Dear Ram,
In the
"Commentary On Ramana's Teachings" you are
about to explain "What is the natural state?" True to the Upanishads it is
Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (Sat-Chit-Anand). You
are about to explain these terms. But as far as I can see that didn't really
happen.
Ram: I’m sure I’ve unfolded their meanings
somewhere in my writings but I can’t remember any more. I’m getting old and my memory isn’t what it
once was. Anyway, I’ll explain it
now. These three words are different
ways of looking at or describing the Self for the purpose of inquiry. Sat means ‘what is.’ It also means ‘the truth.’ So when you are inquiring into the Self, one
way you can access it in your understanding is through contemplation on
being. Sat is nitya, unchanging. Sat is the ‘truth’ because it is always the
same. If something changes, like the
mind, it is called anitya, impermanent.
The Self is the only no-thing that fits this definition. Chit means awareness. When you look into Sat, being, you find that
it is awareness, that because of which what is known is known. So sat and chit are synonyms. They are words which describe the non-dual
Self from two perspectives. Ananda means
‘what doesn’t end.’ When you investigate
being or consciousness you find that it is limitless. Another word for ananda is Brahman which
means limitlessness. So the Self has no
boundaries. It is timeless,
eternal. Ananda negates time. Ignorance of the nature of reality causes
people to think of time as real and feel limited by it. But reality, Sat, is nitya, eternal, and
ananda, limitless. The primary practice
in Vedanta sadhana is called viveka, the discrimination between what is eternal
and what it temporal between what doesn’t change and what does. So these words are used to identify that part
of you that is eternal. They point to
it, like signs point to a destination.
And if you let your mind go in the direction they indicate it will
realize the Self, assuming it is predominately sattvic (Yoga is useful in
getting a sattvic mind). To practice
Vedanta you need a pure mind. This
doesn’t mean a thought free mind, not at all.
It means that the mind is calm enough so you can hold your attention on
a subtle object for a considerable period.
Once the mind is turned inward, looking at the Self, it is asked to
separate the activities of the mind from the light in which these activities
occur. The ‘light’ of course is the
Self.
Deva:
Do you know where Dayananda's
"The Teaching Tradition of Advaita Vedanta" is available in
the
Ram: At his ashram in
Deva:
Did Dayananda follow up "Introduction to Vedanta" with a
book that unfolds the central Advaita Vedanta teachings - the prakriyas, etc.?
Ram: I don’t think so but the sections in What is Advaita Vedanta where I mention the cause and
effect, three states of experience, and the five sheaths, which are the most
famous prakriyas, are traditional Vedanta. There would be no reason to write it because
the tradition is oral, even today, so we all learned them by heart from hearing
them. He speaks and his disciples tape
his words and edit them into book form.
He’s an amazing mahatma. If you
really want a serious look at traditional Vedanta from the inside you should
read his four volume ‘Bhagavad Gita Home Study
Course.’ Only once in hundreds of years
will such a work come to human beings.
It is over one thousand pages and covers Vedanta inside and out. In it you will see the prakriyas
wielded by a master because unfolding the Gita is the essence of Vedanta
pramana, in so far as the Gita has the status of an Upanishad. But it is more useful than the Upanishads
because as a Pauranic text it is more accessible to
the modern mind.
Deva:
In your book "Meditation" you mention Kenneth Wapnik. Do you think
it is important to study his teachings regarding the birth and development of
the ego?
Ram: No.
Deva: Does Wapnik
teach Advaita?
Ram: Yes and no, mostly no. The Course in Miracles is sometimes called
Christian Vedanta and one can find the non-dual view there but it is a
channeled work and the language is very confusing. It needs to be purified but it is stuck in
the belief that is a purification of Christianity, which it is. It has a long way to go. In fifty years it will be like Theosophy is
today.
With much much appreciation,
Deva
Ram: You’re welcome. I’ll reply to the other e-mail, if not
tomorrow by the end of the week. I’m
driving going up to
Ram