End Of Knowledge

Tag: self

  • Who Knows?

    F:  I was reading a book on Vedanta and there is a passage that has me a bit confused:

    “The self is not only consciousness but is also existence. For anything to exist, it has to be known to exist by some person or the other at some time or the other. Thus, everything is existent because it is evident. Otherwise, it cannot be stated to exist. So, existence .presupposes knowability. Knowability presupposes awareness or consciousness since it is through consciousness that everything, whether it be an object in the external world, or our body or our internal mental state is known. Thus, while existence is knowability, knowability is consciousness. When we say, “Swamiji exists”, it also means that Swamiji-consciousness is. So, “is” in “Swamiji is”, denotes not only the existence with reference to Swamiji but also the consciousness with reference to Swamiji. Existence is called sat. Consciousness is called cit. What is cit has to be sat and what is sat has to be cit. So, sat will bring in cit and cit will bring in sat. Consciousness is existence and existence is consciousness.”

    “Consciousness or the self is self-illuminating.  It is self-luminous in the sense that, while it reveals everything else, it itself is not revealed by anything. It is self-evident. As evidence and existence go together, what is self-evident is self-existing.”

     This concept comes up quite a bit in the literature as you know.  What is perfectly clear is that Atma/Brahman is of the nature of existence/Consciousness/limitlessness.  That is me.   So at the paramarthika level existence and consciousness are obviously the same.  The one non-dual self existent reality is Consciousness.   Fine. What I don’t get is why there are passages like this that push the point from the perspective of of the jiva having an experience.  

    Further, the passage implies that a rock in the ground didn’t exist until someone saw it or at least some geologist hypothesized its existence.  Another teacher repeatedly makes this claim in his books: “to exist is to be evident”.  

    V:  If I may indulge in a bit of criticism, I feel like the passage is somewhat confusing because the presentation of the point is just a liiiiiitle bit convoluted. That being said, I don’t like to assume that I know for certain what another teacher/writer is trying to say or why they are saying it. That’s my disclaimer before I make any more comments.   

    But here goes…

    Looking at the passage above from the perspective of how Vedanta is usually taught, I think the author is conditionally assuming a ‘lower’ level of teaching—the empirical /vyavaharika / jiva level—to try to explain how brahman is both existence and consciousness.  He’s trying to convey this idea to the reader at the level of everyday experience because that’s most likely the way it will make the most sense.  From the level of everyday experience, something is said to exist when it is known or when it is the knower itself.  And for something to be known or to be a knower, there has to be consciousness.  Using this commonly known fact from everyday life, the author is trying to establish the unity of an existent known object, the existent knower and consciousness. 

    However, this is just an intermediate stepping stone because from the ‘highest’ / ‘absolute’/ paramarthika standpoint, brahman is neither a knower or a known object.  How so?  In a non-dual reality, there are no objects apart from brahman.  If there are no objects apart from brahman, there is nothing other than brahman to be known.  Even if there were, since brahman is action-less it can’t be involved in any act of knowing.  Additionally, brahman is neither evident nor self-evident because if there is nothing other than brahman, then to whom or to what would something be evident or self-evident?

    As Yajnavalkya says in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad (2:4:14):  “When there is duality, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something.  But when to the knower of brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one know and through what?” (To be clear he is speaking from the standpoint of knowledge.  He isn’t saying that a knower of brahman has no experience of the world).

    So to say that something exists because it is known doesn’t exactly work from the level of the ‘highest’ truth.  Actually, it doesn’t work from the level of everyday experience either but I’ll explain that below.  

    Besides, we’re getting hung on the word ‘exist’ and taking it too literally.  Because to initially say that brahman exists is not to attribute some positive quality of existence to brahman (which is free of all qualities).  Instead it is to deny the opposite idea held by materialists, that there is no such thing as brahman (the self), that it is some kind of non-existent void.  But eventually, both the ideas of existence and non-existence are to be given up because they are just that:  concepts that really only apply to the presence or absence of objects.  In truth, brahman transcends both.  As Shankara says in his Bhagavad Gita commentary 13:12, “…brahman cannot be expressed by such words as being, non-being etc.”  Further, in his Brihadaranyaka commentary (2:3:6) he says (this is a paraphrase), “Hence, brahman cannot be described as, “It is such and such”…when we try to describe its true nature, free from all differences and limiting adjuncts, it is an utter impossibility.  The only way to describe it is as “Not this, not this,” by eliminating all possible specifications of it that have to be known.” 

    So my opinion is that the author is simply presenting one of the initial levels of the teaching, one that uses our everyday experience and our current level of understanding to lead on to a higher truth.  Since the ideas of both existence and non-existence are to eventually be given up, if his presentation is confusing to you, then disregard it.  It is not meant to be taken as the literal truth.              

    F:  My question is:  In the bowels of Vedantic/Indian philosophy is there really a strong logically supported argument for the claim “to exist is to be evident?”  If so, what is the basis of this claim and the response of Vedanta/Indian philosophy to the obvious question about whether things exists that haven’t been seen yet?  

    V:  I’ve read that certain schools of Buddhism believe that the only thing that exists is what is known to you (Indian Philosophy: A Critical Survey by Chandradhar Sharma).  In philosophy this is called subjective idealism.  Orthodox Vedantins deny this theory although a handy quote is evading me at the moment.  But basically they maintain that the world of objects doesn’t make itself.  It is put together and controlled by Isvara; thus its existence is not dependent on whether an individual person knows it’s there or not.  It’s there because Isvara put it there. 

    I’ll say two things about this issue, take them or leave them.  First, whether objects exist or don’t exist when I don’t know them has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I exist (I’m using the word ‘exist’ loosely) and MY ‘existence’ is the central issue of Vedanta, not the existence or non-existence of objects.  Second, the issue is entirely unsolvable.  To know if objects exist when I don’t know them, I’d have to step outside of consciousness to see if objects were still there, which is impossible. 

    This means there is absolutely no empirical or logical means of knowledge to answer the question.  Vedantins don’t usually appeal to logic in this matter but simply refer to the claims of the scripture, which is supposed to be an infallible means of knowledge on matters that can’t be known by mankind.  So if you want to believe what the scripture says, that objects are there when you don’t know them, then that’s fine.  If not, then don’t.  That’s also fine.  But without accepting the scripture, the question is unanswerable and hence, pointless.  I’m not saying that to undermine the validity of your question.  The passage above certainly leads to it.  But I want you to know that it’s okay to not have an answer because the issue doesn’t have any bearing on the ‘ultimate’ truth, meaning the truth about your true nature.           

    F:  My guess is that there really is this strong claim.  And the rationale is that every object has form.  Forms by definition are intelligent designs placed upon the fabric of reality (i.e., Brahman).   Isvara as the omniscient creator of the universe of forms and is the knower of all forms.  Therefore, the whole creation is known, even the rock in the ground that I don’t know about.  So to exist is to be known. What do you think?   On the right track here?

    V:  (Note:  When I initially responded to this email I wrote a different answer.  Upon re-reading it, I decided to change it to the one that follows – V)  I admire your effort but unfortunately you are trying to logically justify an idea that doesn’t have a logical, provable basis (which is what you’re looking for).  The existence of Isvara–both what it is and does–falls purely into the realm of scriptural speculation, not empirical or logical evidence.  Isvara as the omniscient creator and ruler of the universe isn’t a matter of your personal experience, nor are the particulars of its existence (or non-existence) proven by implication or inference, not even the argument of design.  It is simply a matter of believing the scripture.  If you believe in the scripture then the reasoning you’ve given potentially makes some sense. If not, then who knows?  

    But really, it doesn’t matter one way or the other because as I said the whole idea of “to exist is to be known” is an initial level of teaching not to be taken literally in the end.  Also, and more importantly, the existence or non-existence of objects (or Isvara) doesn’t change the fact that you are brahman.  Knowing that is the point of Vedanta, not speculation about Isvara or objects.   

    What I’m saying is don’t get hung up on the details of the empirical world.  It isn’t real nor can we come to definite conclusions about its nature or how it works.  So instead I encourage you to focus on what is real: yourself. 

    All my best, Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS Q & A?  Contact me.     

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

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • “I am infinite eternal consciousness” is a True Statement

    L:  If my body speaks the words “I am infinite and eternal conscious awareness”…that is actually NOT true.

    V:  Actually, it is true because at its essence, the body is nothing other than consciousness.  So if the body says, “I am consciousness” it’s right.  But if I may personify consciousness for a moment, what would be untrue is if consciousness said, “I am the body.” 

    Let’s use water as a metaphor for consciousness and a wave as a metaphor for the body.  If a wave says, “I am water” it’s a true statement because the wave is nothing other than water.  But if the water says, “I am a wave” it’s an untrue statement because there’s really no such thing as a wave because “wave” is simply an insubstantial name given to an insubstantial appearance that has no existence whatsoever apart from water.  The wave is water but water is not a wave.  It’s always just water.         

    Similarly, the body is consciousness but consciousness is not the body.  “Body” is just a name given to an insubstantial appearance of consciousness that is mistakenly thought to be a real, standalone entity when in fact it is nothing other than consciousness. 

    L:  The mind that formulates those words, and the physical body, lungs and vocal cords and so on, that project out those words, are observable objects that, themselves, are not Atma. 

    V:  Yes, but only conditionally.  I’m sorry if I’m stating what you already know about Vedanta but the fundamental premise is that reality is non-dual, meaning there is absolutely nothing other than atma.  This means there can’t actually be a “not-atma.”  “Not-atma” is only temporarily posited to break identification with the unreal appearance of the body and mind that we normally take to be real and identify ourselves with.   

    So initially in the beginning of the teaching, an artificial duality is assumed:  atma (you) and ‘not-atma’ (not-you).  This draws attention to the transient nature of the body, mind and world and shows that they are unreal because they are impermanent.  Further, it shows that they can’t be you because what is known to you can’t be you. 

    But in the end the conclusion is the same as the water/wave scenario from above.  Just like the wave to the water, ‘not-atma’ is merely an appearance that does not affect the fundamental nature of the atma but it is nonetheless only atma.  The artificial duality of atma/’not-atma’ is a necessary first step, but once it has done its job, it is discarded and the faux duality is healed.               

    L:  This seems like an easy problem to resolve, but it extends insidiously to all of the study of Vedanta, and it is tripping me up. In this communication of ours, right now, there isn’t boundless conscious awareness communing perfectly with boundless conscious awareness, there are just two flesh creatures typing questions and answers into keyboards. 

    V:  In a sense there is because as I’ve pointed out, the two flesh creatures are nothing but consciousness.  The only problem is if the two flesh creatures don’t know that and they move through their lives thinking they are actually flesh creatures.  But if the two unreal flesh creatures know that they are actually nothing but consciousness, then they can type and answer all they want and there is absolutely no problem.  They are consciousness either way.   

    So there is only a cognitive shift, not a circumstantial one.  You can’t get rid of the world, only understand that it’s an unreal appearance of you, the one real consciousness.  When you know that, you can leave the world as it is.  So type away flesh creature! But understand that you are really just consciousness and all is well.     

    L:  Similarly, in meditation, the knowledge that “I” am infinite and eternal consciousness awareness, pulls me away from simply *being* Atma, because the thought “I am infinite consciousness” comes from the mind, which is, itself, NOT infinite consciousness. 

    Maybe a simpler way to say all of this is that thinking about this is sidetracking me from *being* it. This seems like a problem with Vedanta. Reading and thinking and discussing are all activities of the mind, but focusing in the mind further enmeshes the illusion that the mind is one’s true self. 

    V:  I see that you’re using the word “being” conditionally, which is good because being consciousness is not something that requires effort or even thought.  It’s what you are regardless of what you think or do. 

    Reading, thinking and meditating are a necessary first step because reading gives you the information and then thinking and meditating on what you read gets it clear in your mind.  That’s all we’re trying to do here.  You need to know that you are consciousness instead of the body and mind and further, that the body and mind are unreal appearances that never have and never will affect you.  Once that’s truly clear, no reading, thinking or meditating is required.  And no matter what you think or read, or how much you meditate, it never changes the fact that you are consciousness. 

    For instance, let’s say you have amnesia and don’t know who you are.  Someone comes to you and says, “You are Lee.”  They proceed to produce other people who tell you about yourself, they show you some pictures, videos, your birth certificate etc.  After thinking about it, your doubt about your identity is removed and you know, “I AM Lee!”  At that point do you need to keep reminding yourself who you are?  No.  You just know. 

    On the other hand, if you keep telling yourself, “I’m Lee” and thinking about it, would it enmesh you in your former ignorance and somehow make you someone other than Lee?  Not at all.  

    So you need to study, think and meditate until it becomes clear what you truly are.  After that, no studying, thinking or meditating are required BUT you will know that if those things go on they do not affect your true nature in any way.    

    All my best, Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS Q & A?  Contact me.     

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

     

     

  • Vedanta Is Not The Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    HAVE QUESTIONS? CONTACT ME.

  • 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.