Sundari: Thanks for your emails, it’s been good talking to you, but I think you should move on. Though I am not sure why you continue writing to me, or what you want from me, I have replied in detail again. This will be my last reply unless you request teaching. I have no wish to argue with you, and I think you have found a perfectly good teacher in Swamini PD. Thanks also for your comments regarding James’ rendition of the first chapter of his book Essence of Enlightenment, I passed them on. He only wanted some feedback as he is simplifying the book in preparation for an online teaching course soon to be made available on Shiningworld. Many wrote in with the same response as yours.
Frank: Until I came face to face with my Clarissa vasana, my life was quite peaceful. In my own way, I had learned how to not be attached to outcomes or thoughts of desires and fears. I had an internal peace that was sound. Then the 50 year old vasana showed up and my internal peace was thrown into my face. My point is, I have always had an internal bliss (if you will) that was visceral. I knew it and felt it. And then the vasana showed up and I knew that Vedanta would lead me back to my visceral peace.
Sundari: We all have access to “internal bliss” to some degree whether we recognize it as such or not, because we are all the Self. Knowingly or not it is what we all seek, no matter what we chase. The bliss may seem ‘internal’ to the mind, but actually, the mind is contained ‘within’ the bliss. However, unless and until something challenges the apparently internal bliss and shuts off access to it, we don’t grow much. Clarissa is just your Isvara trigger to turn inwards to the Self, your true identity. Vedanta does not ‘lead you back to your visceral peace’, you have it wrong. It simply reveals to you that you never left the placeless ‘place’ of peace by removing identification with the ego-self which stands in the way of appreciating the bliss, Existence with a big ‘E”, to be your permanent, unchanging, ever present nature. That bliss is not dependent on any feeling, visceral or not. It is the knower of all feelings.
“Being” the Self does not feel like anything because it is not an object of experience. It is subtler than the experiencer. The bliss of the Self is simply knowledge, manifesting as rock solid satisfaction and self-confidence. You can be feeling totally rotten and in a bad mood and are still 100% the Self because you are never NOT the Self. When Self-knowledge is firm, you have not gained anything. Self-knowledge removes the ignorance of your true nature and then both knowledge and ignorance are gone, leaving only Self.
The problem arises with the misapprehension of what moksa (freedom from limitation and permanent Self-knowledge as your identity) 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.
The nature of the Self is parama prema svarupa. Parama means limitless; svarupa means nature and prema is the love that 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.
Frank: Reading wasn’t getting me there but I continued seeking a return to that inner peace. Recognizing that Isvara will lead me to the right teaching, I am always on the lookout for what shows up as there are no accidents. So I listened to PD and my inner peace returned. All of a sudden I could comprehend the basic nonduality of Vedanta teaching. Now whether this was because of my affinity to female teachers or whatever, I don’t care because I got something that worked and I realized that, no matter how it is achieved, my visceral experience of inner peace was my goal.
Sundari: Isvara brings us the teacher we need at the right time, there are no accidents. Gender has nothing to do with it because the Self has no gender. Reading alone will not produce nondual Self-knowledge unless the mind is extremely qualified, though reading Vedanta will make the mind feel good because knowledge is what it is after. And knowledge always feels good. A qualified Vedanta teacher’s job is to wield the teachings in such a way that it helps to lift the veil of personal ignorance for the inquirer, who is seen and known to be the Self by such a teacher.
But ignorance (hypnosis of duality) is hard wired and extremely resistant. So if the groundwork for self-inquiry is not in place (qualifications, motivations, understanding of the terminology) Self-knowledge will not stick no matter how good the teacher. If ignorance of your true nature is still there, the feelgood bliss comes and goes. As I said above, Self-knowledge is not ‘returning’ to your ‘inner’ peace. It is the removal of what stands in the way of living it as your identity.
Frank: Part of the issue I have in assimilating James writings are the paradoxes and contradictions. I realize that these are tools to jar the mind out of habitual thinking and they served me well leaving my mind in an open state. But something was left missing. I don’t know what that is. I can only know whether or not the paradox created the correct Vedanta thinking. Obviously it didn’t as evidenced by the fact that I got something from PD that I didn’t get from James. That doesn’t matter. James led me to a path that worked and I will continue reading his works.
Sundari: James does not have a teaching and does not interpret the teachings. He teaches traditional Vedanta impeccably, in a slightly untraditional way – i.e., with less Sanskrit. Paradoxes are inherent in the teachings of Vedanta. How can they not be, given that duality totally distorts what reality really is: nondual. To anyone totally identified with the body/mind/objects, that is an insane thing to propose. Yet it is the truth. Vedanta has to challenge the mind and create doubts to shake it out of the hypnosis of duality. There is no other way.
But all paradoxes are only apparent paradoxes because if the mind is sufficiently qualified to assimilate the meaning of nonduality, all of them fall away. If there is something you are not understanding when a qualified teacher of Vedanta, and James is one of the best, is teaching, the problem is on your side. There are some qualifications lacking, faith in the teachings probably. As I said in my last email to you, seeing as you have found a great teacher in Swamini PD, why not stick with her if you say it’s working for you?
Frank: Whether or not that is the complete goal of Vedanta or whether she is the right teacher is not my concern. There is something in what you say and how James teaches that seems to infer that, no matter the personal result, the student is not fully vested in the results of the Vedanta teachings. According to whom and by what standard? If my goal (piddling, middling or burning) is to achieve personal peace, then, in my mind, I’ve achieved the goal of Vedanta. Perhaps that is only my personal Alka-seltzer yoga but it works and I can’t see the value in continuing to believe that I have not achieved the goal of Vedanta. So there is the “doer” again suffering from having not achieved something. Aren’t we all “doers” until the practice becomes automatic and instant?
Sundari: Yes, doing happens until the day we kick the bucket, as I said before. The problem is not doing but identification with the doer. The spiritual doer is often more entrenched than any other, and can and does get attached to the goal of ‘doing’ karma yoga correctly, that is true. Until and unless the real meaning of karma yoga assimilates. It seems like a simple teaching, but it isn’t, because for it to work as intended, karma yoga requires complete surrender to Isvara. If you don’t understand what Isvara is, this is not easy. It’s not easy even if you do understand that Isvara is an impersonal principle, because we often do not enjoy our karma. But if we truly do surrender to Isvara then we know we live in a benign universe and everything is working in our favour.
Vedanta has no goals. It has only one agenda: suffering is not necessary. It seems like an elitist teaching because there is nothing else like it. The teachings meet the inquirer where they are at, and whatever teacher works for you to achieve peace of mind is what you need. Some inquirers only need karma yoga, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can live a perfectly good life with just that tool to transact with the world. But for some inquirers, it is not enough. Their desire is complete freedom from identification with the body/mind/world, and for that, you need jnana yoga, and qualifications. If the qualifications are not present (and that is nobody’s ‘fault’), the interest and commitment to self-inquiry simply will not be there, and the nondual teachings will not assimilate.
Frank: I watched the video of James Martin struggling to get it. He continues to argue for his limitations much to James’ chagrin and through him I realized how many of us become so stuck in our shit unable to let go of our thoughts. Because I enjoy thinking and realize that my mind is the foundation of my experience of reality, any spiritual practice is an exercise in controlling the mind. Because we live in the apparent reality that we sense, that is where our thoughts stem from. To me, the real value of Vedanta (or any other teaching) is the integration of the teachings into my experience of the apparent reality. Yet you seem to imply that there is some transcendent state to achieve and until one has done so, then they have not learned the true value of the teachings.
Sundari: The chagrin you apparently witnessed in James during the sparring with Martin was amusement at his attempt to insult him. James is the Self, he is not identified with James and does not care what anyone thinks of him. It is impossible to insult him. Yes indeed, most people identified with the mind and its story defend their narrative. Alas, it is ‘human nature’ to do so. The mind is where we experience everything, we live in a thought universe. The point of Vedanta is to reveal that the mind is an object known to you, and the ability to think at all does not belong to the mind but is present thanks to the light of Consciousness (the one and only non-negatable factor) shining on the mind. And in so doing, to help you take a stand in Consciousness as Consciousness.
In no way have I implied that moksa is a ‘transcendent state’, that is a misunderstanding on your part. How could this be the case if freedom from identification with the body/mind and all its three states (waking, dreaming, sleeping) leaves only the knower of all states – Consciousness? All states come and go, but Consciousness is the only ever-present, unchanging factor and witness. You as Consciousness are unborn and undying. The point is: do you take Consciousness as your identity, and if so, do you know what that means? Therein lies all the teaching of Vedanta.
Frank: For the last few days I’ve been able to hold in my mind the separation between my consciousness (Self?) and the body/mind. The world looks different to me and Clarissa is now just another object in it. My interactions with people are different as they are now seen as reflections of me and in each interaction with others, I hold myself up to the thought of my experience of them being my body/mind acting in my field of consciousness.
Sundari: Consciousness does not belong to you (who would that be, the ego?). Consciousness is you, the knower of the mind/ego-self and its apparent separation with objects. It is not an actual separation because though you – Consciousness/Existence – are not the objects, the objects exist and shine because of ‘your’ light. Like the inert rock that is our moon seems to shine thanks to the light of the Sun. The objects are mere reflections of you, they are not you. But they do not exist without you. Just like your image in the mirror does not exist without you, is you but is not you.
Tom: We can never stop thinking and, though meditation shows us the absence of thinking, we still return to our apparent reality and the thinking continues. Only when we can know and practice the separation of our thinking from our consciousness can we say we’ve achieved any degree of spiritual practice.
Sundari: Again, Consciousness is not personal. There is no ‘our, my, your’ Consciousness. There is ONLY Consciousness. The conceptual identity we live and identify with is an apparition: a super-imposition on Consciousness that we take to be ‘real”, to be ‘me’. And this makes us believe that everyone else has a personal ‘me’ that appears to be conscious. But ‘real’ only applies to something that is always present and never changes, which is only true of Consciousness. Everything the personal ego experiences is just like a movie projected onto the screen of you, impersonal nondual Consciousness. Nondual Consciousness belongs to itself only, not the screen. Nondual does not mean only one, which implies two. It means nothing other than.
Thinking happens because all thoughts are mere guna-generated objects streaming constantly from the Causal body (Isvara) across the mind. They seem to belong to us when we identify with them, but they do not belong to us. Thinking/feeling is not the problem and while meditation helps to quieten the mind so that we can temporarily access peace of mind – sattva – it does not equal self-inquiry. Many inquirers identify with sattva, taking it to be ‘enlightenment’. But sattva is an object like any other, known to me, Consciousness. It is the springboard for enlightenment but it is not the real deal.
Meditation is therefore, not a valid means of knowledge. Unless one has realised that one is not the meditator but the one who knows the meditator, meditation can keep one stuck for years trying to have an experience of the Self, or trying not to think. Which many meditators do manage, but the problem is: the identification with the experiencer/meditator is still there. Unless the knowledge that meditation is designed to impart is fully assimilated—i.e. “I am whole and complete non-dual Consciousness” and not the meditator—the experience ends because it was just that, an experience.
Even if you do have an experience of nirvikalpa samadhi, when the mind stops and merges into the Self, it is still just an experience. All experiences happen in time and so they are subject to change and will end. When they do, you are still the same doer with the same problems as before the experience of no-mind. The mind/thinker is not the problem. Only Self-knowledge will permanently set one free of the meditator/experiencer because you, Consciousness, are already free of the mind.
The knowledge that the meditation points to is that you are the knower of the one who meditates, the one who thinks it is the doer/meditator. Meditation is just another object appearing in you, allowing the reflection of the Self to appear in a still mind. However, seeing as no experience can take place without you, Consciousness, and because as Consciousness you are actionless, no special experience is necessary to experience the Self. You are always only ever experiencing the Self, whether you are meditating or not. You just don’t know this. And, no action the doer takes can produce Self-knowledge. This is because as the doer you are limited and no action taken by a limited being can produce a limitless result, i.e. freedom/moksa.
As stated and bears repeating because it is the crux of the matter: As the Self, Consciousness—YOU are not an object of perception and cannot be known by the mind, because the mind is too gross and the Self too subtle. The object or the effect cannot know the subject, the cause. The Self is “beyond” the mind and the only means of knowledge the mind has to know anything are perception and inference, which are suitable for knowing objects but not suitable means of knowledge to know Consciousness. Only Vedanta offers a complete and valid means of knowledge for Consciousness.
Although we can have an experience of the reflection of the Self in a pure, sattvic mind in meditation, this is not enough to set us free of the doer. For this we need to expose the mind to self-inquiry and allow Self-knowledge to remove our ignorance (avidya). Although self-inquiry is also an action, the result of self-inquiry is Self-knowledge, which can produce a limitless result, meaning freedom from identification with the doer or person.
Self-inquiry is just the application of Self-knowledge, which states that Consciousness is our true nature. Both knowledge and ignorance are objects appearing in you, Consciousness. Keeping this knowledge in mind and continually contemplating on it is self-inquiry, which is why self-inquiry is different from meditation. The knowledge is maintained by an act of will. Whereas in meditation the knowledge appears only during a particular experience, which ends.
Self-inquiry is superior to meditation because the doer does not need to maintain a particular state and wait for the knowledge. He or she has the knowledge already and applies it continually. Meditators do not know the value of knowledge whereas inquirers do. That is why the meditators are meditating. Knowledge may arise in meditation or it may not. If it does, we say meditation is a ‘leading error.’ But even if meditation does lead to knowledge of the “unbroken I thought” (akandakara vritti), the knowledge does not always stick.
Frank: PD’s lecture was just another view of the teachings (as is James’) as the teachings are 8000 years old and taught by many. To say one is more effective (right?) over another seems contradictory (and smacks of enlightenment sickness). If inner peace is the goal and can only be known by the one seeking it, how can one teaching be singled out when the personal experience/goal is only known by the one experiencing it?
Sundari: You are incorrect. James does not have a ‘view’ of the teachings and does not interpret them. As James, he has a certain Isvara-given personality which seems to imbue his teachings. You are free to like or dislike his personality. But if you understand what Vedanta is, you would recognize that his teaching is totally impersonal. If the Vedanta pramana is understood and properly taught, as it is by James and his students, then it stands alone. It belongs to nobody and is only influenced by how clearly the teacher is capable of delivering the teachings. If Vedanta is properly taught and the inquirer is qualified, it works to produce Self-knowledge, freedom from bondage, and permanent satisfaction. Thousands of Self-realized people through the last 50 years of James’ teaching Vedanta are testament to that.
While inner peace is a by-product and required to assimilate Vedanta – Self-knowledge – it is not the goal of self-inquiry. Peace of mind is the guna sattva, and as stated above, like all three gunas, it is an object known to you, Consciousness. Whether or not sattva is present, the Self is always present. To the degree that the mind is sattvic (not distorted by rajas and tamas) the reflection of the Self is more clearly reflected in it. But Consciousness is unaffected by the presence or absence of any object and does not condition to any of the gunas.
Frank: My spiritual practice of Vedanta will continue as daily I wake up to yet another version of my apparent reality. What a blessing to be able to witness my subtle body’s interpretation of Jiva’s world. Am I to believe that the elimination of that is the goal of Vedanta or are these thoughts evidence that I have not achieved the goal of the teachings? Life in this gross body takes effort of thought. We cannot exist without thought. Our thoughts either make us happy or not, yet thoughts continue. It’s only our choice in how we want to think that we can measure the success of our seeking. Knowing that we have a choice of thinking, the issue then becomes when. Do we practice spiritual thinking after the thoughts have festered into a vasana or do we recognize the thoughts as counter to our happiness in the moment they occur and apply the thinking that produces our peace?
Sundari: Again, it is all a question of identity. Who is it that is made happy or unhappy by your thoughts? If there is objectivity present and you are able to witness the jiva’s interpretation of its experiences (thoughts/feelings), you are certainly on the right path. But as explained above, all thoughts/feelings are objects appearing in Consciousness, the non-experiencing witness – And you definitely DO exist without both if you take your identity to be Consciousness. You need nothing to know you exist because you do not think or feel, yet you are that which makes all thought/feeling possible. Quite a blast!
Yes, a happy life requires mind management, which means thought/emotion objectivity and dispassion, along with karma yoga. If you are happy, then you have achieved that goal, and all is well in your world. Only you know and who cares but you? Happiness is an inside job.
When you are free of identification with the personal identity, you are not much bothered by it anymore, no matter what thoughts or feelings pass through it, and no matter what personality Isvara bestowed it with.
Hari Om
Sundari
