End Of Knowledge

Tag: Religion & Spirituality

  • Conscious vs. Consciousness

    If you have any questions about this satsang, contact me here.

    THE QUESTION

    A: Just looking for clarity on how something not conscious can still be considered consciousness (for example, a barbecue is not conscious but still in its essence is consciousness). I guess I’m looking for a distinction between ‘something that’s conscious’ and ‘consciousness’. Is anything really “conscious”? Are dogs, humans and birds conscious, but plants and barbecues not conscious? If we say humans are conscious, when we break it down, (humans less the seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling, and less a brain that perceives things, which is all considered to be un-conscious) are we left with something that’s conscious, or rather just consciousness?

    THE ANSWER

    Everything is consciousness (pure, self-luminous existence).  But only things that have a mind are conscious, meaning they have the ability to think, feel and perceive.  If for instance you are a barbecue, you aren’t conscious because you don’t have a mind (don’t fret though, you won’t know it).  However, you are still consciousness.  So your line of reasoning above is correct.  If you take a person and remove their perceptive faculties i.e. their mind, they’re no longer conscious.  But they are still consciousness.

    -Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS?  Contact me.

     

     

  • No Choice

    THE QUESTION

    In my understanding, Vedanta says that we don’t create our thoughts or perform any actions because there is no thinker or doer.  If this is correct, it seems to follow that we don’t make choices either.  Is that right?

    THE ANSWER

    Vedanta doesn’t deny the thinker-doer.  It can’t because the thinker-doer is an obvious part of our everyday experience.  What Vedanta does deny is the commonly accepted notion that you ARE the thinker-doer.  So there is in fact a thinker-doer but since you aren’t the thinker-doer, you aren’t thinking any thoughts or performing an actions.  Since choice is both an action and a thought process, it naturally follows that you don’t make choices.  By “you” I mean brahman, the changeless non-dual reality by which thought and action is made possible.

    It’s important to note that when you come to this understanding, it doesn’t change the workings of everyday life in any way whatsoever.  The thinker-doer will continue to think, act and makes choices all day long, the same as it ever has.  The difference will be that you won’t identify with the thinker-doer.  You will know that, although the thinker-doer persists, it does not affect you, brahman, at all.  The answer I’ve just given is the only answer relevant to Vedanta, meaning inquiry that leads to inner peace and freedom.

    However, it bears mentioning that the philosophical issue that is always lurking behind the pernicious question of “Do I choose?” is that of (said in an ominous voice) FREE WILL.  It almost always comes up when Vedanta declares that you are not the thinker-doer.  It inevitably leads the questioner into unproductive lines of inquiry.  Why are these lines of inquiry unproductive?  Because whether the thinker-doer has free will or not becomes immaterial once Vedanta establishes that you aren’t the thinker-doer.

    To put it succinctly:

    Inquirer:  Does the thinker-doer have free will to choose what it think and does?

    Vedantin:  It doesn’t matter. You aren’t the thinker-doer.  Assimilate that knowledge and enjoy inner freedom.

    Inquirer:  Did you choose to say that?

    Vedantin: (Sigh).

    -Vishnudeva

    HAVE A QUESTION? Contact me.

  • Vedanta, Buddhism, Criticism

    THE QUESTION

    M: I’m studying Vedanta and I’m also a practicing Buddhist.  I feel like the Buddhist teaching of compassion really helps me.  Is this a problem?  The reason I ask is because Vedantins are usually very critical of Buddhism.  It seems to me that the Buddhist teaching is the same as Vedanta.

    THE ANSWER

    M:  I’m studying Vedanta and I’m also a practicing Buddhist.  I feel like the Buddhist teaching of compassion really helps me.  Is this a problem?

    V:  The shortest answer is: it’s only a problem if it’s a problem.  If it helps you to practice Buddhism along with your Vedantic studies, then go for it.  If, over time, you feel like the two start to conflict then re-examine the situation.  If not, then don’t worry about it.  As my friend Paul says (incessantly), “It’s about peace of mind”.  In other words, if there’s no problem, there’s no need to create one.

    You can honestly leave it at that.  I’m going to add some further remarks just because it’s a topic that interests me.

    M: The reason I ask is because Vedantins are usually very critical of Buddhism.  

    V:  Yeah, that’s true.  There’s a strong current of criticism directed at Buddhism by the teachers and commentators of Vedanta.  This is evident in the writings of Shankara, Vedanta’s most revered teacher.  Maybe that’s why (some) modern teachers of Vedanta do the same thing.  Monkey see, monkey do, as the saying goes.

    In fairness, in Shankara’s time and well beyond, it was the norm for different Indian religious and philosophical traditions to be critical of each other.  The antagonism between Vedanta and Buddhism was actually mutual, with teachers from both sides writing criticisms and counter-criticisms against each other for centuries.  So criticism isn’t limited to Vedanta alone.

    Criticism in and of itself isn’t necessarily wrong if it’s done with the genuine intention of helping a student.  Say there’s a spiritual seeker looking for answers.  She hears one thing from Teacher A and another thing from Teacher B that contradict each other.  A doubt arises.  To resolve the doubt both viewpoints need to be evaluated. On the one hand, the teachers can offer positive support for their own viewpoint.  On the other, they may also need to point out the flaws of the opposing viewpoint.  In this case criticism can be a helpful teaching tool.

    But I suspect that a lot of the time, criticism aimed at other viewpoints is simply done for the very base reason of establishing the superiority of one’s own viewpoint, school, tradition or position.  In that case it’s worthless and petty.  If a teacher offers a criticism of an opposing viewpoint in order to help a student, then good.  If a teacher goes out of their way to attack an opposing viewpoint for any other reason, not so good.

    M:  It seems to me that the Buddhist teaching is the same as Vedanta. 

    V:  The only way someone could verify that statement is if they studied both Vedanta and Buddhism deeply, practiced them both diligently for a very long time and then realized the respective truths of each teaching for themselves.  Only in that case could it be determined if Vedanta and Buddhism are the same. To my knowledge, no one has ever done that.

    This exposes the inherent problem of criticism.  How can someone accurately criticize a teaching if they don’t truly understand it?  At best they’re merely criticizing their own understanding of that teaching.  If their understanding of that teaching is limited, or outright incorrect, then their criticism with have the same defects.  I can attest to that fact by saying that many of the criticisms aimed at Vedanta are invalid simply because they are based on the critic’s inaccurate understanding of Vedanta.  In other words, most critics are criticizing what they think Vedanta says rather than what it actually says.  If I’m being objective, then I have to admit that this can go the other way too.  Perhaps Vedanta’s criticisms of Buddhism are based on what Vedantins think Buddhism says, rather than what it actually says.

    Chandradhar Sharma, in his book “Indian Philosophy:  A Critical Survey” points this out beautifully.  Sharma, whose personal viewpoint is obviously a Vedantic one, remains sympathetic to Buddhism.  He makes a very good case for the fact that Shankara didn’t fully understand Buddhism or that he misunderstood parts of it entirely.  Therefore, because Shankara’s understanding was incomplete or inaccurate, by extension some of his criticisms were incomplete or inaccurate.  I have a lot of respect for Shankara and it’s obvious in the book that Sharma does too.  But I find Sharma’s viewpoint to be completely reasonable and feasible.

    Where does that leave us on the topic of criticism?  As I said, I think criticism has value in the case of removing a student’s doubt because in that situation the doubt is the student’s own subjective understanding.  It doesn’t necessarily correspond to an objective teaching outside of the student, so the doubt can be legitimately criticized.  The teaching that the doubt supposedly comes from can be left aside and the student’s problem can be dealt with directly, using whatever reasoning or logic a particular teacher employs.  Anything beyond that is useless because in the end it doesn’t matter if Vedanta is right and Buddhism is wrong or vice versa.  It isn’t anyone’s job to establish the superiority of one over the other.  The point is to remove suffering and gain peace of mind.  If a particular teaching does that for you, then how could anyone criticize that?  Why would anyone criticize that?  Unless of course it’s their business to rob people of peace of mind.

    To put it in the vernacular, “Just do you, forget about the haters.”

    P.S. – Full disclosure, when I was younger this was not my viewpoint.  Growing up Christian, I thought that Christianity was right and everything else was wrong.  I later carried that attitude forward into Vedanta.  But pain is a great teacher and even someone like me can eventually mature and learn.  I finally saw that my attitude was causing conflict and this conflict hurt me and others as well.  It robbed me and them of peace of mind which was completely counter to the purpose of Vedanta.  So I gave that immature, unhelpful attitude up.  Or at least I’m trying reeeealllly hard to 🙂

    P.P.S – Be wary when someone starts a criticism of other viewpoints with this very common statement:  “Well, I’m no expert on (fill in the blank).  But this is what (fill in the blank) is saying and why it’s wrong.”  If someone isn’t an expert on a particular subject—and in the case of spirituality, a longtime practitioner—then they have no business criticizing it.

    P.P.P.S. – If the “Vedanta Police” come knocking, looking to pick a fight about my slightly unorthodox view, know that I will not answer the door.  Don’t waste your breath.  This is my opinion, take it or leave it.

    -Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS? Contact me HERE.

     

     

     

  • Marriage & Moksha

    K:  I have a partner, and want to marry. Does it mean I have to give up moksha?

    V:  No.  There is absolutely no rule that says one must remain unmarried or even avoid relationships to get moksha (freedom from suffering).

    To elaborate, in Vedanta, any idea of moksha comes from the scriptures, namely the Upanisads.  Is there any injunction against marriage in the Upanisads?  No. Take for instance the Mundaka Upanisad, where Shaunaka approaches the teacher Angiras seeking self-knowledge.  Shaunaka is described as “a great householder” which means he was a married man, presumably with a family.  Does Angiras turn Shaunaka away for being a married man, deeming him unfit to seek self-knowledge (moksha)?  No.  Angiras is looking for other qualifications besides marital status, specifically mental qualifications.  Because Shaunaka is “a great householder” is implies that he has lived a good and pious life, thereby preparing his mind for self-knowledge.  Therefore it could be said that something like marriage can even be helpful towards the pursuit of moksha.  Married and family life is rewarding but challenging and therefore it is an ideal place for spiritual growth, a key ingredient in the pursuit of moksha. 

    Another scriptural example is the Bhagavad Gita, probably the most popular text in the Vedanta canon.  Both the teacher, Krishna, and the student, Arjuna are married men.  In fact, Arjuna had four wives.  And get this…Krishna had over 16,000!  While that is most certainly hyperbole the point remains that Krishna was not single.  If marriage were an impediment to moksha then certainly as a teacher, he would not have been married.  And he would have undoubtedly told his student that marriage is an impediment on the path to moksha. But Krishna doesn’t do that.  He simply tells Arjuna to go about his daily life with the proper attitude, the karma yoga attitude, in order grow spiritually.

    However, Krishna does not present marriage or spiritual growth as an end unto itself. It is a means to prepare one for self-knowledge.  And an essential part of that preparation is clearly understanding that things like marriage will never give lasting happiness.  For that matter, neither will money, fame, achievement, family or religion.  That fact doesn’t make those things wrong and doesn’t mean they need to be avoided.  But they MUST be understood for what they are:  limited means of gaining temporary happiness.  Only then will one be able to look past them to the source of a lasting satisfaction:  knowledge of one’s own true nature.

    So be married if you wish and enjoy it.  It is only an impediment to moksha if you don’t understand that things like marriage won’t give you moksha.    

    -Vishnudeva

    HAVE A QUESTION? Contact me HERE.

  • A Cognitive Shift

    A:  I was wondering, what is daily life like for you, and how does it differ now from before when you didn’t assimilate self-knowledge?  I’m trying to get my head around what the difference is between me now, and if I understood the truth of things.

    V:  The difference is a cognitive shift, a change of perspective. Incorrect beliefs you have about yourself are replaced with correct knowledge about yourself.  In other words, the way you think about yourself changes from an incorrect belief to correct knowledge.  This change in thinking, when properly assimilated, gives you peace of mind.

    A:  In my very limited understanding so far everything being experienced right now is an ever changing movement almost, whilst there is no movement at all because it’s all the same stuff, it apparently shifts. That includes any feeling of me, the body, these thoughts, memories, dream words, dream versions of me, everything. The thing is, if the feeling of ‘me’ isn’t me, will there ever be a feeling of a true me?  Or a sensation, a knowing or something? Or is any feeling of ‘me’ only ever going to be a dream ‘me’, which isn’t the truth of things?

    V:  You will simply understand what your true nature is.  Again, this is a cognitive shift, a shift in thinking.  It is not a feeling because knowledge in and of itself does not feel like anything.  However, knowledge can change how you feel.  If you have a negative, limiting belief about yourself you will feel bad.  But if you remove that belief with the correct knowledge that you will feel good.

    A:  …if awareness can never be experienced, or is always experienced, but isn’t the experience, and it knows itself, I feel a bit cut off from it as me,

    V: I don’t really care for the word awareness when describing the nature of reality.  It’s a loaded word because its meaning varies widely depending on which teacher is using it.  I think the definition of awareness you are using is confusing and that it’s making you feel cut off from your true nature.  Let’s set the word awareness aside for a moment and re-frame the question as, “What am I and can I experience myself?”  To answer that, look at experience itself.  This may sound silly but can there be experience if experience itself doesn’t exist?  Can you have a non-existent experience?  No. So experience depends on existence itself to exist.  Is existence, the fact that something is rather than isn’t, a particular experience?  No.  It is the essence of every experience.  And you are that existence.  So you are not any particular experience.  However, EVERY experience points to you indirectly because each experience exists.

    Furthermore, you cannot have an experience that is unknown.  For an experience to be known, it depends on ‘light’ to be ‘revealed’ or ‘illuminated.’  What is the ‘light’ that makes it possible to know your experiences?  The ‘light’ is you.  You are what ‘shines’ on the experiences, making it possible for them to be known by the mind.  So are you any particular experience?  No.  You are that which illuminates experience.  Again, while you are not any particular experience, EVERY experience points to you indirectly because it is illuminated.

    By the way, existence and ‘light’ are not two separate things.  They are the exact same thing.  You are self-luminous existence.  But this doesn’t mean you are a conscious light bulb.  ‘Light’ is just a metaphor.

    A:  I’m not there in deep sleep, so what’s the purpose of inquiry?

    V:  Part of the purpose of inquiry is to prove that you ARE there in deep sleep.  Inquiry shows you that you–as Ted Schmidt puts it–are never not there.

    A:  Is it an inquiry into the truth that has nothing to do with A or anything here?  If so does awareness remember itself in inquiry?  I think you’ll say awareness never forgot itself.  So what am I doing?

    V:  As I said, I don’t care for the word awareness when describing the nature of reality, so I am going to use the word existence (sat in Sanskrit) again.  Existence is the self-luminous essence of everything.  It is you.

    Existence does not forget that it is existence.  It is free of the mind and therefore free of ignorance.  So it is only A that forgets she is existence.  And it is A that needs to do inquiry to remember that she is existence.

    A:  Is A or the notion of a separate individual the sacrifice, so to speak?

    V:  You could say that.  But the word “sacrifice” indicates giving up something valuable. The notion of a separate individual is not valuable because it is limiting.  It is a source of suffering. We should be happy to get rid of it.

    A:  I feel like A and if A is an object and awareness cannot be experienced, what am I doing?

    V:  You are figuring out that you are not really A.

    A:  …I’m always going to act from A!

    V:  Not if you understand that you are not A.

    A:  I’m not sure what I’m asking, I guess I’m just wondering, your day, how is it different now?

    Kind Regards,

    A

    V:  I used to not know what my true is.  Now I do.  That’s the only difference.  The practical result of this knowledge is a peace that grows deeper over time (assuming I keep the implications of that knowledge in mind.)

    All my best,

    Vishnudeva

    HAVE A QUESTION? Contact me.