Definition of Enlightenment
Teaching the Self
Bias of Vedanta
Definition of Enlightenment:
Experience and Knowledge
Direct Self Knowledge
Indirect Self Knowledge
A Negative Teaching
A Vision of the Self; Jiva, Jagat, Ishwara
Destruction of the Doer
Importance of Karma Yoga
Surrender a Poor Man’s Karma
Yoga
Sadhana means Preparation of the
Mind for Enlightenment
The Authority of the Teacher: Sruti and smriti
Dear Terry,
As you know I had no knowledge of
X’s teaching when you gave me the CD with his satsangs and asked me to
comment on them. I have over the
years spoken with many people who listened to him but no one seemed able to tell
me what he was communicating. I
attributed this more or less to the type of seeker that we see these days. They seem to be…and there are
exceptions like your self…more interested in the sanga than Sat, more
interested in a feel-good experience than in gaining wisdom and
transformation. It seems seeking
has become just another lifestyle fad these days and ‘seeker’
another third-rate identity easily purchased from the overstocked shelves of
the big supermarket of limited identities that our societies have become. In any case, I make some general remarks
relating X’s teaching to traditional Vedanta and then do an in depth
critique of one of the satsangs.
From X’s increasing popularity
it is fair to infer that he has something to offer. Whether it is enlightenment or not
depends on one’s definition of enlightenment. The traditional Vedantic definition of
enlightenment, moksha, is freedom from dependence on gross and subtle objects. This is not something that can be
determined from the outside, at least not without consistent association with a
teacher apart from his or her public appearances. A satsang is a very contrived and
limited event and people will say almost anything to gain attention and respect
so one can never tell whether a person is enlightened or not from public
appearances. If you really
want to know you should be enlightened yourself or have a very good idea of
what enlightenment is and then worm your way into the confidence of the teacher
and be like a fly on the wall of his or her life…it won’t take long
to figure it out because whatever a person is, good or bad, is working out all
the time. I also believe one
could make the case that spiritual people are at least as gullible as the
general public, perhaps more if you consider the strange beliefs to which they
are attracted…so popularity can not be equated with substance. Look at the tens of thousands of people
who were attracted to Osho…and we know how he
ended up. Anyway it is of no
concern to me whether or not X is enlightened or anyone else…there are
certain signs that he is…but I am mildly interested in this Neo-Advaita
phenomenon and whether or not it is an effective means of Self realization so I
will confine my remarks to how well I think his teachings reveal the Self and
shed light on the means of Self realization.
One problem with enlightenment is
that it does not qualify you to teach it effectively. For every one hundred enlightened people
two or three are effective teachers.
Teaching is a skill that requires a valid means of knowledge. Of course a person who realizes the
Self...or imagines he or she has…is always free to teach the Self in
whatever way he or she chooses but such attempts are almost always clumsy,
inefficient and redundant…like trying to reinvent the wheel. It is a shame that more awakened people
who have an
As you know I was never curious
about X or any satsang teacher because I am the disciple of a great Indian
mahatma who helped me finish my short and easy sadhana a long time ago. It is my view that the spirituality is a
means to an end, a correction really, and that once you know who you are you
are you might profitably get on with your life. Turning enlightenment into a profession
is a sad commentary on the spiritual materialism sweeping the planet. Recently I was told that it was possible
to take a ‘satsang teacher training course’ (for a hefty fee) so
that you would not have to work out all the messy details involved in becoming
a success in the enlightenment business.
The point of all this is that I really have no first hand knowledge of
the Neo-Advaita scene; for me to attend a satsang would be like going out for a
hamburger when I have a filet mignon in the fridge. So I listened to X’s teachings
because you asked me, not for personal reasons.
The comments below focus on the
teaching…not on X as such, although I make certain tentative inferences
about him from them. X is an
interesting person and his ‘enlightenment’…or whatever it is…obviously
makes him attractive to people. And
I wish him well although I can’t see how his teachings…which need a
lot of work…are going to set people free for the
reasons enumerated below.
The teachings are at least as
important, perhaps more, than the teacher.
Self ignorance is a highly personal phenomenon and you need to remove it
yourself with the help of proven teachings. The teacher can certainly help to point
out problems in your thinking and make helpful suggestions but basically the
work involves the practical application of knowledge…and this is
something only you can do.
If someone else’s
understanding could be ‘transmitted’ verbally or non-verbally then
everyone who ‘sat’ with an enlightened person would get
enlightened. A teacher is essential
but is only one third of the equation, the other two being the eligibility of
the disciple and the effectiveness of the means of Self knowledge.
Obviously there is a bias to my
comments but it is not a personal bias.
It is the bias of traditional Vedanta. Vedanta says that this is a non-dual
reality. Therefore there is only
one Self. Whatever is experienced
anywhere at any time in any plane of consciousness is the non-dual Self. So the pursuit of a special experience
called enlightenment is unnecessary and possibly harmful since experience is in
the dream of Maya and never lasts.
Therefore the freedom that people seek can only be known and appreciated
for what it is. To quote Ramana,
whose views are in complete harmony with Shankara and traditional Vedanta,
“By jnana or spiritual
knowledge alone is this bliss (the Self) to be realized and jnana is achieved
through vichara or steady
inquiry”
So the question of a person’s
teaching revolves around the issue of whether or not it delivers direct knowledge
of the Self. Direct Self knowledge
means the (hard and fast) knowledge ‘I am the Self.’ It is a knowledge of identity based on
experience that frees you of dependence on objects. “Objects’ does not refer
exclusively to physical objects but to subtle objects as well: ideas, beliefs,
opinions, dreams, memories, imaginations, fears, desires, and any and all
positive and negative states of mind spiritual and otherwise. Because there is only one Self and reality
is non-dual it is impossible not to experience it always so enlightenment as
Self experience is not enlightenment.
If it was everyone would be enlightened. You may wish to define enlightenment as
experience of the Self but what good is it if you still suffer attachment to
experience? However, it is quite
possible not to know that what one is experiencing is the Self and that you are
the Self. Understanding
that one is the Self in practical terms means that one knows beyond a shadow of
a doubt that one is whole and complete as one is. It is obvious that people suffer attachment because
they think they are incomplete.
Enlightenment means that you don’t pursue or avoid objects with
the belief that you have something to gain or lose by obtaining or avoiding
them.
Most teachers present Self knowledge
indirectly. Indirect Self knowledge is the knowledge that the Self exists. Indirect knowledge presents a problem
because it makes the Self seem like a desirable experience. So the language of indirect knowledge is
experience oriented and it gives the seeker the impression that something needs
to be done to gain freedom…which raises the tricky doership issue. This is perhaps useful at the beginning
of one’s spiritual journey when one is unsure of the existence of the
Self and would be benefited by non-dual epiphanies, if only to get a more clear
idea of the goal. But a person who
has been conditioned to experiential language runs into a big problem after a
while, one that prevents direct knowledge.
He or she cannot make the leap from experience to identity because
attachment to an identity as a ‘knower/experiencer’ of the Self has developed. If you say “I am experiencing the
Self’ you probably think that you are someone or something other than
it. And this is a problem. It is identity or knowledge that I am
the Self ‘alone,’ as Ramana says, that is
moksha, freedom.
Although it is acceptable to teach
both direct and indirect knowledge depending on the eligibility of the
disciples a good teacher will make the distinction between these two approaches
clear for the reason mentioned above.
X does not do this. He
switches from one to the other for no apparent reason.
With this understanding you could
probably sort out X’s teaching on your own, but his satsang is
undisciplined and his language idiosyncratic so it is quite possible to be
confused by it. Much of this is
probably due to its extemporaneous nature and the diverse motivations of the
people in attendance. The only
thing more or less consistent in the satsang is X’s state of mind which is
rock solid. The satsang
topics wander all over the place and the transitions between topics seem
arbitrary and very often capricious… to say the least. Much of some of the satsangs are taken
up with rather silly and tasteless jokes for want of serious questions. In one a woman wants to know how to deal
with the beggars in
Most of the people I have met who
did not like his teaching cite confusion as their primary criticism and its
‘intellectual’ nature second.
It doesn’t seem that X is confused about who
he is but I do think he is struggling with how to teach effectively. He often speaks very rapidly as if he
wanted to get through with the idea and on to the next. Sometimes he seems quite bored with what
he is saying and will add numerous blah, blah, blahs to his statements. Sometimes it seems that he is either
coming from memory or is trying to improve his formulation as he goes…which
is natural for someone outside an established teaching tradition trying to find
an authentic voice. Part of the
problem is that English is his second language…no blame. But it does add to the confusion.
Teaching is actually education,
although this is not a popular idea in the Neo-Advaita world. Self ignorance, like any other
ignorance, does not disappear just because you want it too. The teacher needs to be very patient and
have a comprehensive teaching, one that explains clearly the relationship
between the Self, the world and the individual. It needs especially to deal with the
problem of action and its results.
It is not helpful to be merely told that you are not a doer, for
example. You need to know why
action will not produce enlightenment and you also need to know what the value
of action is. It is only when you
see very clearly that you cannot beat the karmic system by experience that you
can actually begin to inquire. When
I was with my teacher I attended three Vedanta classes a day, every day for two
years plus a couple of satsangs. I
heard all the major and several minor Vedanta texts
unfolded verse by verse, word by word.
All the ramifications of every idea where laboriously worked out for the
benefit of the students. The people
who were into it were into it…for life. They took it very seriously and many
people woke up…because the teachings were so thorough, logical,
consistent, and profound. My
teacher would not move on to the next topic until everyone understood the preceding
topic. The teaching was built up
day in an day out using the scriptures as the
basis. In a way it was very
difficult not to get enlightened if you paid attention because the teachings
were so great and the teacher so professional.
Another common criticism I’ve
heard is that his teaching is essentially negative and from listening to the
satsangs I think there is something to it.
It is about X breaking down concepts that he feels get in the way of
enlightenment. A destructive
teaching is always important if enlightenment is Self knowledge. The word ‘shad’ in Upanishad
indicates the destruction of ignorance.
But if you have a positive means of knowledge there is little need for a
guru to destroy ideas; the vision of the Self that it brings destroys erroneous
notions automatically. But you have
to present a living vision of the Self in real time, not talk
‘about’ it. Vedanta
reveals in startling detail the nature of the cosmos (jagat), the psychology
of the individual (jiva) and the
nature of the Self (Ishwara)
and the relationship between them.
Once this vision has been assimilated satsang is useful to address the
few remaining doubts. But usually
Self realization happens in the course of the teaching and from that point on
the only practical issue is confidence in one’s Self knowledge, the unshakable
conviction that one can live free of objects.
Yes, a teacher should have clear and
well-thought out teachings but the teacher himself should be the teaching so
that the disciple can see the knowledge in action. Whether X teaches by example as well as
precept you would know better than I because you spent so much time with
him…but he certainly seems rooted in certainty. Whether that certainty is due to the
nature of his personality…in which case his teachings could be just a
matter of an unhealthy dogmatism…or whether it derives from his Self
knowledge it is impossible for me to determine. I suspect that it is a little of
both. Occasionally he seems unnecessarily
reactive when it appears that he is about to be challenged. As you know I observed him from the
beginning when he was sitting with a few people some years ago. He comports himself well and seems to be
a reasonably cultured person…although he has a cruel, sarcastic streak
which he gives full rein to in his satsangs. It’s one of his least appealing
characteristics. This does not mean
that he doesn’t know who he is…only that
there are some negative traits in his mind that he seems quite content
with. Mercifully, he’s not
out there to give hugs.
One of the problems that comes with
the destruction of the doer idea…which is perhaps X’s main
focus…is that it provides no way for people who see themselves as doers
to work their way out of Maya. If
you say that the person asking the question is illegitimate you basically leave
them in a worse position than they were before. Action is very necessary and useful on
the spiritual path and one should learn not only how to act but also learn the
spirit in which action should be undertaken so that the vasana load can be
reduced. The Vedic teaching that
addresses doership is called Karma Yoga because doers are into karma.
It would be impossible to
underestimate the importance of Karma Yoga in the Vedic tradition. In fact the Bhagavad Gita, which has the
status of an Upanishad as a scripture on liberation, devotes many verses to the
practice. Karma Yoga is an attitude
that one takes with respect to one’s actions and the results of
one’s actions. It is based on
the understanding that a person has every right to act in this world with the
idea of getting a certain result but that the result is not under the control
of the doer of the action. The
result is a consequence of the appropriateness and timeliness of the action and
the nature of the field in which the action happens. In religious terms it is up to the
‘grace of God.’ Or, in
New Age terms, ‘the universe’ or ‘existence.’ Because the results of one’s actions
are not up to the doer, whatever result, positive or negative, comes should be
gladly accepted as a ‘gift’ from God. Because it is the identification of the
doer with the action and its result that produces binding vasanas, the Karma
Yoga attitude reduces the vasana load and eventually causes the attention to
turn inward and meditate on the Self.
A mind that has operated with the Karma Yoga understanding for a long
time becomes peaceful, pure, and rock solid. It takes pleasure in itself and is
indifferent to the temporary joys that come from the senses and their objects. A mind prepared by Karma Yoga is
definitely capable of enlightenment and one that isn’t will be subject to
an endless series of spiritual ups and downs.
X teaches ‘surrender’
although I can’t recall that he uses that word. He says that basically you are
‘helpless,’ that you can’t control experience so you had
better give up on it.
‘Surrender’ is a poor man’s Karma Yoga because it
doesn’t take desire into account. If you don’t address the
issue of desire you force yourself to have to surrender because you just keep
on producing vasanas that generate experiences that you don’t want. Nobody
‘surrenders’ to pleasant experiences. The value of addressing the issue of
desire lies in the fact that it forces you to inquire into your belief about
who you are. Desire/fear is a
compelling statement that you do not understand that you are a partless whole, that action and its results cannot affect
you. Basically
‘surrender’ is an idea that has evolved to help emotional people
who are incapable of connecting their desires/fears with unpleasant karmic
situations…in other words people who are prisoners of their vasanas. In reality you can exhaust both gross
and subtle bad karma and generate gross and subtle good karma and create a very
positive mind and an interesting life.
You are helpless with reference to who you are and experience in
general, not with reference to the nature of your life experiences. Therefore action is useful.
In any case a teaching that
doesn’t ‘come down’ to the level of the the
doer is not very helpful. X does not
come down; he rains down his version of the truth from above and leaves it up
to you. But as you know, teachings
that do not encourage sadhana and vasana exhaustion produce spiritual
frustration and no growth. Yes, in
the end all sadhanas result in the understanding that action and its results
are not enough but you have to go through it until you see it. You will not give up action just
because some guru tells you that you are not a doer. You need to transform yourself into a
mature positive person before you are capable of Self knowledge. Just living off the feel good buzz from
satsang is not enough.
In one satsang a woman says she
wants peace of mind. This is a
legitimate spiritual desire. But X
comes from the position of the Self, ridicules her and
tells her that anything she would do to get peace would only reinforce her idea
of herself as a doer. This is
absolutely true. However, a person
whose negative vasanas are causing them pain is not going to suddenly become
free of agitation because she has been told to ‘Be what you
are.’ She needs to be taught
the Karma Yoga principle, as do 99% of Western seekers. Our societies teach desire-prompted
action solely for the sake of the result and this is an attitude that is
completely spiritually counterproductive.
X does not encourage sadhana. Sadhana means preparation of the mind
for enlightenment by the removal of rajas
(passion, agitation) and tamas
(sloth, inertia, dullness) with a subsequent increase in sattva (clarity and peace).
The purpose of it is to allow the mind to turn inward and fix its
attention on the Self with the idea of getting Self knowledge.
Vedanta comes from the same point of
view as X but it does not dismiss sadhana because the mind has to be made
capable of understanding who one is.
X is attempting to deliver understanding but the minds of most of the
people he is addressing are dull and passionate. They have been in the worldly dream for
a long time and have strong vasanas and good justifications for them and they
are not going to just leap into ‘That’ with a by your leave. So X’s ‘one size fits
all’ teaching is not skillful or helpful. Even if you don’t want to help
people with sadhana you should explain how sadhana works and its value and
encourage entry-level people to take it up…with, yes, an understanding of
its limitations. Sadhana is a means
to an end. It will only give you a
pure happy mind…but this is not the kiss of death as X seems to
think. Gaining and retaining the
knowledge ‘I am limitless Awareness’ really only happens to a
mature person with a prepared mind.
Yes, eventually even this knowledge has to go, in so far as it is the
‘thorn to remove the thorn’ but enlightenment is a process and you
can’t just skip from the consciousness of limitation to limitlessness
overnight.
Occasionally a very ripe seeker who
has done good sadhana and who has seen the limitations of practice is ready for
the ‘You are not the doer’ teaching. But most of the people who attend these
Neo-Advaita satsangs have not done sadhana, don’t know what it is, and
wouldn’t do it anyway. In
general they are looking for instant enlightenment. So it is easy to ‘teach’
them. Just tell them they are not
the ego and that they are That and leave it up to them
to sort it out. But an unprepared
mind will not accept the words of a guru no matter how authoritatively they are
delivered.
Which brings up another issue: a
teacher’s authority should derive not only from his or her direct
experience/knowledge but from the fact that the teachings are in harmony with a
body of knowledge that has passed the test of time. Ramana is a case in point. After his realization he made a
comprehensive study of the Yogic and Vedantic tradition into which his
experience initiated him. In addition
to writing scripture himself he even copied verbatim with his own hand Sankara’s introduction to Vivekachoodamani, not only
because it represented his view about moksha but to make sure that his
enlightenment would be seen to be in harmony with Sanatana Dharma. Ramana’s
enlightenment was important to him and others...like the enlightenment of
anyone…but its larger significance was that it was another confirmation
of Vedic teachings. Thus it kept
the great tradition of Vedanta alive.
The Vedas are called sruti or apurusheya jnanam, knowledge that does not come
from the human mind. It comes
directly from the Self through the purified minds of the rishis. Thus it is ‘divine’ in origin. Another valid means of spiritual
knowledge is called purusheya janam or smriti. Smriti is ‘remembered’ knowledge. This is knowledge that comes from human
beings based on personal experience.
X’s teaching is smriti because it is based on his personal experience. There is nothing wrong with it but there
is a danger with personal experience: the knowledge that comes from it is
subject to error and distortion if the intellect is impure. So if you are asked to accept a teaching
solely on the basis of an individual’s authority you should check to see
if it jibes with sruti,
i.e. Vedanta. As I mentioned
Ramana made sure that ‘his’ teachings were not thought to be unique
but that they confirmed and supported the sruti. In X’s case there is no attempt to
justify his teachings with tradition so we are asked to accept what he says
solely on the basis of his own authority.
My analysis of his teachings is based on whether or not they are in
harmony with tradition and whether or not they are an effective means of Self
knowledge.
Rather than speak further about X’s
teachings in general I listened to several satsangs and then transcribed one I
hadn’t listened to word for word for word, assuming that during the
course of an hour I would be treated to the essential X. I understand that this approach is not
particularly scientific but it yielded interesting results. On balance I’d give X an
‘A’ for enlightenment and ‘C’ for his teachings which
are pretty much garden variety Neo-Advaita. It is really absurd to think that even a
brilliant person like X could come up with a comprehensive means of knowledge
and wield it skillfully in his short lifetime. Shankara realized at a very early age
and completely revolutionized the spiritual life in
Questioner: If I cannot know
myself and there is no other what is all this?
X: What? Yes, wat!?
Questioner: What I
know. (Ha Ha
Ha)
X: That one who thinks he
knows is still something what is known.
Questioner: Hmm. But he’s not knowing.
You told me that he can never know him.
X.: Yes, What? That what is
knowing that what… is an idea….The idea of a knower cannot
be known. So the knower which is
something that can be known is already something that cannot be that what is knowing the knower.
Questioner: Ha! Ha! (uncomprehending nervous laughter) You can put all these knowers in an ark and float away. Ha Ha.
Ram: The questioner wants to know what the world
that he perceives is if he cannot know himself and
this is a non-dual reality.
The Vedantic answer is that he can know himself and the world because he
is Awareness and what he sees/knows is Awareness because in a non-dual reality
(‘there is no other’) the knower, the known and the knowing are
Awareness, the Self.
X sets out to destroy the idea of
the knower but I can’t see that he accomplishes it. He makes a glaring contradiction when he
first says, “The idea of a knower cannot be known’ and then he says
“So the knower which is something that can be known….”
In the first place if the idea of
the knower cannot be known how does X know it? An idea can be known. It can be known because it appears in
Awareness. The knower can be known
also because the knower appears in Awareness. And Awareness can be known because it is
self-knowing.
Then X says, “So the knower which is something that can be
known is already something that cannot be that what is
knowing the knower.” I
believe what he means is that the knower cannot know the knower. He is positing two knowers. At this point a good teacher would make
it clear what was meant by the two knowers. Since X does not make it clear we are
forced to speculate. It seems reasonable that he means that the ego/intellect,
reflected Awareness, cannot know the Self, pure Awareness.
This is true and it is untrue
depending on our point of view. So
this idea needs an explanation. To
explain it we need to examine our definition of enlightenment. If enlightenment
is defined as experience of the Self then it is true. A gross object cannot experience
something subtler than it. For
example, there is a wide range of subtle light energy that the human eye cannot
see because the rays are subtler than the eyes. The first knower, the
ego/intellect/experiencer cannot know the Self directly because it is a gross
unconscious manifestation of the Self.
But if enlightenment is jnanam, knowledge, as Ramana and
traditional Vedanta says then this statement is false. Why? Because knowledge takes place in the
first knower, reflected Awareness, the ego/intellect. The second knower, the Self, already
knows what it is. It is not in
ignorance. The first knower
believes it is not the Self. So it
needs to know that it is the Self.
If you tell somebody that they are
not the ego/intellect they will not try to gain Self knowledge…because
they will think that the one who is trying to gain it is illegitimate. This accounts for the foolish and
persistent notion among modern seekers that knowledge is only
‘intellectual’ and is therefore to be avoided at all costs. So in this case the negation of the
ego/intellect will prevent enlightenment.
If you are giving satsang you are giving it to doer/knowers. How does it serve to inform them that
they are not doer/knowers?
If you listen to the tape after
X’s statement you will hear nervous uncomprehending laughter and the
fellow who started the dialogue will quickly accept what X has said and move on
with a bit of a joke.
Then X says, “Yea. Maybe all these
knowers disappear in this chain of knowers and knowing. (Chuckles). No its… Again to this…what we started
with…. Yeah, again to the
knower, the knowing and what can be known.
There is no separation.
That’s all. To see that you are that, that and that.
Ram: This statement is fairly straightforward
and I can find no fault in it. It
is a statement of non-duality but we suddenly develop a problem with the next
statement.
X continues, “There is…To be it. But there is no knowing it. You
are that, if you like it or not.
Ram: X says, ‘To be it.’
This formulation makes it sound as if ‘being it’ was
something you could do. But being
is not something that can be done.
First he tells the person that the ego doesn’t exist and then he
says that the ego can ‘be’ it.
Next he makes another incorrect
statement. He says that you
can’t know it. But
being can only be known. It can be
know directly by itself because it is self-knowing
self-luminous Awareness. Is there
anyone who does not know that they exist?
It can also be known directly by the intellect as the knowledge “I
am limitless Awareness.” This
knowledge is in fact what traditional Vedanta and Ramana call jnanam, Self knowledge. If this is a non-dual reality then the
ego, in so far as it is exists, can only be the Self.
The last sentence is direct
knowledge. “You are
that,’ he says. The only
thing missing here is what ‘That’ is. In case there is any doubt, it is chaitanyam, Awareness. It is really important to know precisely
what ‘That’ refers to.
As long as it is a ‘That’ it is undefined and cannot be
investigated and known to be one’s Self. And if this teaching is going to have
its desired effect you need to see that the mind of the person you are teaching
is fixed on the Self. It is not
direct knowledge and will not set you free unless this condition is met. To say it to someone whose mind is not
locked on the Self is only an indirect teaching, an ‘intellectual’
teaching. You come away knowing
that you are That intellectually but there is no
experience to back it up.
Now he comes up with a strange
idea. He says, “And not to be it, you have to make an
effort. You have to create an idea
of separation. This effort is like
the first that you…have to make an effort yet you separate yourself as a
knower by knowing something what can be known.”
Ram: For someone who says there is no
ego/doer he is certainly giving the doer a lot teaching. He has just told us that we have
to ‘be’ it, and then he tells us that not to be it is an
effort. So ‘who’ is not
being it?
In any case this statement is either
an incredibly sophisticated and brilliant formulation of the idea that Self
realization is very easy, so easy that you have to make an effort not to be the
Self or it is a statement that is completely contradictory to experience.
It is an effort to not be the
Self? Vedanta says that not being
the Self is the result of Maya or ‘beginningless
ignorance.” The Self exists,
then a big blackout comes…Maya…and then the jivas, the individual souls, appear. They are already in the dark. But because they were not there before
the blackout happened they don’t know they are ignorant of the Self. So how hard is it to be ignorant of who you are? It
is so easy and natural that 99.999% of the human race has accomplished it
without even knowing it. In reality
it seems that ‘being the Self’ is a gargantuan effort in so far as
so many people put out so much effort to ‘be it.’
The purpose of the path of inquiry
is to question this idea of separation to see if it is true. But maybe I am being unfair to this
idea. Maybe I am taking the words
too literally. Words are real
problem with X because he is talking about a very subtle subject in his second
language.
But wait a minute! Maybe his statement is true. If the ‘you’ that he is
speaking to is the Self and we assume that he is speaking poetically his
statement might be something like this:
“As the Self it is an effort to limit yourself.” If we take his statement literally it
cannot be true because ignorance is never the result of an effort. Efforts are a result of ignorance. Ignorance is the result of a lack of
knowledge and knowledge is never an effort. It happens automatically when a means of
knowledge is operating. But
if we grant him a little poetic license he might be saying that what is
limitless i.e. the Self cannot limit itself. But even then we run into the problem of
omnipotence. The sruti says the
Self is omnipotent. This means that
although it is not a doer it can do anything. If it can’t forget what it is then
it would be limited by its inability to forget and would therefore not be
omnipotent as experience shows and scripture claims. This is the only way that we can justify
the idea of Self ignorance in a non-dual reality.
Still it is anybody’s guess
what X actually means and how deep his knowledge is because he does not explain
himself. When you ask people
to accept what you are saying on the basis of your authority you are not
inclined to explain yourself for fear of appearing to be fallible. If you don’t reference your
statements to some larger context you are free to say anything.
X: So this effort to identify with the first knower is an effort. ”
Ram: I’m not sure what he means by the
‘first knower’ but let’s run through this statement from both
points of view. If the first knower
is the Self then he is saying that the second knower, reflected Awareness (the
Subtle Body or chidabasa
in Vedanta) has to make an effort to identify with the Self (the first
knower). This view is completely in
harmony with traditional Vedanta.
In fact it is the Vedantic view of enlightenment. When the second knower stops thinking it
is limited, inadequate and incomplete and identifies with the Self it
‘becomes’ the Self. It
doesn’t ‘become’ it experientially because it is already the
Self. It ‘becomes’ it
by identifying with the Self. This
identification is simply the loss of its ignorance or the gaining of Self knowledge.
If the first knower is the ego the
statement is not true because the Self, which is self-luminous and self-knowing would never put out an effort to identify with
the second knower because it knows it is free of everything. It knows that it is whole and complete
and the identification would not bring it anything it didn’t already
have.
X: And
I ask you be the laziest bastard you can be because that is what you are. The most lazy bastard what can be is the
Self…(it)
never did anything. Simply
be what you are.
Ram: If there is no doer then who is going to
‘be’ the Self? Who is
going to be that lazy bastard? How
can you ‘simply be what you are’ if you are what you are? The problem with this instruction is
that it does not take into account the actual problem; the doer doesn’t
know that it is the Self. X seems to understand this because he now says,
X: Simply rest in
that… what you cannot rest in.
Ram: Rest in what you can’t rest
in? If you can’t rest in the Self
then why tell people to rest in it?
OK, you say ‘rest in what you can’t rest in’ to stop
the mind and free it of concepts.
Fine, but what good is a mind without concepts? If a mind free of concepts was
enlightenment everyone would be already enlightened because who has not
slept? Enlightenment is the
absence of ignorance about one’s nature not the absence of thoughts.
X: Rest in that
restlessness. Be absolute
satisfaction and totally be never satisfied. See in being never satisfied that that
is satisfaction… that what you are can never be satisfied by
whatever. That’s
satisfaction. Any idea that you can
get satisfied…is hell. That you can get satisfied by something else. That’s hell.
Ram: Again you can’t
‘be’ absolute satisfaction because you are absolute satisfaction (parama sukka). In the third sentence he gets the
language right. He says, ‘See
(that) in never being satisfied…etc.” In this case the word ‘see’
means to realize or to know. A
simple way to say this is “Know that nothing outside yourself can satisfy
you.”
In these statements you can clearly
see a conflict in X’s teaching.
He asks us to rest, which is an action and then he asks us to
‘see’ by which he means to know. If enlightenment is an experience
then we need to rest. If it is the
removal of ignorance then we need to know.
If ‘resting’ does the job then what use is it to know
anything?
You might argue that you need to
rest before you can see but I don’t think this is what he means. I think he is saying that by
relaxing or letting go…the popular word is surrender…you can attain
enlightenment…which is a common view. But there is nothing you can do
for enlightenment except inquire.
Yes, inquiry is a kind of doing but only if your mind is exceptionally
dull or passionate. Inquiry is the
nature of the mind. It always wants
to know. Even when it gets a mind
blowing experience, it is not content with the experience. It wants to know what the experience
‘means.’ Once you
understand something surrender happens automatically. The reason the enlightened are so
relaxed is because they know that they are whole and complete. They did not get relaxed by learning to
relax although it is pretty hard to realize who you are unless you are
relaxed.
Questioner: It’s also
crazy.
X: That’s the most crazy idea…that you are an object in time that
can be unsatisfied first and then the idea that you can get satisfied is
another second crazy idea. First, the idea that you are born and that you are an object in
time which is unsatisfied.
And the second crazy idea that there is a hungry one who can be
sated….the stopping of longing.
That there is one who is longing already is the first crazy idea and
that longing can be stopped by something…the second. So go to the first….
is there any truth in the first idea?
…does it need the slightest, the most subtle effort to
identify?
Ram: The idea is in harmony with
Vedanta. It would perhaps be more clear to say, “You, the Self, are whole and
complete. Therefore there is
nothing that can complete you. Your
desire for things is completely gratuitous.”
X: Falling in love
with yourself.
There was the idea of falling in love with me…your self. Could you avoid it? No.
Ram: Here X makes a leap that is impossible
to follow. He seems to be taking up
a new topic without even finishing up the first or showing any relationship
between the idea of wholeness and self love.
Questioner: When I wake up
in the morning there is a moment when I haven’t picked up on my junk but
there’s still somebody who has not picked up on the junk.
X: But the junk is still there.
Picked up or not.
Questioner: The junk is only there because I make the junk to be there
X: Needs one who defines
junk. Otherwise there will be no
junk.
Questioner: Well we can call it the paradise also
X: Yes, you can all it whatever.
A definition needs a definer.
If you wake up and have an experience of oneness it needs one who calls
it oneness, calls it a gap, calls it a
separation. So that first definer…
Ram: Here he is trying to point out the ego
which he calls a ‘definer.’
He makes a statement that begins with “If you wake
up….etc.’ and then he says, “What I mean is that you cannot not wake up.” So what is it…can you wake up
or can’t you wake up?
Again the answer is that you can and
you can’t. If the
‘you’ he is referring to is the Self then you can’t wake up
because you never sleep. You are
beyond waking and sleep whether it is actual physical waking and sleep or
whether you are using waking and sleep as a metaphor for knowledge and
ignorance. But if you take yourself
to be an ego, a limited being, then you can ‘wake up’ to the idea
that you are limitless, that you are the Self. The ego is by definition
‘asleep’ spiritually so its state can change. Or to be more accurate, you may come to
understand the value of the idea that you are free.
Questioner:… is experience, is the first
experience, is the idea that something experiences, it already in the
shit. Heh
heh
X: What I mean is that you cannot not wake up. So the first awareness is the first
falling in love again. You cannot
avoid falling in love with yourself.
You cannot avoid to fall in love with the image
of yourself.
Ram: Here’s another one of
those bumpy transitions. He seems
to want to talk about love so he cuts short the waking up idea and returns to
love.
Questioner: It is love at first sight.
X: This is love at first
sight. Every morning again. Ha Ha You’re
that what is total helplessness. You cannot help yourself even yourself. Every morning you fall again in love the
image of yourself. There is no way
out. So you become a lover, the
loving, and the beloved. Every
morning it starts again. In deep
sleep there is resting of it. But
every morning the lover wakes at first and the lover in loving creates a
beloved. The I, me myself and I. My treasure. My precious me
wakes up. My precious…ahh.( sarcasm) Ha Ha. And then you become egocentric because
you’re so in love with yourself because you’re
wanting all the best for this me.
Which is my soul… all the best for my body and my life, then comes
my mother and my children but first me…but that’s love. Totally caring about the beloved. This is love is first sight and you
cannot escape it. You always fall into
the same trap into that love for yourself.
It is unavoidable. This is
meditation. Every morning you start to meditate about what you are. You rest in
that what is prior and then meditation starts. Meditation is loving
yourself.
Ram: OK, this is straightforward. Everybody is a narcissist. This is a fairly accurate observation
about human nature.
Questioner: If love for
oneself manifests as what the mind recognizes as love, then there is no
problem. The problem is that the
love for itself manifests as analysis of imperfections of oneself.
X: Yes, but so what? But this is love
Questioner: Yes, I understand . It is caring.
X: It is caring because you only want the best for yourself
Questioner: Yes, yes.
X: What else could you want for yourself?
Questioner: But if I woke up
in the morning in love with myself and knew it then.. that’s it.
That’s all
X: No. ha
ha ha
Questioner: It’s not
enough? Ha ha ha.
X: No. You better
don’t wake up. Ha Ha Ha Now I go one
step further:
Questioner: OK OK OK
X: That what wakes up is already waking up inside what you are.
Ram: Here we have the Self ‘what you
are’ and within it (‘inside’) something that is waking
up. As always when dealing with
such a subtle topic language is very important. In this case we are dealing with the
waking and sleeping metaphor.
What actually is meant by the word ‘waking up?’ Because X does not explain what he means
by waking up we can only speculate.
Is it some kind of spiritual experience or is it some kind of
understanding that is involved in waking up? Neither? Or Both?
Questioner: And it
doesn’t have a self to fall in love with?
X: No. So the first I image of your self falls in love with the second
image.
Ram: How an image that is not conscious falls
in love with an image that is not conscious I’m not sure but we will let
it pass under the aegis of poetic license.
This is an example of a person who has not taken time to think a lot
about what he is saying. The words
just rush out of him in a torrent and there is very little peace in them
…although he himself carries a peaceful vibration. This contradiction is interesting. It gives one a sense of the Self beyond
‘X’ and is perhaps why people are attracted to him. Anyway, the next statement is worth
thinking about.
X: But you are which never
comes out of it of what it is. You never wake up. There is no waking up for you. There is
no such action as waking up. And then there is no second action of falling in
love. All that is
a dream. But the absolute
dreamer that you are is never part of it.
So you never fall in love with anything. This uninterrupted peace you
are was never in any falling in love or any bullshit dream. So you are here now what you were as a
baby and in every given moment in your so-called life. In deep sleep in dream sleep in this
dream… whatever… there is always that what is never
interrupted… this omnipresence which has no presence there is no presence
of it.
Ram: The first sentence is
incomprehensible but the rest is truth.
He is talking about the Self.
His teaching is in harmony with sruti. First, he
debunks the waking up idea, then the falling in love idea. Then he attacks the idea of
‘presence’ which is much needed as it has become one of the much
over used buzz words in the New Age and Neo-Advaita worlds.
What’s missing are the reasons why you
can’t fall in love, can’t wake up and can’t experience
presence. You can’t fall in
love because you are love. You can’t wake up because you were never
asleep. And you can’t experience presence because you are neither present
nor absent. You are the Awareness
of what is present and what is absent.
As you mentioned what is missing in X’s teaching is the positive side. And I agree. He is a rebel, an iconoclast. This is useful but just destroying concepts is not enough.