End Of Knowledge

Tag: advaita

  • 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

  • Relationships & Non-Duality

    S: What is the relation of the Self to the body/mind?

    V: Relation is only possible between two different things. But the self alone exists. So there is no relationship between the self and the body/mind because there is no actual body/mind. There is only the self appearing to be a body/mind. The appearance of the body/mind is none other than you. All you have to remember is that appearing as a body/mind does not affect your true nature in any way.

    S: I am aware of the sensations of the body, and thoughts of the mind appear to me like other perceptions from the world. But I am not aware of pain in another’s body or mind. In that sense, it is different from other objects. What is the special/additional relationship I have with the body?

    V: Again, there is no special relationship. You’re looking at this issue from the perspective of the mind, not the self. 

    Where does S.’s body/mind appear? In awareness. Where does Vishnu’s body/mind appear? In awareness. Does this mean there is more than one awareness or that awareness has a special relationship to either of our body/mind’s? No. Just as one sun illuminates all objects on earth, there is only one awareness in which all body/minds appear. Awareness is aware of your body/mind in the exact same way it’s aware of mine. 

    When you say, “I don’t know your thoughts” what you are saying is, “My mind doesn’t know your thoughts.” And this is correct because the mind is a limited instrument with a limited range of perception.  It will not experience what another mind is experiencing.  But awareness illuminates both your mind and my mind equally.  To the self, there is not even a “my mind” or “your mind.” There are just minds appearing. So while your mind may not be able to read my thoughts, as the self, you “know” (illuminate) my mind the exact same way that you “know” S.’s mind. 

    S: Also, terms like ‘act as an embodied spirit’ or ‘play the role of a son/friend, etc.’ also suggests hypocrisy and artificialness. How do I cope?

    V: Yes, it can be strange to know that you’re the self while other people don’t. But that’s just how it goes. When you radically change your thinking, it takes time to adjust. And most people will never understand what you know. It can be disorienting at first, but you just get used to it over time. 

    So just be S., all the while knowing you aren’t S. There’s nothing artificial about it because it’s true. Act normal. Live your life. Friends and family are good. Enjoy them. Your relationships with people aren’t fake just because you know you’re the self. In fact, they are much more real because you can relate to people in a more open, loving way. Why? Because you know you don’t have to be compelled to act from the selfish standpoint of the ego.

    So self-knowledge isn’t intended to interfere with your personal relationships. It simply helps you approach those relationships with more understanding, objectivity and compassion. You can actually care about people on a deeper level when you know they are none other than yourself. Your relationships can become more authentic because your thinking is in alignment with the truth. The only inauthentic way to relate to people is from the false standpoint of the ego. Let me know if that helps. 

    All my best – V

  • 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

  • Working Out Your Karma

    I have been in a very unhappy marriage for the last 10 years. There’s no affection, no sex, no kindness, no warmth, no communication. My wife has given me the silent treatment for the last 2 years. I am slowly going insane.

    I realize that she is I and that I am she. There is only Self. So my question is the following: Would you stay in such a marriage if it drives you insane (literally) just to work out past karma? Or, would you leave? I remember the Buddha left his wife and children behind. Very confusing because he must have realized all was Self and that any action like leaving a wife and children behind was thus futile (there is no such thing as divorce; Self always is).

    Not sure if you are married but you are a realized person so I wanted to ask your opinion. Sorry for the deep question.

    Thank you,
    A

    V:  I’m sorry to hear that you’re unhappy but I’m a Vedanta teacher, not a marriage counselor. So I am not qualified to answer your question about marriage.  

    But I can address your understanding of self and karma.  Realizing the non-duality of the self does not have anything to do with passively accepting one’s circumstances on the basis that they’re just an illusory appearance of one’s own self.  Sameness only applies at the absolute level of the self.  It does not apply to everyday circumstances.  In other words, not everything in life is equal, just because it’s all the self.  Some things are, relatively speaking, better, healthier and more constructive than others. 
     
    Further, working out karma doesn’t mean accepting suffering and unhappiness.  Sure, everyone will have some degree of suffering and unhappiness in their karma.  But karma is not fate.  The point of the theory of karma is to put you in the driver’s seat. It says your current circumstances are the product of your past choices and actions.  The implication is that your future circumstances can be influenced by your current choices and actions.  

    So once again, I am not qualified to give you relationship advice.  Nor am I interested in doing so because my purpose here is to teach Vedanta.  But I hate to hear that you’re unhappy.  So I wanted to say that Vedanta, non-duality and karma all allow for positive change in one’s “personal” well-being.  They are not in conflict with you doing what you feel is best for your happiness.  The point of this teaching is peace of mind.
     
    All my best,
    Vishnudeva    

    A: Your answer is incredible and I quote only partially: “But I can address your understanding of self and karma.  Realizing the non-duality of the self does not have anything to do with passively accepting one’s circumstances on the basis that they’re just an illusory appearance of one’s own self.”

    I was stuck with this question for so many years and you understood it and gave the answer I was looking for so I will re-read it because it is so very very valuable.

    Thank you very much,
    A

  • I Am Not This

    I am both the existent and the non-existent;
    And yet I am neither. 

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this1.” 

    I am both the conscious and the non-conscious;
    And yet I am neither.

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this.”

    I am both the limitless and the limited;
    And yet I am neither. 

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this.”

    I am not this

    Not this

    1. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6. – “Now therefore the description (of brahman, one’s true nature): ‘Not this, not this.’ Because there is no other more appropriate description than, ‘Not this, not this.’