Johan, Dear Sundari, and James: Putting all of this dialectic aside to speak from the heart, thank you for your thoughtful and patient answers.
Sundari: Thank you for your feedback, Johan, it is our pleasure to help if we can. Before going any further, I would just like to point something out which may not sit well with you, but I hope it does not offend you. When you say, ‘putting aside the dialectic’ and speak from the heart, I understand that you mean you wish to sidestep the issue of investigating ‘truth’ and to speak instead of your personal experience. However, while I thank you for sharing your story with us, it really is not possible to separate ultimate truth from experience because they are one and the same.
The question is how does experience relate to truth, with a capital ‘T’? Vedanta tells you right off the bat that the ultimate (and only) truth is you, the Self. As the one and only non-dual Self, you are that which makes experience possible for the experiencing entity (in this case, Johan) but as the Self, you are not an experiencer. If you were, you could not be the non-dual Self. Clearly, you cannot be the Self and the person, if reality is non-dual, which it is. So, Johan minus experience=the Self. But unless that fact has fully assimilated and moksa has obtained, that still leaves us with an experiencer.
While there is nothing wrong with being an experiencer, there is a problem when we are totally identified with him or her, because the experiencer is a limited entity stuck in duality believing it must gain or lose objects to be happy. The realization that the joy is not in the objects is where ‘the rubber hits the road’ as James likes to say. All of Vedanta teaching is really about understanding the common identity between the experiencing entity and the Self, what is the same and what is different about both, and why not knowing this is the cause of all suffering. To have the ability to discriminate between the Self (always present, unchanging) and the person (not always present, always changing) 100% is called moksa, freedom from limitation.
You have used the term ‘dialectic’ in this email as in our previous exchanges, and I sidestepped it. But it is actually an important point that needs to be discussed because the meaning of the word has a large bearing on how you understand Vedanta. The word ‘dialectic’ means the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions with the implied understanding that what constitutes the truth is debatable. I have explained to you previously why Vedanta is not a system of thought based on opinions or beliefs and thus, not open to debate, but I see that you do not agree with this. I understand it is a difficult point to take on because that statement sounds absolutist, elitist, and egocentric when it is far from it.
However, Vedanta is the nondual logic of Existence and infallible because nobody can deny that they are conscious, and exist. To question this means that you believe that consciousness is not who you are but a product of the mind. Which does not make sense because, without consciousness, there is no mind and no body. People who do not understand that Consciousness comes first and stands independent of the body/mind, which is why there are so many different versions of what the ‘truth’ actually is and so many confused people.
Problematically, there are no solutions to ultimate truth if you are trying to get there from a dualistic perspective, which you will be if you are not applying the nondual logic of Vedanta to your thinking. In the dualistic material world, everything is questionable, even science, hence the relevance of objective thought, philosophical debate, and application of the dialectic. But, the truth, you, the Self/Consciousness, are not in duality. You are that which makes duality seemingly exist, but duality and non-duality never meet. The subject (the Self) and the object (experiencing entity) are not in the same order of existence. The object can never understand the subject because the Subject is subtler than the object. How to heal the subject/object split?
To understand who you are as the Self, you need to step out of duality. To do that requires qualifications as explained, a valid means of knowledge capable of removing the ignorance of who are you from the mind, and a qualified teacher. Vedanta is that means. The Self is not perceivable by the mind or the senses because it is not an object of knowledge. It can be inferred, but inference is not enough to remove all ignorance unless the mind is highly qualified. Most inquirers need to be taught what it means to be the Self, and this requires surrender to the teachings as the boss, and to the qualified teacher who wields them for you. Not surrender to the teacher as a person, please note, but surrender to the teacher as a stand-in for Isvara.
While dialectical thinking applies everywhere else, it does not apply to Vedanta. Vedanta requires faith in the scripture as a primary qualification, but not blind faith. It is faith pending the outcome of your own investigation. So, there is a kind of dialectic process involved. But the difference here is that if in your investigation of the teachings you disagree with them or come up with your own opinions or beliefs, it is always you that is wrong, not the teaching. So, you are back to square one. The inescapable truth is that if you really want moksa (freedom from suffering and limitation) above all else, Vedanta is not subject to debate because it is the truth of who you are: that which is real, meaning always present and unchanging. Thus, the investigation is about what that means for you as a discrete ‘person’, the experiencing entity.
Johan: What is really going on for me and has been for years is that I am looking for a spiritual object that I can hold on to and base a new jiva identity around. I go round and round in circles, taking something up then finding fault with it, taking up something else, and then coming back to the first thing. I’ve picked up a fair amount of knowledge but little Self-knowledge doing this.
Sundari: I think I said to you previously that most inquirers come to Vedanta with a lot of ideas that must eventually be abandoned to progress. I am pretty sure that you understand and accept your identity as the Self, and I understand you are very sincere as a thinker and inquirer. But Self-realization is where the teaching starts. Vedanta is difficult and highly counter-intuitive, it is not easy for the mind to let go of identification with its own ideas. As per my statements above, if you are still shopping around for answers then it is likely that the requisite qualifications for self-inquiry need work, the most important qualification being faith in the scriptures. There is no way around this, unfortunately. There is no point in debating theological doctrine or philosophical theories with you because anything up for debate is subject to interpretation, and Vedanta, as stated a few times now, is not. While people can and do interpret it, to do so keeps one stuck in duality, identified with the ‘thinker/interpreter’.
Johan: I have a real “thing” for Christianity on an emotional level, for example. So I go down that path for a while, but then comes a moment when some theological sticking point starts to irritate me, or I simply feel that I’m engaging in a kind of dualistic make-believe and I get stuck and turn back to Buddhism or Vedanta. Then I get irritated with something I read there that I feel I could just never accept—often about something inessential like diet or some other cultural thing—and I move on. Then, maybe I get sick of the whole spiritual game for a while and focus on other pursuits, until unhappiness drives me back.
Sundari: I can understand the attraction to some Christian teachings as well as why you go on and off them and most teachings. So much of religious dogma and a lot of what passes for ‘spiritual’ teaching is intellectually insulting, and you have a great intellect. However, it’s important to note that the teachings on non-duality are not exclusive to Vedanta, they cannot be because non-duality is the nature of life. The scriptural teachings of Vedanta unfold with pristine logic how the whole mandala of existence functions, but it does not ‘own’ non-duality. A lot of other teachings contain aspects of the teachings, but none of them bar Vedanta contain the whole and complete means of knowledge. Most do not discriminate between ignorance and knowledge and if they do, they teach ignorance as knowledge, sometimes with the best of intentions.
Non-duality can appear under the guise of other paths, but in fact, it is the pathless path that underpins all paths. Once you can discriminate between ignorance and knowledge, you can spot both a mile off, no matter where they appear. For instance, there are some Vedantins who see Christ as a non-dualist, and in many ways, things he said pointed to that. The same is true of the Buddha and others. The thing is, if Christ existed, he was not different from anyone else, just someone who knew who he was and was too outspoken about it, which cost him his life.
The problem is not with Christ, it’s with the Christians who deified him. My parents were staunch Catholics and often said don’t confuse Christ with the Christians. The same applies to the Buddha. The thing is, Christ may have said some pretty accurate things, but he offered no system of teaching – just inspirational wisdom. His sayings were turned into a religion, but no matter how enlightened the approach to Christianity, it still comes up short on a valid systematic teaching capable of removing the ignorance of your true nature as unlimited, ever-present, ever-full, unchanging Consciousness.
Vedanta is not against religion. In fact, it encourages a religious attitude as an essential aspect of self-inquiry and of surrender to Isvara, or God. This was unfolded in detail in the satsang I sent you on God, so I will not repeat it here. Vedanta differs from all paths and systems of thinking because it alone provides a valid means of knowledge to discriminate between satya, the Self, that which is always present and unchanging, and mithya, the jiva/world, or the objects that appear in you, the Self/Consciousness. It offers a toolkit with which the inquirer can apply the teachings to its life freeing it from the limitation and suffering of the identification with the limited egoic identity. No other teaching philosophy religion or other systems of thought does this.
Johan: Vedanta is designed to thwart this approach, I know, by teaching that NO object can be possessed forever or give perfect satisfaction. Including spiritual objects like Jesus, Krishna etc., or intellectual objects like systems of philosophy.
Sundari: Yes, entry-level self-inquiry states clearly that the joy is not in objects, but in you, the Self. No object can complete you or make you happy and dependence on objects for either is the cause of all suffering and limitation. An object is anything other than you, the knower of the object, i.e., the Self. Anything known to you cannot be you. Whether it is a material object, a religious belief, a philosophy or even the idea that the Self is something to gain, all fail to give you what you seek because you already are what you seek. When ignorance (duality) is operating, you do not know this, so hopelessly chase objects to complete you, as stated above. You know all this.
Johan: So I think I understand what you mean about Vedanta being a “throwaway”. You don’t get attached to the vehicle that brings liberation from dualistic thought.
Sundari: Vedanta is a means to the end of the hypnosis of duality, what the texts call the ‘whirlpool of samsara’. It is a perfectly designed set of tools to remove ignorance of your true nature as the Self, assuming qualifications. Once you have realized the end, what use are the means? You no longer need tools when the job at hand is done, just as you no longer need the map when you know who and where you are. The problem is that knowing who you are, Self-realization, is where the ‘work’ of self-inquiry begins, as stated above but bears repeating. Duality or ignorance of your true non-dual nature as the Self is hard-wired and highly tenacious. It can and usually does take many years for all the layers of ignorance to be peeled away by Self-knowledge. The student must be properly taught by a qualified teacher, or they inevitably interpret the teachings according to their own ideas and ignorance.
There are no shortcuts, and because self-inquiry is hard, the inquirer needs to be absolutely fed up with the kind of mind it has been living with and thus totally dedicated to moksa above all else for the assimilation of Self-knowledge to actualize. I know you have an excellent mind and are clearly very well educated which is a great advantage. But as I said to you before, though we need a refined intellect to assimilate the teachings, it is not the intellect per se that ‘gets it’. The removal of ignorance is not gaining anything. You cannot study or learn about the Self because you are the Self.
Johan: I’m taking your advice and re-reading Essence of Enlightenment, and I can see why you start with the basic considerations about the relation of objects to happiness. I feel like the “old soul” that James describes, who floats through life never making anything stick because he knows that he will never really BE anyone.
Sundari: That’s great Johan, keep up the good work. James will be your teacher from here on and you could not be in better hands. Remember that there is no need to be anyone when you know who you are. You are ‘being’ itself because you are Existence, big ‘E’. All being depends on you, but you depend on nothing.
All the best with everything
Love
Sundari
