Essence of Advaita -- A Question- Answer Session - Part 2/3

Essence of Advaita -- A Question- Answer Session - Part 2/3
(Excerpted from Yogavaasishta, Chapter VI: Nirvana, Book - II, Sarga 190)


[Part 1/3          Part 3/3]

Sage Vasishta:  What you say will amount to equating Knowledge and the world.  How can the world be then subjected to creation and dissolution?  After all, Pure Knowledge cannot be subjected to creation and dissolution!

Rama:  Let us be clear on one thing.  The creation was not there to start with.  It came about later on.  You say that illusion is the reason for it.  What is the reason for the illusion?

Sage Vasishta:  The question is based on an unsupported assumption on your part!  You presume that the cause-effect relationship is valid and real.  But causal relationships have no reality.  Why do they lack reality?  Because never is there a real cause or a real effect.

What is perceived (chetya), who perceives (chit) and perception (chaitanya) are different forms of your Consciousness-Self. 

Rama:  If what you propose is correct, this purely inert and mechanical gross body becomes the knower (chit).  If so, Ishvar, the source for all Knowledge will be inert.  It is like saying that the log ignites the fire and the fire is being burnt down by the wood!

Sage Vasishta:  No, that’s not what I said!  ‘The seer’ can never be ‘the seen.’  The subject can never become the object.  But the most subtle and salient point is that there is no object, ‘the seen’ at all.  The seer who is Pure Consciousness appears as though It takes the form of the triad – the knower, the known and the knowledge.

Rama:  There got to be at the very beginning of the creation someone or other who was the very first knower of the creation.  There cannot be something ‘known’ in the absence of a ‘knower.’ 

What existed prior to creation was Pure Consciousness alone.  Hence we are forced to admit that It was the first Knower of the first created things.  How was that first ‘known’ substance generated?

Sage Vasishta:  Rama!  If at all we said that there was a ‘seen’ or ‘known’ substance produced at the beginning of creation, you may legitimately question us about its origin.  But that has never been our argument.  We are consistent in our assertion that there has been no legitimate cause behind anything ‘seen’ at the beginning of creation or even later on at anytime.  Hence there is no thing ‘seen.’  Because there has been no thing seen, Consciousness is forever without bondage.  Consciousness cannot be captured in words.

 Rama:  That being so, how was the ‘thought wave’, “I”, born?  How did the knowledge, “I see the world” originate?  How does one have the feeling, “I am alive”?

Sage Vasishta:  You see, there was no cause for the creation even at the very start.  So nothing ever is really born.  The entire creation is only an illusion.  Therefore, what you see is merely an illusion.

Rama:  According to you then, what exists is the Supreme Brahman only.  It cannot be expressed in words.  It does not contain Knowledge.  It has no thing ‘known.’  It is eternal, self-effulgent and unblemished.  To whom does this illusion happen then?  Of what nature is the illusion?

Sage Vasishta:  There is no reason behind the illusion!  Hence there is no illusion at all!  ‘You, me and everything’ are all the superbly serene Supreme Brahman only!

Rama:  Revered Teacher!  I am awfully confused!  I am unable to even formulate my questions.  Obviously I am not fully enlightened.  What misgivings can I place before you?

Sage Vasishta:  Rama!  You are still going by an attempt to establish a sequence of cause-effect relationships.  There has to be a touchstone which can establish the correctness or otherwise of the sequence of causes and effects.  If we examine based on that yardstick, the causes will evaporate.  For example, a doubt is the cause for a question.  The cause for the doubt is ignorance.  If we can get rid of the ignorance, there is no scope for a doubt and the later questions.

So go on, shoot your questions.  When all the questions are resolved, you will automatically land in and be at ease as the Supreme Consciousness.

Rama:  Revered Teacher!  As per your teaching, there is no cause for creation and hence there is no creation.   I could understand that.  To whom did the imaginary division of a knower and the known occur?  How did it occur?

Sage Vasishta:  Rama, you have an intellectual understanding of the matter.  But the understanding is not fully rooted in you for lack of practice.  That is the reason a non-existing illusion has ensnared you.

Rama:  Sir, rephrasing myself then, why is there an absence of practice?  How does the practice take place?  Further the so called practice is also an illusion.  Wherefrom has it come? 

Sage Vasishta:  You asked the question under the assumption that you were ignorant and that state of ignorance was ‘real.’ 

Let us say that your assumption is correct.  But simply because you thought that you were ignorant, the Infiniteness of the Supreme Brahman will not be compromised.  Therefore, even your thoughts on practice are a form of that Supreme Consciousness.  Hence your question does not have any validity.

Rama:  The illusion of the world is eliminated for Jivanmuktas like you.  Even then you think of instructing people like us.  You use words for that purpose.  You also admit something has to be instructed and there is someone to be instructed.  How do all such things happen?

Sage Vasishta:  The whole process of instructing etc. is also Brahman.  The disciple, teacher and instruction are all Brahman.  There is neither bondage nor liberation in the eyes of an enlightened man.

Rama:  You are establishing that illusion of a world is an impossibility taking recourse to logic. Granting that, wherefrom the ignoramus in the world acquire the knowledge of differentiating space, time, action, matter etc. etc.?  How could these different things gain a reality?

Sage Vasishta:  It was because of ignorance only.  There is no other reality than ignorance before obtaining enlightenment (Jivanmukti). 

Rama:  There is no duality or Oneness in the Jivanmukti that you refer to.  In other words, the idea of someone being taught or someone teaching does not arise.  Does the instruction (teaching), taught by a teacher who lacks the ‘quality of teaching’ in him, contain any ‘value as a teaching’?  Can such an instruction lacking the ‘value as a teaching’ within it lead to Nirvana?

Sage Vasishta:  A separate individual (jiva) is the Supreme Brahman not aware of Himself.  The individual realizes that he is Brahman on the Awareness of being Brahman.  So it is Brahman, who is under ignorance.  It is He who receives the instruction in this process.  Because the instruction is being received by Him, it is a teaching.  Thus the instruction becomes one with what is taught and through that it becomes one with the Supreme Brahman.  Hence you cannot state that the instruction lacks the ‘value as a teaching’ in it.  This whole scenario is applicable only in the case of ignorant people.  In the case of enlightened people like us, as you said, an instruction cannot have the ‘value as a teaching.’

Rama:  You used the expression, “enlightened people like us.”  It does show that words like “I”, “we” have significance for them also.  Implicitly it means that they too have the “I”-thought within them.  The only difference is that one cannot say that this “I”-thought is generated in them out of ignorance because they are completely free of ignorance.  In that case we have to agree that the Knowledge in them has become the “I”-thought.  Then we have to admit that the teaching is different from the “I”-thought.  But “I”-thought and the individual (jiva) are the same. How could such a jiva enter you who are totally Consciousness-Self?

Sage Vasishta:  Wind is movement.  Movement is wind.  In the same way, in the case of Jivanmuktas, the Knowledge Itself is “I”-thought.  This “I”-thought and the “I”-thought under ignorance are different.  The “I”-thought of the ignorant people is based on the attachment to the body, senses etc. 

Rama:  So the world of a Jivanmukta is Consciousness as shown by the maxim, ‘the turbulent wave is also the placid ocean.’  It means that the person to be taught, the Guru who teaches and the teaching and other similar triads are all Consciousness. 

Sage Vasishta:  You asked me a little earlier a question about the presence of the ‘value as a teaching’ in the instruction of a Jivanmukta.  You contended that a Jivanmukta lacks within him both the sense of duality and oneness and hence you said that he would not have the sense of separation of a teacher being here and a disciple over there.  Hence you doubted whether the ‘value as a teaching’ will be present in his instruction.

From what you say now, that question loses its locus.  Do not visualize an ocean and a wave to be two separate things.  What is, is One only!  It is Infinite, Serene, Perfect and the most Supreme!  That is Pure Non-duality.  Get a hold on It.

Rama: You said that Pure Knowledge and “I”-thought were like wind and movement in the case of Jivanmuktas like you.  If Pure Non-duality is firmed up, who is it that thinks differently – sometimes as Pure Knowledge and at other times as “I”-thought?  Who is one that experiences this “I”-thought?  There has obviously to be someone to do these things.  If such thoughts of differentiation are unavoidable to Jivanmuktas, what can we speak of the ordinary folk?  Therefore, it looks that an illusion of distinction is inevitable for anyone.  It follows that the illusion of a world is also inescapable.  It would mean that we are necessarily trapped in the cycle of bondage and liberation. 

What then is the advantage of Pure Non-duality?

Sage Vasishta:  Bondage comes only if one takes what is perceived to be true.  Knowers of Truth will not do that.  From their stance, it is Pure Knowledge appearing in different forms.  Hence they are unconcerned with bondage and liberation.

Rama: A black object appears black and a white object appears white in the light of a lamp.  But the lamp itself does not become the black or white object.  Likewise, if various substances are seen because of Pure Knowledge, we have to say that those substances are really there and hence are seen.  So the reality of the objects is established by the instrument of Knowledge.  This is our common experience.  But you postulate that all things get annihilated along with their cause by Knowledge.  How do you justify it?

Sage Vasishta:  We had already demonstrated adopting different approaches that the objects of the world lacked beingness.  We said that there was no cause behind them and hence they did not have beingness.  If such non-existent things are seen, that appearance has to be like the silver in nacre.  Such an appearance will last as long as the illusion lasts.  It cannot survive beyond that.  Knowers of Truth do not suffer from the illusion.  Hence they do not see anything to be external to them. 

Rama:  Let us for the present leave the issue whether the silver in nacre or the dream world etc. are real or unreal.  Misery does come out of them.  Even the illusory world brings suffering.  What is the way to avoid the sorrow?
[Dialog to be continued in Part 3/3.]

Essence of Advaita: A Question - Answer Session - Part 1/3

Essence of Advaita -- A Question- Answer Session - Part 1/3
(Excerpted from Yogavaasishta, Chapter VI: Nirvana, Book - II, Sarga 190)

[Part 2/3          Part 3/3]

Rama:  Revered Master!  How can the knowability attributed to the Knowledge be attenuated?  The thought, “I am bound”, is very strongly entrenched within us.  How do we reverse it?

Sage Vasishta:  The inanity of the mind responsible for such an illusion will fade away from a study of Self-Knowledge.  The formless, eternal and tranquil liberation can be achieved by proceeding on the Sevenfold Knowledge Path.

Rama:  If a substance has several components and attributes within it, then a detailed study of those parts and properties may gradually add up to a complete knowledge about the substance.  But what you are talking here is about a substance that is indivisible and without any attributes whatsoever.  That is the Consciousness-Knowledge.  Does the word ‘complete’ ever be applicable to a description of such Knowledge?

Sage Vasishta:  True Knowledge cannot ‘be a known’.  Nor is it possible to teach anything about Pure and Absolute Knowledge.  Hence once the misapprehension owing to ignorance is eliminated, whatever remains at the end is called Perfect Knowledge.

Rama:  What would then happen to the separate knowable component of Knowledge that was within the Knowledge?  Moreover when you use the word ‘Knowledge’, does it imply the ‘concept of knowing’ or ‘a means to know’ i.e. ‘something causal to the act of knowing’?  

Sage Vasishta:  ‘Knowledge’ implies the process of knowing.  With respect to this type of ‘Knowledge’, there is no difference between what is ‘to be known’ and ‘Knowledge’.  They are like the movement and wind.

Rama:  If that were to be the case, the imaginary difference between what is ‘to be known’ and ‘Knowledge’ has to be something like the horn of a hare – an impossibility to occur.  A thing that is impossible to exist cannot be instrumental in getting any work done.  But we find in the world that all works in the three time periods of past, present and future get executed by the difference between ‘what is known’ and the ‘Knowledge’. 

 Sage Vasishta:  You seem to opine that a non-existent thing can never be seen and it cannot be a cause for happiness or sorrow.  But are you not able to see a dream though it does not exist?   Don’t you experience happiness and sorrow in a dream? 

So the beingness or otherwise of a thing cannot be decided based on the criterion whether it appears or not.  The decisive criterion cannot also be the thing’s ability to cause happiness or sorrow.  The real principle will have to be whether the thing can be sublated or not.  If a thing cannot be sublated, we have to accept that it truly exists.  If it can be sublated, it lacks existence even though it has an appearance. Sublation refers to the elimination of a thing along with its cause as, for example, the snake in the rope. 

Examined from this stand, if you find a thing to be separate from you and is external to you, it has to be an illusion only.  There is no possibility for the existence of a substance within you and be separate from you.  Hence there is no question of any separate substance being present either inside you or outside you.  Therefore, there is no scope for any transactions happening.

Rama:  How can this be acceptable, Sir?  You, me, the five fundamental elements, the world around us are all directly seen by us.  How are we to deny their existence completely?

Sage Vasishta:  Rama, you are attempting to establish the true ‘beingness’ or otherwise of a substance based on the things in this creation and by an analysis of their cause-effect relationships. For example, you think that a pot is made out of a real lump of clay.  Hence the pot, you seem to conclude, has also to be real.  The approach adopted by you is okay.  But then dig deeper.  Go back to the very beginning of creation. 

What was there prior to creation?  There were neither any substances nor any tools.  There was only an illusion.  Hence the Macrocosm (Virat Purusha) born at the beginning of creation, the five fundamental elements etc. have got to be illusory.  Therefore, the substances that appear to us have also to be illusory.  It follows from this that the world and the transactions that go on within it are unreal, though we have a direct perception of them.

Rama:  The world is so clearly seen by us every day.  The past, future and the present time periods are going on all the time in it.  You pronounce this entire experiential world has not originated at all because it is negated by acquiring the Knowledge of Truth. How can you say so?

Sage Vasishta:  What else can be done?  The dream worlds, mirages, appearance of double moons, daydreams, castles in the air, skeins of hair in space and so on are also experienced by us in the past, future and in the present.  But their reality gets contradicted as soon as the truth about them is known.  Is this also not a fact of our common experience?  I put it to you, therefore, that you, me, the transactions in the world etc. are all a fantasy.

 Rama:  The differentiation of you-me, that-this and so on has been present since the very beginning of creation.  The happiness and sorrow have also been experienced ever since.  On what grounds do we proclaim them to have not originated?

Sage Vasishta:  Using the very same logic that you have enunciated!  You see, there cannot be an effect without a cause.  Agreed?  There was nothing else that could cause re-creation of the world once the world got obliterated in a Great Dissolution.  But it seems to have been created even in the absence of a cause.  Using this logic we hold that the world was not born and that the seeming world is sublated on obtaining True knowledge.

Rama:  Even if everything is annihilated in the Great Dissolution, the unborn and immutable substance, the Supreme Brahman, remains.  Why can’t we say that Brahman is the cause for the next creation?

Sage Vasishta:  Only that particular effect which is latent within a cause can be born out of that cause.  For example you cannot get a cloth out of a pot.  There are no internal parts within the unborn and immutable Brahman you are speaking about.  How can then world originate in Brahman?

Rama:  One may postulate, following the Sankhyans, that the world exists within the Supreme Brahman compacted into a fine form at the time of Great Dissolution and it re-emerges at the time of creation again?

Sage Vasishta:   What evidence do we have to make such a claim?  Is there an eye witness to vouchsafe that the world existed in a fine compacted form within the Supreme Brahman at the time of Great Dissolution?  The answer is in the negative for both these questions.

The evidence from Vedas is in dire contrast to your contention.  The scriptures repeatedly emphasize that the Supreme Brahman is Consciousness alone and that there are no parts within It. 

Rama:  We’ll concede that the world does not exist in its illusory form at the time of the Great Dissolution.   We say that it existed as Knowledge and it originated from that Knowledge again.  Thus we contend that the cause for the origination of the world is the Supreme Brahman. 

What is wrong with the above idea?  I am pursuing such an argument because non-existing illusion can never obtain beingness.

[Dialog to be continued in Part 2/3.]

AN EXPERIENTIAL EXPRESSION OF "SELF-REALIZATION"

An Experiential Expression Of "Self-Realization"

[Dr. H.K.N. Trivedi is a doctorate in Mathematics. He retired from the Govt. of India in a senior position. In a recent mail exchange, he shared with me his experience of “Self-realization.” He had this to say when I requested his permission to post his mail at the Blog:

“All the words, expressions, feelings, etc. even putting them on paper belong to THAT and therefore, belong to all. Nothing is mine anymore. I hope, Sir, you will very kindly agree that "permission" is indicative of "possessiveness" which is non-existent in this "path". Indeed we are blessed ones and THAT has been very very kind to us.  Not only for "today" but for all "todays", kindly use and communicate THAT's grant as THAT inspires."

The above response is a clear indication that there is no more an ‘ego’ left there. Below is his unedited mail.  I did not include a byline of authorship as an honor and respect to that Oneness that appears in the form of my dear friend Dr. Trivedi – ramesam.]

An Experiential Expression Of "Self-Realization"

I "enjoyed" last week's physical illness as THE SUPREME guided me on following two issues:

(1) “Eko Brahman Dwiteeyo Nasti” so is  “Eko Brahmand Dwiteeyo Nasti”.  “Multitude of universes” is a myth. As THAT is bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest therefore infinitely many universes differing in nature (with finite or infinite attributes including no attribute which is SHUNYA) and dimensions (finite or infinite including zero) may appear to get created and dissolved in THAT. As human beings are finite in nature/attributes as well as dimensions, their vision is limited so they try to measure infinite with a finite scale which is not possible and with that in view THAT IS AGAM,  AGOCHAR, ANADI, ANANT, etc. (Unmoving, Unperceivable, Beginningless, Infinite etc.) inaccessible to the mind and intellect. An entity which is within the whole (THAT) encompassing everything cannot understand THAT. Our imagination, logic, concepts do contemplate within the limits of our vision, thinking and imaginative faculty.  Hence conceiving of THAT and THAT’S manifestations those too with our bounded logic is impossible. There is nothing impossible for THAT.  Personification is our imagination thus making THAT a finite entity with vacant space around while THAT encompasses whole universe within it and is within each entity howsoever small it is. All opposites can be visualized to exist together in THAT. Nothing is simpler than THAT and nothing is more difficult than THAT. When a “learned person” tries to “explain” THAT, all logics fail to take him/her to any conclusion, success in answering one question leads to many more complicated questions. THAT is so merciful to those who have, by That’s KIND GRACE, surrendered to THAT that no “question/doubt” remain in their minds as their explanation mostly precedes. What a contrast!  One continues to traverse in “search” of THAT while THAT remains within him/her. We are walking lined up in closed paths and randomly removed (die) or added (take birth) to those. These paths are perfectly flexible so that any number can be removed and any number can be added. THAT is most flexible. Pulsations of varying degrees and dimensions continue in THAT and those manifest in the form of “creations” and “dissolutions” including the “great dissolution”. THAT is beyond the cause-effect relationship. So question of material or non-material cause(s) does not arise. Everything emerges from THAT and dissolves in THAT or THAT creates/dissolves THATSELF in finite or infinite forms.

(2)  Two distinct paths we have to follow – one for self (the actor in this worldly drama) and the other for realization of SELF. An actor performs multiple roles in life but does not carry them along after a particular act is over. But he/she lives a single life and maintains continuity with the past events in real life and plans for future too.  His/her real and reel lives are quite different and at times may be even contrary. We should distinguish the two roles of self and SELF.  While self needs to wear costumes, utter dialogues, etc as required for a particular role and as directed but for SELF opening up of all envelopes/costumes/shells gradually leading to ANAND stage and finally to be ONE with THAT is required. While for self there is no defined path (each moment may need a different path), for SELF there is only  single PATH and single GOAL While self of Lord Krishna is a cowherd,  does Rasleela in Vrindavan, kills Kans and many more, leaves Mathura  and establishes at Dwarka, etc. , SELF of Lord Krishna awakens Arjuna.  At the end of the role in the worldly drama the self merges with earth and SELF with THAT.
 

With best regards
 H K N Trivedi


Added on 28 Mar 2012:
Dr. Trivedi sent the following mail on the night of 27 Mar 2012 clarifying further on some points:


"Mind, intellect and ego are the most prominent functional features of Maya and their  functionality is essential for role play in the worldly drama. 
Sharpness of the edge is important for a knife, a sword, etc. but only till they are in use. No body talks about the sharpness of the sword placed in a museum or a knife that has been thrown away. 

With physical death of the body (i.e. when body goes out of use or the role play), mind, intellect and ego automatically vanish in the case when the SELF  has gone out of cycle of rebirth; otherwise they continue with Jeeva as samskaras.  

When the clarity of reel and real life are attained, the ceaseless mind ceases collection of information,  the intellect (devoid of information) stops its analysis and synthesis activity and consequently ego’s role play vanishes and this opens the way to get out of the rebirth cycle.
THAT  took me on an extensive tour showing how individuals or group of individuals claim ownership of material possessions, pieces of land, sky, etc. but what happens after they die and told that all these come
under Maya.
THAT  closed the TALK with  the following: Wake up forever; no more “sleep”, no more “dreams”.
With best regards
H K N Trivedi

Why don't I see Brahman? - A Discussion

Why don't I see Brahman? - A Discussion 

[I am grateful to all the friends who took part and created an opportunity for this discussion -- ramesam.]

J: Everywhere and everything is Brahman. Why don't I see Brahman or Consciousness then?

Ramesam (R): The eye cannot see itself. (In order for my eye to see, a “thing” has to be different from me and it should be in my front as an object (= a thing of limited dimensions)).

Expressing differently, though not in very exact terms,

i) If I have to see something, that 'thing' has to be separate from 'me'. But there is only One Thing and that is Consciousness. There being no 'other', I cannot see Consciousness (since I = Consciousness).   Everything sensed (including yourself) is all One Brahman.

ii) If Consciousness sees Itself, what appears to Itself 
is the world !!!

[A doubt may come up as to who is it that is asking or telling? We shall not get into it now.]

H: So, I'm trying to understand how the above relates to self realization. If I realize myself to be consciousness, nothing else, and all is consciousness, isn't that seeing consciousness? Or should I say Experiencing or knowing consciousness?

What was that great vastness, like the bottom dropping out and everything opening up, that happened during the deconstructing exercise? What was that "seeing"?

Ok, I just had a thought, what I was seeing, was something separate from me, still the witness operating, but not myself as THAT. Am I making sense?

So, once the witness disappears, the veil drops, whatever, I will know myself to be THAT, but I can't see it because I am THAT.

Can the words seeing and experiencing and knowing be used interchangeably here or is that the problem?

H: So, I'm trying to understand how the above relates to self realization. If I realize myself to be consciousness, nothing else, and all is consciousness, isn't that seeing consciousness?

R: Once the realization that all is Consciousness occurs, there is no more a 'myself' there, Nor any seeing by a 'me' occurs (except for, of course, functioning for minimal 'maintenance' needs of the body that continues to exist). 

In fact, one way of describing the position of a liberated individual is "A 'Seer' with no-thing to see."

The metaphor is : like a drop of water in the ocean. Can we say that the drop (of water in the ocean) sees the ocean? Does it not lose its boundary and does not its individuation get dissolved in the whole of the water?

H: Or should I say Experiencing or knowing consciousness?

R: Experiencing is also like 'seeing'. It requires the presence of an experiencer.

But Knowing is different. Knowing is an intrinsic quality of Consciousness. 

In fact, Knowingness or Beingness = Consciousness.

"I" has naturally those two intrinsic qualities. That is why you do not need anybody to tell you that you "are" present and "know" by yourself the fact that you are present even though you happen to be in darkness and cannot see the body.

H: What was that great vastness, like the bottom dropping out and everything opening up, that happened during the deconstructing exercise? What was that "seeing"?

R: When the "individual me" loses its sense of locus, such a feeling (like bottom dropping out) takes place. Now who is this "individual me" ? It is the one who finds that it does not really exist but only believed thus far to have been present and existing. It is the "ego." So what drops down is the "ego" whom we mis-identify as the real "I" in our day to day life. The real "I" is Consciousness.

We normally refer to ourselves as: I am so and so.

This sentence has two parts: "I am" and "this so and so".

The “so and so this” part keeps changing - daughter, lady, mother, employer, boss, expert, engineer, fat, thin, literate, illiterate, Indian, American etc.

"I am" is constant and unchanging.

The unchanging part is Consciousness. When it is mixed with "this so and so" changeable part, the resulting mix is the "ego."

H: Ok, I just had a thought, what I was seeing, was something separate from me, still the witness operating, but not myself as THAT. Am I making sense?

R: The "I am" part above has "known" about the 'bottom dropping.' Another name for this "knowing" is the "Witness Consciousness" which has got the knowledge (of bottom dropping). It has witnessed the 'bottom dropping.' After witnessing the event, it is itself Pure Consciousness.

[An important point to be noted with reference to the word "witness."  As in legalese, the witness is one who is dispassionate and disinterested in what he/she witnesses and is completely dissociated and not involved with what is seen (the 'happening' situation).]

H: So, once the witness disappears, the veil drops, whatever, I will know myself to be THAT, but I can't see it because I am THAT.

R: That is correct. In case 'seeing' takes place, two entities have to exist so that one can be the "Seer" and the other can be the "seen." The Seer is the only conscious entity. The seen is always 'inert.'

H: Can the words seeing and experiencing and knowing be used interchangeably here or is that the problem?

R:  They are not interchangeable. Hope the way I now clarify the meaning of the words as I used is clear. Or is it .......?

H: Thank you, it is clear now.

[Also see: "How come we see changing world and not The Immutabe Brahman?"
http://beyond-advaita.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-come-we-see-changing-world-and-not.html ]

A Book on Yogis and Gurus

A Book on Yogis and Gurus

Question:  There is a book in four volumes describing hundreds of Yogis and Gurus living in one of the states of India. Most of them are married and some have even 11 children. But they left their families in pursuit of greater attainment. I think that they have not fulfilled their obligations to their families and my friend feels that they have failed in their ROLE PLAY as father, brother and husband. This question may seem to be not intellectual, but needs an answer if you know. THANKS

ramesam:  Thank you for asking. 

Here's my take:

A. About the Book/author:

1. If the author of the book found some to be yogis out of this immense universe, it appears as though he is using a knife and fork in order to fragment and lift a morsel out of the indivisible One Whole Ocean. The knife cannot cut nor can the fork lift a piece of the ocean (water). Or it is similar to picking up some forms and giving some names to those forms that are considered to be present within one huge cloud. It will not bother the cloud or break it into parts. Will naming one part as wave, another as foam, still another as deep water divide the One immense ocean or affect its Oneness of 'Ocean-ness'?
The knife and fork or labeling the shapes in a cloud are all imaginary filters (or divvying tools) the author is using. The mind creates these filters in order to fragment the Infiniteness into bite-sized things for its own survival. Be aware of these filters and do not be carried away by the story they tell.

2. It is like missing the forest for the trees and branding some trees to be more qualified to be trees than others within that one single forest!

B. About Role Models:

3. If you or your friend found that some (imaginatively divided) parts from within this Immensity did not make the grade, remember that it is you who set some criteria and it is you who is judging the parts to have made the grade or not based on those criteria. In other words, you and your friend are using filters. The filters are your own making.

4. Setting Role Models is like having traffic rules. Can you impose your traffic rules on some birds in a flock  flying in the sky?

5. Is your friend the writer of the script of the drama he is watching to say that one actor has deviated from his script of the role model? How does he know? Or is he watching the drama scripted by somebody else?

C: About the Motive behind your question:

6. Why are you asking this question? Is it not because you feel you are a separate wave sitting somewhere away from the ocean and watching the ocean? Can a single isolated wave (you) be there without the whole ocean? Can a wave exist by itself?

7. And does one wave in the ocean look to learn from or try to imitate another wave? Is there an ideal wave that can be a role model for all the waves in the ocean?

D. In General:

8. The world is one big dream-painting you have projected by yourself. There are different colors in the painting. Can you now, after the painting is done, try to choose one color as more moral than another color? Can red color be a role model for blue?

9. If you are looking for social obligations, societal rules etc., you are looking for assessing and managing relationships, formulating policing mechanisms, and judging behaviors for bestowing rewards and punishments. 

What is the ideal role model relationship between, say, your "back-of-the-neck" to the "calf-muscle-of-the-leg" in your one whole body? Can you dictate any such relationships? Could there be any such relationships at all?

10. To talk of "relationships", there has to be more than one entity to start with.  But there is One only, no second (ekameva advitIyam). Further, your right hand will not pick up a hammer and hit your own face. Because it knows it is all One body. You don't have to tell the right hand. It does not harm the face because it does not consider the face to be separate. It does not need a prior teaching and moral code of conduct. So also you will not need a moral code of conduct when you understand the Oneness. So Morality flows out of this understanding. Morality is not an external imposition.


11.  The so called yogi is as much a flimsy image on the screen as Mr. P or S or ramesam is. Each is a flash. I cannot say one image on the screen of the computer is ideal and the entire screen should be only in the form of that image or color. 

Well, I can say that, then I have the basic screen only - all one color!

12. If one image on the screen separates itself and says all other images should do as per its dictates, does it not show the arrogance of that image to think itself to be the authority?

***

Let me express a word of my gratitude to you. Right here you played the role of a Guru by asking this question.  Because it triggered an inward look into an issue that gripped my mind for one week and the fresh light of this analysis dissolved the problem! Under these circumstances, how are you any less than a Guru whether named in a book or not?  You have been a Guru !


What "IS" is Consciousness only manifesting in all forms wearing different costumes. The costumes are there a minute and gone the other minute. When we are not in the business of washing, why bother to prepare laundry lists (books) of the costumes? 

Who to divide and into what the indivisible One Whole?

WISHING ALL OUR READERS  

SEASON'S GREETINGS AND 

BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR

Mind Conditioning and Oneness Blessing Demystified by JaLee

Mind Conditioning and Oneness Blessing Demystified

by JaLee

[JaLee had a sudden realization of Peace and Oneness over a decade ago. Not knowing the significance of the blessing she had been thrown into, she went on a spiritual investigation for several years. She summarized her experiential observations in the book “wake up, wake up, Remember Who You Are – A Diary of Spiritual Awakening, Enlightenment, Oneness Recognition, Now Presence & Experiential Non-duality Soufflé~:D” published on 1/11/11 by Rhythm Light Press. She provides therapy services in an acute care hospital and also facilitates a Oneness Blessing circle bimonthly in her North Oak Cliff meditation space. In addition, JaLee periodically works with several other awakening groups and conducts experiential ongoing research for the website: http://www.remember-who-you-are.com/

JaLee resides in Dallas, Texas with her kitty and parrot. I am obliged to her for readily consenting to share the findings of her Oneness travels as a Post at this Blog – ramesam.]

Suddenly realizing the unchanging-peace-that-we-already-are in 2000 left me with more questions than answers about the relative world. I don’t come from any particular lineage or spiritual path, so I’ve been like a kid in a candy shop the past 11 years, researching all things related to spiritual seeking and awakening. I’ve mostly connected with the Non-duality community because its teachings resonate with my internal experiences. I appreciate simple and direct pointing to the unspeakable truth of who we really are.

My criteria for researching spiritual awakening are:

1. What is the direct experience?
2. Is there a sense that it is potentially useful? 

Purpose of Spiritual Practice and Mind Conditioning:

During my early years of research, I interviewed others on the purpose of books, meditation, prayers, mantras and precepts. Eventually I concluded that no matter how you package it, all useful practices are designed to relax or exhaust the mind therefore thinning the false veil of separation and fear. It’s believing it to be real or true that causes our collective suffering.

Is your mind conditioning so thick that you believe it is who you really are? Try thinning it. Is it moving so fast, it hides you from who you really are? Try slowing it down. Is it so intense, you cannot hear the silence of who you really are? Try quieting it.  Is it so closed, it continuously tells you lies that you believe, sabotaging your birthright to inner peace? Try opening it. Is it so thick with stagnant smoke, you feel like you are suffocating in the same repeated suffering patterns? Try allowing flow. Of course don’t forget this one: Be as you are right now.

Somewhere along the path, when we have a shift into peace or moments of peace, it’s not because awareness expands—awareness is unchanging. So what is the peace shift about? It’s an effortless, cellular restructuring of thought quality and patterns becoming so infrequent and mild that each thought is viewed as it happens in full realization that these appearances and disappearances belong to no one at all.

Mind Conditioning Impacts Texture and Quality of Experience:

After my initial cellular shift in 2000, my body and mind were on fire in a slow burning blaze which continues even now, 11 years later. Human mind conditioning seems to be the fuel of this fire and as it slowly burns away, more spaciousness is experienced—the unchanging-peace-spaciousness-we-already-are.

Instantly it’s known that there is no problem happening here—conditioning and spaciousness—all is as it is, perfect as it is. There are just different varieties and textures of experience, yet there is nothing to change or get rid of. So imagine my surprise when I came across this kind of brain Reiki called Oneness Blessing (Deeksha).

Of course being passionate about research and sharing, I wondered, “Could Oneness Blessing be a helpful spiritual tool for seekers?” Perhaps it’s more honest to describe my direct experience.

An American Interpretation of Oneness Blessing:

This universal energy transference was re-named Oneness Blessing in 2007 to help Westerners understand the intention of Deeksha more clearly.  “Oneness Blessing” is not describing an act of someone giving someone else enlightenment or the state of oneness—oneness cannot be given or taken away—we are already that. In my experience, the relative energy transmitted in Oneness Blessing appears to serve as a mind whittling tool, allowing the unchanging-peace-oneness-we-already-are, to be more clearly experienced, recognized and realized. This intrinsic oneness realization is the “Blessing”. Other  mind whittling tools with similar intentions include breath meditation, self inquiry, deconstruction inquiry, visualization, mantras, yoga or tantric practices.

Oneness Blessing founders Amma and Bhagavan are from the Hindu culture and reside in India. They are also founders of the Oneness University where thousands train each year. My initial experience with Oneness Blessing began in 2006 when a few locals returned from training in India and began providing it in Dallas, Texas. Oneness Blessing has no dogma or belief system and is not a spiritual path rather it serves as an addition to anyone’s current path.

There are various chanting and visualizations often used to initiate the gathering:

Heart Opening: There might be a close circle during kundalini breath yoga exercises, or chanting the Moola Mantra.

Chakra Opening: Almost always included in the gathering, the Chakra Dhyana is a kundalini chakra activation practice through group chanting, and it reminds me of Western sound healing and chakra balancing or centering work. 

Oneness Blessing Energy Transference: Oneness Blessing feels tangible, intense and potent. Perhaps this is because it targets the brain, and the intention behind it is oneness realization.

Any spontaneous shift of physical healing is commonly considered a miracle or divine grace, regardless of its title or origin. What is the direct experience? Is there a sense that it is potentially useful?

My Direct Experience of Oneness Blessing:

When I first moved to Dallas, Texas in 2006, unfamiliar Hindu culture immersed in the Oneness Blessing presentation provoked me to keep a discerning eye as I attended group sessions occasionally. I felt a healthy amount of skepticism, initially wondering if this was a cult, so I simply observed and experienced.

Sure I experienced spontaneous joy, bliss, tears, giggles and metaphoric visions during the gatherings, it was fun. But I had “been there, done that” and was not impressed that these types of experiences alone could help others realize inner peace. I listened to participants express their own unique experiences and had some sense of, “Oh, this Oneness Blessing seems useful in creating openness, and permeability in the false veil of separation and fear.”

In July, 2011, I received an Email inviting me to train and become a Oneness Blessing provider. Curiosity overcame me. I felt a deep sense of knowing that this was going to be a beautiful energy to share, even if only shared in silence while sitting in a shopping mall. I was in.

The weekend training course was intense and joyful. Besides the usual kundalini chakra practices, it included positive affirmation chanting, relationship and inner child healing with a Oneness twist and many Oneness Blessings received and given throughout. The founders Amma and Bhagavan were not a focus of the training experience. There was no sense of idolizing or worshipping anything. The general group vibe was a sense of openness, unconditional love, joy and gratitude.

Within days following this Oneness Blessing provider initiation, it became apparent to me that although my mind was instantaneously stilled 11 years ago, the slow burning mind conditioning fire had not yet made it to the body memory layers. One of the first conditioning qualities I noticed has disappeared is my obsessive compulsive thought and behavior tendencies. These were shyness, fear of public speaking, over-excitable yet exhausting giddy or nervous full body skin vibration and intense people-pleaser tendencies.

Then I noticed some physical changes. I could not lie on my back during the training course because of lower back pain I’ve had for many months. When I came back home, I began sleeping on my back without pain. My chronic left foot plantar fasciitis made it painful to walk in the mornings, yet this seems to be significantly diminished. My blood pressure dropped 10 points and my colon is working better now.

 I’m not a vegetarian, yet I cook all vegetables for some meals. No one suggested this, it just happened. Also I’ve enjoyed cigarettes and alcohol off and on since my teens, but suddenly both cravings are gone. I did drink a margarita the other night, it was delicious, but its effects were different. It wasn’t bad, it was just sort of neutral yet numbing as if it dulled the present experience. Interesting. 

I don’t know why or how these deep patterns shifted and disappeared. Experientially this has given me a sense that Oneness Blessing somehow relaxes or dissolves layers of mind-body conditioning.

Our unending dream right now is a relative experience. As more conditioning naturally burns away, the body feels easier, lighter, more magical and free. Within this remains deep knowing beyond thought or description, the eternal-peace-oneness-we-already-are.

So based on my direct experience, I do sense that Oneness Blessing is a potentially useful mind-body conditioning whittling tool, and may be a beneficial to some spiritual seekers on the path to realizing irreversible inner peace. If you feel repelled by the idea of it, most likely it’s not for you. If you feel drawn to it, then maybe it would be useful. It’s really that simple. 

More information on Oneness Blessing can be obtained from: http://www.onenessuniversity.org/

Sage Vasishta's Response to Prajnapti's Questions

Sage Vasishta's Response to Prajnapti's Questions
[Yogavaasishta is an authoritative Advaitic scripture of about 32,000 verses divided into six chapters. The last chapter is Nirvana. It comes in two parts – Purva (Book I) and Uttara (Book II).  King Prajnapti, Ruler of the City Ilavati, raises many doubts about Creation and the world that appears to us. These are the sort of questions any one of us would like to ask. Sage Vasishta gives his answers from Sargas 204 to 210 in Book II of the sixth Chapter Nirvana. Presented here is an Extract (adopted with slight modifications) from a forthcoming Book – Yogavaasishta, Chapter VI: Nirvana - Book II by Shri K.V. Krishna Murthy, English Translation by Dr. Vemuri Ramesam. The Questions were posted on 23 Sept 2011.]


Part II: Sage Vasishta's Response to Prajnapti's Questions:


Vasishta:  Oh, King Prajnapti!  These are very interesting questions.  I may not answer your questions sequentially.  However, I shall explain all the points raised by you through a coherent and comprehensive response.  Please follow my presentation attentively.

You have an awareness of a thing ‘being’ present and also a thing ‘not being’ present.   If you carefully look at it, what you have in both cases is awareness.  Awareness is knowledge.

But knowledge has a peculiar quality.  It shows the things in the way it conceives them.  If it strongly feels that a thing ‘is’ there, it will be there.  If it feels strongly it ‘is not’ there, it will not be there.  A good example for this is the dreamscape.  The knowledge within you felt during the period of dreaming that the dream world existed.  Then the dream world attained beingness and showed up.  After a while, the knowledge within you felt that it was not there.  Immediately it disappears.  You call it as waking up.

We can infer from this that ‘is’ and ‘is not’ (a thing being present or not being present) are different forms of knowledge.  What really is in both the cases is knowledge or awareness.

Hence if the knowledge within you feels anywhere anytime that it has a body, there will be a body.  If it feels otherwise, there will not be a body.  When it feels the body is there, the knowledge thinks that it is the body.  It superimposes the qualities of the body on knowledge and the qualities of knowledge on the body.  This is how bodies are generated and maintained.

Your question was on how bodies could be produced in heaven and hell. You can understand that they are born by the process of superimposition by knowledge.

Here is an important point that you may take note of.  When I said knowledge, I do not mean the Supreme Knowledge of Brahman.  Pure Knowledge of Brahman is different from the knowledge that makes aware of your body and senses.  The quality of ‘knowing’ is a property of the knower.  In other words it is his nature.  It exists as an imagination.

Let us consider dreams as an example.  You think at the time of dreaming that you are witnessing some objects which are separate from you.  But the fact is you witness yourself!  That is to say that you are “awaring” yourself.  This sort of ‘knowing’ is your nature.

During your wakeful state also it works the same way.  Certain awareness within you takes the form of your body.  You do not have any body beyond this.  If you understood this clearly, it will answer the first seven of your questions.

In your next question you raised the issue of atheism.  The atheists opine that the body is responsible for awareness.  It implies that consciousness emanates from inert substance.  This is totally unacceptable.  But they come up with a counter question.  If a body is produced from Consciousness as we say, they ask why the body lacks the ability to be aware of things after death.   My answer is as follows:

You are Consciousness-Self.  The dream world originated from you.  Therefore, it has also to be conscious like you.  Why then the inert things like rocks and stones appear in the dream?  The only answer for this question is that you had certain thoughts at the beginning of the dream.  You witness some things that are sentient and some things that are insentient in your dream corresponding to those initial thoughts.  In other words, you yourself appear as inert substance at some places and as conscious substance at other places in the dreamscape based on your initial thoughts.  This is true from your own experience.

Because of the nature of the thought that occurred to Hiranyagarbha at the moment of the beginning of the creation, you find a dead body to be inert.  This is a finding that is only apparently so.  The fact is the entire world is Consciousness just like the total dreamscape is you yourself. What causes your body is also the same thing.  So the argument of the atheist does not stand to reason.  We do not, therefore, support it.

You brought up a new issue of substances with form and without form in your ninth question.  This question does not have a locus.  We have already said that the entire creation was of illusory origin and that there was no solid reason behind creation.

It is in your experience that Consciousness-Self appears as a dream when you are alive. Similarly, after death, Consciousness-Self appears as the higher world.  The unavoidable cycle of wakeful and dream states while living and higher worlds after death go on appearing till one obtains perfect Self-Knowledge.  The effects of good actions, donations, offerings to the dead etc. are also experienced as a part of this illusory cycle.  That is why we declare that scriptures are true only until one is liberated. There is nothing illogical in this proposition. This answers your last question.

The eleventh question of yours concerns the powers of performing miracles by Yogis.  These things happen as per the laws embedded in the initial thought pattern of Hiranyagarbha. That is to say that Hiranyagarbha must have wished for the transformation of things as per the curses and boons of Yogis and a few others.

We do not have to search far from the thought process of Hiranyagarbha to find the cause-effect relationships in the world.  Even the temporary appearance of this non-existent world and its later disappearance is also a part of Hiranyagarbha’s original thoughts.  A poetic way of saying it is: it is creation when Consciousness opens Its eyes; it is dissolution when It closes Its eyes.

King Prajnapti:  Maharishi! If the world appears because of Hiranyagarbha’s thoughts, why would it have to go through periods of dissolution?  When once he thinks of creating, the creation could as well stay put permanently!   

Vasishta:  Dear King!  You yourself conceived the dream world.  But it does not stay permanently.  Why?  It is so because of the nature of your thought.  No purpose is served by looking for the causes of such a thought.  Just as it is your nature in the case of your dreams, it is the nature of Hirnayagarbha’s thoughts to make the worlds disappear during deep sleep, dissolution and Nirvana.  Because of the same reason, fire is hot, water is cool and so on.  This answers your 14^th question too.

At the cost of repetition let me say this.  The Ever Existent Pure Consciousness Itself appears as the world.  In other words, what truly exists and what apparently exists is the same.  

That is the nature of Pure Consciousness. You derive the attributes of creation based on this.  This will also bring necessary convergence to the Vedic statements referred by you in your 12^th question.

You had several doubts about the results of performing austerities and meditation in your questions from 15^th to 18^th.  Before going into those issues, you need to know a few basics about piety and impiety. 

Boons and curses, merit and sin and so on work like mutually opposing forces.  The austerities performed by friends and foes also operate on the same principle.  If they are of equal strength, they cancel out each other.  Otherwise their algebraic sum will be the resultant effect.  Sometimes it may so happen that the opposing forces cannot cancel out one another.  Then the individual obtains two bodies in order to experience both the effects simultaneously.  The two bodies may be externally visible or only one of them visible to outsiders and the other visible only to him. 

In a case as described by you where a well-wisher prays for the longevity of an individual’s life and the enemy prays for immediate death, the individual may reap the benefit of his friend’s prayer in his normal body and go through the throes of death in another imaginary body in another imaginary place.

King Prajnapti:  My contention is that it is not possible to get even one body with a definite shape from the formless piety and impiety.  How can you say that not one but even two bodies can be obtained from such conceptual things?

Vasishta: Why two, depending on the situation, even a thousand bodies may be produced!  Are you alone not becoming battalions of armies fighting each other in your dream world?  How can you set any limiting condition of numbers on conceptually generated pure imaginary worlds?

King Prajnapti:  On one hand you argue that the entire world is an illusion.  On the other you argue that the curses and boons, higher worlds etc. are real.  This is very unreasonable!

Vasishta:  If you admit that the world is a mere fantasy, there is no argument!  Not only is this world, the higher world too is an illusion.  Actions, results of actions are also an illusion.  That is in fact the Ultimate Truth!  But your questions are not based on the final Truth.  Your questions are all based on the presumption that the world is real.  Therefore, I respond to you at the same level as if this world, the higher worlds and so on are real. 

Then you counter me saying how can there be so many mutual contradictions within it.  My reply is that the world is like a dream.  It is pure fantasy.  Hence anything may happen within it!  What I said is not untenable.  You will have no confusion if you see things from a correct perspective.

Your 16^th question was whether there would be a dozen moons in the sky if a dozen people meditate successfully wishing to be moons.  Suppose two people look at the moon.  Both of them think that they are seeing one and the same moon.  The entire world functions with such a belief.  This is plainly an unsupported assumption and is not the Truth. 

The fact is each person lives in his private world created by his own imagination.  He does not live in a world created by others.  Each to himself!  Though the worlds seem to merge into one another like a hand into a glove, two worlds are never the same.  Their skies are different and so also the moons.

So if a dozen people wish to become the moon, each will become a moon in his own imaginary world.  One will not appear in the sky of the other.  The dozen of them will thus become moons.  We discussed some of these things in the Story of Indavas.

Depending on the strength of his thoughts, each man would become the Hiranyagarbha of his world.  The Indavas did become like that.  You had asked why there should be only one Hiranyagarbha.  There is no particular significance whether it is one or many.  Each person’s world is his fantasy.  It is equivalent to a dream.  If you can understand this, you need not rise this question at all.

Your 17^th question regarding the beautiful lady or the next question on the indolent king who wanted to rule the seven islands without leaving his home can also be resolved on the above basis.  The lazy man can create the islands in his imagination sitting right in his room. These matters were discussed in detail earlier in the Story of Leela.

My Dear King!  I covered with this all your questions.  As you may have observed, the underpinning argument for all my replies is that the visible world is just an imagined creation of the only One Thing that exists – Pure Consciousness.  This is the final Truth.  You can understand all the remaining things based on this fact.

King Prajnapti:  Great Sage!  I can appreciate very well what you said.  However, I still have a doubt.  According to you, the embodied entity Hiranyagarbha was born at the beginning of creation because of a thought.  But what we normally find in the world is that we need first a body in order that the consciousness in that body can start conceptualizing a world.  We do not find a consciousness without a body imagining things.  If we apply this observation to the first born Hiranyagarbha, he can begin to imagine the world only after he gets a body.  But a body cannot be there unless there is an imagination as you put it.  How does your theory resolve this conundrum?

Vasishta:  It is not valid to say that Consciousness originates from a body.  Consciousness is prior to creation.  Body is a thing created.  Body is a pure imagined entity.  What has come later cannot be the substrate for the first thing.  Hence it is incorrect to hold that Consciousness is dependent on the body.

You say that Consciousness is expressed only where there is a body and not otherwise.  It is not because Consciousness is absent at other places.  It is rather your inability to cognize Consciousness which is everywhere.  You classify certain objects of your dream as conscious and certain others as inert though it is entirely your Consciousness. It is because you are unable to recognize Consciousness in all the dream objects.  Everything that exists in the dream world or wakeful world, whether inert or conscious, is Consciousness.  Brahman is Consciousness. Hence there is no dependency of one over the other as everything is only One Consciousness.

King Prajnapti:  Sir, you hold that the body of the wakeful state is a form of Consciousness and so also the body in the dream state. Why do you then teach us that the wakeful state body is similar to the dream state body?

Vasishta:  It is just an expression used at the initial stages to make things simple for you to understand.   We have to find an illustration to teach you that the body that is seen, though visible, is unreal and it is none other than Brahman in its true substance.  Your dream body fits that example.  Your dream body is unreal even at the time you are able to see it.  From the substrate point of view, it is you yourself.  Thus there is a similarity between the wakeful state body and the dream state body.

Just as the dream state body in reality is you yourself, the true form of the wakeful state body is Brahman.  The dream body illustrates this point well.  That was all the intent; but it is not to say that the dream state body is different from the wakeful state body.

The Truth is that anything seen appears because of imagination. What appears because of imagination cannot be True.  Hence there is no wakeful state; there is no dream state; there is no deep sleep state; everything is a form of the Consciousness-Space.

If you know Pure Brahman as Pure Brahman, it is Nirvana.  If you do not, it is bondage.  This is the final message!

King Prajnapti:  Maharishi!  My doubts stand cleared by your benevolence!