’ it is negated. Negated means that it continues to exist but that it is known to be mithya, not real, a paper tiger. See the imprecise nature of meaning of words that appear in the books about these modern teachers, who are popular because they promise the fast track to enlightenment. But while this may be enough for some, if you are a true inquirer, they often confuse and mislead. Without exposure to the whole Vedanta teaching, an inquirer has no way to contextualize specific teachings, like the ‘I sense’ teaching. “I am That” teaching by Nisargadatta was very inspirational and it turned a lot of people on to the idea of self-inquiry, but it created as much confusion as it did clarity. Ramana didn’t systematically teach Vedanta. He was a jnani who was well versed in the scriptures. He even wrote a scripture, Upadesa Saram, which has been accepted by the Vedanta sampradaya as an Upanishad. Because his teaching was idiosyncratic, not methodical, people who read the teachings get easily confused, which could explain why you are confused.
It is understandable that people suffer and that they want to be free of it. And it is understandable that they don’t have discrimination when they begin. There is no blame. You have to start somewhere, and you have to suffer a lot of misconceptions when you don’t know the big picture. But, if you stick to it, eventually Isvara will lead you to Vedanta and a qualified teacher, so the misconceptions will dissolve.
Looking for A Spanish Teacher of Vedanta
Hi Sundari! Thank you so much for your response, it really really feels so warm and kind your treatment to me. I have to be very honest with you. I have understood parts of the text with the help of Google’s translator. I really feel that it’s too complicated to me to understand the teachings without a presence of a teacher, because I have too many doubts about the way and the life itself. I feel that I have a real ‘spiritual thirst’, but yet I also have desires of the world. I’m 31 years old, and I had the opportunity to work for five years in a spiritual bookshop, in which I found all these texts.
First I started to read Yogananda and practice a while his teachings. Then I discovered Ramana and it feels like a high level of teachings to my perception, but I found really really difficult to me to attach my mind to the ‘I thought’. I also found Nisargadatta and I thought ‘Oh my God how I wasn´t there with him’, I don´t know why Nisargadatta makes me emotional. Then I discovered Jean Klein, Krishna Menon, Lester Levenson and finally James. I didn´t know that Vedanta existed also, but I think that the grace was taking to me to the different ways.
I feel that I’m in a part of my life that I’ve read so much texts and I’m so confused that I don’t like to read anymore, I feel that without a presence of a teacher is so difficult to advance, at least for me. What I’m doing now it’s trying to meditate and feel compassion and love for the others. Maybe I’m not ready to bhakta, jnana or Vedanta and I accept that.
I’m with you that if it’s the will of God, it will happen. In the meantime I will continue doing what I can, that’s a kind of mantra to me, I feel that we do what we can.
I’m really grateful about you and James, and I don’t believe yet how a person takes the trouble to response a questions without any other interest that helps other person, so thank you so so much. I don’t want to waste your time. Thank you so much, and if it’s the will of God it will happen.
Blessings to you and James and excuse my English!
Sundari: We are very happy to help you in any way we can, you are very welcome, and you are not wasting our time! We are not in time. You are the Self, as are we, and the Self always responds to itself. Vedanta is a tradition of friendship and love; if Vedanta has come to you, that is grace. And grace is earned. So though you may feel overwhelmed, trust God (Isvara) to show you the way. If you feel that you are not ready for self-inquiry, then bhakti yoga is a good place to be because that will help develop the qualifications for self-inquiry.
Most of the teachers you mention were all good in their way, Ramana Nisargadatta and Krishna Menon were great souls. We have not come across Lester Levenson, so I cannot say anything about him. But Vedanta is very specific in the language it uses, because it is so subtle. It is easy to get confused, which is why you must be properly taught by a qualified Vedanta teacher, assuming moksa is your main aim. The teachings contain apparent contradictions and paradoxes which are all resolved by a good teacher.
Please read the reply I sent you via Rafael and Fernando. Trust in Isvara is always the best attitude to have as that is the basis for karma yoga, which is one of the most important practices in Vedanta.
Feel free to write any time
Much love
Sundari
