Dear Ram,
Frank: Thanks for your email. I had
to smile at all the things you encountered in
Ramji: Not at all.
Send them on. I’m not invested in
them at all. I like the topic of the
Self and nobody owns It so what I have to say is for
whomever wants it…free of charge.
Frank: Isn’t it funny that some seekers are allergic
to an intellectual exposé on Vedanta? I guess it's mainly because they feel
threatened at the level of their cherished and 'sacred' concepts on God, world
and Self.
Ramji: Yes, indeed. Most take spirituality like religious people
take religion; they are believers.
Without any experience or logic or common sense they hold on to the
silliest notions. I positively hate the
smug anti-intellectualism that passes for spiritual wisdom these days…all these
superior ‘feeling’ types that have long since put their brains on the Self and
believe that anyone capable of thought is incapable of enlightenment.
Frank: By the way, Ram, I came across a nice saying
of Krishna Menon…Atmananda
from
I. Knowledge has nothing to
know. The insentient can never know, being insentient.
II. Therefore no one knows anything.
All beings stand established as pure Consciousness
Ram: Vedanta establishes two factors in the
creation; the Self and the Self as matter. They are called the sentient and the
insentient respectively. The insentient,
the bodies, do not have chit, consciousness, although they have sat, they exist.
Therefore they exist but they do not know.
Even the subtle body, the mind and intellect, which seems to know,
doesn’t actually know, according to Vedanta.
It is just an insentient mirror that reflects objects which then are
illumined by the Self and therefore known.
There’s a beautiful verse in Atma Bodh that says, ‘When the Self
illumines a thought wave in the mind, knowledge is produced.”
But
knowledge in this statement means the Self, I think. It can mean there are no objects in a
non-dual reality. If there are no
objects there is no subject. Without a
subject and an object knowledge cannot take place.
Another
way to see it is that the Self doesn’t need to know anything because knowing
will not change who it is. It knows
itself without the aid of instruments and this is enough for it. And since it is self satisfied, self
fulfilled, it doesn’t need to function in a dual reality and therefore has no
need for knowledge.
This is
not to say that it is incapable of knowing objects. If it finds itself in its creation as an
individual it is certainly capable of wielding the means of knowledge, the
senses, mind and intellect. But it has
no need to do so. Limited beings, doers,
need knowledge to function.
The
statement ‘therefore no one knows anything’ is probably not the best way to
express what I think he means. The
problem with the statement is the words ‘no one.’ If there is someone (I think he is referring
to the jivas, the individuals) then they do have
knowledge. In fact Vedanta says that
every jiva is nothing but a certain kind of ‘special knowledge.’ A tree, for example, has knowledge specific
to its dharma. A bird has knowledge
specific to its nature. Likewise with humans.
So on the face of it the statement is not correct. But what I think he means is that this knowledge
doesn’t ‘mean’ anything…from the Self’s point of view. It doesn’t mean anything because the
creation doesn’t mean anything. It just
is. Knowledge doesn’t change what
is. It only changes what seems to be;
i.e. Maya.
Frank: I hope your health is fine.
Ram:
I got a nasty viral infection but I also got a tremendous blast of shakti that pretty much did it in. It only lasted about three and a half days
and wasn’t nearly as bad as it could have been.
It was a reaction to the trip…all the changes. I hear what you’re saying about the
body. I’m glad I don’t have to work like
you do.
Love,
Ram