Why Is It Difficult to Know Who I Am?
What Are the Obstacles In My Way?
What stands in my way is the hypnosis of Maya, or duality. The illusion of separation, the subject/object split. The way Maya functions is in equipping us with a means of knowledge that is not capable of realizing the Self: the senses. This functions in two primary ways, or categories of experience, which I explain below. These give me knowledge of how to function in the world (mithya) but they can also prevent me from experiencing the third option. The experience of my permanent unchanging nature as Existence shining as Consciousness.
The Three Categories of Experience:
1.Sense Perception – Pratyaksham. Everything we experience, the way we contact objects, is through the five sense organs. This is our only means of knowledge for objects. All five sense organs – eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, have a very narrow bandwidth in which they can operate. And all are conditioned by the mind, which itself is actually the most important sense organ. As the mind is conditioned by the gunas, how we think and feel is affected by them, and so are all our sense organs. So, what or how we see, smell, etc., will be conditioned and limited by the gunas. This is what creates our subjective reality – my world – and we cannot escape it other than through knowledge.
As the three gunas are always present, these 5 streams of knowledge are pouring in all the time, whether we are talking about subtle objects like thoughts and feelings, or gross objects like a car or a chair. We rely entirely on the functioning of our sense organs (and this includes the mind, and therefore, the intellect) to relate to our body and the world it inhabits. Without functioning sense organs and mind/intellect, we land up in a care home with someone cleaning up our drool and everything else.
2. Inference, Indirect Knowledge – Paroksha. Inference is not material but purely subtle knowledge beyond the range of our sense organs. It is information coming in from what we can loosely call ‘in between’ the senses and Consciousness. I say ‘loosely’ for teaching purposes because there is no such thing as ‘in between’ Consciousness as it is all pervasive. Inference as a means of knowledge is not the same as intuition because it is a function of the intellect – it requires thinking. Whereas intuition is not a function of the intellect, and is therefore, more unreliable. But inference can be as unreliable as intuition because it too is conditioned by our subjective reality and conditioning.
When this kind of knowledge, inference, comes in, we think about it and draw conclusions, which are either based on reductive reasoning or emotions. Much of the way we respond to life, our emotions and intellect, relies on inference. A rational application of inference, for instance, is if you see smoke on the horizon, you can infer that there must be a fire even though you can’t detect it with your sense organs. Or if you can smell the ocean but not see it, you can infer that the ocean is nearby. But you could infer that someone does not like you based on their actions, or interpret events a certain way based on emotion based inference, and be completely wrong.
The whole of science also relies on inference as its means of knowledge. It observes, thinks about it, measures, confirms and/or denies, draws conclusions and then develops a theory – like everything is made of atoms. We cannot see an atom with our naked eye, but through observation, even before the advent of sophisticated technology, we come to an understanding. So we have atomic theory.
All of religion is also based on inference because it is beyond the limits of our sense organs. Religions are not based on observation directly, though they construct their doctrines around inference, but they base them on faith and belief. You either read about it in a book, hear a sermon on it, or perform some ritual. Religious people can have powerful spiritual experiences that they cannot explain in terms of sensory perception. Worldly people can experience this through drug induced highs, spiritual types experience it through meditation, high spiritual states or epiphanies. They then base their faith in these types of experiences.
All experiences are what I call slow release time capsules whose sole purpose is to deliver knowledge. But very often, the knowledge they are meant to deliver, that we are the knower of the experience and not the one experiencing it, does not land. Thus, as Vedantins, we know that belief based on experience is not reliable, because all experiences happen in time and end. We need some other means of knowledge to know that what we are always experiencing is unchanging Consciousness. We do not need a special experience to experience Consciousness because it is who we are.
Inference in the form of beliefs is not a valid means of knowledge for Consciousness because beliefs must be defended and can change when new information arises. Consciousness does not change, does not need to be defended as it does not require belief, only Self-knowledge. But inference can be a valid means of knowledge, if we are a competent witness and draw the right conclusions, i.e., Self-knowledge obtains. For instance, if we have a deep epiphany and do not identify with the experience itself, but with the one who witnesses it, Consciousness. Or we think about who exists in the deep sleep state if the mind is not functioning – we can infer that Consciousness must be present. Or if we look at the complexity and beauty of nature, it should be clear that there must be an intelligent principle or cause behind it.
We can deduce or infer from this that if Consciousness is there when the mind is not present in the deep sleep state, I must be Consciousness. Or if the creation is intelligent, we are too. This could result in Self-knowledge obtaining, if we understand that the Consciousness in deep sleep and the intelligence behind nature is the same as our true nature. And if thanks to this, we can discriminate between the unchanging nature of the cause, Consciousness/God, and the always changing nature of the body/mind, and take our true nature to be Consciousness. But unless we are qualified for the assimilation of Self-knowledge and properly taught, it is very likely that Self-knowledge will be indirect because we interpret this knowledge through the filters of our own ideas or beliefs.
Though indirect knowledge is not moksa, it is better than the approach science has to the numinous, or spiritual. Even though science relies on inference, it will not go to the ‘metaphysical’ because it does not recognize subtle information beyond the senses as valid. It is constrained by its basis in materiality – that which it can measure. And there is no way to measure Consciousness. And even if science could admit through inference that Consciousness must be prior to everything, again, without being properly qualified or taught, this would most likely be interpreted by the senses and the conditioning of the scientist.
3. Direct Self-Knowledge – Aparoksha. Of what? Of our true nature as Consciousness. It is beyond the senses, but it is not something you have to believe in. It is arrived at through negating all the variable factors in how we know anything. You are left with the one non-negatable factor: the knower of all the variable factors, Consciousness. Both pratyaksham, sensory knowledge, and paroksah, inference, depend on aparoksah, direct Self-knowledge. But aparoksah depends on neither. Just like electricity does not depend on us, gold does not depend on the ring, clay the pot, or wave the ocean.
How do we know this is true? Do you have to believe that you exist? Think about it. You may ask the question, does my body and mind exist? We have a whole teaching to explain why the body/mind both does exist but is not real. But do you need proof that you – I – exist? All you need to do is ask: How do I know what I know? You do not require proof because it is obvious that you exist and are conscious, or how would you know anything, including your own existence?
Nonetheless. people insist on asking – is there proof of God/Consciousness? Every religion tries to prove the existence of God and cannot do it. The best they can do is faith. Why? Because they only have indirect knowledge. They need belief because their means of knowledge is the senses and inference, which unless Self-knowledge is present, are only suitable for knowing objects.
This is also where the scientist comes unstuck because it cannot explain Consciousness. Science still insists on trying to measure consciousness but cannot do it because Consciousness is the scientist, that which makes science and measurement possible.
The real question is: what is direct perception, what is Consciousness? It cannot be an object or experience because it is that which makes knowledge of objects and experience possible. Therefore, by the pure logic of your own existence and unexamined experience, you can take Consciousness, Atman, Brahman or nondual God, to be your true nature.
Your Existence is Proof of God
So if someone asks you – have you seen God? You can confidently say – Yes! As clearly as I see you. In fact more clearly. What is that ‘more than’ based on? Seeing you with my eyes is pratyaksha. But as I have direct knowledge of my true nature as the unchanging ‘I”, I see Existence shining as Consciousness standing in front of me, non-different from me. So all is God. Wherever I look, I see only God. I see only me.
We just have to know the difference between the seer, the function of seeing, and the seen.
Sundari
