End Of Knowledge

Tag: satsang

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 15

    Read Part 14  /  Ask a Question  /  Make a Donation

    CHAPTER 8

    In Vedanta, the definition of bondage is self-ignorance i.e. believing that you’re the body-mind when you’re actually consciousness-existence.  Liberation, therefore, is 1) The clear understanding that you’re consciousness-existence and 2) The subsequent dis-identification with the body-mind and its various states.  This means from the absolute viewpoint that liberation has absolutely nothing to do with the state of your mind.  Whether it’s angry, desirous, attached and full of egoism or happy, unattached and free of desire and egoism is inconsequential because as consciousness-existence you’re always untouched by the mind.

    But on a relative level, a mind burdened with excessive desire, attachment, egoism and negative emotions can be conditionally defined as ‘bondage’ insofar as it’s uncomfortable and generally detrimental to conducting your day-to-day affairs.  In that regard, it’s sensible to be aware of those states of mind in order to manage them for maximum efficiency and mental peace. 

    Of course, it could be argued that the mind doesn’t need to be managed because it doesn’t affect you, consciousness-existence.  And that would be completely true.  But if you extend that logic, it could also be argued that if you fall down the stairs and break your leg there’s no need to seek treatment because the body doesn’t affect you either.  Or that there’s no need to go to work or tend to the welfare of your family and friends because it doesn’t matter to you, consciousness-existence.  And that would also be completely true. 

    But in the same way that you’d prefer to have a healthy body, keep your job and maintain good relationships with your family and friends, it’s preferable to take care of your mind to ensure that it too remains healthy and happy.  You just do it because it makes sense to do it.  And you do it knowing that you’re always okay, whether or not your efforts bear fruit. 

    If, however, you’re satisfied with your mind being miserable, then so be it—it’s your choice.  It doesn’t affect the fact that you’re unchanging consciousness-existence one single bit. 

    In this chapter, Ashtavakra discusses what bondage and liberation are from the relative level.  Those interested in mental well-being take note.  For all of you hardcore enlightened beings out there who don’t care, feel free to skip to the next chapter 🙂        

    Ashtavakra said:
    8:1 – Bondage is when the mind desires anything or grieves at anything, rejects or accepts anything, feels happy or angry at anything.
    8:2 – Liberation is when the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or feel happy or angry.
    8:3 – It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is unattached to all sense experiences.
    8:4 – When there is “I,” there is bondage.  But when there is no “I,” there is liberation.  Knowing this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything.

    The gist of what he’s saying is that it pays to be objective and dispassionate about your everyday life.  Desire never solved anyone’s problems because it always leads to more desire.  Grief over loss, at least excessive grief, isn’t warranted because it’s the nature of things to be impermanent—losing them is inevitable.  Acceptance and happiness or anger and rejection aren’t necessary because the value assigned to objects to determine whether they should be accepted, rejected etc. is completely relative.  What one person deems worthy of rejection might just as soon be accepted by someone else.  Furthermore, all objects are unreal, and nothing unreal deserves to be the source of real desire, grief, acceptance, rejection, happiness or anger.     

    Read Part 14  /  Ask a Question  /  Make a Donation

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 9

    Read Part 8

    Have a question? Ask here.

    Want to support End of Knowledge? Donate here.

    Janaka said:       
    2:21 – I see no duality, despite the appearance of a multitude of human beings.  They have become like a wilderness. Of what interest are they to me? 

    When you come to the doubt-free understanding that you are the non-dual reality, the appearance of duality continues.  But similar to the way someone is alone in the wilderness despite being surrounded by trees, you are ‘alone’—meaning you know that you alone exist—even though it still looks like you are but one among many individual beings. 

    2:22 – I am not this body, nor is the body mine.  I am not an individual embodied being (jiva); I am consciousness. Desire for life—this indeed was my bondage. 

    It is evident from the preceding verses that you are not the body.  But to dispel the potential doubt that the body may somehow belong to you, Janaka states, “nor is the body mine.”  As non-dual consciousness, there is only you, so there is nothing for you to possess.  The appearance of the body makes it seems like there is something other than yourself that can belong to you.  But the body is an illusion—it can’t belong to anyone because it doesn’t really exist. 

    By saying “I am not an individual embodied being (jiva),” it seems like Janaka is merely restating his previous point of not being or having a body.  But “embodied being (jiva)” is a specific technical term—by using it he’s ruling out the possibility that the self is some kind of individual soul that incarnates in one body, only to transmigrate to another body after the first body dies.  Consciousness-existence is all-pervasive like space so it can’t be contained in one place, confined to a particular body.  And it can’t transmigrate from one place to another because it’s absolutely everywhere.  The implication here is that there is no such thing as reincarnation—it is just a product of self-ignorance.        

    There is one last point to be made regarding the notion of the self being an individual soul.  Some hold the view that there are innumerable separate selves, each one its own self-contained unit of infinite, eternal consciousness.  But this belief is untenable for the following reasons: 

    1) To be infinite is to be limitless and all-pervasive.  But if there is one individual self that is limitless and all-pervasive, there can’t be a second limitless all-pervasive self.  Why?  Because the existence of a second self would limit the existence of first self.  To be two distinct selves, they could not exist in the same place.  And if there were a place where the two selves didn’t exist, they would no longer be limitless and all-pervasive.   

    2)  There can’t be multiple selves of the nature of consciousness-existence because there are no distinctions whatsoever in consciousness-existence—it’s the same everywhere just like water is H2O whether it’s in a puddle, an ocean or a raincloud.  Just as there’s no difference in the H2O of two raindrops, there’s no distinction between the consciousness-existence of two beings.  It could be argued that two raindrops—despite both being H2O—are distinct entities because they are separated by space.  But this doesn’t apply to the case of consciousness-existence because it’s all-pervasive. 

    Since consciousness-existence is everywhere without exception and always of the same nature there can’t be multiple selves.              

    2:23 – On the rising of the wind of the mind, the various waves of the world are produced in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness/existence]. 

    The mind doesn’t literally produce the world because both the world and the mind are equally the products of self-ignorance.  However, the mind is the instrument to experience “the various waves of the world.”  So it can be said that when the mind ‘rises’ from the dormancy of deep sleep, that experienced is ‘produced’ i.e. made possible. 

    Student:  What produces ignorance? 

    Teacher: It’s never really produced, the same way that water is never really produced in a mirage.  Ignorance is only ‘there’ until you realize that it’s not really there, like water in a mirage.  You alone exist—ignorance is not a second reality that exists over and above consciousness-existence.      

    2:24 – To the misfortune of the individual embodied being (jiva), the merchant, the ship of the world is destroyed when the wind of the mind comes to rest in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness/existence]. 

    Here the individual is likened to a merchant because, owing to its sense of egoism, it is constantly ‘sailing’ around in the ‘ship’ of the world conducting ‘transactions’ of experience; it offers up its actions as payment and expects to be reimbursed with the results of its actions.  But when the world is destroyed—meaning when it is seen to be unreal—the belief in individuality is also destroyed, along with the sense of being a doer and enjoyer. 

    If you were an individual this would be most unfortunate.  But you are consciousness-existence—you never have been, and never will be, an individual embodied being.  Therefore, being divested of the belief that you’re an individual is quite fortunate because you’re relieved of the tremendous burden of feeling obsessively compelled to do certain actions; you’re released from the anxiety of wondering whether your actions will yield the appropriate results; you’re freed from the effort required to protect and maintain what you have accomplished. 

    Does this mean that when you understand that you’re consciousness-existence that the individual—the body-mind you thought you were—should simply lay around, inactive?   That it should quit its job, abandon its family and responsibilities, stop eating and just sit under a tree not caring what happens?  No, because the appearance of the world continues just as before and the nature of the body-mind is to perform action until it dies; even lying around doing nothing is an action. 

    This means the body-mind can, and will, do what it has always done.  And this is just fine because the body-mind is not real and it’s not you.  As consciousness-existence, you are relieved of the burden of doing action, released from anxiety about its results and freed from the effort of maintaining those results in the sense that you know that those things never had anything to do with you in the first place. 

    Granted, the body-mind is none other than you, consciousness-existence, the same way a clay pot is nothing but clay.  And it can benefit from keeping that fact in mind insofar as when it does actions it can do them knowing that as consciousness-existence it is never really doing anything.  And that it’s never truly affected by the results of action.  So in the midst of everyday life, the individual can have peace of mind, regardless of its circumstances.             

    2:25 – It is strange how individual embodied beings appear in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness-existence].  Like waves they rise, play for a time, clash with one another and are eventually reabsorbed (disappear), each according to their own nature.

    The appearance of the world and the individual beings that inhabit it is truly inexplicable–despite any theories made by religion and philosophy, there is no explanation why things happen the way they do.  To rationalize the sickening abuse of a young child or the shocking carnage of genocide as the outcome of a just law of cause and effect is naïve and insensitive.  More importantly, it is unprovable.  The truth is that things simply happen and we have no idea why. 

    But when you have self-knowledge, this is not troubling.  The world and its inhabitants, although strange, are known to be an illusion, a dream.  Even when things appear to be happening, nothing is happening at all.  Consciousness-existence is merely existing, ever action-less and unchanged.  Awaken from the dream and know that everything is alright.    

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 2

    1.8 – Being bitten by the great black snake of egoism, you think, “I am the doer.” To be happy, drink the nectar of the conviction, “I am not the doer.”

    Identifying yourself with the ego—the thought or concept of “I” in the mind—is like the bite of a poisonous snake.  How so?  Because it leads to the false conviction that you are the one that acts when the body and mind act and thinking this is ‘fatal’ to happiness.  When you believe, “I am doing this” or “I am doing that” you falsely claim ownership of the results of what the body and mind do.  That this is an impediment to happiness is obvious when the results of body-mind’s actions are unpleasant.  What is not as evident is that this is also an obstacle to happiness when the results are pleasant, the reason being that achieving a desirable result does not lead to permanent happiness.  Once the pleasurable effect wears off, you are inevitably left with a desire to do something else to try to regain happiness, thus creating an endless cycle of action and desire that never lead to the contentment you want.  So Ashtavakra astutely points out that if you truly want to be happy, step out of cycle of doing and enjoying entirely through understanding.  When you have been poisoned by the belief, “I am the doer” the antidote is the conviction, “I am not the doer.”  If you are not the doer, the problem of action, desire and reaping the results of action—good or bad—does not belong to you.      

    1.9 – “I am the one, pure consciousness.”  In the fire of this conviction, burn down the forest of ignorance and be happy.

    Just as a forest is made up of countless trees, the forest of ignorance is composed of the innumerable ways you can mistake yourself to be the body-mind.  You ‘burn’ this ignorance with the conviction that you are the consciousness that knows, and is therefore free of, the body-mind and all of its problems. Or alternately, ignorance is incinerated by the conviction that since you are one alone, you are not affected by the body-mind because it is only an appearance.  This is stated in the next verse.     

    1.10 – Although you are consciousness, the highest bliss, you are imagined to be the world, just as a rope is imagined to be a snake.  Know this and live happily.

    When a rope is mistaken to be a snake, the snake is only an appearance.  Despite the illusion, nothing but the rope ever exists.  Similarly, when you, consciousness, are imagined to be the world (“world” here includes the body-mind), the world is merely an appearance while nothing but you ever exists.  Believing that there is actually a world is ignorance, an error based on the misperception of reality.  When this error is corrected, you can live happily, knowing that the world, just like an illusory snake, can cause you no harm. 

    In this verse Ashtavakra says that consciousness is the highest bliss.  The word “bliss” can only be taken in the metaphorical sense because bliss is a feeling, a state of mind, and it has been clearly stated that consciousness is free of the mind.  A synonym for bliss is satisfaction, so by calling consciousness the highest satisfaction it indicates that the only way to get real satisfaction—as opposed to temporary satisfaction gained from everyday pursuits—is to understand what your true nature is.  When that happens you see that you lack nothing and have nothing to fear because there is only you and you are never touched by the appearance of the world. 

    1.11 – He who considers himself free is free indeed and one who considers himself bound remains bound. “As one thinks, so one becomes,” is a popular saying in this world, and it is quite true.

    In a text brimming with excellent verses, this is by far the finest because in two short sentences Ashtavakra gives a disarmingly simple summary of the essence of the entire teaching:  freedom, self-knowledge, enlightenment, moksha or whatever you choose to call it is only a matter of how you think about yourself.  While it is easy to get distracted by Vedanta’s ornate symbolism, hyperbolic metaphors, theoretical propositions, dazzling intellectual gymnastics and multitude of spiritual practices, freedom is really that simple.  If your idea of self is “I am ever-free consciousness” then you are free because that is actually the truth.  But if your idea of self is “I am the body-mind” then you are bound because that is the also the truth (at least for you).  “As one thinks, so one becomes.”  Take the word “becomes” loosely because you cannot become what you already are i.e. consciousness.  And as consciousness your nature is ever-free so you cannot become bound any more than fire can become cold or water can become dry.  You can only ‘become’ free by understanding you have always been free and you can only ‘become’ bound by believing you are bound.

    Since it is so crucial, at the risk of being redundant, I want to repeat myself:  freedom is how you think about yourself.  That means right now is the time to start taking the stance that you are free even if you don’t yet understand how that can be.  Every time you catch yourself identifying with the body-mind and thinking a limiting thought about yourself, stop and apply an opposing thought, one that is harmony with who you really are.  If you find yourself identifying with the body thinking thoughts such as, “I am tall, short, skinny, fat, male, female, black, white, pretty, ugly etc.” stop and think, “I am not the body.”  If you identify with the mind with thoughts such as, “I am happy, sad, angry, peaceful, afraid, focused, distracted etc.” stop and think, “I am not the mind.”  If you find yourself thinking, “I am doing this, I am doing that” stop and think, “I am not the doer.” Or in general if you find yourself thinking in any way, “I am bound, I need to get free” stop and think, “I am free.”  Regardless of whether or not you see how these assertions can be true, they are nonetheless fact, and in time the supporting logic behind the statements you are making will become clear.  When they do, you have already put in the hard work to change the habitual thinking patterns of the mind, getting them into alignment with your true nature.  This is something you will inevitably have to do, either before or after enlightenment, assuming you are interested in mental peace.  So you might as well do it now. 

    Contrary to the belief that enlightenment is a momentous realization that occurs at the end of an incredibly difficult spiritual journey spanning countless lifetimes, one that can only be achieved by an exceedingly rare and select few, if you can see that it’s possible to change the way you think about yourself, then enlightenment is available to you in this very lifetime. “As one thinks, so one becomes.”    

    1.12 – You are consciousness, the all-pervading, full, actionless, unattached, desireless and peaceful witness. You appear as the world or of the world through error. 

    This verse provides a timely opportunity to practice thinking differently about yourself.   You can put it in first person, say it to yourself, and contemplate its implications.  “I am consciousness, the all-pervading, full, actionless, desireless and peaceful witness.”

    Of the words used to describe you in this verse, “full” and “peaceful” have not yet appeared in the text.  “Full” means that as the non-dual reality, you are complete; there is nothing left out, nothing that can be added or taken away; you cannot be perfected because you are already perfect.  “Peaceful” indicates that since you are ever-free witness of the conditions of the body-mind, you can never be disturbed. 

    Part 3 coming soon.

    Have a question? ASK HERE.

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

  • Metaphors & The Meaning of Life

    S: I guess I have a problem relating to a non-material pure consciousness the same way I can’t relate to the idea of an abstract god/creator. It’s my mission to overcome my old beliefs of materialistic existence only.
    V: If you’re having trouble relating to a non-material entity, then I’ll ask this: do you have trouble relating to empty space, even though it’s totally immaterial and not something you can perceive? No. This proves that things don’t necessarily have to be material to be relatable.
    One of the definitions of the word “relate” is to “identify with.” The reason you can’t yet identify with pure consciousness is because you don’t understand that it’s you. If you keep studying Vedanta, over time your identity with pure consciousness becomes perfectly clear and the issue of relating or not relating becomes moot.
    Imagine an eyeball looking outward trying to see itself. When it can’t, it thinks, “I must not exist!” instead of realizing, “Because I see, I know I exist.” Right now you’re kind of like the eyeball. You’re looking outward, trying to see yourself, pure consciousness, as an object. When you can’t, you think that pure consciousness is something that’s as good as non-existent instead of realizing, “I know pure consciousness exists for the very fact that I am conscious. It’s self-evident.” And if you can see this, then you have no trouble relating to pure consciousness because it’s clear that you are it.
    S: In the examples of water-wave or clay-pot (from your previous e-mail) there is a cause and effect. Some kind of force created a new form (wave or pot) out of the same substance (water, clay). So something did happen (a cause/force) to create a new form (shape). In the sun-objects example, the sun only reveals the pre-existing objects that were in the dark before. Both sun and objects has a separate materialistic existence.
    V: The examples of clay/pot, water/wave, sunlight/objects are metaphors, and all metaphors have limitations. Hence, they’re not mean to be taken literally. They merely imply certain truths from different perspectives.
    The sunlight metaphor is meant to deny that you, pure consciousness, are any of the things you illumine. The sun reveals the world but it isn’t the world, nor is it affected by the world. Similarly, you reveal the body/mind but you aren’t the body/mind or affected by it. That’s all the metaphor is trying to say: you aren’t an object nor are you affected by objects. Anything besides that is beyond the scope of the metaphor and shouldn’t be taken literally.
    If you do take the sunlight metaphor at face value then you’re left with the problem you’ve pointed out: that the sunlight and the objects it reveals are two different things. But if you study Vedanta as a whole you’ll see that it flatly and utterly denies duality. It unambiguously states that there’s absolutely nothing other than brahman (pure consciousness/pure existence). So you have to take the sunlight metaphor in that context. While it may seem like it’s establishing two different things (you and objects) it isn’t. It’s only denying that you’re an object or that you’re ever affected by objects. All objects are you, brahman, but you are not an object, nor are you affected by objects. Explaining that last statement is one of the purposes of the wave/water and clay/pot metaphors. Similar to you and objects, all waves are water but water is never a wave. All clay pots are clay, but clay is never a clay pot.
    I’ll focus on the water/wave metaphor because it has the same meaning as the clay/pot metaphor. Water does not transform into some substance called ‘wave’ when a wave appears. It remains entirely unchanged as H20. Furthermore, no additional substance called ‘wave’ is created. Let’s say we have 1,000 liters of water that take the form of a wave. Is there now 1,000 liters of water plus a couple extra liters of wave? No. There’s still only 1,000 liters of water because a wave has no substance apart from the water. It’s merely an appearance. The wave is the water but the water is never the wave. It’s always water no matter what. This is how you, brahman, are not an object but all objects are nothing but you.
    Taking the metaphor literally, you could say that it implies cause and effect, that water is the cause and wave is the effect. But if wave is found to have no substance of its own, that it’s nothing other than water, is there really a cause and effect? No. There is only water. You could argue that the appearance of the wave is an effect but the appearance is still absolutely nothing other than water. If you investigate the wave, you don’t find water plus some substance called ‘appearance.’ All you find is water. So in reality, the metaphor denies cause and effect, which is in harmony with Vedanta as a whole which asserts that in a non-dual (advaita) reality, there is only one thing and one thing alone: you, brahman. There is not two separate things such as cause and effect.
    Again, taking the metaphor literally, you could say that gravity is the cause, water is the affected substance and wave is the effect. Or in the case of the clay and pot that the potter is the cause, clay is the affected substance and the pot is the effect. But Vedanta refutes this objection by stating that if there is a cause, a substance affected and a resulting effect, then all three are none other than brahman, while brahman is not them. To be clear though, this is a lower level of understanding because as I said, ultimately Vedanta denies cause and effect.
    S: How can the false appearance of materialistic existence (my body/mind and the universe) be manifested in my mind with no cause, force, event or a reason? Why does this false world exist (even if it’s just in my mind which also doesn’t exist) if it has no meaning or purpose?
    V: I have no idea. No one does. Again, if you’re looking for explanations for why the world appears you have to consult religion. There’re no other option because even if science determines the ‘how’ of creation, it can’t determine the ‘why.’ It’s a total mystery. That’s why explaining the appearance of the world is not the point of Vedanta. Its purpose is to show you that the appearance of the world is not real so you don’t have to worry about it. Because if you know that the world isn’t real, how concerned will you be with where it came from? For instance, if you have a dream that you’re flying through outer space on a giant pink bunny, do you wake up genuinely disturbed asking, “Why?! Where did it come from? What does it MEAN?!” No, you don’t. You dismiss it as a silly dream and move on with your day. It’s the same situation when you fully understand that the world has no reality, that it’s just a strange appearance.
    However, Vedanta doesn’t leave things totally open-ended. After it denies the reality of the appearance of the world, is shows you what it actually is: you, brahman, pure existence. You could ask why pure existence exists but I would reply with the question, “How can it not exist?” Its nature is to exist so it does. Really speaking, the question of why it exists doesn’t factor in because existence wasn’t created. It’s eternal. Only things created, transient things, can have a reason for their creation. But you, brahman, were never created. You have always been.
    Those are the highest teachings of Vedanta. I’m not holding anything back. I genuinely hope they make sense but it’s normal if they don’t. It took years of intense, dedicated inquiry–listening to the teaching and contemplating its meaning every single day–to understand what I was being taught.
    Finally, on a personal note: It’s true that the world has no meaning, at least not an objective one everyone agrees on. You could take this in the negative sense and become a grouchy old nihilist if you wish. Or you could take it in the positive sense that if the world has no definite, objective meaning that you are free to superimpose whatever subjective meaning onto it that you wish. Find what makes life meaningful for YOU and pursue it. That’s what I do and it works great. I’m not beholden to a pre-determined meaning of life I didn’t choose, handed to me by society, my forefathers or some deity I can’t prove exists. Take that for what it’s worth.
    All my best – Vishnudeva
    This is a continuation of a previous satsang. You can read it here. If anyone has questions about this satsang or Vedanta in general, please contact me.

    A REQUEST

    Please help by subscribing to my blog or by sharing this post with your friends using the Share Buttons below.

  • Limitations of the Afterlife & the Significance of Existence

    S:  In reference to what you said in your last e-mail, you’re right, I’m actually looking for an afterlife experience.  Maybe my next step should be to study some dualistic Vedanta lectures.  What do you think?

    V:  Like I said before, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting an afterlife experience.  That’s an acceptable goal.  However, if your goal is permanent freedom, you’ll eventually give up wanting an afterlife experience when you see that no experience, either in this life or in the afterlife, will last.  Here’s the logic.  If there is an afterlife experience—and I mean if—the idea is that earn that experience by the actions you do in life.  Your actions in life are the cause and the afterlife you get is the effect.  The catch is that all the actions you do in life have limited, impermanent results.  So how can you get a permanent afterlife experience?  It’s not possible.  And wouldn’t a temporary afterlife experience be an awful lot like a regular life experience that makes you happy for a while until it inevitably ends, leaving you unfulfilled?  Yep.  So even in death, nothing has really changed. 

    If you can follow the logic that nothing you do can give you a permanent result, it means you’re ready to go for freedom directly, meaning you’re ready to understand that you are already free.  You’re ready to see that you are ‘beyond’ both life and the afterlife and always fulfilled.  If you’re not ready, then you’re not, and that’s completely okay.  I’ll still be happy to teach you Vedanta or point you in the direction of other good teachers but maybe, as you’ve pointed out, it’s not right for you, at least not for the time being. 

    If that’s the case then I seriously encourage you to practice a religion of your choosing.  Religion is the only place you’ll find information about how to go to the afterlife.  In that case a dualistic form of Vedanta—as you mentioned above—such as the Dvaita Vedanta of Madhva or Vishishtadvaita of Ramanuja may very well be appropriate for you.  I’m not extremely familiar with them but I do know they are concerned with the afterlife.  I think I’d suggest Vishishtadvaita over Dvaita because Vishishtadvaita is a bit closer to Advaita and of course, I am an Advaitin. 

    If you’re not interested in the route of religion, I highly recommend starting a serious and dedicated meditation practice.  It’s excellent for peace of mind and personal growth and it will help you in any area of study you decide to pursue.  Along with your practice you might want to study the Yoga Sutras, the premier text on meditation.  If you’re not interested in any of those things, then I’m out of ideas.  The bottom line is that you should do whatever appeals to you most.  Go in the direction your heart tells you to and you’ll find the right path.  For me it was Vedanta.  For you it might be something else. 

    S:  Since I don’t believe in god (as presented in Christianity), I was looking for something else, like pure consciousness to hold on.

    V:  You came to the right place because Vedanta doesn’t require you to believe in pure consciousness.  It shows you directly that it exists and that you are it. 

    S:  My understanding is that, according to Advaita Vedanta, pure consciousness, the “I / Me,” is not the perceiver, feeler or thinker of my reality. 

    V:  Right.  You aren’t the perceiver, feeler or thinker.  Instead, you’re the pure consciousness that reveals them.  You, pure consciousness, are like sunlight.  And the perceiver, feeler and thinker are like the various objects illuminated by the sun.     

    S:  If I ‘exist’ in deep sleep, I also exist in a coma or a stone.

    V: Yes, although technically, they all exist in you. 

    S: That may be the ultimate truth but that kind of existence is not ‘attractive’ to me. There is no comfort, significance or value for me (as I see it) in this kind of ‘existence.’

    V:  A common metaphor used to illustrate the significance of that truth is that the mind, body and world are merely waves in the ocean of you, pure existence.  Just like water (the ocean) always exists despite the appearance of waves, you always exist despite the appearance of the mind, body or world.  And similar to the way water is never affected by the condition of the waves, you are never affected by the condition of the mind, body or world.  Since all anyone fears is change (in various forms) or non-existence, understanding for certain that you always exist and can’t be changed is very valuable and comforting.    

    S:  How can ‘existence’ be something for me if it’s not an object?

    V:  To say that existence is not an object is to say that existence is not any particular object.  Instead, it is the essence of every object.  It’s not a something but the essence of everything.   It’s that by which everything is, rather than isn’t.  Since it’s the intrinsic nature of everything, it’s not any particular thing.  You can’t point to an object and say, “That’s existence!” because existence doesn’t have a shape, color or any other qualities.  Instead, existence is that which makes all shapes, colors and qualities possible.  So while everything you experience is a ‘confirmation’ of existence, existence is not defined by anything you experience.           

    S:  How can ‘existence’ be beyond time and space and still be applicable in my life or effecting my growth?

    V:  It’s applicable for the reasons I mentioned above.   

    S:  Existence, according to Wikipedia, comprises the state of being real and the ability to physically interact with the universe or multiverse. 

    V:  Vedanta only uses the first definition of existence.  It says existence is that which is real.  And that which is real is that which never changes.  According to Vedanta, existence has absolutely nothing to do with physically interacting with the universe.  It is the essence of the universe, but never touched by it.    

    S:  Discussing an existence with no dimensions or qualities is nice as poetry.   But my problem is that I can’t even relate or develop a real philosophical discussion about existence if it’s not present in my world.

    V:  How can existence not be present in the world if the world exists?  How can existence not be present in the world if you yourself exist?  As I said, existence isn’t any particular thing in the world but it’s the essence of everything in the world.  Existence is like water and the world is the waves.  But the water is never a wave.  It’s always water.  You’re the existence, the water.  The body, mind and world are the waves.  So you’re always present as the essence of them all, but you’re never any of those things. 

    S:  Talking about ‘existence’ with no dimensions or qualities is like discussing an existence outside of our universe/multiverse.

    V:  That’s because you don’t yet understand what I mean by existence.  Existence is the very fabric of the universe.  The universe is the clay pot, existence is the clay.  Just like clay is never a clay pot (or affected by the clay pot) but the clay pot is always clay, you, existence are never the universe but the universe is always you.  Right now, you’re focusing on the clay pot (body/mind), and missing the clay (existence/consciousness).  Because of that, you think the clay (existence/consciousness) is something remote from the clay pot (body/mind/experience).     

    An additional thought:  Our universe exists.  If you say there’s anything outside of the universe, by default you’re acknowledging that it also exists (If it didn’t, it would be non-existent and there would be nothing to talk about).  If our universe exists and anything outside of our universe exists, then they are both of the nature of existence.  Since there aren’t two ‘existences,’ nothing that is something can ever be outside of existence.  Anything that is, is always ‘inside’ existence.  Or to put it another way, nothing can exist apart from existence itself, similar to how a clay pot can never exist apart from clay.        

    S:  It seems to me that Advaita Vedanta say:  Pure consciousness is the only existence there is and it’s  You/Me/I.

    V:  Yes! 

    S:  But this ‘existence’ is not an existence I can grasp/understand/imagine because it’s beyond time and space. It’s beyond my intellectual abilities.  So it seems like Vedanta is saying that pure consciousness is an ‘existence’ that doesn’t exist for my intellect 😦

    V:  Ignorance of who you are resides in the intellect.  Therefore removal of that ignorance happens in the intellect.  Saying that existence is ‘beyond’ the intellect simply means that existence is not an object.  It’s not something you know as a thought, or a feeling etc.  You know it directly as yourself.  It is self-evident like the sun, not needing to be revealed by something else because it’s the revealer itself.       

    All my best, Vishnudeva

    This is a continuation of a previous discussion, An Empty Shell.  If you have any questions, please Contact Me.

    A REQUEST

    Please help by subscribing to my blog or by sharing this post with your friends using the Share Buttons below.