Peter: Most significant was your suggestion that I return to examining Sravanna, Manana and Nidihyasana…and I have read your article on those 3 stages (from Satsang Q+A I think) this morning. There’s much to sort through in this, but there’s a stark reminder about mind management.
Sundari: Yes, it’s important that you understand and follow the methodology, for reasons I explained in that satsang and in my last email to you.
Peter: My grief over the past few days, no doubt a gift, leads me back to my response to the teachings I am engaged in and what I need to do as sadhana to undo (gently dissolve or…otherwise!) my persisting identity as separate, vulnerable jiva. It’s a pretty big issue, and I’m not expecting definitive advice, but I’d like to explain further and ask a couple more questions.
Sundari: ‘Dissolving’ the suffering jiva identity is the toughest thing anyone will ever do because it is so subtle and so counterintuitive. Your commitment to your sadhana seems determined, but remember that though self-inquiry is an action, it is not like any other kind of action. This is the problem in the yoga world, where people believe that if they do the right actions they will gain enlightenment. But the unlimited Self cannot be objectified or gained because it is who you are. No action taken by a limited entity (the ego) can produce an unlimited result.
Therefore, all actions taken with the idea that you can do your way to enlightenment will fail, or at best, only prepare the mind for self-inquiry, like meditation. However, though self-inquiry is also an action, the result of self-inquiry is limitless because it’s about negating the doer. The actual doer is Self-knowledge. Only Self-knowledge removes ignorance. So, for moksa to obtain, though you need to ‘do the work’ which is developing the qualifications if they are lacking or missing, and complete all three stages of self-inquiry, none of this can ultimately free the mind of ignorance. That happens by the grace of Isvara.
Peter: Firstly, the teachings: even from several years of experiencing Vedanta taught directly, I am learning that my mind is only partially ready to appreciate and retain some teachings and their implications. (No complaints here…even my short acquaintance with Vedanta has exposed the feeble logic of the secular, prevaricating, unhappy left-wing worldview I grew to accept as truth). I had to grow up someday.
I continue to attend a weekly online course (because of covid) on the Bhagavad Gita, presented by an extraordinarily gifted and committed teacher. While really grateful, I’m still not sure if rigorous sloka-by-sloka elaborations align well with my mind. My problem is certainly not the teacher, nor my capacity to persist nor of I think, any kind of scepticism.
The problem is more about my mind which is not easily attuned to wanting to know about, and I’ll give a random example, say of learning all about sakama bhakti and nishkama bhakti. These types of bhakti can be relatively easily understood, but my mind takes a different course. How can I locate their relative importance in the ‘catalogue’ of Vedanta knowledge and practice, and what to do with the impulse to want to know the value of assimilating this and every other teaching into a Vedanta perspective? Should I attend to all aspects of a teaching and respectfully acknowledge it by further study, particularly since I am retired and have the time to do so? Vedanta is not an academic pursuit, but at its core is a good deal of knowledge that requires diligence to acquire. I could go on about the troubled mind which follows from wanting but failing to comprehend some of the abstractions within abstractions which Advaita presents, but I won’t right now. The question I have here is, am I trying too hard?
Sundari: Vedanta’s basic message seems disarmingly simple – I am the nondual, non-experiencing witness, whole and complete, ever-present unchanging Self/Awareness, and not the small, limited experiencing entity I have always taken myself to be. Knowing what it means to be the Self so as to live free of the person is not easy, however. It sounds like you are very conscientious, and sometimes that can be a problem! From the way you write, it is clear that you have a good grasp of the essence of the teachings. But as I said before, I think, an intellectual understanding is necessary, but not enough.
Assimilation of the meaning of the teachings is what matters. Assimilation means that the knowledge stops being something you know and becomes who you are. The problem you are experiencing with the way your teacher is unfolding Vedanta is a common one for Westerners. I presume whoever it is, is a Dayananda disciple and teaches in the traditional method, which is, as you say, sloka by sloka. This method is highly effective but very slow, and it can derail some people who get bogged down in the details without being able to see how it eventually leads to the big picture. It takes many years to learn this way, and you are right, there is a lot to assimilate in Vedanta, even if it is not something one can study.
My advice to you would be to keep on with your current teacher, but also sign on to the courses we offer for free online, based on my husband’s books, the Essence of Enlightenment and How to Attain Enlightenment. It is a three-stage course, for beginner, intermediary and advanced inquirer. Although James Swartz is a traditional and highly qualified Vedanta teacher, one of the best worldwide, he does not teach in the traditional way. He starts with the big picture and takes the inquirer directly to the essence and then works down to the small picture, fleshing out the details in a very clear and unambiguous way. The way James has formulated the methodology of Vedanta as outlined in his books has worked for many thousands of people to free them of suffering.
Peter: Secondly, I understand that the momentum of a sadhana springs from both knowledge and insight. It is maintained by dedication – it is work. I have started formalising a karma yoga practice where I write down the stuff that deals with expectations about outcomes. I think it helps. I have learned that the fabric of a true sadhana is shot through with owning up to the contents of the mind and releasing deep emotions, which is not self-evident. No big deal.
Sundari: It is a big deal, actually. A karma yoga practice is essential to all three stages of self-inquiry and the foundation for the first stage, along with Bhakti yoga, devotional practice. Without karma yoga, you will not progress or harvest the fruit of self-inquiry, so it is excellent that you formulated a way to apply it to your life. It must be a 24/7, moment to moment commitment in thought word, and deed. The second stage of self-inquiry, manana, is where jnana yoga begins, which is triguna vibhava yoga, the teaching on the three gunas. Here the teaching on the identity between Isvara, the jiva, jagat is unfolded.
The teaching must be contemplated and applied to the mind which of course, requires that we see our personal conditioning in light of the teachings. It may all be mithya (that which is not always present and always changing), but we cannot jump straight to satya (the Self, that which is always present and unchanging) unless we first negate mithya through knowledge, not experience.
It is not about psychoanalysis per se because the main aim is not to validate the person but to negate it as your primary identity. If we do not understand what makes up the individual, the environment they inhabit, and the forces that condition both—the gunas—we can never be truly free of either. As I said in my last email, it is not about denying the existence of the person or the world, but understanding that they are only apparently real, and you, the Self, is what is real.
Love,
Love, Sundari
