Correct View

Within the depths of each one of us there is a "place" where thought and feeling converge. This is called saksin--which means the Witness. Ramana Maharshi called this point I-I, which is to say the I underneath the I that I take myself to be. This I-I is the root of everything that seems to indicate my existence as being distinctly separate from another person's existence.

All of this may sound a bit odd until I ask the question, "When I say I what is referring to what?" Usually a person goes through their entire life and never wonders about this; they simply go with the flow of the situation. After all, it's what everyone else is doing, so what is the point of questioning like this? Especially if my life is going well, I am probably not going to question it. We all know the adage: "If it's not broken don't fix it."

Still, for many people there is an ongoing nagging feeling that something is not entirely right about this "not broken" state of affairs. And occasionally among these people there is someone brave or trouble so much that he or she is unable to keep a lid on what is boiling on the inside. This person is not meaning to offend the rest of society--but they do it at least in an indirect way--if not in a very direct--way. But this is only because this person finds that the society is like gravity. Everyone is saying "Why don't you just keep the lid on tight like the rest of us are doing?"--"Do you think that you are somehow special?"

The answer is that this person does not necessarily think that he or she is special. It's just that things are boiling so much under the lid, that the lid is going to come off anyway; even if they try very hard to listen to everyone and keep it on.

***

If I am this rare kind of person, then what is it that keeps making me feel like my lid is going to blow? The answer is that the whole situation is beyond my control, as much as I understand myself to be a separate and distinct individual. I am like a ripple on a stream and moving within the greater power and vaster situation of all of life. So if I am going to blow, I can not keep things contained after things reach a certain point. However, as dramatic as this metaphor may sound, it is really just a natural part of things for me to eventually reach this point. But after I do I can probably never be content again with how the rest of society sees it. I very much have to know--because it seems like there must be more--"What exactly is this 'more'?"

By asking questions like this I naturally turn inward--because although society kept encouraging me to look outward, now I have these greater questions. So I know that continuing to look outward like I have been doing is probably not going to get me a good response to my questions.

At this point, if I have always gone to church in the past, I will likely feel that I don't want to go anymore. Everyone at church was part of the society--part of group of family, friends and acquaintances who kept saying "Just keep it together."--"Don't forget that we care about you and are only saying this for your own good." And of course a friend or family member is usually speaking out of love or concern. They have no experience of what life is like after the lid has blown off of it--but maybe they have heard stories about people who have gone this far. "what if you end up like Mother Teresa or Ramana Maharshi or Yogi Ramsuratkumar?"--"You may not have time for me in the same way anymore." Everyone who loves you just doesn't want to lose you. But, as I was saying, if it is time for everything to go like this (because that is where the whole stream is going), then not even God can change it. Only--unlike your friends and loved ones--God is okay with it--He doesn't wish to change it.

So it is the greater power that comes through my inner feeling that is behind things when my lid comes off. And being in the flow of this feeling turns me inward in greater and greater ways so that I can get a pure mind and do pure action and then get to the deepest depths of myself--my I-I.

[More to come.]

"Why the Sanskrit?"

Hi again,

I have been checking your blogspot some more and it feels very genuine and thorough. At the same time, there is something I'd like to share with you.

To me, this whole Sanskrit word-world is creating an unnecessary veil. I can't connect through the many Sanskrit concepts that are being used. And this is not only in your blogspot. It's in many groups and circumstances.

It was when the Great Freedom sailed up at the horizon many things became clear -- for the first time for me -- and not covered in a language that I have no relationship to.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

in love, cattis

***

Hi Cattis,

I appreciate your openness to share your concerns with me about this point. And I do have some thoughts about the use of Sanskrit on my blog.

Basically in the summer of 2006, after over a decade of sadhana (spiritual practice) and intensive vichara (self-inquiry), I found that there was an end to all of the questions I had had about the nature of myself and life. Almost right way I felt deeply compelled to share about this with other people. So, since my teacher had encouraged me to do so, I stuck a foot forward. And, yes, there was a lot of inner clarity--which may be similar to what you have described above.

However, I found that whenever I spoke about these matters, although the curious, good people who came around seemed to get a hit of positive feeling, on the whole they were not able to connect with what I was saying. It was more recently (within the last few months) that I found the traditional terminology to be enormously helpful and so I have been using it—although I’ll admit: the Sanskrit is difficult for me too. And yet even in conversation, as long as I explain the meaning of the words carefully as we go along, everyone seems to be following what I say much more easily than before.

Additionally--and more importantly--I have found through the traditional teachings of Vedanta that there is a method that is like a thorn (self-knowledge) to remove a thorn (self-ignorance). So I don’t have to sit with the good people who come around and hope along with them that they will catch the enlightenment virus from "special me". Because the fact is that I’m not special. At least I am not any more special than anyone else! :) I only pass along the thorn of self-knowledge and it is up to the other person to remove their own self-ignorance. So the Sanskrit words are at the heart of this method which is very valuable.

Of course not everyone in our society appreciates that living a pure life (not to mention genuine Self-realization) may not come about instantly and that they will probably have to make significant self-effort to change their situation. Not effort to be the Self—because everyone already is the Self—but to remove the self-ignorance from their own mind. At any rate, this may sometimes include learning a spiritual language--such as Sanskrit. Whether this takes years or lifetimes it can not happen until a person is willing from within their own heart to shoulder-in and work on it.

I hope this is helpful for you,

Nathan

***

Thank you for answering my question in such a caring way.

Whatever it takes for the truth to reveal itself to any sincere and willing heart, no? (If that means learning Sanskrit or keep on searching for a teaching in your own language.)

cattis

***

There is a potential danger that is usually overlooked with using my own language and it is this: the way that I am sharing depends on "me". So anyone who comes around with burning questions will probably just get my single-handed vision--even if I am rolling a square wheel! Western culture values the view of the individual mystic over the view of tradition (even in the cases when the tradition is deeply mature and carefully communicated).

To avoid this dymanic was also related to my shift from top-of-my-head teachings to alignment with a tradition. The society does not determine the dynamic between me and anyone who asks me a question. At this point the individualism that seemed radical within Western society when it was beginning decades ago (at least that's the timeline here in the States) is clearly the new status quo.

What are your thoughts about this? Why do you choose "searching for your own language" as you say above? I realize there may be many different dynamics aside from the ones that I just mentioned that are really generalized conclusions I have come too after backing up on the current spirituality scene.

Nathan

***

Yes, I can see the potential danger you describe.

But isn't there another danger in using a very specific and foreign language?

To rely on words based in traditional Sanskrit concepts has, in my own experience, a potential of creating isolation in the geographical situation where this gradual shift of settling into the obviousness of who I am, actually is embodied. And lived out.

It can be an expression of individualism and 'spiritual specialness' to use a traditional spiritual language that is not commonly used in our society too. I'm not saying that it is in your case. I just say it can be, 'cause I've experienced that. It was when I was deeply involved in a yoga organization (The Art of Living) that revolved around an Indian teacher called Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.

My experience was that the Sanskrit descriptions and concepts being used distanced me from my fellow beings (except those already involved in the Sanskrit language), sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. And I was trying real hard to get into the Sanskrit language, but it always felt as such a contrived way of expressing...

Where I am right now, it is essential to not even call recognizing awareness spiritual or religious. I like to call it the ultimate meaning of being human.

It belongs to all and everybody (but it's not ordinary in the way some Neo-Advaitins state). And is available to anyone with a sincere and willing heart. That is why I choose searching for a teaching in my own language -- to answer your question. To be able to show the availability even in words.

cattis

***

Hi Cattis,

Thank you for your responses to my questions. I have some thoughts regarding them--but they are not meant in the spirit of rolling over the top of what you have said, which is quite wonderful! Maybe they could sit beside your thoughts...

1) I agree that "spiritual specialness" may also show up within the context of an established tradition. I think this is due to the fact that usually the motives for seeking Self-realization are mixed for any student, that is to say, they are usually both pure and impure. Nonetheless, when I am learning the shared language of a proven tradition, there is alongside of these mixed motives a mean that helps me to never forget that the idea (which is higher and greater than what any given person could achieve) is for me to live in an increasingly pure way--and ultimately not for my "me" anymore.

2) Also if one were to single-handedly develop a new language--a new mean--that successfully communicated about Reality (and this is a huge "if"), then everyone who came into contact with this new teaching-language would still have an initial hurdle to get over in order to follow the meaning. Just because a teaching is in a purely native language wouldn't automatically allow the meaning to be followed. For example, Sri Ramakrishna's manner of speaking was equivalent to that of a farmer and yet pundits and seekers and students alike all have some initial difficulty getting inside of the meaning of his words.

So it seems that what is really at issue is the clarity and skill (or the lack thereof) with which the teacher wields his or her words. Not to mention the sincerity (or lack thereof) of the student.

3) Additionally, in the case of a new teaching-language the bugs would not be worked out completely, so it would not be possible for it to be as effective as a proven system that has been carefully "refined" by many, many brilliant people over a long period of time.

On a more personal note, my father was a Baptist minister and as I was growing up we would have every day what we called "family alter". During this time my father would read us a chapter or two from the Bible--which was really wonderful! One line that always stood out to me was one from Proverbs that said, "Iron sharpens iron, and every person sharpens his or her friend." I always think that conversation between spiritual friends is like this. It never hurts to keep sharp! :)

I have appreciated our exchanges so far. If you would like to, I would be happy to continue to discuss this topic with you. Or if you want to discuss something else we certainly can...even on my blog which has no comments so far...

Nathan

***

No, it never hurts to keep sharp.

It all boils down to how you wrote: "So it seems that what is really at issue is the clarity and skill (or the lack thereof) with which the teacher wields his or her words. Not to mention the sincerity (or lack thereof) of the student."

So whatever works works. The sincerity and clarity of both teacher and student will tell.

The Great Freedom Teaching, that my heart knows is for me, is still in English... which is not my native language. I appreciated our exchange too. I was trying to comment on the blog, but somehow it didn't work. Please feel free to put anything or everything from our exchange on the blog if you like, and you can use my name too. It doesn't matter to me to keep it anonymous. You can also correct my spelling.

in love, cattis

Prasna-Uttara-Malika

What is the best thing a spiritual aspirant can do?
Carry out his guru's instruction.

What must be avoided?
Deeds which lead us into greater ignorance of the truth.

Who is a guru?
He who has found the truth of Brahman and is always concerned for the welfare of his disciples.

What is the first and most important duty for a man of right understanding?
To cut through the bonds of worldly desire.

How can one be liberated?
By attaining the knowledge of Brahman.

Who, in this world, can be called pure?
He whose mind is pure.

Who can be called wise?
He who can discriminate between the real and the unreal.

What poisons the spiritual aspirant?
Neglect of the guru's teachings.

For one who has achieved human birth, what is the most desirable objective?
To realize that which is his ultimate good and to be constantly engaged in doing good to others.

What deludes a man like intoxicating drink?
Attachment to the objects of the senses.

What are thieves?
The objects which steal our hearts away from the truth.

What causes the bondage of worldly desire?
Thirst to enjoy these objects.

What is the obstacle to spiritual growth?
Laziness.

What is the best weapon with which to subdue others?
Sound reasoning.

Wherein lies strength?
In patience.

Where is poison?
Within the wicked.

What is fearlessness?
Dispassion.

What is most to be feared?
To become possessed by your own wealth.

What is most rarely found among mankind?
Love for the Lord.

What are the evils most difficult to rid oneself of?
Jealousy and envy.

Who is dear to the Lord?
He who is fearless and takes away fear from others?

How does on attain liberation?
By practicing spiritual disciplines.

Who is most lovable?
The knower of Brahman.

How does one develop the power of discrimination?
Through service to an elder.

Who are elders?
Those who have realized the ultimate truth.

Who is truly wealthy?
He who worships the Lord with devotion.

Who profits from his life?
The humble man.

Who is a loser?
He who is proud.

What is the most difficult task for a man?
To keep his mind under constant control.

Who protects an aspirant?
His guru.

Who is the teacher of this world?
The Lord.

How does one attain wisdom?
By the grace of the Lord.

How is one liberated?
Through devotion to the Lord.

Who is the Lord?
He who leads us out of ignorance.

What is ignorance?
The obstacle to the unfoldment of the Divine which is within us.

What is the ultimate Reality?
Brahman.

What is unreal?
That which disappears when knowledge awakes.

How long has ignorance existed?
From a time without beginning.

What is unavoidable?
The death of the body.

Whom should we worship?
An incarnation of God.

What is liberation?
The destruction of our ignorance.

Who is not to be trusted?
He who lies habitually.

What is the strength of a holy man?
His trust in God.

Who is a holy man?
He who is forever blissful.

Who is free from sin?
He who chants the name of the Lord.

What is the source of all the scriptures?
The sacred syllable OM.

What carry us across the ocean of worldliness?
The lotus feet of the Lord; they carry us like a great ship.

Who is bound?
He who is attached to worldliness.

Who is free?
He who is dispassionate.

How is heaven attained?
The attainment of heaven is freedom from cravings.

What destroys craving?
Realization of one's self.

What is the gate of hell?
Lust.

Who lives in happiness?
He who has attained samadhi.

Who is awake?
He who discriminates between right and wrong.

Who are our enemies?
Our sense-organs, when they are uncontrolled.

Who are our friends?
Our sense-organs, when they are controlled.

Who is poor?
He who is greedy.

Who is totally blind?
He who is lustful.

Who has overcome the world?
He who has conquered his own mind.

What are the duties of a spiritual aspirant?
To keep company with the holy, to renounce all thoughts of "me" and "mine", to devote himself to God.

Whose birth is blessed?
His who does not have to be reborn.

Who is immortal?
He who does not have to pass through another death.

When is one established in the idea of renunciation?
When one knows that Atman and Brahman are one.

What is right action?
Action that pleases the Lord.

In this world, what is the greatest terror?
The fear of death.

Who is the greatest hero?
He who is not terror-stricken by the arrows which shoot from the eyes of a beautiful girl.

Who is poor?
He who is not contented.

What is meanness?
To beg from someone who has less than you.

Whom should we honor?
Him who does not beg from anyone.

Who, in this world, is truly alive?
He whose character is free from blemish.

[More to come.]

Translated by Swami Prabhavananda & Christopher Isherwood

The Triple Method, Etc.

Can you teach me the triple method you have mentioned?

Yes. However there are some important things we will benefit from considering first. To begin with, we will want to come to a mutual agreement regarding from what level you are thinking. Is it the level of manas or is it higher? Why? Because if it is at the level of manas then there may be a lot of challenge to getting started with sadhana. There are many things that are part of the daily normal grind for the conventionally mature adult in our society that are totally contrary to sattvic living. The entire spiritual endeavor is one of overcoming all of the countless ways I am being contrary to myself. It is like this for every person because of vasanas. In the Scriptures even the Gods have problems with inner turmoil--inner conflict.

Next we would want to see together if you can accomplish a pure mind and pure action and meet the four qualifications of a sincere student. These qualifications can not be accomplished on a whim. My own teacher encouraged me for many years to live in sattvic way--and little by little he got through to me about things, so I could change within myself.

Importantly, it may not be reasonable to say "I want to go through everything and accomplish the four qualifications in one year!" This is manas mentality--lower mind mentality. It is better to simply shoulder-in and take the next step forward.

I have a good friend who just quite smoking--so he just made a stride--even though he follows Christianity rather than Vedanta--in his sadhana. Getting the taste that "I can change it because I have changed it" is invaluable. But there is no need to measure myself everyday to see how much I have grown. If I do this, it will seem like I am not growing at all so I will be constantly discouraging myself.

Also we will need some time to have a relationship. You do not know me well. What if I turn out to be a teacher who ends up--in one way or other--doing something that does not reflect a pure mind and pure action? If I let you down in this way then there could be some problems between us that start to interrupt our opportunity. Only time will tell if I have a pure mind and pure action that you can trust.

Lastly, none of what I am explaining is meant to imply perfection at the empirical level. Striving for perfection is not what striving for pure mind and pure action means. No one is perfect at the level of vyavaharika. This is important to recognize because if I try to be perfect in a way that is impossible I will set myself up for a lifetime of failure and the weight of the guilt and shame that come with it.

Can't I just read about the triple method in books? What happens then? If I read about it in the Scriptures can I get it?

Certainly you can read it in the Scriptures and in the books. Only it will not make much sense outside of living a sattvic life as the same Scriptures and books recommend.

We live in an instant-everything society. Especially people my age (thirty-five) or younger are used to being able to google the answer to any question. But I only think this way out of habit because of what I keep relying on--which is a computer. It helps me to step back and realize that I can't google everything. I can't google to become a champion weightlifter. To be a champion weightlifter many things beyond my control have to be dealt to me as my "hand." For example, I have to have excellent genes, a parent or guardian who takes me to a superb trainer--and to the competitions that will launch my career. And it goes without saying that I have to put in considerable self-effort. Otherwise I will not succeed.

It is the same if I wish to be a spiritual champion. Hanuman who is the champion of The Ramayana didn't just have good karma and God's favor and lucky breaks. He made steady and unshakable self-effort. But he did not make the kind of effort that says, "I am trying to be perfect." Hanuman's effort was all in the direction of devotion to the Lord. His devotion had legs--he put it into action in the form of seva. So he got the fruit of wisdom as a result. Anyone who is striving for a pure mind and pure action has a wonderful example in Hanuman. Hanuman is sattvic through and through.

But many teachers of Advaita don't even mention sattvic living.

Yes. And it it notable that the majority of these teachers are Westerners. We have just noted that Western society is an instant-everything society--including instant Self-realization. There are actually a lot of problems with the majority of Western teachers that may not initially be seen as problematic by a Western seeker (who is part of the same society). But for now it is sufficient for us to note that in this context the seeker will likely ask for instant Self-realization. So any teacher who tries to give it is still locked in with the status quo.

Yet more and more teachers keep coming out and offering instant Self-realization. These teachers are still slaves to the society and, as a result, they will (however unwittingly) attempt to keep anyone who listens to them a slave too. If they weren't slaves they would not be offering instant Self-realization. They would be offering something different from the societal status quo. They would be giving the teaching that has been proven to benefit people--but maybe they would try to fit it with the different social context. After all, modern Western society is different from ancient India. But this could be an entirely different conversation...

"Sit in Your Own Awareness"

Verse four of chapeter one of The Ashtavakra Gita says very directly, "Sit in your own awareness." What any person is likely to discover upon reading or hearing this phrase is this: "Try as I might I can not sit in my awareness. I don't even know what my awareness is." But this sentence gives an idea of where everything is going. Because even if I don't yet know how to sit in my awareness, I may have some faith to know that this is a suggestion from an illustrious Scripture called The Ashtavakra Gita--which is all about the highest and deepest nature of myself. So even if the phrase is talking about a goal that seems very distant, I can trust that it would not be in this remarkable collection of teachings if it were not possible for me.

Since this is the case, my question may then be, "How do I learn to sit in my awareness?" This is where we find that this fine teaching at first appears to be something of a misnomer. As the Ancient Rshis of The Upanishads have explained "You are That." I know that the word "you" refers to myself in the depths, but to what does the word "That" refer? The answer is that it refers to Awareness. "That" is Awareness. I can easily understand this because--with anything that appears--I have to have awareness first so that I can be aware of it. And I am aware of anything of which I am aware through the six pramanas which are pratyaksha (perception), anumana (inference), upamana (comparison), arthapatti (postulation), anupalabdhi (non-apprehension), and sabda (verbal testimony). These pramanas are a part of me at the level of vyavaharika. But none of these are the Awareness which is myself.

At this point we might find ourselves asking, "If my awareness is what the pramanas and everything else appear in, then how can anything at this level of vyavaharika help me learn how to sit in the awareness within which these things are appearing?"--"If my awareness is like my eyes, which can not see themselves although they see any object that appears in front of them, how can I do this?" And here is where we find that there is a difference between my body and my mind.

My body is a physical object while my mind is not an object in the same way. My mind is non-physical. At the level of manas I may be inclined to think that my mind is my brain. But confusing these two is like confusing my heart with the blood that is flowing through it. Fortunately my mind has levels that are deeper than manas and it is possible for me to recognize them. This is important because it is at these levels, these depths that I am able to discriminate between the unreal and the Real and realize "I am That."

***

So if I am at the level of manas then I may want to question, "What is it that is keeping me here?"--"Why am I not certain that I am That?" The answer is that I am involving myself in so many things that are contrary to That. And all of these things can be summed up in a single word: avidya. I am ignorant of myself and as a result I am always fighting within and against myself.

In chapter sixteen of The Bhagavad Gita Krishna explains to Arjuna about the divine, fiendish and demoniacal natures. It is the last two of these natures of course that keep me buried in avidya while the first nature--the divine nature--because it is necessarily sattvic leads me to moksha by leading me away from avidya. Within relation to the Self my avidya is not Real; it does not exist. Yet "it" is keeping me from realizing "I am That"--"I am the Whole." Ramana Maharshi was once asked "How did avidya arise at all?" To this he replied "Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. That which is, is only vidya." So the questioner asked him "Why then do I not realize?" And Ramana answered "Because of the samskaras." Samskaras are related to the karma that I create in the moment when I believe "I am other than the Whole." Once I am "buried" in this way there is the need for me to dig myself out.

Now a samskara is a mental tendency that drives the things that I do. It is a force of habit of which I am probably unaware. For example, when someone speaks to me in a raised voice because he or she is angry, then I might reciprocate--I might yell back. I yell back because I am now expressing anger. If I stop to ask "Is the fact that another person is angry reason enough for me to be angry?" I might break from the habit and see the situation in a clearer way. Anger is only one among many qualities of a person who has a demoniacal or fiendish nature. This lower nature is addressed in the above-mentioned chapter beginning with verse seven.

Notably in verse twenty-one Krishna summarises his entire list of these qualities (which are really innumerable) and explains that by avoiding the three qualities of desire, anger and greed any person can avoid all of the innumerable demoniacal and fiendish qualities because one of these three will be at the root of any of the others. So with this summary everyone is given a clear way out of feeling like "I have too many lower qualities"--"I will never be able to work through all of them and so I will always be under the bondage of avidya."

At the beginning of The Gita Arjuna is dejected and he expresses a fatalistic view to Krishna. In this way and in many others, Krishna helps Arjuna to rise up out of his ineffectual state of mind and attend to his duty. As Arjuna is encouraged--if we are studying The Gita and feeling like Arjuna--then we are encouraged. Why? Because if Arjuna, who was so overwhelmed by problems (which are much larger than our problems) can find the way to move forward, then we can do it--we can get out of our ineffectual state of mind too.

To be encouraged in this way is very valuable to me. It can not only help realize what I want--but may not have ever found the words to frame--but it can also help me put an end to the conflict that is going on within myself. The only reason that I am having the conflict is because both sides--the sattvic and the lower--are still strong--and I have not put down my fiendish and demoniacal natures by discovering that I can live in a divine way with a pure mind and pure action. Success in ending this conflict within myself affords me the opportunity to turn inward to the depths of myself and discover that what I am--what I have always been--is Awareness.

That is to say, an Awareness that is sitting inside Itself.

Manas & the Teacher

Often seekers ask teachers for their opinions about certain topics. This is due to the fact that the seeker is thinking at the level of manas. If the teacher replies to the question in the way that the seeker is expecting then it will be like a blind person leading a blind person. In no time both will be stumbling aimlessly.

It is the responsibility of the teacher to keep holding out a challenge to the seeker--for them to step beyond manas. If the seeker is naturally responsive to this request from the teacher (which is usually an unspoken request) then maybe the seeker has the potential to be a student. It is like with a possible relationship. Most of the time the seeker is just flirting a bit. It is not going to go any further. But then sometimes the seeker keeps coming back around despite the fact that they are not getting the opinions they are asking for from the teacher. So maybe the teacher starts to humor them a bit.

Once there is some rapport, then the teacher might explain about manas and start talking about spiritual practices. Here again the seeker may decide "This is a step I don't feel ready to take." Or they may decide "Yes, I like how that mantra sounds and because this kind person suggested that I repeat it regularly, I will do it."--"A sattvic life does sound good." The teacher doesn't sugarcoat the seriousness of the challenge. He or she just emphasises how wonderful the benefits can be: that any person can get more peaceful, happy, better-looking, and so forth. Before long the student is up to his or her neck in sadhana and getting a taste of the value of having a pure mind and pure action. When you are a student--that is to say a seeker who is getting some direction--your friend or family member or anyone will start to appreciate the smile on your lips and in your eyes and the warmth that keeps flowing from your heart.

Several years ago Jamie and I read a book together entitled Do You Need a Guru? In it the author, Mariana Caplan, told a personal story about how she was running all over. Her parents wondered if she ever would stop running around so much. Then she met her teacher and he asked her to write a book. So she did it. And her parents were pleasantly surprised. For the irony and the compliment her mother said, "You should have written that book years ago and you would have saved us so many problems!" But she was even more surprised when her orthodox Jewish father suggested that her oldest brother would possibly benefit from "spending some time at that commune of yours with that guru fellow. It's sure done you a lot of good."

***

Importantly, appearances can be deceiving. For example in The Ramayana Vibishna was the brother of the demon-king Ravana. So he had a lot of tamasic qualities. Nonetheless he was a devotee of the Lord. Mirroring this example there are many students who may not look spiritual but usually one person can not read what is in another person's heart. Maybe they still would like to be a student and they can do it as long as they keep coming around and the teacher doesn't send them away. Then they can get into sadhana and learn to express a pure mind and pure action. But even if it is too difficult for a student to get this far, they may still develop a little. There is a lot of significance to a lot of a little. It can change the atmosphere in ways that a lot for a few may not be able to change it.

On Osho on Zen

There is a book of Osho's teaching on Zen.

I doubt that a Zen teacher would agree that Osho spoke accurately either for or about the Zen tradition. A Zen teacher would consider these teachings to be a situation where Osho used the word "Zen" to get the attention of his audience. There are also books of his teaching that include the names of other traditions in this way too.

Basically Osho was mystic. He did not follow the mean of any tradition and he was proud of this fact on a regular basis. He put all of himself behind a bold-faced attempt to do something that no one else had done before. Something special in other words. When you think about it, it was unwise of Osho to presume to teach about Zen or any of the other traditions.

***

Imagine if your neighbour noticed that you were a bit unwell and, without being a doctor, "diagnosed" you with a type of cancer. The likelihood that this "diagnosis" would later be found to be correct by an actual doctor is nearly 0%. It is the same with Osho's teaching about Zen. So if you want to learn Zen you have your best chance to do so by going to a Zen teacher.

Dayananda vs. Ramana

In a 1998 interview, Swami Dayananda stated that Ramana was a mystic and that "there could be unknown millions we don't know—some may even be householders, people who are at home, some of them just your ordinary housewives. In India, you know, you can't take these people for granted; some of these women are enlightened. They are!" Now Dayananda is a man who is so clear and unambiguous with his words that I couldn't help but notice that he was casting doubt by saying "there could be." He was not able to stand behind his words.

How can he be Self-realized if he said this?

Well no one is 100% perfect at the level of vyavaharika. This does not mean that Dayananda is not a great teacher. He is. Most likely he was just intending to stand behind his approach of getting people schooled in the Scriptures. He obviously teaches what he believes is the best approach.

Ramana, on the other hand, said that the Scriptures were not necessary. This is best taken with a grain of salt too. Ramana's method--because he was unschooled as Dayananda has correctly pointed out--is nonetheless corroborated by the Scriptures. Chapter seventeen of The Bhagavad Gita explains that a person who does not become versed in the Scriptures can still attain moksha by living a sattvic life. (And this is not the only Scripture that explains this!) Ramana did this and he always encouraged everyone else also to live in a sattvic way. This is why his method of recommending to people to ask "Who am I?" would get a result in certain cases.

So it is not true that Ramana was a mere mystic; and it is not true that one does not need the Scriptures--which give us the revelation of nondual Brahman. It is just that both of these great teachers sometimes have spoken in extremes to make their point. Dayananda is still living so he may still do this on occasion. It is best to not expect that any person's words will be perfect 100% of the time. Why? Because "perfect" is an abstraction in my mind.

Pratibhasika & Vichara

What is unreal according to Advaita Vedanta is called pratibhasika and it is illustrated by the following metaphor:

Once some men who had been working all day returned home at twilight. Because they were so tired from the work they were quite glad when they arrived at the front door. Upon entering the house however they saw a strange shape in the corner. As their eyes adjusted as much as they could to the greater darkness of the unlit house, they all became convinced that there was a serpent coil in the corner of the room so they all began shouting in concern and fear. One of the men thought about poking it bravely with the handle of the broom. But he was too afraid. Meanwhile an old man carrying a lamp heard the commotion as he was passing by the house. So he stepped inside. As he held the lamp to the corner everyone was able to see that it was only a rope lying there. And they all had a good laugh as the old man ducked out of the house and went on his way.

Although this story is humorous, it is not funny. Why? Because this is a situation all of us find ourselves in. It is so common to be shouting in concern and fear that none of us can imagine anything else.

Fortunately the Ancient Rshis of The Upanishads explained for all of us in very clear words "Tat tvam asi"--"You are That." So there is some hope for us. Only just to hear the words "You are That" is no more helpful than if that old man had help his lamp in the direction of the house for a moment as he continued on his way. We need someone like him to come through our doorway so that we can share the lamplight.

***

Another important point about this story is that whether or not the old man with the lamp passes by at the precise time that we find ourselves in this dilemma depends upon our karmas. Everyone has karmas. There are even karmas for a Self-realized person. You may wonder, "How could this be?"--"I thought a realized person was liberated." Well, yes, they are liberated in the sense that they are not generating new karmas in the moment. Their "experience" is spontaneously Self-liberating.

You may know that Advaita Vedanta teachings describe three kinds of karma. One kind is the karma that I generate in the moment; the other kind is the karma that will come into fruition due to my past; and the last kind is the karma that has to do with everyone else. Regarding this last kind, I am like a ripple in a stream. I live in a world with six billion other people--not to mention all of the fish, birds, animals, insects, etc. As a single ripple on a vast stream, I don't just go wherever I wish. Mostly I go where the stream takes me. But it isn't important that I have control over what I can't control. What is important is that although I am a single person, a single ripple I can realize that I am nonetheless the Whole of pure awareness, the pure wetness of the stream of Being. Then my karmas are Self-liberated in the moment too.

Now it is helpful to know "How do I get the old man with the lamp to come into my house?" That is to say, "How do I get the teacher to teach me?"

Jamie and I were out shopping for a doormat once and I jokingly asked if we could get one that read "Go away!" Of course that's not the one we ended up getting. At any rate, if the men in the story had this doormat, then the old man with the lamp might have been discouraged from going inside. After all, people shout for many different reasons. He might have assumed, "They are probably having an argument in there."--"I won't be able to help them if they are." This reminds me of a story that my father told me.

When my grandfather was a very young man, there were still horse-drawn wagons. One day he jumped onto one to stop a man from shaking his wife as they were arguing with each other. As he was wrestling with this man he was suddenly struck on the back of his head by a frying pan! The wife was probably wondering what a strange man was doing on their wagon and concerned that he was fighting with her husband and could possibly hurt him. So she saved her husband and sent my grandfather on his way all in one swing!

A Self-realized teacher is compassionate--but he or she most likely will not be overly compassionate like my grandfather was as a very young man. If we want a teacher to help us--our karmas notwithstanding--we might expect that it will be important that we are approachable. Jamie would be disappointed with me if I spent time talking with just anyone about Advaita. And my own teacher has explained that everything will be fine, as long as I listen to Jamie (which is probably why she runs to hug him when she sees him!) :) So maybe another teacher is in a similar situation.

***

The best way to the attract the notice of a teacher--so I can get the triple-method--is by having a clean act--a pure mind and pure action--as well as a strong and clear desire to know "Who am I?" A prudent teacher doesn't offer pearls of wisdom to people who act like swine. Such people will have to learn from experience the folly of their way. No one can help them.

Now there are two ways that I can get myself clean in my thoughts and in my behavior. Both of these ways constitute an essential provisional basis so that I can get the triple method and discover that "I am the Whole." The first is by becoming schooled in the Scriptures. In this case, that I live a sattvic life is implied. Why? Because I have not learned the Scriptures if I am not living in a pure way. The second example is by living a sattvic life. And in this case it is usually critical that I have a clear example to follow (in my teacher) and that I am consistently encouraged to live in a pure way. If I follow either of these ways I will not just be a well-behaved person; I will also be a person who has a discriminating Intellect and is able to meet the four qualifications of a sincere student. So it will make natural sense for the teacher to give me the method. Otherwise I probably will not understand--I will not "get it"--even if the teachers tries repeatedly to give it to me.

When I am at the point of nididhyasana--which is the same as saksin--then I will be able to ask "Who am I?" For many years I was asking "Who am I?" Then I found Ramana's teaching and felt encouraged. But the question did not have any result because I did not know at first how to discriminate between drik and drisya. I was still at the level of drisya and believing "I am other than the Whole."

My teacher, who does not teach Advaita Vedanta, was nonetheless able to recognize when I was finally discriminating. I had sent him some writings about something esoteric and he explained that although they seemed clear as far as they went I wanted to look further. Just meeting the four qualifications is not Self-realization. All of the ignorance needed to be removed from my mind by discovering "I am drik--the Subjective pure awareness." Then I was able to really ask "Who am I?" and get the result. In retrospect I have been able to see that this was all due to how my teacher first of all encouraged me for many years to live in a sattvic way and secondly how he methodically pointed out the ignorance that was still in my mind as I expressed it.

Even after I realized "I am the Whole" because my teacher did not explain "There is a method that we followed together" and because I never found in Ramana's teachings the explanation that this is when you will get the result from asking "Who am I?" I fell in for a little while with mysticism. And from this I found out first hand that mysticism is too "mystical" because people were walking away scratching their heads after I would give a talk. When I explain that there is a method and this is what you can do to be able to get this method people lean in eagerly to hear and they ask questions so that I can explain more.

So it is vichara--it is asking "Who am I?" that helps me to realize "I am the Whole." But I can ask the question in a way that will get me the answer from within the depths of my own Being. Then I will be saved from pratibhasika and I will see that "I am other than the Whole" never was true.

Forthcoming Book

Hello Friends!

I am currently writing a short book which will be titled A Thorn to Remove a Thorn: Self-ignorance, Self-knowledge & Self-realization According to Advaita Vedanta. I feel that it will be best to not write it in a vacuum. So I would be delighted to have help from all of you. To help me simply review the Table of Contents below. Then, if you have any related thoughts, write them either as a comment on here or you can email them to me at satsangwithnathan@yahoo.com. I greatly appreciate your participation as it is certain to deepen and improve the book for everyone. Many thanks!

Here is the ToC:


1 Cracks in Conventional Life

2 Diet, Asana & Ahimsa

3 Mantra, Meditation & Kshanti

4 The Deeper Significance of Sattvic Living

5 Meeting the Four Qualifications of a Student

6 What to Look for in a Teacher

7 The Triple Method & its Result

8 Moksha: To Teach or Not to Teach?

The Mean & the Mystic in Western Advaita

[Note: Advaita has historically been referred to as Advaita Vedanta. As much as it is Vedanta, it is centered upon the revelation of nondual Brahman within the Scriptures. The three primary Scriptures of Advaita Vedanta are The Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita and The Brahma Sutras.]

Traditional Advaita involves a mean. That is to say, it is a system that has been developed and corroborated by many deeply introspective individuals over time. As much as it is this way, at any given time I may find things are occurring differently for me than what the mean indicates will happen. Nonetheless so long as this mean is not petrified, so long as it is still living, it will, on the whole, be helpful to anyone who engages it. Also engaging a mean is always a collaborative affair. When I do this I am like a single ripple on a stream. I am participating in something greater than any one person.

Within the modern West emphasis has shifted from the collective to the individual. And as much as this relates to Advaita Vedanta, it can be framed as a shift of focus from the mean to the mystic.

One might rightfully observe that Western Advaita has become something of a catch-all for mystics who are in general dismissive of the mean. Mystics are people who conduct themselves as though they know something that the rest of us don't--and most likely never will. They tell us about elusive and unattainable "experiences" (or "non-experiences") that--as long as we concede that they (the mystic) should be the center of our attention--just might occur for us too if we are in their "presence".

Still further, a mystic such as the Western mystic of today--after decrying the time-tested and proven mean as mere dogma--will attempt to impose the specifics of his or her own life as a rule for anyone gullible enough to allow it. In other words, a mystic wants to be the authority who is radiantly one step higher than everyone else.

While the mean affords me some natural space for things to be how they are for me--the mystic would rather that I run my nose along a line as they see fit to draw it. Basically the mystic offers me what appears to be a tantalizing opportunity: the opportunity to--on some unforeseeable day--discover myself to be a step higher than everyone else (just like they are!) with one hand, while, with the other hand, they silently work to build a cage around me made from bars of vagueness and ambiguity.

***

Due to the number of mystics who are calling themselves Advaitins (usually the only Sanskrit words these folks know are "Advaita" and "satsang") it is difficult for the Western student to find his or her way to the mean. Yet it is here. For information about contemporary teachers and authors who can be recommended see the links on the right.

Also, before we give these mystics undue credit for what sounds like rule of the range, we may wish to consider that the social context within which this situation is occurring is one that favors dismissal of every type of mean. Why? Because a mean puts a measure alongside my individuality and such a measure constantly reminds me that life is about more than me. Every "me" exists in relation to the larger "we". It is clear that our society on the whole holds the individual higher than all else. This is why a person can sue--and win; especially here in the States where litigation can occur at the drop of a hat--when they spill coffee on themselves.

Mystics are to the mean what litigation lawyers are to common sense and decency.

Vyavaharika, Method & Self-realization

Advaita Vedanta teaches that every person experiences two levels of Reality. One is known as paramarthika which means absolute Being. At this level I am always pure, calm and peaceful. Nothing ever happens within myself at this level as it is One-without-a-second.

The other level is known as vyavaharika. It is the level of the empirical self. At this level I exist within the context of the five koshas and the three states (of waking, dreaming and deep sleep). Here we will notice that my five koshas are not your five koshas and my experience within the three states is not your experience. Within vyavaharika we can not confuse ourselves. We are separate from each other.

For example if I lie to you--which I can only do within vyavaharika--then you may be hurt by my lie, even if you do not catch on to it. And for my part I will be going against a value that I hold naturally within the depths of my own heart, which is this: I do not want you (or anyone else) to ever lie to me because if you do, it may have a deleterious effect for me. Yet, even if I don't want anyone to lie to me, I may conclude "I am only one person." So I may think that it is okay for me to lie about something. Especially if it will get me "out of trouble" or I will get some other "benefit" from doing it.

The trouble here is that I have only one standard in my heart which I want everyone else to apply to me 100% of the time; however I may not apply it to everyone else 100% of the time. If this is the case I will be acting in a contrary manner and I will not be able to really be happy within myself for doing this. That is to say, I will be hurting myself as much, if not more than, I hurt you.

What exacerbates this situation beyond what anyone is able to comprehend is that if I am doing it like this then probably everyone else is too. Imagine a world where six billion people think "I don't want anyone to ever lie to me and if they do and I catch them then I will really have to set them straight about things!" Then imagine if each of the six billion also thinks "But maybe I can do it and it will be okay since I am only one person." We all know what one times six billion equals. And we are only considering the example of lying here. There are also many other examples we could consider.

***

Avidya translates into English as self-ignorance. If I am the Whole and yet I do not realize clearly that I am the Whole--if I believe "I am other than the Whole" then I have self-ignorance. So it is possible for me to have either self-ignorance or self-knowledge. I can not have both. Why? Because self-ignorance is incomplete self-knowledge--which means that even if my self-knowledge is only slightly incomplete then I still do not know how it is true that I am the Whole.

As much as I am self-ignorant I may benefit from knowing another person who has self-knowledge. But only if this person has a method to help me to have the same self-knowledge that they have. In Advaita Vedanta the method is to apply self-knowledge like a second thorn that I use to remove the first thorn of self-ignorance that is making me suffer--making me believe "I am other than the Whole."

Now if I wish my ignorance to be removed and replaced by knowledge, then I may first need to know "Where is my ignorance located?" The answer to this question is that it is located within my mind. Why? Because it is a false belief that I have. Probably my investment in this belief is very strong. There is a story about a Muslim teacher (who sometimes plays the fool about things) named Mullah Nasriddin that illustrates this point.

One day the Mullah purchased some chilies and he was sitting by the side of the road and eating them. They were so hot that as he ate them tears were streaming from his eyes and he was crying out loud in extreme discomfort. A man walked by and asked him, "Mullah, what is wrong?" And the Mullah said, "These chilies are so hot I can't stand eating them!" So the man said, "Why don't you stop eating them, Mullah?" To this Nasruddin replied, "I have to get my monies worth!"

This story illustrates why a Self-realized person who knows clearly "I am the Whole--and so is everyone else" can not just say to another person who believes "I am other than the Whole"--"Why don't you just let go of your false belief, friend?" This person is trying to get his or her monies worth. So even if what is said is correct they will probably feel incredulous about it.

Now imagine if this story went a little further and the man who stopped along the road to check up on the Mullah was prepared for his reply to the question "Why don't you just stop eating them?"--"Why don't you just let go of your false belief?" Imagine if this man were able to say "Here are some other chilies that are not too hot. You can have them in exchange for the chilies you are eating now." Probably the Mullah would be willing to change his predicament.

This is the value of the method of Advaita Vedanta. Only exchanging false belief is more complicated than exchanging chilies. So it would take an enormous amount of effort and patience on the part of both myself and the teacher of this method to allow for a successful exchange.

***

Traditionally Advaita teachers do not take on a student who does not meet specific qualifications. These qualifications, as they are described by Adi Shankara in his work Vivekachudamani, are four in number. The first is the ability to discriminate between the unreal and the Real.

In our modern Western society as it is most of us operate within the first three of the five koshas. This means that, for us (and it appears to have been the same in Shankara's time too!) the remaining koshas, which are called vijanamaya kosha and anandamaya kosha, are like the arms and legs of an infant. An infant has arms and legs--but they are not developed. The infant can not walk, run or carry things. At least not yet. However over time an infant can learn to use them. And he or she will do so by getting positive encouragement and a clear example from everyone else who can.

A Self-realized teacher is a person who is able to walk and run and carry things when it comes to these last two koshas. If they can do these things--if the teacher was able to learn--then perhaps I can learn how to do them too!

Is it possible that Vedanta teachers have been elitist and too firm by making it a requirement that I have this degree of ability--the ability to discriminate between the unreal and the Real? This is one way we may be tempted to see this as Westerners. In the West we have been conditioned to think, as my father would repeat as I was growing up, "If the student failed to learn--the teacher failed to teach." The responsibility is entirely put on the teacher. Advaita teachers have always held back a bit...to see if the student is really serious.

In addition to discrimination, teachers will also look carefully to see whether or not three additional qualifications have been met by the student. As Shankara further explained, they are dispassion toward the enjoyment of the fruits of one's actions here and in the hereafter; accomplishment of the six virtues which are tranquility, self-control, withdrawal, forbearance, faith, and concentration on the Self; and, lastly, an intense yearning for moksha. Without accomplishing these I have not proven myself to be serious about my endeavour. If a teacher is accommodating to me when I obviously lack commitment then we will both be involved in an ambiguous relationship that is not likely to come to the desired result. That is, I am unlikely to realize "I am the Whole."

***

Regarding conventional society, people are basically living through the first three koshas which are annamaya kosha, pranamaya kosha and manomaya kosha. This means that they are capable of instinct, desire and judgement but have no firm capacity for discrimination and calmness. In order to benefit from the method of Advaita Vedanta I will need to at least learn the capacity to discriminate between the unreal and the Real--that is to say, the objective ahamkara, my ego-I, and the subjective saksin, or Self as pure awareness.

Imagine that you are holding a red ball. Now imagine throwing it. Confusing myself as object with the subjective Seer is similar to if you were to confuse the movement of your arm with the movement of the ball after you have released it. Relating this metaphor to the five koshas: annamaya kosha is like my hand, pranamaya kosha is like when I take hold of the ball, manomaya kosha is like when I decide to throw it, vijanamaya kosha is like when I determine to release it, and anandamaya kosha is like when the ball is in the air. The red ball, of course, is my ahamkara--my ego-I--which, when it is released from objective constraints, is discovered to be moving freely through the open air which represents pure awareness. Actually everything exists within this space all the time but I don't think about it that way--I don't realize it--until I have let the ball go and can only watch as it is soaring.

And I can not watch as it is soaring until specific factors are in motion. It is not so difficult to understand this if I have thrown a ball before. But it may be quite difficult if I have never thrown a ball. When I have not yet "thrown" my ahamkara it is like this for me. I may have a world of confusion, doubts and fears about how everything is going to go. It will not seem as simple as throwing a ball. Yet in the end it is like this.

The open air of paramarthika always is as it is. And for the sake of my own peace of mind--so that I can be soaring--within my own mind and at the level of vyavaharkia, will I gather the determination and learn the way to throw the ball? Or will I continue to wait?