Simon: In one of your recent videos, you mentioned once again how important it is to repeat the basics of Vedanta. I can only welcome this, because when thinking about it in more depth, it becomes apparent time and again that certain words and contexts have been absorbed by the brain, but due to incomplete processing and a lack of understanding, they have merely been pushed into temporary storage. From there, they are retrieved incompletely during more complex processing and cause an inability to understand further contexts. This seems to happen especially with terms that are associated with an unusually large number of variable definitions in everyday life.
Sundari: Well stated. It is interesting how the mind/intellect is such as conservative instrument, and always works on heuristics. For the subtleties of nonduality to assimilate, the intellect must be trained to think differently, which is never easy. It has to become more refined, and this requires the constant immersion in and application of the teachings. Hence the need for qualifications, particularly a burning desire for freedom, and faith in the nondual scripture.
Simon: One term that has long (or always) seemed
incomplete to me is ‘love’. I refer, for example, to the statements ‘Love is willing attention to an object’ and ‘Love is the name we give to bliss when it is directed towards an object’. These statements imply that love requires a subject and an object. Accordingly, ‘love’ would require the concept of mithya. However, there is also the term ‘non-dual unconditioned love’. This
seems to be a contradiction in terms, as the attributes of love mentioned above require the non-dual concept of satya, in which there are no objects.
Sundari: First let’s address the word love according to Vedanta. The discrimination is always between satya and mithya, as you point out. If we are talking mithya, love is a feeling – one that requires a subject and object. It can be gained and lost, is subject to change and is subject to fear and anxiety. But if we are talking satya, love is who you are and knowing who you are, and cannot be gained or lost. The definition of love is full identification with the Self as your true identity. The confusion arises in thinking that love is a ‘special’ feeling. It is neither special nor a feeling because everything you feel, think, and desire is motivated by love – even fear and hate.
When you don’t know who you are, you run away from or towards things that you think will make you feel good, safe, happy whatever. When you know that your nature is love you do not need to chase anything because firstly you know that objects subtle and gross are only apparently not actually real and secondly, you are full, content and happy. Whether you get what you want or not is unimportant to you because you are the whole and complete, needing nothing.
Secondly we must address the conundrum of the nondual teachings – any words we use to describe nonduality are mithya. How does one explain what does not exist in mithya, in mithya terms? Nonetheless we must use words to communicate, and that is why the words Vedanta uses are so precise. All words have ostensible and implied meaning, and Vedanta teaches uses the implied meaning. But even so, they are still only pointers to the ineffable truth that exists beyond words and cannot be described.
Vedanta is a valid means of Self-knowledge called a sabda pramana, which means an oral tradition. It gives direct knowledge of the true and eternal nature of reality, which is that it is a non-duality and not a duality. It does this through words, using irrefutable logic. In spiritual circles this will be generally criticized with the argument that the eternal Self, enlightenment, the ‘absolute’, Brahman, the Tao or whatever you want to call Consciousness, is beyond words and indescribable, as mentioned. Therefore, some people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to get direct knowledge and to know your “real” Self through words.
Vedanta scripture agrees that Consciousness is not describable by words, because the one trying to describe Consciousness is the object: the effect, and Consciousness is the subject, the cause. The effect and the cause exist in different orders or reality: that of the real and the apparently real. The subject, Consciousness is that which is real, meaning always present and never changing. The object is that which is apparently real: meaning that which is not always present and subject to constant change. The object cannot know the subject because the subject (Consciousness) is subtler than the object, meaning the person or any object.
Luckily for us, because Vedanta is a valid, complete and independent means of knowledge for Consciousness, it is possible to get direct knowledge through the implied meaning of words, when they are unfolded correctly by a qualified teacher. Vedanta is also called a “brahma vidya” which means the Science of Consciousness. It is an objective and scientific analysis of the true nature of reality, and your experience, based on the facts. Like any other science, it is not personal, and it has a methodology, which, if followed with great dedication and commitment, will provide irrefutable knowledge that is moksha, if the inquirer is qualified.
Simon: It may be that I am being very strict with definitions and words here, but I cannot imagine how there can be a systematic approach without stringent and strict terminology. Accordingly, the following is a derivation to resolve this contradiction and fundamentally understand the word ‘love’. I would like to ask for your help here. It would be a
huge relief for me if you could take a look at this and point out any mistakes!
Sundari: It is to your credit that you are being so careful and diligent, and asking for clarity and confirmation.
Simon: Question 1: Is the following overview correct?
-1-Due to ignorance, I identify with the body/mind instead of with
existence/consciousness.
-2-This body/mind is limited, finite, changeable and subject to
dependencies.
-3-I search for a solution to my own
incompleteness/mortality/limitations in objects, filtered according to
my likes and dislikes.
-4-In this compensatory mechanism, the objects ultimately have no value
except the value I interpret into them – accordingly, I am of the
highest value (I am not aware of this fact).
-5-This interaction with objects is a mental activity in the form of
attention, interest or enthusiasm towards objects – called ‘love’.
-6-Love is therefore a conditional dynamic that is conditional, graded,
changeable and fraught with fears, as it depends on an observer and
observed objects that are subject to constant change and dependencies
-7-In this state, love is therefore always transactional and dual, as it
conditions a subject and an object
-8-The temporary happiness felt when expectations of objects are
fulfilled is, out of ignorance, mistakenly interpreted by me as being
connected to the objects.
-9-However, this happiness is part of the satisfaction derived from my
complete, unlimited integrity as existence/consciousness.
-10-Through knowledge, ignorance about reality is dissolved and
identification with the limited and dependent body/mind shifts to
identification with unlimited and independent existence/consciousness
-11-This removes the apparent dual reality and replaces it with the real
non-dual reality.
-12-The misinterpretation regarding objects and the joy they seem to
contain is thereby dissolved.
-13-I am unlimited existence/consciousness without a second – this is
the absolute reality and is non-dual and therefore without objects.
-14-The constituent description ‘unlimited’ defines an indivisible,
flawless, complete and unlimited, non-compromising integrity
-15-This non-compromising integrity is also referred to as ‘bliss’
-16-In the context of a seemingly real transactional reality, all
objects that present themselves to me as existence/consciousness are
therefore me
-17-Accordingly, the term ‘non-dual love’ is an explanatory tool to
describe Ānanda from the non-dual principle in a dual system.
Sundari: Just remember that whenever you use the word ‘I”, you know who it refers to. Non-dual Consciousness/Self, or ego identity? I am pretty sure that you do know how to discriminate based on your logic, which flows and is in accordance with the scripture.
Simon: Question 2: Is the definition in points 14/15 above correct? I have never heard the word ‘integrity’ used in this context before, but it seems logically consistent and far less emotional than ‘bliss’.
Sundari: Yes to the first question. Integrity, as with the word ‘essence’ works with reference to the Self/Consciousness as it is the most integral factor in all situations and at all times, the only factor that cannot be negated and the one factor without which nothing would exist. But you have the wrong idea of ‘bliss’. Here is the teaching on it:
The Two Blisses
Blissful implies bliss-less. The bliss of knowledge is very different from bliss as most people understand the meaning of that word. The bliss of the Self is not a feeling. It is just knowledge. The problem lies in the misunderstanding of the word “bliss”. There are two kinds of bliss: ananda which is the bliss of the Self, is not a feeling or experience, that which is always present, unlimited, and non-changing, your true nature. And anantum, experiential bliss which is a feeling and comes and goes.
The bliss of Self-knowledge can be experienced as a feeling though, such as the bliss of deep sleep, which is inferred when you wake up, or as parabhakti, where love is known to be you, your true nature, meaning Consciousness, the Self. Parabhakti is having all you could ever want and knowing that it will never leave you. It is love loving itself. It is limitless satisfaction, parama sukka or tripti are words used in the texts.
The nature of something is different from the attributes of something. People often confuse the two. The nature of something 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 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 of fire is heat. If you take heat away, fire is no longer fire. Thus, the nature of the Self, Consciousness, or Consciousness, is parama prema svarupa. Parama means limitless; svarupa means nature and prema is the love that makes love possible.
When I know I am Consciousness, I am prema, limitless love. This love is knowledge because Consciousness is intelligent. Prema is only known when Self-knowledge has negated the doer. That is not to say that the bliss disappears when Self-knowledge is firm. It just does not matter whether the experience of bliss is present or not because the bliss of Self-knowledge is always present because the bliss of Self-knowledge is the bliss of the Self.
This is what Swami Paramarthananda says about the two kinds of blisses:
Ananda vs Anantum
Paramarthananda, on the Taittiriya Upanishad takes up this question of anantum vs ananda, the “two kinds of blisses”:
In the scriptures both ananda and anantum are used to describe the indescribable Brahman. “Sathyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma” is one of these definitions, “Sat Cit Ananda”, referring to Atma; another one.
Paramarthanda now gives the following explanation:
Sathyam means timewise limitlessness, Anantum means space wise limitlessness, so he translates “Sathyam Jnanam Anantam Brahman” into ‘Brahman is the eternal all-pervading Consciousness’. Anantum as a term to describe limitlessness is not sufficient as it does not include time.
Ananda in “Sat Cit Ananda” again means limitlessness. There are two kinds of ananda: bimbaananda and pratibimbaananda. Bimbaananda is the original ananda also called atmaananda. It is my nature, always present but not experienceable. It cannot be gained; it is to be claimed and owned.
Pratibimbaananda is reflected ananda; it can be experienced in a sattvic mind. Translating ananda into ‘Bliss’ is reducing ananda into pratibimbaananda, experiential bliss. In the spiritual world, you find this mistranslation and misunderstanding all over, especially in yoga.
Question 3: Point 17 above is the core of this entire question. To what extent is this description correct, and can it be improved or supplemented?
Sundari: I have answered this above. The distinctions are subtle, but very clear when you understand the nondual perspective
Much love
Sundari
