Fran: Thank you for your teaching on the location of objects, it helps tremendously. I would like to ask for further clarification on my one question, which was: “how can I recognize something without qualities? It seems that I can only understand who I am by inference – by negating everything, so I am that which is left after negation”. Please can you expand on the value of inference as a means of knowledge and also, and on the difference between the nature or essence of something as opposed to attributes? Thank you.
Sundari: Inference is such an important means of knowledge that it is what separates humans from animals. But like everything else in mithya, the knowledge derived from inference can be interpreted incorrectly, or at least, dualistically. In terms of self-inquiry, inference is a vital means of knowledge because there is no way to empirically ‘prove’ that your true nature is the non-dual Self. Faith is required along with investigating your own unexamined experience with the logic of Vedanta. The main aim of the teachings of Vedanta is to help us to disidentify with the body/mind, which is the cause of suffering, and to take our identity as the Self as our primary identity. But even highly qualified inquirers can get stuck without realizing that the reason they are not experiencing the fruit of self-inquiry—freedom from suffering—is because they do not have enough faith in the scripture and thus have not accepted inference as a valid means of knowledge.
They do not realize that they are still waiting for a special experience of the Self to prove that the scriptures are correct. This will never happen because there is no special experience that can prove this because the Self is not an object of perception. You never gain anything with the removal of ignorance. You always were the Self. But the problem is that there is no direct way for a jiva to confirm the statements of Vedanta because the Self is the subject, not the object. It is the knower of jiva’s experience, including the (apparent) non-experience of the Self.
Though we experience Consciousness all the time without realizing it, to be free of suffering we must understand and live fully what it means to be the Consciousness. For this, we must accept inference because it is the only valid means of knowledge for things we can’t experience (perceive directly). Inference is reasoning based on direct perception when direct perception is incapable of delivering knowledge.
Knowledge of objects is only knowledge if the perception is true to the object. An example of direct perception delivering knowledge is when we experience fire, for instance. Assuming the mind and sense organs are working correctly, if a fire is in front of our eyes, we will see a fire. You don’t need inference because direct perception is working. But what if there is no fire, only smoke?
If there is an inviolable link between something you can’t perceive and something you can, then inference comes into play. You can infer fire from smoke because smoke only happens when there is fire. We can experience them together directly; we do not need a scripture to tell us that where there is smoke there is fire. But Self-knowledge is not like knowledge of objects because the Self is the knower of our only means to know anything, perception, and inference. So, what does that mean?
Using the simple logic of inference, we can legitimately infer that there must be an intelligent conscious cause behind the world for the obvious reason that we are conscious, and we exist. We experience that we are conscious. Reasoning is not necessary because it is self-evident. Taking it further, it is logical that you are the knower of the body/mind with the simple recognition that your body, thoughts, and feelings are known to you. But does knowing that we are not the body automatically imply that we are Consciousness/Existence and instantly end suffering?
It may, if you are highly qualified and have assimilated the teachings. But normally, no, it does not because there is no inviolable experiential link between being conscious and being Consciousness. If a human being could infer that he or she was Consciousness because he or she is conscious, there would be no need for another means of knowledge or apata vakya, the testimony of a competent witness, i.e. the scripture (Vedanta) and a guru.
But almost nobody draws that conclusion on their own. We hear it from the teaching unfolded by a qualified teacher. Though the knowledge of experienced objects implies the existence of Consciousness, objects don’t tell you that you are Consciousness. In the same way that you exist is self-evident but does not imply that you are Existence itself, there is no connection between the Self, satya, and objects, mithya. They are not in opposition to each other, but they never meet because satya and mithya are not in the same order of existence. Satya is that which is real because it is always present and unchanging. Mithya is that which is only apparently real because it is not always present and always changing. Therefore, an independent teaching capable of delivering Self-knowledge, a guru, and all the qualifications, especially faith in the teachings, is required to remove ignorance—superimposition—the hypnosis of duality.
Failure to accept inference as a valid means of Self-knowledge indicates that the most important qualification for liberation, shraddha or faith in the scripture, which uses inference to “prove” its statements, is lacking. Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is a jiva there is you, Awareness. We must claim our identity as Awareness based on the teachings and trust inference, not chase experience. If we claim our identity based on experience, then we will ‘lose’ it when the experience ends because the knowledge will depend on an unreal object. And all experiences end.
Or we will feel like imposters when old jiva programs arise and the mind conditions to them because the experience of our Existence/Consciousness is never disturbed and conditions to nothing. It is unborn ever-present bliss. Self-knowledge, unlike object knowledge, is always valid because it is always present and unchanging. You are never not present, no matter what is going on in the mind.
As I said in our previous exchange, in the investigation into whether Consciousness has attributes, once you negate everything, look and see if what is left has qualities. Consciousness is just you. Fran is a name for you. You see qualities and no qualities. Both are just ideas appearing in you, made out of your thoughts. You are the Consciousness of both.
The difference between the nature of something and an attribute of something is important to understand, and many people often confuse the two. The nature of something is the essential essence, something that is intrinsic to or inherent in something and cannot be removed, without which a thing could not be a thing. Like the nature of sugar is sweetness. If you take sweetness away, sugar is no longer sugar. Or the nature fire is heat. If you take heat away, fire is no longer fire.
Thus, the nature of the Self, Awareness, or Consciousness, is parama prema svarupa. Parama means limitless; svarupa means nature and prema is the love that makes love possible. Whereas an attribute is a property, which may or may not be essential to the nature of a thing, such as the shape, colour, smell, sound or texture of an object may or may not be intrinsic to it and could vary. The nature of the jiva is the non-negatable nondual Self, but the properties of the jiva are all negatable. Thus the nature of something is the non-negotiable or unchanging variable whereas a property is usually a changing variable.
Much love
Sundari
