Manfred: About two+ years ago I wrote to you, while trying to get out of a very depressed and nihilistic state. This very gloomy sense of life is over, and now I am cleaning up the mess, which is money/work issues, basically. Not all is over, but the depression is. Most thoughts I can FYFY [fuck your feelings yoga] out of relevance, but not all. Replacing them at the moment is a great way to rebuild. I stopped smoking weed and rarely drink, except an occasional beer (Irish coffee). ☺
Your advice to work on sattva by devotion helped me understand what a sattvic mind is. That was the beginning of a lot of progress. I cannot thank you enough! Also, you said that I must learn the language of Vedanta and get an understanding of the difference between satya and mithya. That works, so far, quite well and there is no stopping. That understanding came in unexpected fashion, part of why I write to you now. It’s a bit long – I tried to shorten it all, but an odd, old issue remains to be fettered out, and it’s complex. To Self-realize should not mean to break my head, so I am a slow student. But I do begin to think from consciousness’s viewpoint, also because it’s logical and quite natural.
Sundari: I am glad to hear you have been applying the teachings, good for you. Vedanta is logical and natural, but very subtle and difficult too. To step out of duality (ignorance) is extremely counter-intuitive and the hardest thing you will ever do. If your understanding is purely intellectual, the fruit of Self-inquiry, freedom from limitation, will not obtain. Self-inquiry requires a particular kind of intellect to assimilate the meaning of the teachings and it requires qualifications and a qualified teacher to unfold them.
Manfred: A year ago I began to negate space, which has the effect that the world becomes screen-like, un-me, as I am not that. I see better – truer, and from there on I began to negate many features: memory, intelligence, sense perception. A shift occurs, and it’s hard to even explain. Distance is not real. At some level, I see how jiva belongs to Isvara. Dimly so but without doubt.
Sundari: It’s good, you are discriminating you, the Self, from the objects that appear in you. When Self-knowledge starts obtaining and the mind resets to seeing things from the non-dual perspective, duality starts to dissolve, like a mirage on the desert floor. All our usual points of reference switch from duality to non-duality, we call it reversing the reversal that Maya imposes on the mind. The technical word is viparaya. The process can be disconcerting without proper instruction on what’s going on. The most important point is to inquire into who is discriminating. Who does the “I” refer to?
Manfred: I heard James say: “Consciousness + an object = experience.” Thus consciousness – object = non-experience. At times I get the impression to see Vedanta, knowledge and the world all at once – mapped upon each other, non-different. It’s rather an image and a sense of Vedanta. I write many things down about this just to absorb and instantiate it – it’s not at all that I’m able to comprehend it fully.
Sundari: Consciousness plus a thought/experience is the jiva; consciousness minus thought/experience is the Self. There is nothing wrong with experience or any function of the subtle body. The only problem is when experience is associated with the “I” that you get stuck in duality. Duality, the world, is a superimposition onto non-duality, that is correct. Superimposition is called adhyaropa, and it results in viparaya, the reversal that Maya imposes on the mind, fooling it into seeing non-dual reality as a duality, i.e. taking the rope to be the snake.
There are two kinds of superimposition: conditioned and unconditioned. Conditioned superimposition is when you know duality is not real so do not mistake mithya for satya, the rope for the snake. Unconditioned superimposition is when you do take duality to be real and you impose satya onto mithya. For a jnani, i.e. someone with firm Self-knowledge, viparaya is gone and so is unconditioned superimposition. Conditioned superimposition still functions because the world still has an apparent existence, but the jnani never takes it to be real so is never deluded by it. The rope is known to be a rope and not a snake.
Manfred: This mind I have seems way more tamasic then I thought. Insofar as tamas is solidity, I use it as such. In some sense light and space seem to create time. It seems that the infinite and boundless “causes” movement. No matter what guna is active, I differentiate awareness from any form or state, which is super useful knowledge; always applicable.
Sundari: Do you also take the one who differentiates to BE awareness? To differentiate as the ego and as the Self are qualitatively different things. The “infinite and boundless” as names for the Self are not great, because they imply the opposite. But since we must use words, the “infinite,” referring to consciousness, cannot cause anything. It would have to be a doer to cause, and if it were a doer, then the Self would be stuck in duality. As consciousness is the non-dual Self, it is the uncaused cause of everything. As we know, consciousness is limitless and formless, and thus so is Isvara, which is consciousness wielding or in association with Maya. If consciousness/Isvara “became” matter, i.e. if duality and non-duality ever “merged,” Isvara would have to cease being consciousness to become something else. It would have become limited, bound by time and space. There would be no sentient objects and no movement possible in the Creation.
But, luckily for us, Isvara is the uncaused cause of Creation; it is both the intelligence behind the substance and the substance itself. Although the Creation arises from it (pure consciousness associated with Maya), Isvara cannot become the Creation. Therefore the effects (matter) is just an apparent transformation of the cause, consciousness. It is not an actual transformation, because if it were, consciousness would have lost its limitless nature when it transformed into matter. Remember, this world, the jiva, is only apparently real.
Two Kinds of Changes
1. Parinama, “permanent” change. The best example of this is milk and cheese. If we make cheese out of milk, the milk has to stop being milk to become cheese. This process cannot be reversed; we can never get the milk back. Other ones are the clay and the pot, and the gold and ring. The clay must stop being clay (mud) to become a fired pot, and the gold must stop being gold to take form as a ring.
2. Vivarta parinama, apparent change. Although the milk seems to have become cheese, the clay the pot and the gold the ring, the essence of cheese/pot/ring remains milk/clay/gold, without which there would be no cheese/pot/ring. Therefore, although it seems as if consciousness has “become the world,” it has not. Owing to the agency of Maya, it appears AS the world. So the world is not real and it’s not unreal; it is apparently real. This means we can experience it, but upon investigation into its true nature, the world (form) disappears. It is negatable, whereas consciousness, being that which is always present and unchangeable, can never be negated. It is the only constant.
The jiva/ego thinks it is a doer and owns things and experiences, not realizing that everything comes from and belongs to Isvara. But Isvara is not “in the forms” either, because Isvara never takes a form, though it creates all forms. Isvara’s only function is to provide the jiva with a field of objects within which to work out its karma. That’s it. Isvara’s Creation runs on natural laws and so everything in the Field [of Existence] is in balance and in check for this sole purpose. The apparent person under the spell of ignorance takes duality to be real because it has no way of discriminating between what is real and apparently real. Even someone with considerable knowledge can be deluded by Maya and be seduced by the seeming reality of objects. Ignorance is tenacious and insidious.
Isvara is unchanging, but it is Maya that makes the changeless appear to change. As stated above but bears repeating, if Isvara did change, there would be no way out of duality. Isvara is both the Creator free of form and the effect in apparent form (the milk and cheese, clay and the pot or gold and the ring) because Isvara actually refers to pure consciousness, which has no form but from which all apparent forms apparently emerge. The agent for that apparent emergence of form is Maya in association with pure consciousness = Isvara 2.
The apparent reality (mithya) is a union of paraprakiti, or higher reality (meaning Isvara 2), and aparaprakiti (jiva), lower reality. Their common identity is uparaprakriti, or satya: pure consciousness, or Isvara 1. Isvara 2 shapes the materials into form without ever losing or modifying its own nature. Both Isvara and jiva depend on pure consciousness (satya), but pure consciousness depends on neither. Isvara 2 and jiva are ultimately not real, though their essence is real because everything comes back to the Self.
Isvara 1 is pure consciousness prior to Maya manifesting, also called paramatman. Although paramatman is called eternal and imperishable, it is neither. Eternal and imperishable imply non-eternal and perishable, and since paramatman is non-dual, it is neither. It is is-ness, being. It is simply that which gives rise to everything, that which is Self-knowing and, when objects are present (as in when Maya appears), knows objects. It is prior to and the knower of both the jiva and Isvara. Therefore it has no qualities, it is nirguna Brahman, whereas Isvara 2 has qualities and is referred to as “saguna” Brahman, with qualities, i.e. Maya, the three gunas.
The question is: What is the relationship between jiva and Isvara? Jiva can’t see a world that appears to be “out there” unless it is conscious, and Isvara can’t create the whole objective world unless it is conscious. We know that Isvara is conscious because its Creation is intelligently designed: it all hangs together perfectly. There is essentially no difference between jiva and Isvara except in their capacity to create. Isvara creates the objective world, and jiva creates the subjective world – such as how you as the jiva feel about the ring, for instance. They both appear to be conscious because consciousness is the common denominator, which is why Vedanta says they are “essentially” the same. If this is true, then we can eliminate both jiva and Isvara as real and take ourselves to be consciousness.
Neither Isvara’s Creation nor jiva’s creation hides consciousness; it is only seemingly covered by Maya. It is always present prior to the Creation and prior to the birth of individuals. You can’t have a macrocosmic Creation without consciousness. Something had to exist before Isvara 2 could “bang” the Creation into existence. An effect (jiva) is just the cause (Isvara) appearing in a form. We can’t apply the same logic to Isvara except loosely, because consciousness does not “cause” Isvara. Isvara – Beautiful Intelligent Ignorance, or Maya – is something altogether different. Isvara is not an effect but it is a cause with reference to the Creation. There is only one consciousness out of which everything arises and depends upon, but consciousness is always free of objects.
Manfred: I’ve read Inquiry into Existence, sentence by sentence, slowly while crossing a river by ferry to get to work. That gave me the things to think of for the rest of the day. Also, the Mandukya Upanishad. I came to understand negating the day, the waking state – to some degree ( let’s say 23º of 360°) but my intellect found peace with the non-Creation; it is, somehow, easier to understand then all other notions. Now I reread the Mandukya. Nonetheless, there is a dark side left to deal with as these karmas dwell around. At one level it’s gone, at another, it persists.
Sundari: Ignorance is like that. It takes a long time to be completely removed by Self-knowledge, and usually happens in stages, while firm Self-knowledge seems to flicker on and off. Nature abhors a void, and when Self-knowledge removes a significant portion of ignorance from the mind, the ego can be left feeling insecure and depressed. Just ask yourself, who is it that knows the apparent darkness? If you know something it has nothing to do with you, because you cannot be what you know – all part of the dream. Perhaps your confusion is thinking that duality and non-duality share the same reality. They do not. They are in different orders of reality, which can never meet, because mithya (duality) is only a dream within non-duality. Duality, the Creation, exists, but it is not real, “real” defined as “that which is always present and never changes,” which can only ever be applied to consciousness/existence/the Self.
Manfred: To evaluate myself, this mind, I made a map last year. I never thought about me a lot, as my jiva (non-Self) – is not all that interested in himself in particular. Around age 28 I made a conclusion: I am; by means of being an individual I know this, all the rest is guessing, filling in and so on. And that was it. The superimposition, as I can frame it now, was not resolved, obviously – but at least I set myself free from being, in particular, a bundle of incomprehensible stuff only, in a world equally complex.
Sundari: Who is evaluating whom? Is it the ego evaluating the ego? The only way we can truly evaluate anything is from the Self’s unlimited point of view; any other perspective is limited.
Manfred: Throughout all of my life I have found it irritating when people measured and probed into “me” as an ego-form. Perhaps I am too much of a private person then, and certainly quite shy. At any rate, it has been necessary to see my person clearly – and found strange aspects, traits, forms of ignorance, which are hard to fetter but do play into Self-knowledge or the assimilation of it while applying. I do not enjoy being busy with my psyche. But it has to be done. I understand personalities, my own, others and the overall structures. Let talents bloom, I think; more there is nothing to gain from it. But that’s not entirely true or fair of me. The thought also comes from disappointment, which brings me to the questions.
Sundari: It is good that you are not invested in and are dispassionate about the jiva and its programs; after all, it is not real. But freedom from the jiva does require that you understand how it is programmed by the gunas, so that you can manage the mind and thus the gunas. Once you know you are the Self, you are trigunaatita, beyond the gunas. The mind no longer conditions to them, though they still play out because the mind and the gunas are in the same field of reality, mithya, and you are the knower of both.
Manfred: I have a few questions on a mental level, feeling level and physical, a food question (and many more questions, but I restrict myself – since the puppy dog within is back and way too enthusiastic).
So, if I may, here they are:
I actually had to learn to be more of an ego in this world and claim what’s “mine,” at times. But I find this mind to be indignant too, and quietly so.
Sundari: Many spiritual people have this problem. Though it is true that as a jiva we must stand up for what we value, ownership belongs to the small self, the ego, because nobody owns anything. Everything belongs to Isvara.
Manfred: What comes, comes; what goes, goes; this was never an issue, I thought, but now it seems to confuse dharma and adharma as well. This aspect doesn’t care to live or die, and I do not believe that this is always a sincere notion, but very well hidden. So sometimes I do not see the difference between dispassion and not caring – or hardly notice when what is the case. Death or life, self is; that I see and understand too, and it has nothing to do with the former. But this part just hates the way things had to go: limit after limit, no freedom to act, but to retreat. I am not sure whether I should or can “sadhana” this one out or that I, somehow, must heal the psyche – therapy-wise – to decide that I write to you.
Sundari: What do you mean by “this aspect does not care to live or die”? The Self does not have “aspects,” because it is a partless whole. Or do you mean the jiva does not care if it lives or dies and hates its limitation? If so, why, if it’s not real? As the Self you are unborn and undying; the body is already dead – it just appears to be alive because you, consciousness, shine on it. The jiva has a certain amount of “free” will to act, to choose one thing over another, but is free will really free if all actions are predetermined by the gunas that govern our likes and dislikes? The whole field is run by the gunas, and to have a field in which we can work out our karma the gunas must be able to play out from one extreme to another. That is the nature of the field. Apparent “good and evil” are both mithya. Life is pointless because it’s not real; but that does not mean that it cannot be enjoyed for what it is: a dream in which we can (apparently) have contact with objects. The only point of life is to realize the Self and live it as the love you are.
Why not feel? There is nothing wrong with emotion or feeling. But if you identify with emotion and it runs the intellect, then you are in trouble because feelings are not real. They are always changing. Dispassion is not about not caring; it is about not being invested in any particular result. In fact, when you truly understand that there is no separation between you, the Self, and anything else, you understand that your true nature is love. And then it is easy to love because you are surrendered to life, to Isvara.
Manfred: Then there is what “understanding” means. To understand, logically, is one thing. But in what way does understanding also mean comprehension by heart, of simply not being jiva? I – as jiva – am often too stubborn to surrender to anything. Deaf, in some sense (indignant, in part, there we go), but also, I can feel the most subtle things, which may be an aid in many situations, but is also slippery.
Sundari: The ego struggles to relinquish control, which is why qualifications are so important for Self-knowledge to obtain. It will fight the teachings. Understanding in Vedantic terms means that Self-knowledge “stands under” you, i.e. it is not simply intellectual knowledge. If Self-knowledge is not assimilated and applied to the jiva’s experience, it is not much use. For Self-knowledge to obtain is not about the ego getting “enlightened.” It is the firm conviction that your primary identity is the Self and not the jiva. The intellect is the part of the subtle body, the instrument which allows us to discriminate, determine and make judgments. For Vedanta, you need a qualified and functioning intellect or the teachings will not stick. If you are in love with your ability to think and have a lot of ego around their own ideas and intelligence, it is harder for Self-knowledge to “do the work” of removing ignorance. While we need an intellect, it is not the intellect that removes ignorance. It is just an object known to you. You cannot “think your way to enlightenment.” You need to surrender to a qualified teacher and the teachings.
Self-inquiry requires training the intellect to think differently because it is conditioned by viparaya and adhyaropa, as mentioned above. Taking a stand in awareness as awareness sometimes turns out to be more than a little tricky because it is so subtle. The split mind watching itself has a slippery tendency to claim to be awareness. But is it “unfiltered” awareness claiming or is it the ego claiming? How to know, and how to deal with that? Taking a stand is done with the mind and can lead to a kind of self-hypnosis that makes the jiva think it is the Self without the full understanding of what it means to be the Self. Of course, based on logic alone (is there an essential difference between one ray of the sunshine and the sun itself?), the jiva can claim its identity as the Self – but only when it’s knowledge of satya and mithya is firm.
The practice “I am awareness” does not give you the experience of awareness or make you awareness. It negates the idea “I am the jiva.” When the jiva identity is negated, the inquirer should be mindful of the awareness that remains because negating the jiva only produces a void. And as stated, nature abhors a vacuum. Many inquirers get stuck here and depression can set it if they cannot take the next step, which is understanding that the emptiness of the void is an object known by the fullness of the Self, the ever-present witness. Or, at that time, many inquirers “start” to experience as awareness and make a big fuss about it even though you have only ever been experiencing as awareness all along!
So the discrimination between jiva’s experience of awareness and the Self’s experience of awareness is essential. As I said, the Self’s experience of itself is qualitatively different from the jiva’s experience of the Self as an object or as objects. It is one thing to say “I am the Self” as the Self, and another to say it as the jiva. This realization may well be a painful moment for inquirers who are very convinced that they are enlightened without knowing that they are only enlightened as a jiva, or as an ego, not as the Self.
Manfred: What is softness, I wonder, in Self-inquiry? In part, I never went for happiness or love. Love I felt always. Ideas and teachings on compassion is the wrong class – I am born with an overload and drop it half the time now. I wanted the truth, whatever that should mean; it was the only thing I really wanted: truth, knowledge. All the rest was more or less a hassle, to my mind. I appreciate emotions and also the mundane but not complex issues that make no sense anyway. I’ve tried, and have been drawn into people’s pain: psychosis, self-mutilation, cancers, suicide; I couldn’t really help, let alone save. I’ve boosted up people and even animals, but each has their own steps to make or not.
Sundari: You are fortunate if you have never chased love, because those who chase it will never find it. How can anyone gain what they already have? What do you mean by “softness”? Being the Self has nothing with being soft or hard; these are just words, objects known to awareness. Being the Self means that you understand that, as this is a non-dual reality, there is only you, the Self, and so love is all there is. When you understand how mithya functions and are not seduced by Maya, you have infinite compassion for those who are under its spell. You see all life as you; your contact with the world is in gratitude and humility. From this perspective, you do what you can do to respond to situations that Isvara presents to you, but your doing is a handing over to Isvara, who is the only doer. You can only work out the karma in your own account; you cannot do so for another. There is no saving anyone – and if you try, you will add to their karma and your own because their karma will come to you too.
Manfred: Then the opposite of not caring is this: all day long since I was little I watch and think things through. I enjoy it – when I don’t feel stupid. I get a good grasp of people’s state of mind, philosophy, science, art, qua content, but also what thought, reason, is, its function. Thanks to Vedanta, I should add, which restored the image of “person,” its pratibasika, and how it functions. This removed doubt about reasoning in general and in particular my own, and so I made a couple of fundamental conclusions within theory of mind, philosophy and art, which claims virtually the opposite: doubt, flux, is what one is, thus one cannot know anything for certain. To think otherwise is heretical, deemed arrogant. Insofar as such disciplines mean anything, they have a destructive teaching, not just an incomplete one. This is why I got so deeply angered, it got to my gut – which I still feel. I want to let go, maybe, but wish to fight against rather, which doesn’t help me; I argued the shit out of such ideas. I saw this hyperbolic inference flooding culture, students, myself included, and traced its “origins.” It’s called “postmodernism” as you probably know. Not all is hell, but this is – to me – malevolence, were it not ignorance. I cannot find forgiveness. I do not blame any person, but the event as such. It is formalized doubt – critical theory, etc. I quit here; otherwise I will start to jiva anger. I reduced its influence because it only hurts my own mind.
This universe is endless, boundless, infinite: Maya. Beautiful, ugly, neutral actually, and level. Is it the result of my very persistence to know, only? Nobody taught me anything. I learned most things on my own without a mentor, so I went unchecked, despite having tested my thoughts, inferences, ideas myself. I went too far, I think, and got lost in the woods. The question is: How to handle it? I try to level it and leave it – as much as I may be a kind of thinker, poet, dreamer type; me being a regular Joe is just fine. Still, I would like to evaluate it, somehow – but how? Self-knowledge, to be sure, is what really does the job. After all, to be is what matters, not a whole bunch of complex theories, great and beautiful as they may be; simplicity was and still is the best measure I know of.
Sundari: As I said but bears repeating, the only way to evaluate anything correctly is from the position of the Self. There is no solution in the world, in mithya, or duality. Unless you have a valid means of knowledge with which to step out of duality, which is what Vedanta is, then you are stuck in the game and trying to figure things out from within it, which is totally limited. This is why samsaris suffer so much The best one can do in that case is to reason things out from a scientific point of view, but science is also limited because the scientist, as the philosopher, is also stuck in mithya. There is no point in being angry with anyone, because it is not their fault that they are under the spell of duality, of Maya. When you know you are the Self, anger goes, because what is there to be angry about? Nobody makes themselves ignorant. They are under the spell of Maya but are no less the Self. If the world is not real, it does not need fixing.
Manfred: So, a bit more concrete, here is the riddle and goat path that I see behind me, which became clear after the depression and after your teaching me what is sattva-guna. As much as I aim my mind to Vedanta, every day, I returned to philosophy as well – certain sources. I wondered why. I “knew” it wouldn’t solve my existential questions. But something has happened; my intellect got out of a seeming knot that wasn’t one, like those you pull at once, by understanding what Parmenides, the Greek and “father of Western philosophy,” had written. Because of or via that understanding I also could understand the difference between satya and mithya far better, and it slowly becomes actual.
The (logical) riddle is:
“What is, is, and must be. What is not, is not and cannot be.”
What is, is and what is not, since “not” cannot(!) be?
While walking the dog, pondering this, my mind sprang open, and I could see the answer, get it, and ever since my thinking has been all the more clearer, even though I know these thoughts are not precisely me, Self, nor jiva – I now think.
But by this dissolve, Isvara, as (intelligent) ignorance, became more obvious; it is not – and since not cannot be – actually; non-Creation is true, all is Self. So that is why I want to read the Mandukya again.
The question, more or less abstract, I could read as “what am I and what am I not?” Since I am, I cannot not be. The double negation, seemingly, messed up Hegel, but it is just a funny yet accurate logic. Not is not, for it cannot be, thus not is indeed not. I love it. It breaks and restores, even before it begins either. Self is. To assess, it seems I understand the not part, but not the is part, for myself as myself. The logic is open. Why ignorance-jiva-identity is or seems so difficult to kill off, I don’t understand. It cannot be, actually, so here I have plenty of work to do, even though I do not really know at what level I am identified as jiva, virtually persistent, nor why that should be; it makes no sense, and I feel no desire to be jiva in particular, never had it – it caused me to question why I exist at all. It must be a misunderstanding, and “how” is the better question. As jiva, I did/do want to solve it. So no wonder nobody understood what Parmenides meant; the poem is about Self – versus the seeming – but resulted also in scientific thought; in hindsight anyway, thus Western reason. Since jiva belongs to Isvara and Self, well, to self, the final teaching of the poem is missed; the real and unreal, the is and the not, applies to oneself – which begins as being an individual with questions about being, at all, conscious amidst existence, a fair question.
Sundari: When you say you do not know why you exist at all, that is the small jiva talking. The Self would never have that doubt, because it knows it is the Existence that lends existence to everything. The Self is Existence with a capital “E.” As I have said above, it is impossible to figure out the jiva from within Maya, duality. You need a valid means of knowledge capable of taking you out of duality. But you are not dedicated to it and are trying to use other teachings to corroborate what you think you know. You may have realized the Self, but that is where the work of Self-inquiry BEGINS. It is what we call indirect knowledge. You know about the Self, that it is who you are, but you do not know what that means for the jiva. So the jiva is still identifying the “I,” Existence, with the ego, existence. Direct knowledge, which is the complete assimilation of the knowledge and the unshakable knowledge “I am the Self” has not obtained. Please make sure you read the satsang I sent you on the stages of Self-inquiry. I have attached another one here for you. I hear no mention of karma yoga from you, so I wonder if you understand what Self-inquiry actually entails.
Parmenides and many of his ilk did not understand Isvara nor Maya. Philosophers take the world to be real. There were a number of philosophers at the time of Parmenides and after him who grappled with the idea of non-duality, what they called the “monad.” It is not a new idea. Non-duality is universal and eternal; it does not “belong” to anyone. The Greeks had contact with the Vedics who long preceded them, that is certain. But the difference between the two was that the Greeks looked at existence/the non-dual Self as an idea they could resolve, and never did. How could they, if they did not understand Maya/Isvara? They did not understand the essence of non-duality; they did not develop a valid and independent means of knowledge to unfold who the knowing principle is, who the knower and the known are, and their common identity. They were identified with their thinking and never got out of duality, which is why though philosophy may inspire, but it stops way short of removing ignorance.
Manfred: It is why I made sculpture, to figure out the is-ness of it all – in a culture that is all about time, personality, process, position, etc. without truth. So what my jiva does naturally and why has no place – hence the pain. Could I, should I reduce this all to dislikes and just unlucky karma? Why should it hurt? Why care for the issue?
Sundari: Indeed, why should anything hurt, and why should you care, if nothing is real? Again, who is trying to figure it all out, and figure what out? Maya is time because time is a metaphor for desire. There is no real truth in the world of duality. The only truth is you, the Self, and you are not in the world. It is “in” you. All suffering comes from not knowing this, taking duality to be real. The “is-ness” of everything is existence, consciousness, the Self. Everything owes its existence to existence.
Manfred: Heidegger didn’t get it, but refused to surrender reason to mere technique, and rightly so; but what to do if God – religion – is no option (semi-) atheist as the Western mind is? Such refusal is the best of what is left of Self-knowledge in the West, to my estimation, so far. But I am not an academic, so I might as well be guessing and playful too, still, at age 46. It feels that I dug up an old scripture alike to the Upanishads.
Sundari: Some of the greatest minds on this planet have tried to understand what reality is about, and some came close, but they never truly stepped out of mithya. Philosophy complicates things with endless arguments that offer no ultimate solution, as stated above. Philosophy is based on conjecture and opinion – arrived at through the conditioned filters of individual minds – and is therefore subject to error. Although philosophy is the study of knowledge, of values, immaterial reality and the meaning of life, it does not distinguish between consciousness (what is actually real) and the mind (what is apparently real). Philosophy, like science, takes the mind to be real and consciousness to be something we have instead of who we are.
Manfred: To reason for oneself to find the truth, the very possibility got really lost in our culture; I was indirectly kicked out of education and further study because I refused to let go of truth by reason – to think. It is destroyed by deliberate thinking. It’s so strange – logic is kept away from people; we cannot know the answer to the existential question; sometimes it is deemed a leftover from metaphysical nonsense, with the result, today, that plenty of scientists and thinkers actually try to prove that consciousness is matter. Twenty-some years ago the word consciousness was not done at all – better avoid the word if you want to avoid eyebrowing. But alright, Vedanta, Self-knowledge, is of immeasurable value, and what is, is, really – so nothing is lost, actually.
Sundari: Vedanta does not compare with any school of thought, because it is the truth that underpins all thought. If we ask which came first, consciousness or matter, we need to answer with another question: Which stands alone? There is no debate here, as it’s clear that living organisms are dependent on consciousness because they are inanimate without it. But it’s not so obvious that inert objects are also made of consciousness. However, if we investigate matter scientifically, it breaks down into increasingly smaller particles and then into space – and – the most important factor which few take into consideration: the knower of particles and space. Science calls this the “observer effect” because it has demonstrated that the act of observation can alter scientific results. But it does not know that the consciousness in the scientist is the non-experiencing observer itself: the knower, the known and the source of all that is known. It is a dispassionate “all-knowing eye in the sky,” always watching, always aware and never not present.
Manfred: At any rate, this problem, of subject-object, satya-mithya, has been bothering me for decades, and at every turn people (teachers, others) really dismissed my attempts to solve the problem of phenomenology, and I had no clue about Vedanta. Buddhist thought never caught me. Somehow, I stuck to this, a kind of knowing without understanding, or something like that. I kept to myself ever since – and dropped basically out of society as a consequence. It’s no one’s fault really. So my anger is also this: I, this mind, had and has, could I help it, the existential question since I can remember, took the issue personally and dragged through life. There are far better ways; and the answer is not even personal, but it is what it is, for me as jiva; as a karma I don’t understand it one bit. Besides, I do not consider myself to be a great philosopher – I just “think,” and it exhausted me.
With Heidegger, who was tracing back to something of a truth, I, quite instinctively and only by the nose, followed this trace too, with and without philosophy. And Baruch Spinoza – who, to my understanding now, might as well (have been) Self-realized. His book is not a teaching, but an explanation, reasoning, of Isvara as such (God = nature: causal body) in relation to the human – that I could follow by sight more and as thinking. In that way, I also learned how to think, at all and dispel postmodern and subjective thought. Most teachings are based on comparison and association – or ethics – or if reason, then technical reason. For me, it couldn’t be religion, nor matter – as science claims. I didn’t know where to go – but to go. It’s a blessing to have never felt loneliness; otherwise, I would not have survived this samsaric trip, I believe. But isolation isn’t really healthy; I feel very isolated, despite having a few good friends.
Sundari: You may have learned a certain discipline in how to think, but you did not learn to think AS the Self from your seeking. That you will only find if you commit to Self-inquiry, to Vedanta. Isolation means different things to different people; as the Self, you are always alone – all one. It matters not who you are with or not. If you are trying to communicate with samsaris, you need to accept them as they are and how they experience reality, knowing they are the Self under the spell of ignorance. We cannot always communicate as we would like with others, but you can still inspire with the peace you hold when you relate to others as the Self.
Manfred: Back to Parmenides: suddenly I got his poem, message; its logic applied to oneself. Plus much of why it has been difficult (virtually impossible) for Western thinkers to understand it. (“Know thyself” says the maxim; well, these people knew something. It might mean “check yourself, behave, temper, but I don’t take it to be mere rhetoric or pre-emptive reprimand, nor a command.)
Ever since I can read Vedanta as I should, I think – but you are the real knower of this – so I do not claim anything here. All I am sure of is that I see two traditions: one “broken” and samsaric, and one whole, Vedic. Who and how this knowledge travelled and got lost will never be known, I suppose, but that Spinoza could be so Vedic, I found it a wonder of sorts. His thinking had a major influence even in creating the structure and “attitude” of this country (Netherlands).
Sundari: I understand the attraction to philosophy, particularly Parmenides (referred to by some as the Greek equivalent of Shankara), but as I said above, there is a big problem with it if what you are after if freedom from limitation. Vedanta is not a philosophy and it is not phenomenology either, which is also a philosophical idea. The ancient Greeks took on the idea of non-duality as a concept they tried to prove objectively true through dialectical reasoning, i.e. they objectified the Self, unlike the Vedics, who understood that the precepts Vedanta reveals did not come from them, that the Self cannot be objectified. They understood what it means for the jiva to say that reality is non-dual, that duality is a super-imposition onto non-duality. The philosophers since the golden era of Greece until today did and do not get this. The real meaning of discrimination between the subject-object split is missing because their discrimination is between objects and objects, not between the subject and the object. Even though philosophy took on some Vedantic principles, they did so as though Vedanta is a philosophy, not an irrefutable and impersonal means of knowledge for the Self. For the most part, they interpret Vedanta according to their own ideas.
Vedanta is also not theory in practise, it is about you, the Self. The jiva is the Self too. Ignorance and knowledge are both part of the dream of Maya; they are not real. Only the Self is real, and as stated a few times now, there is a big difference between Self-knowledge – discriminating between satya and mithya– and knowledge of objects, discriminating mithya from mithya, or imposing satya onto mithya. As I said to you before, unless you can discriminate between ignorance and knowledge, you will take what is unreal to be real. Philosophers old and new confuse satya and mithya. There is still a philosopher involved in the ideas, the one who is trying to “work it out.” Nobody can think their way to enlightenment, so forget about that if you are serious about freedom from limitation. Your own ideas will contaminate the teachings.
Manfred: But then again, Self-knowledge is not a culture, although somebody has to keep it, by tradition, such as it is. I understand the Western mind – its reason is in trouble, which is painful and the results obvious, apart from the usual drag of ignorance, likes and dislikes, etc. It keeps people small; I see it every day – such self-doubt, just because reason is unavailable as a power for oneself – to know. One is taught to be assertive, critical, but not logical. It breaks me up. Really, just tears. I hate it. So I am emotional, and so what? It is also what I find so painful in neo-Mooji circles. Maybe it is only my personal projections. And I better attempt to find new work, pay the bills, etc. I paint houses and do some carpentry – amidst rajas. I enjoy the work but not the competition in this market. But it’s doable, I give it my best, and the rest Isvara organizes.
Sundari: What is the point of getting emotional about the state of the world? It cannot be any way other than the way it is. Why not leave it up to Isvara? Where is your karma yoga? You are not responsible for ignorance, so why take it on? You are projecting; you are taking the suffering to be real. There is no solution in mithya, which is why there is so much suffering, but there is a way out of it through Self-knowledge. Beginningless ignorance is not endless, because it ends for you when your ignorance is removed by Self-knowledge. We all must do what we need to do to live in this world. But the dharma of a true inquirer is clear: it is to assimilate the knowledge that you are the Self, to live it, and to pass it on. Vedanta is a lineage called the sanatana dharma, the eternal truth or way, and it has been protected and passed on from time immemorial, by qualified teachers. If you do not have the requisite faith in it, it will not work to set you free.
Manfred: The good is: my wish to comprehend this riddle came true and it revealed, perhaps, the meaning of a dream that I had around age five. I walked on flat stones in a small stream, surrounded by a thick green forest. The light is greyish. Upon a turn of the stream and pushing aside a huge hanging leaf, I saw a stone seat. Its back went up fairly high and had signs, symbols engraved in it. I climbed up the seat, sat, and all was light, glow and home, no image, only being – a beautiful dream that I never understood. But now it seems, at least to my artistic mind, that these symbols are all about the above. It makes me cry for reasons I don’t even know. I dare not feel it.
Apart from all that, last year, while reading a satsang of yours – I love to read your satsangs – I experienced suddenly a baby-like mind, peaceful, soft and some sort of an understanding of just being me apart from the mind. That kept me going – at least I know where the bus stop is, and that it exists and mostly I am on the bus, I think. All in all, much of this is old pain; yesterday is gone for jiva, and for Self it is not.
Sundari: You have made great progress, but your knowledge is still indirect as I said above, and karma yoga seems to be completely missing. Much of what you say seems to suggest that you are on track with Self-inquiry, and much does not. Certainly you do need to be properly taught because you have so many of your own ideas. That is not a bad thing if they concur with Self-knowledge; but if they do not, that can be a serious obstacle to the assimilation of Self-knowledge. For Self-knowledge to remove all ignorance is hard work. It requires the toughest thinking you will ever do because it is counter-intuitive. Assimilation is a gradual process and takes decades for some. Please read the satsang I sent you on what we call the “5-10-15 rule,” and the one I attached here. You have a good mind, but you are still casting about in many directions trying to figure it all out. Self-inquiry does not work that way, and you will only remain confused as you are if you continue in this way.
You need to decide if you are prepared to trust the scripture, leave your ideas and all other teachings on the shelf at least for now, and commit yourself to Self-inquiry, step by step. If you do not have all the qualifications necessary, you must develop them. It seems to me that what would be best for you would be to start at the beginning, track yourself on qualifications and motivations, and move on from there. It requires one-pointed dedication to reap the fruits of Self-inquiry. It won’t work unless you commit to it. The way you write is touching and eloquent; you are clearly a refined and subtle thinker and a sensitive soul. Your nature seems to be naturally dispassionate, which is a great bonus as an inquirer.
Manfred: To clean up some more; food – I fast, once a week, but I’ve done this often without meaning to; I just have coffee in the morning, forget to eat, go about the day and eat in the evening. I dropped all sugar intake. But would you say that the following is good and sufficient eating? Greens, egg, fats (plenty), fish, nuts, seeds, yogurt/cheese (little). That’s about what I eat since some time – I reduced carbohydrates to a minimum. Fish: I was born a vegetarian, and due to you and James, ha, I eat now fish. I was just curious and tried it, and like it at times. I don’t feel a real need, nor a not-need, about it. But if it’s healthy – physically, I work hard, and I don’t get any younger. The last thing to drop is smoking tobacco, which stands next in line to be ended. So that’s it. I wish I could be more succinct and more brief.
Thank you for your work; it’s such a release.
Sundari: There is no such thing as the perfect diet. The only diet that is bad for everyone is the Western diet of processed foods, trans fats, chemicals and sugar. Your diet sounds very healthy to me, though smoking is certainly not good for the body.
I am happy that you wrote to me, and to help you; stay in touch, keep up the good work!
~ Much love, Sundari
