Roger: I have often heard, and recently I saw something James posted online, regarding the bliss of the Self, and it really got me thinking. I don’t have a clue what that actually means! I know intellectually that the bliss you and James talk about is not experiential, and it is supposedly who I am. But I can only relate to it as experiential. Help!
Sundari: It’s funny you write this today as Ramji shared a post with me yesterday, and we both talked about how important it is to understand what the bliss Vedanta talks about, is. That it does not ‘come’ from anywhere, is nowhere in particular, and everywhere in general. That is what I told a friend of ours recently, who shared that he was in a beautiful place enjoying ‘the Bliss’, capital B. Who was talking here?
A Self-Actualized person would never use this language as it is totally dualistic. The bliss of the Self, if your personal identity has truly been negated and is permanently transferred to the Self, is wherever you are, is not dependent on anything, does not change as the gunas change nor with the three states. It is always present and does not condition to anything, regardless of how great or how crappy the jiva is ‘feeling’, because it has nothing to do with the jiva – AT ALL. This is such a subtle but important point, and it seems so counter-intuitive, but it is absolutely central to moksa.
It really comes down to not only satya mithya discrimination, but also the negation of satya mithya (knowledge and ignorance) as teaching tools. You just are the Isness, and it does not really feel like anything, though you give rise to all feelings. The problem arises with the misapprehension of what moksa really is as well as the different meanings of the word “bliss”. There are two kinds of bliss: ananda which is experiential bliss and anantum, which is the bliss of the Self.
The bliss of the Self—that which is always present, unlimited and unchanging—is not an experience because it is your true nature, anantum. Consciousness is present whether or not ananda is present. The bliss of Self-knowledge (anatum) however can be experienced as a feeling, such as the bliss of deep sleep, which is inferred when you wake up, or as parabhakti where love is known to be you, your true nature, meaning Consciousness, the Self. Parabhakti is having all you could ever want and knowing that it will never leave you. It is love loving itself. It is experienced as limitless satisfaction. And it does not come and go.
The nature of the Self, Consciousness, is parama prema svarupa. Parama means limitless; svarupa means nature and prema is the love the makes love possible. In its presence even spiritual love comes alive; however spiritual love no matter how pure, is dualistic. It is a transaction between a subject and an object; a feeling of love, for example. When I know I am Consciousness, I am prema, limitless love. This love is knowledge because Consciousness is intelligent. Prema is only known when the doer has been negated by Self-knowledge.
Because of the nature of the gunas which make up and govern the creation of everything, the nature of the field of existence is constantly changing. Having a peaceful (sattvic) mind is not something one can hold onto indefinitely. One needs to gain the knowledge that you are always fine no matter what is going on in the mind, even though one aims for peace of mind at all times. Making sure one’s life conforms to dharma in every way is of great importance if peace of mind is the main aim. A highly rajasic or tamasic life is definitely not conducive to pear of mind and will make self inquiry impossible or at best very difficult. Living a dharmic life gives you an experienceable peaceful mind capable of inquiry. When moksa has obtained, one may and usually does feel experiential bliss regularly, but one does not depend on it because you know you are the bliss.
Here is a post James put out recently– he is referring to the response an inquirer had online to one of his teachings. I have highlighted the most important points. Read it carefully:
James: Yes, he’s dedicated, sincere and blissful. Perhaps he could use a complete teaching but I don’t think he’s open to it and there is no way to actually know; the knowledge stays with the person. Usually, when people get to the Self-realization point, they stop inquiring because they can’t imagine that there is anything more than the bliss of knowledge (*jnanananda*).
The idea that the bliss of knowledge is the loss of ignorance escapes them but it is an important point.
So some people ring the bell to get ignorant people to come to church, so to speak. If it works and people start listening, there isn’t enough wiggle room to add to the teaching so they stagnate in spiritual success.
“I know who I am, I am blissfull” is good, but there is more. The Gita says that moksa is complete knowledge, not just knowledge of satya. Satya/mithya are teaching tools, which need to let go at some point. The teaching tools will only be discarded if the bliss has been completely transferred to the original Self, during the Self actualization phase.
If Self knowledge is the source of an individual’s bliss, he or she has just begun the spiritual life. But if they have concluded that it is the end, they’re screwed. Mind you, personal bliss isn’t the kiss of death, but personhood is still the primary identity, which means the knowledge is supported by ignorance, the zero-sum nature of the apparent reality being what it is.
The next step is no-sum reality…transferring the bliss from the reflected knower(jiva) to the unknowing knower (Self), which is to say, I don’t have bliss, I am bliss, meaning unborn, whole and complete. Thus, the personality is not trapped in bliss bunny mode.
It’s free to be real, meaning comfortable with ALL emotions (positive or negative) which entails understanding Isvara and letting one’s reflected self truly be an instrument of Isvara’s will.
Although it seems like hair splitting (I suppose it is!) the bliss needs to be attributed to the loss of ignorance once the knowledge is gained because there is still room for the reflected self to peck out a nice comfortable sattvic niche and nest on it.
Sundari: We see many advanced inquirers do this – peck out a nice little blissful niche, and they get stuck there. And from there, some become judgmental of anyone who is comfortable with their emotions, seeing it as ‘unenlightened’. But a truly free person is not enlightened or unenlightened. They are free to feel anything and not attached to experiential bliss.
No getting away from the fine print!
Much love
Sundari
