Dear
Ram,
My
name is Jerry. I have read your deeply inspiring and revealing book,
Meditation, Inquiry into the Self. The most wonderful teaching in your
book was how you were able to point out the nature of Vedantic meditation.
No teacher in India
or in the West that I had sought out was able to explain it with such
simplicity and clarity as you did. Now I understand for the first time
what "niddidhyasana" is even though you didn't mention that word at
all. It is truly refreshing and most important for any spiritual seeker
to know this simple but most effective Vedantic meditation and how and why it
differs from others like Za -Zen or Vipassana . And why it so much more
effective. I would like to congratulate you for this beautiful
work and the invaluable service you did render to humanity at large and to
spiritual seekers in particular. As you know it is not easy to come across authentic
writings regarding Vedanta that has sprung from the author's own experience,
understanding and living wisdom. I am touched by your teachings in the core of
my heart. Is it possible to meet you (or at least call you)? I have a
question which no one has answered to my absolute satisfaction yet.
With gratitude and pranams,
Jerry,
Dear Ram,
Thank you for your kindness, openness and invitation
to meet. I will be calling you in the morning regarding our meeting.
Ram: You're welcome.
Jerry: When I am lifting a very heavy object from the
ground unto a table, I am not aware or conscious of doing so.
Ram: If this is true, how do you know you are lifting?
Jerry: I am actually the lifting itself.
Ram: Is ‘lifting' conscious? I
don't think so. You, awareness, knows the
lifting. The lifting, being insentient, doesn't know you.
Jerry: The lifter, the lifting and the lifted
merge or morph into the movement ‘simply lifting.’
Ram: On an experiential level this is true but
on the level of reality the lifter, the lifting and the lifted are already one.
So who are you? Are you the one who appeared after the experience
of merger or were you there before the experience happened?
Jerry: Or when I dance. At some point, the
dancer, dancing and the dance morph into ‘simply dancing.’ Bliss
and presence ensue and the act of dancing remains without a ‘me.’
No one is doing anything, and still the dancing happens, somewhat impersonally.
Ram: Yes, this is true on the level of apparent
reality. The ‘I' that dances, can, depending on circumstances
(concentration, absorption in the activity) experience a change in awareness.
But whereas there is a change in awareness, awareness does not change.
The way you describe it makes me think that you see yourself as the
‘I' that changes. If it is the ‘I' that
changes, then this ‘I' would be the ahamka, the
ego. In fact the ‘I' does not change. Change happens
within the field of the awareness that is ‘I.'
When the ‘I' that can't change seems to change, it is called Maya , non-apprehension of reality. This example points up a
common confusion between ‘awareness' (the subtle body) and awareness, the
Self. The subtle body is reflected awareness and can change. But
the Self is the field in which the changes that are called Jerry, the
non-essential ‘I' , takes place.
Jerry: Is it possible for ‘you, Ram’
to lift a very heavy object while there is awareness of this action?
Ram: Yes, but not in the way you think. I am
awareness, not the lifter. If there is a lifter, it is me, but I am not
the lifter. There is in fact no lifter, no lifting, and no lifted from
my point of view. This world of experience, karma, is an apparent reality
only. It has no lasting meaning. And because of this you cannot
say anything of real value about it. Therefore it is useless to inquire
into it. The world of karma and the doers of karma has a peculiar
ontological (existential) status; it is neither completely real, nor is it
completely unreal. So nothing definitive can be said about it.
For example what does ‘heavy' mean? Heavy to
whom? You cannot arrive at an objective definition of heavy.
What is heavy to you may be light to an elephant. So what is the
point of view from which one is to understand the heaviness.
Or ‘lifting.' From what
perspective is something lifted? If you want to take yourself as
limited, the body/mind, for example, that is fine. But you will have to
suffer the limitations that come along with this view of yourself. If
you take yourself to be awareness, there are no questions and no answers.
There is nothing that is not known or accomplished.
Jerry: Can one be totally lifting and being totally
aware simultaneously?
Ram: The ‘one' you are thinking of as
something substantial cannot be totally aware. This ‘one' is the
ego/mind entity, the subtle body. You are already ‘totally' (it's a bad
word because it implies the existence of ‘partial') awareness. ‘Partial' and ‘total' do not apply to you, Awareness.
You cannot actually resolve this question from the point of view you are
assuming.
Jerry: This seems not to be possible in my case.
Ram: This is true. It is not possible,
because the ‘you' is just an idea.
Jerry: It is rather: awareness - lifting ‘awareness‘ lifting, etc. the two are
alternating in a sense.
Ram: Awareness does not alternate. If it
is experienced as alternating you are talking about reflected awareness (the
subtle body).
Jerry: Or there is none of the two.
Ram: Yes.
Ram: Lifting and being aware of the action have
simply transcended into the ‘lifting-like-a-solid-rock-movement’ which
in fact is not even a movement, but simply an impersonal happening. When
attention is focused totally on an action, awareness seems to morph into
acting, whatever that acting may be. And awareness seems to be
‘lost’ for the time being. The important word is ‘seems.'
This whole experiential process is not real.
Jerry: And when awareness occurs again,
Ram: Awareness does not occur. It is always
here. Who is there to report its reoccurrence? If awareness is
coming and going it is not true awareness. Awareness seems to come and
go because the mind, the subtle body, is unable to maintain continuous
concentration or attention.
Jerry: the
attention seems not to be on the lifting any longer. Is it that the awareness
is sometimes more in the forefront and sometimes more in the background?
Ram: Awareness is that which knows the
foreground and the background. The problem here is that you are
confusing awareness with attention. Attention can shift from one thing
to another but attention and its shifts take place in awareness. If they
didn't, how would you be able to know them?
Jerry: Or is it that if awareness wants to be total
the action has to stop for that? And the
other way around, if the action wants to be total the awareness fades out?
Ram: Awareness does not want to be total.
It doesn't fade. Perhaps Jerry wants to be totally aware. Or to fade. But this is not possible. It
is rather like the person who asks God, who is omnipotent (can do anything) to
give him a head on his shoulders. God can do anything, create the whole
universe, but he cannot give me a head on my shoulders. Why? Because I already have a head. Just look to see who
you are. Inquire into awareness and these questions will go away.
There is nothing to be gained here except understanding. There is
nothing that needs to happen on an experiential level for you to attain
enlightenment. Why? Because you are already
enlightened. The problem is that you are trying to get an
imaginary ‘you' to understand something. What needs to happen is
that some misunderstandings about the nature of the ‘I' that you hold
dear need to be removed. This is going to be difficult because it seems,
from what you say, that you take yourself to be something that you aren't.
And people generally do not want to let go of their way of seeing
themselves. They would prefer to keep their self idea alive and
experience something that will set them free (of this self idea). So
what is required is (1) to get it clear what is the nature of awareness and (2)
to observe the self idea that you are conditioned to and correct it. It
has become a habit to think of yourself as a doer, an
experiencer, an enjoyer, a limited entity. And this is simply not true.
No experience or ‘insight' is going to fundamentally change the
way you see yourself.
Yes, you may temporarily see yourself differently, but
the habit of taking yourself to be a limited bundle of awareness, will not die
because of it. The mind is like a muscle that has been misused.
It needs to be retrained. It needs to pump some real ‘I' iron.
So when you think of ‘I' or say ‘I' you need to see what
‘I' it is. If it is the limited ‘I' then correct yourself.
By ‘correct' I mean know that it is not the real ‘I'.
This correction is very hard work. It takes a long time. After
his ‘death' experience Ramana sat in caves for fifteen years purifying
this ‘I' with the
understanding he got from his experience. If the death
experience was ‘full and final enlightenment' then what is he doing
sitting in a cave? He might just as well have gone home, played cricket
and eaten his mom's iddlies.
Jerry: The situation right here and now is: there is
awareness of this body/mind organism called Jerry sitting in a chair looking
out of the window noticing the Bay and the Bay Bridge
and a lot of water. In fact, that's all. That's what is. That's as it is. If
there is no thinking it is not even a question of awareness or no awareness of
an object . The ‘whole thing’ is simply is
as it is. Without thinking there is no name and no form, what remains is simply
as it is. Is this what Ramana calls, ‘The world disappears and the
Self remains?’
Ram: Yes.
Jerry: Is this what is called nonduality,
advaita? Are awareness and the appearance of objects in its field morphing into
oneness or nonduality when there is thoughtlessness?
Ram: There is no ‘
adwaita ' as you are thinking of it. Adwaita is simply a word
that describes Awareness. The question to ask in this situation is
‘who is aware of awareness and the objects morphing into non-duality.'
There is a third factor that seems to be hidden from you. When
you figure it out you will have cracked the enlightenment code.
Jerry: Ramesh Balsekar used to say, ‘For
the sage there are four states (I do not remember if he called states): simply
action, working mind (vs. thinking mind of the non-sage; the non-sage can have
a working mind state too) witnessing and non-witnessing state. Please comment.
Ram: From the Self's point of view there are no
states, there are no sages and there are no samsaris.
There is only knowledge and ignorance. One needs to understand
what certain things mean from the Self's point of view and from the point of
view of ignorance. When one knows what is ignorance and what is
knowledge one is finished spiritually. Unfortunately, what is ignorance
is very often taken to be knowledge. The spiritual world is chock full
of people who have mistaken ignorance for knowledge. So they have all sorts
of beliefs and opinions about what enlightenment is but these beliefs and
opinions do not help them because they still find themselves feeling limited
and confused, they keep on seeking.
Jerry: What about the sage who is said to be aware (of
the world) while he is in deep sleep? This is a contradiction in terms. Please
comment.
Ram: You're right. The person, the sage,
disappears in deep sleep. The world (not the five elements, the cosmos) is just
a projection of a person's mind. So when the person is gone where is the world
going to be? This is a confusion that comes from Yoga, not Vedanta.
Jerry: I would be deeply grateful if you would be so
kind and answer these questions before we meet. I will be opening my computer
before I am going to call you.
Ram: This is the best I can do for now
Jerry: With
much appreciation and gratitude.
Ram: I hope what I said was useful.
Dear
Jerry,
I'm
afraid I don't understand your ‘simply lifting' question. I know
you explained it in your letter but it is clear by your response that I didn't
get it. Because you don't know me it is possible for you to misunderstand
me. At the beginning of relationships most of what is communicated are projections. This is not bad. It is just
natural. So the beginning of relationships are always dangerous; things can
go wrong and both people need to be very careful what they say and how they say
it. I'm going to take a chance with you
and try to explain how I see things and what kind of communication is possible
with me.
I
know that you have no way of knowing if what I say is true but I assume that if
you want to continue this dialogue you will take it on faith, pending
confirmation in your own experience. I am not asking you to believe me…not at all…I am just asking
that you listen carefully to what I have to say, think
about it deeply and respond directly to the points I raise and the suggestions
I make because what I'm trying to share with you is very subtle.
There
is no room for argument, no ‘yes buts'. Either you see it or you
don't. I have nothing invested in what I say. In fact you will
not get anything more from me than what is said in scripture, not because I am
a pundit who has only intellectual knowledge of the Self but because the
scripture (the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras) most clearly states
what my experience is, i.e. who I am. I come from a long respectable
lineage of jnanis. My guru was a great man, an impeccable sage, and I
gained liberation through him thirty two years ago. I have devoted my
whole incarnation since then to teaching the Self to qualified people but I do
not see myself as a guru. I do not teach professionally or give satsang
professionally. Teaching happens, satsang
happens because of who I am. But I have nothing invested in it. I
do not promote myself in any way. I live a very simple life and am so
happy that I couldn't care less if I ever spoke to another person.
At
the expense of you thinking that I'm arrogant I should probably tell you that I
only know one thing - that I am whole and complete actionless awareness, in
other words the Self. This does not mean that I am person named Ram who
has this special knowledge, who has assumed the advaitic
point of view. Quite simply, I am the Self. So this is all I
know. It is valuable to know this (because I am It) and this knowledge will solve any problem. In
the Upanishad it says, "What is it knowing which everything else is
known?" This means that you don't need to drink the whole ocean
to know what salt water is. One small sip will do. This
‘small sip' is the knowledge ‘I am the Self’. So this
is what I teach.
The
problem with your question is that it is not in my area of understanding.
When you ask the question I come up with nothing. What does
happen in my mind, is this: I immediately think
‘Who wants to know and why?’ What I'm trying to communicate
is that if you knew who you were you wouldn't ask such a question. Why?
Because ‘you' would be the answer. And since you already
have you and know yourself intimately the very question would not arise.
If
you don't know who you are, then the answer to this question will not teach you
who you are. You need to ask the right question to find that out.
I can perhaps help you if you ask the right question if you are interested.
Do you see my dilemma? I would like to help but I am not
qualified to answer your question as it stands.
Although
I am not a guru I have been in this ‘guru business'
for thirty two years. When I first started I was full of fire and
inspiration and I attracted a lot of people. I had a very successful ashram in San Francisco and many
people woke up. But I made a lot of mistakes too and was not as skillful
in helping people as I am now. One thing I learned was that although
enlightenment is very easy and very simple, very few get it because the beliefs
and opinions they have about it keep them from asking the right question.
Many of them even know the answer but have no confidence in it because
they have erroneous notions of what enlightenment is. I'm attaching a
short pamphlet that I wrote called ‘What is
Advaita Vedanta: knowledge and experience’ that you might wish to read.
It will give you a clearer idea of what I am about.
I
know most Western people do not like to hear this, but one really needs to be
qualified to realize who they are. Just wanting it is not enough.
And the way you tell if someone is qualified is if they ask the right questions
in the right spirit if they really want to know. The reason knowledge is
so important is because you are already enlightened. You are not going
to ‘get enlightened.' You are the Self ,
whole and complete actionless awareness. Period.
OK, Ram, then why don't I ‘feel' it? Why don't I
‘experience' it? Because the notions you have about who you are
prevent you from appreciating it. These notions amount to Self ignorance.
So if you want to be rid of them you need knowledge, since only
knowledge removes ignorance. Beliefs and opinions do not remove
ignorance. With reference to the Self they are ignorance.
So
with regard to your question, I say, ‘Who wants
to know and why?’ This might be an interesting way to start a
satsang. If you wish to continue a discussion maybe you will get the
answer to your ‘lifting' question at some point. Maybe it won't
even seem like an important question. I tried to answer it to the best
of my ability but I obviously failed completely so let's just set it aside for
now and see if you can answer my question. OK?
Om
and Prem ,
Ram
Dear Ram, Thank you for the peace and quiet
that come with your words. My heart is touched and knows that you speak
the truth Reading your lines I am
sitting back and cry - in gratitude. Thank you. I am looking forward to
receiving the pamphlet "What is Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge and
Experience." Please be so kind and send it to me. Perhaps
reading it will open the curtain ... Perhaps reading it will enable me to
understand my question reg. "simply lifting" in the context of "knowledge
vs. experience." If anything, there is "presence" in
anything that occurs besides what seems to happen (incl. "simply
lifting"). That is what I am. The shift from being part of what happens
and seemingly experiencing it to That which is
present, knowing and at peace at all "times"....