Questioner: Hi, James.
James, I had a question for you regarding the video by Rupert. He talks about collapsing experience into awareness in the tantric path and distinguishing this from the infantile pre-egoic state versus the enlightened post-egoic state. In both cases there is no subject-object discrimination but there is a difference, obviously.
How does this work? I don’t know how to conceptually collapse experience into awareness.
Rupert distinguishes between Vedantic neti, neti approach, which is the inward-facing path, versus tantra, which is the outward-facing path. In tantra, unlike Vedanta, you understand that the substrate of all experience is awareness by exploring the sense objects. Both paths have their advantages and disadvantages, as you well know.
I look forward to hearing from you. I hope you are well.
James: The only “collapse” is a loss of ignorance. Remember, reality is non-dual. I’m going to have to rap you on the intellectual knuckles for failing to catch the verb “collapse.” Maya has Rupert by the balls. He is stuck in dualistic language, which turns ignorance into knowledge and confuses seekers. The non-eternal conceptual jiva he’s talking to isn’t even real, so how can anything “collapse” for it? The eternal Jiva is the Self already, so the only way it is going to get enlightened is for its ignorance to be removed by the pramana.
Furthermore, how can you draw any conclusions about awareness from knowledge gained by the sense organs insofar as the senses are material instruments? Only the Self under the spell of ignorance with the help of an impersonal means of knowledge can gain knowledge of itself by inference. Direct perception is not possible, because the Self is not an object of experience. It is the experiencing entity. So only inference works and it is as good as direct perception – if direct perception were even possible.
These Neos are so deluded. They sound very convincing, however. Once you get an audience and start making money you can talk endlessly about the Self and all sorts of approaches to it and keep spinning stories. People love ignorance, seeking, etc. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Rupert is a decent guy and he may know What he is, but knowing “I am awareness” in no way qualifies one to teach. It may qualify one to talk about enlightenment as an event or the Self as an object, but that’s it. You have no idea how many Vedanta people love Rupert, Adyashanti, Eckhart, etc. but realized that their teachings were a wank when they heard Vedanta. This kind of “teaching” just keeps one seeking. I really don’t know how, considering what you’ve been taught, you can take these guys seriously.
~ Much love, James
