Kevin: I was reading the satsangs… “Vedanta is like the small quiet guy at the bar who no one sees coming and ends up beating the crap out of everyone there. Who knew knowledge is living fire!?”
It is the Bruce Lee that takes jiva out! K.O. Haaa haaa. It made me laugh so hard out of identification.
Sundari: Ah, yes indeed, I like the analogy of Vedanta being the Bruce Lee of teachings! There is nothing like Vedanta, it is flawless and irrefutable, it is not for the faint of heart. There is no competition up to the mark, nothing can withstand it because everything disappears into it. Resistance is futile. It is like ‘Les Grand K’, the prototype for the kilogram that sets the standard for all mass standards.
Of course, the main point is, when you say, ‘who knew knowledge is the living fire’? Who would that be? You are the Living Fire that knows only ItSelf.
Kevin: I’m praying to God I don’t get enlightenment sickness.
Sundari: Don’t worry about ES. Everyone gets a bit of it at some point, it’s kind of unavoidable. Vedanta is heady stuff, no higher octane out there, for the mind. Es is only a problem if you don’t know you have it and it lingers. Isvara usually takes care of it pretty quickly. That is why Ramji added ‘ordinary’ to the nature of Awareness because it is the most common and ubiquitous ‘thing’ there is, being the only ‘thing’ there is of course!
Kevin: Yesterday, I really felt like I was standing in the Self as the Self, witnessing. Haahaa. Another Vedanta student said this takes years and years. And I found myself saying, “but I know what I am”. I was wondering where that need to argue came from – jiva revealed itself pretty quick.
Sundari: Yes, but your natural honesty as a jiva and the knowledge was right there to catch the defensive reaction (typical of the poor embattled ego). That’s the application of Self-knowledge in action. What’s so interesting is that standing in the Self feels like something (because there is still a jiva and the knowledge is indirect) but being the Self does not because the knowledge is direct. The jiva is as good as non-existent. The bliss of the Self is not dependent on feeling, or anything else, at all, ever, if Self-actualization (moksa) has obtained. It takes as long as it takes for the shift from standing to just ‘being’ the Self. So what? You are no less the Self at any stage. The steps to get ‘there’ are the qualities of being there…
Ignorance is incredibly subtle in the last stage of self-inquiry, which is why it is the hardest. It catches almost everybody who realizes the Self unless you are highly qualified like Ramana was. There is no way to impose satya onto mithya, it just doesn’t take, not even the tiniest little bit of it. Isvara will route out all the remaining ignorance when the time is ripe. I went through this recently and posted about it a few months back in my satsang called the Durodhyana Factor. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Taking a stand in Awareness as Awareness sometimes 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’ Awareness or is it an ego-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 its knowledge of satya and mithya is firm, meaning, direct.
The practice “I am Awareness” does not give you the experience of Awareness or make you Awareness because you are Awareness. It negates the idea “I am the jiva.” When the conceptual jiva identity is negated, the inquirer should be mindful of the Awareness that remains because negating the jiva 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 (ego). 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, as an ego, not as the Self.
Kevin: I can see now why that was a poor choice of words. I understand ‘being’. It is not a feeling… the closest word is witnessing (but that doesn’t seem right either). But jiva is not as good as non-existent. Thanks, Sundari. Some things to think about.
Sundari: Words are very important in Vedanta because all words have implied and ostensible meanings and are thus very open to interpretation. Vedanta is an oral tradition and gives direct knowledge of the true and eternal nature of reality, which is that it is a non-duality and not a duality. It does this using irrefutable logic. As we must use words to teach the truth that is not based on subjective experience, words must be as accurate as possible. We can tell very easily at what level of assimilation an inquirer is by their use of words. It is very common in the manana stage of inquiry that Self-knowledge flickers between direct and indirect, as it does in your case. As the knowledge deepens and assimilates, this will naturally fall away. We are impressed by how dedicated you are to your sadhana. You are always on it, a truly dedicated inquirer. That’s what it takes.
For self-inquiry to work, where the ostensible meaning does not work (the ostensible meaning is the meaning stated but not necessarily true), 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 Awareness.
Luckily for us, because Vedanta is a valid, complete, and independent means of knowledge for Awareness, it is possible to get direct knowledge through the implied meaning of words, when they are unfolded correctly by a qualified teacher. Vedanta is for people who can think, who have a subtle intellect, and understand the importance of applying the language of identity, not of experience. Isvara does not speak or write anything and mithya being what it is, all words are suspect. I find linguistics and philology very interesting for this reason because since time immemorial, language has been conflated with the ability to think, and, with civilization. No language meant you were no more than an ape – a barbarian. Language endowed the mind with the ability to organize and express thoughts. Yet, all words are mithya and are not the actual thing they represent. They are only ever pointers and dependent on so many factors to relay what they are actually saying.
As the little fox says to the little Prince in Antoine de Saint Exupery’s little book says, ‘words are the source of all misunderstanding’. So, we must use words as advisedly as possible, knowing their inherent limitations and implied meanings.
Kevin: You are right, Sundari. I believe I get what you are saying… if being myself feels like something, then I’m not being. And that is when the jiva is not as good as non-existent. That took a minute (may take a few more). Communicating this stuff is difficult. Shoo! Hats off to you and Ramji for doing this every day
Sundari: Yes, it’s true, communicating the Self is difficult because it is so subtle, and words are tricky things. Thankfully, the scripture is a valid means of knowledge for the Self, so it is up to the task, as stated previously. That does not mean it is easy to assimilate though; it is definitely not, ignorance being what it is. You are never ‘not-being’ because you are never not the Self, despite the presence of avidya. Self-knowledge is difficult and tricky because it’s always a both/and not either/or. If this is a non-dual reality, which we know it is, then everything is me, including feelings. But I am not my feelings, they are just a reflection of me. I do not think or feel, but I make thinking and feeling possible. The jiva is sentient by virtue of my presence and it has the ability to think and feel, a great advantage and, the cause of much suffering too when the mind is clouded by Maya, the hypnosis of duality.
There is nothing wrong with feeling and expressing our full humanity, freedom would not be freedom if that were not possible. But when it comes to the bliss of the Self, bliss is not a feeling because blissful implies bliss-less. The bliss of knowledge is very different from bliss as most people understand the meaning of that word. The bliss of the Self is just knowledge and knowledge does not feel like anything. As I am sure you have heard Ramji say, the problem lies in the misunderstanding of the word “bliss”. There are two kinds of bliss: ananda which is experiential bliss and anantum, which is the bliss of the Self.
The bliss of the Self, that which is always present, unlimited, and non-changing is not an experience because it is your true nature, anantum. The bliss of Self-knowledge can be experienced as a feeling though, such as the bliss of deep sleep, which is inferred when you wake up, or as parabhakti, where love is known to be you, your true nature, meaning Consciousness, the Self. Parabhakti is having all you could ever want and knowing that it will never leave you. It is love loving itself, supreme confidence, and limitless satisfaction, parama sukka or tripti are words used in the texts.
The nature of something is different from the attributes of something. People often confuse the two. Nature is the essential essence, something that is intrinsic to or inherent in something and cannot be removed, without which a thing could not be a thing. An attribute is a property, which may or may not be essential to the nature of a thing. The nature of something is the non-negotiable or unchanging variable whereas a property is usually a changing variable. As the nature of sugar is sweetness. If you take sweetness away, sugar is no longer sugar. Or the nature fire is heat. If you take heat away, fire is no longer fire. Thus, nature of the Self, Awareness, you, is parama prema svarupa. Parama means limitless; svarupa means nature and prema is the love the makes love possible. It is always there and being experienced by the jiva, Self-realization does not give it to you, but for most, it is usually covered up by Maya, so not recognized.
When I know I am Awareness, I am prema, limitless love. This love is knowledge because Awareness is intelligent. Though your true nature, prema is always present, it is only known when Self-knowledge has negated the doer. That is not to say that experiential bliss disappears when Self-knowledge is firm. It just does not matter whether the experience of bliss is present or not because the bliss of Self-knowledge is always present because the Self is always present. This can be ‘lost’ if Self-knowledge is not yet firm, i.e., indirect.
It is no easy feat to dismiss the jiva, so take heart. The ego is designed to cling to its stuff as it is duped by Maya into believing survival depends on it, which it does. But if you are a serious inquirer, which you are, then Vedanta will get that ego sooner or later. You cannot be the Self and the jiva. The jiva can never compete with the Self, obviously. So, the jiva overcomes its smallness by living as the Self and consciously doing battle with the ‘voices of diminishment’ as they arise. It does not try to defend them. To do so only gives them life. And arise they do! It is difficult at first, because you feel like a fraud, that you are trying to be something you are not.
However, if we are hooked by the turbulent thoughts and emotional patterns inherent in being a jiva, even in seemingly small day-to-day issues, we will never be free of them. The ever-changing and limited idea of who you are trying to keep alive as the person is just a memory, a guilt-inspired thought. For the most part, it is a toxic program to be instantly dismissed and paid no heed. The jiva will remain as Isvara made it, for the most part—even with moksa, and we must love it unconditionally. Nevertheless, satya & mithya is duality if you think the jiva is as real as the Self. Taking a stand as the Self means the jiva is as good as non-existent, that is the litmus test of assimilation.
Even if one has been an inquirer for a long time and the remaining issues seem significant and very subtle, which it was for me, it all must go for Self-actualisation to take place. In my case it was a protection/suspicion samskara I was well aware of and thought I had negated, but there was still a lingering layer to it. A thief of bliss in the house, so to speak. To be free of the jiva all three stages of self-inquiry, particularly nididhyasana must be completed. It is not easy, which is why Vedanta is not that attractive to many. Who wants to face the less than fabulous parts of themselves? Vedanta may be the ultimate colon cleanse for the mind but unfortunately, it is not an instant crap reducer. Some anally retentive psychological crap takes a very long time to come out. To add to that, tamas produces “motivated blindness,” the unique ability all jivas have which inhibits their ability to perceive inconvenient data, much like confirmation bias gives rise to the cult of denialism.
Isvara always has the last laugh when it comes to egos, especially those qualified for self-inquiry, and makes sure that all samskaras, which are like nuclear waste in the unconscious, keep radiating their poisonous toxic waste contaminating everything we think, say, and do until we are totally sick of the mind they produce. They cannot remain hidden and will come out sooner or later. All jivas face the same issues because the gunas work the same way for everyone. However, doing the ‘Advaita Shuffle’, i.e., the ego claiming, ‘I am not the doer and who cares about the jiva, it’s not real’, gets you exactly nowhere.
The point is, do we want to continue suffering, or do we want to apply this amazing knowledge to the jiva so that it stops being a jerk and has an amazing life? If one is serious about self-inquiry, there is no room for making excuses or protecting the jiva identity – it must be seen for what it is to be dismissed. Only the merciless truth will set you free of the jiva – and then we can truly accept the jiva warts and all. There is no middle road in Vedanta, sadly. Keep up the good work and trust the knowledge to get you there. You are on the Vedanta bus! I added a great drawing a friend of ours did of Ramji driving the bus…
Kevin: I am cold (one of the sheaths –points to there still being—> jiva)… is not I am
I am awareness (making the subject an object –points to there still being –> jiva).. is not I am
Sundari: As I said above, there is nothing wrong with feeling, it is purely identification with feelings that is the problem. The jiva never stops feeling, so who is cold? Just the food sheath. Press pause every time you use the word ‘I’ and ask yourself who does it refers to? The jiva identified with the body/mind, the Self-realized jiva who still has indirect knowledge, or is it direct Self-knowledge, the witness observing the feeling?
Kevin: The other part is that knowing is knowledge not experience. It has taken a while to undo what I learnt from yoga; remnants of these teachings still can pop up.
Sundari: Most inquirers have a ton of inaccurate ideas from other teachings to let go of when they come to Vedanta. We never stop experiencing as a jiva because life is one long experience punctuated by seemingly discrete experiences. Freedom is the ability to discriminate between the experiencing entity (jiva) and the non-experiencing (Self) entity 24/7, automatically, without thinking. Until then, the application of the knowledge to your life requires constant discrimination, thought by thought.
Existence/Consciousness/Self does not experience because there is no duality for the Self, there is only itself. However, Consciousness is associated with name and form (an object, i.e., a thought), experience happens. Unless Existence is associated with name and form, it cannot be experienced. Thus, Consciousness experiences indirectly in that no experience can take place without it – it makes experience possible. You are only ever experiencing Consciousness;you do not need any special experience to experience the Self because that is all you are ever experiencing.
But unless you have Self-knowledge, you don’t know this. The Self/Consciousness needs nothing to experience itself. When Maya (ignorance) appears, there is (apparently) something for Consciousness to be aware of and experience seemingly happens. But as Consciousness sees only itself, who is it that experiences? The jiva/individual is just a lens through which Consciousness apparently experiences objects, with the emphasis on ‘apparently’. When the knowledge is firm, experience is no problem because duality is no problem. In fact, it can be quite delicious. How would we savor a good meal, a beautiful sunset, making love, holding those we love, without it?
Much love
Sundari