Tom: I’d like you to make sure my understanding the teaching is correct because I’ve been sharing Vedanta with people and I want to continue because there is nothing like the the way their faces light up when they understand a teaching. So, if in your head ideas come like: “Hum… that guy Tom needs a little work…” you should correct me. No matter what your answer I will pursue my Vedanta life and willingly accept my lot.
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 8th 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
