Jack: Hello, James.
Three years ago I was briefly involved with a meditation cult, but after quickly becoming disillusioned with their approach and teachings, I was finally thrown that bone you often talk about! After twenty-nine years of being a “spiritual seeker,” going from teacher to teacher and working my way through philosophy, religion, psychology and meditation, I discovered Vedanta. I stumbled across Nisargadatta and Ramana fourteen years ago and knew I was onto something, but I didn’t know how to apply the knowledge they were teaching. It took another 10+ years to find ShiningWorld and your work. The peace and relief I experienced when the “seeking” stopped was profound, but then genuine Self-inquiry begins, and that’s a bone I don’t mind chewing on! Initially, I was embarrassed it took me so long to get to this place, but I realize now that nothing is ever wasted. Little did I know that during those twenty-nine years of seeking I was being prepared for Vedanta. I was getting qualified, dealing with my vasanas and working my way through the “householder” phase of life.
I still have friends in that meditation group I left, and they recently sent me a promotional video of their teacher talking about Vedic knowledge, which he claims to be a master of. Here is his opening statement in the video:
“Consciousness and knowledge go hand in hand; there are two styles of gaining knowledge, one is inferior to the other. The objective means of gaining knowledge is inferior to the subjective means of gaining knowledge. The subjective means of gaining knowledge, and what is the subjective means of gaining knowledge? ‘All knowledge is structured in the consciousness field’ [a quote spoken in Sanskrit]. Knowledge is imbedded inside of the consciousness field itself; as you become more and more familiar with the consciousness field, knowledge will zoom forth into your awareness. So favouring unboundedness will reveal to you that your true deep inner self is the witness of a body, a witness of action, a witness of the relative world, and is not of the world; it is the silent witness of all THAT, and it is the fountainhead.”
I know you have written extensively about knowledge versus experience and how Krishna’s teaching to Arjuna in the Gita is often misinterpreted. So my question is, why do you think contemporary Vedanta teachers still continue to perpetuate this misunderstanding and slam the objective means of gaining knowledge? I would have thought that the objective means, i.e. the study of scripture with a qualified teacher, and is far more trustworthy than relying on subjective means, which are just personal experiences and feelings. Can you explain what is wrong with his statement and how on earth can knowledge “zoom forth” into your awareness?
Thank you.
~ Jiva Jack
James: Hi, Jack.
He’s not a Vedanta teacher. He is just using the word “Vedanta” to give his statements gravitas. The opening statement is true on the surface, but it is not the truth, because knowledge is the only access to the witness and, because it grants access, it is as good as consciousness itself for someone seeking freedom. It is not inferior, in fact you could argue that knowledge is superior to consciousness insofar as you can’t seek it if you don’t know that it exists. And even if an epiphany reveals it, the value of the epiphany lies in its power to reveal consciousness as the Self, as is the case with Ramana.
The next issue is his statement that the Self reveals itself. It does but it doesn’t. Most people wander through life with nary a clue that there is a witness other than their own body-mind-sense complex. It seems he is talking about epiphanies, experiences that reveal the witness. He thinks they are legitimate means of knowledge. His language is so imprecise, unconscious (it’s generic experiential Neo language), pretentious, personal and unscientific; it’s laughable, not to mention that although the statement that the Self, the witness, exists is true, it is a big “so what?” Scripture, the “objective means,” also says there is a witness in a lot more straightforward way. Nothing new or earth-shattering here.
But what does it mean to say there is a witness? It is only useful if it is contexualized in such a way that it sets an individual free of the world, the field and the one to whom it is revealed. The contextualization requires qualifications, motivations, karma yoga, discipline, jnana yoga, objective means, dharma, etc. In other words, a complete teaching.
If knowledge is to be trusted it should come as an impersonal means and should be delivered by someone who has been taught to competently wield it. The means of knowledge here is the personal words of someone who claims to be an authority. A person’s words are only worthy of consideration if they are backed by a proven means of knowledge. Just because words are elegant, eloquent and profound doesn’t mean that the person speaking them is a competent teacher, particularly not a teacher of Vedanta. Many intellectuals can seduce and stun people with flowery words.
Another issue is the idea that anything is “imbedded” in consciousness. Nothing is imbedded in it. It is non-dual. There is only consciousness, so who or what is going to imbed knowledge in it? There isn’t enough here to make a thorough analysis and it not worth the trouble. He seems to be a typical Neo. He probably read a lot of Vedanta or quasi-Vedantic literature and wants people to think that he is beyond mere objective knowledge. I’m not surprised that you called it a cult. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. He’s got enough right to snare a few people and hold them captive for a while, but even from this snippet I can see why you left. Isvara was looking after you.
~ Much love, Jiva James
