End Of Knowledge

Tag: hinduism

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 14

    Read Part 13

    Ask a Question

    Help support End of Knowledge: Make a Donation

    Note: This will be the last installment of the commentary until the New Year. 

    CHAPTER 6

    Ashtavakra said:
    6:1 – I am like limitless space and the universe is like a pot.  Knowing this, there is nothing to grasp, renounce or destroy. 

    In the same way that space remains unaffected even when a pot seems to limit or divide it, existence-consciousness remains unaffected even when objects seem to limit or divide it.  So when you know you are existence-consciousness, there’s no reason to grasp, renounce or destroy objects because gaining an object, giving up an object or destroying (changing) an object has no effect on you whatsoever.     

    6:2 – I am like the ocean and the universe is like a wave.  Knowing this, there is nothing to grasp, renounce or destroy. 

    A wave and the ocean are non-different as water, just as the universe and the multitude of objects comprising it are non-different as existence-consciousness.  If everything in the universe is you, existence-consciousness, then there is nothing to grasp, renounce or destroy because you can’t grasp, renounce or destroy yourself.      

    6:3 – I am like mother of pearl and the illusion of the universe is like silver.  Knowing this, there is nothing to grasp, renounce or destroy.

    Just as there is never any silver in mother of pearl, even though there appears to be, there is never a universe in existence-consciousness, even though there appears to be.  Since the universe, like the silver, is only an illusion, it can’t be grasped, renounced or destroyed because you can’t grasp, renounce or destroy something that isn’t real in the first place. 

    6:4 – I am in all beings and all beings are in me. Knowing this, there is nothing to grasp, renounce or destroy. 

    “I am in all beings” doesn’t mean that existence-consciousness is contained in living beings like some kind of soul.  Existence-consciousness is only “in all beings” insofar as it is the essence of all beings, the same way that water is the essence of all waves.  “All beings are in me” means that all beings appear in the field of existence-consciousness and are nothing but existence-consciousness, the same way that all waves appear in the ocean and are nothing but water.  The meaning of this verse is similar to the meaning of Verse 2—that everything is you, existence-consciousness, and you can’t grasp, renounce or destroy yourself. 

    But there is a subtle difference.  Verse 2 only mentions that the universe is existence-consciousness.  For some this could lead to the idea that only inanimate objects (the material world) are part of existence-consciousness and that living, conscious beings are something else.  But to dispel that doubt, this verse explicitly states that existence-consciousness is the essence of all living beings and that all living beings are “in” existence-consciousness, just the same as the inanimate, material universe.  Reality is non-dual: absolutely everything is existence-consciousness.     

    CHAPTER SEVEN

    All five verses of Chapter Seven are ideal for contemplation.  Saying them to yourself and thinking about their implications is an excellent practice for gaining confidence in your identity as existence-consciousness.  In a nutshell, each of these verses is saying, “No matter what happens, I am just fine.”  So even if you don’t yet understand how you can be existence-consciousness, repeating these verses to yourself can help you start to take the stance of being existence-consciousness.     

    Janaka said:
    7:1 – In me, the limitless ocean, the ship of the universe moves about by its own inner wind (nature)—I remain unaffected. 

    Like a ship adrift at sea, the world goes about its business, impelled by forces that no one truly understands.  And for many people, that uncertainty can be unnerving.  But if you are existence-consciousness (which you are), then there is no reason to have fear about what happens in the world because it never affects you.  

    7:2 – In me, the limitless ocean, the wave of the world—according to its inherent nature—arises and comes to an end.  I gain nothing by its presence nor do I lose anything by its absence. 

    In this verse the metaphor is a wave instead of a ship but the meaning is basically the same as in Verse One.  But it does elaborate on what it means for you (as existence-consciousness) to remain unaffected in spite of the appearance of the universe.  Most people want to get rid of what they don’t want and gain what they do want.  But this verse clearly states that in either case you remain unchanged.  So there is no reason to be obsessed about gaining things or overly concerned about losing them.    

    7:3 – The universe is merely name [and form], an imaginary concept that appears in me, the limitless ocean.  Despite its appearance I remain formless and at peace.  In this (knowledge) alone do I abide. 

    There’s no need to be concerned about the world because it’s just an illusion that appears in you, existence-consciousness.  An illusion can never disturb you or limit you by superimposing its form on you.  For instance, even if you dream that you’re being beaten, your body remains untouched.  In the same way, no matter what happens to you (the body-mind) in the world—either good or bad—as existence-consciousness you remain completely untouched.     

    7:4 – I am not an object nor am I within an object.  I am infinite, free from attachment and desire and ever at peace.  In this (knowledge) alone do I abide. 

    The only object to really be concerned about in the world is the body-mind because it’s the one that you feels like it’s you.  No one—at least no one sane—worries about being a tree or a refrigerator.  So the question is, “Am I the body-mind?”  Verse Four answers that question by saying you aren’t the body-mind nor are you contained within it.  It never limits you in any way.  And because attachment and desire are purely products of the mind, you are never subject to desire and attachment. 

    This means the presence of desire or attachment in the mind doesn’t change the fact that you are existence-consciousness.  The implication here is that you don’t need to completely eliminate desire and attachment to be enlightened.  Being enlightened is knowing that you’re existence-consciousness.  And if you know that you’re existence-consciousness, you know you’re existence-consciousness no matter what’s going on in the mind.     

    7:5 – I am consciousness alone—the world is merely a net of illusion.  How and where can there be any thought of rejection or acceptance?

    It’s completely normal to reject one thing as bad and accept another as good.  This happens all the time, especially in spiritual life when you determine what parts of your life are good or bad, meaning whether they promote or inhibit spiritual growth.  While those definitions do serve a purpose, at some point they have to be given up, at least on the mental level, the level of understanding.  Why?  Because how can you truly call something good and accept it, or deem something bad and reject it if it isn’t real in the first place?  It would be like saying, “Wow, that soup I dreamed about last night was really good.”  It was never there so it can’t really be good. 

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 6

    This week, Janaka continues his statement of self-knowledge from PART 5.

    Janaka said:
    2:6 – Just as crystallized sugar is completely permeated by the sweetness of the sugarcane from which it is produced, so the universe produced in me is completely permeated by me. 

    The true nature of something is that which is essential to its existence, something that, if taken away, the thing itself would cease to be.  For instance, if it were possible to remove heat from fire or wetness from water they would no longer exist, because heat and wetness are the essence of fire and water.

    On the other hand, an incidental quality of something is that which can be removed or changed while the nature of the thing itself remains unchanged.  If the color of fire changes from red to blue, the fact that it’s hot does not. This means the color of the fire—as opposed to heat, its essential nature—is merely an incidental quality.  Similarly, the form of water can change from a wave, to mist to rain but the wetness of the water does not; the form of the water is an incidental quality while the wetness of the water is its true nature.   

    That doesn’t mean an incidental quality is separate from the thing it is removed from.  The red, yellow or blue color of a flame is completely permeated by the heat of the fire from which it comes.  And there is no wave—from a ripple in a pond to a tsunami in the ocean—that is in any way separate from the wetness of the water from which it is comprised. Knowing this relationship between the essential nature of something and its incidental qualities, what Janaka says in this verse can be understood.  Just as crystallized sugar is permeated by sweetness, the essential nature of sugar cane, so the universe is pervaded by consciousness/existence, the essential nature of the self.  But unlike sugarcane, which undergoes a real transformation to become sugar—meaning after the sugar is produced, the sugarcane is gone—the self never transforms into objects.  It only appears to do so, in the same way that water appears to become a wave.

    2:7 – The world appears because of self-ignorance and disappears owing to self-knowledge, just as a snake appears from non-cognition of a rope and disappears when the rope is recognized. 

    You only see the world when you don’t understand that it’s the self, the same way that you only see a snake when you don’t realize it’s a rope.  And just as you can no longer see a snake when you become aware of the existence of the rope, you can no longer see the world when you have knowledge of the self.  However, the literal meaning of the word “see” only applies to the example of the snake and the rope, because seeing a snake where there is only a rope is a perceptual error that disappears when the rope is known.  But in the case of mistaking the self to be the world, even after you realize it is the self, the ‘snake’ of the world does not go away.  You continue to perceive and experience the world exactly the same way as someone who does not know they are the self; the only difference is that you no longer believe the world is real.          

    2:8 – Light is my very nature and I am never other than that.  I alone shine, even when the universe appears. 

    As previously mentioned (1:18), light is a metaphor for consciousness because it is the invariable factor in every experience that ‘illuminates’ all objects by making it possible for them to be known.  Nothing in the universe has the ability to ‘shine’ in this way, not even apparently luminous objects such as the sun.  Not even its light can ‘illumine’ anything—meaning make something known—without you, consciousness, being present. 

    2:9 – The universe appears in me, conceived through ignorance, just as silver appears in mother of pearl, as a snake appears in a rope or water appears in the desert (as a mirage). 

    As Janaka unequivocally states, the only reason the universe appears is ignorance.  Although it seen it never actually exists, just as silver, a snake or water, although seen, never exist in mother of pearl, a rope or a mirage.  From this fact it follows that there is no need to waste time trying to understand how or why the universe manifests because it never does.  It only seems to when you do not know that it is really just you, consciousness/existence. 

    Even if that makes sense, you may be tempted to inquire into the nature of ignorance or perhaps to whom it belongs.  But this too is unproductive, because the nature of self-ignorance, to state the obvious, is not knowing you are the self.  And if you do not know you are the self, then the self-ignorance belongs to you.  At that point the only pertinent thing to do is to get rid of the ignorance, not sit around pondering what ignorance is. Luckily, Vedanta gives you the tools to do this.  Ironically, when inquiry guided by the logic of Vedanta removes ignorance, it clearly demonstrates that you, the self, were never ignorant in the first place; it only seemed that way when you thought you were the body-mind.       

    2:10 – Just as a clay pot is dissolved into clay, a wave is dissolved into water and a gold bracelet is dissolved into gold, so the universe which has emanated from me will dissolve into me.

    There are two ways in which a clay pot, a wave and a gold bracelet can be dissolved into clay, water and gold, respectively.  The first way is literal: the form of the clay pot, the wave or the gold bracelet are physically destroyed, leaving behind the clay, water or gold from which they are composed. The second way is figurative: the clay pot, wave or gold bracelet are ‘dissolved’ into clay, water or gold through understanding that a clay pot is nothing but clay, a wave is only water and a gold bracelet is none other than gold.  In the same way, the universe is ‘dissolved’ into you, consciousness/existence, by the knowledge that it is consciousness/existence alone. 

    Have a question?  ASK HERE. 

    Want to support the work of End of Knowledge? DONATE HERE. 

    Please help by using the “Share” buttons below to re-post this article on Twitter, Facebook or Google.  

  • You are not a Person, You are the Self

    M:  Hi Vishnu, I have enjoyed your video series on the Tatva Bodha but I’ve got a few questions.  

    Am I a person or not? Or both?

    V:  You are not a person.  It just seems like you are when the distinction between you, the self, and the body/mind is not clear. 

    M: If objects are not real, then the person cannot be real?

    V:  Correct.  An object is anything and everything that is known by you.  The body-mind (the person) is known to you so it is an object.  Therefore it is unreal.    

    M:  I don’t understand “objects exist, but are not real.”  I would rather say: if something doesn’t exist, then it is not real?

    V:  No, because a mirage of water in the desert is not real but you can’t say it is non-existent.  If it were non-existent, you wouldn’t be able to experience it.

    So a better way of putting it is:  “Objects can be experienced but they are not real.  They are an illusion.” 

    By the way, the definition of “real” in Vedanta is “that which has no beginning, no end and never undergoes change of any kind.”  By this definition, objects exist (can be experienced) but they are not real.     

    M:  Am I both the Jiva and the awareness of the Jiva, and all Jivas?

    V:  You are only awareness.  You are aware of the jiva.  There is only one you, one awareness, so by extension you are the awareness of all jivas.  The next question is of course, “Why don’t I know what all jivas are experiencing?”  The answer is, because you are taking M’s mind, with its limited perspective, to be your perspective. 

    Here is an example.  One day, the sun—which shines on everything equally, never being affected by what it shines on—was happily doing its job illumining the world.  But suddenly it noticed its reflection in a bucket of water and began to panic.  He called out “Oh no!  Someone help!”  The moon, being a longtime friend, came along and asked what the trouble was.  The sun said “I’m trapped in this bucket! Help me out!  I’ve got to shine on the whole world and I can’t do it if I’m stuck in here.”  The moon assessed the situation and pointed out to the sun that he was merely looking at his reflection, mistaking it to be himself.  He was never limited by the bucket at any time.  He was, and always had been, shining on the whole world.  It just seemed like he wasn’t when he mistook himself to be his reflection. 

    You, awareness, are like the sun.  You shine on M’s mind, which is like the bucket of water.  It “reflects” you, meaning it appears to be aware, the same way a reflection resembles what is reflected.  When you mistake yourself to be the reflection, you assume the limitations and the perspective of the reflecting medium, the mind.  The mind, along with the senses, creates a three dimensional point of view so when you identify yourself with the mind, it makes it seem like you exist in a particular place.  But in reality, you are awareness simply shining on a mind that appears to be in a particular place when, like the sun to the bucket, you are not limited to that place at all.  The mind’s perspective is not yours, you simply illumine it.  By necessity, you must be outside of time and space since both are objects known to you.    

    This does not mean that when you understand that you are awareness that you will suddenly know everyone’s mind.  Why?  Because knowing information, such as someone else’s thoughts, belongs to the mind itself, not you, awareness.  You simply shine on the mind and what it knows.  So understanding that you are awareness and not the mind does not somehow turn you into someone else’s mind.            

    M:  Everything seems to suggest that I am a person that is aware of my surroundings.

    V:  Yes, it does.  But everything in experience also suggests the world is flat, that the sun rises and sets, and that straws bend when you put them in a glass of water.  But that does not make it so. 

    M:  Sight seems to happen through my eyes.  Smell seems to happen through my nose etc.  All experiences seem to happen in and through this body.

    V:  Yes, eyes see.  Noses smell.  Experience happens through the body (and mind).  But that does not mean you actually have eyes, a nose or a body (or that they belong to you).  For instance, when the eyes see, you do not see.  You are merely aware of what they eyes are seeing.     

    M:  And awareness seems to be connected to the body too, following it around.

    V:  Yes, it seems to.  But appearances are not truth.  Based on appearances, people used to think that the sun followed the earth around but upon investigation the earth actually moved around the sun. 

    Similarly, it seems like you, awareness, are connected to the body, following it around.  But like the sun, it is you who are not moving while the body moves around in your light.  Also like the sun to the earth, you are never connected to the body, you only illuminate it.    

    M:  I am never conscious of anything without the body, it seems?

    V:  It’s true that in the absence of the body (and mind) you’re not going to see, hear, taste, touch, smell or think anything.  Using consciousness in the normally accepted sense we could say that in this case you would not be conscious of anything.  But in the absence of sensory data and thought you are still conscious-ness itself.  Being conscious of something is merely a turn of phrase that we use to describe the action of the mind knowing something.  But conscious-ness is not a thought, it is not something that you do, like knowing.  It is what you are and the presence or absence of external objects can never change what you truly are. 

    Let’s go back to the example of the sun and do a thought experiment.  On a normal day, the sun sits in its place, illumining the Milky Way galaxy.  Being luminous is not an action it performs because it luminous by nature.  It gives off light effortlessly because it is light.  With that in mind, let’s say that absolutely everything (except the sun itself) suddenly disappears from the galaxy, leaving a completely blank void.  Now, in the absence of anything to reflect its light, does the sun stop being luminous?  No, it continues to shine whether or not there is anything present for it to shine on.   

    Like the sun to the galaxy, you, as awareness, “illumine” all objects with consciousness.  Being conscious of something is only the mind collecting and collating data.  But in the absence of the mind, such as in dreamless sleep, do you stop being conscious-ness itself?  Do you stop being consciousness when the mind is not there to be conscious of anything?  No, just like the sun wouldn’t stop being luminous if there was nothing there to reflect its light. 

    So no, without the body and mind, you can’t be conscious of anything.  But you can never not be conscious-ness.            

    M:  I don’t know what is happening in the USA, right now so… 

    V:  Don’t worry, I barely know what’s happening in the US right now either.  There’s a lot going on outside of my personal experience. 

    M:  …does the USA even exist, right now?

    V:  Well, I can’t say for certain because, owing to the time difference, I was probably asleep when you wrote this 🙂  But I can say for certain that it exists right now. 

    M:  I honestly must say no, not in my experience.  It is just a thought, right now, isn’t it?

    V:  For you, yes. For me, no. Please understand that I know why you’re asking these kinds of questions.  Everyone always does at some point, myself included.  But I assure you, it’s an unproductive line of inquiry.  Why?  Because there is absolutely no way to determine if the world exists when you don’t know it’s there.  In order to do so you’d have to develop a second awareness so you could step outside of your first awareness to try to observe the world when your first awareness was not present.  Aside from the fact that awareness is never not present and the idea of observing your own awareness is absurd, there is a third problem.  Let’s say hypothetically that you somehow manage to get a second awareness, make the first awareness disappear and then determine that lo and behold the world is still there. Hurray, problem solved!  But wait…now the question is, “Does the world exist when your second awareness is not aware of it?”  Then you have to develop a third awareness to observe your second awareness and a fourth awareness to observe your third awareness and on and on ad infinitum.  Hence the problem is insoluble and you’re left to speculation alone which doesn’t help anything.          

    But for the sake of argument let’s say you were able to determine that the world was there when you were not aware of it.  How would this affect your day to day life?  It wouldn’t, and the world would carry on as usual.  You’d still have to go to work, eat, sleep and be polite to the people around you.  You would still have all the same problems you had before you knew the world existed when you weren’t aware of it.  So there’s no practical purpose to knowing one way or the other. 

    One thing you do know for sure is that the world is there when you do observe it.  And that’s precisely when it’s a problem.  You don’t care about the world when it’s not there, like when you sleep, right?  But when you wake up you need a solution to the suffering the world causes.  That’s why Vedanta is not concerned with determining whether the world exists when you don’t see it.  Instead it is trying to show you that even when the world appears 1) It is not real, so there is nothing real to worry about and 2) You are never affected by it.  Honestly, this is what matters. 

    M:  You say that I am the consciousness in which the body and the world appears in.  But this consciousness doesn’t seem to be impersonal, like I would imagine it would be.  It feels very personal.  Like what I experience, no one else experiences.

    V:  The body-mind is what experiences.  And yes, that is personal insofar as no other body-mind is experiencing what another body-mind is experiencing.  Even two body-minds experiencing the same external object will experience it slightly differently.  But you, consciousness, are not the experiencer.  You are what illuminates the particular experiences of all body-minds.  So you are impersonal, just like the sun is not personally involved in anything it illuminates.     

    M:  And is there an external, objective world at all?  Does the universe exist in someone else consciousness when I, the person, is not there anymore to experience it?

    V:  I think I covered this above but I’ll reiterate that the status of the objective world only matters to us when it appears in our subjective world, which we know for a fact is there because we experience it.  So the subjective world is the only one that matters.  This means we only need to concern ourselves with the problem of our subjective world, the problem of suffering.       

    M:  But different persons do not have different consciousnesses, do they? 

    V:  No.  Consciousness is one.

    M:  There is only one consciousness, but is it divided between different people?  I don’t get it.

    V:  Yes, there is only one consciousness.  No, it is not divided between different people, the same way the sun is not divided when it reflects in many different mediums.  The sun can simultaneously be reflected in a bucket, a puddle and a lake and while this appears to divide the sun, it remains one alone.  Similarly, consciousness can be reflected in many different minds and while this appears to divide consciousness, it remains one alone.   

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    HAVE A QUESTION?  ASK HERE.

    WANT TO SHOW SUPPORT?  MAKE A DONATION HERE.  

  • Are Language, Culture and Religion Essential to Vedanta?

    THE QUESTION

    I’ve dabbled in yoga over the years but lately I’ve really been drawn to Vedanta.  I’ve attended some local Vedanta classes and while everyone has been very nice and the teacher seems knowledgeable, as someone who hasn’t grown up in the Hindu tradition I feel really overwhelmed by the language, symbolism, religious practices and cultural references.  I have nothing against those things, it’s just that I either can’t relate to them or they confuse me.  But I still want to study Vedanta.  What do I do? 

    THE ANSWER

    As an American with a Christian upbringing, I had a somewhat similar experience when I first approached Vedanta despite already being a yogi, Krishna devotee and fledgling Hindu.  I’d been struggling with how mind-bogglingly vast and multi-faceted the religion was and how the culture, while alluring and intriguing, was so very different from my own.  When Vedanta showed up with yet another perspective and set of practices, I was exasperated.  I sensed that Vedanta was what I was really searching for but partly owing to my own misunderstanding and partly owing to the way the teaching was presented to me, I felt like I would have to fully comprehend and assimilate the language, religion and culture before I could even approach Vedanta.  I was totally prepared to try but wasn’t certain I would succeed.  In spite of my best efforts, I didn’t.  However, to my surprise this didn’t prevent me from studying and understanding Vedanta, which upon reflection made me ask myself: “Are language, symbolism, religion and culture essential components of Vedanta?”

    On the outer level, yes, they are.  The native language of the Vedanta texts is Sanskrit.  Those texts often employ the symbolism of Hinduism and they’re usually taught by practitioners of Hinduism.  And of course, the language, symbolism and religion are all unique, fascinating and beautiful products of Indian culture.  In that way, Vedanta and the language, religion and culture it’s associated with are inextricable.  

    However, on the inner level—and mind you, I say this as a Sanskrit enthusiast, a Hindu and someone who respects Indian culture—language, religion and culture are not essential to Vedanta despite the fact that Vedanta is undeniably the product of Indian language, culture and religion.  This is so because the sole purpose of Vedanta is to reveal something that transcends all languages, cultures and religions: the reality of your true nature.  The Taittiriya Upanishad itself says that this reality (you/brahman) is that from which words turn back, unable to reach it.  In fact, the Upanishads ultimately talk about your true nature in purely negative terms, denying that brahman has any name, form, quality or trait whatsoever in verses such as, “Not this, not this” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.iii.6).

    The implication here is that reality can’t be described by any language, Sanskrit or otherwise.  And since the texts say that brahman is totally nameless, formless, limitless and free of all qualities—and thus has no location, lineage, ethnicity or origin—no particular religion or culture can be essential to its nature.  So while Indian langue, culture and religion are the oldest and most sophisticated pointers to the nature of reality, by necessity they can’t be the only pointers.

    What does this mean for you?  First, you don’t have to be an expert in Sanskrit to study Vedanta.  There are numerous reliable translations of the Vedantic scriptures in English and many of the finest Vedanta teachers in the world, such as Swami Paramarthananda, teach primarily in English.  Furthermore, you don’t have to be a Hindu.  Perhaps some people would disagree with that but I think I have a valid point and here is why.  The aims of Hinduism are twofold.  The first is to gain a good afterlife and subsequent rebirth.  The second—at least from a Vedantic perspective—is to prepare the mind for studying Vedanta.  But when you do come to the study of Vedanta, one of the goals—assuming you believe in reincarnation—is to avoid rebirth entirely.  Also, you completely give up the pursuit of an afterlife.  So the first aim of Hinduism is negated, which in that regard nullifies its practice.  That only leaves the second aim, preparation of the mind for Vedantic study, which is the cultivation of a mind that is adequately peaceful and focused.  This is an absolutely necessary prerequisite, so how can Hinduism be optional?  Because, despite the fact that the Hindu religion and the lifestyle it espouses are excellent tools for training the mind, they aren’t the only tools. 

    For example, I was raised Christian.  Notwithstanding the negative things I was taught, I learned ethics and how to lead a decent life, which are a key part of developing a balanced mind.  Later I came to the practice of meditation, which can be practiced independent of religion entirely.  There’s other things too, such as psychology or just plain being a good person and learning from life.  Life is the greatest teacher and the proof is that I know some realized Vedantins that had no religious upbringing whatsoever.  Granted, I’ll admit that the idea that Vedanta can be independent of Hinduism could be considered highly unorthodox.  However, since the days of Swami Vivekananda, and thanks to the influence of later teachers like Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda, Vedanta has spread beyond its native context.  And because at its core Vedanta is proclaiming a universal truth, one that transcends all languages, cultures and creeds, it has successfully been adapted and utilized by people of many different backgrounds.    

    On a practical level, if you study Vedanta in earnest, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to avoid Sanskrit or Hinduism entirely (not that that’s what you’re saying you want to do).  But I want to make the point that in spite of needing to learn a few Sanskrit vocabulary words, it’s okay if you don’t know the language in depth.  In fact, many Hindus don’t know Sanskrit at all.  And it’s okay to not be a Hindu.  I’d encourage you to be open minded and try to appreciate Hinduism as much as possible but it’s understandable if it doesn’t appeal to you or you find it confusing.  It’s okay to respect your own background and culture.  Just understand that the vivid symbolism of Hinduism and the rituals it employs are not arbitrary.  They are all sophisticated means of pointing to your true nature.  It’s easier to understand when viewed in that light. 

    However, it bears mentioning that since Vedanta is simply a method for removing false notions you have about yourself, all of the cultural and religious aspects can be stripped away, and although the result is much less colorful and interesting, the methodology remains completely intact.  I’ve found this approach to be helpful, both to Hindus and Non-Hindus alike, because mind you, not all Hindus understand (or even like!) their own religion.  It’s also practical, because it takes Vedanta and makes it more universal and accessible.  At this time, not many teachers actually teach like that, although I truly believe that as Vedanta comes into its own in places like America, more will.  The difficulty posed by that approach is that you never want to entirely abandon the traditional teaching tool of scripture, full of cultural and religious references as it is, because the scripture is the source and foundation of the teaching.  But I’m sure over time, the proper balance between the two approaches will be found.   

    So keep studying, you’ll be just fine.  It’s not necessarily meant to be easy or comfortable and you’ll need to stretch yourself and put in the work if you really want to find the truth.  If you’re really having a tough time I have a video series that I think you’ll find accessible and I’m in the process of working on some new material that will be even more universal and easy to understand.  I can also suggest reading Self-Knowledge by Ted Schmidt.  He takes the traditional approach but puts it in the modern vernacular.  Good luck to you!

    All my best – Vishnudeva     

    HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS Q & A?  Contact me.     

    A  REQUEST: Please help by subscribing to my blog or by sharing this post on social media with the Share buttons below. Thanks!                        

     

      

        

     

                                         

     

  • Vedanta Is Not The Answer

    S: My goal is to reach a continuous peace of mind. I think that knowing and controlling my mind/thoughts is the key to reach it. Self-mastery!

    V: That’s a good goal, assuming continuous peace of mind is even possible. Since the mind changes constantly how could you keep it one way alone? You might try to slow down or temporarily stop the changes in the mind by using techniques to control it but the changes themselves are often caused or influenced by a factor you can’t control at all: the external world. Since you can’t predict what the world is going to do you never know how your mind is going to react to it. It’s true that you can—and should—work on lessening your reactions to external situations. But the hitch is that your reactions to external situations are often dictated by the subconscious and unconscious mind, two things you can barely access, let alone control.

    Because of the external world and the subconscious/unconscious you can never be sure what your mind will do next, regardless of how much you try to keep it in check. That’s why you can make the mind more peaceful but it’s impossible to make it continuously peaceful. There’s no harm in trying but it’s very frustrating when it doesn’t work. And ironically, that frustration further robs you of peace of mind.

    That’s why Vedanta is different than science, psychology and other kinds of spirituality. While those things treat you as if you are the mind, Vedanta says that you aren’t the mind. Therefore Vedanta asks, “How can mastering the mind be self-mastery if the mind isn’t the self”?
    This a radical difference, and if understood, the benefit is that you can work on your mind with total objectivity, never taking the condition of the mind personally. When the mind is angry you don’t think “I’m angry” and then get even more emotionally disturbed thinking, “I shouldn’t be angry!”
    The mind is something that ‘belongs’ to you. It’s merely an instrument, the same as your car. The difference is—despite the fact that both the mind and the car are objects known to you—that you don’t identify with your car. When your car is running poorly you don’t take it personally saying, “Oh no, my fuel injectors are malfunctioning! I feel terrible about myself because they shouldn’t be doing that!” This doesn’t happen because you know clearly that the car isn’t you. So you’re able to look at the situation objectively, free from emotional disturbance or guilt, and deal with it. You get to work on the car. If the car can be fixed you don’t say, “Hurray, I fixed myself!” Nor if the car can’t be fixed do you say, “Woe is me, I’m broken!”

    Do you understand the value of what Vedanta is offering here? It’s saying that if you want to work on the mind, great, but working on the mind is much easier and more effective when you do it objectively, with the clear understand that you aren’t the mind. Furthermore, when you understand that you aren’t the mind, the mind’s problems become a lot less important because you know they don’t belong to you or affect you, the same as the problems of your car.

    S: I’m struggling to figure out how my mind works through Adavaita Vedanta.

    V: I want to save you the trouble of struggling by saying that Advaita Vedanta won’t help you figure out how your mind works. It doesn’t even really try. Its goals are to 1) Show you that the mind isn’t real and 2) Show you that you aren’t the mind. That’s it.
    If you’re trying to understand how your mind works, psychology is the way to go. If you want to go the ‘spiritual’ route, then yoga and meditation is the way. Meditation has taught me A LOT about my mind. It’s an excellent practice. But to be clear, Vedanta is not the answer.

    It’s true that Vedanta is sometimes presented as a means to self-mastery but that comes from teachers co-mingling yoga/meditation with Vedanta. Vedanta isn’t against yoga/meditation in any way—in fact it encourages it as a preliminary step—but their goals are totally different. Yoga/meditation is for manipulating the mind, Vedanta is for transcending the mind altogether. And by “transcend” I mean the full understanding, “I am not the mind nor does it affect me.”

    S: I’m continuously looking for practical tools to improve my being.

    V: That’s why it’s so helpful to know that your true being, pure consciousness-existence, can’t be improved. It’s perfect, which means YOU’RE perfect. Knowing that, you can take the condition of the mind in stride and work on it much more objectively and effectively, always understanding that has nothing to do with you.

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS? CONTACT ME.