End Of Knowledge

Category: Satsangs

  • Maya Does Not Exist

    Billy: Who is affected by Maya? Is it the Ego or the Atman?

    V: Maya does not exist. Gaudpada, Advaita Vedanta’s first known teacher, makes the non-existence of maya explicitly clear in his Mandukya Karika at verse 4.59. I will include the commentary on this verse by Shankaracharya, Vedanta’s greatest teacher, for emphasis:  

    “The entities that are born are thus not born in reality (meaning: Though the universe and its inhabitants appear in Atman, they never actually come into existence). Their birth is like the appearance of a thing through maya (magic). Just as things produced by magic have no reality, the universe has no reality.” 

    Shankara’s commentary: 

    “(An objection is raised): Then you are, in effect, admitting that maya is an existent entity (by saying that it creates the universe).”

    “Answer: Not so. As the verse above says, ‘sa cha maya na vidyate,’ meaning, ‘ And that maya does not exist.’ The idea is that maya is a term relating to something non-existent (because the creation never actually comes into being. It only appears to do so.)”

    From this verse and the subsequent commentary, you can see that the term “maya” does not refer to a thing in and of itself. Instead, it is a term indicating that the appearance of the universe is false. Though Atman alone exists, it inexplicably appears as something other than Atman. This is maya.

    For a better understanding of maya, you can look at the traditional Vedanta parable of the rope snake: You are walking by a well on a dark night. You look down and we see a snake coiled by the well bucket. You freeze in terror. But, after several moments, the snake does not move or make a sound. You work up the courage to examine the snake more closely, only to find that it is not a snake at all, but a coil of rope attached to the well-bucket.

    In this story, a real rope is mistaken to be an unreal snake, similar to the way that the real Atman is mistaken to be an unreal universe. Here, you may be tempted to ask, “But how does this mistake occur? And to whom does it occur?”

    But why ask these questions? In the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, you never bother to ask why you saw the snake. And once you recognize the rope, you merely dismiss the appearance of the snake as unreal and move on. For all intents and purposes, the imagination of the snake occurred to you, but this is no problem because you know that the snake never existed in the first place. Hence, it was no real problem. No further inquiry, therefore, is required regarding the nature of the illusory snake or how it came to appear.

    Why? Because to investigate the “existence” of this illusory snake is to essentially ask the non-sensical question, “How did this non-existent snake come to exist?” A snake that is non-existent in the beginning (before it is imagined on the rope), and once again non-existent in the end (after the real rope is is recognized), is, logically, also non-existent in the middle (while it is being imagined).

    To explain further: Before the snake is imagined, it is utterly non-existent. And a non-existent entity, such as the child of a woman who cannot bear children, by definition, cannot exist, because existence and non-existence are of opposite natures, like light and darkness. Sure, this non-existent child can be imagined to exist, but this imagination does not bring the non-existent child into actual existence (because the child is just and idea in the mind). So, the existence of the snake is ruled out from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the snake is imagined and thought to be existent. But, upon inquiry, it is seen that the snake is not a snake, but a rope. Once again, the snake has been recognized as non-existent. If the snake does not exist in the first place, and does not exist in the end, then it did not exist in the middle while it was being imagined.

    So, in the case of the non-existent snake, it does not come into actual existence when it appears in the mind. The snake also does not come into existence in the rope because the rope ever remains a rope. Nor is the snake produced by the rope, because there is no potential for a snake within the rope (rope fibers cannot produce snakes). Neither does the snake does not come into existence through an interaction of the mind with the rope, because as previously mentioned, the snake neither exists in the mind or in the rope. Combining the two, then, will not magically create a real snake.

    When this is the case, the question of, “How did this snake come to exist?” becomes irrelevant, because the snake never actually came into existence. Similarly, the question of, “Why is there maya (the appearance of the universe) and who is affected by this maya?” is irrelevant because maya, illusion, is, by definition, non-existent. For instance, if you have a dream that you are abducted by aliens, do you try investigate the nature of those dream aliens upon waking?

    Billy: No. I simply dismiss them as non-existent. But unlike a dream about aliens, I do not know that maya is non-existent.

    V: Then, it is you who is affected by maya.

    Billy: But you said that I am Atman, who is unaffected by maya.

    V: If you know that you are Atman, who is unaffected by maya, then why are you asking about a maya that neither exists nor affects you?

    Billy: Ah, I am getting the picture now.

    V: Yes, you are. But right now, you are letting the tail of maya wag the dog of Brahman. You’ve got the situation backwards. You are trying to use the “rules” of the illusory maya world to understand the illusory maya world, when you should be trying to understand the real Atman. And when you understand Atman—or more importantly, that you are Atman—then the false, non-existent nature of maya is revealed. Then, you see that you, Atman, were never affected by maya in the first place. The entire idea of being deluded by illusion is seen to be part of the illusion itself. It was a problem that never existed. It only existed because you thought it existed.

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • The Elephant Mind

    Hello Vishnudeva,
    When I meditate, my mind gets distracted and unwanted thoughts come into play. I can’t clear my mind and make it completely empty.

    V: That’s okay, because in Advaita Vedanta understanding one’s self is the purpose of meditation, rather than getting rid of thoughts. And this is a good thing, because as you have seen, it is virtually impossible to force the mind to stop thinking. In fact, efforts made to willfully restrain the mind lead to frustration and inner tension, both of which, ironically, are inimical to the practice of meditation itself.

    So, try not thinking of meditation as actively managing the mind. Instead, think of the mind as a tank of muddy water that you are passively observing. Here, the mind is the water, and the dirt floating in the water is thought. And trying to coerce the mind into not thinking is like trying to get dirt to settle to the bottom of a tank of water by throwing in more dirt. Why? Because the desire to clear the mind, and the mental efforts made to do so, are just more thoughts. They only further muddy the water of the mind.

    But when you simply observe the mind without judgement, it will, like an undisturbed tank of muddy water, settle and become clear on its own. Let the thoughts arise and resolve of their own accord, doing your best not to judge them, dwell on them, or contemplate their meaning. And when you inevitably get “hooked” by one of the mind’s alluring ideations or distracting anxieties, then just watch the mind judge, deliberate, reminisce, worry and ponder, and wait to see if it settles down, rather than stirring the mind up further by trying to force it to stop. If the mind clears up on its own, then good. If not, then simply watch it in all of its muddy glory until the allotted meditation time is over, and then “try” again next time. When you sit to meditate in the same place and at the same time everyday, your mind will eventually get the hint about what you are trying to do, and it will become more cooperative. And once you are able to allow the mind clear of its own accord through passive observation, you are ready to use meditation for its intended purpose, which is self inquiry.

    But this approach, because it requires immense amounts of diligence and patience, rarely comes easily to people. So, when a meditator is not yet able to allow their mind to settle on its own through passive observation, Vedanta offers another option: the practice of japa. With japa, the meditator interjects a thought into their mind—in this case, a sacred mantra—and then focuses all of their attention on that that thought, to the exclusion of all other thoughts. The other thoughts are still present in the mind, no doubt, but because the meditator is occupied with the mantra alone, their attention remains steady, focused and undivided, rather than flitting hither and thither from thought to thought.

    Here is a common story that explains the methodology of japa. In India, there are elephant trainers called mahouts. And when these mahouts would parade their elephants through the village, the elephants would cause chaos as they walked the streets with their trunks swinging about, knocking over vendor’s stands and snatching bananas and coconuts.

    Now, in order to stop the elephants form running amok in the village, did the mahouts restrain the elephants and wrestle them into submission? No, because it is impossible for a man to overpower an elephant by force. Instead, the mahouts gave the elephants something to do—they gave the elephants a stick to hold with their trunks. And when the elephants had a stick to hold on to, their trunks were properly occupied and they no longer felt the need to swing them around causing trouble.

    Your mind is like an elephant that must be coaxed into behaving, because it cannot be forcibly overpowered. The swinging trunk of the elephant is the process of your mind thinking, and the bananas and coconuts in the vendor’s stalls are the various thoughts. The mantra that you focus on in meditation is the stick. And by giving the elephant mind a stick to play with, the trunk of thinking is occupied. When the trunk of thinking is properly occupied, it no longer feels the needs to swing about wildly, continuously dividing its attention in an attempt to find newer, juicer or more interesting bananas and coconuts (thoughts). By directing the mind’s attention towards one single thought, all attention towards other thoughts is withdrawn, by default. The thoughts are there, but you are no longer paying attention to them. Considering that the mind cannot be compelled to stop thinking, this is the more sensible approach to meditation. And by training the mind with japa to not give needless attention to frivolous thoughts, you will be preparing yourself to meditate by passively observing the mind. Because “observing the mind” is really just allowing thoughts to appear in the mind, without fixing your attention on them.

    Here are some tips for doing japa properly:

    1. Use only a single mantra for this practice, one that you find meaningful. Continuously switching mantras is unhelpful, and using a mantra that your mind finds unappealing is ineffective.
    2. There are three ways to repeat the mantra: loudly, quietly and mentally. Saying the mantra loudly is especially good if, at first, you find it difficult to completely focus on the mantra. Once you’ve mastered the ability to keep your attention on the loud mantra, you can then practice saying it quietly, like you are muttering. Then, you can move on to repeating the name mentally.
    3. If you have trouble concentrating on the mantra alone, you can use a mala, which is a loop of beads similar to a Catholic rosary, or a Muslim misbaha. Using a mala aids in concentration by anchoring the repetition of the mantra to a physical object, thus occupying both the mind and the body.
    4. In the absence of a proper mala, any beads will do. Recently, one of my students made a mala out of some old Mardi Gras beads he had lying around, and his practice of japa has been progressing nicely. (I absolutely loved this “Mardi Gras Mala”, because it shows that it is not the paraphernalia, but the practice itself, that matters).
    5. To use the mala: Put your right ring finger through the loop of beads and let it hang at the first bead (called “meru”; you will know this bead because it is usually larger than the rest of the beads and marked with a tassel). Repeat the mantra one time, and then use your thumb or middle finger to cycle to the next bead. Repeat until you come to the other end of the mala. This is one round. You will know when the round is over when the meru bead is in front of your middle finger or thumb and you cannot move to the next bead. To do another round, flip the mala over so the meru is once again behind your ring finger, like when you started.
    6. Your goal is to bring your full attention to the mantra. But be gentle with your mind. Remember that you are coaxing it, rather than fighting it. If you find your mind wandering, don’t waste attention on being concerned about the the wandering. Just observe the wandering like a disinterested witness and gently bring your attention back to the name.
    7. Establish a set place and time to do your practice. Any place will do as long as it is clean and relatively quiet. And any time that suits you is fine as long as it is the same time everyday. Through regularity, your mind will come to recognize the time and place you choose as “meditation time” and “meditation place.” Then, the mind will know that it is time to concentrate, rather than wildly chase after thoughts, and it will fall into the practice of japa more quickly and easily.
    8. Sit on the floor or in a chair, whichever is most comfortable. You want the body to be at ease, in order that your mind doesn’t become distracted by physical discomfort. Breathe and fully relax the body. Then hold the mala comfortably with your right hand, while letting the remainder of the mala rest in your left hand.
    9. In addition to your formal meditation practice, you can also mentally repeat the mantra while you go about your daily affairs, especially if those activities are mundane and normally mindless, like washing dishes or taking a shower. An activity that requires your attention, such as driving, would not be suitable (or safe) for japa.

    If you have additional questions, just let me know. And good luck!

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • Breaking Body Identification

    Hello Vishnu, I hope you are doing well. 

    V: Hi S.  I am doing well. Thank you. 

    S: I can report that I am making slow but sure progress in my understanding of Advaita. I have a doubt about letting go of body identification. I am convinced that as the limited body I will continue to be affected by problems from which there is no escape. Consciousness on the other hand is infinite and unaffected by anything.

    V: You are correct. The limited body, because it is part of the unreal world, will continue to be affected by problems: Sickness, fatigue, old age, death etc. This is the case for both the enlightened and the unenlightened. 

    S: How do I shed my body identity and start seeing myself as consciousness?

    V: Up until this point you have spent your whole life thinking you’re the body. In other words, identifying yourself with the body is a long standing habit. That means it will take a long time to break that habit. And how do you break an old habit? By starting a new one. In this case, you practice thinking of yourself as the Self until it replaces your old habit of thinking of yourself as the body. Here’s one way to do it: 

    Constantly monitor what you think and say. Whenever you say or think the word “I”, ask yourself, “What ‘I’ am I talking about?” 

    Here’s an example. Say you didn’t sleep very well. You go to work and a friend asks, “How are you today?” You reply, “I’m tired.”  At that moment you ask yourself, “What ‘I’ am I talking about?” What ‘I’ is tired? In this case the ‘I’ is the body. You remind yourself that only the body is tired. Draw your attention to the fact that you are the consciousness that illumines the tired body, and you, consciousness (the self), are never tired. 

    Do this anytime you make a statement or think a thought like this. “I am hungry”, “I am sad”, “I am sick”, “I am happy” etc. Remind yourself that the “I” you are talking about in these statements is just the unreal body. Then draw your attention back to the fact that you are the Self that knows the body and mind, the Self that is never hungry, sad, sick, happy etc. 

    This is one way that I found to be very helpful in regards to breaking body identification. The bottom line is that when you see identification with the body appear in the mind, you simply draw your attention back to who you really are. If it’s a stubborn identification, go back to the basics and use the logic you already know: “I know the hunger, so I cannot be hungry. The hunger was not previously present. I was. The hunger will go away. I won’t. The hunger is a transient state and therefore unreal. I am the real Self that knows the hunger and I am unaffected by it.”

    Alternately, you can spend time affirming who you really are using descriptions of your Self in the scriptures. For instance, you know that you, the Self, are ananda, limitless. So say this to yourself and think about it. “I am the limitless Self.” Ask yourself, “Is there anything that limits me?” Think about the body, the mind. Are they real? Are they always present? Do you change when they change? No. You are ever present and unaffected by them. 
    In this way, not only do you affirm the limitlessness of your true nature, but you also walk your mind through the logic that proves this is true. The mind has spent its whole life thinking of itself as a limited being. But over time, doing this practice retrains the mind to think of itself as what it really is: the limitless Self. 

    This is nididhyasana, the process of retraining yourself to identify with who you really are, the Self, rather than the body and mind.

    You can use what I’ve suggested as a guideline but also feel free to modify the practice in whatever way works best for you. The point is to diligently watch for identification with the body and mind in your thoughts and then gently remind yourself that you are really the Self. 

    I say “gently” because this is an ongoing process. Don’t obsess about it or beat yourself up if you continue to see body/mind identification in your mind. Just stick with it lovingly and patiently. Over time, the identification will continue to appear in your mind. After all, it’s completely normal to say things like, “‘I’m tired”, “I’m hungry”, “I’m sick”, etc. The difference is that, after practice, hen those thoughts or words appear, they no longer cause you as much distress. Or no distress at all. 

    And here’s the kicker: The Self neither identifies with the body/mind NOR doesn’t identify with the body/mind. Identification only happens at the level of the MIND. So when the mind identifies with the Self rather than the body/mind, then great. But you, the Self, are not identifying with anything. The identification is known to you and it doesn’t affect you. 

     Likewise, when the mind identifies with the body/mind rather than the Self, it’s no real problem. You, the Self, are not identifying with anything. The identification is known to you and it doesn’t affect you. 

    In other words, identification with either the body/mind or the Self are states of the mind that are known to you, the Self. Yes, the mind identifying with the Self as much as possible is a good thing because it leads to peace and happiness. But peace and happiness are simply states of the mind that don’t actually affect you, the Self. Likewise, sorrow caused by identifying with the body/mind are also states of the mind that don’t affect you. So work on identifying with the Self as much as possible. But don’t get upset when you catch your mind identifying with the body/mind. It’s just a passing mental state that doesn’t affect you.

    Always remember this while doing this practice because changing your mind is an incidental benefit to the practice of discrimination. But the real point is know that no matter what the mind is thinking, you are always the unaffected Self. You are not the mind, no matter what it thinks. And THAT is true knowledge. Good luck S. Just let me know if you need help. 

    All my best – Vishnudeva

  • THANK YOU

    Thank you to those who have recently donated.  Your generosity is helping to support the ongoing work of End of Knowledge as well as the Vedanta community at large.  10 % of your donations have been re-donated to Swamini Svatmavidyananda, a direct disciple of Swami Dayananda who teaches primarily at Arsha Vijnana Gurukulam in Eugene, OR.  

  • DROP THE BOAT: When the teaching has served its purpose, you can leave it behind

    F: So I want to go back to our discussion on Existence/Consciousness for a minute in reference to our previous exchange Who Knows? There are a couple of points I’d like to probe.

    When you see Ishwara as a matter of speculation what do you mean?   I find Ishwara to simply be a matter of understanding not speculative belief.  Speaking to a fellow Vedantin, “we” know that there is only Brahman.  And it has a power called Maya (which is nothing but Brahman) to manifest as the world we experience.  When Brahman is apparently functioning in this capacity as creator we use the word Ishwara.   Where is the speculation?  

    V:  Here’s three answers from different perspectives. 

    A) This is my primary answer, one that expresses both my personal opinion and what I contend is the view of Vedanta in general. This answer actually applies to all of your questions: While I find the details of Vedanta as a teaching methodology interesting, its theories and explanations are only conditionally true from the empirical standpoint or perhaps not true at all (take the theory of the evolution of the elements for example). Whether they are true or not is inconsequential because Vedanta only uses them as temporary devices to point to the only truth there is:  brahman (you).  This means that once Vedanta’s theories and explanations have revealed who you are, they completely lose their value, similar to a boat having no purpose once you have reached the other side of the river.  You could carry the boat with you if that was your prerogative, discussing its features and design, but considering your goal was to cross the river, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave the boat behind and simply enjoy the other side of the river rather than quibbling about the vessel that got you there?    

    In the same way, once Vedanta has shown you that you are brahman—and I am assuming that it has—its various teaching devices no longer have a purpose.  You could continue analyzing them if you wanted to but if your reason for seeking self-knowledge was peace of mind, then once knowledge is gained, why not leave the teaching behind and simply enjoy the implications of who you really are?    

    So I think the most important question to ask is, “Will continued analysis of the teaching bring me greater peace of mind?”  If the answer is yes then I say go for it.  But when I asked myself that same question, after three or four years of incessantly re-hashing the ins and outs of the teaching with my guru brother and fellow jnani, Paul, the answer was no.  So I stopped.  Then I shifted my focus to simply re-affirming and appreciating my true nature, which did in fact bring me greater peace of mind.     

    B) If you think Isvara is a matter of understanding while I find it to be a matter of speculation, then no problem. You should think/believe whatever makes the most sense to you.  Because of that I don’t have much interest in defending my position.

    But…. 🙂        

    Seeing as we are both well-versed in Vedanta, doesn’t the very fact that we see this issue differently prove that Isvara is a matter of speculation?  If Isvara were simply a matter of understanding, like understanding the earth is really round even though it looks flat, wouldn’t we both simply agree?  (Considering all of the Flat-Earthers out there, maybe that’s not a good example but hopefully you can see past the shortcomings of the metaphor). 

    C) Here’s my technical, picky answer. The first two answers are heartfelt but I want to give this one too so it doesn’t seem like I’m blowing you off. I did after all tell you to send your questions.     

    “When you see Ishwara is a matter of speculation what do you mean?”

    Isvara is posited as the omniscient, all-powerful creator of the universe.  But how do you know this is true?  Have you ever personally experienced an omniscient, all-powerful being?  I know I haven’t.  Granted, not experiencing something doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that it isn’t true, just like the example I gave above about not experiencing the Earth as round even though it is.  However, in the case of the earth, it is possible to experience it as round by viewing it from space, or by looking at a photo taken from space.  Is there a similar means of empirical proof for Isvara?  At this point someone may be tempted to give the argument of intelligent design.  But observing a reasonable amount of order in the universe is certainly no rock solid proof of an omniscient, all-powerful creator (philosopher have poked holes in this argument for a long time).  So where do we get our information about Isvara?  From scripture.  Swami Dayananda talks about this in his Tattva Bodha commentary on pg. 277-288 (not that I’m trying to say his view of Isvara is the same as mine).  While discussing how we can know anything about the details of Isvara he says, “We have no means of knowledge (about Isvara) except the sruti to tell us.”

    This means that if we want information about how Isvara works or what it is, you have to believe what the scripture says.  And belief is speculation.  This is what I mean by Isvara being speculation.  If Isvara were a matter of understanding it would be provable as an indisputable empirical fact. 

    “Speaking to a fellow Vedantin, “we” know that there is only Brahman.”

    Correct.  No disagreement there. 

    “And it has a power called Maya (which is nothing but Brahman) to manifest as the world we experience.”

    We’ve established that we both know that there is only brahman.  If there is only brahman then there is no maya.  Brahman plus an entity called maya would be duality.  Even if, as you say, maya is nothing but brahman, there is still no maya.  Why?  Because if maya is none other than brahman, then there is still only brahman.  There is still no reality above and beyond brahman called maya.  That’s simply the logic of non-duality. 

    As I pointed out above, Vedanta uses various temporary teaching devices to point to the non-dual reality of brahman only to have those devices negated when that reality becomes known.  The maya/Isvara theory is one such teaching device.  It is only necessary when someone believes that there is such a thing as objects and they need an explanation of where they come from and how they are “created” from brahman.  But when it is seen that what you mistakenly thought were objects are really nothing but brahman, there is no longer a need for a theory of a creative power (maya) because there is no creation.  And if there is no creation, there is no creator (Isvara).  Hence there is no longer a need for the theory of Isvara as creator either. 

    On an everyday level, even though it is a matter of speculation and belief, there is no harm in thinking of the apparent creation as the work of an apparent Isvara.  It can be a positive construct through which to view the world.  But it always needs to be remembered that brahman is the only “thing” that is real while the creation and the creator are dualistic concepts that are always unreal.  Hence there is about as much value in debating the details of Isvara/maya as in debating the details of a mirage or a dream.  And on a related point, no one needs to force themselves to believe in Isvara if the concept either doesn’t make sense to them or more importantly, if it doesn’t help them to be happier in their day to day lives.  The world is an illusion so nothing definite can be determined about it, which means people are free to choose to believe in what they find most reasonable and helpful.    

    F:  Coming back to the claim “to exist is to be known” for a minute.   I understand you are saying it isn’t to be taken literally, however, after giving it more thought I am finding it hard not to.   The thinking being that since all objects appear within consciousness, aren’t they inherently known?   Or said in reverse, if Consciousness manifests as an object how could it not be known to that same Consciousness?  Another point is to leverage the fact/teaching that Brahman is self-evident and objects are evident.   If an object is evident it must by definition be known.  Wouldn’t this imply that all objects are known (i.e., illumined by consciousness)?

    V:  If there is such a thing as objects then it must be consciousness that knows them.  But again, this is debating something based in duality, specifically the duality of knower vs. known, existent vs. non-existent or consciousness vs. unconscious objects.  Being dualistic, all of these ideas are based in ignorance and are unreal so what can actually be said about them?  How can you discuss the existence of objects if they don’t really exist?  How can you talk about something being known where there is nothing other than yourself to be known?  How can you find the relationship between consciousness and unconscious objects when there is only consciousness and therefore nothing for it to have a relationship with? 

    If you were someone I thought was still trying to understand that reality is non-dual then I would cater to the lower, temporary viewpoints of the teaching that allow for theories of knowledge and existence and debate them.  But I don’t think you are so what’s the point?  The non-dual viewpoint is the only one that is true and it negates all others.  Why not leave them behind? 

    I am not trying to be dismissive.  I’m just trying to draw attention to the fact that at some point you have to transcend the teaching methods of Vedanta and simply appreciate what they have taught you, that you are brahman.  Understanding and appreciating your non-dual nature at some point necessitates leaving behind dualistic concepts.  Drop the boat!     

    F:  Finally… new topic!  I’ve been researching the topic of Vedanta as a pramana.   My question is do you think Vedanta as a pramana is falsifiable in any way?  Meaning is there anything one could experience which would negate the core absolute truth of Brahman/Atma?    I don’t think so but I’d love to know your view.  This came up since I was in a conversation recently with a scientifically minded friend who found this position highly objectionable.  I indicated that since what Vedanta expounds is uncontradicted by other knowledge and unique then it can be accepted.   He agreed that it certainly “could” be true but was pushing to know what proof could be given vs. relying on a lack of contradictory evidence.  I then pointed out that one can only test the veracity of Vedanta by exploring it for themselves and going through a process of self inquiry.  Until you do that you won’t know.  For me having done quite a bit of meditation work before coming to Vedanta was key.  It allowed teachings like drg drishya viveka to be assimilated very quickly.  But for those who haven’t gone into the teachings carefully, and have a scientific bent the whole thing seems like crazy conjecture akin to saying “we are all in the matrix”:)!    Any thoughts on this one?

    V:  No, I don’t think there is any way to disprove the truth of brahman.  If there were I certainly wouldn’t be into Vedanta. 

    But as a thought experiment I think it might be possible to disprove that brahman is consciousness, assuming it could be shown that what we think of as consciousness is really just one part of the brain watching the functions of another part of the brain.  Of course, this seems unlikely.  But time and again, science has proven things that seemed impossible.  As much as Vedanta is called a science, we have to remember that yogis from thousands of years ago were not even remotely aware of what we now call the scientific method.  As I mentioned above they believed that earth evolved from water, water from fire, fire from air, air from space.  But despite their shortcomings regarding the natural sciences, they were in fact experts in investigating their own subjective experience.  From that vantage point it seems like a reasonable conclusion that consciousness is the base level of reality.  Meditation very much seems to prove that.  But being limited by our subjective viewpoint and our incomplete knowledge of the brain, can we say that for certain?  If I’m being honest, I’d have to admit the possibility—no matter how slight—that I could be wrong.    

    What?  How could you say that brahman might not be consciousness and still claim that the truth of brahman can’t be disproved?  Aside from the fact that consciousness is just a word based on dualistic concepts–and brahman transcends all words–even if brahman weren’t consciousness, it wouldn’t fundamentally change the fact that I am non-dual, ever-present and unchangeable because I don’t see any conceivable way to disprove my own existence.  The very fact that I can question my existence proves I exist.  If you destroy “me” meaning my body/mind then everything else besides my body/mind still exists.  If you destroy everything else, then existence itself still exists because to say that there could be such a thing as nothingness would be to admit that nothingness exists. Existence and brahman being the same, there would be no way to negate brahman.  So to me, the conclusion of myself being a changless, non-dual reality not subject to negation would still hold completely true.    

    And I agree with your view that the claims of Vedanta must be investigated for yourself.  To simply sit on the sidelines and intellectualize about it won’t do any good.  There’s usually no point in trying to convince people to take up Vedanta.  They have to want it themselves.  That’s why the teaching is only given to people who are receptive to it.  And personally, I don’t think Vedanta is science so I don’t try to legitimize it on a scientific basis.  I think teachers like Swami Vivekananda started calling Vedanta science and comparing it to science in order to make it seem more legitimate to Western or Western-influenced audiences. But since Vedanta investigates subjectivity and is not based in materialism, it’s its own unique thing.   

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    Have a question? CONTACT ME. 

    Want to support End of Knowledge? MAKE A DONATION