German: “Very attached to our dysfunctional persona” that is so true! and that attachment is hardwired. But it’s to be loved as well, right? Not the attachment but the seeming persona. First understanding what is going on i.e. the attachment to that persona but then not condemning it but loving it;
Sundari: The attachment to the idea that you are the person is the cause of suffering, not loving the persona. The only way to be free of the dysfunctionality of the individual persona is to understand what it is from the nondual perspective (an object known to me, Consciousness) and then, to love it exactly as it is. Though invariably, for the individual to have a better life, if would benefit greatly from cleaning up its likes and dislikes, i.e., what lurks in the unconscious that is not loved, and imposes what it wants onto life, or Isvara, living with fear and dissatisfaction as a result.
German: Condemning it would mean that there is a super “I” that looks down on the inferior “I”;
Sundari: Well as you know, the super ‘I’ idea both in the spiritual world and religion is false because reality is nondual. Nobody is looking down or up. Consciousness simply sees itself. The subject object split only operates when Maya appears, and there is an apparent creation for Consciousness to see. The question of who the seer is, is a tricky one. Ego or Self? The non-experiencing witness is the non-dual Self, but it functions in two ways, as the opaque witness or jiva (saguna brahman – with qualities) and the transparent witness (without qualities – nirguna brahman). The opaque witness is the mind/ego watching itself, and the transparent witness is the Self, pure Consciousness.
There are not two things in existence – the seer and the seen. Self is a seer that never began or ceases and is the all-seeing eye or “I” that sees only itself because there are no objects for it to see. It is self-effulgent as there is nothing but itself. Eventually, we must drop all these terms, even nirguna brahman because that implies saguna. It would be more appropriate to say that the Self, seeing only itself, is that which knows the seer with reference to the seen, only when Maya is operating. The Self-aware Self appears as a seer or witness; but it never actually is a seer/witness, unless seeing/witnessing refers to its own Self.
Whereas, when ignorance is operating the jiva thinks that the seer is different from the seen, the subject and object are different. Isvara is also known as saguna brahman because it operates Maya (the gunas), but unlike the jiva, it is never deluded by them. When tamas and rajas arise in saguna brahman, then Awareness apparently becomes a jiva and is deluded by Maya.
Condemnation is totally dualistic and never part of discriminating satya from mithya. It is the worst kind of ignorance and serves nobody. What is there to condemn if you didn’t make the jiva the way it is? It is only ignorance of its true nature that causes the jiva to act against dharma and the truth of its nature.
German: Loving the jiva persona is also dualistic but it’s karma yoga which includes God; loving not from an egotistical standpoint but from the all-embracing love that God is. Wanting to see the world as Ishvara and then not seeing this jiva as Ishvara, how would that work? It would be so strange, would it not?
Sundari: There is no contradiction between dualistic and non-dual bhakti if you know that all is the Self. All loving has the same source so all love must ultimately be of and for the Self. Karma yoga is bhakti yoga because with it the childish ego surrenders to God, or Isvara, even though you know you share the same identity with Isvara as the Self. As much as the jiva exists, and we know it does, it lives in the field of experience and owes everything to Isvara. But as I said in my teaching on the topic of bhakti yoga, if your devotion to God does not include the jiva, it is not true bhakti yoga. Even if you don’t know that your true identity is the Self. This is why religions must work so hard to keep their believers on board with the idea of loving a God that is external, bigger, better and judgmental. Not only that, but this bigger and better God created us flawed to begin with, and will punish us with eternal damnation if we don’t become good people. Doesn’t make sense at all.
German: My conclusion from doing shadow work in the past is that it works similarly. Although it did not have that deep effect because there was still that “I” that I did not trust. Who is that “I” that accepts that inner child, takes it by the hand and walks through adult life (that’s how in short I had understood it)? Is that because god is missing in the equation
Sundari: Shadow work, like any psycho-therapy, is very helpful in that it helps to identify and release deeply buried samskaras. Essentially, the parts of ourselves that are not loved and remain wounded, and are shut off from God, because God is our true nature, love. But it does not address the real problem – which is ignorance of my true nature as the Self, and worship of God. Everything always comes back to this. So while it sounds like there is another ‘I’ that heals the inner child, it is really only love in the form of Self-knowledge that removes the erroneous idea of separation and non-love. This is the only “I” that can be totally trusted.
German: Yes, I think I missed God in my life very much. Strangely so, because I was brought up catholic and I even remember having a spiritual experience as a twelve year old. – It’s difficult to grow up in this materialistic society and trust in a God that can’t be rationalized easily. So a seeker has to bring God back into his/her life. That’s what Ramji say’s in his books often. I found that fascinating when hearing it, even though I did not understand how to do that and on what reasonable ground? But here we go, it is opening up slowly and beautifully. Our dialogue is really helping me!
Sundari: Everyone comes to Vedanta with their own ideas, many of which are ignorance posing as knowledge. Some people, mostly emotional or religious types who are not qualified for Vedanta, criticize it because they see it as too ‘intellectual’ and impersonal, lacking in ‘feeling’. Conversely, Vedanta attracts atheists, apostates, and secularists because they see it as intellectual, and impersonal. Both groups wrongly believe Vedanta dispenses with God. While Vedanta is impersonal and requires an intellect capable of assimilating its very subtle teachings, it is not purely intellectual, and neither is it atheistic. In fact, a devotional attitude and love of God are essential.
Although most people have never thought about it, applying the simple logic of inference we can legitimately infer that there must be an intelligent, conscious cause behind the world. As you know, you cannot deny that you exist and are conscious because you must exist and be conscious to deny your existence/consciousness. Therefore, you cannot deny that God exists because without God as the cause, there would not be anything in existence and therefore no logic to existence. Whether we know it or not we all seek God because we want to be happy. Being happy involves understanding our minds and being in tune with our environment. As this is a nondual reality, God must be Consciousness too. Wherever we seek, and whatever we choose to call it, we are looking for God because we are looking for the Self. We cannot fail to find it, but we do fail when we look for it outside of ourselves, because we are the sought.
Everyone who does not know God misses God because God is love. Nobody can live without God as nobody can live without love. I was brought up Catholic and what I was expected to believe never made sense to me. Religions of all denominations know that there is a God, it’s just that their idea of God is so limiting and limited because it is totally dualistic. Vedanta is not against religion and I am not knocking it; it has its place for many. But while worship of God from a Vedantic perspective starts off with dualistic devotion, if the teachings assimilate, it will move to nondual impersonal love of Isvara (God) as Consciousness, your own Self.
There are three basic stages of God worship. It is hard to make the transition from the totally dualistic idea of God as external and parental, to both the cause and effect of the creation, and lastly, to the idea of God as nondual. The personal/impersonal love of God is the main sticking point for many. But without a personal relationship with God, which should be your primary relationship as it is synonymous with love and must inform all other relationships, Self-actualization does not take place.
It’s the both/and/neither of nonduality that makes it hard to assimilate and live. After all, the personal jiva does not disappear when we know it is not our true identity. We still live in this world and must follow the natural laws or dharmas. In life we owe everything to God. Most inquirers come to Vedanta with a deep desire to free the jiva and give it a world that makes sense, governed by a just and fair God, the upholder of dharma and destroyer of adharma. But that world and that God does not exist. Life is impersonal and zero-sum, which sounds very harsh.
If you want permanent freedom from and for the jiva, you must accept a non-dual God that is synonymous with love as your true nature, and yet is dualistic in that it is both dharma and adharma. Which sounds highly contradictory, but if that were not the case, how would this reality function? The apparent reality is one of opposites because that is what allows all possibilities to exist so that we can work out our karma. It is not good or bad. Only when we are ignorant of our true nature and thus that of God, do we break dharma causing injury to ourselves and others. And it is only in understanding the nature of life that we can live surrendered to God in gratitude for all that life gives us, while at the same time, knowing that the dream of life is only apparently real. There is only you, the Self, the knower or witness, who shares the same identity as God, unaffected by dharma and adharma.
For Self-knowledge to assimilate God knowledge and God devotion is non-negotiable. Even so, it takes great confidence to shed identification with the jiva identity, without the need to perfect, deny or protect it. To embrace being ordinary. The jiva is fine the way it is, and it is fine the way it is not. Freedom from the jiva means accepting what cannot be changed about it without making excuses for bad behaviour or binding tendencies, likes and dislikes. It means to uphold dharma because you are dharma as the Self, and you are surrendered to Isvara, not bound to the fearful jiva. And very importantly, it means to be impervious to criticism and praise equally.
Perhaps the toughest one is to be impervious to criticism. I had an experience recently which I have talked about, where I felt I was unfairly attacked and insulted, which hurt my feelings. Instead of being indifferent, I was defensive. Isvara revealed to me the vestige of a fear-based person who still had an attachment to the idea of the jiva being a good and righteous person who was (apparently) being unfairly treated. It is a pretty ingrained human tendency for most, and one that is hard to dismiss. But it must go for complete surrender to God to obtain. When you know you are the Self and not the offended person, there is no-one to defend.
Much love
Sundari
