This satsang is a conversation with a friend who teaches Vedanta
Dear ….
It’s clear you understand the teaching so there is nothing to add but your email inspired me to write it in my own words while retaining some of your words, the formulation of which may be useful in the sense that since your students trust you, I think they might benefit by moving beyond most of the Sanskrit as I have done. Emphasis on the means often obscures the end. Of course we love Vedanta but Vedanta is a means of knowledge that removes the desire for knowledge, which means that “that I” needs to become “this I,” an intimate I…me. Of course we need to retain certain very nuanced concepts for which English is inadequate like dharma, gunas, upadhi, bhakti, Isvara and a few others. Even satya and mithya could be replaced with real and seemingly real, but most of the teachings travel well into English, which eliminates the student’s tendency to simply memorize concepts, particularly when the English is wielded by someone who has actualized the knowledge or is in the process of actualizing it and is committed to the Vedanta sampradaya. I start out my here reply relating to the Sanskrit but gradually eliminate it as do you in the poem at the end. When I first started teaching I used a lot of Sanskrit and defined the terms but as my audience grew I explained the teachings in English and added the appropriate Sanskrit word in parentheses at the end, which keeps the idea of the tradition alive AND points out that knowledge is beyond language. It has not detracted from the teaching at all. Even the bulk of Swami P’s teaching is English although the heavy use of Sanskrit is appropriate as he wants to keep the Indian sampradaya alive.
Anyway, I trust you are well and settling nicely into your new situation. Season’s greetings to you and your lovely wife! Everything is fine here. The external sun is warm and shines ever-brightly as does myself the seemingly inner sun. Blessings all around.
Love,
Ram
Freedom and Bondage
Inquirer: The jiva (an individual) is neither free nor bound. The jiva, the idea of liberation and the idea of being bound are all seemingly real or subject to change (mithya), meaning not real. The jiva is only “apparently real”. Since reality is non-dual, the jiva and the self are one. Brahman alone is satya, the world is mithya and the jiva and brahman are non-different, as Shankara says, “Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah”. Is this reasoning correct?
Vedanta: The reasoning is correct but more explanation would be helpful. The first sentence “The jiva is neither free nor bound”, should employ the word “jivatma” rather than jiva. Even though Shankara uses the word jiva, he means jivatma because jivatma is non-different from existence shining as consciousness (brahman), but not jiva. Jiva is different from everything; it is pure duality. The word “jivatma” means all-pervading consciousness. What does consciousness pervade? It pervades forms (bodies), which causes them to gain sentiency, life and movement. Just as sunlight is the manifestation of the sun and reveals the planets in its light, small ‘c’ consciousness (cidabhasa) is the manifestation or reflection of all-pervading consciousness in the mind. The reflected consciousness in the mind, disappears (becomes unmanifest) in deep sleep or in coma but it doesn’t cease to exist. If it did the waking state entity would not wake up in the morning.
Inquirer: Our inherent nature, existence shining as consciousness (brahman) is universal pure consciousness, which is neither bound or free.
Vedanta: Yes, however, to say it. is “inherent” means that it inheres in things but that is impossible because it is limitless, and things are limited so it cannot be packed into them. It is more accurate to say that that things exist “in” it. But this formulation is not strictly correct because a form cannot pervade its essence (existence shining as consciousness). The only way this statement works is to define the word “in” as “within the scope of consciousness.” For instance the eye sees a bird but the eye is unaffected by what it sees. When another object (thought)…let’s say a dog…presents itself the eye only sees a dog. The eye is unaffected by the bird or dog thought. Similarly consciousness is unaffected by what it reveals. But even this formulation causes the duality problem since it indicates the presence of two objects. So the only way out is to say that there are “not two” two principles and leave the rest to the implied meaning. The implied meaning is that there is only one principle “in” reality, which also implies two, which implies many. But that’s as far as words can go. A teacher is required to make this subtle point because the scripture is actually saying you are that one impersonal principle that exists and that is you.
Satya and Mithya, the Essence of Vedanta, are NOT DUALITY
Because Mithya does NOT affect ME
From the viewpoint of Consciousness, there is no duality, no satyam nor mithya, no liberation or freedom because there is no bondage present “in” it. The last line of the 6th verse of Nirvana Shatkam by Shankara, “nai’va muktir na bandhah” means there is no liberation nor bondage for consciousness. Reality is only pure existence (sat), shining as unborn unconditioned awareness (chit). Unborn means that there is no duality which implies that the self or essence (atma) is completely full or satisfied (ananda). But the words “full”, “satisfied” and “presence” imply duality too. Even being (sat) implies non-being, which is duality. However, all words are dualistic because the need to communicate only appeared when created entities appeared billions of years after the cosmos was born and words are all sentient created entities have to understand their existence, apart from the “innate” self-evident understanding that they exist and are conscious. So Vedanta uses words until their meaning removes ignorance. Once your ignorance is gone, you don’t need revealing words (knowledge) any more. The only truthful statement you can make is “I am,” knowing that any words that modify the self don’t modify it at all. The consciousness that existed before the cosmos appeared as the same consciousness because of which things are experienced and known now.
The conceptual non-eternal jiva has a mind and body which are matter and this mind-body personality thinks it is bound, trapped in samsara (changed by what happens) from birth. It is the default condition of the jiva. Hence it becomes a seeker because bondage is not natural. Freedom, however, is natural. Consciousness does not need to seek because it is always satisfied. But it “seemingly seeks,” which means it doesn’t actually seek. Through Vedanta, a qualified jiva gains Self-knowledge, overcomes Self-ignorance and recognises the Consciousness which is always and already present and revealed. AS itself. Hence, jiva is seemingly bound and is seemingly freed.
So, if the whole universe and all individuals are only seeming, then there is only brahman, ordinary consciousness. It is only from this viewpoint that we can now say: “Jiva is Brahman”. It is only from this viewpoint that everything other than me seems real. The word ‘real’ means ‘always present and never changes’.
The enigma of Vedanta (advaita is not an enigma because two objects are necessary to produce an enigma) is that Vedanta provisionally accepts duailty only to remove it at the right time. This is what Gaudapada points to in the Mandukya Upanishad.
I, existence shining as consciousness,
always present and always alone
am completely satisfied.
If this is true
what is everything else?
It is only name and form
Which too are only me.
I appear as the substate
and masquerade as all names and forms
but I am always present and unappeared
and unappreciated.
What a trickster I am.
Enjoy my magic.
I am one reality without a second
standing alone forever.
Listen to my teaching
and seek me.
