Tobias Mahnken

They could have turned, faced me,
and smiled but they were serious.
They needed a belief. 

Seeing me always,
you smile because you know me.
You won’t believe in me again.
Think like me and be happy.

You’re always happy because?

Because I know there is an upside for every downside.
Seeing upside’s downside, you bless yourself with
moments of unhappy stretching back to childhood.

For business reasons
you cleverly objectify them.
Bad luck makes sense.
Objecti-fyers love you for it.
“Brave,” they say, 
and you feel good.

Turn, face me, and discover
that I live without breathing.
If not, see that
you breathe without living. 

Everything is backward in your world.

If you don’t ask who I am,
without sorrow I feel sorry for you
because you are convinced you know me.
But you don’t.   

Who are you then?

I am the one that thinks the thinker,
feels the feeler, does the doer,
sees the seer and
puts the love in love.

I am the beauty that makes
beauty beautiful and
the ugly that makes ugly ugly.

Any advice?

Think like me.
Don’t be in a hurry but  
say with easy confidence,
“I was never born.
It is impossible to worry.”

Mean it.

A simple meditation

Imagine yourself minus everything. As if falling asleep, allow yourself to sink away from anything that ever appeared until this imagination itself disappears. Feel what it is like just to be you before any movement of thought or emotion. 
    
Notice two things:

1.  That while this imagination points at you, it is not actually you. Whatever you are is present, fully, prior to the exercise. 

2.  That whatever quality or feeling you associate with the experience of being you, is added by you. You turn your attention to yourself, feel certain qualities, and report them as being “what you are like.” 

With that in mind, now imagine yourself plus everything. Everything includes the world, but for now, notice everything you take to be part of you: your body, your memories, your hunger level, your concerns, your desires, how your body feels, how you slept last night, your to-do list, how you feel about yourself, etc. Obviously, this is now a more complex picture once attention turns outwards, but the two factors that remain are you and experience.

When pressed to describe yourself minus everything, even though you cannot put your finger on it, somehow you are able to find words. It is as if what is not actually locate-able nonetheless appears as a fragrance. It is not nothing, it is you, but what you actually are cannot be pinned down. 

Notice what changes when your attention turns outward to all the parts of you:

1.  Unlike the imagination of yourself minus everything, the experience of you recedes into the background – even seeming to disappear – and an infinite field of objects and discrete experiences fills the gap. You are not gone, but you are easily and even likely “forgotten.” 

2.  This imagination inclusive of everything consists of infinite factors, all of which always change, and over which you have precious little influence.

Superficially, the main difference between these viewpoints seems to be the direction of attention, inwards or outwards (so to speak), and often that is as far as it is taken. Mediation practice an hour a day, church on Sunday, and bedtime prayers are just a few examples of how we turn inwards to “relocate” ourselves. These activities serve as oases of peace and “self care” within our “real” lives, and they are effective, but why do we need them? Why are these oases of introspection so important to us? After all, we have things to do!

We all know the answer to this, even if we may not have words for it. We know the answer because we are the answer. Meaning, we are the one that takes this time out to pay homage and attention to “what is.” We still may not know what that is, but by our actions – which are devoted to making ourselves  happy – we acknowledge ourself as the beloved. We acknowledge the existence of a part of ourselves that is both most intimate and most unacknowledged, your “you.”

Your “you” is not you, since no amount of words or experiences can be you. If your “you” was you, you would be a word (thought). Yet, your “you” is the irremovable locus of every single moment of every single experience you have ever had, as well as of your own content-less “experience” such as in sleep or in the moment(s) before you first appeared to yourself as a baby or small child. 

But even though your “you” is not actually you, it is non-different from you in the sense that it is the tangible appearance of you. Just as a reflection in a mirror is how your face appears to you, your “you” is how you appear. This simple, most ordinary “you” is all that matters. It is all you care about. It is why we retreat to the oases of conscious devotion that we do. Without you, even “nothingness” is impossible. 

There’s not a single thing spiritual about this inquiry. If there is a spiritual life, it is finding and identifying with what is most beloved and bringing it into the foreground. This does not mean adding or sprucing up a spiritual identity, but simply that rather than my “me” landing on any single idea or imagined part of myself, it lands on that unknowable self-evident beloved. In that way, what could otherwise be a flight of spiritual fantasy or quest for experience, becomes an entirely practical, grounded, unsupported life of doing what is to be done, whatever that may be. Only now, as Ramji says often, doing it happily rather than for happiness. 

Take some time to pay attention to your “you.” You’re never not there after all, so you may as well take notice. Don’t worry about being selfish, or doing it wrong, or being too serious, or not being serious enough. At all costs, reject what Sundari calls the voices of diminishment in all possible forms. Finding “you” is not the be all end all, but because you never change, your you is like a giant parachute that allows you to float effortlessly rather than plummet uncontrollably through life. In that gentle drifting is where the qualities associated with you minus everything never need depart from the activity of you plus everything. 

Just a quick question. You always use the phrase “full and complete” and it is usually translated as, I am perfect as I am and nothing is missing, which is certainly a legitimate translation, but to me it seems to refer to a state of mind which can easily be used for spiritual bypassing.

But if i give it the meaning of i am all-encompassing and the totality, in the sense of i am everything, i am not aiming at a fulfilled state of mind, but at my very own experience of consciousness.

Do you think that’s a quibble? For me, these words give such a completely different sense and always refer to the experience of consciousness, while the other sense aims at perfection, which, however, is again only a thought construct and never reached by the mind.

It’s a good option but you need to add that it is a counterintuitive option because when people think of themselves they think they are not full and complete.  Quite the opposite. Why?  Because they include the body and the mind when the say or think the word I.  But the I doesn’t have a body and a mind.  So you need to include this idea when you use full and complete as a translation.  Full and complete is a natural understanding for someone like you, whose Self-knowledge is firm. 

James

I’m rewriting yesterday’s email.  It was a miserable failure because I missed your question.  I’m getting old.   Here it is.  l deleted the first part of yesterday’s email, which wasn’t actually relevant.  Forget it.  When I woke up this morning, Isvara told me to revisit the topic.  I hope this works.

Dave:  I do love hearing from you even if it seems marked by often perplexing brevity.

James:  That’s the truth.  Emphasis on perplexity.  I am completely gobsmacked as usual, Dave.  These questions make me think that  nothing Vedantic has stuck.  I think your memory isn’t working properly.  But so, what?  Mine isn’t working properly either owing to old age and meds.  It’s not supposed to work forever.  It is an assemblage of memories that has to disintegrate.  All the other faculties gradually pack up too.  It’s the same for everyone.  Be that as it may, the Anthony Hopkins story below gives me insight.  I think there is a proper question in it.   

Dave:  Finally, have you seen the movie “Father” or “The Father” starring Anthony Hopkins in the role of Anthony an 80-year-old man suffering from dementia that recently came out on Prime? It has gotten very good reviews on “Green Tomatoes” I’m told. Watching it, I could not help but wonder how it would be different if Anthony had the knowledge of Vedanta. With age, memory seems to be a very big problem for the jiva who has been conditioned so heavily to identify with it.

James:  He wouldn’t think that memory was real.  I think you’re worried that you’re losing your mind?.  So the answer to your question is this:  When your mind is gone are you gone?  The answer is no.  Your mind depends on you but you Dave’t depend on your mind.  If you know that, it doesn’t matter if your mind is gone.  It’s gone when Dave is sleeping and you are none the worse for it.  So just think of it as a big sleep.  

Dave:  In regard to memory or lack thereof, I am so thankful to you and Vedanta.

James:  Dave’t thank me.  I have nothing to do with it.  Isvara is the one you need to thank.  Whether the mind is working or not is not under the control of the Self or under the control of the Dave self or the James self.  The Self doesn’t even know there is a mind other than itself.   And the non-eternal jiva is generated by ignorance of the Self so it isn’t capable of knowing anything.  It is just an inert thought.

I know a person whose mind isn’t working but that “person” still exists.  So I just talk to the Self, which can, with the help of Maya, respond.  It takes an extra one or two seconds for the Self to process the meaning of my words, but sure enough It responds appropriately.

Remember the Terry Schiavo incident some years ago?  Her mind was so gone the Self couldn’t speak through it.  However, it still reflected on it .  But the doctors wouldn’t pull the plug because it was clear she was still conscious and alive, because of the Self’s reflection. 

She was of no use to her husband who had moved on and wanted to marry someone who could function in the apparent reality so he petitioned the court, which said he could pull the plug, which he did.  Do you think pulling the plug on Terry, the refection, pulled the plug on the original? 

 If our moon disintegrates sunlight will still shine in the place where the moon once existed.  In fact the sun is shining on all the reflective bodies at the same time it illumines the space between the bodies.  So when the Dave moon is gone you will still be here shining.  Stop worrying about it for your own good.  When it’s gone you won’t know it’s gone anyway, so the whole issue is a non-starter  .Anyway, your mind is not gone.  You are still writing me, perplexing the hell out of me and generating the same dumb jokes, for which I’m sure Isvara forgives you.

Dave:  Much love to both you and Sundari

James:  Thanks, Dave.  Much love to you too.

Sundari: I listened to part of it. It has a good message if you think you are a person, and ‘born’. These are interesting times, and it’s true that the Field is clearly in turmoil offering many opportunities for change. But as the gunas run the Field, the outcome of these strange times will be as always, a mixture of both positive and negative elements. Nothing ever has been or ever will be perfect in mithya.  It is pointless to want things to be different or to engage in wishful thinking, spiritual or otherwise. Isvara alone controls outcome. The best contribution we can make to the global fear is to live as the Self without fear of outcome, going with the flow and abiding by what is required.

As the jiva, ‘my’ body appears here with a karma stream given to me by Isvara, seemingly ‘in time’. But I am not the body. I am the Self. And as the Self, I was not born for these times, or any other. I am unborn born and not in time. Time belongs to the lord of Maya and is known to me. Destruction and Resurrection are the nature of Maya. They are real for you if you do not know you are Me. I am the only Oracle. There is no need of any other as all voices are mine. There is never anything to fear from what is not real.

The question we must ask is, are you relating to what’s unfolding as a person, the doer who ‘must do something about it’, or as the Self? As an inquirer, it certainly is a time that will reveal just how much Vedanta has assimilated, and how acute your discrimination is.  As the Self, you are simply a witness to the daily drama of duality, which is more extreme than usual lately. There is nothing to do because you are not a doer and if you truly are living as the Self, you are already following dharma.   

Om, Sundari

Thank you so much for your patience in responding to my basic and sometimes unclear questions. The question of who the knower is has been confusing me for a while and I believe I’m understanding the concepts much more clearly after your message.

I have read Tattva Bodh and had some teaching exchanges about the jiva, but I clearly didn’t understand it as well as I thought at the time, or maybe simply needed to hear it more to reinforce my understanding.

After reading your reply several times, I also listened to the existence teaching from the Bhagavad Gita videos again, and read some satsangs on the difference between the eternal and non-eternal jiva.

I still have a doubt about what reflected Consciousness/Self refers to, ie where it fits into the system. Is it another way of referring to what gives a sentient being its “I”-sense or impression of existing (see 9 & 10 below)? Is this why the Eternal jiva is not also reflected Consciousness, because although it is made up of the Self and Maya it has no individual sense of existence which it can confuse as its identity? In other words, when the Eternal jiva “says” “I”, it encompasses all “I”s, which it knows as only one “I”, itself?

James:  Yes.  When the Self is associated with a Subtle Body, the “I sense” appears.  The “I sense” is not the “I,” which exists in its own right.  The “I” is unborn so it is not worried about existing.  It is existence itself.  But because the identified Self associates with a body, it assumes that it exists in its own right and worries about change/death, whereas its existence is borrowed from existence itself.  When it separates itself from the body in its understanding it discovers that it is existence/consciousness itself and its worries cease. 

From what I’ve written below, have I understood your statements when you say: “A” jiva is three things:  Original pure existence/consciousness, a material reflecting medium, which we call a Subtle Body, and which people generally call the mind, and finally the reflection itself”; and “The reflected self is not (to be) taken from its own perspective because it is non-eternal, not eternal as you say”?

James:  Yes.  The reflection lasts as long as the reflecting media is present.  When karma that generated the reflecting media stops, the reflection stops, which in samsaric terms means that “you” die, which is not possible because you are the unborn immortal Self even when you think you are born and mortal.

This is how I would summarise my understanding so far.

1. Self / Consciousness = limitless, non-dual, whole, complete, ordinary awareness
2. Isvara = Self + Maya (sattva + rajas + tamas) = macrocosmic gross, subtle and causal bodies
3. Eternal jiva = Isvara = (macrocosmic) reflecting medium

No.  Eternal jiva = unborn consciousness/existence.

• Non-eternal (personal) jiva = Self + Maya, apparently identifying with a microcosmic reflecting medium (single gross-subtle body, ie body + sense (perceiver)-mind (feeler)-intellect (thinker) complex

No.  Non-eternal jiva is purely a conceptual entity.  An idea that happens when Maya hides the Self. 

• Non-eternal jiva says, erroneously: “I am the doer, thinker, perceiver, knower etc” (Erroneous because 1: Isvara  [Self + Maya] does, thinks, perceives, knows etc, through the instrument  / filter of the non-eternal jiva; and because 2: “I” as subject belongs to the Self not to the non-eternal jiva who is identifying as the subject of “its” actions etc)

Yes.

• Eternal jiva “knows” that “I am not the doer, thinker, perceiver, knower etc”

If it is not under the spell of Maya.  If it is, it thinks it is a doer/enjoyer subject to birth and death

• Eternal jiva “knows” that the non-eternal jiva is inert, borrowing its consciousness and apparent reality (“I”-sense) from Consciousness / the Self.

Yes. If it’s ignorance is removed.  I think you are assuming that there are actually two jivas.  The two jiva  teaching is only to aid in discrimination.  There is only one jiva i.e. the Self. Ignorance make it think it is non-eternal.

• Eternal jiva is freed of the notion that it is the non-eternal jiva; knows that it is dependent on the Self for its existence.

Yes, to the first half of the statement, no to the second because the eternal jiva is existence itself and not dependent on anything.  It is free of all objects. 

• Non-eternal jiva (reflected Consciousness), before self-realization = “I”-sense as ego entity, identified with the subtle body; Self apparently obscured by Maya; mithya is it; “bliss is in objects”

Yes.

1. Non-eternal jiva (reflected Consciousness), after self-realization = “I”-sense as the Self / Consciousness; Self apparently revealed by a sattva-purified intellect and knowledge; not deluded by the obscuring power of Maya; discrimination between sathya and mithya; I am bliss.

Yes.

Thank you very much for your time! It makes a big difference to have you answer my questions as they really reflect my current understanding or lack of it, and so your answer helps untangle particular points that have been problematic for me.

You are very welcome, Danielle.  Your understanding is good, just a few semantic issues. 

Love,

James

Sundari: When we talk about the non-difference between isolation and socialization, we are talking duality and non-duality, satya and mithya. The Self cannot isolate, because there is only itself, and there is nowhere it is not. It is never lonely, cannot be, even when the jiva feels lonely. And that’s what’s so amazing about Self-knowledge, that both realities can co-exist without touching each other. Or even be in opposition to each other. It’s okay for jiva to feel the need to connect, it’s built into the program, for most. But the question, as always, is: Does the need propel the mind to seek outside itself for succour or is it its own wellspring? Sometimes it does feel like the spring is dry, but it never really is, feelings being as unreliable a means of knowledge as they are.

We can say, “I am feeling lonely,” without being identified with the feeling, just missing human connection or touch. So people going on about “what we learned from isolation,” are they talking about the jiva? There is nothing to learn about anything as the Self; it’s really quite boring. But the jiva may indeed have learned that it is true to its nature and loves experiencing “isolation” as all-oneness; it’s not loneliness. Or to its surprise may learn that it actually misses its “fellow human beings.” It’s always both/and in mithya. But if you think you are a person and “part” of the human race, then this time for you has many challenges indeed. A samsari must face their innate aloneness at this time. Loneliness is part of the human condition when we believe we need others to be whole or we do not know we are the fullness that knows the “loneliness” thought/feeling.

~ Much love, Sundari

“1. Which statement is most accurate?: (f) Reality is how one sees things.”

James: It’s at trick answer unless you understand Maya. Reality is actually existence/consciousness/bliss. It has nothing to do with what people “see,” i.e. think they are experiencing. People think they are experiencing discrete objects (emotions, thoughts, etc.) but they are actually experiencing the existence/consciousness/bliss all the time. The Self is the only knower/experiencer. 

Mark: “6. The meaning of the statement ‘the world is me’ is: (a) The world is what is created by my thoughts.”

James: Again, this is a trick answer, unless you understand Maya. The world is created by an individual’s thoughts, i.e. their interpretation of what happens according to their belief that what they experienced in the past actually happened objectively. So this answer is true. But it is not true also, because “the world” is created by Isvara, the creative principle. But while Isvara/Maya, the creative principle, is the Self, the Self is not the creative principle. So if there is a world, it is actually the Self, since scripture states that there is only existence/consciousness/bliss (satchitananda atma). But it doesn’t appear to be the Self. If you think the world is different from the Self, which you are encouraged to do in the beginning stages of Vedanta sadhana, you need to remove this belief at some point. Getting rid of notions picked up during the teaching is one purpose of nididhyasana. For instance, if you say moksa is discriminating satya from mithya, you are going to have to get rid of this notion at some point or you can’t claim your identity as satchitananda atma, because you will ascribe a degree of reality to the non-eternal jiva, which doesn’t warrant it. You will think there is a jiva and a Self. If it was in any way real it would mean that reality is not non-dual, which the scripture states. The problem in this case stems from improper hearing, sravana. Most people think that the word “jiva” in Shankara’s famous statement, “jivo brahmaiva na parah,” refers to the non-eternal individual, the one subject to birth and death. But the statement means that there is no such entity. It means that what you think is a living person is actually the non-dual Self. In Atma Bodh, speaking as the Self, Shankara says, “I live without breathing,” a statement that is meant to be taken metaphorically.

To arrive the non-dual understanding, the reflection teaching (pratibimba vada) is employed, the idea being that while sunlight and moonlight are different, they are also non-different in the sense that the essence of all the sun’s rays and the essence of the few rays reflected on the moon is light. The Self has no thoughts, nor is there a “world” for it as humans conceive of the world – in either a psychological or a physical sense. If there is a world for a Self-actualized person, a brahma nishta, the appearance of the world is known to be due to Maya, not the Self and, at the same time, it is “seen,” i.e. known/experienced, as one’s existence, the atma.

To return to the idea of nididhyasana again, Swami P says that it is possible for samsara and (Self-) knowledge (jnanam) to successfully co-exist. This is true but the statement implies that there are two things that exist harmoniously and simultaneously. Obviously, this statement needs to be unpacked because on the surface it is a contradiction. How can the knowledge “I am whole and complete, actionless existence/awareness” exist side by side with the knowledge “I am limited, inadequate and incomplete”? It is impossible because only one can be true. However, it is possible if you understand that what is mithya,i.e. the world, is as good a non-existent. The fly in the ointment of the satya–mithya teaching is the jiva’sreluctance to let go of its belief that it knows something, that it owns something and that it is real. So under the aegis of liberation, it keeps the two-selves notion. It says, “I’m the Self with a jiva.” Or, “I’m a Self-realized jiva.” Or, “I’m the real Self with an apparent jiva,” whereas a jnani, a Self-actualized person, stops with “I” or “I am” or “I am the Self.” Period. There is no problem saying, “I am a person,” if you know that the word “person” refers to your limitless, ever-present, unborn, ordinary existence/consciousness.

Most people need validation from other people. So stating the obvious – “I am” – is a real non-starter. Rather than garner adulation or recognition, people think you are really stupid for stating the obvious, even though knowing the meaning of the word “I” is liberation. If you know it, you needn’t claim it as a special status, since there is only one “I.” But you need to claim it. 

Mark: “20. Why is enlightenment for the mind alone?: (a) Because the mind is ignorant of its nature.”

James: The Self doesn’t have a question about its identity, because it doesn’t have an intellect. If it experiences an intellect, it knows the intellect is as good as non-existent because it belongs to Maya, which exists but isn’t real. 

Mark: “21. One’s activities are caused by one’s past karmas in the form of one’s likes and dislikes. True or false?” Apparently true, but actually false. One’s activities are motivated by one’s identification with the likes and dislikes arising in the mind.

James: If you know you are whole and complete existence/consciousness/bliss, you won’t identify with the likes and dislikes. You will ascribe them to Maya, not yourself. If they belong to Maya, they are Maya’s likes and dislikes and have nothing to do with you. So you are karma-free. Maya’s likes and dislikes are as good as non-existent because they have no impact on the Self, which is in no way affected by Maya. If it were, there would be no moksa, because mithya would impact satya, which is impossible insofar as something is not real (asat) can’t affect something that is real (sat).

I hope this helps, Mark. See you soon!

Mark: Thank you so much for taking the time to send me such a full and thoughtful response to my questions, which is really appreciated. In fact your first email was so good I didn’t even realise it was a draft until you told me!

You’ve definitely understood my questions and more importantly the answers are fantastic. I’ve been contemplating your answers ever since I received them and even been waking up in the morning with the phrase “the world/objects are as good as non-existent” going around in my head for the last few days. It’s so interesting how the process of contemplation works. One day an important idea just clicks and makes sense when previously it appeared to be just words. I’m also seeing that there can appear to be different depths of understanding surrounding a particular idea. Your answers are helping me to move beyond a limited understanding of some key teachings, such as your explanation of “jivo brahmaiva na parah.” I did indeed think it referred to a non-eternal jiva instead of meaning that entity doesn’t exist and there is ONLY the non-dual Self.

When I first read Swami P’s statement about the apparent co-existence of samsara and jnanam for many students of Vedanta it really resonated with me. I equated this with what you call the “firefly stage,” blinking on and off in understanding of one’s true nature as the Self. Non-dual understanding is a profound and subtle business. What can initially appear to be knowledge can actually be ignorance unless the meaning is fully extrapolated and assimilated. Hence the need for a teacher and burnishing one’s knowledge with them to avoid the many ignorance potholes along the path.

By adopting a karma yoga relationship to life, continuing to develop and refine the qualifications for moksa and actively practicing nididhyasana, I’m gaining greater and greater confidence in my essential wholeness and completeness (that this was always true and I was never in fact a limited self who believed he wasn’t already free). However, I think I need to contemplate more deeply the two-selves notion you mentioned (jiva-and-Self instead of just the Self) and the identification with one’s self-knowledge. Mayais a tricky one to understand and see through consistently so it makes sense why there is the 5-10-15 rule!

Anyway, I’m on the Ramji bus and enjoying the scenery outside the window as we bounce down the road, so everything is wonderful.

~ Hari Om!

i hear all the time the connection with love… but when i look around i see creatures that eat each… creatures are suffering since the beginning of life… and until the present times the highest creature as far as we know (humans) are living a life of pain… so where is love?… isn’t Isvara a little harsh on us creatures? even if it is a dream why it has to be so painful?… how can i understand the (everything is made out of love) concept that all teachers teach? thanks in advance Ramji God Bless you! If you answer me Ramji these questions and understand them you will make me happy…

Ramji: Most humans live in ignorance of the nature of the Self, which is non-dual existence, consciousness/love. But if a person doesn’t know that love is his or her nature, he or she lives a life of duality, which is a life of fear and desire. Both fear and desire are painful energies that cause people to break the primary law of life, i.e. non-duality, which means non-injury. So they injure each other and themselves, which makes them feel guilty, which keeps the cycle of suffering going. They can’t accept that the problem is not knowing, so they blame God. But God is beyond good and evil. They don’t know that evil is just ignorance of God, so they don’t know how to get out of their ignorance. Human life, the life of duality, the belief that we are separate from God and separate from each is like a dream, which disappears when we “wake up,” which means when we realize the fact that reality is non-dual existence/consciousness/love. How do you “wake up”? You expose your mind to the teachings of Vedanta and come to understand your true nature.

But this is difficult because you trust your senses and the mind, which only deliver knowledge of duality, so you see suffering everywhere. For Vedanta to remove your sense of duality, you need to be qualified. The primary qualification is faith in the teachings, until your inquiry destroys duality and you see that there is no difference between your Self and everything else. Most people are not qualified, because they are seeking a solution in the world, i.e. in duality. They want some kind of permanent experience of non-duality when they are already experiencing non-duality, since it is the nature of everything.

I hope this makes you happy.

~ Love, Ramji