Brian: I feel as if I hit some kind of jackpot with a simple question. I didn’t expect to get the “Full Monty” but do greatly appreciate your elaborate and thoughtful answer. So, if I understand correctly, the statement I questioned, is sort of a clever bait and switch, or a means of testing if the reader is paying attention in order to move on to a more comprehensive explanation. Very sophisticated!
Sundari: Yes, correct. The teachings are extremely subtle and sophisticated. But because they are a means to an end and not the end itself (you already are that as the Self) they are a set up to remove ignorance, that’s all. Once Self-knowledge has assimilated, you no longer need the scripture because you are the knowledge. Self-knowledge is not something you know about, which is indirect knowledge. If Self-knowledge is firm, its direct knowledge: I AM the Self. The teachings do not give you anything you do not already have.
Vedanta is unlike any other teaching because it is not really a teaching, as such. It is the truth about you, presented in a progressive methodology to tackle the resistance that ignorance has to Self-knowledge at every stage of self-inquiry. Vedanta has one simple message: your true identity is whole and complete, unchanging, ever-present unlimited Awareness, and not the limited person you think you are. There is nothing wrong with you as a person, your only problem is ignorance of your true nature, i.e., the hypnosis of duality, the cause of all suffering. What that actually means to the person you think you are, is where all the teaching takes place.
Vedanta is an extremely provocative teaching designed to raise doubts, which it also answers. It is like a treasure hunt, though what you are hunting for, you already possess but don’t know it. There are seeming contradictions in the teachings as previously stated in our last exchange, which all disappear once Self-knowledge starts cleaning out the ignorance. Think of ‘your’ store of ignorance as a HUGE warehouse full of tons of stuff, most of which you don’t even know you own or what it is. It’s a mess and desperately needs clearing out, all of it. But where to start?
You must start at the beginning, with the proper foundations, or you will flounder. And you need to be properly taught, or the mind will interpret the teachings according to its own filters, so it is good that you wrote to us. But, for the teachings to assimilate, the mind must be qualified, i.e., purified, or the teachings will not assimilate. Though the message of Vedanta is simple, it is profoundly subtle and difficult. It can take years, decades, lifetimes, for complete freedom from ignorance, i.e., for Self-knowledge to clear out all the garbage in the mind. But the good news is that the steps to get there (where you already are) are the qualities of being there.
You already seem to have a good grasp, but it seems like you are tying yourself up in knots because you are jumping too far ahead of yourself. You need to sign on to the logic and go slowly. This takes a lot of steady, committed work on your part. We definitely can help you, though we cannot do the work of self-inquiry for you. We can only assist you to ensure that you are hearing the teachings correctly and applying them. We cannot enlighten you; only Self-knowledge itself does that, nobody else.
To assist, you, Shiningworld is a veritable gold mine for nondual teachings. We have so much material in the form of books, videos, free courses, articles, and literally thousands of pages of Q&A, with a search function. You have come to the right place. Keep digging.
Before I reply to your two long emails, there are some questions I need to ask you. Are you new to Vedanta, and have you read the recommendations on our website for how to conduct self-inquiry? If so, I need to know what you have heard and read so far, and a little bit about you. We are not interested in your whole life story, just the salient bits to help us understand where you are coming from so that we can help you with your particular needs.
When I hear back from you, we will proceed from there.
Brian: No, this is not my first rodeo. I first met Swami Dayananda back in the early 80’s and attended retreats with him at Sandeepany West, and a few back at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam in Saylorsburg. Also attended several campa with Swami Chinmayananda before and after Swami Dayananda left the Chinmaya Mission.
My questions regarding my reading of James book were purely to understand the precise meaning of what I was reading. My further questions relating to your statement regarding knowing existence prior to a body and after death were generated as a response to your existence consciousness teaching.
So, although I’ve been exposed to the teaching from the best in the business, I still consider myself a student as it is clear from my own experience that I’m still half-baked in terms of full assimilation.
I appreciate and enjoy reading everyone’s take on Non-Duality, and even fully appreciate the likes of Tony Parsons, and the late Leo Harthong. However, I only recently have come across James’s teaching, although I bought his book some time ago, but it got shelved like so many others as I tend to forget to read stuff I just bought! I’m now 73 and see that my memory isn’t what it used to be!
At any rate, since we last communicated, I’ve forged ahead with James’s book and have really enjoyed his take on the psychological aspects of the work. I particularly find the part about Karma Yoga to be especially unique due to his simple straight forward, and no-nonsense presentation. He has a brilliant mind and a gift for presenting the material in a very digestible format. I don’t recall Karma Yoga being presented so clearly in my past experiences. I especially like the way he presents “Gods Will” as a response from the position of the aggerate whole of creation.
I realize that all the Karma Yoga mechanics is still trying to explain the behavior the mythical snake, but the practicality is irrefutable.
Sundari: I passed on your compliments to James, he says to say thank you. So, this is not your first rodeo, you are not new to nonduality. But are you new to formal self-inquiry, or ever been committed to it? Maybe you are and always have been but having had close contact with the Vedanta world and its greats do not necessarily mean you have understood the requirements and methodology involved to succeed at Self inquiry. If that has ever been your main motivation. No offense, but that may be why you are so confused with the Existence teaching.
I explained, and you may be aware, that Vedanta is a progressive teaching meant to challenge your established and ingrained thinking mentality. It requires qualifications and a mind capable of thinking, but it’s a very different kind of thinking. Just being very smart is not enough because highly intelligent people tend to be extremely attached to their way of thinking. Or they think they can think their way to freedom on their own, taking a little from here and there.
Vedanta does not work that way. If you want it to work for you, you need faith in the teachings. Not blind faith but faith pending the outcome of your investigation. Vedanta is supposed to trigger doubts and make you uncomfortable because to progress you have to drop everything you think you know if it does not fit the teachings. You don’t get to pick and choose what works for you. It does not work to try to fit Vedanta into what you know. If what you know does not fit with Vedanta, it has to go. There is no fine print to this. With Vedanta, you are not the boss, if you truly want moksa more than your own ideas, that is.
It sounds to me like your interest in nonduality is intellectual, eclectic, and pretty broad. There is no right or wrong here, please note. Please correct me if I am off course. But to help you, I need to know: are you interested in Vedanta purely as an intellectual pursuit, as a hobby, or for moksa? The fact that you listen to many different sources of Vedanta, including Neo-Advaita, tells me you don’t grasp what Vedanta is, that it is the end of the road, the court of last appeal. It is the Royal Secret, the Holy Grail. Once you get here, there is simply nothing better and nowhere else to ‘go’. If you are still shopping around, well. The results will be very mixed.
You cannot mix Vedanta with other teachings, especially the Neo’s, because they are not complete teachings, nor are the teachers qualified to teach Vedanta. Other teachings have very important parts missing and worse, don’t teach the difference between satya and mithya, between that which is real and apparently real, or knowledge and experience. They teach ignorance along with knowledge or ignorance AS knowledge and cause great confusion. Again, they are not wrong, and you are not wrong to be interested in them. The Neo-Advaita teachings have their place. As qualified teachers of Vedanta, we need to point out where the Neo’s are lacking because it is important that inquirers understand that. It’s just a question of values, what you desire most, what motivates you.
I gather from what you say that your critical thinking skills are sharp, and you seem to get the importance of karma yoga. But it seems you have a big pot of ideas from the nondual world all mixed up, and perhaps you have needed to commit a proper sadhana. People who are pretty happy with themselves and their lives often don’t. It is not clear to me what motivates your interest in nonduality.
Brian: Thank you for your exhaustively detailed explanation of the Existence Consciousness teaching. I feel I followed your explanation for the most part except for the final segment where you pose the question “Tell me when you are not experiencing “I AM”.
Sundari: If you think that was exhaustive, you have not been paying attention! That was very much the short version of the core teaching of Vedanta. I have answered in more detail, but even this is just scratching the surface.
Brian: I get that Existence Consciousness must be present to register the appearance and disappearance of the body. This part is clear. What is not clear is that the “sense of I AM” is present before and after the body. Why? Because earlier it was said the “Self/Consciousness needs nothing to experience itself and does not as stated above”. The above statement: “Unless Existence is associated with name and form, it cannot be experienced”.
Sundari: What do you think the ‘sense of I am’ refers to? The ‘I am’ is the unchanging, ever-present Self, the knower of the experiencing entity. But most mistake the ‘I am thought’ for the I am. The ‘I am thought’ is an object known to you, THE I am, as are all other objects, subtle or gross. The use of the word ‘I’ when correctly identified with the Self is not a problem. When I say ‘I’ and I know it unites me with the whole universe and encompasses everything, then I know that I am the ‘all-pervasive reality’ – TAT VAM ASI. I am nirammkar – without ego or identification with the doer. But if I say ‘I’ and it separates me from everything, alienating me from Isvara (Total Mind) and the world or creation, then I am ahamkara – identified and bound to the doer. i.e., the ego. Limited, small, fear-based, and inadequate.
What many teachers, including some big names in the Vedanta world old and new, do not make clear is the distinction between Yoga and Vedanta and their relationship to each other. This is called the satya – mithya confusion (see Chapter 2 of Essence of Enlightenment), where you are stuck now.
Ramana made it abundantly clear that moksa was discrimination (jnana) alone i.e. the discrimination between satya and mithya. Nisagardatta, (like most of the neo’s and many so-called nondual teachers) didn’t clarify the distinction between original Pure Consciousness (satya) either and the reflected self (the ‘I sense’) which is mithya. So, people try to ‘cling to the ‘I sense’ as a practice which boils down to clinging to something that is apparently real. In the case of Ramana bhaktas they want to get rid of the ego, which is a yogic notion that came from Patanjali. Ramana said that there is always a ‘functional’ ego, ahamkara (the “I sense”). The Subtle Body, which is eternal, is created by Isvara in conjunction with Maya. It has several functions, one of which is the ‘I sense.’ It is always present, even in deep sleep where it is unmanifest. It is not the jiva’s creation so the jiva can’t destroy it.
Vedanta advises ‘clinging’ to the thought “I am limitless non-dual awareness,” not to the ‘I sense’ because contemplation on it in the context of the satya/mithya teaching sets the inquirer free in so far as moksa is the discrimination between the Self and the ‘I sense.’ To say that moksa is discrimination implies that the ‘I sense’ is not a problem. The ‘I sense’ is like a ray of sunlight with reference to the sun itself. There is no contradiction. They share the same nature, light. Jivatman is the non-experiencing witness plus the Subtle Body otherwise known as the antakarana, more specifically the ahamkara, the reflected self or the ‘notion’ (kara) of I (aham).
The Subtle Body, the reflecting medium, popularly known as the mind, is Awareness’s instrument of knowledge and experience. This ‘I’ reflects and therefore points to limitless, i.e., unmodifiable ever-present unborn all-pervasive ordinary Awareness. Investigation of the ‘I thought’ along scriptural lines leads to the knowledge that the I and the I-thought are non-different.
Brian: From that statement it seems that the experience or sense of “I AM” (existence) would not be present without name and form (body/mind). My thinking is that there’s no experience of “I Am” without a body as a conclusion drawn from the previous statements.
Sundari: What do you mean by “I am”? See above. We need to do an analysis of the unexamined logic of our experience of reality by questioning what constitutes existence, what does it mean for an object to exist?
Here is a (longer version) of my previous reply:
Awareness (Consciousness/Self) does not directly experience but it makes experience possible for the Subtle Body. Without the presence of Consciousness, no experience can take place. Ok, you got that. The jiva or experiencing entity appears to be conscious and to experience, but the body/mind is inert—it seems conscious because the light of Awareness (you/Existence) shine on it. The body/mind is like the moon. It seems to shine because it “borrows” its light from the sun. So, who is really experiencing? The body cannot experience you because it is an object known to you; it is not conscious. The ego or small ‘I’ identified with the body/mind is just a thought appearing in the mind, so how can a thought experience you—it is not conscious, either. You know it, it does not know you. Anything you know cannot be you. Because of Maya’s power to delude, the hypnosis of duality seduces the mind into thinking that there is something other than it—something ‘out there.’ So, believing itself to be incomplete, the mind chases objects and suffers.
Consciousness is the non-experiencing witness because it is non-dual, so it is only ever “experiencing’ itself because there is only itself. Being a part-less whole, to be an ‘experiencer’ would mean that there would have to be something other than Awareness for it to experience. But this is not possible as there is only one Awareness and we are all it. Contrary to what most people believe, you, either as the self under the spell of ignorance or the Self-realized Self, are only ever experiencing Awareness, ‘enlightened’ or not. Said that last time.
Yes, the body is you, but you are not the body. To qualify for self-inquiry, we have to first negate all objects as not-Self. However, the body/mind is reflected Awareness; it is like your reflection in a mirror—it comes from you and reflects you, but it does not know you because the reflection is not conscious. However, it does exist. The body/mind are made up of you, Consciousness, arise in you and depend on you to exist—but you are prior to all objects and depend on nothing to exist. You are always free of all objects even though they arise from you.
The Self, eternal Existence, is free of qualities and limiting factors. But it can only be known to the mind by analyzing the nature of the effect, the creation, which seems to limit Consciousness, the Self (but does not). When we eliminate the non-essential factors from the equation (like the pot from the clay or the ring from the gold, or Consciousness from the three states, waking dreaming and deep sleep) the essential factor remains and can be known as it is—the unlimited ‘IS-NESS’ or pure Existence/Consciousness underpinning all objects.
Consciousness is Existence and Existence is Consciousness. You exist and are conscious are two facts that are actually one because they are mutually dependent. They cannot be separated—and this is true of all objects which make up the creation, from the gunas, to the Subtle body or jiva, to all gross material objects, which are all made up of parts and appear as names and forms. But Existence is one partless whole and has no name or form. The same Existence brings all objects into experience and it is a matter of experience (albeit unexamined, by most) that Existence with a capital ‘E’ is independent of objects, including our discrete experiences.
The nature of existence involves the consideration of several factors:
1. Existence has no divisions; it is not a part, product or property of an object.
2. Existence is not limited by boundaries of objects; it is positive, intangible, limitless and all pervasive, like space.
3. Existence remains when all existent objects disappear, just like the clay remains when the pot is broken, the gold when the ring is melted or Consciousness whether the mind is awake, dreaming or sleeping.
4. Unless Existence is associated with an object, it cannot be experienced (other than as your own self through the removal of ignorance by Self-knowledge).
5. Existence alone is pure Consciousness.
There is only one Existence which pervades all objects, and it is generic, not specific to, any object. The object is appreciated by the senses and the ‘is-ness’ is appreciated by the intellect, often, unconsciously because the is-ness of every object is Consciousness. When you meet another person, you know they are conscious; you do not have to think about it. What you don’t know (unless you have Self-knowledge) is that they are the same Consciousness you are, appearing in a different form with a different name. This is true of all jivas, human and otherwise, as well as of inert objects, though not obvious in the latter.
I cannot exist unless I am conscious, and I cannot separate my Existence from Consciousness. Therefore, all objects are me, but I am not the objects. Moksa is the ability to separate the object from the Existence that supports it (and is not localized anywhere because there is nowhere that it is not). I am formless, all pervading Existence/Consciousness. I only become localized when I am associated or confused with the ‘physicality’ of an object, like my body. Every wave is the ocean. This teaching reveals that the ‘is-ness’ of everything is me, Consciousness. The names and forms of all objects are supplied by Isvara, the Total Mind otherwise known as the Causal body. To experience non-separation from objects, from Consciousness or me, name and form must be separated from Existence. Although this is harder to see in inert objects, like a rock or a chair, if you don’t understand that all objects are you, your relationship with objects (which is your life, after all) will be fraught with difficulty and suffering.
By understanding the two orders of reality: the real, satya (Consciousness—that which is always present and unchanging) and mithya, the apparently real, the jiva/world (that which is not always present and unchanging. These two orders of reality are not in contradiction or opposition to each other because when looked at in the light of Self-knowledge, they dissolve into each other. Or rather, mithya dissolves into satya, not the other way around.
If you apply the logic of Vedanta and investigate the true nature of reality, you will see that Awareness, (the subject—you/Existence) is the only principle that is always present and never changes. Everything else, the jiva(form) and all experience (objects either in form or formless) is that which is not always present and always changing—but, as stated above, it cannot not exist without Awareness. Knowing the difference between the two orders of reality and never confusing them again is called moksa, freedom from limitation and suffering.
Many people ask: ‘if objects are not aware how can they BE Awareness? Maya creates all matter out of Consciousness—Subtle and Gross bodies. The Subtle body is born of sattva and is capable of reflecting the light of Awareness—which illumines the gross objects through the senses. It is given the power to know and experience by Awareness, so it seems sentient, but actually, it is not. The Gross body is born of tamas, the five elements, the existence or substance ‘aspect’ of Consciousness (Consciousness has no aspects, but we use the term here to explain a point). Gross objects have no ability to reflect the light of Awareness because tamas absorbs light and so they do not reveal themselves as Awareness. Maya makes Awareness seem like it is both sentient, as in the Subtle body, and inert, like the Gross body. But it is neither. It is the knower of both. Consciousness only becomes conscious (as we define the term) when there is something for it to be conscious of—i.e., matter, or the creation—in other words, when Maya appears.
To wrap up and repeat: Although all objects are you—Awareness/Existence/Self, you are not the objects because no object is aware. Awareness IS what it sees. Sees means knows. Awareness, the subject, is not an object so it cannot be known by an object because an object is not conscious. Think of the spider’s web; although it originates from the spider and is made up of the spider, it does not know the spider because the web is not conscious.
Awareness is that which knows all objects; it is the ‘transparent’ or non-experiencing witness. Awareness does not need anything to know itself because it is self-knowing; we say Awareness is self-illuminating. It is always a witness. But Awareness is a witness only with reference to whatever is seen. Remember that non-dual means just that: The Self is a seer that never began or ceases and is the ‘all-seeing-eye’ or “I” that sees only itself because that is all there is to see. Not that Awareness is a seer in the way the jiva (person) understands seeing. The person (Subtle Body) is the lens through which Awareness apparently looks at objects but seeing as all objects are reflected Awareness and thus have a dependent existence on Awareness, there are no objects for Awareness to see.
And remember this: Even the experience of Awareness in a purified mind is an object known to you, Awareness.
It would be more appropriate to say that the Self, seeing only itself, is that which knows the seer with reference to the seen only when Maya is operating. The Self-aware Self appears as a seer; but it never actually is a seer, unless seeing refers to its own self. From the perspective of duality or the person who is identified with being a person, i.e., when ignorance is operating, the jiva thinks that the seer is different from the seen. In other words, that the subject and object are different. They are not different, although they exist in different orders of reality: Awareness, that which is real, and reflected Awareness, that which is apparently real.
PLEASE NOTE: Understanding Maya is the key to inquiry, I can tell this is the missing part of your understanding. It is the most important part, the part that the Neos dismiss because they have no satya-mithya teaching. Which is to say, they have no teaching. Anyone can tell you that you are the Self, the only thing that is real, nothing else exists, so what? How does that help you to be free of suffering if you don’t understand what causes it, ignorance, and what removes it, Self-knowledge? The apparent reality may not be real, but it does exist because you experience it. It is pointless trying to deny it, and why try?
The only problem with objects is taking them to be real. When you know they are not and discrimination between satya and mithya is operating 24/7, you have no problem with objects. You can enjoy them for what they are and what they deliver, temporary happiness. You do not expect them to deliver what they are incapable of delivering, permanent satisfaction. You are free of dependence on them for your happiness because you know that the joy is only ever in you, never ‘in’ the objects, subtle or gross.
This is probably the most difficult concept to assimilate because it seems so contradictory. Many inquirers get stuck with this question, insisting there must be a more satisfactory answer to the “why” Maya, duality, is the way it is. It is impossible to have an answer to this question because the one asking it is in Maya—duality. Understanding only takes place when you can step out of Maya when non-dual vision is firm and has removed the illusion of duality. Then there is no need for an answer to ‘why’. Not that duality (ignorance) disappears when you know what it is; it does just not delude the mind anymore. Ignorance is only a problem when you take it to be real—i.e., to be knowledge. As I said in my last email to you, there are apparent contradictions in the teachings which are not real contradictions and dissolve in the logic of the teachings. However, they are not easy to understand, which is why you need a teacher.
Briefly, Maya is a power that exists in Awareness or it could not be unlimited. Maya is eternal because Awareness is eternal, which is why Maya is said to be beginningless—but, NOT endless because Self-knowledge can remove it. Although its appearance gives rise to the apparent reality, Maya is neither real nor unreal. Maya creates the categories of real and unreal. Without Maya, there is no creation, no jiva and no Isvara in the role of Creator. Personal or microcosmic ignorance (avidya/personal ignorance) ends for the jiva when the Self is realized to be its true nature, ending its cycle of incarnation and suffering. But Macrocosmic Maya or macrocosmic ignorance continues unchanged, although it is not always manifest because the creation is not always manifest.
When ignorance or Maya manifest, Isvara in its capacity as a creator appears, followed by the apparent creation (Isvara srsti), the world of sentient beings and insentient elements. Isvara creates, sustains, and destroys the whole universe. The world we see with our senses and the senses with which we see it is all Isvara’s creation. The subjective reality of the jiva is its own creation, called jiva srsti or pratibasika. When the mind of the jiva is controlled by Maya and deluded into the belief that duality is real, it suffers.
Brian: So, is this again a purposeful doubt? If so, pick me “I’ll be your huckleberry” as I’m all in on this. But I still feel the logic of needing name and form to garner the “experience” is valid and don’t see where this is negated in the following logic of Existence Consciousness teaching. Please help me understand what I’m missing here.
Sundari: You have big gaps in your understanding, explained above.
Brian: I think I understand that there is no requirement for a thought “I Am” to know I exist. It is an experience I can’t refute when awake, but there’s no memory of that experience before birth, or even in deep sleep. If there’s an experience of existence in deep sleep, it is very “stealthy” and basically unknown. Maybe it could be said to exist as an experience because I remember having an experience of deep sleep. But the distinguishing point of the sense of I Am, in one state appears quite different from the other. The experience of existence, I know while awake, and the other experience of existence, I know while asleep or before birth appear quite different from each other. There seems to be direct knowledge of one while the other is an inference. Although there’s nothing wrong with an inference, it still requires a mind or intellect (name and form) to make it. If so, that rules out the before and after birth suppositions of experiencing existence. The experience of existing before and after birth are not known without a knower and Consciousness has already been labeled a non-experiencing witness in the book. It doesn’t know without a mind to reflect that knowledge.
Sundari: You have it backwards, read above. What is the one non-negatable factor in all three states, awake, dreaming, and deep sleep? Consciousness. If that were not so, you would never ‘wake’ up after deep sleep. The main import of the three states teaching, also called the avastha-traya prakriya, (a prakriya is a proof or method of inquiry employed by the scriptures to elucidate the Self) is an analysis of the three sates of experience available to everyone, waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The main aim is to establish that the true nature of the Self by revealing through a logical process of inquiry the relationship between the jiva (the individual), Isvara (the creative power) and Awareness.
By removing all the inconstant variables, or incidental attributes of the jiva and the three states, we are left with the unassailable truth that the Self, Atman, is free of all attributes and states and is the one and only invariable constant. Consciousness can never be negated but everything else can be. It is ever present and unchanging, the non-experiencing witness of all the objects that appear in it, such as the jiva and the three states it exists in. As I said above but needs repeating: The ability to discriminate Consciousness from experience at all times is called moksa, freedom from the illusion of duality.
Brian: So, there’s a question that pertains to experience here. Does experience depend on knowledge? Can I have an experience and not know it? If so, how is it an experience and to whom, or what? How is experience recognized if not as a function of the name and form mind?
Sundari: WHO is the knower OF Brian? I explained this above, but in short:
Here is how knowing works:
1. Pure Awareness does not know anything because it does not modify to knowledge/experience, and there is nothing for it to know because it sees only itself.
2. When Maya appears, prakriti, the subtlest form of matter and what the creation is created from, appears ‘simultaneously’ in Maya, before the gunas emerge. Prakriti is reflected Awareness and also does not know anything because it is not modified by the gunas.
3. When the gunas arise, Isvara, pure Awareness operating Maya in the ‘role’ of the Creator, knows the world – the reflected medium – because Isvara is conscious. With the appearance of Maya there is something to be conscious of – an apparent creation, the reflected medium.
4. The reflected medium is the Field of Existence in which the jiva perceives and experiences. The Field and the Jiva seem conscious because the light of Consciousness shines on them. We can infer that the Field is intelligent and must have an intelligent creator because we know that we are conscious, and the Field is intelligently designed. Consciousness makes everything possible, everything depends on it, but it is unaffected by everything. It is all very subtle, I know, and hard to grasp.
Vedanta tells you to take a stand in Awareness as Awareness, which is the truth about you. But sometimes this turns out to be more than a little tricky because it is so subtle. The split mind watching itself has a slippery tendency to claim to be Awareness. But is it ‘unfiltered’ (meaning nondual) Awareness or is it a delusion? How to know, and how to deal with that? Taking a stand is done with the mind and can lead to a kind of self-hypnosis that makes the Jiva think it is the Self without the full understanding of what it means to be the Self. Of course, based on logic alone, (is there an essential difference between one ray of the sun and the sun itself?) the jiva can claim its identity as the Self—but only when it’s knowledge of satya and mithya is firm.
The practice “I am Awareness” does not give you the experience of Awareness or make you Awareness. It negates the idea “I am the jiva.” When the Jiva identity is negated the inquirer should be mindful of the Awareness that remains because negating the jiva only produces a void. Nature abhors a vacuum. Many inquirers get stuck here and depression can set it if they cannot take the next step, which is understanding that the emptiness of the void is an object known by the fullness of the Self, the ever-present witness. Or, at that time, many inquirers ‘start’ to experience as Awareness and make a big fuss about it even though you have only ever been experiencing as Awareness all along!
So, the discrimination between Jiva’s experience of Awareness and the Self’s experience of Awareness is essential. The Self’s experience of itself is qualitatively different from the jiva’s experience of the Self as an object or as objects. It is one thing to say “I am the Self as the Self and another to say it as the jiva. This realization may well be a painful moment for inquirers who are very convinced that they are enlightened without knowing that they are only enlightened as a jiva, or as an ego, not as the Self.
Brian: What kind of experience does someone in a coma have of existing as I Am? Is it the same as one with a fully functioning mind?
Sundari: See above. A coma is the same as the deep sleep state. The Subtle Body (mind) is withdrawn into the Causal Body (Macrocosmic Unconscious or Total Mind, i.e., Isvara) during sleep, so ‘you’ as the jiva (mind) are not present. But the Gross body is present and alive because Consciousness is present. If it were not, the body would be dead. When you wake up from deep sleep you infer that you slept because you feel good and you are alive. Same with a coma or under anesthesia.
It seems you believe that the statement “I am whole and complete unborn ever-present Awareness/Existences” needs some kind of experiential proof. It doesn’t. Thinking it indicates a failure to accept inference as a valid means of Self-knowledge. There is no direct way for a jiva to confirm the statements of Vedanta because the Self is not an object of jiva’s experience. It is the knower of jiva’s experience, including the non-experience of the Self.
So, as I said above, the most important qualification for liberation is shraddha, faith in the scripture, which uses inference to “prove” its statements. Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is a jiva there is you, Awareness. You never see the camera in a picture, but you can count on the knowledge of the camera because there is never a picture without a camera. So, you must claim your identity as Awareness based on the teachings, not on some kind of experience. If you claim it on the basis of an experience, then you will unclaim it when the experience ends, which all experiences do. So, the knowledge will depend on an unreal object. Or you will feel like a fraud when disturbing experiences arise because the experience of your Existence/Consciousness is never disturbing because it is unborn ever-present bliss. Knowledge is always valid because, in the case of the Self, it is always present and unchanging. You are never not present.
Brian: OK, I recognize that the above questions are all related to a reflecting medium (mind), but it is the mind that is necessary to have experience and knowledge? Hopefully, I’ve exposed my confusion in all the statements above and you can discern my problem with understanding this.
Sundari: The mind is an object known to you, the Self. What qualifies something as an object? ANYTHING known to you cannot BE YOU. An object is defined as anything that is not always present (deep sleep) and always changing. Can you name anything in this world that is always present and not subject to change, other than Consciousness? No, you cannot. Consciousness is defined as that which is ALWAYS present and unchanging, said many times now. Do you know your mind, or does your mind know you? Once again: who is that knows the mind, the thoughts and feelings that appear in it? Are you your thoughts and feelings, or are they objects known to you? Do they qualify as always present and unchanging? NO.
Yes, the mind is the instrument required to experience, and yes, you cannot experience AS A PERSON if the body is dead. But as the Self, you do not need the presence of objects to know yourself because you are SELF knowing, see above. Your problem is that you think the Self must experience like the jiva experiences to qualify as real, when the opposite is true. It is what Vedanta calls viparaya. You are attributing qualities and attributes to the Self that only belong to the jiva. You can equate moksa with the removal of viparaya, which is the reversal of nonduality as duality, or more simply, the superimposition of duality onto nonduality; more on this above (snake and the rope metaphor).
How Perception/Experience Happens
Gross objects require Consciousness to be known. Human or sentient beings require Consciousness, a functioning intellect, and sense organs to know anything. The sense organs give rise to the experience of things in the body. Without functioning sense organs and intellect, you cannot experience anything. You would be a ‘vegetable’, in a permanent coma.
When we look at an object, whether it’s a subtle object appearing only in the mind (like a thought, feeling or image) or a gross physical object with a name and form, the Subtle body sends out a thought, a beam of light, a ray of Consciousness to the object. Consciousness shines on the Subtle body and illumines the mind and senses, which in turn, illumines the object. However, the thought or ray of Consciousness sent from the intellect to the object is inert, meaning, is not itself conscious. You know this to be true because your thoughts do not know you. You know your thoughts. Consciousness is delivered to objects through the mechanical process of reflected consciousness shining or bouncing off a conscious, sentient object – a jiva (Timor) or Subtle body. Thus, experience takes place. If you cannot see a material or subtle object, no thought can reach it, so no experience of it is possible. Subtle objects like thoughts and feelings are known in the mind in the same way, by Consciousness shining on the mind.
Vedanta is a valid means of knowledge for Consciousness and tells you right up front that you are not the experiencing entity but the Self. However, it is not easy to know what this means, which is why if you want to be free of suffering, you must commit to the teachings and develop all the qualifications for self-inquiry, as I told you a few times now.
Brian: So, again, I need your help to understand what points I’m missing from the Existence Consciousness teaching. Regarding your comments concerning the implied and ostensible meaning of the word combinations: Consciousness-Awareness, and Awareness-Consciousness, I’m wondering which is implied and which is ostensible? Both words were introduced as meaning the same and therefore I don’t see either qualifying the other. If one was considered relative and the other absolute, then it would suffice to just use the correct one, or if it was necessary to qualify it, then perhaps one could use: “absolute, relative, limitless, limited” next to the word to make the distinction. I follow your explanation as given, but don’t see how it actually applies to my question, to wit: How do those word combinations contribute to the meaning of the statements in the book?
Sundari: As I said in my last email to you, the terms are interchangeable. All words are duality, therefore, not perfect. How can an object like a word, any word, describe the indescribable, Consciousness? Yet, we must use words to teach and communicate. Vedanta uses words advisedly and carefully explains their application because it teaches in the language of identity, not experience. All words have implied and ostensible meanings, they are the finger pointing at the moon, they are not the moon. These two meanings happen because the Causal Body and the Subtle Body affect our experience simultaneously. Our experience is a combination of these two factors. In terms of this idea it is reasonable to say that experience takes place on two ‘levels’ at the same time, one experienced directly and the other indirectly.
In reality, there are no levels. Only in Maya, the apparent reality, do they exist. Direct experience is simply the thought that is playing in the Subtle Body at any moment. We only experience one thought at a time and therefore we only have one experience at a time, so two streams of words, one from the Subtle Body and one from the Causal Body do not come out simultaneously. Even if they did, we could not hear both because incoming experience is controlled by the same rule governing outgoing experience. How does the Causal Body speak? Or to rephrase the question, “how does the implied meaning manifest?” It is encoded in the spoken or written words. So, when you are speaking without full attention i.e., when your mind is rajasic or tamasic, you are not aware that your words have two meanings, that the content of your unconscious is being revealed.
Because words are so open to interpretation, Vedanta puts us into a whole new world of perception because it is so insistent on the correct and conscious use of words. It teaches through the implied and not usually the ostensible meaning of words. For self-inquiry to work, where the ostensible meaning does not work, we must take the implied meaning, based on logic.
For instance, if we say that there is an identity between Isvara and Jiva, what do we mean? We can’t work this out with the ostensible meaning of this statement because Isvara is Consciousness plus the world and Jiva is Consciousness plus the Subtle body. Isvara is omniscient and the jiva only knows its subjective reality. We must take the implied meaning by removing all the non-essential variables to get to what is non-negatable, the fact that both Isvara and jiva are Consciousness.
Brian: I received a copy of subject book last night in the mail. I’ve spent the afternoon thumbing though it in search of answers to questions raised in my previous email. I feel that my questions have been resolved in what I’ve read so far in that most excellent book.
I’m hoping that you’re not having responded to my last email is not because of some perceived impertinence on my part, but rather because you’ve been busy with more pressing matters. I’m going to assume the later and hope that should you find time, you may respond to this email as a confirmation or further instruction regarding my conclusions:
Sundari: You have not offended me. I explained above. This is what we do and we don’t mind working hard.
Brian: Although pure original awareness is “self-evident”, the experience of itself is only possible through the function of maya whereby a subtle body is providing a medium for “self-knowledge”. Otherwise, there is no possible “experience” of self-evident being. There’s no “self-knowledge” either, without a subtle body.
Sundari: See above. The Self is Self knowing, but what does it know? It is not actually a knower. See below.
Brian: On page 202 I find the statement: “Removing the Subtle body from the Gross body, is called death, mooting the question of experience.”
The above statement seems to confirm my supposition that there is no EXPERIENCE of existence before birth or after death. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Sundari: Experience for who? The Self is the non-experiencing witness of the experiencing entity. But if there is no experiencing entity, is there a non-experiencing witness? I explained this above, but as this is an interesting point, let’s examine it again.
Who is the witness, and what is it witnessing? Who does the ‘I’ refer to in your statement above? The non-experiencing witness is the non-dual Self, but it functions in two ways, as the opaque witness or jiva (saguna brahman – with qualities) and the transparent witness (without qualities – nirguna brahman). The opaque witness is the mind/ego watching itself, and the transparent witness is the Self, pure Awareness. The Self is a seer that never began or ceases and is the all-seeing eye or “I” that sees only itself because there are no objects for it to see. It is self-effulgent as there is nothing but itself. Eventually, we must drop all these terms, even nirguna brahman because that implies saguna. It would be more appropriate to say that the Self, seeing only itself, is that which knows the seer with reference to the seen, only when Maya is operating. The Self-aware Self appears as a seer; but it never actually is a seer, unless seeing refers to its own Self.
Whereas, when ignorance is operating the jiva thinks that the seer is different from the seen, the subject and object are different. Isvara is also known as saguna brahman because it operates Maya (the gunas), but unlike the jiva, it is never deluded by them. When tamas and rajas arise in saguna brahman, then Awareness apparently becomes a jiva and is deluded by Maya.
Brian: I’m not arguing that existence consciousness is not always the case, I’m only saying that it is only apparently recognized in the form of a functioning subtle body. Otherwise, without a subtle body, there only the “one without a second” existence-consciousness that is experience-less and beyond any notions or need of experience, or self-knowledge.
Sundari: In a sense, this is true in that the jiva is the experiencing entity. But what makes experience possible? Who would that be, that ‘recognizes the Subtle body, which is an inert object? See above.
Brian: That’s the basic summation of my reading experience so far.
Sundari: I have answered you in far more detail than perhaps than is necessary, I hope it helps.
Love,
Sundari
