End Of Knowledge

Tag: Self Realization

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 1

    The Ashtavakra Samhita—more commonly known as the Ashtavakra Gita—is an unambiguous statement of non-dual wisdom from the highest standpoint and this is both its strength and weakness.  On the one hand, unlike texts such as the Bhagavad Gita, the uncompromising absolutist stance of the Ashtavakra Samhita makes it nearly immune to creative interpretation.  In this regard it is unmatched in its fidelity to non-dualism. On the other hand, its unyielding statements, which are rarely bolstered with supporting logic, can be difficult to comprehend because they generally refuse to cater to the lower levels of Vedanta’s teachings, sometimes outright rejecting them.  Also, the Ashtavakra Samhita has a clear monastic bias, flatly denying all day-to-day empirical activity in the apparent world, save for its descriptions of the ‘behavior’ of an enlightened person, and this can be hard to relate to for a non-monk.  So while the Ashtavakra Samhita is one of Vedanta’s finest texts, it greatly benefits from commentary to give its statements perspective and put them in the proper context.  However, since this is an advanced text that presupposes prior knowledge of Vedanta, the commentary I am providing will not dwell unnecessarily on the basics of the teaching.    

    The Ashtavakra Samhita is written in the form of a dialogue between two people, Ashtavakra and Janaka.  No personal information is given about either of them in the text but they both make an appearance in the great mythological epic, the Mahabharata, where it is said that Ashtavakra is an ascetic sage and Janaka is a king (Janaka is also mentioned in the Upanisads).  Although both characters are most likely fictional—which in no way takes away from the truth expounded in the text—I find the authors choice to use the polar opposites of a monk and a king very interesting.  It shows that despite the fact that the teacher Ashtavakra would have been living an austere lifestyle of renunciation, his student Janaka—who as a king would have had many worldly responsibilities to attend to—is nonetheless is able to get enlightened.  As you will see, even though the Ashtavakra Samhita never admits to the value of activities in the empirical world or even encourages them, it does not set them up as an insurmountable obstacle to enlightenment or prohibit action for an enlightened person.  Instead, it encourages action to be understood in light of self-knowledge.  In this way, although the text espouses a very monastic viewpoint, it can remain relatable to a non-monk.       

    I will be primarily using Swami Nityaswarupananda’s translation of the text published by Advaita Ashrama.  It is well written, cheap and readily available so I highly recommend picking up a copy.  I will also be consulting translations of the text by Hari Prasad Sastri and Ananada Wood.  Also, be aware that I will be altering the translation of certain verses as I see fit if I think they can benefit from clarification.      

    The dialogue begins with Janaka questioning Astavakra.

    CHAPTER ONE
    Janaka said:

    1.1 – How can knowledge be acquired? How can freedom be attained? How is dispassion possible?

    Ashtavakra said:

    1.2 – If you aspire after liberation, shun the objects of the senses as poison and seek forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, contentment and truth as nectar.

    Here Ashtavakra describes the preliminary conditions for gaining the knowledge that leads to freedom.  “Shun the objects of the senses as poison” is an exaggeration since it is impractical to avoid the objects of day-to-day affairs.  For instance, you can’t shun food—an object of the senses—as poison, assuming you want to live long enough to get self-knowledge.  Besides, the teaching itself, in the form of sounds, books etc. is a sense object.  However, equating sense objects to poison emphasizes that being preoccupied with the gaining and maintaining of material possessions and particular circumstances is ‘deadly’ to self-inquiry because if you don’t truly see that acquisition and enjoyment of sense objects is not a permanent solution to suffering, it is unlikely that you’ll be serious about pursuing freedom. 

    Furthermore, unless you are committed to a wholesome, peaceful lifestyle—such as one that cultivates a value for forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, contentment, truth etc.—the chances of gaining freedom are greatly decreased.  The reason is that a person who is insincere, unkind, discontent and untruthful is going to have conflict in their life that will inevitably disturb their mind.  So even if they want freedom, their mental condition will prevent them from assimilating knowledge when they are presented with the teaching. 

    It’s important to note that Ashtavakra only devotes a single sentence to this topic before moving on.  Partly, I think this is because—owing to his austere disposition—he was not very interested in discussing worldly affairs.  But also I doubt he saw any point in thoroughly discussing an issue such as good conduct that is a matter of common sense.  The implication here is that if a student is genuinely confused about what it means to live a decent life, they probably have no business studying Vedanta in the first place.  Regardless, before getting into the teaching, Ashtavakra makes the point that a peaceful life leads to a peaceful mind and a peaceful mind is the fertile soil needed for the seed of knowledge to take root. 

    1.3 – You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor space. Know yourself to be consciousness, the witness of these and be free. 

    Ashtavakra then launches directly into the primary method of Vedanta, which is the practice of making a mental differentiation between yourself, consciousness, and the ‘not-self’—here described as the elements—until the distinction between the two is crystal clear.  “Elements” is an archaic way of referring to what we think of today as matter although a crucial difference must be understood: the Vedantic conception of matter also includes the mind and all of its modifications such as thought, emotion, memory etc.  So the bottom line of what he is saying is that your true nature is neither material nor mental, it is not the body or mind.  The reasoning behind this claim is based on the foundational logic of Vedanta, that you cannot be what is known to you.  If you know the body, you cannot be the body.  If you know the mind, you cannot be the mind.  Since you are the knower of the body and mind, here called the witness, you are not affected by the conditions of either, good or bad.  Knowing this is freedom, or rather the appreciation of the fact that you have always been free.  You simply thought you were bound because the distinction between yourself and the body and mind was not clear. 

    1.4 – If you distinguish yourself from the body and rest in your true nature, consciousness, you will at once be happy, peaceful and free from bondage.

    Ashtavakra makes it very clear that freedom is merely a matter of understanding that you are already free; it is not a matter of doing something or becoming something.  Even though he exhorts Janaka to distinguish himself from the body, the mental act of doing so is not itself the cause of freedom because it only points to what is already true.  And while the phrase “rest in your true nature” seems to recommend doing an action for the sake of freedom, the word “rest” is only being used in the metaphorical sense because there is no action you can do to rest in what you already are.  You are what you are despite of anything you do.  Therefore, “rest” merely means the cultivation of the mental appreciation of what already is.       

    1.5 – You do not have a social status; you do not belong to any age group or stage of life.* You are not perceived by the senses. You are the unattached, formless witness of all.  Be happy. 

    Previously, Ashtavakra approached the differentiation between yourself and the ‘not-self’ in terms of consciousness and matter.  Here matter is categorized as particular conditions of the body or the circumstances it inhabits.  These are things people commonly identify with such as financial status (lower, middle or upper class), age (young, middle aged, old) or stage of life (student, working adult, retiree).  While not explicitly stated, this includes things such as gender, race, religion, occupation or national identity.  This means that anything you normally think of as “I” or “me” is not really you at all.  You are not an object of the senses or even the senses themselves.  Nor are you somehow associated or attached to them.  Instead, you are the formless witness, that which knows the body, mind, senses and sense objects.  Understand that and you can be happy because all dissatisfaction stems from the conditions and circumstances of the body and mind described above.      

    *The first part of the verse is literally, “You do not belong to the brahmana or any other caste or to any ashrama.” Vedanta undeniably originated in India and so it naturally reflects the cultural norms of that country.  But since the message of Vedanta is universal, I took the core meaning of the verse and re-interpreted it to apply to anyone from anywhere. 

    1.6 – Good and bad conduct and pleasure and pain are of the mind, not of you, the all-pervading one. You are neither doer nor enjoyer. Verily you are ever free. 

    Another way of identifying yourself with the ‘not-self’ is to associate who you are with what you do or what you feel.  So Ashtavakra is pointing out that when you say, “I did this” or “I experienced that” that you are mistakenly taking yourself, the “I”, to be a doer or an enjoyer (experiencer).  The “I” that you are mistaking yourself to be is the ego, which upon analysis is merely the thought of “I” in the mind.  Is this “I” that takes credit for the actions of the body and claims to experience the pleasure and pain of the mind known to you?  Yes, so it cannot be the “I” or at least not the real “I”.  The true “I” is the previously mentioned consciousness, which is the witness of the body, mind and ego.  Ashtavakra adds another piece of information about this consciousness, which is none other than yourself:  it is all-pervasive.   This means that you are everywhere, without exception. It only seems like you are in a particular place when you identify with the body and mind.    

    1.7 – You are the one seer of all and are really ever free. Verily this alone is your bondage, that you think you are something other than the seer. 

    To negate the possibility of thinking that there is more than one consciousness, Ashtavakra says, “You are the one seer of all.”  In other words, you, consciousness, are one without a second.  Taking this in conjunction with the previously mentioned fact that you are all-pervasive, the conclusion is that there is not simply one of you, there is only you.  Your nature is non-dual, meaning there is nothing other than you that exists.  Ashtavakra points out that not comprehending this is bondage.  Why? Because the only way you can be bound is if there is something other than yourself to bind you.  Saying this may initially seem contradictory since the text has already admitted to something other than yourself, namely the body and mind.  However, this is not a problem because even though Vedanta initially accepts the appearance of the body and mind, it only does so conditionally, in order to put itself on equal footing with the viewpoint of the average person.  Otherwise its claims would be incomprehensible but for a rare few people.  So as an intermediate step, it accepts the body and mind at face value and proceeds to the logical conclusion that you can’t be the body and mind because they are objects known to you.  But after that the second step of Vedanta is to realize that in reality there is no body and mind, only yourself, consciousness, appearing to be the body and mind, the same way clay appears to be a pot.  In the same way that the form of a pot cannot limit or change the nature of the clay because the pot is merely an appearance made of nothing but clay, the body and mind cannot limit you, consciousness, because they are simply an appearance made of nothing but consciousness.  In other words, if there is only consciousness, then consciousness cannot bind itself.  Not knowing this alone is bondage, meaning you are bound only because you think you are, not because you actually are.    

    Part 2 coming soon.  In the meantime…

    Have a question about this text?  ASK HERE. 

    Want to support End of Knowledge?  MAKE A DONATION HERE.      

     

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

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

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

    V:  Here’s three answers from different perspectives. 

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

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

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

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

    But…. 🙂        

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Correct.  No disagreement there. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    Have a question? CONTACT ME. 

    Want to support End of Knowledge? MAKE A DONATION

     

     

     

     

     

  • Is the End of Suffering a Sufficient Goal?

    This is a continuation of a previous discussion.  Read it HERE.

    L: Much, much thanks.  This is all extremely helpful.  Your knowledge is deep, teacher.

    V:  You’re welcome.  

    L: I like these realization statements (from the previous email) quite a lot and my mind has been processing them every day.  I feel that the gears are turning and I’m getting traction.  Your additional statement is very useful.  Thank you.  I’ve added a few different angles and permutations.  I have this feeling that I’m connecting all these different elements (my true nature, the universe, all living beings, my body and mind, infinite conscious awareness) with threads of relationships and equivalences, and knitting them all closer and closer together until they merge and I’m basically just left with the thought, “There is just one consciousness,” or something like that.  They are really all kind of the same statement.   

    I understand what you’re describing with the necessity of the empirical viewpoint and the value of the absolute viewpoint.  The things I’ve read describe the goal of Vedanta as the end of suffering.  I see how this is important but every time I read this, I wonder if that alone is sufficient as an end goal. 

    V: Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t.  Being enlightened doesn’t mean you cease having goals or aspirations in your day to day life.  But if we’re talking strictly about Vedanta, the only goal is the end of suffering, specifically mental suffering.  Vedanta doesn’t have any other goals. 

    L:  I have these two other thoughts that I’m trying to fit into the context of Vedanta: living wide open as love, and having impeccability of purpose.  These are empiric-perspective concerns. 

    V: Yes, they are.  And they are worthy concerns.  But from a Vedanta perspective, here is the problem:  you can’t live wide open as love (or any other way for that matter) if you aren’t really a person, and you can’t have impeccability of purpose if you are not the doer, the illusory body/mind complex.  As I said, the empirical viewpoint must always be respected.  So in that regard if you want to live wide open as love etc., go for it.  But you MUST clearly understand that you are not really living that way or doing anything to be free from suffering. Why?  Because suffering only accrues to the doer, the body/mind.  So you must get it clear that you aren’t the body/mind, and then it can be as it is.   

    L:  In a way, neither of these goals can be possible if one is suffering, and I suppose minding one’s immediate suffering must take first priority, like putting the airplane oxygen mask on yourself first before helping others.  Attempting to live open as love has the pitfall of self-deceptive do-goodery, and to be this way genuinely I think one must first know that all living beings are within one consciousness.

    V:  It’s only a problem if you identify with the do-gooder.  I’m just trying to be clear, not downplay the seriousness of the issue, because false-identification is the root issue of Vedanta and the cause of suffering.   

    L:  Having impeccability of purpose perhaps can only be possible with the clarity and detachment of examining one’s life from the absolute viewpoint. 

    V:  The absolute viewpoint gives you objectivity, and objectivity helps in anything you ‘do.’  But you’ll have to explain to me what exactly you mean by impeccability of purpose.  I don’t want to assume I know what you’re talking about. 

    L:  These are just early thoughts I’ve been having.  Would you say that the end of suffering is a goal that encompasses these other aspects? 

    V:  To be clear, “the end of suffering” doesn’t mean perfect peace of mind and perpetual happiness.  The body/mind is the sufferer and it will always suffer in one way or another.  This means that the end of suffering is simply the end of identifying with the sufferer.  The body/mind suffers.  But if you aren’t the body/mind, then you don’t suffer.  Problem solved. 

    That being said, knowing you aren’t the one suffering gives you the objectivity I previously mentioned.  And objectivity helps in whatever it is you choose to ‘do.’

    Another aspect of knowledge is clearly understanding that, despite appearances to the contrary, everything is one, brahman, you.  When everything is known to be yourself, it makes accepting and loving the world much easier. 

    L:  Are there teachings to apply Vedanta knowledge to these empiric perspective goals as well?

    V:  Sort of.  As I just said, the implications of non-duality can certainly help the way you view the world.  As far as impeccability of purpose, I can’t say until you explain it to me a little more.  If you mean acting in the correct manner with the appropriate motivation, Vedanta is useless, because it negates the false idea that you do anything in the first place. 

    However, at the initial stages of the teaching, Vedanta advocates yoga, specifically karma yoga, in order to show one how to act appropriately in the world.  It also advocates devotion or religious practice in order to purify the mind and heart.   

    L:  I’ve been having a strong inclination to take some time and go into nature for a while, and fast and meditate.  My instinct is to corral together the “I-ness” to package it up.  I see your teaching that the I-ness can never be completely packaged or dropped, only through knowledge can it be put in proper perspective. 

    V:  I honestly think you should do what you are inclined to do.  Taking a retreat to contemplate and meditate is never a bad thing. 

    I’ll add this:  regardless of what you do, always remember that the way Vedanta ‘packages’ the “I” is strictly cognitive.  It teaches you how to objectify the apparent person and see him for what he is:  a transient illusion.  One way to do that is to always be aware of using the word “I.”  Every time you say it or think it, ask yourself, “What ‘I’ am I referring to?”  If you say, “I am sad” ask yourself if the word “I” is referring to you, the self, or to the mind.  Or if you say, “I am hungry, fat, thin, etc.” ask if the word “I” is referring to the body or to you, the self.  You can apply this to everything you think and in this way you continually ‘package’ the body/mind by recognizing it as the transient object that it is.  Then you bring your attention back to what you really are, that which knows the illusory, transient object known as L.  That is the real “I.” This practice can, and should, be done at all times until you have broken the identification with the body/mind i.e. L.  And it can be done in everyday life as well as in a retreat.    

    L:   But, as you have said, the experience wouldn’t hurt, either. 

    V:  Yep.  Even though you aren’t L, there’s no reason he shouldn’t be as happy, fulfilled or satisfied as possible.

    L:  I have Ted Schmidt’s book Self Knowledge and it looks very useful.  Is there a Vedanta community? 

    V:  Yes but it will vary depending on where you are.  Arsha Vidya and Chinmaya Mission are worldwide, as well as being first rate Vedanta organizations.  I personally prefer Arsha Vidya and their lineage of teachers.  The possible drawback for you is that both of those organizations are very Hindu, and they intermix Indian culture along with the teachings, Arsha Vidya less so than Chinmaya Mission.  I personally don’t have a problem with that except for the fact that the religious and cultural aspects can sometimes obscure the Vedanta part of the teaching. There are Westernized Vedanta groups but none that I can confidently recommend.  

    All in all, it can be good to have a group of people to do inquiry with but it can be more trouble than it’s worth because you have to deal with their issues and egos in the process.  Further, if they don’t know what they’re talking about, how can they be of any assistance to you?  Besides, in the end, inquiry is a solitary path that you must travel mostly by yourself.  That’s what I did.  However, do with that what you will.  I am a very solitary person by nature but I know that doesn’t work for everyone.       

    L:  It has been extremely helpful to hear from you, instead of just reading books.  I really appreciate it. 

    V: I’m glad to hear that.  You’re welcome. 

    HAVE A QUESTION? Ask Here. 

    WANT TO SHOW SUPPORT? Donate Here. 

  • If the idea of the self as consciousness doesn’t help you, don’t use it

    THE STATEMENT

    Jenny: It is clear we are not different from the totality of existence but it is not clear that all of existence is consciousness.  I can see how my personal ‘world’ (my experience) is only consciousness but the entire universe being consciousness can only be speculation.  I’m not relating to the idea of the world being consciousness.

    THE RESPONSE

    Vishnudeva: That’s okay.  I could launch into a long winded justification for the idea that the universe is consciousness but truly, if you don’t relate to the idea of the universe being consciousness then set it aside and focus on the existence aspect instead.  This is just fine because Vedanta is not trying to prove that the universe is consciousness (or even existence).  Rather, it simply employs those concepts to point to the fact that the true nature of the universe is non-dual and not limited by the appearance of objects.  And further, that the true nature of the universe is identical with your true nature, that YOU are non-dual and unaffected by the appearance of objects.  Getting to that understanding is what is important, not how you get there.     

    So always keep in mind that the teaching method of Vedanta is to temporarily superimpose concepts onto reality that point to the truth.  The superimposed concepts are not the truth they point to, which means they are relative and subject to later negation*.  Once the concept has served its purpose, you disregard it in the same way that you disregard a finger after it has pointed to a star you were searching for in the sky.  This means the concepts themselves are not what is important so you can use whichever ones make the most sense to you.  I once had a teacher who said (I’m paraphrasing) that you don’t need all of Vedanta’s many teachings to understand who you really are.  You just need the ones that address your particular doubts.  If the consciousness teaching isn’t helping you see that your nature is non-dual and ever-free then don’t worry about it right now and focus on the existence teaching.  You may never need the consciousness teaching or perhaps it will help you later.  For me, the consciousness teaching helped me at the initial stages but the existence teaching is the one that ‘sealed the deal.’  And in the end I gave up both teachings because my true nature is beyond all concepts, “that from which words and the mind turn back, unable to reach.” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:4:1)   

    All my best- Vishnudeva     

    *The teaching method I’ve described is called adhyaropa apavada, superimposition and negation.  In his commentary on Bhagavad Gita 13:12, Shankara references it as the method of teaching known to those versed in the tradition.       

     

     

  • A Progressive Vedanta

    THE QUESTION

    I recently read your post, “A Vedanta Atheist?.”  I’ve never heard anyone express the point of view that Vedanta can work for atheists.  Does that really conform to the teachings of Vedanta?  Do you advocate atheism? 

    THE ANSWER

    I’m not surprised. I’d only ever heard the idea that atheism and Vedanta are compatible expressed privately in discussions with fellow Vedantins.  That’s exactly why I wanted to go on record and say it.  The idea of atheism is certainly not new but I think its prevalence today—coupled with an increasing number of spiritual people who do not believe in religion—requires a proper response from Vedanta.  I believe it’s fully in line with the tradition of Vedanta to progressively extend eligibility to groups previously excluded from studying the teachings.  There was a time when someone like myself, a caste-less foreigner from outside the religious tradition, would most likely have been denied the teaching.  There was also a time, not so long ago, when it was controversial to teach Vedanta to the general public.  It was even more controversial when it was taught in English!  I am very thankful those times have passed and grateful to the pioneering teachers that ended them.  Otherwise I wouldn’t have had access to a teaching that has dramatically changed my life for the better.  So it’s no surprise that continuing to make the teaching available and more accessible to an even broader audience is near to my heart.  I think Vedanta can—and should—be progressive while staunchly holding on to its fundamental principles, namely the pursuit of freedom through self-knowledge. 

    Perhaps even the most progressive Vedantins would balk at the idea of a Vedantic atheist.  But I would have to politely disagree because I actually know a few.  It can and does work.  I would also say that Vedanta is such a vast and beautiful tradition.  If one teacher or their views don’t appeal to you, there are so many other good teachers to learn from.  I’m not trying to upset anyone or claim that my view is the only right one.  I’m just a link in the chain, albeit one that’s a little funny shaped.  If you think what I say makes sense, great.  I think my point of view is reasonable.  If you disagree with me, well, you probably won’t attain enlightenment 🙂  I’m kidding.  You’ll be just fine.  That’s my point.  Vedanta can accommodate a wide variety of people and opinions. 

    All the same, I’d like to clarify what I mean by atheism.  Atheism, as I understand it, is a lack of belief in a personal, anthropomorphic God.  In other words you don’t believe in the whole “man-in-the-sky” idea of God.  Perhaps you don’t believe in anything supernatural at all.  Now, are the ideas of a personal, anthropomorphic God and supernatural occurrences present in Vedanta?  Absolutely!  Just read the Upanishads. 

    But…are those things presented as absolute truths in Vedanta?  No.  They are only true from a relative point of view.  This means they are not essential, and therefore don’t preclude someone who doesn’t believe in those things from studying Vedanta.  Does that mean someone can have success in Vedanta while being an atheist in the sense that they think the universe is merely a blind mechanical process consisting of matter alone?  I doubt it.  Why?  Because Vedanta is unyielding when it declares that the universe is ultimately nothing but brahman, pure consciousness, not matter or anything beholden to it.  And precisely because brahman is pure consciousness, Vedanta contends that the universe is a deliberate and orderly ‘creation’ not a blind, mechanical chaos.

    Still, is being open-minded to these contentions incompatible with a rational mind that doesn’t believe in a personal God or the supernatural?  No, because brahman is consciousness and consciousness isn’t something we have to believe in.  Consciousness obviously exists because we are obviously conscious.  Granted, the exact nature of consciousness and how it can be the entire universe requires much investigation to understand but the jumping off point of our everyday conscious experience is rooted in fact, not belief.  Something else rooted in fact is the existence of the universe.  We all know it’s there because we experience it.  Since “I only believe in what I see” is often the criteria for belief according to an atheist I contend that Vedanta’s concept of God works fine with atheism, at least in the way I’ve defined it above.

    How? Vedanta says that God (Isvara) is simply the world around you as well as the laws that govern the world.  So if someone is an atheist in regards to a supernatural personal God but they accept that the world exists and runs on natural laws, then they essentially accept Isvara.  Again, the part that Isvara is actually pure consciousness (and hence not really a God at all) requires a lot of investigation to understand but as in the case of consciousness, the starting point is rooted in fact, not belief.  And since Vedanta says that brahman is ultimately none other than yourself, no belief is required there either because no one needs to believe in themselves.  That we can even contemplate our own existence proves that we exist because a non-existent entity can’t contemplate anything.  For all of these reasons, I see atheism—at least a certain kind of atheism—as compatible with Vedanta. 

    I certainly don’t mean to be dismissive but whether or not this view conforms to so-called traditional Vedanta doesn’t really matter to me.  I’ve already seen it work for people so the question of conformity serves no purpose.  I’m extremely practical, and considering that freedom is the point of Vedanta, whatever helps get someone get free is fine with me.  Besides, there is no definitive consensus among Vedantins as to what the ‘real’ or ‘traditional’ Vedanta even is.  A brief examination of the history of the teaching shows that some groups within Vedanta strongly disagree while others outright contradict each other.  The umbrella of Vedanta accommodates many viewpoints, any of which you are free to disregard if you so choose, so I don’t see why allowing atheism in Vedanta should cause a problem for anyone.      

    As for the last part of your question, asking if I advocate atheism, I don’t really advocate anything in regards to belief or lack of belief in a personal, supernatural God because that is a purely personal decision.  Since I want to be able to decide for myself what I believe or don’t believe in that matter I extend that same courtesy to others.  And because I want Vedanta to be available to whoever is interested in it I try to remain open to other points of view and teaching methods, even ones I may not necessarily share or agree with.

    What I do advocate is an open-minded, progressive Vedanta with the hope that everyone’s pursuit of freedom will be successful, whether the pursuit is traditional, non-traditional or something else entirely.   

    All my best – Vishnudeva