Sundari: Thank you for your feedback and appreciation. Our reward is knowing how much these teachings transform people’s lives.

Danielle: This seems to me proper due diligence while adjusting this life to fit Vedanta, especially since it directly affects my work. For 12 years I have already been teaching and guiding others in taking a new perspective for relating to and caring for horses. There has always been a spiritual component to this as it came to me from my teachers in this area, but until Vedanta came to me it remained muddled in duality.

I realize it may sound like I think I’m inventing something new by saying I see the horse is symbolic in terms of Jnana yoga. That’s not the case. I’m aware of the existing Vedic metaphor of the horse and chariot as a symbol for managing the gross and subtle bodies. And I am also aware of the horse symbology in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, though I admit to not having yet fully read it. My point is that there is a niche of people who engage with actual horses and who exhibit a belief in a spiritual purpose of such relationships within the framework of seeing the horse for his own sake and not someone to be controlled for the benefit of ego. However, this spiritual and religious impulse usually becomes simply another samsaric exercise rife with magical thinking and virtue seeking/attachment because the nondual perspective does not get clearly explained. I wish to explain it from the perspective of the Self.

Sundari: I understand your reverence for the horse, having been a keen rider myself for many years, I had my first horse in my late teens. My daughter had a special affinity and connection with horses from a very young age too and had her own horse for many years. The horse symbol is indeed interesting and used widely in cultures and spiritual paths east and west. It has always had a mystical component, such as in the tales of the indigenous people of America. In the Hindu tradition, the horse and chariot are of course a good metaphor for the mind and the senses—who or what is driving the chariot is the defining factor in terms of the jiva’s life experience.

I get what you mean about the horse as a symbol of jnana yoga too. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that he must put all his energy into the ‘steed of yoga’, meaning he must put all his faith in the scripture. He uses the powerful horse as a symbol, not for jnana per se, but for it as the means, yoga. In other words, once you trust the scripture/Vedanta to carry you, and Self-knowledge will take you where nothing else can, freedom from and for the jiva (moksa).

A similar metaphor we use is the Vedanta bus. Once you are on board, you can put your heavy suitcase down (life/jiva issues) and trust the bus (scripture) to take you to your destination (moksa). Which of course in either case is not a destination because you are and always have been ‘there’! But if there is ignorance standing in the way of that knowledge you are bound by ignorance and suffer.

But there is a codicil to either metaphor. One must be qualified to ride the horse or have the right ticket to board the bus. And if so, one must stay on the horse/bus. Meaning, we must have the requisite qualifications for self-inquiry, we must be properly taught by a qualified teacher, totally dedicated to self-inquiry, and we must apply the teachings to our lives, or we will not go the distance. So self-inquiry (jnana yoga) will not work to produce Self-knowledge, moksa. We will not get to our destination.

In this metaphor, I can see that the work you do to help people connect with horses as a vehicle to impart karma yoga and rudimentary guna yoga could be very helpful. Even though all objects are mithya, it is possible to see anything as a symbol of the Self as everything is a reflection of it. The horse in particular being such a powerful, noble and magnificent animal, giving humans so much (and suffering a great deal because of them too), lends itself well as a symbol of purity and eternal truth. But from what I understand what you teach is not really about the horse; what you do is psychological counseling, really. Jnana yoga, or triguna vibhava yoga, unfolds Isvara’s psychological order, and karma yoga is the most powerful tool to manage the ego and the senses, the horse. An unskilled rider will not last long on a runaway horse, just as without Self-knowledge managing the mind (the chariot) we are powerless against binding vasanas. As stated, it all depends on what is in charge of the chariot.

Vedanta’s defining message is that your true nature is Consciousness, the Self, you are unborn undying, ever-present, whole and complete, and require nothing to be happy. Nothing gives this truth to you or takes it away. The teachings do not give you anything you do not have; they are purely to remove the ignorance standing in the way of you appreciating your true nature as truth. But while it is relatively easy to realize the Self, it is quite another to actualize Self-knowledge. This is where all the ‘work’ of both teaching and self-inquiry takes place, in deconstructing mithya to negate it. While freedom is about discriminating satya (that which is always present and unchanging, the Self) from mithya (that which is not always present and unchanging, the jiva/world) how are we to be free of mithya unless we understand it in light of Vedanta? Therefore, as we are already the Self, completing all three stages of self-inquiry, srvanna, manana, and nididhysana, is about negating mithya so that Self-knowledge actualizes. Meaning, we are permanently free of the jiva, and the jiva lives a great life.

As everything in mithya is subject to Isvara, the giver of results, and to the gunas, which condition all objects, I can see how karma yoga and guna yoga apply in connecting to horses, as it does to anything else. Even for an unqualified person, knowledge of these two practices improves anyone’s life and can be ‘de-coupled so to speak, from traditional Vedanta. If someone does not have the qualifications for self-inquiry, they can still benefit greatly from secular karma yoga and guna yoga. Both are really commonsense logic, especially karma yoga. There is no way to fully practice mind management, nor to understand what is unfolding in ones’ environment, without knowledge of the gunas, even if you do not call them that.

Danielle: Once I began to evaluate it all in light of Vedanta, I knew I could no longer continue teaching as I had been but could clearly see the metaphorical value of the horse and human relationships. So, yes, I can help people literally change their relationship with their actual horse, which really comes as a result of karma yoga, but there is the opportunity to see the horse symbolically in terms of jnana yoga.

If I may, I would like to share this experience and my developing outlook with you in more detail and then have a Zoom meeting with you to start a dialog to discuss the nitty-gritty of my Vedanta practice to make sure I am not misunderstanding or misusing the knowledge, especially since sharing it with others or a least leading them to it is at the fore of my dharma.

I have a sincere reverence for the Vedanta sampradaya and would not dare call myself a qualified Vedanta teacher now, though in another several years perhaps that could be true – if you say so. I don’t take it lightly and would and do willingly defer and refer to ShingingWorld as a resource and authority as I share the non-dual wisdom to the best of my ability now.

Sundari: I commend you on your attitude to the teachings, both for your sadhana and for imparting them. As you seem very aware, teaching Vedanta is a tricky business unless one can discriminate satya from mithya. Though many so-called teachers claim to teach Vedanta, and some not fully qualified ones even do a fair job of it, when it is the ego teaching as opposed to the Self, there is a very big difference. Not to mention that unless a teacher fully understands the teachings it is very possible that you will confuse or mislead inquirers. Furthermore, teaching builds ego. Vedanta is the most powerful teaching, and to teach it properly not only requires complete knowledge of the teachings but the humility and solid understanding that Isvara is the only teacher. To me, it seems clear that you understand this very well, and do not have the ambition to teach. It is taking place as a natural consequence of your svadharma.

I am happy to talk further about this on zoom or skype.

Much love
Sundari

Hi Tom,

What a lovely charming letter!  I enjoyed it very much.  It certainly seems that everything is sliding along as if on greased wheels since Vedanta came to you and/or you came to Vedanta.  It also seems that life prepared you well for it.  This dialog started with a question.  You also said you were writing so that “students of yours should ask to be checked by you as to know if I am enlightened (Self) or not. In the spirit of student to teacher I am doing this now.”  

From what you subsequently said and the manner in which you said it, it seems you do know who you are.  I was impressed by your humility but a little surprised when I came to your request for “more intense training.”

The information that you were influenced by Osho and the Neos and the idea that you were requesting a weekly “shaking up” give me an idea as to how to proceed.  The thought that came to mind was inspired by one of the beliefs of many dualistic religions, including Vedic religion, called krama mukti.  To whit: by the force of one’s meritorious actions in this sin-contaminated earthy life, at death one gains access to Brahmaloka, a psychospiritual dimension akin to the Christian heaven.  In said dimension, one is privileged to “sit on the right hand of God the Father Almighty,“ to dredge up a phrase from my own Christian background, and enjoys the opportunity to ask Brahmaji, the Vedic equivalent of Almighty God, the creator of the universe  and the first teacher, the appropriate questions concerning liberation.  

I mentioned Osho and the Neos because they are mostly responsible for the popular idea that the primary job of the guru is to bust ego.  Unfortunately, I’m too old and tired to bust anything, preferring instead to enjoy the company of my friends, write satsangs and steer  ShiningWorld across the ocean of samsara.   In our tradition, we don’t care for this idea, preferring instead to deliver knowledge that permits the inquirer to shake his or her self up, should he or she deem it necessary.  You made it clear that you like teaching people because “nowhere is there bigger joy than when one witnesses that one has successfully contributed to see the light that lit in the eyes of the one that has new understanding,” which I completely understand.  What other motivation could there be. 

This leads us to the question, “what is the essence of the teaching?”  I use the word essence because if you understand the essence of the teaching you understand every specific teaching, in so far as the purpose of each of our many beautiful teachings supports and reveals the essence.  The essence of Vedanta is encapsulated in a statement by Shankaracharya in the 8^th Century, brahma satyam, jagan mithya; jivo brahmaiva na parah.  The first statement means “the Self alone is real. The world is apparently real.”  The second means “the Jiva is non-different from the Self.”  As I’m sure you know we call this the satya/mithya teaching and it is the essence of liberation.  Swami Paramarthananda, a mahatma from Chennai and one of my guru brothers, said that a clear understanding of its meaning is all that is required to teach Vedanta.

I don’t know…I’m just fishing here, correct me if I’m wrong and I want to be fair…but I’m not sure that you understand how they relate to each other.  It seems you understand without a doubt that you are the Self, “Jivo brahmaiva na-parah,” unless, of course, it wasn’t the Self making that statement.  Maybe I’m overly suspicious but I didn’t get the impression from your thorough and well-organized letter, which by the way is one of the signs of a good teacher, that Tom and the world where Tom would be teaching, which is to say planting seeds, is not real and as good as non-existent, which is the import of the first part of Shankara’s elegant statement.  Is the non-eternal jiva, Tom, looking for a way to perhaps more efficiently light up the eyes of others with understanding?  If the answer to my question is yes, no blame.  But since by your own admission you are already capable of lighting up the understanding of others, I’m not sure how I can serve you.   

When I meet anyone in person or in any other way I am meeting myself.  There is no ignorance, nor is there knowledge.  I am not a mystic blessed with insight.  I don’t read minds because I don’t see any mind and I am not a teacher so I am not looking to teach them anything.  I am not enlightened nor am I unenlightened.  I have nothing to say because the presence and absence of people is non-different.  Of course, I’m polite and reply as if I am a person.  A considerable stay in ignorance taught me what it is to be a person and I can still do a reasonable imitation.  In that role I try to see if I can be of service in some way. 

When people speak, their words appear in me and I become aware of their meaning.  It is clear if the one delivering them is simply making a statement or if he or she is asking a question.  You wrote an interesting letter that seemed to be asking a question, but not really a question about the teaching. I can’t teach you the Self because I’ve already taught you. 

It seems that you have concluded that the doubt-free knowledge “I am the Self” is sufficient for teaching Vedanta.  Well, there is no law that says it isn’t.  If you are free you are free to define teaching in any way.  In any case it on the basis of this knowledge, which we call “direct knowledge” that most people lay claim to the moniker of teacher.  But we, meaning the Vedanta sampradaya, don’t think that direct knowledge qualifies one to teach Vedanta.  Yes, it qualifies the person to share what he or she knows about the Self.  It qualifies one to talk about it and inspire people to seek it but there are further requirements if you want to be a proper Vedanta teacher.  Sad to say, the very fact that one wants to teach, although it is a natural human impulse to ring the bell and call the faithful to church when you have seen the light, is often a disqualifying factor.

In our tradition the doubt-free knowledge “I am unborn limitless ever-present existence/awareness” is considered the fifth of seven stages of enlightenment.  The sixth stage is the disappearance of the doer, in this case the teacher, and the seventh is called tripti, perfect satisfaction.  If you are the Self and the Self alone, you are so satisfied that the very idea of teaching doesn’t occur.  So how do you become a teacher?

You become a teacher when you are qualified to teach.  Just like you realize that you are the Self when you are qualified and not before, you are qualified to teach when you satisfy the qualifications for teaching and not before.  It’s a subtle and complex topic beyond the scope of this email but basically it means that you are instructed to teach when you have been taught by a mahatma, someone who has completed the seven stages and has been taught by his or her teacher.  The whole thing goes right back to the first teacher, Isvara.  This will only happen when the teacher knows that you know that Isvara is the teacher, which means that there is nothing to be gained by teaching or lost by not teaching.  In general you need to have bhakti for the teaching tradition and the svadharma of a teacher or you need to practice teaching until it becomes second nature.  One should never feel like one is teaching when one is teaching.  Many Self realized people try to teach and fail, which is why the modern spiritual world is so unsettled and sometimes Self actualized people are not interested in teaching or don’t have teaching dharma.   Some “teach without teaching,” meaning they are the teaching.  It’s a complex topic.  So when you ask if I will teach you, I need to know what you want to know.  It’s not entirely clear to me.  Maybe I can help you.  Maybe not.      

Love,

James

I was thinking about the idea of coaching or treating patients with some kind of a Vedanta-friendly psychotherapy, and it’s hard for me to see how to do that.

My understanding is that Vedanta is a very clear logical sequence in which you can’t understand one part without assimilating the other part. “Treating” people or coaching people without letting them have the full knowledge actually requires me to be out of integrity with myself and the teaching, and obviously it will be frustrating for them since they will think the problem is with them when actually the problem is that they don’t have the whole story. Vedanta talks about the ego only in the light of God. How can you resolve ego issues without them understanding the God matrix? The problem is – most people don’t want to hear about God! So how can I coach or treat them before they have the knowledge?

So the only way I see following the dharma of a Vedanta devotee is to teach Vedanta in its perfected logic.

James: Just don’t use the word “God.” God is existence: your life, your body, mind, emotions and your environment, i.e. relationships with people, plants, animals, etc. Everyone is dealing with God every minute of every day from womb to tomb whether they know it or not. It is everyone’s primary relationship.

Don’t think of yourself as a Vedanta teacher, as spiritual or anything like that. It’s not wise to compare yourself to people like me. I’m respected as a Vedanta teacher because I’ve been cultivating the skill of communicating life wisdom for fifty years, many years before you were born. I did it little by little, learning as I went. I wasn’t very skillful at first. I made a lot of mistakes, but that only inspired me to get better. Just be a caring, helping person with a certain life experience. You grow by service. Tell people what you’ve learned from your successes and failures. Teach karma yoga, which is an incredibly effective therapy, but don’t use the term. It is just practical knowledge. Your attitude toward your karma and the world around you what you do determines your happiness and success in life. Don’t “teach,” share. Transfer your enthusiasm for life to the other person.

Forget “the gunas,” just talk about energy, the three states of mind and how ignorance of your wholeness causes them. Just say that it is your experience that you are whole and complete, even though you sometimes forget and think you are small and inadequate. Forget “vasanas,” just say tendencies, habits, desires. Don’t mention “Maya,” just call it ignorance of our wholeness. Tell them that they are beautiful, that love is their nature. Love everyone you meet. Use the logic of the teachings. Logic doesn’t belong to Vedanta. It belongs to life. We just use it to awaken people to their own innate knowledge.

Of course, if you don’t feel confident with who you are and what you know – which is what I’m hearing – then you won’t be successful, no matter what you call it. Maybe you are a bit depressed? I dress like a regular person and introduce myself as James. I’m polite, friendly and helpful. People like me. If they show interest in me, I cultivate a relationship, unless I sense that they have the wrong idea about me or that their seeking is just a social role. Once they get confident that I’m a valuable person, I open up a little to see how much they are capable of knowing. Service to people is one of our most important spiritual duties. Once they trust you, you can introduce the word “Vedanta” if you like, but most Western people are suspicious of “foreign” stuff.

Vedanta works without the fancy Sanskrit words. The words don’t make you what you are; you make the words meaningful by your presence; you are just teaching you. Do you think Krishna was telling Arjuna about Vedanta? They were just friends. Arjuna thought Krishna was a successful person. He didn’t know about his spiritual side, although he felt it and had heard rumors. He wanted Krishna’s army and he wanted a successful person by his side as he faced the most important moment in his life. Krishna used regular words when he taught Arjuna. He even insulted him when he gave up on life and wouldn’t do what was necessary in the situation.

Anyway, you shouldn’t wait to help until you have confidence in the teaching. You should gain confidence by sharing what you know. If this is about the need for a job, then teaching won’t work. But even then, this wisdom is useful. There are quite a few psychologists, life coaches, etc. who are attracted to Vedanta, who see the utility of self-knowledge but are not fully committed to liberation. They are not bad people. So they help according to their capacity. I supported myself as a handyman and a petty businessperson until I was almost seventy while I cultivated my ability to communicate this great knowledge. Then one day the result of millions of dedicated thoughts and actions started to come back. As the Gita says, “With a heart that knows no otherness, keep your mind on Me alone and I will take care of your getting and keeping.”

~ Much love, James

I encountered your book three years ago. I can’t say enough about how much I have enjoyed reading it, how much it uplifted my spiritual practice and speeded up my spiritual understanding. I have been studying with one of your students in the last two years as well and it has been a pleasure. At this point, I would love to deepen my knowledge by associating with a Self-actualized being.

I would love to receive a recommendation of a Vedanta school/order/teacher, since I know there are many and as you mentioned in your book there are fake gurus. I understand you have learned in the Chinmaya tradition, as for the research I’ve done online it is not possible to know whether or not the guru now in charge is honest and pure, as Swami Dayananda, who has passed away a few years ago, it is the same situation.

James: Lovely to hear from you, Nelly. Appreciation is much appreciated. I’m happy to hear that Vedanta is working for you. And you are on the right path when you say that you want to associate with a Self-actualized teacher. As for Vedanta schools to firm up your knowledge with the intention of teaching one day, I’m sorry I can’t recommend one. The Chinmaya Mission and the Dayananda Ashram in South India have good but very difficult courses that involve a long-term commitment and a lot of hardship, and I can’t recommend them, because most Westerners fail to complete them. I think most of the teachers are good, honest people who are sincerely dedicated to the tradition, however.

It’s commendable that you want to avoid fake gurus and to teach responsibly. To teach Vedanta is a great privilege; not everyone is qualified. The way it works is that when your teacher feels that there is little or no danger of enlightenment sickness and that you have grasped the fundamental satya–mithya teaching, which is the essence of Vedanta, he or she gives his or her blessing and support.

This is not to say that you should not share what you know with people who are attracted to your humility, purity and compassion. The real teaching is you, not Vedanta. There should be no difference between what you are saying and how you live. You can feel if someone is truly free. It is a tangible experience. A person who talks about freedom, but is still obviously just another person with power/pleasure/respect/money issues, is not a teacher.

Vedanta is a means to an end. It makes it clear that you are a What, not a Who. Whats don’t want anything. Whos always want something. You should never think of it as a career, a way to gain respect or security or power. You should have an independent income so you are not tempted to avoid telling the truth to people that give you money.

Having said that, if you feel that you want to go further with your Vedanta, you definitely need to understand the logic behind the whole teaching. To that end I am giving the complete teaching three times this year because many Self-realized individuals who are firmly committed to Vedanta find the steady bliss that should become a constant experience when a qualified person realizes “I am ordinary, ever-free, unborn, ever-present, unconcerned awareness” is often obscured by unresolved emotions developed in childhood and overlooked during the listening and reflecting stages of the teaching. Vedanta attracts intelligent people who often assume they know more than they do. Mistakes in the reflecting stage are a consequence of improper hearing. So it is incumbent that a dedicated inquirer go back to the beginning and listen again. Even when the hearing stage is completed correctly, failure at the reflecting stage is commonplace, because of the mind’s tendency to delude. Mistakes at the reflecting stage carry over the assimilation phase, Self-actualization. Because self-deception is the nature of ignorance, all three stages of Vedanta need to be practiced under the tutelage of a qualified teacher.

I just completed a fifty-hour seminar that gives the complete teaching from A to Z. If you are serious about Vedanta, I recommend that you watch it. If you donate 100 euros to ShiningWorld, I will send you a link with both the video and audio files. Indicate that the donation is for the complete teaching series. It’s not quite the same as attending a teaching in person, but it is almost the same.

Would you mind telling me why you want to teach Vedanta? Where do you live? What is your life situation? Are you married? Do you have a family, a job, etc? What daily practice are you doing now? Normally, people who aren’t done with the world don’t make very good teachers unless they have teaching samskaras. Some people are natural teachers. It’s a skill that you can learn, however, if you listen to good teaching. Many Dayananda and Chinmaya people realized the Self but only a few are good teachers. Generally, the best teachers are Self-actualized people who don’t want to teach but for whom Isvara sets up the right circumstances and slowly supplies qualified inquirers once they have been empowered to teach by their teacher.

I think you have a good attitude but I should perhaps remind you that all three stages of Vedanta practice need to be presided over by a Self-actualized teacher because the tendency to self-deception is more or less hardwired in everyone. I you want to discuss this with me further you can make a donation to ShiningWorld and schedule a Skype chat.

~ Much love, James

Sundari: We can definitely talk more about this. It is such a blessing when the full import of loving Isvara becomes firm knowledge for us. I feel so sorry for people who do not love God! I have expanded on this topic in a chapter I have written for my Lifestyle book. Many people who come to Vedanta have had negative experiences with traditional religion and moved past it to become inquirers, so their attitude to God needs some work. Whether we know it or not, we all seek God because we want to be happy. What most people don’t realize is that whether they are atheists or true believers, everything they do is looking for God because God is the Self. Being happy involves understanding our minds and being in tune with our environment. Life would be a lot simpler if all we had to contend with was our physical survival, but the human being is a combination of self-reflective, discriminating intellect/mind (spirit) and body (matter). We need to understand both aspects to have happy, fulfilling lives.

One of our greatest challenges is learning to navigate life free of the psychological and physical suffering that ensues when we don’t understand what’s going on, make bad decisions and don’t get what we want. To do this, we must develop the ability to assimilate the meaning of experience so that we can learn and grow from it. We cannot do that unless we understand the Logic of Existence, which entails a threefold process: understanding who we are, understanding the natural laws that govern the Field [of existence] we are a part of and live in and understanding how we relate to it. For that, we need God-knowledge because God and the Field are synonymous.

What Vedanta teaches about God/Isvara is not “spiritual” nor materialistic. It explains the relationship between spirit and matter – how God/consciousness and all sentient and insentient beings share the same essence. We teach that God is not only not “supernatural” or divine, but the only natural “thing” there is. In fact God is ALL there is, and not some remote extra-cosmic superhuman deity beyond our reach doling out good and bad karma. You cannot divorce yourself from God, no matter how much you try. God is the essential part of the equation without which life makes no sense. Without an intelligent source, our existence has no foundation at all. Denial of this is a waste of time, energy and joy. The only sane way to live is to embrace God.

That said, I understand how hard it is to impart this knowledge to others, especially children. The qualifications for Vedanta are unavoidable, and if the mind is not ready, it just cannot assimilate the knowledge. Recently I have been thinking about how to share God-knowledge with people who are not ready for Vedanta, and to emphasize the importance to those who are. I too wanted to share this with my granddaughter too, who is already a little inquirer at five years old.

I have been relating to her as the Self of course, but also as her “Nonna,” and she as a normal little girl who is waking up to this strange world of duality she lives in, already starting to wonder what it’s all about. I started off with discussions about objectifying her body, which was not that difficult, though not fully understood, as to be expected. But then she started having bad dreams and scary thoughts, and she wanted to know why and where they come from. I must work with the parents on this because, of course, they have their own ideas. We both explained to her that thoughts and dreams just happen in your mind, and they are not real. Objectifying her thoughts and feelings is still a bit of a stretch, as she is too young to understand that “real” is what is always present and never changes, and thoughts and feelings always change, so do not qualify. So she was not totally satisfied. She wanted to know why thoughts just keep coming back, and it was harder to explain to her that the thoughts do not come from her, that they come from the collective unconscious, and she can discard them; this is too advanced. But we made some progress. I expect she will be back with more on that topic soon!

She also wanted to know who or what God is. Neither of her parents is religious and neither of them is what we call dedicated inquirers, but she is lucky that both parents know how to love, are wise and very close to Self-knowledge, without knowing or calling it that. They are excellent parents. They told her that God is the universe and everything around her. I went a little further and told her that God is love and creates everything, takes care of us and gives us everything we need, and to whom we must give thanks. She kind of got that, even though it is only half the story. At school, she is being sold the father-God idea, but she takes to giving thanks quite naturally because it is natural. Then she wanted to know if she would die and if her mother and father would too, and if they would die before her. I told her that everyone dies, that it’s just like going to sleep, except the body does not wake up. Only you “wake up” because you are awake regardless of whether the body sleeps or dies. She did not get that and found it very confusing, also understandable. She wanted to hear something else, to be comforted. She said, “Yes but that still means my mom and dad won’t wake up if they die!” What to say to that?!

Her mom could only calm her down with a quasi-religious explanation (though she is not religious and against religious programming) that when we die, we go to a beautiful place where there are angels, fairies and unicorns, and if she died before her, she would wait for her there. Unfortunately, we must give the child what it can take on. This made her happy and she said she can’t wait to die! At least she can talk about death in a positive way and not avoid the topic, as many parents do.

You can definitely impart your love of Isvara to your granddaughter in simple terms. Start by explaining gratitude and why it so important. Gratitude is the key to devotion and makes everyone happy. Bring her attention to how much is given to her, the beauty of the natural world, how her body works to digest her food, keep her heart beating, etc. If you have an altar, explain to her why and share with her the simple joy of just being present in a sacred place in silence, lighting a candle. Keep it simple. And it is so important to explain to children that they are not their body-mind, that their thoughts/feelings are known to them, so they can start to manage them with that knowledge. If we can help children with mind management from a young age, we give them the most powerful tool they will ever have to cope with life. Even though usually Vedanta is not taught to small children, because they need to experience the world until the mind is ready to turn inward, I believe it is possible to start planting seeds from an early age.

~ Much love, Sundari

Known for millennia, the “final” teaching – “I am ever-free, limitless, unborn, non-dual, ordinary awareness/existence/love” – is a well-kept secret that will only reveal itself in its fullness when the ignorance that hides it behind beliefs and opinions of every ilk is systematically and rigorously assaulted with a complete teaching. Vedanta is a complete teaching. It explains the paths of love, action and knowledge with reference to our physical, psychological and spiritual selves. A proven, scientific, scripture-based tradition, it connects character to values and love, and leads a disciplined inquirer from the listening to the reflecting and on to the assimilation phases of self-inquiry with quiet confidence.

I am giving the complete teaching three times in 2020 because many Self-realized individuals who are firmly committed to Vedanta find the steady bliss that should become a constant experience when a qualified person is firmly convinced that “I am ordinary, ever-free, unborn, ever-present, unconcerned awareness” is often obscured by unresolved emotions developed in childhood and overlooked during the listening and reflecting stages of the teaching. Vedanta attracts intelligent people, who often assume they know more than they do. Mistakes in the reflecting stage are a consequence of improper hearing. So it is incumbent that a dedicated inquirer go back to the beginning and listen again. Even when the hearing stage is completed correctly, failure at the reflecting stage is commonplace because of the mind’s tendency to delude. Mistakes at the reflecting stage carry over to the actualization phase. Because self-deception is the nature of ignorance, all three stages of Vedanta need to be practiced under the tutelage of a qualified teacher. To accept that you have more work to do when you believe that you are enlightened requires great humility.

Texts

This seminar explains the complete teaching of Vedanta as unfolded in James’ best-selling books The Essence of Enlightenment and How to Attain Enlightenment. It showcases signature teachings, including the three gunas, from Vedanta’s most important texts: Vivekachoodamani, Panchadasi, Bhagavad Gita, Narada Bhakti Sutras and Mandukya Karika.

Warning!!! Only read James’ best-selling book The Essence of Enlightenment after you have attended this teaching if you are new to Vedanta. If you are a dedicated inquirer, try to forget everything you have read before you attend!

James: Actually, only a few Sanskrit words need to be used to effectively communicate the teaching because English has suitable equivalents for the bulk of the important terms. Vedanta is spreading so quickly among Western people (and secular Indians) because at the direction of my guru, Swami Chinmaya, I was told to make it accessible in English. So I have only retained a few key Sanskrit terms that have no reasonable English equivalents and which need considerable unfolding. While the Hindu swamis like Chinmaya and Dayananda and others were Self-realized and/or Self-actualized individuals, they were unsuccessful spreading Vedanta to people who were not Vedikas in past lives, such as myself, or to people who are not Hindus now. Most of the Vedanta organizations abroad are oriented around preserving Vedic culture and tend to emphasize spiritual practice because most householders are not qualified for liberation.

In no text is Sanskrit listed as a qualification for liberation even though the source texts are in Sanskrit. It is certainly helpful if you know Sanskrit but there are many Sanskrit scholars who are not liberated, because they have no desire for liberation and/or they don’t have a qualified teacher if they do. You can’t read your way to freedom, because the very fact that you are independently investigating the Self means that you are ignorant that you are it. In Bhaja Govindam Shankara makes fun of an old man who is studying Sanskrit grammar and suggests that he seek the Self, which is the meaning of Bhaja Govindam. So you will interpret the words according to your own experience, which is not a valid means of Self-knowledge insofar as the Self is beyond perception and inference, the only means available to you. You need to be taught by someone who uses the means of knowledge effectively, which is someone who has been properly taught by a qualified person. If I say “properly taught by a srotriya or a brahmanistha” I still need to explain in English what a brahmanistha and a srotriya are and the conditions that require one or the other, i.e. the qualifications.

For your information a brahmanistha is someone who has completed the nididhyasana phase, in other words, someone who has no sense of doership and who knows how to wield the means of knowledge (Vedanta pramana). A srotriya is someone who is in the nididhyasana phase and has learned the method of teaching, which is all about creating a logical experience-based context in which the words can work their magic. A person in the hearing phase can’t teach, because he or she doesn’t know the proper definition of the words, and a person in the reflecting phase can’t teach, because he or she has a doubt about his or her identity as existence/consciousness. And a person in the nididhyasana phase can’t teach unless he or she can use the teaching in such a way that it removes ignorance.

Swami Dayananda, who was one of my teachers, said Sanskrit was necessary for liberation (moksa) at one time but to his credit he corrected himself. Sometimes people tell me that they want to immerse themselves in Vedanta, which is usually a sign that they have misunderstood the meaning of Vedanta as a means of knowledge, a pramana. No text says that a means of knowledge has to be in a certain language, only that its words wielded by a competent teacher convey accurate Self-knowledge. The words “existence,” “consciousness” and “bliss” are any time as good as satchitananda or Brahman or any of the many Sanskrit words that have the same meaning, when they are contextualized by the complete teaching, i.e. if their meaning is exhaustively unfolded and available for personal verification, which they are insofar as nobody needs a means of knowledge to know that they exist or that they are conscious. The meaning of Brahman, for instance, is “limitless bliss/consciousness/existence.” So limitless consciousness needs to be identified as one’s Self no matter what you call it. For an English speaker the word Brahman offers no practical advantage in terms of liberation.

However, liberation, which is the meaning of “limitless/completeness/bliss/existence,” does not usually accompany one’s knowledge of one’s Self, because the body-mind-sense complex is invariably associated with one’s Self-knowledge. Once the meaning of the words of Vedanta is clear the means of knowledge has done its job. Intellectuals with rajasic intellects often get fascinated by Vedanta and don’t “gain” moksa, because they are loath to let go of the means, which is more or less equivalent to discarding the Coke and drinking the bottle. But the nididhyasana phase is all about scrubbing away teaching remnants, leaving the person as a (more or less) faithful reflection of who they really are.

But Vedanta is not about gaining knowledge. It is about removing ignorance. If you gain knowledge you are adding something to Terry, which is a big problem because his stated aim is to teach people who they are. But “teaching people who they are” is not teaching people who they are. Teaching people who they are is losing the belief that you are a person, which we call ignorance. It can’t be taught. You can understand why the belief is a problem – Vedanta is good there – but getting rid of a false idea of who you are takes a lot of vigilance and hard inner work. Ignorance doesn’t mean the person you think you are is stupid. It means that you don’t realize there is only one Self and that it is not a doer – a seeker, a finder, a teacher, whatever.

Do you know why nobody ever told you that you exist or that you are conscious? Because it is a self-evident fact. To say that you exist and that you are conscious implies that you are existence/consciousness because whatever existence and consciousness you enjoy is obviously borrowed from existence/consciousness. You didn’t create your existence or your consciousness. If you did, you can claim authorship. If not, not. So you are two-thirds “enlightened” already. The other third is the fact that you are limitless. Obviously Terry is isn’t limitless, meaning free, because he has a lot of desires and he includes his body and mind when he says the word “I,” which always only refers to limitless existence/consciousness because there is only existence/consciousness, although it appears as if it is a person, sad to say.

So how does Vedanta solve this problem? It removes doubts. It doesn’t add knowledge. The knowledge neutralizes doubts as a base substance neutralizes an acid, leaving you as you are – free of ignorance and knowledge. So you will not be a teacher of Vedanta, because all proper teachers are not teachers of Vedanta. All proper teachers are the Self, existence/consciousness. So what is the teacher? The teacher is Isvara. The scriptures are the words of Isvara and the teachers of Vedanta, after a rigorous discipleship with a proper teacher, offer their minds to Isvara and let Isvara use them as instruments to remove the ignorance of qualified individuals who approach them in the right spirit.

You met with resistance with Stan and Sundari because your primary motivation was not freedom, but to teach Vedanta. A person who knows who they are is empowered by his or her teacher. Teaching without a proper teacher is a huge trap; it builds ego.

If you want me to teach you, you need to know that when you become a disciple you lose control of your destiny, but not to me. We don’t tell people what to do. We explain what has to be done to take advantage of the great tradition of Vedanta and we expect you to follow the program, which is not laid out by us. It is laid out by Isvara, the author of the Vedanta teaching tradition. Our job is to see that you stay on track. The whole teaching is a five-step process that you have to go through step by step: karma yoga, upasana yoga, sravanna, manana and nididhyasana. It is a lifetime commitment.

My view is that you’re way ahead of yourself. You don’t even understand the basics, although you are a clever guy who thinks he knows a lot. We come across this problem quite a bit because Vedanta attracts intellectuals, who tend to be know-it-alls. I suspect that the reason you have been unable to properly use Stan’s and Sundari’s services is because you think you know best, having read a lot of your satsangs.

The purpose of this letter is to cut you down to size. If you want help you need to listen to what I have to say and keep your questions on-topic. You can’t argue. Every possible doubt has been laid to rest by Vedanta so all I have to do is identify it, see that you are paying attention and give you the knowledge. Your mind will be left clear. You won’t have another bit of knowledge to add to Terry’s vast storehouse so he can go out and impress others.

As the ignorance goes you slowly become a simple, clear, happy, conscious being free of ambition. I will recommend some things that will qualify you, and you will accept it if your only desire is to be free. You needn’t feel bad that you wasted Stan’s and Sundari’s time. We are all timeless. We like challenges and we are not bothered by failure. For every clever know-it-all there are scores of simple, humble, smart people who understand how Vedanta works and who listen attentively and do the required work.

You haven’t asked me to teach you, but you seem to have worked your way up to the Big Cheese. ☺ This is a pre-emptive strike in case you do. You are free to Skype me, donation required, and we can speak face to face about teachings that you don’t understand. We are only interested in ignorance.

~ Love, James

We all have reasons to justify our likes and dislikes. Some Vedantins criticize me because of a peculiar duality: traditional versus non-traditional. Obviously the Truth is beyond tradition. Many years ago, Swami Dayananda wrote a small pamphlet to explain why he no longer felt comfortable teaching with Swami Chinmayanada. His first statement is, “I call myself a teacher of traditional Vedanta.” Much later, Swami Paramarathananda, Dayananda’s foremost disciple, explained the difference between mystic and non-mystic non-dualists, which I summarized in a recent satsang posted on ShiningWorld, although he did not refer to Chinmaya or Dayananda. It is an important issue that highlights the relationship between experience and knowledge, which is the signature issue of Dayananda’s pamphlet. It is also summarized in an article entitled What Is Advaita Vedanta? posted in the publications section of ShiningWorld.

Almost fifty years ago, I realized that I was the self at the feet of Swami Chinmaya, who was a mystic non-dualist, and for several years I taught his style of Vedanta, which was called “modern Vedanta.” One day, I read the pamphlet mentioned above, when I realized the limitations of mystic non-dualism. Mind you, Isvara sends the teacher you need. If you are qualified and the teacher is skillful, you will be set free, irrespective of the style of teaching.

Keep in mind that both mystic and non-mystic non-dualists teach non-duality. One style is easier for experience-oriented people and the other for knowledge-oriented people, although both have downsides. The downside for experience-oriented individuals is the tendency to think of liberation as a discrete experience, and the downside for knowledge-oriented people is the tendency to expect some kind of non-dual experience to confirm the knowledge. So in an extremely important contribution to the Vedanta sampradaya, Swami Dayananda made the distinction clear, coming down heavily on the side of knowledge. However, gaining and retaining knowledge is also experiential, so you can’t dismiss experience either. You can only know the difference. And you can’t dismiss the experience-oriented approach, because epiphanies very often kick-start inquiry, which leads to understanding the value of knowledge. Having said that, he was not the first teacher to make this distinction, as it is built into the fundamental premise of the Upanishads. If reality is non-dual consciousness, everything is non-dual consciousness, including me and my experience, which means that I am always experiencing the self, which in turn means that my fundamental problem is ignorance if I don’t enjoy the bliss of self-knowledge.

It is understandable but sad that some Vedanta people who did not know both Chinmaya and Dayananda allowed their views of Dayananda’s teaching to prejudice them against mystic non-dualism. A number of these people look down on me because I got self-knowledge from Chinmaya, even though I have been passionately teaching Dayananda’s non-mystic style for the last 40 years. But when you are a partisan, it is often difficult to see the forest for the trees. There are many Western people who are not just fascinated with Vedanta but with the Indian culture that nourished it. They have the idea that Vedanta is only “real” Vedanta if it comes in a certain package: India, orange clothing, Sanskrit, etc. Recently, one of my admirers went off to India to study with one of Swami Dayananda’s disciples because he assumed that study with an Indian in an Indian ashram was required because that was what happened to me. A year later, he returned free of that idea. In Atma Bodh, Shankara said that circumstances are necessary auxiliaries but only knowledge “cooks the food.” The truth is beyond all forms. Chinmaya wanted me to become a sanyassi, but Isvara had other ideas. I am an American and when in Rome I do what the Romans do. It is only sensible. Once my path was clear, he supported me one hundred percent.

Most people do not know what a mahatma really is. Both Swami Dayananda and Swami Chinmaya were mahatmas. It is important for Dayananda devotees to know that Swami Dayananda served Chinmaya for many years, and it was due to Chinmaya’s love for him that he became so well-known so early in his life. They simply had different ideas about how to teach Vedanta, based on their own svadharma and the needs of the total during their lifetimes. But the point is that Vedanta stands above the teacher. The teacher is glorious because of the teaching. Yes, if a teacher is glorious, he or she will be a great advertisement for Vedanta, but that is all. As long as you use the traditional/non-traditional duality to make yourself feel special, there is still work to do.

It is often the case that people come to me and become inspired about Vedanta, and I teach them as best I can. But when I tell them something they don’t want to hear or if I behave like a normal person, they lose interest in me and, having heard about Swami Dayananda and some of his disciples, they think that they will get the “real” teaching from a “real” mahatma. So they write me off on some pretext, which is fine for me, but not fine for them, because it means that they have confused the name and form with the truth and kept duality alive in their minds.

Your enlightenment is not special because, like mine, it has the smell of India. It is quite lovely if it does, but Isvara stands above concepts like East and West, traditional and non-traditional, my guru and your guru. I make a big point in every seminar that “guru” is just a hat that I put on when I am invited to teach. It is not a career or a lifestyle. When I step down from the podium, I am just a regular guy. How can this small person co-opt Isvara’s glory?

Sundari: James is successful because he has made Vedanta accessible to the West. But I hear what you are saying. We do want to make it accessible to as many people as possible. However, people who are drawn to Vedanta and actually become inquirers are those who have developed some of the qualifications or they go elsewhere. It is not our brief to try to teach people who are not qualified.

Vedanta has no problem with religion; karma yoga is a religious teaching really (thy will, not mine, be done), as it teaches worship of Isvara. My lifestyle books are aimed at a broader audience of both inquirer and non-inquirer, as they look at the reasons for suffering in mithya in general. The main impetus is to get non-inquirers to understand that the only permanent solution to mithyaproblems/suffering is self-inquiry.

Harry: This was what I thought when I shared that video. On further reflection, as to why I sent that link, I’m wondering if there was more to it. I’ve held the idea that many think karma as being the idea that the jiva has free will to act but has no control over the results. I think this is only partially true, at least from the mithya perspective. But since I’ve been studying Vedanta, I think that much of what I do as a jiva is actually being “done” to it. Not only are the results of action not up to it (Harry jiva), but it is appearing that even the experiences (thoughts and actions) and situations are being presented to me, the subtle body, from somewhere else.

Sundari: No one is doing anything, ever. I attached a satsang on the topic of free will. It’s always a question of perspective: duality or non-duality?

Harry: Could it be the causal body, Isvara? I understand that vasanas drive action, but is not Isvara the essence behind all this, the apparent world?

Sundari: Isvara is “behind everything,” but impersonally so because Isvara is not a person. That does not mean that everything that gets presented to us we need to act on or is a good idea.

Harry: In the meantime, another concern has come up. I spend quite a bit of time reading and rereading James’ books, particularly Inquiry into Existence, in part because I love studying the teaching and also to make the knowledge firm. Now, in this process questions come up based on what is written and I ponder what does not seem clear or seems to be an apparent contradiction. My wife says I am too into the head and suggests I should practise “the Tolle approach” of focusing on the silence between the thoughts. I had been doing that prior to reading James, but it did not provide me the understanding and peace that James has offered. James talks about Vedanta not requiring one to stop thoughts, to empty the mind, to sit in the place between thoughts, to kill the ego, etc. so I think a lot about what is being written.

Sundari: It is true, one can get caught up in thinking too much or “overthinking.” But essential in the second stage of self-inquiry is manana, contemplating the scriptures, meditating upon them and stilling the mind through meditation or silence. Any technique that works for you to do this is good. Highly intellectual types sometimes have more difficulty assimilating the teachings because they are often egoically attached to their ability to think. It becomes tricky when the doer gets involved “trying hard” to understand because the ego cannot “get” Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge obtains when the intellect is refined enough by exposure to the scriptures, by Isvara, not before. It does not matter now clever you are; in fact that can often be an obstacle if you are invested in your cleverness.

No matter how accomplished you are in the world or how many degrees behind your name, this means very little when you come to Vedanta. It is a great leveller because the mind must be trained to think completely differently. We are all beginners when we come to Vedanta, full of ideas and beliefs that are mostly ignorance, mixed in with some knowledge. We need to be “debriefed” by Isvara so that the mind can assimilate the teachings of Vedanta, which are the reverse of everything we thought we knew.

Understanding every detail of the doctrine is not necessary for moksa. If you can discriminate satya from mithya at all times, and that translates into your life, that is moksa. If it is purely intellectual knowledge and does not translate into your life, self-actualization has not taken place. That is why the last stage of inquiry, nididhyasana, is the longest for most inquirers. Having said that, if you have the kind of mind that needs to process each aspect of the teaching to assimilate its essence, then studying the scripture with great dedication is important, bearing in mind what I said above about the ego trying to “get it.” And if you want to teach Vedanta, it is imperative that you understand the teachings and every aspect of the doctrine to teach it. But don’t fool yourself that studying the scripture will necessarily produce moksa,very often it is the reason people get stuck. What is most important is that you do the work of translating the teachings into your life to be free of the jiva.

So as always, karma yoga is the only way to anything, especially contemplation of the scriptures. Surrender any frustration of the mind if it does not understand something and trust Isvara to reveal it to the intellect in due course. All the answers to any doubt are always found in the scripture. We say that self-inquiry is hard work because it is, for the intellect. It must stretch and grow to understand concepts much subtler than it, not an easy thing for most.

Harry: Questions that come up from reading are, for example, is not the essence of space, awareness/consciousness and accommodation being the only property or quality of space? Is accommodation a property of space or is it the nature of space?

Sundari: Consciousness is the essence or nature of everything. It has no attributes/properties. Accommodation is the property of space, which as an object known to consciousness. Accommodation is intrinsic to or essential to space; if you remove accommodation from space, it is no longer space.

Harry: Does nature of space mean the same as essence of space?

Sundari: Yes. You asked me this question before. The nature (essence) of something is different from the attributes/property of something. People often confuse the two. The nature is the essential essence, something that is intrinsic to or inherent in something and cannot be removed, without which a thing could not be a thing. An attribute is a property, which may or may not be essential to the nature of a thing. The nature of something is the non-negotiable or unchanging variable, whereas a property/attribute is usually a changing variable, like the nature of sugar is sweetness. If you take sweetness away, sugar is no longer sugar. Or the nature fire is heat; if you take heat away, fire is no longer fire. The nature of the Self, consciousness, is sat chit ananda, consciousness, existence, bliss.

Harry: What is the difference between vikshepa and rajoguna, as well as difference between avaranna shakti and tamoguna?

Sundari: There is no difference. Vikshepa is the projecting power, rajas. Avaranna is the power to delude, tamas. The power to reveal is sattvaguna.

Harry: Now, I learned that James recommended a friend to focus on the space between the thoughts, a method that Tolle teaches. I find the study of Vedanta is what I like to do, but are these questions that I ask that important when seen in context of the importance of discriminating satya from mithya? From your own experience, do you think my intellectual/questioning approach is helpful or distracting? Your thoughts?

Sundari: I answered this above. You have a nitpicky mind, that is the way it functions. It can become a distraction and an impediment to self-inquiry if the ego falls in love with its tendency to pull things apart and becomes identified with its doubting faculty, i.e. falls in love with its own doubts. Doubting is essential to learning and to discrimination, but it can become an obstacle. As I said above, what is important is that the teachings translate into your life, not your ability to intellectualize them.

Harry: After writing this, more questions and seeming contradictions arise which hinder the clear knowledge I’m seeking, and it was those questions that I was drafting when the draft got accidently sent. To complete what I was asking:

Regarding tamas, on page 111 of Inquiry into Existence, it says at the bottom, “Deep sleep is the presence of pure tamas,” and on page 229, verses 35-36, it says, “Inanimate objects are awareness, but don’t reveal it, because they are pure tamas… they absorb, not reflect, awareness.” Now, I understand deep sleep to be the absence of all objects except (a) subtle vrittis, but how can it be understood that this deep-sleep state is the presence of pure tamas?

Sundari: Because pure tamas is pure ignorance. When we sleep, we are completely ignorant of the Self even though we experience the bliss of no objects, thus sleep is the presence of tamoguna alone. Rajasand sattva are dormant. Inanimate objects are pure tamas because they have no knowledge of the Self either, so they too are pure tamas; they cannot be said to be rajasic or sattvic, even though all three gunas are always present in all material and subtle matter.

Harry: These are some of the type of questions that arise for me. There are more but suffice to ask, will clarifying them make my knowledge of being whole, partless, actionless, limitless and ordinary any firmer? Will they make any difference in me practising discriminating satya from mithya? Thank you for your time and patience with me, Sundari.

Sundari: You are welcome, Harry. I think you are very dedicated to your sadhana, you just need to apply karma yoga to it more efficiently, to apply the teachings to your life. Consecrate it to Isvara and trust Self-knowledge to do the “work,” not the ego/doer. As you must know by now, the teaching is set up in such a way that it will create doubts and questions. It is supposed to do that because ignorance is so wily and tenacious, and Self-knowledge is so counter-intuitive. So when a doubt arises or you think you have found a paradox, safely assume that the error is in your understanding and not the teachings, because all seeming paradoxes dissolve as Self-knowledge scours out the ignorance in your mind.

Harry: Sundari, where can I read more about the jivatma? I see it spoken of in Inquiry into Existenceon pages 94-95 and 111, but little elsewhere. Nothing shows up when I google jivatma.

Sundari: You have asked this before too. The jivatma is the Self, pure consciousness appearing as the subtle body. It is one but has three parts: original pure consciousness, plus the subtle body, or Eternal Jiva (reflecting medium), plus the reflection, the non-eternal, or “personal,” jiva. There is only one Eternal Jiva appearing as many apparently unique individuals, or non-eternal (personal) jivas. Although it seems like the personal jiva lives but for a moment in time, in truth it is indestructible because the non-eternal jiva is awareness too and is always present, just not always appearing as a subtle body, or person. And as a subtle body, it is an eternal principle in awareness, either unmanifest or manifest whenever Maya manifests. Isvara and the universal Eternal Jiva are never annihilated; they are both eternal principles (or concepts) in awareness, which manifest whenever Maya manifests, which is also an eternal principle or power in awareness. Neither the Eternal Jiva or non-eternal jiva are real with reference to awareness.

Harry: A question: on page 95 in bold, it reads “The cause of the body is awareness operating Maya in the form of karma.” Since when does awareness do anything? Also, on the same page at the top, it says that Isvara does not provide the karma, because Isvara is not a doer or an enjoyer, but I thought that Isvara, as awareness plus Maya, is the doer, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. Is it maybe because Isvara is a principle or mechanism, not a big jiva? But then it is also conscious, so how is Creation not considered a doing? In addition, at bottom of page 94, it says, “…the doer-enjoyer, which is the subtle body, survives permanently because it is eternal Isvara…”

Sundari: Awareness never does anything. We must use certain words and phrases in different ways for teaching purposes. The answers are always both/and, not either/or. Again, it depends on how you look at it: duality or non-duality? Awareness is the causeless cause of everything because if it could act, it would not be non-dual. But there would be no Creation without awareness. Isvara is not a person and cannot be a doer either, because Isvara is pure consciousness too. The gunas govern the creation of subtle and gross matter, but they are also not doing anything. Nothing is happening. There is no real doer. When Maya appears, awareness in the role of Creator manifests the Creation, sustains and destroys it, apparently. But we know there is no real Creation, not so? Moksa is the ability to see action in inaction and inaction in action.

Harry: Another question: Is Maya matter, prakriti, which appears to be the case when on page 110, under Creation, it reads, “The first stage involves only Isvara. Isvara is a mixture of consciousness/awareness and Maya, matter (prakriti).” But then it says, “In the presence of the light of awareness, Maya creates infinite gross and subtle bodies,” both being matter.

Sundari: You have asked this before, and I answered it at length.

First and always, there is pure consciousness. Secondly, Maya (pure macrocosmic sattva) appears and consciousness plus Maya “become” Isvara, awareness in the role of Creator. Lastly, matter appears, but macrocosmic sattvic prakriti is present before matter appears. Prakriti is the clear mirror of consciousness, prior to the emergence of rajas and tamas.

The “seed state” is prakriti, which is the subtle nature and cause of matter and energy, matter in seed form. It seems conscious because it borrows its light from consciousness. It is the blueprint of all forms, existing eternally within Maya.

The world and all external objects, whether gross matter or subtle matter, are comprised of prakriti. Prakriti has three qualities, the three gunas, which reflect the Self and seem to, but do not really, conceal the Self, because nothing can conceal it.

Pure macrocosmic sattvic prakriti is like a bright, clear mirror, capable of reflecting awareness (pratibimba chaitanya). Macrocosmic sattva is the blueprint for all forms, the entire Creation: the eternal truths, forces, laws, jivas, karma, three gunas and five elements. It knows everything. It is not yet mixed with rajas and tamas, it is pure knowledge. It is consciousness appearing as the knower. It is an object known to consciousness and contains all objects, including energy and space. When rajas and tamas arise and pure sattva is contaminated, the mirror shatters into innumerable shards. Mayabecomes avidya, multifaceted, diverse, pluralistic, creating all objects sentient and insentient, containing the essence of awareness, consciousness, conditioned by rajas and tamas.

Prakriti does not exist without Maya. There is no point in talking about the difference between them, because prakriti does not mean anything without Maya. They are the same, but they are not. Isvaraassociated with Maya is independent of prakriti because Isvara is trigunaatita, beyond the gunas. Prakriti depends on Isvara, not the other way around. And Isvara as pure consciousness gives rise to Creation, but is always free of the Creation.

~ Much love, Sundari