Dear Ram,
Thanks for your 'timely' email. I have
come to realize (and trust) that Life brings things along at the appropriate
time. I have just been pondering this very topic of "the fire of the
yearning for the Truth" not being intense enough in myself as well.
In fact, I was thinking of the very same quote from Ramana -- that one's desire for Moksha needs to be as intense and
desperate as a drowning man gasping for air. Maybe this is a common issue
for sadahks who have been on the 'path' for some
time.
I recently met a Baba along the banks of
the
When I turn the attention inwardly to the
"I am" -- the palpable, nameless, universal sense of existence -- a
peaceful 'nothingness' is noticed. This has been my sadhana for some time
now, simply sitting in this space-less space. Recently, however, the
question "who or what is noticing this I am?” naturally arises. Now,
this feels like a natural occurrence, but when it first happened, it felt like
I was being tapped on the shoulder by God!!
Ram:
I’m with you so far. It all makes sense up to this point. The purpose of meditation is to
‘make contact’ with the space-less space. Would it be correct to
say that it was as if the something was conscious? It sounds like it was in so far as
you used the word ‘God’ to describe it. I’ll provisionally assume
that this space-less space is the Self.
There isn’t much else it could be and this kind of experience is a
common occurrence for spiritual types with reasonably sattvic minds. The arising of the question ‘Who
or what is noticing this I am?’ is natural too.
Since questions don’t ask themselves
let’s assume that you, Edward, asked the question. Or, if you are not comfortable owing the
question…the way you stated it as an ‘arising’ suggests that
it more or less came out of the blue and you are not interested in taking responsibility
for it. If that is the way it is
then let’s say that God or the Self caused that question to arise since
this it the only other option. If
this is true why would God ask a question to which It already knew the answer
if it wasn’t for the benefit of Edward? Now let’s see how Edward reacts to
this question.
Edward: Of course, there is no answer to this
question, nor is there a feeling that one is needed.
Ram: Here we enter sticky territory. It doesn’t make sense that
spontaneous inquiry happens for no reason, particularly since this is a conscious
purposeful universe. The purpose of
inquiry is to get some kind of knowledge…in this case Self knowledge
since you are in the spiritual world, associating with mahatmas and doing
sadhana for a long time and by your own admission above you have some degree of
mumukshutva, desire for liberation.
And as Ramana and Sankara and the Upanishads
and any mahatma worth his salt says, “by
knowledge alone is the Self to be realized.” So here we have you asking a
question (or the Self presenting a question to you) and you not only say that
no answer is needed you say it doesn’t ‘feel’ that an answer
is needed. May I respectfully ask
why? It’s probably related to
you comment above about your lack of burning desire. If your desire was burning you
wouldn’t be able to stop until you knew the answer. But wait a minute, maybe you are sending
this letter to learn the answer so perhaps your desire is hotter than you
think. Or, you’re getting
some help from God who is going to turn out to be you. Anyhow, let’s continue with
your statement.
Edward: …moreover, it has the sense
of being, rather, a confirmation of pure Existence / Awareness Itself, that is
prior to even the formless "I am."
Ram:
This is true. The ‘I
am’ is a thought in Awareness.
It is the first thought, what is called in Sanskrit as the
jivatman. It is the first
differentiation in the creation.
The ‘I am’ thought is an object and you, the Self, are the
seer, the knower of the thought.
But there is a third factor here and that is the person, Edward, who is
writing me asking for my view concerning his inner experience. If we look at it from Edward’s
point of view, the way the question is formulated suggests that he needs
confirmation of a subtle spiritual doubt: are there two selves? And the answer, according to Vedanta, is
yes and no.
The answer is ‘no’ because this
is a non-dual reality which means there is only one Self. But when we take Maya into
account…the world of experience…the answer is a provisional
‘yes.’ Why a
‘yes?’ Because in duality the one Self
appears to be two at this level of the creation. Obviously the operative word is
‘appears.’ This is why
I used the word ‘provisional.’
It means that if you investigate this ‘I am’ you will find
that it is not different from ‘pure Existence-Awareness itself’ as
you call it.
Edward: (if focusing on "I am" is a
stepping back from "I am this or that;" the identification with this
pure Existence / Awareness Itself is a further 'stepping back' from the "I
am." -- this sense of a regressive 'stepping back' is just a metaphor that
works for me).
Ram:
This is correct. There is
plenty of scriptural support for your view. In the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 15 three
selves are established. First there
is the kshara Brahman. This means Maya and the changing
apparent reality and corresponds to the “I am this and that’ state
of consciousness. It is a state of
ignorance in which the subject identifies with the objects. Because of the identification it is
called bondage. It is a state of
suffering…in the sense of experiencing. The second ‘self’ is called akshara Brahman.
This is the ‘I am.’
Notice that both selves are called Brahman. Brahman means limitless. That is, they are both fundamentally the
same, both are pure Awareness. The akshara Brahman identifies with itself and not with
Maya. This is called
liberation. It is a sense of
complete independence from all objects. It is so subtle that nothing in Maya can
get into it to pollute it. So it
does not suffer. It is what human
beings call enlightenment. As far
as the human realm is concerned this is the end of it.
But if you read that Chapter…it is
called Purushottma Yoga, the Yoga of the Supreme
Person…you will have to wait until the 17th verse to find out
that that is not the end of it. In
that verse it says, “In addition to these two selves, there is another
self. It is the ‘uttama purusha.’ ‘Uttama’
means supreme. Supreme means there
is nothing beyond it. This is where
the spiritual buck stops. And
‘purusha’ means person. But it doesn’t mean that this is a
person as we think of a person.
Person is a word that carries the sense of awareness or consciousness. It is a common symbol of the Self which
is chaitanyam, or Awareness.
This all seems rather daunting from a
spiritual point of view. You mean I
have to work my way out of Maya to discover that I’m the free ‘I
am’ and then I have to get out of the ‘I am’ and become the ‘supreme
person?’ Sweet Jesus! When does it end? How do I know there isn’t another
even bigger person sitting somewhere?
How does God fit into this whole picture? Etc.
Edward: Does any of this make sense, Ram,
or do you think I am way off track here -- or even worse, just blowing hot air
out my bottom?! ? I am truly interested in your insights on this. Thanks
again for your email. I found it helpful and timely.
Ram:
As you can see it makes perfect sense. However, there is something else that we
need to know about this situation.
Let’s look at it from the perspective of Awareness. We have two very subtle objects, the
changing self and the unchanging self.
Now let’s ask how these selves are known. If we had only read it in scripture it
would certainly seem like a lot of spiritual hot air. But we know of these selves because you
have observed them. Well, you observed one, the ‘I am” and you
inferred the existence of the other.
And you will be happy to know that inference is a valid means of
knowledge. So we have established
their existence. And since your
experience corresponds with scripture we can accept it.
Now, the only question left is how these
selves are known. What is our means
of knowledge? It can only be
Awareness because the intellect is out of the picture. It can know the ‘this and
that’ world, the world of Maya up to a point, although it cannot know it
completely because it is a part of it.
So Awareness knows this. If
this is true then you must be Awareness because you know it.
What you need to know about Awareness is
that it is just simple Awareness.
The Awareness that knows these very subtle ideas is the same Awareness
that knows the color of a sunset or the touch of a woman. It is not some ‘supreme’ or
exalted Awareness, far beyond the grasp of the mind, etc. (The word ‘supreme’ is used
to indicate that there is nothing beyond simple Awareness although before the
verse uses the word ‘supreme’ it uses the word ‘anya’ which means ‘other than’ which is
good except that it suggests that maybe all these selves are different which
they aren’t. The non-dual
Self is only presented that way to help remove doubts that arrive from
experiential situations like yours.)
Anyway, there is no reason to believe that you can’t finish your
search because you haven’t ‘become’ it or ‘merged
into’ the ‘I am’ and then further merged into Absolute
Existence ‘beyond’ even that.
Awareness is existence. It is what is. Is there any doubt that you exist, that
you are? There is not. The fact that you
exist and that you are aware should be enough. If it isn’t then you have to keep
on trying to get what you already have by doing some doings. And as we know, the only way you can get
what you already have is to understand what it is and that you have it. This is why Ramana and the sages say
that knowledge alone is liberation.
So I say call of the search and accept the fact that you are Awareness
and Awareness alone and live from that understanding.
Your own Self
Ram