Brian: I’m reading the Essence of Enlightenment and have a question regarding a statement in Chapter 2 on pg 22, (2nd to last paragraph):
“Furthermore, experience itself…..is the only object that is permanent”.
I wonder if you would kindly elaborate in order to make clear to me what is the intended meaning?
My understanding of the statement is that “Experience” is being used as a synonym for awareness. I draw that conclusion because it’s said to be permanent. I understand the argument that all objects of experience are only awareness, but I don’t comprehend the remark about experience itself as a permanent object. It has already been pointed out that no object can be permanent.
I think I understand that there’s no experience without an experiencer but that since there’s only awareness, experience itself could ultimately only be awareness. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t experience a relative term. I can’t envision an absolute experience of awareness, or even awareness as absolute experience (because experience is relative). If my thinking is muddled, please help clear it up.
I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that I don’t comprehend the intent of the statement.
Sundari: No need to apologize, you are certainly not being difficult but thinking very well! There are apparent contradictions in the teachings which are meant to trigger doubts. When they do, you are ready for a more advanced teaching. The teaching you are ready for is Existence Consciousness teaching, see below.
Existence/Consciousness/Self does not experience because there is no duality for the Self, there is only itself. It is the non-experiencing witness of the experiencing entity, the jiva. However, as Consciousness is associated with name and form (an object, i.e., a thought), experience happens. Unless Existence is associated with name and form, it cannot be experienced. Thus, Consciousness experiences indirectly in that no experience can take place without it – it makes experience possible. I think you get this. The question to ask regarding the statement James makes about experience being permanent is this: is he referring to discrete experience, or Experience with a capital ‘E’, and what does that mean?
Vedanta is not complicated, but it is difficult to assimilate because duality tricks the mind and reverses the truth. Yet, upon examination of the logic of existence, it reveals to us our unexamined experience, nothing more. You are experiencing your Self/Awareness, all the time because it’s the only option, you are just not aware of it when the mind is under the spell of duality. Duality tricks the mind into identifying with the experiencing entity, the reflection, instead of the mirror, to use a convenient analogy for satya (what is real and unchanging) and mithya (what is apparently real and always changing). Vedanta is like a word mirror to experience your Self, Awareness, reflected in a pure, qualified mind. You are not the reflection but the source of the reflection, though the reflection is you also.
So, experience with a capital ‘E’ means you are only ever experiencing Consciousness (Awareness), but unless you have Self-knowledge, you don’t know this. The Self/Consciousness needs nothing to experience itself and does not experience, as stated above. To experience itself there would have to be something other than itself. When Maya (ignorance) appears, there is (apparently) something for Consciousness to be aware of and experience seemingly happens. But as Consciousness sees only itself, who is it that experiences? The jiva/individual is just a lens through which Consciousness apparently experiences objects, with the emphasis on ‘apparently’.
Experience is another name for Consciousness means that all objects are reduced to Experience with a capital ‘E’, not discrete experiences. Experience is Consciousness because there is no other option, seeing as there is only Consciousness in a nondual reality. Once you have non-dual vision, all objects (experiences) are known to be you, but you are not the objects. I.e., mithya becomes ‘real’ because you see only Consciousness, the Self.
The Existence Consciousness Teaching
Everyone knows they exist and experience that they are conscious. No one ever informed you of this fact because it is self-evident. You cannot say you exist unless you know (experience) you exist and you cannot know (experience) you exist unless you are conscious, nor can you know (experience) you exist unless you exist. So, your Existence and your Consciousness are non-different. Everyone experiences that they exist and are conscious.
The next question: is your Existence/Consciousness a property of your body, or does your body borrow its Existence/Consciousness? When you say, “I am” you probably think that your Existence/Consciousness belongs to the body. To say probably is not true. You definitely believe it because you don’t want to die. But ask yourself, “Does Existence die?” If it dies, it will have to be born. But when was Existence born? There is no evidence that Existence was born. There is plenty of evidence that the body was born, so if you are the body, your fear of death is justified.
But am I the body? I am not the body because the body is an object known to me. This “me” is my existent conscious ever-present Self. Now ask yourself, “What am I doing right now to exist and be conscious?” The answer is nothing. Existing and being conscious is not something you do. It is what you are. If your body were creating Existence/Consciousness, Existence/Conscious would disappear when your body dies. But it doesn’t. Where is there for Existence/Consciousness to go if it is prior to the body, and all-pervasive?
Now ask, “Is the Existence and Consciousness that I enjoy different from the Existence Consciousness that everyone else enjoys?” The answer is no. When I encounter another person, before either of us says a word, we automatically know that we both exist, and we are both conscious. Why do we know this? Because we both share the same Existence/Consciousness. If your answer to this question is, “My Existence/Consciousness is different from yours,” then nobody would understand you when you say, “I am.” But everyone knows what “I am” means because we are all the same “I am”, Existence/Consciousness. If you add attributes to “I am,” you differentiate the Self into many seemingly unique “I ams’.” But differences belong to the body and mind, not to the “I am.”
Now tell me when you are not experiencing “I am.” You will say, I was not experiencing it before I was born, nor will I experience it when I die. Why is this not true? Because there is no evidence whatsoever that you, Existence/Consciousness, were not present before the body appeared as an object in you. And if you contend that it is true, then it would only be true if you were there to witness the birth of the body, which you couldn’t have witnessed if you were the body. The body is an inert food tube; it doesn’t witness anything. It doesn’t know me just like my reflection in a mirror doesn’t see me. I see it. It is the Self, the witness of the body, that is always present in every conscious being as the universal ever-experienced “I.”
Brian: As a side question: Is there some significance to the term “consciousness-awareness”, “awareness-consciousness” that appears on pg 24, pg 29 respectively? There is a footnote in the first chapter stating they are synonyms referring to “me, the subject”. I get that, but wonder why they are compounded in the 2nd chapter? Is there a reason for this?
Sundari: Yes, they refer to the same thing, the Self. They are interchangeable terms. We must work with words to convey the teachings, though ultimately all words are mithya, duality. But the way we use words in Vedanta is specific because all words have an implied and ostensible meaning and are spoken and heard through the filters of the vasanas. Vedanta uses the implied meaning of words because in order to teach the truth that is not based on subjective experience, words have to be as accurate as possible. Because Vedanta is a valid, complete, and independent means of knowledge it is possible to get direct knowledge through the implied meaning of words, when they are used and unfoldedcorrectly through a specific methodology, by a qualified teacher to a qualified student, so as to leave as little as possible up for interpretation.
Love
Sundari
