Mark: I recently decided to take the “enlightenment quiz” on your website just to understand what I have and haven’t assimilated after immersing myself in the teachings for the past three years. I scored between 80 and 90 so I was happy to see that the teachings are slowly being assimilated. However, I’d like to share the questions I didn’t answer correctly to see if you can help me remove a bit more ignorance, as I feel there is a common thread (identification with the mind?) to the questions I answered incorrectly:
“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!
