Dear James,
I always have thought you never understood me.
It was a mutual misunderstanding brought about by (what else) word usage.
You seem to think you have some mind-reading capability but that is forgivable.
It may look like mind-reading but it is just an understanding of the simplicity of the human mind from the non-dual perspective.
You from the start assumed I had a question and even scolded me for not asking you one.
Because ignorance (non-apprehension of non-duality) is an ever-present reality, everyone everywhere always has questions about the self and/or the objects that present themselves to the self.
Really all I wanted was clarification…
I’d say that looking for clarification is questioning.
…because I did not have enough understanding of the teaching to recognize which perspective you were speaking from in the satsongs and various books I read of yours.
Every blessed book, satsang and video reveals the method for recognizing the only two possible perspectives: the subject (the self) and the objects that present themselves to it. In light of that fact, it was clear to me that you didn’t grasp the seemingly dual (meaning non-dual) analysis from the get-go.
I say I asked basically one question and that was not of you but of one of your teachers very early on in my inquiry and it was, “why is there anything other than the Self?” He answered something to the effect that the Self, being non-dual limitlessness, has the possibility of ignorance or limitlessness. That answer satisfied me and the rest was merely a clarification. I didn’t need faith.
Satisfied who? The self or the not-self? And why did you have faith that you were getting the whole teaching? It was an intellectual question…not an existential question… and your intellect quit inquiring. The self never stops inquiring. Inquiry is its nature.
Anyway, he didn’t tell you that the one asking the question was ignorant of the distinction between the self and the not-self (objects). Joe, the one asking the question is an object. Objects are inert and can’t ask questions so the one actually asking the question was the self, deluded by ignorance (maya).
Since you retained the Joe perspective, you assumed that I maintained the James perspective but I have been faking it for the last 52 years. Why? Because someone caught up in the limited perspective is initially incapable of assimilating the non-dual perspective. It is an act of compassion. Unfortunately, my James act is so convincing and people, in general, don’t question what they see so they are completely fooled. No blame. People go to the cinema because they enjoy playing the fool. I’m always there behind the masquerade beckoning, enticing, asking people to read between the lines and use inference to get a glimpse of me, the self that is non-different from theirs.
You can say what you want about me but it does not change the fact that you, Sundari, your books, the teaching, and the grace of Ishvara have been all that I’d been searching for and I’ll say it once more, I am so very thankful.
I don’t doubt that, but is that the self speaking or is that Joe speaking? I don’t get the sense that you are acting. If not and you gained all that you were seeking, then you are me and I am you. What more can we say? That understanding, however, is useful if the apparent person…the existent but unreal person…doesn’t work well in society because basically nobody is situated in non-dual knowledge. You couldn’t see (no blame, that’s ignorance) that there was a lot more to know.
You say I don’t really know who you are as a person but the person James was very evident in the videos, the writings, and the book Mystic By Default. and if that is not who the James character was/is then you have been masquerading. I personally had no issue with the character, I actually related to him but it was not James the character that I was interested in, it was what he was teaching and for that, I am forever thankful.
Now the question is, “What was he teaching?”
As I told you in the past, I have never looked for a guru, I never wanted a guru and I never had a guru, until the guru found me and that was Ramji. I took you at your word when you said the guru should be your friend but there comes a time when like you, that guru relationship ends.
The friend teaching is Vedanta’s provisional acceptance of duality. It is not meant to be taken literally because every not-self has a different idea of what the word friend, which is a dualistic word, means.
Some people think that friend means that they can wake you up in the dead of night when they are in some kind of psychological crisis. I like to sleep through the night and deal with waking state unrealities after I’ve had breakfast. If you actually heard my Gita commentaries, I make it clear that Arjuna doesn’t understand what Krishna is actually saying when he gives him non-dual knowledge at the beginning. He trusts Krishna as a friend to tell him what to do and thus the whole spiritual charade begins. Whereas if he had understood he would have grabbed his bow and released his fury on Duryodhana and his army without so much a by-your-leave.
You have stated that you thought it should have ended long ago and that friendship is not important, unlike Krishna with Arjuna. I, however, will continue to hold you with love and gratitude.
Why shouldn’t you? It’s natural to hold everyone with love and gratitude. I’m trying to get through (albeit seemingly unsuccessfully) to your not-self. It would have ended long ago if you actually understood Vedanta. You can’t understand the James me because that me isn’t real. When you talk with me you are talking with a Vedanta computer. I spit out the answers. It is the same answer for everyone. There is only one solution because there is only one problem.
You are satisfied with what you are satisfied with. Read this letter carefully and see which of my statements incite your curiosity and if there are any, then I suggest that you start over at the beginning with the distinction between the subject and the object, the self and the not-self, and proceed from there.
This is a common problem. Because I can’t hold every person’s hand and walk them through the whole teaching (I did when I first started teaching) I recommend that they click the New to Vedanta graphic on the website and follow the links. It takes time. I’d say that at your age and considering your circumstances, it is highly unlikely that you will do so. And it’s fine with me. You got what you got and you are satisfied, so the whole thing is a winner. As far as I’m concerned, I like challenging cases. Keeps me on my toes.
James
