Sundari:  You are always welcome! 

Franco: Iswara (“or Maya” as James sometimes says) although the distinction seems to be clear now – Maya, being an unexplainable power in the Self, because the Self has all powers but does not cause anything itself, at neither the macro cosmic or micro Jiva level, meaning, Iswara appears because of Maya).

Sundari: Yes, Maya or the hypnosis of duality, is the power in Awareness to delude itself, which is a head scratcher because that’s impossible! Nonetheless, the logic of nonduality states that as the Self has all powers, it must include the power to delude itself and ‘become’ something other than itself – apparently. 

When that power, Maya, manifests, the delusion allows for an apparent ‘creator’ to manifest (Isvara) and along with it, an apparent creation with the apparent created being/jiva – the Self apparently under the spell of ignorance.  The exact terminology for Maya is that it is neither real or unreal, but it is not non-existent because we experience it. Therefore, ‘apparently’ real only applies to the jiva because for the Self, there is no creation.

Inasmuch as there is a creation, there seems to be cause and effect. Ivara is both the cause and the effects, though it never enters the creation.  If Isvara did enter it, there would be no escape from duality.  This is hard to grasp because the creation is intelligent.  But that intelligence is borrowed from Awareness and is not innate. This in itself is a big thing to grasp because when assimilated you have gone beyond cause and effect to the non-origination teaching.

Franco: There is no why, nor can I as Jiva ever know why, being an object within Iswara, amongst trillions of other Jivas and, all other very rarefied or dense energy, matter.

Sundari: Correct, but only if you mean you as a jiva under the spell of ignorance. There is no why in mithya but we don’t need it when we know the how as satya. Though it seems like there are innumerable jivas, Jiva like Isvara is a principle in Awareness, and there is only one eternal Jiva. 

That is why the scripture states that when Self-knowledge actualizes, what is ‘unreal’ ‘becomes’ real, because there is no other option in a nondual reality. You no longer see ‘otherness’, whether you are looking at a microorganism or ‘another’ person.

Franco: What is Self-evident is that I exist as the Self and, the Self exists and everything else, including Iswara, is an object known to me –

Sundari: It is Self-evident that your true nature is the Self, once avidya, personal ignorance, is removed from the mind. However, the Self cannot really be said to exist as we think of it. It is Existence itself.  All apparent objects known to it owe their existence to the Self, but Existence/Self exists whether or not the objects exist. Now, there is a head twister for you! The discrimination is always between satya and mithya.

Franco: But to then impute that “I” am somehow higher than Iswara would be mistaken – the Jiva assuming the Jiva to be the Self, which it isn’t. It can at best, in Sattvic moments only know the Self in the mind’s reflection and that the Self is, always. 

Sundari: When the “I” from your personal identity has been permanently transferred to the Self, the Jiva is known to be you, as is Isvara.  It is not a case of higher or lower – how can it be, in a nondual reality? Isvara and Jiva share the same identity as Existence/Self. The only difference is in their apparent powers as creator/created.  

In that category, meaning mithya, only Isvara is omnipotent and omniscient, and jiva only knows its subjective reality and depends on Isvara for everything.  When you know this, devotion to Isvara is natural because even though you are non-different as the Self, you don’t cease to exist as an apparent jiva, even though your ignorance has been removed.

Franco: It is this vision of non-duality where everything makes sense. I also know that sometimes “I” do not know this, but this is only temporary, even if the tail of the gunas happens to be wagging the dog a little too much at any apparent moment. 

Sundari: This is the ‘work’ in the nididhysana phase – rendering residual ignorance and doership non-binding. Until that phase is completed, the ‘I” can still wrongly be associated with the body/mind or egoic identity. But it usually does not last long because after Self-realization, Self-knowledge cannot be forgotten, only temporarily obscured. When that happens, it feels awful, which tends to put you back on track!

Franco: But for the mind to accept non-duality completely means a whole bunch of significant, apparently life changing things all at once (1) a God up there (of any projected type) and a “me” down here is not real (2) all Jivas are the same and the love I feel for anyone is the same as the Self (3) time does not exist, although it apparently temporarily does, for objects. 

Sundari: Yes. For Self-knowledge to remove all remnants of ignorance, which is what it means for ‘the mind to fully accept nonduality’, will mean huge changes in how you relate to everything.  It is a complete reversal of the reversal of Maya, and as such, it ‘should’ be easy to make the shift.  But sadly, the tenacity of Maya makes nonduality highly counter-intuitive.  Until it doesn’t anymore. Then you finally understand what being ‘normal’ really means.

Franco: Taking just these few in sequence means religion, relationships and any kind of ambition to get somewhere or do something are illusions – although as I write this I know my mind rebels even in trying to write these words yet I know them to be Self evidently true. 

Sundari: It is only the idea that you need things, anything, to be complete, that is an illusion. Or that you as an ego are the doer who gets things and keeps them. Once dependence on objects is removed and doership negated, there is nothing inherently wrong with any object. Why not enjoy them for their apparent, and temporary, bliss? That is when duality becomes fun, and ceases to be cruel.

Franco: Bhakti for Iswara appears now to me as love for everything I see, which appears timeless (sometimes).

Sundari: There will come a time when time permanently ceases to be a factor in your experience of love.

Franco: Dharma is no longer a worry about doing the right thing but has tipped over into an increasing love to “do” the right thing as part of what Iswara does.

Sundari: The doer ‘doing’ the right thing is still doership. While that may be necessary in the initial stages of putting the teachings into practice, if karma yoga does not come into it, you are still stuck with the doer. The doer cannot do its way to moksa. Isvara is not a doer either; it is just the Total Mind, keeping the show on the road, so to speak. The deliverer of karma so that the jiva can live out its karma, and hopefully, realize its ultimate purpose – which is to realize its true nature as the Self.

Franco: Any comments you wish to make on the above are always most welcome at any time and are so helpful. Thank you. Wishing you both safe travels to Trout Lake and please say hello to James,

Sundari:  Thank you, Trout Lake was quite magical, a beautiful and fitting end to a wonderful tradition.  We were tired afterwards though, it’s a lot of work and there is a lot of karma involved in getting there and back.  But as we didn’t go anywhere, it was just the body that had to recover!

Much love, and James send his love too

Sundari

James: Yes.  The verse is chidananda rupam shivoham shivoham.   I am existence shining as consciousness.  The second shivoham is for emphasis.  It means I exist in the form of pure consciousness. 

 And yes, “I am limitless.” (aham brahmasmi).  Or “the I is limitless.” 

Question:  And does unbroken refer to continuous awareness of that thought, despite the fact that other thoughts arise and can be ignored?

Yes.  It means that the I, the referent of the thought I or I am, is “continuous” even though it is out of time.

And yes, as a thought, an inquirer should value it more than other thoughts, in so far as it gives direct access to the I, not that the I (or I am) is ever experientially inaccessible.  You always know (1) that you exist and (2) that you are conscious, which implies (3) your identity as consciousness because people may do things to become unconscious, which shows that they are a priori conscious, but nobody does anything to be conscious.  You don’t wake up in the morning.  You are awoken.

The pertinent information that inquirers need, however, is that the I is limitless.  Limitless doesn’t mean big.  On one hand, it means that (1) the I is unmodified by the thoughts and emotions that present themselves to it by Isvara/Maya, which is a biggie because this means (2) that you are free by nature; no actions are required for freedom, except, of course the “action” of knowledge, which is to say consciously asserting your identity as existence shining as unborn whole and complete ordinary unconcerned awareness.  But it also means “I am an unborn partless whole,” which means blissful.  This is a particularly important bit of Self knowledge because it motivates meditation, which is to say, taking a stand in awareness as awareness, which ideally should go on continuously until it becomes “second nature,” so to speak. 

“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

Thanks for your email!  I read it a few times to understand better what you say. There is no reason to hurry.  At the end, there is no time! 

James:  You are welcome.  Yes, and at the beginning there is no time either.  Even right now time I absent.  There is only timeless existence shining as consciousness always.

Sandy:  I think that when you talk about application of knowledge, it is the same as going beyond the concept?  You talked a lot about that during Ramana´s Satsanga and what you said was going on and on in my mind.  I asked myself many times: what it means to go beyond the concepts? We must not collect knowledge but apply it to see what we are. 

James:  Yes, it is abiding in Awareness, the knower of the mind, the thoughts.  It is keeping one eye on the thoughts and one eye on “I am existence shining as consciousness.  I shine on the thoughts. They aren’t me.”  This practice is Vedanta meditation, looking at the thoughts from the perspective of what you really are.  If you don’t practice you will resort to the programmed orientation which is that the thoughts are real and I need to take them seriously which creates karma and keeps you in samsara.   

Sandy:  The most difficult to understand in your email is when you speak about time.  If I am waiting for an event, it creates time.  I have a hope, I wait for something to happen in the future.  When I am looking forward something to happen, my attention is not at what I am….It is caught in the samsara field. What I am does not imply time, is out of time. It is unchanged presence.  Sugar is sweet, was sweet and will always be sweet.  What we prepare with sugar is on time, but the essence of the different cakes is sweetness.  Time and change follow together. Out of time implies no changes. 

When I order a glass of water and the water is in front of me, I do not wait anymore for the water to come.  Why should I wait to be what I am when I am already what I am? 

Hope is on time. I play the role of an individual, when I look to the future.  The I waits something to happen. The I that waits is distracted from appreciating the I that never waits. 

I write this, I think I see what you mean, but I feel some resistance to accept it… This “waiting for something to come” is an old buddy. I have never thought about it so deeply as I do now. I see the face of my buddy, but I feel not prepared to say goodbye. I will give it to Ishvara, till Ishvara accepts it. )

James:  You understand it well but if you wait for Isvara to make you say goodbye you will wait a long time.  Isvara loves you as much when you wait as when you don’t.  So my suggestion is to leave Isvara out of it and accept it now.  You can’t lose anything, except waiting and you have everything to gain, which is to say complete peace.   

Sandy:  You gave me some good exercises and I must now practice:

1 – Turn the desire and the time over to Isvara.  “Ishvara I give you my desire to see and to be what I am. I am already what I am. I do not have to wait for that to happen.” 

2  – Subtract the body and mind when I say I.  I try to do that in meditation. I repeat many times: I am Awareness. I am not the body, I am not the mind. When the mind goes away, I try to observe it and say: These feelings, these thoughts are not what I am.  I am trying to observe also during the day, but it is more difficult. But I will go for it. Observe and subtract.

I have a lot of work to maintain my rajasic doer under control… :-)))

Ramji:  It’s good work, Sandy, keeps you off the streets.  And it’s better than waiting.  

Thanks a lot Ramji for your friendship and love. 

You’re welcome.  Much love,

Ramji

Last night I had a vivid and beautiful dream of the two of you – it was a seminar setting (in person, not zoom) and very joyful. It prompted me to write and I realize it has been a while since I was in touch.

I hope you are both flourishing together in Spain amidst the chaos of the Covid which I am calling Isvara’s revenge. Here in the US we are awaiting the results of next Tuesday’s election which thanks to Vedanta and trusting in the field I am not freaking out about like everyone around me. Of course I am hoping that dharma will prevail and we will not have to endure any more of DT.

I would like to share with you about what has come to me as a result of listening to your seminar, Ramji, on Sat Darshanam.  I didn’t get it at first – what you were pointing to in choosing this topic – but it wouldn’t let me go and I found myself reflecting on what you were saying about Ramana’s statement that to know the Self is to abide firmly in the Heart. Then at a certain point something relaxed in me that I did not know was not relaxed(!). I realized that there had still been subtle effort to “be the Self” when all along of course, I am the Self.

This was despite having enjoyed much benefit from Self knowledge for a while now but the difference relates to an understanding of what is meant by existence, is-ness, me-ness. In the mind the knowledge that existence is self evident is clear, but the integration of that fact into one’s experience is a shift of identity that is almost impossible to put into words, like falling in love – and yet very profound in its impact. For a start it removes a belief that there is a need to justify one’s existence through action, as if it were not enough to simply exist. Happiness is a pre-existing condition that has only to be claimed and until it is claimed it is not possible to fully integrate the knowledge that one is not a doer. 

What I notice is that as contemplation of the Self continues, so do binding desires and aversions that were previously masked by layers of ignorance, rise to the surface of awareness to be seen and examined. It is an ongoing sloughing off of layers of unexamined habitual patterns of thinking and behaving. I love this nididhyasana!! Life gets lighter and freer, despite living in a mithya world of much craziness and adharma, with all of its challenges, which has to be fully accepted as Isvara’s perfection manifesting through the law of karma. It’s so radical!!!

On a side note – I have been reading Rory’s Gita which I think is superb. What a beautiful commentary – he is a gifted writer and I pray for his health and well being as I know he is very sick. I am also listening to Swami Parmarthananda’s ongoing Zoom series on Vivekachudamani – also a gem!

Thank you. You are both in my Heart always with so much gratitude and love,

Stay well and pray for America!!!

Hi Jo,

What an inspiring letter!  You are an eloquent writer.  Thank you for it.  Keeping in mind the suffering of others caused by Covid I feel a little ashamed to say that we are doing very well these days.  The disease, thanks to Isvara, has been a blessing in disguise.  I’ve been able to work on finishing projects that have been in the pipeline for a couple of years and manage the growth of ShiningWorld without stress now that we are settled and I can’t travel.  I’m rested and alert and very grateful to Isvara for what can only be called ideal circumstances.  There is one pesky issue on my plate, however, but, as always I take the bitter with the sweet and soldier on.   

One project that is nearing completion is “The Wall,” a Pauranic story commissioned by a friend teaching Vedanta without the “Vedanta” so to speak.  Another is commentaries on Sat Darshanam in a new Vedanta lite style which will help your nididyasana, although it seems you have imbibed the gist of it.  I’ve attached it.  Keep in mind that is it not the final document, which I’ll publish soon.   The consciousness teaching is easier to understand than the existence teaching because people live so much in their heads where existence shines as consciousness.  Being, isness, is a “heart,” meaning essence, thing that is easily obscured by thinking.  People have more difficult feeling their feelings it seems and they miss the ananda “aspect” of sat-chit-ananda atma which is the goal of Vedanta practice, perfect satisfaction.  It is love but the word love has dualistic associations that can obscure it’s real nature which is bhakti, non-dual devotion.  You know what I mean.  Anyway, I won’t ramble on.  Read it and let me know your impression.  It helps to get an idea how well I’m communicating. 

Much love,

Ramji

I am sure you had a blissful day.  I watched the Satsanga videos about Sat Darshanam, by Ramana Maharshi and read his comments once again. 

I feel that the teachings of Vedanta are beginning to reprogram my mind. These days I’ve found myself regretting childhood memories. I saw myself as a child, jumping on the street, happy. My mother walked a little further back and said:  “Look how interested she is. She already got what she wanted…”  The words of my mother joined others and the triad: interested, selfish and false was in my mind. I looked at myself with regret, not knowing how to help me to get rid of these negative characteristics.

I saw myself associated with the bad feeling and thought instantaneously, without effort: “I am not this person, I am not these characteristics” and a relief followed this fact.  I felt that I do not need to find out why my mother had said this, if it is true or not, how I can get rid of these characteristics and so on. I was simply not involved with the feeling anymore. 

James:  Good for you.  That’s application of the knowledge.  It works.  Keep it up.  Emotions are signs to apply knowledge.  There is no sense working on emotions,  just dismiss them as not-self.  Eventually they lose their power to disturb the mind and just fade away.  Regret is a useless emotion. 

Francine:  I am thinking about Effort… As a yoga practitioner, I have always read and listened about Tapas (Niyama) as Effort. I read Tapas as a doer: “without making the Effort, I will not get anywhere.”

After listening to the Satsang, I saw that I don’t need to make any effort to know that sugar is sweet. That I don’t need to make an effort to know that this Jiva is female. It’s a calm, serene, natural knowledge. There’s the calmness of looking at a fact that doesn’t need to be rationally analyzed or questioned. I could also understand what would happen to me if I knew who I am… It would be a fact… I also remembered some supposedly “magical” experiences that occurred without any effort, when I couldn’t even say that I was dedicated to spirituality. Something like the Self guiding myself. The Self showing itself the Dharma, the Swadharma.  Something like the water following the natural course of the river.

But at the same time, I feel that the craving of the doer is firm in me. 

I read that you keep your rajasic doer under control by dedicating yourself to Vedanta. I notice that I dedicate myself to Vedanta with the craving of the doer.  There is a fascination that attracts me daily to the texts and the videos.  But there is also a kind of suffering, as if dedicating myself to it was heavy.  I feel anxiety in the background. I must somehow consume Vedanta. But I also see that this weight is on the background of many activities I must perform. 

I observe the doer. I give the doer to Ishvara. I give the tensions on my body to Ishvara. I give my anxiety to Ishvara…. The doer hurts…   Acting as a doer, there is no possibility to let it go, to be swallowed by me. 

James:  The fascination is good.  It is called mumukshutva, burning desire, one of the four fundamental qualifications.  So it is a good motivator.  It comes from love of truth.  You are a devotee of truth.  At the same time desire creates time and time is out of your hands so turn the desire and the time over to Isvara.  If you think of Self knowledge as a goal, an event that will happen, leave it up to Isvara, which is time.  Que sera sera.  And let the desire motivate you to study.  Surrendering the desire to Isvara is putting it where it belongs.  Isvara is the part of you that wants to be free.  In this way it will be a joyful pursuit, not a heavy chore.

At the same time, no time is involved in knowing.  Sugar is sweet doesn’t imply time, only knowledge.  And knowledge takes no time.  The removal of ignorance reveals the object of knowledge to have been always present.  You know you exist and you know you are conscious.  Nobody needs to tell you that.  It is innate knowledge.   When you think or speak the word “I” you are saying that you exist and that you are conscious.  You should know that you are free too because the scripture says you are and the scripture is a valid means of knowledge for the Self.

If you know it but don’t feel free, it is because you are including your body and mind when you use the word “I.”  The body and mind are not included in the word “I.”  It is ignorance to include the body and the mind with the word “I.”  So when you think or say the word “I,” just mentally subtract the body and mind since they don’t belong to it.  If you don’t include them you are free.  The body and mind aren’t free so they add a heavy weight to the body and mind, a bondage.

You “become” a liberated person by dismissing the one that thinks he or she is a limited entity and in no other way.  There are people who intellectually know that they are free but are unable to claim that they are limitless non-dual ordinary ever-present unborn consciousness because they don’t subtract the body and mind.  They think that something has to happen to get rid of the body and mind, the “I-sense.”  They stagnate as they wait for something outside themselves to prove that the scriptures are true.  But there is no way that an event will prove the truth because you, the truth, is prior to the claimant, the “I-sense.”  And nothing needs to happen to remove the “I-sense” because it is only a sensation in time.  It is as good as non-existent.  Vedanta says you are always free, you just don’t know what it means to be free.  It means that the body and mind aren’t you.  You can’t say what the Self is because it is not an object of knowledge.  But the knowledge doesn’t get physically rid of the body/mind/sense complex.  Knowledge doesn’t get rid of anything except ignorance.  If you say that claiming that you are Awareness is ignorance it is true since the Self doesn’t think it is limited, unless it is under the spell of ignorance, which it is or it wouldn’t say it isn’t a jivan mukta, a free entity.  It is free when it doesn’t know it and it is free when it does.

But people who know Vedanta often fall in love with the knowledge that they are free, not with the entity that is free, so they leave that entity to suffer with the belief that it isn’t free.  They think that the Self is an entity that is associated with the feeling of limitation when they know the self isn’t associated with anything.  They don’t realize they are doing it because they don’t have a proper guru who would point out their confusion.   They are in love with knowledge, not the removal of ignorance.  If they realized that knowledge is useless when ignorance disappears, they wouldn’t cling to it.  But they don’t.  So when they are convinced they know they actually don’t know.  It’s a painful state.  They keep longing for what they already have.        

Anyway, I love your letters.  You’re definitely on the right path.

With love,

Sat Darshanam – Ramana Maharshi

Forward

As many of you know, I believe that the distinction between experience and knowledge is probably responsible for the success of ShiningWorld and the growing interest in Vedanta worldwide.  The idea being that liberation is not a discrete experience but is the nature of the self, that ignorance of the Self is the cause of suffering and that a valid means of knowledge is the only way to remove suffering and ensure a lasting sense of freedom. 

The statement that knowledge of the Self is the only way to freedom, however, may give the impression that Vedanta is only an “intellectual” philosophy and that one’s life goes on as before once the knowledge is gained, which is true from one perspective, but not from another.  In fact, one’s life is radically transformed once the knowledge is firm, if it has been gradually transformed by the consistent constant daily practice of self inquiry before.  Life will never be the same once you commit to Vedanta and follow the path properly. 

To properly set foot on the path of knowledge means that one should not ignore the mind, try to transcend it, or remove it but to cultivate it assiduously by gradually shifting one’s attention from the mind to the reflected sensation of Being that is simultaneously going on “behind” the mind.

The sensation of being, often translated as “the I-sense,” adds a new dimension to idea that an individual is cast in the image of God, to use Christian language, or a reflection of God to use Vedantic language.  To put it simply we are always experiencing freedom.  In so far as we exist, the feeling of freedom—it’s sensation—is the topic of this simple brilliant teaching of Ramana Maharshi, as unfolded by a modern  mahatma, Swami Tattvavidananda, a guru brother and disciple of the late great Swami Dayananda Saraswati.  One of my friends recently sent me a transcript of his talks on this important topic and I have taken the liberty to transform it into a written document that is easily accessible to a sincere inquirer committed to Vedanta.

Those who are familiar with my writings may be a little surprised by the literary style, which is not without precedent.  A knower of Existence is sometimes called a rishi, a seer, and sometimes a kavi, a poet.  I dedicate this work to Ramana Marharshi, whose teachings about the nature of freedom itself have been largely misunderstood by Western seekers in so far as they do not endorse the view that liberation is a discrete experience of one’s innermost self, a one-off that requires no preparation or maintenance.   

Invocation

What is that Existence Principle that pervades all objects, all names and forms?  Without it no experiences are possible.  It pervades the experiencing subject also.  It is the witnessing Consciousness Principle shining as the essence of the Mind and is called the Heart.  It is the only limitless, divisionless, non-dual Principle.  Because it is not an object of thought, It cannot be known by the experiencing subject. To know It is to abide in It without objectifying It.

Can there be the feeling of “I” without that which exists always!
Free from thoughts, it exists, this inner being, the Heart.How then to know that which is beyond the mind?To know it is to abide firmly in the Heart. The “I” thought is the first to die for those who have taken refuge,out of fear of death, at the feet of Shiva, the conqueror of death!

Thereafter, they are naturally immortal.Can they ever again be assailed by the fear of death?Therefore, worship Shiva

Speaking the Unspeakable

Every day I wake up and look out the window at a spectacular landscape from the top of a mountain in the Axarquia mountains in Southern Spain.  I draw the curtains and pinch myself to make sure I’m awake because I feel a great sense of dreamlike wonder and gratitude that whatever moves us here and there through life daily sees fit to pleasure the eyes of an old man in his sunset years with unspeakable beauty and his ears with the equally unspeakable silence of eternity.  

On the edge of a nearby ridge sits a big boxy house with perhaps a slightly more commanding view.  My mind hates that house with a passion but not for long, however, because the next thought invokes a feeling of wonder akin to the sensation inspired by the panorama of granite peaks and undulating hills that accommodate a vast patchwork of almond and olive farms stretching south for thirty miles that end at the bottom of a huge mountain that obscures the view of the Mediterranean on the other side.  

For reasons known only to the prime mover, my mind has been blessed, perhaps cursed is a better word, with a refined sense of aesthetics.  To call the house boxy isn’t quite right because boxy implies that it may contain other more interesting features.  It doesn’t.  It’s a big box.  I suppose when you get right down to it a box is a box is a box so you can’t say one is more or less beautiful than another, unless it is a gift box from a snobby high end retailer of chocolates, perfumes or bespoke foot ware.  The mind would like to criticize the box with another negative thought but it knows better and moves to silence.     

I won’t talk more about its biases.  The wonder returns, invoked by the thought that this box, which passes itself off as someone’s second home, sports three postage stamp-sized windows on the down valley side, depriving the occupants, who never seem to visit and probably live in the Dickensian warren of hilly streets in the nearby working village of Colmenar, a spectacular view.  A working village, a large percentage of whose population is bereft of gainful employment, is rather plain, not one of the gussied up twee hamlets dotting the mountains and favored by British tourists seeking to enjoy a boozy Andalusian life on the Costa del Sol.   

This box fills me with wonder because I can’t fathom how anyone with eyes could fail to be uplifted by the obvious daily splendor of God’s glory and culpably neglect to install the generous bank of windows demanded by the view.  You might say it’s vanity, but God wants to be seen.  However, only the one who sees, sees what is hidden in plain sight.  Gravity, for instance, glues us to the earth for neigh on eighty years but how many gravity thoughts does one have during one’s lifespan?

The existence principle that shines as consciousness is like space in so far as it pervades every one of our experiences, the variegated and limitless sentient and insentient world of names and forms that make up the world and the apparent person we have been told we are.  Its nature is limitless bliss and yet, who sees it?  Only the one that sees, sees.  Like gravity it is as old as the hills, present everywhere and hidden in plain sight.  The one non-binary thing that will make us infinitely richer than Jeff Bezos, provide pleasure more intense that football, put spring in one’s step and erase the worry wrinkles that supposedly bless us with character is unknown— for want of another kind of eye.    

Itself a name and form, the mind is an eye that opens up the world of names and forms to the secret existence principle sitting silently behind it.  But it is an eye that can’t keep its mouth shut.  From womb to tomb It yammers and stammers, jabbers and blabbers, natters and chatters, rants and raves.  It won’t shut up, yet we love it at least as much as we do our spouses and our darling bundles of juvenile joy, probably more.  Not only won’t it sit still and keep its mouth shut, it is cursed with greed.  It wants more, more more, better, better better, and different different different.  It wants quantity, quality, variety, and novelty—and it wants it NOW!  It driven by an insatiable hunger for experiences that are meant to make it feel secure, satisfied, powerful, famous, virtuous and respectable.  But as Ganapathi Muni the wise Tamil poet who rendered Ramana’s text in Sanskrit says, “it is not an object of thought,” which means that experience is nothing but thoughts and feelings arising and falling in the light of existence appearing as our ordinary awareness.  And therein lies the rub.  We stare at the world like hypnotized zombies expecting it to deliver lasting bliss and all it can come up with is a few paltry moments of zero-sum pleasure interspersed with sometimes tediously expanded periods of suffering. 

The invocation’s second verse says we’re missing the mark because we’re focused on the “I-sense,” popularly known as the ego.  It is the part of you that identifies with activities.   The “I-sense” or “I-notion” is not the same as the existence principle.  It is a subtle seemingly conscious reflective abstraction that resembles it.  Principles are not generally thought to have anything to do with daily living but this has everything to do with it.  Every experience we have presupposes a prior universal I.  So the “I-sense” is not the thought-free essential I, which Ramana calls the Heart.  The essence of the “I-sense” is What Is, the existence principle.  Since it is beyond experience and knowledge, can we know and experience it?  We are never not experiencing it as I, which Ramana metaphorically calls “abiding in the Heart.”

The third verse says that if you want to stop worrying about what’s happening i.e. change, which is symbolized by the word death, the “I-sense” has to die.  Fortunately it has nothing to do with you because the I, non-binary existence shining as consciousness, is immortal.  The forty verses that follow unfold the science of existence shining as consciousness, or awareness, if you prefer.  Pride, willful ignorance that claims ownership of things that belong to God, is a definition of ego that does not apply in this context. 

Before we delve into the text we need to dismiss the clumsy ill-conceived popular notion of ego death, which is based on the notion that the I-sense prevents us from experiencing bliss of the I, which is not true.  Asking an embodied being to kill itself is absurd because it would only kill itself if it thought that it would be present to enjoy the results of its actions, which it won’t if its dead.  Furthermore, the “I-notion” is not actually conscious in so far as it is a notion and notions are inert, which makes them incapable of action.  So on both counts, the idea comes up short.  The death Ramana speaks of is the death of an idea, which is accomplished by abiding in the Heart, which will be explained as we proceed. 

James:  You’re right, the reflection couldn’t know it because it wasn’t there.  It dissolved, as you say.  This experience is called nirvikalpa samadhi, the absence of the subject/object split.  You didn’t think to know it because the thinker, the reflection, wasn’t there.  So the thought that you knew or didn’t know it only arose once the samadhi ended, the reflected medium (the Subtle Body) reappeared, and the doubt arose.  So there is no direct knowing of the Self because the Self is never an object of experience or knowledge. The reflected you can only know it indirectly by inference, which is a valid means of knowledge.  When you look in the rearview mirror of your car you don’t see the cars behind, you see only their reflection, but you know there are cars there.

You know it when the reflection is absent because you are it.  When we say you know it because you are it, we mean that you are so satisfied with What you are that you don’t need to know it, so the mind doesn’t arise.  Everyone knows it, which incidentally is a big secret.  This is why nobody ever told you that you exist or that you are conscious.  It is self-evident.  It doesn’t need to be know or experienced.  When a person has been in a coma for a few months and wakes up nobody tells them they have waked up. 

If you are aware and you don’t know you are Awareness, then you need thought knowledge (vritti jnanam) which removes your ignorance.  In rare cases you can gain thought knowledge by inference after nirvikalpa samadhi or during savikalpa samadhi, when the reflection is shining brightly in the reflecting medium and the intellect is still active, meaning the subject/object split is present.  Vikalpa means thought.

Direct and indirect knowledge are for the Jiva.  Innate knowledge is neither direct or indirect, which is duality.  It is isness-awareness-fulness that does not imply non-existence, ignorance, emptiness or incompleteness. 

What is an object, you may ask? An object is anything known to you, which includes your mind/brain. But with or without a brain/mind being present, Consciousness is not affected because it does not need objects to know itself.  The Self exists independently of everything, but all objects depend on Consciousness to exist. The only ‘proof’ of that is the fundamental logic of Existence, which you can establish by asking yourself some simple questions. See below.

The mind provides us with our means of knowledge for objects, the senses, which give us perception and inference. The only problem? Consciousness is not an object of knowledge.  Consciousness (the Self) cannot be known by the mind/brain, the senses. For Self-knowledge to obtain in the mind, the mind must be prepared (qualified), and we need a valid means of knowledge for Consciousness, which is Vedanta.  

Vedanta is like a word mirror to experience your Self, Consciousness, reflected in a pure, qualified mind. You are experiencing your Self 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.  The trick is to know that you are not the reflection, the experiencing entity. You are the source of the reflection, Consciousness, the non-experiencing entity. Just like you are not your reflection in a mirror, though it is you also. 

The first question to ask yourself, is: How do I know what I know? You cannot be what you know, can you? What you know is known to you. Who or what is that? If you say it is your mind that knows objects, are the objects (your thoughts and feelings) not known to you? Yes. Do they know you?  No, they do not. Your thoughts and feelings or any other object you are looking at are not conscious. But you are. The only thing we need to determine is who that ‘you’ is. And then the trick is to live that truth as your primary identity. It sounds simple but is not because Vedanta, nonduality, is counter-intuitive due to the hypnosis of Maya, duality. Maya produces the belief that objects are separate from you, Consciousness, the knower of the objects, and that you need objects to complete yourself.

To function in this world, our senses relay information from the Field (our environment) to our mind, which then interprets it through our intellect, thoughts, and feelings. But sadly, the senses are not equipped to know Consciousness because they too are objects and the Self/Consciousness is the subject.  The object can never know the subject because the subject, Consciousness, is subtler than the objects. Consciousness is the ever-present factor that always knows what we are seeing, thinking, and feeling. Therefore, you cannot be your mind. Your mind is another object known to you.

Even in deep dreamless sleep, when there is no information exchange between the Field and the mind because the mind is withdrawn into the Causal body, Consciousness must be present.  If it were not, you would not know you slept when you wake up. And, in fact, you would never wake up again because you (body/mind) would be dead. If you accept this—and how can you not—you must agree that Consciousness cannot be negated, for two main reasons. Apart from the obvious fact that you could not be here reading this if you are not conscious, there must be Consciousness present for you to deny its existence. You cannot step out of, deny, or negate Consciousness. It is the one and only, constant, non-negatable, ever-present factor.

The second question is: Who or what is looking out of your eyes? Our vision cannot help but be organized around light. We cannot see anything without light being present. But when we look at an object, we are not aware of the light that makes vision possible. Just like we are not consciously aware of Consciousness shining on the mind (which is inert) and shining on objects (also inert) because we are identified with our mind. Consciousness is not only looking out of our eyes it is all that is visible and what allows us to see. We could say that Consciousness is both light and that which makes light possible. The same Consciousness that ‘looks’ out of your eyes, looks out of my eyes, the eyes of every stranger in the street, and every sentient being on this planet because this is a non-dual reality. There is only one Self.  

What or how each individual sees (their subjective reality) depends on their conditioning, or vasanas, but that does not affect Consciousness, which conditions to nothing and sees only itself. The same brain responses that enable us to see a tree or a person as a tree or a person instead of a ghostly swarm of buzzing atoms, also enable us to experience Consciousness every time we open our eyes. We just must know who is ‘seeing’ and what we are looking at. That is called discriminating what is real, the nondual Self/Consciousness, from what is apparently real, the body/mind. See definition of real and apparently real below.

The hardest thing to assimilate, yet it is obvious if you think about it, is that since you know the mind and the thoughts in the mind, you cannot be the mind or your thoughts. You are the one who “sees” or knows the mind/thoughts. Reality is nondual so there is just Consciousness and thoughts appearing in Consciousness. Take thought away and you are left with Consciousness.  But you cannot take Consciousness away. For instance, take the thought/doubt appearing in your mind: “how can I prove to myself it’s is not a leftover function of the brain?” Who is it that knows that thought?  It can’t be Marianne, because Marianne is an object known to you, Consciousness. So, take Marianne and her thoughts away and you are left with the only option: Consciousness knows the thought.

The main aim of Self-inquiry is discriminating the “seer”, the Self/Consciousness, from the objects, or not-self. I.e., discriminating between Satya (Consciousness) that which is real, never changes and is always present, and Mithya (body/mind/experience), that which is only apparently real, meaning not always present and is always changing. If you cannot discriminate between your Self, Consciousness, and the objects that appear in you (i.e. your mind and the thoughts that appear in it), you cannot be free of ignorance – the hypnosis of duality.

Self-knowledge, Vedanta is very simple but very counter-intuitive. You cannot study or rationalize Consciousness (the subject) because it is who you are.  You must be taught properly because the mind is conditioned by Maya, beginningless ignorance/duality, full of ignorant ideas.  Until Self-knowledge is firm, the mind only ever understands anything through the filters of its conditioning (vasanas).

Therefore, without a valid means of knowledge wielded by a qualified teacher, the mind will interpret what it reads or hears and not assimilate the true meaning, so Self-knowledge cannot obtain. We have no other valid means of knowledge for Consciousness other than the scripture, Self-Knowledge/Vedanta, and it requires qualifications. Faith in the scripture and a burning desire for freedom from dependence on objects are the starting point.

Sama: Are these topics suitable for online Skype?  I am happy to make a donation either way

Sundari: Yes, ‘these topics’ are available online on our website.  In fact, they are the main subject of all the teachings, which you say you have read, but clearly, not assimilated. We have literally thousands of satsangs available on our website on this and all our publications deal with it in one way or another. Do not feel bad about it, ignorance is very tenacious and very difficult to eradicate. But not impossible. James and I are both available for Skype satsang by donation, no problem. We can also help to advise you how to create a study group.  

Much love, Sundari

Did your book about the gunas come out yet, and is it available at Amazon? You also recommended James’ book on the gunas, which I still plan to get as well.

Sundari: Hello, Nick, glad to hear you are as committed as ever, way to go. I am still working on my lifestyle/guna book, but James’ book on the gunas, The Yoga of the Three Energies, has been available for a few years now.

Nick: I sort of get it for a period of time and then “unget” it. I’m 37, I still have ambitions in my career/craft and a family to provide for, and I’m sure have a long way to go in Self-actualization.

Sundari: The stage you are going through is what we call the “firefly” stage, when the knowledge has not properly assimilated and blinks on and off. It is a difficult stage because unlike total ignorance (darkness) and total knowledge (moksa) the twilight zone is a mixture of ignorance and knowledge. It is the time of day when it is hardest to see, which is why, metaphorically speaking, it is the stage where it is still quite easy to be led astray. Just keep up the inquiry because if nothing else there is nothing else better to do with your time! The knowledge does do the work of removing ignorance and if you stick with it and have the requisite faith in it.

Nick: Sometimes when studying Vedanta, I’m asking myself if this really is the supreme reality or just some philosophical mind acrobatics designed to calm our egos. How can we be certain that there is this unchanging eternal principle or substratum to reality and that “it” is what we truly and most realistically should identify as?

Sundari: Just ask yourself, “How do I know what I know?” Can you ever say you don’t know or are not conscious? So, if you can’t, who is it that knows/is conscious – and what does it know? If you know something, can it be you? No, it can’t. Everything is known to you, consciousness, all the time. If you say you don’t know when you are in deep sleep or in a coma, how do you know that you slept or were unconscious? Clearly, there was something there that knew or you would not know you slept and would never have awoken or you would no longer be here to ask the question.

Maya is such an efficient trickster, it’s got us confused and identified with the body-mind. Duality is very persuasive, if you are relying on your sense organs, that is. If your epistemology is confined to the senses, you are out of luck because they are only good for knowing objects, and even then they can deceive. There are plenty of reasons for us not to trust our sense organs, even without the teachings on non-duality.

Don’t get discouraged by your doubts, just don’t fall in love with them. We are given the doubting function because we are supposed to question everything, as nothing in this world is what it appears to be, except for one thing – consciousness, which is not a “thing,” which is why it is so hard to grasp. It is not an object of knowledge. The object can never know the subject, because it is subtler than it – so you are left with a choice: faith in the scripture as the authority on what is true or go the way of confusion and wander around trying to figure it out yourself, which you of all people know has not worked and does not work, because the truth is not “out there.” And in the spiritual world, it’s the blind leading the blind, for the most part. Though some teachings are better than others and have some of the truth, none other than Vedanta has all of it, plus a methodology that works to remove ignorance, if you are qualified and stick with Self-inquiry.

Nick: Another doubt that comes up is that I’m not sure that I fully understand why something is said to be real only if it is changeless, because we have no real evidence of anything changeless, do we? What if the nature of consciousness is just as fleeting and constantly changing as everything in mithya? How can we be sure that awareness existed before the Creation? Is the answer because it was intelligently created?

Sundari: The evidence that there is something changeless is simply the irreducible fact that there is only one invariable factor in all our experiences: consciousness. An invariable factor is one that cannot be removed, therefore is always present and never changes. If this were not the case, as I pointed out above, how would you know anything, how would you be able to question or doubt? You would not. You would not exist or you would be six foot under. It is also an irreducible fact that everything else in this world is always changing and not always present. You can loosely equate consciousness with the concept of time (I say loosely because consciousness is not in time; time is an object known to it, like space). The saying goes that time passes quickly or slowly, depending on your point of view. But time never passes, we pass – if you are identified with the body, that is. So it is with the unchanging witness, consciousness. It never passes, because it is always present regardless of whether or not a body appears before it.

It’s the chicken-and-the-egg theory: which comes first? Well, without consciousness there would be no chicken or egg. As long as you think matter is real, you need a cause for it. Then the sat (existence) “aspect” of the Self is responsible for the material Creation. But matter is purely a projection. When you dig into it, it resolves into existence/consciousness, the substratum. Even our current scientific knowledge knows this.

Here is the long version of the teaching on this:

Why Is It Logical that Consciousness Is My True Nature?

The logical approach to non-duality as a means to explain the Creation, while useful, breaks down (from the jiva perspective) when it comes to the analysis of the cause of the universe. Deductive reasoning will only get you so far because the only means of knowledge available for it are the senses (perception and inference), which without Self-knowledge are mithya and are stuck in mithya. The difficulty modern science has in understanding the origin of the universe is a good example of this. It can reason up to the point where it understands that there must be a moment when the Creation began – but it cannot tell us what happened at the point of creation or before it began.

Quantum physics, the most advanced theory in physics to date, cannot go beyond the Big Bang, even though in essence it conclusively proves that objects exist only from the point of view of the observer, the body-mind. The reason for this is that non-duality is a state (it’s not a state, but I use the term here advisedly) from which there is no information to reason. If it’s non-dual, there are no objects, no time and no experience. Non-dual means “nothing other than.” Science will be stuck at this point until it understands what consciousness is – which it won’t unless Self-knowledge removes ignorance for the individual scientist.

If we apply just a modicum of logic we can reason that there had to be something before the appearance of objects. Nothing comes from nothing, although science illogically tries to prove that consciousness comes from objects. If that is the case, where did the objects come from? What was there prior to the objects to make them manifest cannot be answered with the syllogisms of this kind of deductive reasoning. But there had to be something there before the appearance of objects, something that the Big Bang banged from. If we take clay as a good analogy – clay as it is is just undifferentiated mud. But before the pot can appear, there must be clay.

Clay is one thing, but when the potter creates a pot it assumes a name and a form and seems to become something else. But the sculpture is not something else; nothing has been added to the clay other than name and form. The clay was there before during and after the pot or sculpture appears. If we destroy the pot, we will see the five elements which make up the clay from which it came. And if we break it down further and look at its particles under a microscope, eventually we see “empty” space – which is not empty at all, because it is existence itself. We cannot get rid of the particles; they will dissolve back into the substratum and become clay again. As we know, matter equals energy and cannot be destroyed.

Existence, consciousness, was there before the appearance of the Creation, during and “after” it is withdrawn back into consciousness at the end of the Creation cycle. We can never get rid of the substratum, existence. It is always present underpinning and supporting all objects or they could not exist. Science calls pure existence the “unified field,” and in theory I agree with this. If an object appears before you, consciousness appears before you in a different form. It may not be conscious, as it is only a reflection, but it is nonetheless consciousness – although consciousness is not it. It can only be consciousness because the nature of reality is non-dual consciousness. Only when Maya appears does a Creation appear in name and form, which (seems to) obscure existence, consciousness. Before that, there was only nameless, formless undifferentiated consciousness, with all powers present in it, including the power to obscure.

The materialists argue that there is no way to verify non-duality, which is true from the dualistic standpoint from which they look at it. If your epistemology for knowing anything is the senses, the only knowledge you can gain is through inference, based on perception, which is not capable of knowing or understanding consciousness, because it is an effect, the subject. The effect or subject cannot understand the cause, the object. Consciousness/existence is not an object of perception, because it is that which makes perception possible. There is no way from within the Creation to understand this. It is only through the Vedanta pramana that ignorance of the true nature of reality can be removed by Self-knowledge. Even the scientist must agree that there is no evidence other than that gained by the senses that the Creation is anything more than an appearance, one that we take to be real. But it is not real, as we know. Real, as you know, is defined by “that which is always present and unchanging,” which can only be ascribed to the consciousness supporting all objects, the only constant, invariable factor.

No sense organ is capable of perceiving the substance of all objects, consciousness. The senses are only capable of perceiving the properties of objects (sound, colour, shape, texture, taste, smell), and not an actual, existent object. Name and form may hide the true nature of existence, but it does not alter it. With the Vedanta pramana we can investigate the nature of reality through Self-inquiry by analyzing the relationship between name, form and consciousness.

You can also arrive at the same conclusion by an analysis of the objects themselves. It should be easy to see that an object like a thought is made of consciousness. It is not so easy to see that the physical objects are made of consciousness. But as mentioned above, if we investigate matter scientifically, it breaks down into particles and space and the knower of particles and space, i.e. you, consciousness. Material science cannot make the obvious connection of matter and consciousness, because (as stated but bears repeating) it relies on perception and inference as a means of knowledge. It does not realize that perception is an object known to consciousness in the form of the scientist and that perception is consciousness. Mayamakes it seem as if consciousness is an object when it is actually the subject.

Maya also makes the individual jiva think that it is a unique entity, separate from all other entities and objects. But a jiva is not what it seems either. Jiva is really consciousness – appearing as matter. So the relationship between the three seemingly separate factors jiva, jagat, Isvara/Maya (which creates the material world out of consciousness), is pure consciousness/existence – you.

If you look at the Creation, where does it exist? Have you ever actually seen a Creation? Nobody has. You have only experienced the objects that appear to you at any moment, and these objects are not separate from the thoughts that make them up. Creation is only an idea, a thought. When that thought appears in you, the mind imagines the totality of objects by inference, but those objects are never directly experienced. All that is directly experienced is you, consciousness, and the properties of objects. The only issue left to resolve is whether or not consciousness or matter is primary. Which came first? When we use the world “first” we mean, which stands alone? Does matter exist prior to consciousness so that we can still have matter without consciousness? No. You cannot separate an object from the consciousness of the object.

In other words, objects are not conscious. They do not know themselves or other objects. Consciousness is not conscious in the way we understand what it means to be conscious. Isvara associated with Maya is conscious (although it is not a jiva, or person) and is not modified by ignorance/Maya (the gunas). Isvara is conscious because with the appearance of Maya there is something for consciousness to be to be conscious of, i.e. objects. Consciousness is “prior” to matter in the sense that matter depends on consciousness. Consciousness stands alone. It is the first “principle” out of which everything arises.

Finally, as we have established that you cannot get something out of nothing, so if matter depends on consciousness, it must come from consciousness. Therefore the effect (matter) is just an apparent transformation of the cause, consciousness. It is not an actual transformation, because if it were, consciousness would have lost its limitless nature when it transformed into matter. It would have become limited, bound by time and space – and there would be no sentient objects and no movement possible in the Creation. Matter (subtle and gross objects) arise in you, consciousness, which if you think about it is actually your (unexamined) experience.