Search & Read
Beautiful, Intelligent Ignorance
Theresa: Thanks for your instruction, advice and wealth of information.
Sundari: You are welcome, Theresa. It is hard to tell from what you have written so far what your real motivation is in writing to us. Is it because you want to add Vedanta to your impressive spiritual resumé, or are you actually interested in self-inquiry? Most people who write in do so because they need assistance with their self-inquiry. Your first email to us was not an inquiry but a statement you were making to us about your interpretation of Vedanta in general and James’ teaching in particular. You seemed irritated by the repetition you found on ShiningWorld and in James’ book.
The implied message was that you were writing to show us how to improve and simplify the teachings, as though James’ teachings have not been doing just that for more than 40 years. I replied to you in detail because we give everyone who writes in to us our full attention, regardless of what their motivation is for writing.
Your motivations are your own business, but in Vedanta motivations are the keystone to self-inquiry. Unless there is a strong desire to end existential suffering, most people do not pursue freedom because they are still invested in the world of objects. You attest to being grateful for the teachings but nonetheless seem more interested in promoting what you know than in really hearing what the teachings say. Of course, I could be wrong, but if you think you are proving how intelligent you are and how much you know, I have to tell you it is not necessary because we already know. The self is the essence of intelligence and speaks either in self-ignorance or in self-knowledge.
My point in saying this to you is not to be disrespectful or to discourage you because you clearly are very bright and do have knowledge about many things. It is also clear that your knowledge of awareness is indirect. My point is simply to determine what it is you want from us. If you need teaching we are happy to be of service but I can’t help you if you think you already know everything there is to know. In which case there is no point in writing to us.
Theresa: I understand the need for technical terms in any specialized subject. Since Vedanta has a unique cosmology, that is sufficient to require a unique vocabulary. This can be implemented by using new words or symbols or existing ones in different ways. One example of the latter is “awareness” which in Vedanta is not always used in ordinary ways. This may be due to instrumental usage, that is, using it in different ways depending on the level of development of the student for the purpose of advancing their understanding. The other major example is the use of “real” in Vedanta, but that appears to be used the same way throughout the teachings.
Sundari: Vedanta uses ordinary words in a specific way and in a particular context for a reason. All words are limited but we are nonetheless restricted to their usage. Vedanta teaches through the implied meaning of words, not the ostensible meaning, as I explained before. “Awareness” and “consciousness” are words used interchangeably with the “self” in a particular context to mean the same thing. However, all three words also have an implied opposite meaning. It depends on how they are used and how the teaching involved is unfolded.
Theresa: I studied Isvara, Jiva, Jagat and the Gunas this morning and understand the points. I fully agree, have already taken James’ teaching of triguna vibhava yoga to heart in practice, and for many years have developed skill at management of my internal state for optimal well-being. Getting rid of vasanas has been fairly easy for me because I grew up with a minimum of conditioning. The significant issue is wanting to get rid of them, but one can set things up to make it easier with a little disciple, of course.
Sundari: Everyone comes in conditioned by Isvara, with many vasanas or likes and dislikes; even saints and sages. Your nature is your conditioning or vasana load; we are born with it and whether or not we are brought up in a particular belief structure, we still reinforce and develop vasanas through our interaction with our environment. It is impossible not to. Can you honestly say that you have virtually no likes and dislikes? I highly doubt that, and anyway, not all vasanas are bad.
Like I said before, there is no escaping Isvara. The conditioned jiva is never beyond Isvara, although the essence of the jiva being awareness is beyond Isvara. Everything in the apparent reality is made up of and governed by rajas, tamas and sattva. Perhaps you have a vasana for believing that you are beyond Isvara? If you do, this would be governed by tamas, denial.
The significant issue is not “wanting to get rid of them.” The significant issue is understanding that all vasanas arise from Isvara or the gunas, and do not belong to you, awareness. There is no way to get rid of them. Only in identifying the vasanas and then dis-identifying with them as awareness, are they rendered non-binding. Non-binding does not mean that they disappear. They (vasanas) are known to be objects known to you, awareness and therefore pose no problem to you anymore. “Our” conditioning (vasanas) only conditions the mind when one is identified with it. Rendering a binding vasana non-binding is simply seeing it for what it is: Not SELF.
Theresa: One question I have is: What does “saliva” mean in “Isvara saliva” on page 14 of Isvara, Jiva, Jagat and the Gunas?
Sundari: A simple typo, Theresa; that should be pretty clear.
Theresa: There is a way of using words figuratively instead of literally. Reasons for doing this include dramatic emphasis, explanation by analogy and humorous expression. If something literally ludicrous is written or said, perhaps it could be better understood figuratively. A useful away to approach what is written or spoken is to discover how or why it makes sense instead of the opposite. Doing this takes an effort and may pose an extradimensional challenge, but it can be fun and develops discrimination. Sometimes there my be multiple interpretations each for a different audience, or the true intended meaning combines them all while the secret is in what proportion they should be woven.
Sundari: If it works for you, by all means. Usually with Vedanta we do not need to use special techniques to teach because if the mind is qualified – and there is no getting around that – then the teaching will make sense. Nothing has changed in the way Vedanta is taught for at least eight centuries because the methodology is perfect and works. It might take a while for some minds to hear it; some are more qualified than others. James has adapted the traditional teaching method for Vedanta into a vernacular that works for the Western mind because of its directness and simplicity. Untold numbers of people throughout history have been freed of ignorance by Vedanta, and James has contributed to that number greatly.
Theresa: Sarte was a French philosopher of existentialism, along with Camus. These people lived in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries. René Descartes is the one who wrote, “I think, therefore I am,” (cogito ergo sum) and he lived from the very late 16th to mid-17th centuries. Wikipedia has biographies of these people. While Descartes was not exactly wrong, it is not the simplest proof of self-existence since it is self-evident without thought.
Sundari: You are right about the quote; my mistake. I used to be invested in understanding the environmental, social and psycho-spiritual forces that shaped life throughout known history. I once believed it was the “big picture,” so to speak. Now that I know that the big picture is not big at all and, in fact, is truly just a trivial dream, I am afraid I have lost interest in it. Self-knowledge does that to the mind because there is no other “superior” knowledge to it. “History” is just the playing out of the gunas in highly repetitive and predictable patterns. When you know you are awareness, even though one does not know all the facts, that is utterly unimportant because with self-knowledge there is nothing that remains a mystery. All is known to be me, all objects are seen for what they are, all is understood and dissolved in my light. With non-dual vision everything in the world of objects is seen for what it is: Only apparently real.
I find philosophy of little use other than to occasionally refer to it in order to emphasise a point. I am sure you are much more erudite in these studies than am I. Philosophy, like religion and science, is based on an attempt by the ego to interpret the world we live in. It is conjecture and opinion – arrived at through the conditioned filters of individual minds – and is therefore subject to error. Although philosophy is the study of knowledge, values, immaterial reality and the meaning of life, it does not distinguish between consciousness (what is actually real) and the mind (what is apparently real). Philosophy takes the mind to be real and consciousness to be something we have instead of what we are. In other words, philosophy objectifies consciousness. As a means of knowledge, philosophy is limited to perception and inference, means that do not apply to consciousness, which is not an object of perception and thus cannot be objectified.
In brief, my understanding: René Descartes, 17th - 18th century, the father of modern philosophy and dualistic thinking, along with Bacon and Newton precipitated the Enlightenment period, the European intellectual movement that emphasized reason and individuality rather than monotheism, and saw “God” and nature as one, thinking that rejected the Church and moved towards a more scientific understanding. Later on, guided by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it ushered in the era of scientific materialism assisted by Darwin which became the dominant paradigm we have today. They simply traded one dogma for another and now science and religion are two dogmas barking at each other incessantly. Yawn.
It does not matter. The point being that Sarte and Descartes, along with many other great minds, had no knowledge of the self and no means of knowledge, however brilliant and influential they were. They missed the main point: The knower of the one who thinks, the non-experiencing witness, awareness.
Theresa: The reason I don’t call awareness “Theresa” is because I do not call myself that intrapersonally and use it only in interpersonal contexts when it’s necessary. I do not “really” have a name and the one I was given was assigned to “my” physical body without my knowledge or consent – and I do not know how it happened – but the immediate “why” seems to have been because human births by governmental law require a birth certificate which requires a name.
Sundari: When I said in our last email, “Why not call awareness ‘me’?,” I was not talking “Theresa” literally. It would be pretty silly to refer to oneself as “Awareness.” I was making the point that unless you can claim awareness to be you, your knowledge is indirect. You know about awareness but you do not know that you are awareness. You are right that awareness cannot be named but it is also true that any name will do if you know that it refers to awareness. By not proclaiming yourself to be awareness, you are as a result objectifying awareness because you are saying that it is something other than you. Taking a stand in awareness as awareness is an essential part of self-inquiry.
Theresa: I have read all your email and attachments. Your treatise on maya reveals a very interesting and profound teaching. Thank you for sharing it. I am not understanding one key point in it, namely how it “makes it clear that the jiva’s ordinary awareness, which is the essence of its identity, is limitless.” This seems to be said as if it is a logical conclusion based on what was written before, but it is the first time the term “ordinary awareness” is used. It seems to me there is a gap between everything written before and this identification of ordinary awareness with awareness.
Sundari: Understanding the relationship between the jiva and Isvara to be awareness makes it clear that true identity of the jiva (along with all other objects) is ordinary awareness. The word “ordinary” is meant to negate the idea that there is some kind of special, spiritual, mystical “other worldly, transcendental” awareness to seek. Awareness is the most ordinary thing there is because it is all there is. There is only one awareness and everything arises from and dissolves into it. The jiva as a jiva however, remains limited, enlightened or not. This is because the jiva never leaves the apparent reality. Awareness is and always has been unlimited. When the self is actualised, you are no longer conditioned by the jiva because you know that your true nature is limitless (meaning unconditioned) awareness.
I have sent you this in prior emails, but here it is again:
Isvara, like the jiva, depends on pure awareness (paramatma) to exist. So it has to mean that Isvara and the jiva are both actually pure limitless awareness, even though jiva is governed by Isvara because the jiva is limited and conditioned by the gunas whereas Isvara is not. However, the jiva is not actually bound because it is really pure awareness and ignorance can be removed by self-knowledge. Once ignorance of one’s true nature is removed, the apparent person continues to exist in the apparent reality, although as the self no longer under the spell of ignorance (jivanmukta), it is forever free of the notion that it is limited, inadequate and incomplete. The jiva then knows it is nameless, formless unconditioned awareness.
As I stated in my last email, Isvara associated with maya is conscious (although Isvara is not a jiva or person) and is not modified by ignorance/maya (the gunas). Isvara is conscious because with the appearance of maya, there is something for awareness to be to be conscious of, i.e. objects. Isvara (awareness in the role of Creator associated with maya) “merges” back into pure awareness at the end of the creation cycle, so Isvara is also not unchanging and not always manifest.
Isvara is always present in awareness but it is either manifest or unmanifest with reference to awareness. Therefore Isvara associated with maya is not real either, although in terms of the apparent person, Isvara is “relatively” real and eternal. In other words, Isvara associated with maya is eternal or permanent with reference to the jiva and the objects it experiences, but impermanent with reference to awareness. To say that Isvara associated with maya is eternal with reference to the jiva does not mean that Isvara is limitless with reference to awareness. This is because ignorance or maya only “operates” on a tiny fraction of awareness and because Isvara is resolved back into awareness at the end of the creation cycle. The words “operates on a tiny fraction of awareness” are also used simply to put maya in perspective because the self has no parts and cannot be quantified. It is important to understand this because “partially covered” means that awareness is never actually covered because it is aware of the partial covering brought about by the manifestation of maya.
Maya is said to be eternal because it is a power that exists in awareness, and awareness is eternal; this is why maya is beginningless. Personal ignorance (avidya) ends for the jiva when the self is realised to be its true nature, ending its personal cycle of incarnation and suffering; but maya or cosmic ignorance continues unchanged. The creation is not always manifesting because maya is not always manifest. When ignorance or maya does manifest, Isvara (awareness plus the gunas) in its capacity as a Creator appears, followed by the apparent creation (Isvara srsti), the world of sentient beings and insentient elements (objects).
Isvara as pure awareness prior to maya manifesting is called paramatman. Although paramatman is called eternal and imperishable, it is neither. Eternal and imperishable infer non-eternal and perishable and since paramatman is non-dual, it is neither. It is isness, being. It is simply that which gives rise to everything, that which is self-knowing and, when objects are present, knows objects. It is prior to and the knower of both the jiva and Isvara. Therefore it has no qualities.
The most subtle “aspect” of this teaching is the irreducible fact that because consciousness implies unconsciousness, it is not strictly speaking true to say that awareness is conscious. Awareness is without qualities, it is the non-experiencing witness and although it gives rise to all objects (which are not conscious) and Isvara (who is conscious), awareness is not “conscious” in the same way. Awareness is that which makes consciousness possible in that consciousness is reflected awareness because it is not always present and changes. Like Isvara, awareness is not a person either; conscious and unconscious objects (Isvara and jiva respectively) arise when maya (ignorance) appears.
The apparent reality is therefore called “apparently real” because it is not always present and always changing. And as stated several times now, as long as the apparent entity or the jiva is still embodied in the apparent reality, enlightened or not, it is conditioned by Isvara, the Creator. The jivanmukta, the self freed of apparent ignorance appearing as a human being, is free of attachment to objects created by ignorance. He or she has no problem with Isvara or jiva-hood because both appear as objects. This does not mean that the gunas cease to exist; Isvara srsti or creation continues as before “enlightenment.” The gunas no longer condition the jivanmukta or the self no longer under the spell of ignorance; thus the jivanmukta does not project the person’s creation or jiva srsti onto Isvara. The jiva, the gunas and Isvara are objects known to awareness.
As stated, as the jiva never leaves the apparent reality, it is always limited by it because enlightened or not, the jiva it is still subject to the dharma-field, the field of existence, the environment or Isvara. The jiva has limited power and limited knowledge, which means that even though the jivanmukta knows its true nature to be awareness, it only has knowledge of the objects it has contact with. However, the jivanmukta or self no longer under the spell of ignorance has knowledge of the essence of everything, which is awareness. Only Isvara, the Total Mind is omniscient and has all powers within the apparent reality. Therefore the jivanmukta would naturally follow dharma in every aspect of its existence because in order to remain free of the gunas or samsara (the notion that reality is a duality), a purified or sattvic mind is necessary. The jivanmukta, who perceives duality, is not affected by it because he or she knows that it is a superimposition onto non-duality and that Isvara, the gunas, is the doer.
It is all a play of the gunas and although the apparent reality can be experienced, it is not real. It is all a projection, a dream. Isvara is like the projector, the jiva or apparent reality is the movie and awareness is the screen on which the movie is being projected. All objects are temporary, seem to act and are always changing; Awareness is ever-present, never changes and actionless. When one has non-dual vision one sees action in inaction and in inaction in action. This means that nothing ever happens. If one tries to find what happened a year ago, a month ago – a minute ago – one cannot find anything. Where are the actions now? They are no more than an idea in the mind; a memory or a vasana. There is nothing there.
End of repetition.
Theresa: Now, I like problems and am willing to consider this one for the rest of my life. Some problems never get solved, and according to some developmental psychologists, major life issues often are never solved but outgrown.
Sundari: It is true. Ignorance is highly intelligent and hard-wired, and most people do not resolve it. Good luck in outgrowing it! Personal ignorance (avidya) goes when Isvara decides it is time for it to go, not before. Only self-knowledge removes ignorance, not an action or actions on the part of the person. Maya, macrocosmic ignorance, however remains.
Psychology has it place but it does not offer a means of knowledge to remove ignorance because it has no knowledge of the self. Some people are so busy working out an intellectual response that they miss the utter simplicity of self-knowledge.
Theresa: I have some theories about this issue. One is that solving it requires grace, but actually solving anything and even every thought is by grace. I encountered this same issue when writing to the German engineer, namely that at one point I had to simply write a statement without substantiation because I did not know how to prove it in words. That statement was an axiom of my argument. Perhaps you mean for me to accept “my ordinary awareness is Awareness” and see what unfolds.
Sundari: First of all, Theresa: Awareness is not “your” awareness because there is only one awareness and we are all it. Secondly, I do not ask you to accept or reject anything. It is not up to me to convince you of anything and I am not invested, one way or the other. Whatever you believe, I see you as the self and it makes no difference to me. What I am doing is unfolding Vedanta for you so that self-knowledge does the work of removing the ignorance that prevents you from fully knowing your true identity to be ordinary awareness.
Most likely you had to “write a sentence without substantiation” to your German friend because you think that what you are writing comes from your mind, the jiva. It could be that you are identified with the brilliance of “your” mind. There is something very important that you are overlooking with your own theories: Knowledge of objects is not the same as self-knowledge.
Knowledge of objects is always true to the object and not the subject. You will not see a rock if you are looking at a tree. Knowledge of objects is not knowledge unless it is true to the object. If it is “my” knowledge, then it is my interpretation of an object, which is not necessarily knowledge. Ignorance (or my point of view) causes me to see or experience objects in a certain way because of “my” conditioning which creates the filters through which I view the world I think I see. People believe that ignorance is knowledge because they believe that what they intellectualise, experience or believe is knowledge. It may be true, but it may not be. Most often, it is a mixture of both knowledge and ignorance.
Self-knowledge, however, is always true because it is true to the self: Self-knowledge cannot be dismissed or negated by any other knowledge. Self-knowledge is different from knowledge of objects, which is object-based, not subject-based. Self-knowledge depends on the nature of the self, the subject, not on knowledge gained through personal experience, intellectual prowess or any other means of object knowledge. Remember that an object is anything other than awareness, including subtle objects such as thoughts, feelings and intuition, as well as gross objects.
Self-knowledge is based on irrefutable logic of existence, which is why we call it the “science of consciousness.” On the basis of self-knowledge the individual can retain or reject the knowledge gained through his or her personal experience or mental agility. However, from the microcosmic or psychological level, because of the conditioning of the mind, self-knowledge is subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. This is why we need a means of knowledge based on a teaching that is independent of interpretation or opinion, which is called scripture or Vedanta. We also need faith in the scripture for it to work to remove ignorance. This faith is not blind faith (such as is expected in most religions) but faith pending the outcome of one’s investigation.
In Vedanta, qualified teachers write with the authority of self-knowledge, not their own knowledge. We do not have to substantiate what we teach (although we can) because Vedanta (self-knowledge) is not based on our teaching, beliefs or opinions or on any other relative knowledge. It does not come from us. We know where it comes from. It is given to us by Isvara. Being the logic of your own existence, self-knowledge cannot be argued with. If you have an argument with Vedanta, you are arguing with yourself for only two possible reasons: You have either not understood the teaching because the mind is not qualified to hear it, or the ego is invested in its own opinions and theories.
It is grace that brings one to self-knowledge, however one arrives there. It is grace that brings one to a qualified teacher capable of unfolding the scripture. It is grace that the mind is qualified to hear the truth. It is grace that the mind is freed from ignorance by self-knowledge. It is all grace because there is no doer.
Being intelligent and very cultivated is a great advantage for self-inquiry to work. It can also be a disadvantage if intelligence is in the service of the ego. Vedanta attracts highly intelligent people because a sattvic mind capable of thinking clearly is necessary for self-knowledge. But when the ego is invested in its own thinking or co-opts the knowledge – spiritual arrogance – is a very difficult vasana to render non-binding.
What you say implies that you are going to work it out yourself instead of understanding that it is not the mind that figures this out. It is difficult for a highly intelligent ego to accept that nothing you can do will remove ignorance because no action taken by a limited entity produces a limitless result. Only by subjecting the mind with humility to self-inquiry is there a possibility that self-knowledge will obtain. This is not something the ego likes to hear. Although self-inquiry is also an action, the result of self-inquiry is limitless because it leads to self-knowledge. Unless the mind is prepared to hear the teaching properly unfolded by a qualified teacher, it will more than likely interpret the teaching according to its own conditioning.
Theresa: In your letters you wrote that awareness is the substrate of everything. I intuited everything is a unity long before hearing of Vedanta, non-duality or advaita. It makes sense to me that everything is a Whole including me. On reflection, one of the reasons for this is due to reading a booklet about Goethe’s holistic theory of color and which contained some pictures that revealed different objects depending on how they are viewed. Surely you are familiar with some of these, such as a vase that also looks like a person’s profile or a collection of apparently random dots in which can also be seen as a giraffe. Calling this unity awareness is absolutely correct and the linchpin of complete understanding because it completes the circle from alpha to omega and back to alpha. It seems to me that no other “metaphysics” is required for this understanding; and additional facts and insights can further understanding. (Apologies for use of “metaphysics.” No insult is intended. I am using the word to refer to any system that contains a non-physical substrate or component. The use of the “and” above instead of “although, but or however” is due to Korzybski; see below.)
Sundari: No apologies necessary. I too had worked out the macrocosmic mind and the gunas long before Vedanta came to me. I have been a knowledge seeker all my life and had understood that there was a unified field of existence that was non-dual. This is what prepared the mind to hear Vedanta. What I could not achieve without proper teaching was to negate the doer. The doer only gets negated by self-knowledge because the doer cannot negate the doer, assuming one even understands that this is the key issue with regard to liberation. The one who wants to negate the doer needs to be negated. Without proper teaching with a valid means of knowledge, liberation from the doer is not possible.
Theresa: Another approach is that since the jiva’s consciousness is the reflection of awareness, it is awareness, just as sunlight reflected by the moon is sunlight. In both cases, the quality of the reflector may diminish or alter what it reflects. Sattva has the quality of a polished mirror that reflects perfectly.
Sundari: If there is only awareness, then everything is awareness. The moon appears to shine because the light of the sun shines on it, just like the mind appears to think because the light of awareness shines on it. That does not make the sun and the moon the same. Would you say that your reflection in the mirror is the same as you?
As stated before, everything arises from awareness but this does not mean that objects share the same ontological status as awareness. Awareness is that which is always present and never changes; the objects are not always present and always changing, which is Vedanta’s definition of real and unreal.
Awareness does not need anything to shine because it is self-luminous.
Theresa: Additional comments inspired by your writing:
Georgi Polya was a great 20th-century mathematician and teacher. He said, “Everything in life is a guess, therefore let us teach guessing.” In Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning he showed that mathematicians discover what to prove by creative, intuitive, inductive processes. Then when they are convinced about the truth of some statement (theorem) they set about proving it in a formally hidebound, deductive way. There is a close relationship between mathematics and science, especially physics. The hard problem for researchers in these areas is often discovering what to prove what is worth proving, and can be proved, in a reasonable time. After knowing this they have to discover how to do it, which is often difficult too, and then spend a comparatively long time following through. The point is, mathematicians and scientists have to be creative to make it, and this keystone of their work cannot be standardized and should not be ignored. There is also plenty of bureaucracy for managing people in these fields to suitably restrain progress within the bounds of cultural, governmental and big-corporate tolerance. When the people are ready, the scientists may be more forthcoming.
I studied graduate-level quantum mechanics but the Planck scale was not mentioned, so I looked it up on Wikipedia and still do not understand why you wrote “…it is an interesting metaphor for awareness…” but I’m glad if it works for you.
Sundari: The Planck scale is a metaphor for awareness in that it can be seen as pointing to the substrate being one amorphous principle from which everything arises. I do not care for it one way or the other because I do not need to validate awareness. Awareness needs no validation because it shines on its own – it is the Light that makes light possible. It is self-effulgent. I know I am awareness.
Theresa: Way beyond the skeletons in the closet exposed by modern physics is the discovery by mathematician Kurt Gödel that even very simple axiomatic systems are essentially incomplete or inconsistent. He published two theorems in 1931 on the incompleteness of simple arithmetic which have been repeatedly verified. I understand the outcome of this to mean that everyday (Aristotelian) logic is essentially flawed, because it is at least as complex as simple arithmetic. Since then most of the scientific community has carried on with business as usual because ordinary logic seems to work practically, at least in the short run, and what else is there?
Sundari: Yes, agreed. As stated, the epistemology for science is perception and inference. Vedanta has no quarrel with it as a means of knowledge for objects, but not as a means of knowledge for consciousness.
Theresa: In 1933 Korzybski introduced the notions of non-Aristotelian logic and general semantics in Science and Sanity. His work has a widespread following to this day and has influenced the work of Gregory Bateson (anthropologist), Virginia Satir who invented family therapy, and Richard Bandler and John Grinder who invented Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). Korzybski was especially critical of how the verb “to be” is used in statements of identity and predication. For example, “I am foolish,” properly means “I have done something foolish” and not “I am identical to foolish.” Such language misuse can diminish self-esteem and cascade to prejudice, bigotry and violence. The point is that many of the vasanas, by which people are conditioned, may be created by taught and habitual misuse of language. NLP at its best has deconditioning techniques based on recognition of such language misuse and alternative methods for using language constructively. By more than coincidence, one type of vasana is “latent linguistic conditioning” in one tradition, Cheng Weishi Lun Buddhism.
Sundari: Yes, agreed. Language is inescapably problematic because many people do not understand the implied and ostensible meaning of words. All vasanas are governed by the gunas and then reinforced by our environment. Language obviously plays a big part in that which is why Vedanta is so specific how words are used. Part of the qualifications for Vedanta is dama: control of the sense instruments and organs of action which include the tongue, taste and speech. Without this, life is fraught with difficulty.
Theresa: Have a wonderful day! Namaste and best regards.
~ Om and prem, Sundari