Vedanta/Neo-vedanta, Advaita/Neo-advaita an email debate (sort
of) The following is
an unplanned dialog that took place recently (in the month of November, 2006),
between Jai Maha Dev and a certain respected American Vedantist, who chooses to
remain unnamed (for this reason, we have given the name Laksman to this anonymous
person). Shri Maha Dev is the author of
this site (Aditya Dham) and Shri Laksman Ji is the author of a website which is
devoted to the dissemination of Vedanta and Advaita. Using
an alias, Maha Dev Ji experimented with the publishing of a controversial blog
titled the Masters of Deception, in which he sought to awaken spiritual
seekers to the dangers of blindly following their own ego or the ego and personality
of certain well-known persons in the field of religion and spirituality. Shortly after publishing the blog, he came across
the writings of Laksman Ji, and requested his opinion regarding the blog.
Thus began an exchange of emails that evolved into a discussion that touched
on some of the important ideas pertaining to Vedanta and Advaita.
With the authors’ permissions, we are sharing these emails because we feel
this dialog sheds light on the topics of Vedanta and Advaita which are often misunderstood
in our modern times. Please note that
some of the language in the emails is not appropriate for the minds of young children.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 Jai Maha Dev, using the alias Dev Singh,
wrote to Laksman: Kindly give
your opinion about the following site and tell me which info you think should
be changed, if any, and why. Having browsed your site, I feel an affinity with
your 'real' ness. mastersofdeception.blogspot.com
Laksman
replied the same day (Nov. 11th):
Hi Dev,
I think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment.
If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of
the people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone
who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful
in the spiritual world. I understand this
is a blog, but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations are anything
more than an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials to buttress
your views. To put a positive
spin on your definition you seem to be saying that an enlightened person is a
saint. What's missing is the idea of a jnani, someone who knows the truth
of their own nature but does not develop sattvika vasanas, in other words someone
who is just a regular person 'following his or her nature' as Krishna
says in the Gita. If it were my blog,
I would present the position that following Dharma is superior to Self realization.
So if you have a person who claims to be Self realized you can write him off because
he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next to following dharma enlightenment
is the most important thing in the world.” But you have to be careful what
you mean by dharma because some activities are dharmic in certain situations and
not in others. The other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not
always an accurate indicator of enlightenment. I'm not saying that people
like Sai Baba and Da Free John and Swami Rama should get a pass but there are
many enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities
from the outside but do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.
As far as your list is concerned you are right in about 80 percent of
the cases and wrong in about 20% if you want my opinion. Anyway, I hope this has
been helpful. Laksman Dev’s
response on Nov. 12th: Dear
Soul Friend, Thank
you for your observations, insights, and reply. Having gone through perhaps 20% of your site
(so far), I perceive that you are certainly an advanced soul, considerably more
imageless (without bias) than probably 90% of those people involved in Eastern
studies. I perceive your studies must have been (are) quite deep and were certainly
influenced by your contact with very evolved souls, but most especially (your
studies are deep) because you have been doing your own ‘homework.’ Though
you did not object in your reply to my opinion of both Swami C. and his former
disciple, I have just now read in your info that you hold both of them in very
high esteem. Unlike fanatical followers (of which you certainly are not, and nor
am I implying these two swamis have fanatical followers) you were quite restrained
and dignified in your reply, all the more so because you didn’t even ask for any
clarification regarding my opinion (on this matter).
No doubt, you are not one to be very much (if at all) interested in opinions,
particularly of someone who you don’t even know. However, before saying anything
else, I feel you should know that (unlike some of the others I mentioned) I do
not claim any first hand knowledge of either of these two men (although I did
meet Swami C. once, very briefly, at MIT in 1974, and felt he was certainly an
evolved soul). Nevertheless, I stand by what I have written,
which I feel is a true and honest assessment of both men (based on other information
and knowledge available to me). Now,
regarding various points in your reply:
“I
think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment. If
you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of the
people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone
who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful
in the spiritual world.” ‘Definition
of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment.
But anyway, here goes: he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown
the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge of the Self. That Wisdom removes the darkness of Ignorance
from the mind (and by extension, the intellect); hence, the Self stands clear
in that clarified, enlightened mind. Of course, the Self is ever-clear, and ever
established in its own Self, but its presence in the mind (in the context of the
living self, Jivatman) is either awakened (standing clear) or not. Most people
(jivas) are sleeping in Ignorance, which explains why their perception and awareness
are distorted and not clear. Now,
one who is REALLY established (that is, one whose mind has really been cleared
of all images and false knowledge) will not only be enlightened, but will also
be enlightening. It is an effortless effort to do so (enlighten) since that Light
is self-effulgent (i.e., is not the reflection of another entity). One
(that Jiva) whose Ignorance of the Self has truly been eradicated from the mind,
will naturally manifest the qualities of that real Self.
Although the ego and mind remain with the Jiva, that enlightened Jiva is
no longer under any compulsion, because its negative vasanas have either been
annihilated or superceded by positive ones (non-violent vasanas, i.e., tendencies
and desires which are in no way in violation of one’s real Self). Anyone
whose nature is contrary to the nature of the Self cannot be said to be truly
enlightened, regardless how much they may know ABOUT the self.
Knowing about and knowing are quite
different from each other. ‘Knowing is
Doing’ which means the Self that has been
realized in the mind is actualized in
ones behavior. There
are many characteristics which reflect the ignorance of the Self (i.e., which
clearly show one is not truly enlightened). Of course, we could just as easily
take a Saguna approach and say that there are many characteristics which reflect
the Knowledge of the Self. As you know, Lord Krishna in his response to
one of Arjuna’s questions, has beautifully told us what these characteristics
are. Without referencing the Gita, I can
say with certainty that these qualities include the following:
- That
person will not seek ego-recognition or satisfaction
- That
person will be devoid of selfish motives
- That
person will be devoid of false pride, haughtiness, and snobbishness
- That
person will not cause any injury to another being (including animals) for any
selfish reason (i.e., for the purpose of gratifying one’s ego or mind)
- That
person will NOT have bad habits which will influence others in a negative, self-destructive
way. They will not use their intellect
and ego to justify their ego-centered tendencies and actions.
This
is an extremely abbreviated list, but it is sufficient to establish whether or
not the various people mentioned in the MastersOfDeception blog are enlightened
or not. “It
seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his
or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.” Yes,
without a doubt, that person will be a vegetarian. The other half of this sentence ‘who is not successful in the spiritual world’
appears to be a little bit of sarcasm, or maybe you really do misunderstand
me. Let me clarify: an enlightened person (I don’t like using this phrase) has absolutely NO desire to be successful
in the spiritual circus or marketplace, and will actually AVOID making ‘performances’
and ‘deals,’ and by virtue of this that person IS successful in the so-called
spiritual world, regardless how evolved they are. “I
understand this is a blog but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations
are anything more than an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials
to buttress your views.” Honestly,
I have no need to convince anyone of anything.
You are no doubt familiar with the term VASUDEVAKUTUMBAKAM. My only desire
is my duty to warn my family members of dangerous people they may encounter. It
was not possible to list all the good, the bad, and ugly; nor was it necessary
to provide evidence which is widely available (or at the very least, is certainlyknown
to the confidents of those mentioned who are still living). However, many people
are in denial because their self-delusion has become their comfort zone. Most people, however, have simply never come
in touch with the undiluted Truth and so they continue to stumble in the darkness
of their ignorance. In every case (listed
above), this one feels moved to cut to the chase and set the record straight (as
I understand it). In case I am wrong, I
certainly welcome one and all to correct me. “To
put a positive spin on your definition you seem to be saying that an enlightened
person is a saint. What's missing is the idea of a jnani, someone who knows
the truth of their own nature but does not develop sattvika vasanas, in other
words someone who is just a regular person 'following his or her nature' as Krishna
says in the Gita.” My
Invisible Friend, Laksmanji, a Jnani is one who knows their own Real Nature (Higher
Nature) and their lower nature too, AND embraces the Real (nature) and is not
moved (motivated) by the Unreal (lower nature).
The ‘Unreal’ means Ignorance. Only one who is ignorant of the Self will
manifest demonic qualities, or will remain as an ordinary self-involved individual.
In other words, one who really knows the Self will definitely be a Saint (though
most likely unknown to the world at large), and one who is engaged in the process
of enlightenment (i.e., is sincerely inquiring into the nature of the Self) will
certainly be a saintly person. Being a
saintly person means (to me) that that person is making a concerted effort to
rise above himself (ego-centered self), which can only be done through the acquisition
of divine Wisdom (AtamGyaan, Soul-knowledge).
One’s actions (or more correctly, one’s Guna-Karam-Subhav: qualities, behavior,
and nature) are proof-positive whether or not one has assimilated this Knowledge.
Having acquired it without assimilating it is really meaningless; just as is ‘knowing
the truth but acting against it’, or knowing the truth but not being truthful,
or ‘talking the talk’ but not ‘walking the walk.’ No
doubt (as declared by Patanjali) the enlightened state is beyond the quantitative
or qualitative imprints (samskaras). The Self is beyond the sattvic, rajasic, and
tamasic qualities of Prakriti, and always remains such. But we are living souls;
we are embodied in mind and matter. Our
essence (the Self) is unchangeable, but our lower nature is constantly changing.
These changes in our lower nature (mind and body) are certainly not random
or uncontrolled. We (as living souls) have the power (inherent
in the Self) to shape our mind (and life) into a beautiful dance, a beautiful
expression of our Essence (Self). It is only by PRACTICE that we ultimately attain
the state of effortless effort; then everything seems to flow effortlessly, like
the movement of a skilled dancer, musician, or artist. It will NEVER just happen
by simply knowing ABOUT the Self. Too
many Vedantists know too much for their own good, because they do not put what
they know (about) into practice: they DO NOT take hold of their own mind and shape
it into something beautiful and useful, but instead they retain their selfish
inclinations and impressions and imagine themselves to be in the world but not
of it. The fact is, many of them are buried
up to their necks in this world of unreality, but they hide in their neo-vedantic
egos and personalities, and continue to fool themselves and others. “If
it were my blog I would present the position that following Dharma is superior
to Self realization. So if you have a person who claims to be Self-realized
you can write him off because he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next
to following dharma enlightenment is the most important thing in the world.
But you have to be careful what you mean by dharma because some activities are
dharmic in certain situations and not in others.” Dharma
simply means the Nature of the Self, and it is absolutely impossible to realize the
Self without practicing the nature of the Self (Dharma). Unfortunately, you are definitely playing mind-games,
which should be expected of you since that is what all neo-vedantic people are
doing. However, in your case, I think you
are an exceptional person who knows a lot, but is also capable of going beyond
what you know, think you know, and don’t know. I
am not a very well-read man, and have never heard of this person Dogzen, but I
can say without hesitation the person is deluded. He (or she) talks of dharma
and enlightenment as though they are commodities in the marketplace (or the mind),
when in fact they constitute our own Being. One who is established in the Self..
. . or heck, leave that aside. . . One who is truly established on the
Path, . . . . leave that be too. . . . ONE WHO IS A TRUE HUMAN BEING, one
who is honest with himself (or herself), one who is Real (to the core of their
own being) knows what is right and wrong, what
is good and bad, what is real and unreal, what is dharmic and adharmic. ‘Knowing
the Truth’ is NOT an intellectual grasp of ‘things.’ It is beyond the language of thought, but it
is not thoughtless. It is beyond the mind
but it is not mindless. It is beyond emotions
and feelings but it is not beyond experience. It is the Self, but it is NOT selfish. [After
going through some of the Dogzen newsletters available from the Dogzen site, I
must recant my comments about Dogzen. I personally found some of the techniques presented
in the site to be very good and useful. I was too quick to judge and should have
at least done a google search on Dogzen before writing this paragraph. DEV] “The
other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate indicator
of enlightenment. . . . . there are many
enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities
from the outside but do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.” The
second half of this sentence is of course true, and irrespective of so-called
prarabdha karma. That is, an enlightened soul, or in any case a very evolved soul,
may still have ordinary likes and dislikes, etc., which are NOT of the type that
would be injurious to others (or one’s self). To say that these vasanas do not
affect one’s realization, however, cannot be true.
Realization is not a static ‘experience’ (as you will surely agree), but
it is the State of Being, and That (State of Being) is Changeless yet Ever-New,
which means it is always fresh, beginingless and endless. The one (living self)
that realizes the Self never gets stuck in any image. The realized Soul remains
in the state of limitless (ASEEM) Consciousness. There is no end to refining our mind. The one who stops refining their perception
and awareness is not self-realized but self-deluded. Only
those in whose minds the ego remains embedded will continue to live in self-delusion
and confusion. The ego cannot be removed from the mind except through the application
of divine wisdom. The seeds of divine wisdom are found in the Vedas and the various
teachings that have emanated from them (and continue to emanate from them).
You have studied many vedic teachings but I feel you have not given enough
attention to the Vedas themselves, otherwise you would not have some of the views
that you seem to espouse. I
will continue to go through the materials on your site, because I have not come
across any other sites that contain as much wisdom as your site (as far as I can
tell up to this point). I am not a ‘surfer-seeker’, nor am I a wannabe
guru, saint, or whatever. I am a simple human being like you with an ‘I’ for the
Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Thank
you for sharing your insights with me. I will endeavor to put what I have learned
into practice. OM Your
nameless well-wisher, Laksman’s
response on Nov. 13th: Hi
Dev, Did you want feedback on your interesting letter? I have a policy
of not speaking unless I am asked. There are a few points that I could comment
upon that might be of interest to you. I basically agree with most of your
views, however. Usually I reply in detail to the letters that come through
my website but in the case of yours I get the impression that you know...or think
you know...quite a lot and the tone of your letters seems quite cocksure and rather
aggressive...which does not always make for satisfying communications. I
do not want to pick a fight with anybody. Would it be fair to say that you see
yourself as some sort of warrior for the truth? Incidentally, I do not use sarcasm
in emails with strangers. The questions and comments are straightforward.
It is always better to communicate face to face in cases like this because a lot
more subtle information is available that can make it easier to evaluate the other
person's words and their intentions. It is easy to misunderstand in emails unless
there is genuine love between the communicators. If I was not so old I might
like to take you on in friendly dharma combat...if that were something that appealed
to you...but almost forty years of sadhana and easy life has mellowed me out to
the point where I am totally uninterested in quarreling over beliefs, opinions,
doctrines, ideas, etc. In any case I am happy to respond to some portions of your
letter if you want. It may take a few days as I am in transit on my way
to India for the
winter season. Laksman Dev’s
reply on Nov. 14th: Dear
Jivatma, Please do respond at your leisure. Soul friend, I do not know
you except for the little bit I have gleaned from your writings, which can only
represent, at best, an infinitesimal bit of who you are, or appear to be I
am not really interested in appearances, since really it is all just another permutation
of Avidya (ignorance). Who you are, I am that; who I am that you are. Whether
or not you really know it doesn't appear to be a question in your mind, but then
appearances can be misleading. Sometimes questions should appear but they do not,
and by that too one can be misled. I am not cocksure, but I do possess
AtamVishwas (Soul confidence), which sometimes prompts me to speak my mind, just
as it can make me to keep my mouth shut (which is usually the case). I believe
in speaking the Truth straightforwardly, but with love and candor as counseled
by the Sage Manu. I do not see myself as anything, really, just another beginingless,
immortal Soul engaged in the Sport of Life, for the time-being. I speak
to you as one human being to another, without any aggression or repression. I
am far from being a perfect being, but in my own right (Light of Consciousness)
I am a Siddha because my power is the power of Truth. What is that? That is nothing,
except to call a spade a spade, and see things as they really are and not just
as they appear to be. I should stop here for now because this stuff is
beginning to sound too holy for me. I am a whole human being and my only
purpose is to manifest the Total Well-being in this life and forever.
Certainly face to face communication would be better, but I have no problem communicating
a few ideas like this (as both of us seem to have very good written communication
skills). I'll promise to remember that I am communicating with the Self
in the Self through the Self. There is no battle here, just as there are
really no opposing teams on the field, it just appears that way for the sake of
the Game. When the Game is over we will all leave the field, remove our different
uniforms, and go back to being who we have always really been: the Self.
OM Sent
by Laksman on Nov. 15th: Hi
Dev, Yes, I like the idea of communicating with you. You can appreciate
my reluctance to get too friendly too fast...although I have not had one difficult
contact from the website...a couple of 'spiritual' crazies but that is all.
The email that I have nearly completed in response to your last letter is more
or less about communicating enlightenment, not about you or me personally.
As I point out it doesn't matter to me whether someone is 'enlightened' or not.
If they are polite well-mannered people I will communicate on any topic.
The proof of the pudding in the enlightenment game is giving and receiving love.
It doesn't matter if the person is a saint or a sinner. The blog is provocative
so I needed to find out what is behind it...that is all. I find it difficult
to communicate with 'righteous' and 'holy' people. Anyway, look for a reply
soon. Om and Prem, Laksman Dev’s
email simultaneously sent on Nov: 15th: Respected
Soul-friend, Having gone through more of your writings, I think it is
only fair that I should be more open about myself, as you certainly have about
yourself. I believe that we could engage in a very useful dialog together and
come to a deeper understanding of the real Self. Please go through the
Aditya Dham website (adityadham.com) and the associated blog (blog.adityadham.com).
My real name is Jai Maha Dev. The name Dev Singh is the name of a distant (long
past) relation (non-blood). The MastersOfDeception website (as you may have noticed)
is a very recent creation; one which I hesitated to publish and which I still
have second thoughts about (that is, second thoughts about having published).
Realizing that you are a man of noble character, I have divulged this to you and
request that you not reveal the real identify of Dev Singh, aka Sahunta Devananda.
I look forward to deepening our spiritual relationship and expanding our
understanding of the Self. OM Laksman’s
response on Nov. 16th: Hi Dev,
The secret of your true identity is safe with me. Not to worry. I checked
out the site. As I said about your blog I believe it would be more effective if
you made a point of defining your terms. For example one has to read quite a bit
in the Images section to figure out what you mean. Other than that it is
a good site, well organized and clean. As you will see when you read the
email I just sent we have quite different views of enlightenment...or at least
words to describe enlightenment. I think it would give your site more depth
if you included the view I present in addition to the experiential 'state' view.
Laksmanji Laksman’s reply to Dev’s comments from Nov. 12th (regarding
Laksman’s original reply). This reply was sent on Nov 16th.
Laksman (from previous email) “I think what's missing on this website is a definition
of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate
the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems
your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself
and who is not successful in the spiritual world.” Dev (excerpt): ‘Definition
of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment.
Laksman: Self evident to whom,
Dev? Perhaps you are a jnani and therefore it is self evident to you but
what about a person who might read your web log? If they were interested
in following any one of these gurus I should think they would not know what enlightenment
was. Therefore, it might be of interest for them to have some kind of idea
of what they were seeking and how the guru in question was either capable or incapable
of helping them. Dev (from previous email): But anyway, here goes:
he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge
of the Self. That Wisdom removes the darkness of Ignorance from the mind
(and by extension, the intellect); hence, the Self stands clear in that clarified,
enlightened mind. Of course, the Self is ever-clear, and ever established in its
own Self, but its presence in the mind (in the context of the living self, Jivatman)
is either awakened (standing clear) or not. Most people (jivas) are sleeping in
Ignorance, which explains why their perception and awareness is distorted and
not clear. Laksman: You say
‘its presence is either awakened (standing clear) or not” Do you mean that
a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind? I’m not sure
how ‘its presence’ can be ‘awakened or not.’ It is the view of Vedanta that
the Self is neither awake nor asleep. I think the sruti would agree that
the Self is not ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ either. A third doubt that your
statement brings up is this: in my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear
or not clear about anything. There are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic states
of mind which affect the mind’s perception but they don’t belong to anyone.
Perhaps you will think this is all semantics…and indeed it might appear that way…but
my opinion is that while formulating enlightenment from a human point of view
is understandable in so far as human beings will not seek it unless they feel
there is something in it for them, to speak of it this way can also be misleading.
If someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with
apparent knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person
who knows that he or she is the Self. I would hope that such a statement
might stimulate inquiry and that the inquiry lead to the removal of the ignorance,
“I am a person.” As long as someone hangs on to the human identity they
will not know the truth. Yes, in a non-dual reality everything is the Self
and since the Self is Awareness everything in Awareness is also Awareness...so
everyone is enlightened by default. But this is not the end of it.
If someone sincerely asked me who I was I would not say that I was a
person who attained enlightenment. I would say that I appear to be a person
because I have a very convincing person act but that the person I once thought
I was, the one that seems to be there from the outside, is long gone. If
someone wanted a more direct statement, keeping in mind the limitation of words,
I would say that I am limitless Awareness, minus apparent knowledge and apparent
ignorance. I would say that I’m not enlightened nor am I unenlightened.
I would say that I am that in which enlightenment and endarkenment exist.
I would not say that I am not evolved or unevolved. I suppose that what
I’m trying to suggest is that this ‘who is enlightened’ game is not really helpful,
not only because of the abstract nature of the subject but because it really takes
a jnani to know a jnani. This is why I suggested that if you feel the need
to judge someone you use Dharma as a standard. It is easier for a seeker
to understand and a more important viewpoint. What good is enlightenment
if a person’s behavior violates dharma? Dev (from previous email):
Now, one who is REALLY established (that is, one whose mind has really been cleared
of all images and false knowledge) will not only be enlightened, but will also
be enlightening. It is an effortless effort to do so (enlighten) since that Light
is self-effulgent (i.e., is not the reflection of another entity). Laksman:
I agree with this completely. Does this statement apply to you?
Dev (from previous email): One (that Jiva) whose Ignorance of the Self has truly
been eradicated from the mind, will naturally manifest the qualities of that real
Self. Although the ego and mind remain with the Jiva, that enlightened Jiva
is no longer under any compulsion, because its negative vasanas have either been
annihilated or superceded by positive ones (non-violent vasanas, i.e., tendencies
and desires which are in no way in violation of one’s real Self). Laksman:
I can’t argue with this. Dev (from previous email): Anyone whose
nature is contrary to the nature of the Self cannot be said to be truly enlightened,
regardless how much they may know ABOUT the self. Knowing about and knowing
are quite different from each other. ‘Knowing is Doing’ which means the
Self that has been realized in the mind is actualized in ones behavior.
Laksman: Yes, but (here’s the
famous ‘but’) it may take some time for the enlightenment to manifest behaviorally
owing to prarabdha. Prarabdha does not affect the jnani but it will affect
people with whom the jnani comes in contact. This is why in the old days
gurus recommended that the newly enlightened ‘sit in a cave’ like Ramana Maharishi
for some time depending on their prarabdha. This is probably why you have
a negative evaluation of C.. His guru told him that he did not think it
wise to teach so soon after his Moksha, but he didn’t listen. I knew him
very well. I was personally with him from morning till night for almost
two years and saw him often for about twenty years. We were like brothers.
And he was an amazing mahatma but there were traces of rajas and tamas in him…which
caused a few small problems but which did not in any way impede his effectiveness
as a guru. And I can tell you for a fact he was completely beyond money
and women. He was an ocean of compassion and one of the most generous people I’ve
ever met. He took care of my room and board for two years and never asked
a thing from me. He was a pukka sanyassi. Dev (from
previous email): There are many characteristics which reflect the ignorance of
the Self (i.e., which clearly show one is not truly enlightened). Of course, we
could just as easily take a Saguna approach and say that there are many characteristics
which reflect the Knowledge of the Self. As you know, Lord Krishna in his
response to one of Arjuna’s questions, has beautifully told us what these characteristics
are. Without referencing the Gita, I can say with certainty that these qualities
include the following: • That person will not seek
ego-recognition or satisfaction • That person will be devoid
of selfish motives • That person will be devoid of false
pride, haughtiness, and snobbishness • That person will
not cause any injury to another being (including animals) for any selfish reason
(i.e., for the purpose of gratifying one’s ego or mind) • That
person will NOT have bad habits which will influence others in a negative, self-destructive
way. They will not use their intellect and ego to justify their ego-centered
tendencies and actions. This is an extremely abbreviated list, but it
is sufficient to establish whether or not the various people mentioned in the
MastersOfDeception blog are enlightened or not. Laksman:
I disagree. I know quite a few people who fit this definition who are definitely
not enlightened. These kinds of qualities can be unconsciously developed
through lifetimes of evolution. This is a pretty good definition of a saint
but if you read the autobiographies of saints it is quite clear that while many
may have indirect knowledge of the Self most do not have direct knowledge “I am
limitless, non-dual Awareness” which is my definition of enlightenment.
A problem is created when someone sets out to judge enlightenment in
people: what is the means of knowledge? A belief or an opinion is not a
means of knowledge. So asking someone else to believe what you believe is,
in my opinion, not helpful spiritually. Unless you have lived with someone
for a long time and you are a dispassionate person you cannot really figure out
a person’s true motives. People who are into judging others…no matter how
noble the reasons…often have an axe to grind. For every person who sees
guru X as a rakshasa there is someone who sees guru X as a saint…so who is ‘right?’
It all depends on your views, which depend on your values. And people generally
come to their values honestly. Nobody sets out thinking “I’ll delude myself
and become a selfish nasty person.” It happens. This is why I like
Christ’s approach. He said, “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” It doesn’t
seem to me that you are making a distinction between the sin and the sinner.
I don’t know about you or about your motives but to take this blog seriously I
would have to believe that Dev is enlightened. You may be or you may not
be…but how is a stranger visiting a web log to tell? A person’s own words
are not enough…in so far as self delusion is one of human’s most salient characteristics.
I will eat my words, however, if you start getting emails from people who claimed
that they got burned by gurus on your list and should have paid attention to your
warnings. Laksman (from previous email): “It seems your definition
is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is
not successful in the spiritual world.” Dev (response to previous email):
Yes, without a doubt, that person will be a vegetarian. The other half of
this sentence ‘who is not successful in the spiritual world’ appears to be a little
bit of sarcasm, or maybe you really do misunderstand me. Let me clarify: an enlightened
person (I don’t like using this phrase) has absolutely NO desire to be successful
in the spiritual circus or marketplace, and will actually AVOID making ‘performances’
and ‘deals,’ and by virtue of this that person IS successful in the so-called
spiritual world, regardless how evolved they are. Laksman:
I agree with the last sentence although not completely because there are no rules
for jnanis. Knowing who you are is the big success, not what you do or don’t
do with the knowledge. My view is that if you are enlightened you should
keep your mouth shut because to say that you are enlightened is not evidence of
special attainment since enlightenment is the nature of all beings. In fact
it is evidence of a long stay in ignorance…which would be better left unmentioned.
This whole who is enlightened business is a complete non-starter.
As far as the vegetarian idea is concerned even plants are living beings.
You’re taking life when you eat them. Just because they have a rudimentary
Subtle Body it is OK to eat them? I suppose this might force you to modify your
definition to exclude vegetarians. Maybe you should claim that enlightened
people can only be breatharians. But they what would happen to their enlightenment
if they inhaled a few microbes…which are living beings as well…and which is happening
all the time to everyone? And what about Tibetan lamas in the winter with
not a vegetable in sight? Their spirituality is compromised because they
eat Yak butter and meat? In case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats life.
Nobody can avoid it. Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed.
The cows eat vegetables and they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.
Laksman: (from the previous email) “I understand this is a blog
but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations are anything more than
an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials to buttress your
views.” Dev (response to previous email): Honestly, I have no need to
convince anyone of anything. You are no doubt familiar with the term VASUDEVAKUTUMBAKAM.
My only desire is my duty to warn my family members of dangerous people they may
encounter. It was not possible to list all the good, the bad, and ugly; nor was
it necessary to provide evidence which is widely available (or at the very least,
is certainly known to the confidents of those living). However, many people are
in denial because their self-delusion has become their comfort zone. Most
people, however, have simply never come in touch with the undiluted Truth and
so they continue to stumble in the darkness of their ignorance. In every
case (listed above), this one feels moved to cut to the chase and set the record
straight (as I understand it). In case I am wrong, I certainly welcome one
and all to correct me. Laksman:
OK. I wouldn’t say you were ‘wrong’ but I wouldn’t say you were ‘right’
either. I’m just suspicious of people with a self-defined ‘duty’ to protect
the ignorant for this reason: as long as you try to protect them you keep them
ignorant. People only learn when they make their own mistakes. Fucking
up can make you think. And thinking is good. If I just blindly do
what I’m told because Dev or anyone else tells me it is for my own good, I will
still be an idiot at the end of the day. I have been teaching Vedanta for
almost forty years and I have found that the best way to protect people is to
teach them how to think for themselves. Often people come to me who are
‘following’ a very bad guru and I do not try to dissuade them from it. In
the first place almost nobody takes the advice of other people…particularly when
they are attached to their desires…and secondly it is good to suffer from a lack
of discrimination. These lessons really stick. If I tell you not to
do something…like God told Eve…there is always a doubt. And that doubt will send
you right into the arms of suffering. If God had said, ‘Those apples are
very healthy; they have the recommended amounts of calcium and iron” Eve would
have never looked twice at them. She would have gone off to the candy store
for some chocolate. Sometimes people left Swami C. and the devotees often
said, “Hey, Swamiji, why didn’t you try to keep them from leaving?” And he would
say, “Let them go. Maya is a much better teacher than I am.” When
America was about to go to war with Iraq many people told the President that it would
not work. But did he listen? He had to do it and mess up completely
and now he is singing a different tune. Laksman:
(from a previous email) “To put a positive spin on your definition you seem to
be saying that an enlightened person is a saint. What's missing is the idea
of a jnani, someone who knows the truth of their own nature but does not develop
sattvika vasanas, in other words someone who is just a regular person 'following
his or her nature' as Krishna says in the Gita.”
Dev (response to previous email): My Invisible Friend, Laksmanji,
a Jnani is one who knows their own Real Nature (Higher Nature) and their lower
nature too, AND embraces the Real (nature) and is not moved (motivated) by the
Unreal (lower nature). The ‘Unreal’ means Ignorance. Only one who is ignorant
of the Self will manifest demonic qualities, or will remain as an ordinary self-involved
individual. In other words, one who really knows the Self will definitely be a
Saint (though most likely unknown to the world at large), and one who is engaged
in the process of enlightenment (i.e., is sincerely inquiring into the nature
of the Self) will certainly be a saintly person. Being a saintly person
means (to me) that that person is making a concerted effort to rise above himself
(ego-centered self), which can only be done through the acquisition of divine
Wisdom (AtamGyaan, Soul-knowledge). Ones actions (or more correctly, one’s
Guna-Karam-Subhav: qualities, behavior, and nature) are proof-positive whether
or not one has assimilated this Knowledge. Having acquired it without assimilating
it is really meaningless; just as is ‘knowing the truth but acting against it’,
or knowing the truth but not being truthful, or ‘talking the talk’ but not ‘walking
the walk.’ Laksman:
OK, Dev. I agree but it takes time to assimilate it. At what point
does one pass the Dev enlightenment test? When there are no negative vasanas?
When there are 95% sattvika vasanas? All qualities are in Maya and even
the divine qualities are only meaningful because of the demoniac qualities.
It seems to me that non-dual vision means that everything in Maya is equal to
everything else in so far as it all serves the Self. Speaking as a person
I used to be an evil doer and it was the correct path for me because it lead me
to the Self at an early age. If I’d been a nice decent well meaning holy
person always doing the right thing and following the good advice of others I
may not have waked up at all. Virtue is not always helpful. A golden
chain can bind you as completely as an iron one. It’s nice to want to save
people from their folly but remember the Inquisition.
Dev (from previous email): No doubt (as declared by Patanjali) the enlightened
state is beyond the quantitative or qualitative imprints (samskaras). The
Self is beyond the sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic qualities of Prakriti, and always
remains such. But we are living souls; we are embodied in mind and matter.
Our essence (the Self) is unchangeable, but our lower nature is constantly changing.
These changes in our lower nature (mind and body) are certainly not random or
uncontrolled. We (as living souls) have the power (inherent in the Self)
to shape our mind (and life) into a beautiful dance, a beautiful expression of
our Essence (Self). It is only by PRACTICE that we ultimately attain the state
of effortless effort; then everything seems to flow effortlessly, like the movement
of a skilled dancer, musician, or artist. It will NEVER just happen by simply
knowing ABOUT the Self.
Laksman: From the human point of view this is true. But I don’t accept it.
As I said I’m not a human being. So ‘we’ does not apply to me. It
may apply to you, however. I am not living and I am not embodied.
This idea is just a humble ‘spiritual’ way keeping oneself limited. I also
do not accept the formulation of enlightenment as a ‘state.’ This confusion
started a long time ago with a misreading of the Mandukya Upanishad which called
the Self ‘the forth.’ It does not say ‘the forth state’ but this is how
people read it who studied its discussion of the three states. The Upanishad
meant that the Self is the forth factor, i.e. the invariable Awareness in and
beyond the three states. I understand Patanjali’s definition of
enlightenment…chitta vritti niroda. But it is not a good definition.
It is good for anta-karana suddhi, purification of the mind, but that is all.
It turns enlightenment into an event that depends on karma and doership.
Enlightenment is the nature of the Self and the Self cannot be attained through
action. Dev (from previous email): Too many Vedantists
know too much for their own good, because they do not put what they know (about)
into practice: they DO NOT take hold of their own mind and shape it into something
beautiful and useful, but instead they retain their selfish inclinations and impressions
and imagine themselves to be in the world but not of it. The fact is, many
of them are buried up to their necks in this world of unreality, but they hide
in their neo-vedantic egos and personalities, and continue to fool themselves
and others. Laksman: This
is true of many Vedantists but it is equally true of many people following other
spiritual paths. Laksman: (from a previous email) “If
it were my blog I would present the position that following Dharma is superior
to Self realization. So if you have a person who claims to be Self realized
you can write him off because he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next
to following dharma enlightenment is the most important thing in the world.
But you have to be careful what you mean by dharma because some activities are
dharmic in certain situations and not in others.” Dev (response to previous
email): Dharma simply means the Nature of the Self, and it is absolutely
impossible to realize the Self without practicing the nature of the Self (Dharma).
Unfortunately, you are definitely playing mind-games, which should be expected
of you since that is what all neo-vedantic people are doing. However, in
your case, I think you are an exceptional person who knows a lot, but is also
capable of going beyond what you know, think you know, and don’t know.
Laksman: I’ll just ignore the insult, Dev,
because you don’t know me. I am surprised you don’t get the idea since it
is basically in harmony with your view of enlightenment. In any case I am
not an exceptional person. It may seem that way to you but it doesn’t seem
that way to me…and I should know since I’m me. Since you don’t seem to get
the idea perhaps you would like me to explain it again?
Dev (from previous email): I am not a very well-read man, and have never heard
of this person Dogzen, but I can say without hesitation the person is deluded.
He (or she) talks of dharma and enlightenment as though they are commodities in
the marketplace (or the mind), when in fact they constitute our own Being. One
who is established in the Self.. . . or heck, leave that aside. . . One who is
truly established on the Path, . . . . leave that be too. . . . ONE WHO IS A TRUE
HUMAN BEING, one who is honest with himself (or herself), one who is Real (to
the core of their own being) knows what is right and wrong, what is good and bad,
what is real and unreal, what is dharmic and adharmic. ‘Knowing the Truth’ is
NOT an intellectual grasp of ‘things.’ It is beyond the language of thought,
but it is not thoughtless. It is beyond the mind but it is not mindless.
It is beyond emotions and feelings but it is not beyond experience. It is
the Self, but it is NOT selfish. Laksman:
Accepting your view of enlightenment these statements make sense but I think your
definition doesn’t do enlightenment justice. Laksman (from previous
email): “The other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate
indicator of enlightenment. . . . . there are many enlightened people who
have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities from the outside but
do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.” Dev (response
to previous email): The second half of this sentence is of course true,
and irrespective of so-called prarabdha karma. That is, an enlightened soul, or
in any case a very evolved soul, may still have ordinary likes and dislikes, etc.,
which are NOT of the type that would be injurious to others (or one’s self). To
say that these vasanas do not affect one’s realization, however, cannot be true.
Realization is not a static ‘experience’ (as you will surely agree), but it is
the State of Being, and That (State of Being) is Changeless yet Ever-New, which
means it is always fresh, beginingless and endless. The one (living self) that
realizes the Self never gets stuck in any image. The realized Soul remains in
the state of limitless (ASEEM) Consciousness. Laksman:
We are world’s apart on this one, Dev. Realization is the direct knowledge
I am the Self. The Self is nir-vasana, meaning it is unaffected by the vasanas.
The Self is not an experience. Experience is the Self but the Self is not
experience. If I am the Self then how can experience i.e. vasanas change
me? You seem to believe that there is some embodied being who realizes something
and this realization is a kind of experience and this realization has certain
hard and fast behavioral implications. If this is what you call enlightenment
then the vasanas definitely do affect it. But this kind of realization is
just another vasana. It’s a good vasana considering the samsaric alternatives
but anything that can be affected by something else is not real. Identification
with the person has to die for the knowledge ‘I am the Self’ to arise. What
you are talking about is what I call Self realization or experiential enlightenment…which
is good compared to the samsaric state but it is still in Maya because the subject
object duality is still taken to be real. Dev (excerpt from
previous email): There is no end to refining our mind. Laksman:
This is true if you are a doer. For the Self there is no refining to do.
If I am the Self I won’t be refining the mind. You might read the story
of how the Sixth Patriarch got to be the Sixth Patriarch. The secret to
what I’m saying is in his poem. Dev (excerpt from previous
email): The one who stops refining their perception and awareness is not
self-realized but self-deluded. Laksman:
If you define enlightenment this way, I can’t argue. But I don’t see it
this way. I could give you more reasons but I’ve written a lot and I’m tired.
So I will leave you with one question. ‘Who is going to stop refining and
why?’ Rather than write more on this topic if you want to understand my
views of enlightenment perhaps you can read [more of my writings] on enlightenment,
knowledge, and experience on the web. You might also benefit from reading
the Stages of Enlightenment section in the ‘What is Advaita Vedanta’ pamphlet.
I’ve been fighting this battle for a long time,
Dev. You have the experiential view and I hold the identity view. There
is a way to resolve it if you want to but from the dogmatic way you express yourself
I’m not sure you would be open to considering the Vedantic view. So let’s
see how you react to what I’ve said here and take it from there. .
It is difficult to understand what I am saying because of a deeply engrained
human orientation. It is the vasana that holds all positive and negative
vasanas together. Your definition is fine…for you. But if you were
to ask for advice..which doesn’t seem likely…I would suggest that you inquire
into the meaning of ‘human’ or ‘person.’ And I would respectfully suggest
that you won’t find anything there. As far as I’m concerned its fine if
you chose to be a human being and define enlightenment the way you do. But
I don’t fit into it. And because I don’t doesn’t mean that I’m playing mind
games or don’t know what I’m saying or am some clever intellectual Vedantist.
You are free to think what you like. I know what I know.
Dev (from previous email): Only those in whose minds the ego remains
embedded will continue to live in self-delusion and confusion. The ego cannot
be removed from the mind except through the application of divine wisdom. The
seeds of divine wisdom are found in the Vedas and the various teachings that have
emanated from them (and continue to emanate from them). You have studied
many vedic teachings but I feel you have not given enough attention to the Vedas
themselves, otherwise you would not have some of the views that you seem to espouse.
Laksman: The ‘divine’ wisdom
I’m expounding here is the distinction between Self realization and enlightenment.
Please read the ‘Stages of Enlightenment’ section in the What is Advaita Vedanta
pamphlet. I’ve given quite a serious study to the jnana kanda section of
the Vedas which deals with moksha. It is true that I am not an expert on the karma
kanda but since it deals with vedika dharma which I follow already and the acquisition
of artha, kama and dharma it does not interest me. Dev (from
previous email): I will continue to go through the materials on your site,
because I have not come across any other sites that contain as much wisdom as
your site (as far as I can tell up to this point). I am not a ‘surfer-seeker’,
nor am I a wannabe guru, saint, or whatever. I am a simple human being like you
with an ‘I’ for the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.
Laksman: Good. I’ve not found
another site that is as good as the ******* site either. As far as your
statement that I’m a simple human being like you is concerned, you should leave
off the ‘like you’ if you want to be more accurate. If you want to think
of me in this way that is just fine with me but it is not correct.
Dev (from previous email): Thank you for sharing your insights with me.
I will endeavor to put what I have learned into practice. OM
Your nameless well-wisher,
Dev Laksman: It’s my pleasure,
Dev. Om and Prem, Laksman
Dev’s
reply to Laksman’s comments (sent on Nov. 19th): Dear
Divine Self, You
were very kind to take the time to engage in this dialog with me, and I am certain
both of us will learn from this experience. Laksmanji, I harbor absolutely no ill-will toward
you at all, and my replies to your responses are given only in the spirit of love,
and the love of Truth. As
neither of us really knows the other, it is not unlikely that we could misconstrue
one another’s intentions and words. It is sometimes difficult to detect the tone
in which unspoken words are written, and this too can lead to misunderstanding. Anything
you have written to me, or will write in the future, I do not take personally
(sense I do not relate on the ‘person’ level). This whole thing is a drama.
Keep
Shining! OM (The italicized texts are Laksman’s
most recent replies, followed by Dev replies in bold text:) Laksman
(from earlier email): “I think what's missing on this website is a definition
of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate
the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems
your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself
and who is not successful in the spiritual world.” Dev
(excerpted reply): ‘Definition of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and
if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment. Laksman:
Self evident to whom, Dev? Perhaps you are a jnani and therefore it is self
evident to you but what about a person who might read your web log? If they
were interested in following any one of these gurus I should think they would
not know what enlightenment was. Therefore, it might be of interest for
them to have some kind of idea of what they were seeking and how the guru in question
was either capable or incapable of helping them. Dev
Reply: Yes, my answer was not clear, so I will try again.
What I mean to say is that many people are seeking guidance because they
are in a quandary as to “Who am I,” and once the answer to this question is known,
the knower is enlightened. This is what I meant by ‘self-evident,’ meaning that
a true seeker of enlightenment will know Enlightenment when they find it, because
that enlightenment is the knowledge of their own Self. No doubt there are also many people who think
enlightenment is some kind of attainment that gives them special powers, etc.,
but genuine seekers really want to know “Who am I.” The MastersOfDeception blog is meant for these
genuine seekers (both novices and those already on the path) who do not have Self
Knowledge and who really want it (enlightenment) for no other purpose than the
Self itself. I
think it is necessary to digress for a moment to give you a little more information
regarding the blog under question. Very little thought went into creating the
MastersOfDeception blog, and as I said, I hesitated to publish it. Laksmanji,
this writer does not think of himself as a spiritual policeman, or one who needs
to save the world and make everyone think like himself.
I fully realize everything happening here (in this World of Prakriti) is
just a big drama. In fact, there is nothing happening at all. Anyhow, for the time-being (for those beings
caught up in the drama of Time), I published the blog with some reservations.
Can
this blog do any harm? I think it may help
people to take another look at what they are doing, how they are thinking, and
where they might be headed. Better to err
on the side of caution because this life (in its present form) will never come
back to us again. Better for a seeker to
think twice before blindly following anyone; better for followers to think twice
in case they may have the ‘wool pulled over their eyes.’ Originally,
the following paragraph was included near the beginning of the blog, but I removed
it thinking it would not really serve the purpose of the blog: ‘Our own personality and ego are the biggest
fraud going. Where is it going? It is going
to our head. We are so self-involved, and
this is why we do not experience the Self. Direct experience requires direct practice;
but we do not practice self-awareness, we practice self-involvement. The proof
is in our practices, it is not in our intentions, nor is it in our intellectual
understanding.’ I
know the blog may come across sounding somewhat self-righteous to some people,
but I did not let that concern me. ‘Righteous
indignation’ can be a virtue. Aryama –
Chastiser of the wicked; Sahuntya – Exterminator of wickedness; and many other
such Names of God (qualities or characteristics of the Self), when earnestly sung
with an open heart (expressed with a clear mind) only go to glorify the Self in
this Sport of Life. From
earlier email:
Dev: But anyway, here goes: he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown
the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge of the Self. That Wisdom removes the
darkness of Ignorance from the mind (and by extension, the intellect); hence,
the Self stands clear in that clarified, enlightened mind. Of course, the Self
is ever-clear, and ever established in its own Self, but its presence in the mind
(in the context of the living self, Jivatman) is either awakened (standing clear)
or not. Most people (jivas) are sleeping in Ignorance, which explains why their
perception and awareness is distorted and not clear. Laksman:
You say ‘its presence is either awakened (standing clear) or not” Do you
mean that a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind?
Dev
reply: The key to understanding the above paragraph is the phrase ‘in the context
of the living self, Jivatman.’ Much of
our (you and me) differences of understanding and expression are rooted in this
fundamental concept of Jivatman, which I will discuss shortly, but for now I will
answer the immediate question. “Do
you mean that a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind?” NO. A ‘person’ may be clear about
the presence of the Self in the mind, but that clarity (coming as it does from
a ‘person’) would only be intellectual and not real, i.e., it would be an intellectual
grasp of Truth and not true understanding or knowing. Only the Self is real, and only the Self can
be clear (or not) about its own presence. You
continue with: “I’m not sure how ‘its presence’ can be ‘awakened
or not.’ It is the view of Vedanta that the Self is neither awake nor asleep.
I think the sruti would agree that the Self is not ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ either.” Regarding the first two sentences: we can say
the Self is neither aware nor asleep, but we can also express this as ‘the Self
is Ever-Awake.’ However, the Jivatman does
indeed sleep and wake. Regarding the last sentence, presumably you are saying
that the Self is not ‘presence’ because this would require some separate place
in which the Self could be present; likewise, it could not be ‘absence’ because
this presumes some ‘place’ separate from the Self. Again, this is where Jivatman comes into play.
The Jivatman is much misunderstood, almost as much as is the Self. In order to
clarify this matter, I will have to go into some detail here, but you will also
find many strains of this same knowledge on the Aditya Dham website. What
is this Jivatman? The Jivatman is the embodied Self.
Yet, we hear (as explained in the Sruti) that the Self is Pure Consciousness
(or as you say, limitless awareness), and therefore clearly it can never be tainted
by the existence (or not) of the body, mind, ego, and everything associated with
these (such as actions, impressions, tendencies, and thought processes). So, is
the Self ever (at any time) embodied or not? The answer is both yes and no. The
Self is embodied as a living being to play the Sport of Life, to act in this Drama
of Creation. But just as someone puts on a uniform and plays soccer or cricket
on the field, but really in essence (as a human being) has nothing at all to do
with either the uniform or the field or even the game, in the way the Self though
embodied as the Jivatman never really becomes the ego, intellect, mind, senses
or body, but ever remains the Self only. It
is important to realize that the Jivatman is an integrated whole and cannot really
be grasped or understood as merely the sum total of its supposed parts. This is
because the Self (ATMAN), being all-pervading and therefore indivisible, can neither
be said to be in a particular part nor separate from it. This
Jivatman is not an ego, not a person, not a mind, and not any body. In essence,
this Jivatman is the Self. It is the Jivatman
that realizes (or not) the Self. This realization
takes place in the mind when the mind is enlightened. The state of enlightenment and the state of
ignorance are both states of mind. Whose
mind? It is the mind of the Jivatman, the embodied soul. Again,
the Jivatman is not an ego, person, mind, etc., nor is it simply the sum total
of all these: the Jivatman is the Self playing the Drama of Life. Is there something other than this Self? Yes,
there is: first of all it should be clear that besides the Self there is the Drama
of Creation, the Sport of Life, this Lila fashioned of Prakriti. What is this
Prakriti? Prakriti is the primordial substance from which all the props in this
Drama of Life are formed by the power of the Self. This Drama is put together
(fashioned from Prakriti) by the Pranic force of Consciousness (the Self). In
other words, Prana is inherent in the Self; its manifestation as Spirit (PURUSH)
causes the manifestation of Creation (the beginning of the Drama or Game) by setting
Prakriti into motion (infusing it with Energy). Prakriti
exists eternally. It remains unmanifested until infused with PRANA. The Self also
exists eternally. It remains unmanifested (in the context of Creation) until it
manifests its power as Pranic force and joins itself (as Purush) with Prakriti;
this manifestation of Consciousness (the Self) resulting from the joining of Purush
with Prakriti is Cosmic Consciousness (Mahatattva), and that aspect of Cosmic
Consciousness that discerns itself (as associated with Creation, the Drama) is
called the self-consciousness or EGO. The Drama eventually unfolds to the point
where all the various elements of this Creation appear, and during all of this
the Jivatman is fully manifested. Note
that the Self, being all-pervading, pervades Prakriti at all times, both before
and after the manifestation. The infusing or joining of Prakriti with Purush,
like everything that happens later, is also a drama (a play of Maya). In
its subtlest form, the Jivatman exists from the very instant the Self appears
as PURUSH and PURUSH joins with PRAKRITI. The
highest state of Being is attained when even this subtlest state of the Self is
dissolved (the Self as the Self alone exists).
This
brings to mind the following mantra from the Rig Veda: Om Tad Vishno Paraman Padam Sadaaa Pashyanti
Suryaa Diviiva Chakshuuraatatam Meaning:
Those wise sages, having shaped their mind like the nature of the sun, perceive
the Highest State of Being of Vishnu (that is, they directly experience, as no
different from themselves, the All-pervading Supreme Being), just like light spread
out in all directions (i.e., their awareness is not spotty or intermittent like
flashes of lightening in a dark sky, but is just like light spread around everywhere). Who
experiences this Highest State of Being and Who is this Being? The
Self experiences the Supreme Self Who is the Supreme Being. We are not the Supreme Being, this is why the
ultimate knowledge of the Supreme Being is in our experience of that Supreme Being. There is no higher knowledge than
this experience. We refer to this experience as the ‘experience of the Highest State of
Being’ because really that is exactly what we are experiencing: a state of closeness
to GOD. It is not the first time we experience
that Supreme State (MOKSHA) nor will it be the last. It is not
the first time we have played the Sport of Life and it will not be the last.
This goes on forever, and a most beautiful (blessed) Life it is, because
this Life is not only ours but is also infused with the Energy of the Supreme
Being, our own Supreme Self. There
comes a time in a relationship when two people stop trying to know each other
and just experience their closeness. The
relationship of the Self with the Supreme Self (Atman with Paramatman) is like
that too, only we are the ones with the limited knowledge. I say this knowing
you will probably disagree. We can be different from one another but still be
united. This is how it is with the soul
and GOD. However, we cannot really know (experience) GOD if we differ with Him. We can intellectually know the Truth without being in agreement with it, but we can NEVER
experience the Truth if we are not in
agreement with the Truth. As
you can no doubt see, my use of the words ‘knowing’ and ‘experiencing’, or ‘knowledge’
and ‘experience’ are often blended. In
my writings I sometimes use the phrase ‘Knowing is Doing’, which I could just
as easily say ‘knowing is experiencing.’ So,
according to my view, we really only know something when we experience it, otherwise,
our ‘knowing’ is really only a ‘knowing about’. There are some things I only want
to know about and would not want to experience. For example, I know about how cyanide is a deadly
poison, but certainly don’t want to experience it. There are also some things
I only know about and experience indirectly, but that’s good enough for me.
For example, I know about how the Earth is round, and even though I’ve
never experienced it by traveling all the way around it, I am satisfied with the
scientific proofs and explanations. Knowing
the Self is another matter altogether: I know the Self; I know I am not the body,
not the mind, not the ego, not the persona. I
am the Self. The Self is the Self. This
the Self knows. This the Self experiences, not in the mind but within itself.
Now, the Self has neither interior nor exterior and is not confined to time or
place. From the perspective of the Self there is neither time nor place, and there
is no time or place separate from itself: time and place appear as the Creation,
which appears in the Self, and the Self in the Creation (as Jivatman). Whether
‘I know’ as Atman or as Jivatman, the Self that must be known is the Supreme Self.
As the Self approaches (by knowledge, by knowing) the Ultimate Truth (the Supreme
Self), the Self realizes (knows that to know itself) it must go beyond itself;
it must stop knowing and start experiencing. When
this realization matures, the Jivatman is awakened and experiences itself as Atman
(the Self); that is, the dream is over and the dreamer realizes that the dream
of being in bondage was only a dream and not real. The awakened self (enlightened
Jiva) experiences (knows) itself as Atman; or worded differently, the Self (Atman)
knows (experiences) itself as the enlightened Self. In this state of enlightenment
or Self-Realization, the Self (as Pure Consciousness) must realize its own Essence
(the Supreme Self) to attain the highest Consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness,
the Absolute. However, having become established in one’s
own being (Self), the Self reveling in the sweetness of its own Pure Consciousness,
may remain in such a state for a very, very long time (many, many cycles of the
Creation), or not. To
attain the Highest State of Being, the same state Lord Krishna refers to as ‘My
state’, or ‘Myself’, or ‘My Abode,’ and which the above mantra calls out with
‘Paramam Padam Sada,’ one must make the ultimate Yajna and offer one’s own Self
into the Self (Supreme Self). There is nothing left to know or experience then
(that is, until the next time, some 311 trillion years hence, according to some).
Continuing
now with your reply: “A third doubt
that your statement brings up is this: in my experience there is no ‘person’ to
be clear or not clear about anything.”
I think we have addressed this and hopefully clarified that, indeed, there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear
about anything because a ‘person’ is really only a mental formulation and
is not (in and of itself) the living Self (Jivatman). “There
are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic states of mind which affect the mind’s perception
but they don’t belong to anyone. Perhaps you will think this is all semantics…and
indeed it might appear that way…but my opinion is that while formulating enlightenment
from a human point of view is understandable in so far as human beings will not
seek it unless they feel there is something in it for them, to speak of it this
way can also be misleading.” Enlightenment
is for souls embodied as human beings. As a human being, we have countless samskaras
and associated vasanas from many, many incarnations (in both animal and human
forms). The sattvic, rajasic and tamasic qualities of our actions, impressions,
tendencies and thoughts, affect our perception (the perception of the embodied
soul) and can either help or hinder whether or not we (human beings) attain enlightenment.
Initially, a human being learns to be selective and make careful choices
because they want to avoid pain and suffering in their life. Eventually, they
begin to yearn for Self-knowledge; they want to know who they are, what they are,
and why they are here; in other words, they long for Enlightenment. “If
someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent
knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows
that he or she is the Self. I would hope that such a statement might stimulate
inquiry and that the inquiry lead to the removal of the ignorance, “I am a person.”
As long as someone hangs on to the human identity they will not know the truth.
Yes, in a non-dual reality everything is the Self and since the Self is Awareness
everything in Awareness is also Awareness...so everyone is enlightened by default.
But this is not the end of it.” Dev
reply: You have written: “If someone
asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge
or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he
or she is the Self.” Then, according to you, the Self, who we both
know is not a person, possesses both apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance
of itself. The question then arises: where does the Self ‘possess’ this ‘apparent’
knowledge and ‘apparent’ ignorance of itself? If you say this knowledge and ignorance are
inherent in the Self, then this would lead us to conclude that the All-knowing,
Never-ignorant Self, whose nature is eternal and unchangeable, inherently possesses
knowledge and ignorance which are not really real but only apparent. In this case, the Self would always possess
apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance and enlightenment would be out of the
question. I know of no scripture that would
substantiate the statement: the All-knowing Self (and indeed, the Supreme Self,
since you make no distinction) possesses apparent knowledge and ignorance of Itself.
It is pretty much universally accepted that GOD is never ignorant (unlike
us), and not even apparently ignorant. “I
would hope that such a statement might stimulate inquiry and that the inquiry
lead to the removal of the ignorance, “I am a person.” Yes, I would hope so too, but I wouldn’t bet on it. If one starts out with a wrong premise, one
is very likely to end up in a wrong place; in this case, one is likely to end
up stuck in the mind and ego. Why? Because
the ‘someone’ who hears this statement will have to believe that the very Self
they seek to know, will, when they finally know it, still possess apparent ignorance,
and that their new found knowledge (resulting from their supposed enlightenment)
is only apparent knowledge. On the other hand, if we reveal to the seeker
the knowledge that the mind, body, etc., are the seeker’s own instruments of knowledge,
which, if wisely employed will enable the seeker to discover (uncover) their own
true Self, the seeker might then inquire: ‘Who am I’ who possess this mind and
body; why do I not know my own self; how did I forget my real nature, and how
can I realize who and what I really am? Laksman:
“As long as someone hangs on to the human identity they will not know the truth.” Dev
reply: If you mean to say that ‘as long as someone holds on to their ego and personality
they will not know the truth,’ then I whole heartedly agree with you. On the other
hand, it is essential that we keep our human identity so long as we are human
beings, because this human birth is a blessing, which if used (lived) to the fullest
will lead us to enlightenment and the highest state of Consciousness. Laksman:
“If someone sincerely asked me who I was I would not say that I was a person who
attained enlightenment. I would say that I appear to be a person because
I have a very convincing person act but that the person I once thought I was,
the one that seems to be there from the outside, is long gone.” Dev
reply: No doubt the person you were is long gone, since that person is changing
every second and is never the same. But is the ‘person’ part of you really gone? No, you are still a person, but you are so much
more than just that. You still have ego,
but you are so much more than that. You
are the living Self (Jivatman) and one day you may become a Jivamukta, or if you
attain your liberation after the death of the body, you might one day become a
Videhamukta. But in any case, right now
you are still an embodied soul. Laksman:
“ If someone wanted a more direct statement, keeping in mind the limitation of
words, I would say that I am limitless Awareness, minus apparent knowledge and
apparent ignorance. I would say that I’m not enlightened nor am I unenlightened.
I would say that I am that in which enlightenment and unenlightenment exist.
I would not say that I am not evolved or unevolved.” Dev
reply: This is the Truth, and indirectly you are establishing the existence of
both the Self (the innumerable souls, like me, you, and everyone else) and the
Supreme Self (GOD). The Self (that’s us)
are limitless awareness (Consciousness) that sometimes becomes embodied as the
Jivatman and consequently becomes apparently ignorant of its real nature (this
is something that has never and could never happen to the Supreme Self). When
this ignorance is removed from our mind
(not God’s mind, and not just ‘the mind’, but our mind) we manifest that limitless Awareness, minus apparent knowledge
and apparent ignorance. Then indeed, we are neither enlightened nor unenlightened;
we are that (in conjunction with Prakriti) by which enlightenment and unenlightenment
exist, and in that state of Pure Consciousness it can neither be said that we
are evolved or unevolved. “I
suppose that what I’m trying to suggest is that this ‘who is enlightened’ game
is not really helpful, not only because of the abstract nature of the subject
but because it really takes a jnani to know a jnani. This is why I suggested
that if you feel the need to judge someone you use Dharma as a standard.
It is easier for a seeker to understand and a more important viewpoint.
What good is enlightenment if a person’s behavior violates dharma?”
Dev
reply: Laksmanji, we are not playing the ‘who is enlightened’ game, but that question
need only be addressed to ourselves. If
you are referring to the MastersOfDeception blog (which I assume you are since
this paragraph seems to be pointed there), the aim of the blog (one aim of the
blog) is to reveal that many of those people whom we generally believe are Enlightened
(are true knowers of the Self) are often not so enlightened after all. No doubt
that some are, and others are good but confused people, some are just plain confused,
and others are down right nasty charlatans. It matters little that ‘it takes a
jnani to know a jnani’; but what does matter is that it takes an open-minded human
being (one who has dropped their bias and emotional or mental prejudices) to recognize
a fraud.
Dev: Now, one who is REALLY established (that is, one whose mind has really been
cleared of all images and false knowledge) will not only be enlightened, but will
also be enlightening. It is an effortless effort to do so (enlighten) since that
Light is self-effulgent (i.e., is not the reflection of another entity).
Laksman: “I agree with this completely.
Does this statement apply to you?” Dev
reply: I am working on it.
Dev: Anyone whose nature is contrary to the nature of the Self cannot be said
to be truly enlightened, regardless how much they may know ABOUT the self.
Knowing about and knowing are quite different from each other. ‘Knowing
is Doing’ which means the Self that has been realized in the mind is actualized
in ones behavior. Laksman:
“Yes, but (here’s the famous ‘but’) it may take some time for the enlightenment
to manifest behaviorally owing to prarabdha. Prarabdha does not affect the
jnani but it will affect people with whom the jnani comes in contact. This
is why in the old days gurus recommended that the newly enlightened ‘sit in a
cave’ like Ramana Maharishi for some time depending their prarabdha.”
Dev
reply: I can accept this reply based on your definition of ‘enlightenment’ and
a ‘jnani.’ However, generally (though not always) I use a stricter definition
of both these terms. According to your
definition, I attained enlightened when I was 19 years old. Laksman:“This
is probably why you have a negative evaluation of C. His guru told him that
he did not think it wise to teach so soon after his moksha. But C. didn’t
listen. I knew him very well. I was personally with him from morning
till night for almost two years and saw him often for about twenty years.
We were like brothers. And he was an amazing mahatma but there were traces
of rajas and tamas in him…which caused a few small problems but which did not
in any way impede his effectiveness as a guru. And I can tell you for a
fact he was completely beyond money and women. He was an ocean of compassion and
one of the most generous people I’ve ever met. He took care of my room and
board for two years and never asked a thing from me. He was a pukka sanyassi.”
Dev reply: Laksmanji, in
the few short moments I spent in the company of Swami C. (in 1974), I felt deeply
his intrinsic goodness and depth of consciousness, and have never, could never,
harbor any ill-will towards him whatsoever. I’ve
never suspected him of any foul play regarding money or women (or anything for
that matter), and always held him in high esteem. What I have written in the blog pertains mostly
to the numerous followers of his whom I feel have missed the mark; I feel Swamiji
too, being a modern Vedantin (what I call a neo-vedantin), even though he was
a pure and true sanyasi could not lead people to the Absolute Truth, though he
certainly led many on to the path of virtue and the knowledge of the Self. Anyway,
let’s continue. . . . Dev:
There are many characteristics which reflect the ignorance of the Self (i.e.,
which clearly show one is not truly enlightened). Of course, we could just as
easily take a Saguna approach and say that there are many characteristics which
reflect the Knowledge of the Self. As you know, Lord Krishna in his response
to one of Arjuna’s questions, has beautifully told us what these characteristics
are. Without referencing the Gita, I can say with certainty that these qualities
include the following: • That person will not seek
ego-recognition or satisfaction • That person will be devoid
of selfish motives • That person will be devoid of false
pride, haughtiness, and snobbishness • That person will
not cause any injury to another being (including animals) for any selfish reason
(i.e., for the purpose of gratifying one’s ego or mind) • That
person will NOT have bad habits which will influence others in a negative, self-destructive
way. They will not use their intellect and ego to justify their ego-centered
tendencies and actions. This is an extremely abbreviated list, but it
is sufficient to establish whether or not the various people mentioned in the
MastersOfDeception blog are enlightened or not. Laksman: “I
disagree. I know quite a few people who fit this definition who are definitely
not enlightened. These kinds of qualities can be unconsciously developed
through lifetimes of evolution. This is a pretty good definition of a saint
but if you read the autobiographies of saints it is quite clear that while many
may have indirect knowledge of the Self most do not have direct knowledge “I am
limitless, non-dual Awareness” which is my definition of enlightenment.”
Dev
reply: Okay “A
problem is created when someone sets out to judge enlightenment in people: what
is the means of knowledge? A belief or an opinion is not a means of knowledge.
So asking someone else to believe what you believe is, in my opinion, not helpful
spiritually.” Dev
reply: Please read the blog again. My aim is not to judge for the sake of judging,
but for the sake of disinterestedly helping. You yourself have said in one of
your Satsang writings that making judgments is not wrong; it is actually essential.
Certainly one’s judgment should not be based on mere belief or opinion, as these
definitely do NOT constitute knowledge. One’s
judgment should be based on one’s direct experience, the testimony of reliable
witnesses, and inference based on a set of valid clues. I think you would agree
with me here, and that we have simply misunderstood one another.
“Unless
you have lived with someone for a long time and you are a dispassionate person
you cannot really figure out a person’s true motives.” Dev
reply: This is certainly true of someone who’s ordinary and public actions are
widely known to be noble. We cannot know
the mind and heart of a very deep person unless we get very close to them dispassionately. However, a public figure (living or deceased)
whom people are encouraged to trust, and whose advice people are often encouraged
to accept and follow blindly, but who is (or was) engaged in selfish, degrading,
and demeaning activities (whether openly or secretly), should be exposed for what
they are. We hold politicians to such scrutiny,
and for good reasons; similarly, nowadays we have sex offender lists that are
openly published on the Internet to hopefully foreworn the innocent (though I
have some reservations about this). This whole thing is a drama: the good, the bad,
and ugly. I think there is no problem with adding some positive (albeit image-breaking
and sometimes shocking) input in the name of ‘service to humanity.’
For your own information, the gross charlatans listed on the site (and
certainly not everyone listed is or was a charlatan at all, but are/were very
noble souls, including of course Swami C) were people with whom I had direct contact
or whom someone very close to me had direct contact with, or whose adharmic behavior
is widely known (Osho). Others have been
listed (who to my knowledge were NOT charlatans) but have been included only for
the sake of revealing how so many of us blindly follow others and worship them
without realizing that these persons were NOT gods, but people just like ourselves,
who made mistakes, and had work to do on themselves, and may indeed still be working
on themselves even after their death. “People
who are into judging others…no matter how noble the reasons…often have an axe
to grind.” Dev
reply: Laksmanji, I have no axe to grind and no butter
to spread. “For
every person who sees guru X as a rakshasa there is someone who sees guru X as
a saint…so who is ‘right?’ Dev
reply: If one sees through the lens of one’s ego, one’s perception will certainly
be faulty. As the Sage Patanjali has stated
in one of his sutras (to paraphrase): One who is subjectively involved with himself
due to his own distorted mental condition, sees the real as unreal, the true as
false, the painful as pleasurable, the harmful as helpful, and so on.
However, one who practices the ways of Truth readily discerns the difference
between truth and untruth. “It
all depends on your views, which depend on your values. And people generally
come to their values honestly.” Dev
reply: I disagree.
You seem to be saying that one’s power of discernment depends on one’s
opinions (views), which in turn are based on one’s values. I assume by ‘values’ you mean principles.
In my mind, there is a set of universal principles (values) which are an
inherent part of everyone. I will explain: By
virtue of the omnipresent nature of Consciousness, the qualities of that Consciousness
must necessarily be present in all of us. The
qualities of that Consciousness are referred to (by me) as our Real Nature. Our
Real Nature embodies the principles of Consciousness, and those principles are
written in the conscience of every living being. Thus, essentially we all have
the same root values. These values are expressed as the five Yamas, which form
the foundation of Yoga. These yamas are called universal vows. Why? Because every human being by virtue of
their own conscience must make these vows (promises to one’s own self) and stick
to them, and if they don’t, they will be betraying their own true nature. Regardless of the tendencies one may have accumulated
over one’s innumerable incarnations (many, many, in non-human forms), when one
is embodied as a human being one’s higher nature compels one to acknowledge this
nature (these principles of consciousness) and abide by it (i.e., be one’s
Self). Thus, you could say that we all
‘come to our values’ when we come into this human life, because when we are born
as human beings these intrinsic values (of Consciousness itself) are written (so
to speak) in our conscience. Laksman:
“ Nobody sets out thinking “I’ll delude myself and become a selfish nasty person.”
It happens.” Dev
reply: It ‘happens’ because of our wrong
choices. Please refer to my article, Evolution of the Soul, on the Aditya
Dham website. “This
is why I like Christ’s approach. He said, “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”
It doesn’t seem to me that you are making a distinction between the sin and the
sinner.” Dev
reply: Absolutely correct: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”
This is the only true approach, this is Dharma. Every true Arya (noble
human being) without exception embraces this precept of Consciousness. There is a world of difference between the sin
and sinner. If I have failed to convey
this, that is my error. “I
don’t know about you or about your motives but to take this blog seriously I would
have to believe that Dev is enlightened. You may be or you may not be…but
how is a stranger visiting a web log to tell? A person’s own words are not
enough…in so far as self delusion is one of human’s most salient characteristics.” Dev
reply: Are you saying that in order to believe the information on the site the
reader would have to believe the one who posted it is enlightened? The one who
posted it need only be knowledgeable enough to call a spade a spade, a charlatan
a charlatan, a saint a saint, a seeker a seeker, and a noble human being a noble
human being. The words of the Wise, even a single word, is sometimes enough for
a truth seeker, even a truth seeker who is seriously self-deluded. Those who are not truth seekers, even if they
be very wise in their own eyes, will remain blinded by their ego even if the truth
were to blaze before them like the light of thousand suns. “I
will eat my words, however, if you start getting emails from people who claimed
that they got burned by gurus on your list and should have paid attention to your
warning.” Dev
reply: I guess you’re saying (please correct me if I’m wrong) that after someone
reads the list they will be inclined to ignore it because they will not perceive
it was compiled by their own well-wisher and invisible friend, or by an enlightened
being. Consequently, they will possibly
end up receiving a ‘personal’ darshan of Satya Sai Baba, be molested by him, then
later leave in disgust and remorse and send me an email saying they should have
heeded my warning. Well, hopefully that
will not be the case. But after all, this is Samsara, and this Samsara exists
in the minds of the ignorant and in the minds of those who ignore their own conscience.
This Samsara will go on forever. Laksman: “It seems
your definition [of enlightenment] is
someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not
successful in the spiritual world.” Dev:
Yes, without a doubt, that person will be a vegetarian. The other half of
this sentence ‘who is not successful in the spiritual world’ appears to be a little
bit of sarcasm, or maybe you really do misunderstand me. Let me clarify: an enlightened
person (I don’t like using this phrase) has absolutely NO desire to be successful
in the spiritual circus or marketplace, and will actually AVOID making ‘performances’
and ‘deals,’ and by virtue of this that person IS successful in the so-called
spiritual world, regardless how evolved they are. Laksman:
I agree with the last sentence although not completely because there are no rules
for jnanis. Dev
reply: This is a mistaken notion that ‘there are no
rules for jnanis.’ A knower of Truth is ruled by the truth to be truthful; a jnani
is ruled by wisdom to act wisely. A jnani will act according to Dharma; he or
she will not violate the law or rule of their own Being, their own True Self.
In the mind of the Wise, only wisdom rules; they are not ruled by the tyrant ego,
they are not ruled by their whims, moods, or desires. Certainly, (due to existing vasanas) a jnani
may still have many whims, moods, and desires but he or she will be ruled by their
own conscience which is overshadowed by the characteristics (qualities) of the
real Self. It is true, however, that a
jnani is not bound by any external rules, obligations, or the mental images and
projections of others. Knowing
who you are is the big success, not what you do or don’t do with the knowledge. Dev
reply: Knowing who you are but not being who you are is a shame and a sham;
it is certainly not a success. For example, one who knows the principles of good
health but doesn’t put those principles into practice is one who is a prisoner
of their mind and ego. In other words, one who knows better but doesn’t do
better is one who is complacent and mentally lazy.
One who claims to know the Self but continues to be pushed around by his
or her small self (ego), does not really know the Self, because the knowledge
of the Self sets you free. “
My view is that if you are enlightened you should keep your mouth shut because
to say that you are enlightened is not evidence of special attainment since enlightenment
is the nature of all beings. In fact it is evidence of a long stay in ignorance…which
would be better left unmentioned. This whole who is enlightened business
is a complete non-starter.” Dev
reply: Human beings act according to their nature.
The nature of the mind is that it is comprised of the sattwic, rajasic,
and tamasic forces, characteristics, impressions, tendencies, memories, etc. The
nature of the Self is that It is beyond all of these. The mind that has been enlightened
with the knowledge of the Self becomes colored with the nature of the Self.
This coloring of the mind with the nature of the Self is a process that
takes place over time. When the mind is initially
enlightened with the knowledge of the Self the sattvic element predominates in
that mind. In order that the mind remain enlightened the
sattvic element must go on increasing in order that it does not become overpowered
(and hence, darkened) by the rajasic and tamasic elements. I believe we both know that enlightenment is
spoken of the mind and not the Self. The
different degrees of enlightenment (if you will) refer to how enlightened the
mind is. The mind that is totally enlightened
is the mind from which all negative samskaras and vasanas have been eradicated.
Enlightenment
certainly does indicate that the mind was previously in the state of darkness
(Ignorance), but so what? There is nothing here to hide. It is completely irrelevant
who is enlightened, unless this ‘who’ refers to ourselves. Realizing we are not enlightened, or not as
enlightened as we could be, we might inquire by searching more deeply within ourselves
and also perhaps seeking help from those who we trust. “As
far as the vegetarian idea is concerned even plants are living beings. You’re
taking life when you eat them.” Dev
reply: Vegetables, fruits, and grains nourish the lives of human beings without
causing pain and suffering to other sentient beings. Living creatures do not offer themselves to
us for slaughter; invariably they will try to run away, fly away, swim away, or
crawl away. Like us, they too want to be
free to live, to play with their children, and to enjoy life. Apples and other fruits fall from the tree limbs
when ripe, and we eat them without causing any harm whatsoever to the tree.
Vegetables and grains are harvested and their seeds replanted (we cannot
replant a cow, dog, or horse). It is unlikely
that the wheat plant or rice plant feel pain when harvested.
In fact, some people believe that all vegetation is a form of living matter,
like yeast, viruses, etc., and are NOT the embodiment of the soul, and hence there
is no violence involved in the cultivation and harvesting of fruits, vegetables
and grains. “Just
because they have a rudimentary Subtle Body it is OK to eat them? I suppose this
might force you to modify your definition to exclude vegetarians. Maybe
you should claim that enlightened people can only be breatharians. But they
what would happen to their enlightenment if they inhaled a few microbes…which
are living beings as well…and which is happening all the time to everyone?” Dev
reply: In answer to your first question, according to my view they do not have
a Subtle Body because the subtle body refers to the embodiment of Atman. Grass, herbs, fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.,
are not the bodies of souls. But nearly everyone in the spiritual field will agree
that animals, birds, and even fish do indeed have souls (or rather, the Atman
is embodied as the Jivatman in these sentient life forms). Regarding
the rest of this paragraph, it is clear that you do not see any harm in eating
animals. If you can look into the eyes of a cow, dog, lamb, horse, or other animal
and kill it with your own hands and eat it, without feeling that you have violated
your own conscience, then there is nothing I can really say to influence you in
this regard. As for inhaling a few microbes
(which again, are probably not living beings but living matter), there is a world
of difference between that and killing a cow; especially when the former is unavoidable
but the latter is solely by one’s own choice and is totally unnecessary. “And
what about Tibetan lamas in the winter with not a vegetable in sight? Their
spirituality is compromised because they eat Yak butter and meat?” Dev
reply: There have been many great Mystics, Saints, and Sages, and many ordinary
people too who live in regions of sparse vegetation, and have never eaten meat. Besides, the Yaks had to consume a lot of vegetation
themselves (being vegetarians), so surely there must be some vegetation available,
and if not, human beings are nomadic by nature and will migrate to areas where
food can be found. Tibetan lamas who eat
meat, like many other Buddhists, are not true followers of the teachings of Lord
Buddha. “In
case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats life. Nobody can avoid it.
Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed. The cows eat vegetables and
they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.” Dev
reply: Excuse me for saying (and I really do not mean
to hurt your feelings) but you are really revealing your ignorance here. You are
deliberately ignoring (going against) your Higher Nature, your Real Nature, your
Dharma, which is NOT to cause avoidable pain and suffering to any creature.
Laksman: (from the previous
email) “I understand this is a blog but what is going to convince anyone that
your evaluations are anything more than an opinion? It would be better if
you had testimonials to buttress your views.” Dev: Honestly, I have
no need to convince anyone of anything. You are no doubt familiar with the
term VASUDEVAKUTUMBAKAM. My only desire is my duty to warn my family members of
dangerous people they may encounter. It was not possible to list all the good,
the bad, and ugly; nor was it necessary to provide evidence which is widely available
(or at the very least, is certainly known to the confidents of those living).
However, many people are in denial because their self-delusion has become their
comfort zone. Most people, however, have simply never come in touch with
the undiluted Truth and so they continue to stumble in the darkness of their ignorance.
In every case (listed above), this one feels moved to cut to the chase and set
the record straight (as I understand it). In case I am wrong, I certainly
welcome one and all to correct me. Laksman: “
OK. I wouldn’t say you were ‘wrong’ but I wouldn’t say you were ‘right’
either. I’m just suspicious of people with a self-defined ‘duty’ to protect
the ignorant for this reason: as long as you try to protect them you keep them
ignorant.” Dev
reply: Exposing people to the truth does not keep them ignorant. I have no duty
to protect the ignorant; my duty is to speak the truth and remove ignorance. “People
only learn when they make their own mistakes. Fucking up can make you think.
And thinking is good. If I just blindly do what I’m told because Dev or
anyone else tells me it is for my own good, I will still be an idiot at the end
of the day.” Dev
reply: No one should follow anyone blindly because that would be a big mistake.
The problem is that we blindly follow our ego and this is what really gets us
in trouble. In fact, we make trouble for ourselves (and others) when we blindly
follow our ego. People who follow their ego are trouble-makers; the Wise are trouble-shooters.
It is just the nature of the Wise to speak the truth. “I
have been teaching Vedanta for almost forty years and I have found that the best
way to protect people is to teach them how to think for themselves. Often
people come to me who are ‘following’ a very bad guru and I do not try to dissuade
them from it. In the first place almost nobody takes the advice of other
people…particularly when they are attached to their desires…and secondly it is
good to suffer from a lack of discrimination. These lessons really stick.
If I tell you not to do something…like God told Eve…there is always a doubt. And
that doubt will send you right into the arms of suffering. If God had said,
‘Those apples are very healthy; they have the recommended amounts of calcium and
iron” Eve would have never looked twice at them. She would have gone off
to the candy store for some chocolate.” Dev
reply: I would say the best way to teach is by one’s own example. As they
say “A picture is worth a thousand words, but a good example is worth a thousand
pictures.” We are thinking for ourselves
only when our mind is not ruled by our ego. People do not take kindly to good
advice because they are caught up in the desires of the mind and remain under
the compulsion of ego, due to Ignorance. When a human being makes up their mind
that they do not want to suffer anymore, or contribute to the suffering of others,
they become receptive to the knowledge of the Self. This Knowledge prods them to inquire about the
true nature of Reality, and this inquiry causes them to exercise their power of
discernment. The more it is exercised the
better it gets, and eventually they clearly discern the real from the unreal,
the true from the false, and the helpful from the harmful. Laksman:
(from a previous email) “To put a positive spin on your definition you seem to
be saying that an enlightened person is a saint. What's missing is the idea
of a jnani, someone who knows the truth of their own nature but does not develop
sattvika vasanas, in other words someone who is just a regular person 'following
his or her nature' as Krishna says in the Gita.” Dev:
My Invisible Friend, Laksmanji, a Jnani is one who knows their own Real Nature
(Higher Nature) and their lower nature too, AND embraces the Real (nature) and
is not moved (motivated) by the Unreal (lower nature). The ‘Unreal’ means
Ignorance. Only one who is ignorant of the Self will manifest demonic qualities,
or will remain as an ordinary self-involved individual. In other words, one who
really knows the Self will definitely be a Saint (though most likely unknown to
the world at large), and one who is engaged in the process of enlightenment (i.e.,
is sincerely inquiring into the nature of the Self) will certainly be a saintly
person. Being a saintly person means (to me) that that person is making
a concerted effort to rise above himself (ego-centered self), which can only be
done through the acquisition of divine Wisdom (AtamGyaan, Soul-knowledge).
Ones actions (or more correctly, one’s GunaKaramSubhav: qualities, behavior, and
nature) are proof-positive whether or not one has assimilated this Knowledge.
Having acquired it without assimilating it is really meaningless; just as is ‘knowing
the truth but acting against it’, or knowing the truth but not being truthful,
or ‘talking the talk’ but not ‘walking the walk.’ Laksman: “
OK, Dev. I agree but it takes time to assimilate it. At what point
does one pass the Dev enlightenment test? When there are no negative vasanas?
When there are 95% sattvika vasanas? All qualities are in Maya and even
the divine qualities are only meaningful because of the demoniac qualities.
It seems to me that non-dual vision means that everything in Maya is equal to
everything else in so far as it all serves the Self.” Dev
reply: Why try to justify our ignorance? This Drama exists for the purpose of
removing our ignorance. We are here to discover (uncover) the Truth and not to
cover it up with more ignorance. The Treasure
is buried very deeply and one will have to continue to dig until It is completely
uncovered. It is covered by Ignorance and
ego brought about by Maya. Whose Maya?
It is our own Maya. We have to stop deluding ourselves; it won’t
just happen on its own. It is a process, and that process should never stop.
It will indeed stop, but only when we are completely enlightened. “
Speaking as a person I used to be an evil doer and it was the correct path for
me because it lead me to the Self at an early age. If I’d been a nice decent
well meaning holy person always doing the right thing and following the good advice
of others I may not have waked up at all. Virtue is not always helpful.
A golden chain can bind you as completely as an iron one. It’s nice to want
to save people from their folly but remember the Inquisition.”
Dev
reply: The path of ignorance is never the right path;
the only right path is the path of Dharma, which means to make our mind and behavior
conform to our Real Nature. No one is perfect, but no one can remain content (forever)
in their self-imposed limitations and ignorance. It is our nature to strive for
perfection, to break free from the bonds of ignorance.
Being
holy is not being real, it is just another mental façade fashioned by ego. When
a human being lives a wholesome life, eating wholesome foods, thinking wholesome
thoughts, and keeping the company of wholesome people, one’s life is genuinely
fulfilling, and hence that person is not driven to look for happiness in the wrong
places, i.e., where happiness cannot be
found. It definitely cannot be found in
religious dogma or images which are nothing but the byproducts of ego and ignorance.
Dev: No doubt
(as declared by Patanjali) the enlightened state is beyond the quantitative or
qualitative imprints (samskaras). The Self is beyond the sattvic, rajasic,
and tamasic qualities of Prakriti, and always remains such. But we are living
souls; we are embodied in mind and matter. Our essence (the Self) is unchangeable,
but our lower nature is constantly changing. These changes in our lower
nature (mind and body) are certainly not random or uncontrolled. We (as
living souls) have the power (inherent in the Self) to shape our mind (and life)
into a beautiful dance, a beautiful expression of our Essence (Self). It is only
by PRACTICE that we ultimately attain the state of effortless effort; then everything
seems to flow effortlessly, like the movement of a skilled dancer, musician, or
artist. It will NEVER just happen by simply knowing ABOUT the Self.
Laksman: “From the human point of view
this is true. But I don’t accept it. As I said I’m not a human being.
So ‘we’ does not apply to me. It may apply to you, however. I am not
living and I am not embodied. This idea is just a humble ‘spiritual’ way
keeping oneself limited.”
Dev
reply: Of course you are a human being. You are a beautiful
human being, the creation of the Self. No one does them self or anyone else any good
by denying their own humanness. You are the Self embodied as a human being for
a purpose: the purpose of the Self. The
Vedas reveal what that purpose is. Wouldn’t
you say it is ludicrous to think that everything that exists, exists only for
the sake of having its existence denied? This is irrational and unreasonable and
contrary to the Self. “I
also do not accept the formulation of enlightenment as a ‘state.’ This confusion
started a long time ago with a misreading of the Mandukya Upanishad which called
the Self ‘the forth.’ It does not say ‘the forth state’ but this is how
people read it who studied its discussion of the three states. The Upanishad
meant that the Self is the forth factor, i.e. the invariable Awareness in and
beyond the three states.”
Dev
reply: According to what you saying (or at least according to what you have written),
you imply that all four are factors and not states (i.e., if the Self is the fourth
factor, what are the first three factors?). In
that case, they are factors of what? In my mind, all four are factors of manifest
Reality. There is also a state beyond the Fourth known as TuryiAdeeta: this is
the Absolute Consciousness which is neither a state nor a factor. “I
understand Patanjali’s definition of enlightenment…chitta vritti niroda.
But it is not a good definition. It is good for anta-karana suddhi, purification
of the mind, but that is all. It turns enlightenment into an event that
depends on karma and doership. Enlightenment is the nature of the Self and
the Self cannot be attained through action.”
Dev
reply: True enlightenment is the nature of the Self
and the Self cannot be attained through action, but enlightenment is not enlightenment of the Self but of the
mind, and this enlightenment is attained through action, even as ignorance
is the result of action. This is why the purification of the mind through the
practice of Yoga results in enlightenment. ‘We are the problem, we are the solution.’
The Wise teach us to take responsibility for our mental state (which is
the result of our actions) and take action to change it. This is the practical
knowledge of the Self. It doesn’t mean enlightenment (purification of the mind)
is attained by being a ‘goodie-goodie-two shoes’ or making one’s mind conform
to one’s egotistical images of religion, God, or life; it doesn’t mean that at
all: it means really removing one’s ignorance of the Self from the mind, and this
involves one’s total being, not merely one’s intellect. I
am not saying you think enlightenment is an intellectual process; surely you realize
knowing the Self is Self Knowledge.
But this Self is NOT the Supreme Self,
and unless one knows this, one will tend to remain where one is. There are people who attain Self Knowledge and
keep their negative vasanas (some very, very nasty vasanas) and use this Self
Knowledge to do whatever the hell they want. They never know the Supreme Self within the
Self, and due to their incomplete knowledge they lead others astray.
Dev: Too many Vedantists know too much for their own good, because they
do not put what they know (about) into practice: they DO NOT take hold of their
own mind and shape it into something beautiful and useful, but instead they retain
their selfish inclinations and impressions and imagine themselves to be in the
world but not of it. The fact is, many of them are buried up to their necks
in this world of unreality, but they hide in their neo-vedantic egos and personalities,
and continue to fool themselves and others. Laksman:
“This is true of many Vedantists but it is equally true of many people following
other spiritual paths.”
Dev
reply: Of course, this is true of people from all the
different religious persuasions, but here (in our dialog) we are primarily concerned
with bringing to light the true meaning of Vedanta (and Advaita) and the true
meaning of Enlightenment.
Laksman: (from a previous email) “If it were my blog I would present the
position that following Dharma is superior to Self realization. So if you
have a person who claims to be Self realized you can write him off because he
doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next to following dharma enlightenment
is the most important thing in the world. But you have to be careful what
you mean by dharma because some activities are dharmic in certain situations and
not in others.” Dev: Dharma simply means the Nature of the
Self, and it is absolutely impossible to realize the Self without practicing the
nature of the Self (Dharma). Unfortunately, you are definitely playing mind-games,
which should be expected of you since that is what all neo-vedantic people are
doing. However, in your case, I think you are an exceptional person who
knows a lot, but is also capable of going beyond what you know, think you know,
and don’t know. Laksman: I’ll
just ignore the insult, Dev, because you don’t know me. I am surprised you
don’t get the idea since it is basically in harmony with your view of enlightenment.
In any case I am not an exceptional person. It may seem that way to you
but it doesn’t seem that way to me…and I should know since I’m me. Since
you don’t seem to get the idea perhaps you would like me to explain it again?
Dev reply: I’m sorry if
I came across as harsh. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to hurt your feelings,
but I have to stand by my statement, namely that neo-vedanta is not true Vedanta
and therefore is a game of the mind and those who believe in it are playing a
mind game and are NOT playing the game of the Self, which is the Game of Enlightenment.
In other words, neo-vedanta does not remove Ignorance from the mind and result
in enlightenment though (because of the shades of truth present in it) it can
certainly give the appearance of enlightenment to the unenlightened.
Dev:
I am not a very well-read man, and have never heard of this person Dogzen, but
I can say without hesitation the person is deluded. He (or she) talks of dharma
and enlightenment as though they are commodities in the marketplace (or the mind),
when in fact they constitute our own Being. One who is established in the Self..
. . or heck, leave that aside. . . One who is truly established on the Path, .
. . . leave that be too. . . . ONE WHO IS A TRUE HUMAN BEING, one who is honest
with himself (or herself), one who is Real (to the core of their own being) knows
what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is real and unreal, what is
dharmic and adharmic. ‘Knowing the Truth’ is NOT an intellectual grasp of ‘things.’
It is beyond the language of thought, but it is not thoughtless. It is beyond
the mind but it is not mindless. It is beyond emotions and feelings but
it is not beyond experience. It is the Self, but it is NOT selfish.
Laksman: “Accepting your view
of enlightenment these statements make sense but I think your definition doesn’t
do enlightenment justice.” Dev
reply: We do not do ourselves any justice by knowing what is right and doing what
is wrong. We do not do ourselves any justice by intellectualizing
the knowledge of the Self but not practicing the knowledge of the Self. Actually,
one cannot really intellectualize the knowledge of the Self because that knowledge
to be experiential must be put in to practice. The ‘experience’ of the Self is the enlightenment
of the mind. In other words, enlightenment
is not the Self because enlightenment is a state of mind: the state of the mind
being freed from Ignorance, which results in the mind being still, which results
in the clear (undistorted) reflection of the Self in that mind.
This is the state of mind called Enlightenment. Laksman (from earlier email):The other
problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate indicator of enlightenment.
. . . . there are many enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that
may appear to be impurities from the outside but do not injure others nor do they
affect their realization.” Dev: The second half of this sentence
is of course true, and irrespective of so-called parabhda karma. That is, an enlightened
soul, or in any case a very evolved soul, may still have ordinary likes and dislikes,
etc., which are NOT of the type that would be injurious to others (or one’s self).
To say that these vasanas do not affect one’s realization, however, cannot be
true. Realization is not a static ‘experience’ (as you will surely agree),
but it is the State of Being, and That (State of Being) is Changeless yet Ever-New,
which means it is always fresh, beginingless and endless. The one (living self)
that realizes the Self never gets stuck in any image. The realized Soul remains
in the state of limitless (ASEEM) Consciousness. Laksman:
We are world’s apart on this one, Dev. Realization is the direct knowledge
I am the Self. The Self is nir-vasana, meaning it is unaffected by the vasanas.
The Self is not an experience. Experience is the Self but the Self is not
experience. If I am the Self then how can experience i.e. vasanas change
me? You seem to believe that there is some embodied being who realizes something
and this realization is a kind of experience and this realization has certain
hard and fast behavioral implications. If this is what you call enlightenment
then the vasanas definitely do affect it. But this kind of realization is
just another vasana. It’s a good vasana considering the samsaric alternatives
but anything that can be affected by something else is not real. Identification
with the person has to die for the knowledge ‘I am the Self’ to arise. What
you are talking about is what I call Self realization or experiential enlightenment…which
is good compared to the samsaric state but it is still in Maya because the subject
object duality is still taken to be real. Dev
reply: Everything you have written in this paragraph is true. Let’s jump to the
middle of the paragraph: “You seem to believe that there is some embodied
being who realizes something and this realization is a kind of experience and
this realization has certain hard and fast behavioral implications.” Here,
Laksmanji, is the crux of our difference of understanding. Yes, there is an embodied being who realizes something,
and that embodied being is you, that embodied being is me, that embodied being
is/was Swami C, that embodied being is/was Shankaracharya. The being who is embodied is the Self. The Being that is never embodied is the Supreme
Self. It is presumptuous on our part to
declare that we are the Supreme Self; something which I don’t think Ramana Maharishi
would ever have done. Of course, when one (the Self) is united with that Supreme
Self (and in Reality it is always united), one does not differ with the Supreme
Self (which is one’s own Essence, i.e., the Soul of the Soul). By not ‘differing’
I mean to say the Self does not declare itself as different or even as the same,
because as we know, there is nothing to declare then, nothing to prove, and nothing
to disprove. The
reason I am so adamant about this is because this error (of human beings thinking
they themselves are the Supreme Self, or GOD) has resulted in a lot of disgraceful
and disgusting behavior on the part of many so-called spiritualists, or swamis,
gurus, etc. The one who truly knows (the
Self as the Supreme Self) does not say so; this too is the Sruti.
Dev: There is no end to refining our mind. Laksman:
“This is true if you are a doer. For the Self there is no refining to do.
If I am the Self I won’t be refining the mind. You might read the story
of how the Sixth Patriarch got to be the Sixth Patriarch. The secret to
what I’m saying is in his poem.” Dev
reply: I am not familiar with the poem . . . but I do know this without any doubt:
actions do not ‘just happen.’ This intelligently
designed Creation does indeed have a Creator. Depending on your perspective, that
Creator is either the Self or the Supreme Self, or both. In any case, one cannot say there is no purpose
to all of this (even if the purpose is only to have fun). This Lila, or Sport, or Drama of Existence is
real (as a lila, sport, or drama), and
we (the innumerable souls) are not meaningless illusions. Even if we accept that
we, as the embodied Self, are an illusion,
still there is Truth in this illusion. The
mind is refined by the embodied Self; the mind does not just refine itself. This
doesn’t mean that the Self is a ‘doer’ in the sense that it is generally understood
by the ignorant; which is why the scriptures tell us (the ignorant) the Self is
not a doer. What can one who is ignorant
do? The ignorant are moved about by the gunas.
The ignorant do not perceive that it is the “gunas moving among the gunas”
as we are told in the Gita. One who is beyond the gunas will not be moved by either
good or evil, but will continue to do what is good and not what is wrong.
Dev: The one who stops refining their perception and
awareness is not self-realized but self-deluded. Laksman:
“If you define enlightenment this way, I can’t argue. But I don’t see it
this way. I could give you more reasons but I’ve written a lot and I’m tired.
So I will leave you with one question. ‘Who is going to stop refining and
why?’ Dev
reply: As I said somewhere else. . . there is no end to refining our nature. The
expression of the Self is an art (of living), and if the Self is limitless then
how could the expression ever end? It does, however, become an effortless effort. “Rather
than write more on this topic if you want to understand my views of enlightenment
perhaps you can read [my writings] on enlightenment,
knowledge, and experience on the web. You might also benefit from reading
the Stages of Enlightenment section in the ‘What is Advaita Vedanta’ pamphlet.”
Dev
reply: I have read these (and other) areas of your website and enjoyed them very
much. If you read some of my articles on the Aditya Dham website (and blog.adityadham.com)
you will also perhaps have a clearer understanding of my view too, as I believe
I do of yours. “I’ve
been fighting this battle for a long time, Dev. You have the experiential
view and I hold the identity view. There is a way to resolve it if you want to
but from the dogmatic way you express yourself I’m not sure you would be open
to considering the Vedantic view. So let’s see how you react to what I’ve
said here and take it from there.”
Dev
reply: Well Laksmanji, I don’t consider this a battle
(of opinions) or a war of words. We both
have done a considerable amount of our own inner (and outer) research on these
matters, and naturally we both have strong convictions (not just beliefs). Our
convictions are based on both direct experience and knowledge. I am not at all
a dogmatic human being. Though I am firm in my conviction of Truth, I do not perceive
the Truth as cast in concrete or carved in granite. I remain open to the process
of learning, realizing that no matter how much I know (or think I know), I could
never say I know it all (even if and when I know there is nothing left to be known,
I will not say so). You
may benefit from a reading of Satyarth Prakash by Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati. He was truly an exceptional Sannyasi, though
much misunderstood by most people. “It
is difficult to understand what I am saying because of a deeply engrained human
orientation. It is the vasana that holds all positive and negative vasanas
together. Your definition is fine…for you. But if you were to ask
for advice..which doesn’t seem likely…I would suggest that you inquire into the
meaning of ‘human’ or ‘person.’ And I would respectfully suggest that you
won’t find anything there.” Dev
reply: Laksmanji, it is not our human orientation that is the problem.
The ‘person’ we think ourselves to be is the problem.
We did not become human beings because of our thinking; we became human
beings because of an act of God. This human
life is a blessing, it is not a curse; a challenge, YES, but that’s all part of
the Lila, the Sport. On the other hand,
the ‘person’ we are is just a myth; there is ‘nothing there’ to our personhood,
and we do indeed discover this by inquiring into the nature of the Self. “
As far as I’m concerned its fine if you chose to be a human being and define enlightenment
the way you do. But I don’t fit into it. And because I don’t doesn’t
mean that I’m playing mind games or don’t know what I’m saying or am some clever
intellectual Vedantist. You are free to think what you like. I know
what I know.” Dev
reply: Again, I am sorry if I inadvertently offended you; it is certainly not
my desire to do so (honestly). I have no desire that you should fit into my mental
mold, nor do I believe you have any desire that I should fit into yours. No doubt neither of us believes he himself is
in a mental mold. Well, let me rephrase
that: I realize I (the Self) am embodied as a human being and therefore appear
to be limited by the mind and body. I (the Self) know these limitations are appearances
only. I am here to make my appearance and leave. The Show must go on, but it can and will go
on without me; but for now, I am here to make my appearance, which is exactly
what I am doing. That is, I am making up
my mind, shaping it into a Sage. I have
not come here to get something out of Life, nor have I come to deny Life. I am
here to see what I can put into this Life, to manifest my Real Nature, to express
the Wisdom of the Absolute.
Dev: Only those in whose minds the ego remains embedded will continue to live
in self-delusion and confusion. The ego cannot be removed from the mind except
through the application of divine wisdom. The seeds of divine wisdom are found
in the Vedas and the various teachings that have emanated from them (and continue
to emanate from them). You have studied many vedic teachings but I feel
you have not given enough attention to the Vedas themselves, otherwise you would
not have some of the views that you seem to espouse. Laksman: “
The ‘divine’ wisdom I’m expounding here is the distinction between Self realization
and enlightenment. Please read the ‘Stages of Enlightenment’ section in
the What is Advaita Vedanta pamphlet.” Dev
reply: Okay, I will read that section. “
I’ve given quite a serious study to the jnana kanda section of the Vedas which
deals with moksha. It is true that I am not an expert on the karma kanda but since
it deals with vedika dharma which I follow already and the acquisition of artha,
kama and dharma it does not interest me.” Dev
reply: You are probably more learned than myself as regards the scriptures. My
knowledge (and I would think much of yours) comes primarily from deep meditative
awareness (and self-inquiry) and the touch (influence) of my preceptor and other
wise souls. Dev:
I will continue to go through the materials on your site, because I have not come
across any other sites that contain as much wisdom as your site (as far as I can
tell up to this point). I am not a ‘surfer-seeker’, nor am I a wannabe guru,
saint, or whatever. I am a simple human being like you with an ‘I’ for the Truth,
the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Laksman:
Good. I’ve not found another site that is as good as the ****** site either. Dev
reply: If you thoroughly go through the Aditya Dham
site you might discover it too has a lot to offer. “
As far as your statement that I’m a simple human being like you is concerned,
you should leave off the ‘like you’ if you want to be more accurate. If
you want to think of me in this way that is just fine with me but it is not correct.”
Dev reply: I see the Supreme Self in you, and the embodied
Self, and find no shame or sham (illusion) in being a human being. Again,
I thank you Laksmanji for sharing your Self with the Self. Keep
Shining! Om Tat Sat Your
unknown friend and well-wisher, Dev
follows up with the following email before receiving reply from Laksman on Nov.
22nd: Jai Bhagwan,
As I continue to go through your articles, I truly appreciate the soundness
of your presentation and the depth of your being. Though we appear to have
some fundamental differences, there is so much that we are 110 percent the same
about. Perhaps one day we will speak directly to one another. That may
bring to light many things. I look forward to your response from my recent
email (as time permits you). Keep Shining! Om
Jai Maha Dev Laksman’
replies to Dev. . . Hi
Dev, It turns out that both the computers in the email shop won't allow
me to copy your email and since it is a long email I need to take it home and
think about a reply. Don't worry, they will get it fixed. I like you
and will continue to reply to your emails. Most of the problems are due
to semantics but they need to be sorted out if we are going to continue.
If you have one definition of the jivatman and I have another we are not
going to see eye to eye. Of course the best is personal contact. Where do
you live and what is your age? It may be a few days before I can reply to
your email. I've just arrived in India
and there are many things to do for the next few days to make life livable.
Om and Prem, Laksmanji Following
are Laksman’s replies/comments to specific parts of Dev’s previous email of 11/19.
This email was received on 11/22. Hi Dev,
I'm sorry if I'm a bit hard on you in this email. Don't take it too seriously.
I know you're a good guy. It is not intended as a brush off; it's just that we
need to get certain things straight at the beginning of this conversation for
it to work properly. Love, Laksman Dev:
Yes, my answer was not clear, so I will try again. What I mean to say is
that many people are seeking guidance because they are in a quandary as to “Who
am I,” and once the answer to this question is known, the knower is enlightened.
This is what I meant by ‘self-evident,’ meaning that a true seeker of enlightenment
will know Enlightenment when they find it, because that enlightenment is the knowledge
of their own Self. No doubt there are also many people who think enlightenment
is some kind of attainment that gives them special powers, etc., but genuine seekers
really want to know “Who am I.” The MastersofDeception blog is meant for
these genuine seekers (both novices and those already on the path) who do not
have Self Knowledge and who really want it (enlightenment) for no other purpose
than the Self itself. Laksman:
If there are such people and these people came to your website they would not
really need this information because a true seeker is always completely protected
by his or her bhakti. No one can injure them. It might be useful for
well-meaning but unqualified seekers as a kind of warning but since you asked
me I believe that for maximum impact it needs more from you about you and your
motivations. I know I would certainly be suspicious about such a blog.
If someone asked me about a certain guru I would cite my sources and give reasons
for my belief. ----- Dev: This Jivatman is not an
ego, not a person, not a mind, and not any body. In essence, this Jivatman is
the Self. Laksman: If this is
true then what is the meaning of your words that it sleeps and wakes? In
any case when I say that I am not a person I mean that I am the Self or the Jivatman,
if you prefer. According to my understanding/experience (and scripture would
back me up on this) the Self and the Jivatman are identical. However, the
difference in words is accounted for by the superimposition (adyaropa) of individuality
(jiva) on the Self. The Jivatman, me, is not limited like a jiva.
----- Dev: It is the Jivatman that realizes (or not) the
Self. This realization takes place in the mind when the mind is enlightened.
The state of enlightenment and the state of ignorance are both states of mind.
Whose mind? It is the mind of the Jivatman, the embodied soul. Laksman:
OK. This is pretty clear and I can’t argue with it. However, it is
my understanding/experience that ‘embodiment’ is an upadhi, something projected
by ignorance that is not actually there. It seems to be there, however and
therefore people believe that the Jivatman and the Self, the Paramatman are distinct
entities. Shankara’s statement “Jivo Brahamaiva na parah” indicates the
non-duality of the two as does the Mahavakya, ‘Tat tvam asi” .
….. Dev: Whether ‘I know’ as Atman or as Jivatman, the Self that must
be known is the Supreme Self. As the Self approaches (by knowledge, by knowing)
the Ultimate Truth (the Supreme Self), the Self realizes (knows that to know itself)
it must go beyond itself; it must stop knowing and start experiencing. When
this realization matures, the Jivatman is awakened and experiences itself as Atman
(the Self); that is, the dream is over and the dreamer realizes that the dream
of being in bondage was only a dream and not real. The awakened self (enlightened
Jiva) experiences (knows) itself as Atman; or worded differently, the Self (Atman)
knows (experiences) itself as the enlightened Self. In this state of enlightenment
or Self-Realization, the Self (as Pure Consciousness) must realize its own Essence
(the Supreme Self) to attain the highest Consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness,
the Absolute. However, having become established in one’s own being (Self),
the Self reveling in the sweetness of its own Pure Consciousness, may remain in
such a state for a very, very long time (many, many cycles of the Creation), or
not. Laksman: Perhaps you
would be so kind as to tell me how you know this. Is it your direct experience?
If you have read my articles on knowledge and experience you can probably guess
that I have a problem with this idea. I give you the benefit of the doubt
on the language issue but the statement ‘the Self may remain in such a state for
a very, very long time” doesn’t add up. Discounting the inappropriateness
of the word ‘state,’ the ‘state’ you are referring to is already the Self if this
is a non dual reality…which the sruti says it is. Since ‘states’ are not
doers, nor is the Self a doer there is actually no one to ‘ remain in’ anything.
Finally, what would the purpose be of ‘remaining in this state for a long time’
since the Self is paramsukka, paramanand by nature? Any benefit It would
derive from remaining in this state it already has. I see this idea as a
rather silly fantasy cooked up by doers with spiritual vasanas who don’t understand
that they are the Self. The way out of this predicament is to seek jnanam
in line with scripture since the problem of seeking is a problem born of ignorance.
Dev: To attain the Highest State of Being, the same state Lord Krishna
refers to as ‘My state’, or ‘Myself’, or ‘My Abode,’ and which the above mantra
calls out with ‘Paramam Padam Sada,’ one must make the ultimate Yajna and offer
one’s own Self into the Self (Supreme Self). There is nothing left to know or
experience then (that is, until the next time, some 311 trillion years hence,
according to some). Laksman:
“Na karmana, na prajayaa, dananenaa…” etc. You cannot ‘make’ any sacrifice,
ultimate or not, to attain the Self. Why? Because you already are
the Self. You can only ‘attain’ what you already are by jnanam. An
action may get you something that you don’t have but it will not produce the Self
in the form of enlightenment. The ‘tenth man’ teaching is meant to illustrate
this fact. So this ‘offering’ is just the letting go of the belief that
you are anything but the Self or that the Self can be experienced at some later
date.. The statement about ignorance returning after 311 trillion years
is so stupid I can only laugh. Ignorance can return after a split second
if the knowledge is not firm. You have to remember that while the Gita
has the status of an Upanishad it is a Pauranic text and like the Upanishads from
which it gets its ideas contains both the language of experience (yoga) and the
language of identity (Vedanta). Unfortunately it does not explain the contradiction
between these two languages and the purpose of each so that seekers can become
confused and imagine that enlightenment is some sort of experience. The
Pauranas personify the Self because it is for people whose intellects are extroverted.
This is why the hero is Arjuna, a rajasic person with an unsophisticated emotional
mind. But the downside of this approach is that an undiscriminating mind
can take the whole story literally. The Gita understands this and tries
to get around this by positing a ‘Supreme Person’ but again this is possible to
misunderstand. In the fifteenth chapter it first establishes two ‘selves’ the
askshara purusha and the kshara purusha for the purposes of discrimination.
Then it introduces the ‘Supreme Person.’ This Supreme Person (uttamapurusha)
is not a person. Person is a symbol that has a certain affinity with what
it is meant to symbolize but like all symbols it is not meant to be taken literally.
The ‘Supreme Person’ is just Chaitanya, Awareness. Why is it ‘supreme?’
Because it is the Awareness of both change and changelessness which are represented
as ‘purushas.’ Both change and changelessness are apparent realities known
by virtue of non-dual Awareness… if you want a straightforward scientific no-bullshit
statement of fact. ‘Supreme’ is an unfortunate dualistic word that gives the impression
of two or more selves. In fact there is only one Self. If there is
only one Self the appearance of two or more selves is just that…an appearance.
But if you can’t see that then you end up worshipping the Supreme Person as somebody
other than you who can give you what in your spiritual emptiness you want…or think
you want… or you end up striving to experience this ‘supreme person’ in the form
of some sort of ‘high state’ of consciousness like nirvikalpa samadhi that you
believe you can make permanent or you find yourself hoping for some kind of personal
darshan of this supreme being all dressed up in silks with the great Kasthuba
gem on his chest and his thousand arms waving in the breeze like the tentacles
of a sea anemone. The joke here is that you are always experiencing the
Self but because the mind is gross and extroverted and doesn’t know what the Self
is you believe that you are not so you turn yourself into an object and
try to ‘get it.’ It’s a big frustration, actually. And the culprit?
Language confusion. This is why traditional Vedanta places such an importance
on a guru with scriptural knowledge. He or she can elucidate the language
problem and save the seeker the inevitable difficulties that come when you
don’t understand the way words work. ----- Dev: Continuing
now with your reply: “A third doubt that your statement brings up is this: in
my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything.” I
think we have addressed this and hopefully clarified that, indeed, there is no
‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything because a ‘person’ is really
only a mental formulation and is not (in and of itself) the living Self (Jivatman).
Laksman: If there is no person
to be clear, then there is no person to attain the ‘highest state.’ If you
say the Self is going to attain something, you have the problem of doership because
the sruti clearly states that the Self is not a doer. It is ‘already accomplished.’
It is already every state than can be attained so it will not set out to attain
anything. Presenting the Self in this way is helpful for doers with gross
intellects who have spiritual vasanas because it channels their prodigious energy
into sadhana which will eventually sattvasize their minds and make inquiry possible.
Unfortunately, when the mind gets sattvic there are still unhelpful spiritual
impressions concerning the nature of the Self and the way to attain it which need
to be examined and discarded in light of non-dual teachings.
….. Dev: Enlightenment is for souls embodied as human beings. As a human
being, we have countless samskaras and associated vasanas from many, many incarnations
(in both animal and human forms). The sattvic, rajasic and tamasic qualities of
our actions, impressions, tendencies and thoughts, affect our perception (the
perception of the embodied soul) and can either help or hinder whether or not
we (human beings) attain enlightenment. Initially, a human being learns
to be selective and make careful choices because they want to avoid pain and suffering
in their life. Eventually, they begin to yearn for Self-knowledge; they want to
know who they are, what they are, and why they are here; in other words, they
long for Enlightenment. Laksman:
I agree. The only question is ‘What is enlightenment?’ And you and
I have very different views on this. I’m certainly not going to accept your
view and I’m sure you will not accept mine so it seems the discussion on this
topic is finished. ----- Dev: You have written: “If
someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent
knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows
that he or she is the Self.” Then, according to you, the Self, who we both
know is not a person, possesses both apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance
of itself. The question then arises: where does the Self ‘possess’ this
‘apparent’ knowledge and ‘apparent’ ignorance of itself? If you say this
knowledge and ignorance are inherent in the Self, then this would lead us to conclude
that the All-knowing, Never-ignorant Self, whose nature is eternal and unchangeable,
inherently possesses knowledge and ignorance which are not really real but only
apparent. In this case, the Self would always possess apparent knowledge
and apparent ignorance and enlightenment would be out of the question. I
know of no scripture that would substantiate the statement: the All-knowing Self
(and indeed, the Supreme Self, since you make no distinction) possesses apparent
knowledge and ignorance of Itself. It is pretty much universally accepted
that GOD is never ignorant (unlike us), and not even apparently ignorant.
Laksman: This is good reasoning, Dev.
The key word in my statement is apparent. Apparent means that it seems to
exist but it doesn’t actually exist. So this means that the Self is actually
free of knowledge and ignorance… which is what you are arguing. In any case
the point of that statement is that you are the Self and not a person. If
you think you are a person, as you seem to, you are assuming a limited identity.
When you feel limited you strive for freedom from limitation. A limited
identity is a problem because how do you get from a limited identity to a limitless
identity? You can’t do it through action (sadhanas) because no amount of finite
actions will ever add up to limitlessness. You can only see that you made
a mistake by thinking of yourself in a limited way and drop the thought.
------- Dev: On the other hand, if we reveal to the
seeker the knowledge that the mind, body, etc., are the seeker’s own instruments
of knowledge, which, if wisely employed will enable the seeker to discover (uncover)
their own true Self, the seeker might then inquire: ‘Who am I’ who possess this
mind and body; why do I not know my own self; how did I forget my real nature,
and how can I realize who and what I really am? Laksman:
Yes, that’s fine. But the jury is not out on the question of Who am I?
It is well known. If someone doesn’t know it then a valid means of knowledge
is necessary, quite apart from the ‘seeker’s own instruments’ which will not reveal
the truth on their own. If they were constructed to reveal the truth nobody
would have a doubt about who they were in the first place. The fact is that
‘the seekers own instruments’ are very limited and turned in the wrong direction.
To turn them around you need work, i.e. Yoga. And to help them understand
a valid pramana like Vedanta is needed. ….. Laksman: (from
the previous email) “If someone sincerely asked me who I was I would not say that
I was a person who attained enlightenment. I would say that I appear to
be a person because I have a very convincing person act but that the person I
once thought I was, the one that seems to be there from the outside, is long gone.”
Dev reply: No doubt the person you were is long gone, since that person
is changing every second and is never the same. But is the ‘person’ part of you
really gone? No, you are still a person, but you are so much more than just
that. You still have ego, but you are so much more than that. You
are the living Self (Jivatman) and one day you may become a Jivamukta, or if you
attain your liberation after the death of the body, you might one day become a
Videhamukta. But in any case, right now you are still an embodied soul.
Laksman: When I say I am not
a person I mean the person is me but I am not the person. All bodies are in me;
I am not in them. All persons are in me. I am not in them. You are
incorrect when you say I will ‘become a Jivanmukta.” I will not ‘become’
anything, Dev. I am already everything that is. If you want to imagine
some kind of future ‘state’ or condition when you will be free that’s fine with
me. And if you want to project it on me, it up to you. But I’m sorry
to say this statement does not apply to me. How can you possibly know
what is true for me? You obviously do not accept my words because they contradict
your beliefs. Mind you I don’t care if you accept my words. Remember,
I did not initiate this discussion. I did not ask for your opinion but you
seemed to want to discuss with me so I offered my experience/knowledge in good
faith. For this discussion to continue you would tentatively have to take
on my statements of non-dual identity and investigate within yourself to see whether
or not they could be true…for you. If they are true for you, then they can
be true for me because there is no difference between us. I’m saying that
you are the Self, that you are already liberated and that there is nothing to
attain because you are me. If ‘you’ can’t see it and want to believe in
some future liberation it is up to you. But future liberation is meaningless
to me because when you are everything there is nothing you can be free of.
Freedom is the nature of the Self and you are the Self. As long as you see
yourself as Dev, a person, you will strive for liberation. The longer you
strive the deeper your separation vasana becomes.
Can you see the bias you are bringing to this conversation?
I will explain my bias later in this letter if it is not clear to you already.
……. Dev reply: Laksmanji, we are not playing the ‘who
is enlightened’ game, but that question need only be addressed to ourselves.
If you are referring to the MastersofDeception blog (which I assume you are since
this paragraph seems to be pointed there), the aim of the blog (one aim of the
blog) is to reveal that many of those people whom we generally believe are Enlightened
(are true knowers of the Self) are often not so enlightened after all. No doubt
that some are, and others are good but confused people, some are just plain confused,
and others are down right nasty charlatans. It matters little that ‘it takes a
jnani to know a jnani’; but what does matter is that it takes an open-minded human
being (one who has dropped their bias and emotional or mental prejudices) to recognize
a fraud. Laksman: That’s
right, Dev, but a mature person would not be taken in by a fraud. And if
a person takes advice from someone on the internet they don’t know well he or
she will probably also be foolish enough to be taken in by a charlatan who might
just as well tell them, “Oh, the Masters of Deception Blog?” That’s Dev.
He’s a blogger. Everybody knows his trip. He’s just a self righteous guru
wannabe. Imagines he’s a defender of the faith but doesn’t offer any hard
facts…just regurgitates worn out opinions. It’s all hot air. Probably
his mom or pop abused him when he was young and he hates authority figures even
though he pulls an authority trip with his list and hides behind web anonymity.
He figures people will love him if he looks out after them. It’s a savior complex
masquerading as compassion. Maybe he’s envious because he has no followers.”
Etc. You know the drill. These fake gurus are not as stupid as you think.
They know just how stupid people are. In any case good luck with your blog
and I hope you save many souls. ….. Dev reply: Please
read the blog again. My aim is not to judge for the sake of judging, but for the
sake of disinterestedly helping. You yourself have said in one of your Satsang
writings that making judgments is not wrong; it is actually essential. Certainly
one’s judgment should not be based on mere belief or opinion, as these definitely
do NOT constitute knowledge. One’s judgment should be based on one’s direct
experience, the testimony of reliable witnesses, and inference based on a set
of valid clues. I think you would agree with me here, and that we have simply
misunderstood one another. Laksman:
That is correct. It’s going to happen over and over because we have
different orientations. ….. Dev: We hold politicians
to such scrutiny, and for good reasons; similarly, nowadays we have sex offender
lists that are openly published on the Internet to hopefully foreworn the innocent
(though I have some reservations about this). This whole thing is a drama:
the good, the bad, and ugly. I think there is no problem with adding some positive
(albeit image-breaking and sometimes shocking) input in name of ‘service to humanity.’
For your own information, the gross charlatans listed on the site (and certainly
not everyone listed is or was a charlatan at all, but are/were very noble souls,
including of course Swami C.) were people with whom I had direct contact or whom
someone very close to me had direct contact with, or whose adharmic behavior is
widely known (Osho). Others have been listed (who to my knowledge were NOT
charlatans) but have been included only for the sake of revealing how so many
of us blindly follow others and worship them without realizing that these persons
were NOT gods, but people just like ourselves, who made mistakes, and had work
to do on themselves, and may indeed still be working on themselves even after
their death. Laksman: I
think the blog would be helped by the inclusion of the ideas we have been discussing
so people could get a better idea of who you are and why you feel it is necessary
to save people from their folly. Incidentally, there already is quite a famous
and well established guru rating website which has a much more reasonable tone
than yours. Masters of Deception is a very provocative title, meant to inspire
fear. In my humble opinion fear sucks… even if it’s good fear.
…. Dev reply: Laksmanji, I have no axe to grind and no butter
to spread. Laksman: I didn’t say
you did. I’m saying that the way you formulate things suggests that maybe
you do. …. Dev reply: I disagree. You
seem to be saying that one’s power of discernment depends on one’s opinions (views),
which in turn are based on one’s values. I assume by ‘values’ you mean principles.
In my mind, there is a set of universal principles (values) which are an inherent
part of everyone. I will explain: By virtue of the omnipresent nature of Consciousness,
the qualities of that Consciousness must necessarily be present in all of us.
The qualities of that Consciousness are referred to (by me) as our Real Nature.
Our Real Nature embodies the principles of Consciousness, and those principles
are written in the conscience of every living being. Thus, essentially we all
have the same root values. These values are expressed as the five Yamas, which
form the foundation of Yoga. These yamas are called universal vows. Why?
Because every human being by virtue of their own conscience must make these vows
(promises to one’s own self) and stick to them, and if they don’t, they will be
betraying their own true nature. Regardless of the tendencies one may have
accumulated over one’s innumerable incarnations (many, many, in non-human forms),
when one is embodied as a human being one’s higher nature compels one to acknowledge
this nature (these principles of consciousness) and abide by it (i.e., be one’s
Self). Thus, you could say that we all ‘come to our values’ when we come
into this human life, because when we are born as human beings these intrinsic
values (of Consciousness itself) are written (so to speak) in our conscience.
Laksman: This is well written
and I agree. I wasn’t referring to universal values. I was referring
to the values that unselfaware people develop as a result of allowing their vasanas
to interpret their experiences in life. ….. Dev reply:
Are you saying that in order to believe the information on the site the reader
would have to believe the one who posted it is enlightened? The one who posted
it need only be knowledgeable enough to call a spade a spade, a charlatan a charlatan,
a saint a saint, a seeker a seeker, and a noble human being a noble human being.
The words of the Wise, even a single word, is sometimes enough for a truth seeker,
even a truth seeker who is seriously self-deluded. Those who are not truth
seekers, even if they be very wise in their own eyes, will remain blinded by their
ego even if the truth were to blaze before them like the light of thousand suns.
Laksman: The point
I’m trying to make is: why should your evaluation of these people be believed?’
This is why I think it would be good if you explained your self. I’ve spent
a large fraction of my adult life selling all sorts of things…from goods and services
to ideas… and I have found that the most effective way to get one’s idea across
is to gain a person’s confidence. To do that you need to reveal who you
are. The take it or leave it approach creates doubts. I’m having the same
difficulty with your words in these emails. It may be completely a style
thing but I need to know more about why you think like you do. You come across
as a take no prisoners type of guy…almost bigoted. I know you aren’t
but it is possible to get that impression from the way you use words. Very
often religious dogmatism and conviction born of truth are indistinguishable.
In any case I’m not attracted to this kind of approach. Just the fact that you
have assumed this white knight in shining armor defender of truth role makes me
suspicious. I think, ‘What’s wrong with this guy? Doesn’t he have
anything better to do than criticize others?” …..
Dev reply: I guess you’re saying (please correct me if I’m wrong) that after
someone reads the list they will be inclined to ignore it because they will not
perceive it was compiled by their own well-wisher and invisible friend, or by
an enlightened being. Consequently, they will possibly end up receiving
a ‘personal’ darshan of Satya Sai Baba, be molested by him, then later leave in
disgust and remorse and send me an email saying they should have heeded my warning.
Well, hopefully that will not be the case. But after all, this is Samsara, and
this Samsara exists in the minds of the ignorant and in the minds of those who
ignore their own conscience. This Samsara will go on forever. Laksman:
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying you shouldn’t post the blog.
In fact I could add some very juicy tidbits to the rubbish on a number of gurus
but it’s not my style to criticize in a public forum. I have one long criticism
of the teachings of a Neo-Advaita guru on the website but the name is changed
and I give him high marks for moksha and for a good character but take him to
task for his teaching. ….. Dev reply:
This is a mistaken notion that ‘there are no rules for jnanis.’ A knower of Truth
is ruled by the truth to be truthful; a jnani is ruled by wisdom to act wisely.
A jnani will act according to Dharma; he or she will not violate the law or rule
of their own Being, their own True Self. In the mind of the Wise, only wisdom
rules; they are not ruled by the tyrant ego, they are not ruled by their whims,
moods, or desires. Certainly, (due to existing vasanas) a jnani may still
have many whims, moods, and desires but he or she will be ruled by their own conscience
which is overshadowed by the characteristics (qualities) of the real Self.
It is true, however, that a jnani is not bound by any external rules, obligations,
or the mental images and projections of others. Laksman:
I didn’t mean that a true jnani will violate dharma only that no external rules
and no particular lifestyle or behavior applies. In other words a jnani
need not be a saint. He or she may or may not eat a Big Mac without losing
wisdom. :+) ….. Laksman: (from the
previous email) Knowing who you are is the big success, not what you do or don’t
do with the knowledge. Dev reply: Knowing who you are but not
being who you are is a shame and a sham; it is certainly not a success. For example,
one who knows the principles of good health but doesn’t put those principles into
practice is one who is a prisoner of their mind and ego. In other words, one who
knows better but doesn’t do better is one who is complacent and mentally lazy.
One who claims to know the Self but continues to be pushed around by his or her
small self (ego), does not really know the Self, because the knowledge of the
Self sets you free. Laksman:
I meant that knowing is being. Knowing is doing. If you really know
that you are whole and complete your actions will reveal who you are. .
There is no choice involved it. ….. Dev reply: Enlightenment
certainly does indicate that the mind was previously in the state of darkness
(Ignorance), but so what? There is nothing here to hide. It is completely irrelevant
who is enlightened, unless this ‘who’ refers to ourselves. Realizing we
are not enlightened, or not as enlightened as we could be, we might inquire by
searching more deeply within ourselves and also perhaps seeking help from those
who we trust. Laksman: I
was trying to make the point that if you are evaluating people it is better to
evaluate them solely on the basis of whether or not their behavior was in harmony
with dharma. There are endless statements in the sruti that there is no
prarabdha for jnanis… which are intended to debunk the association between behavior
and moksha. Yes, there is a connection seen from one point of view but no
there isn’t seen from another. …. Dev reply: In answer
to your first question, according to my view they do not have a Subtle Body because
the subtle body refers to the embodiment of Atman. Grass, herbs, fruits,
vegetables, grains, etc., are not the bodies of souls. But nearly everyone in
the spiritual field will agree that animals, birds, and even fish do indeed have
souls (or rather, the Atman is embodied as the Jivatman in these sentient life
forms). Laksman: My point
is where do you draw the line. A rock, a tree, an animal, a human being.
All are the Self. In the apparent reality the Self eats the Self.
Perhaps you might study Gita Chapter 2. I daresay that if you were dying
of starvation and a big fat salmon jumped out of a stream on the bank you
would not see it as God offering itself to you. I’m sure your vegetarian
principles would probably cause you to put it back in the water and starve to
death. Dev (continuing): Regarding the rest of this paragraph,
it is clear that you do not see any harm in eating animals. If you can look into
the eyes of a cow, dog, lamb, horse, or other animal and kill it with your own
hands and eat it, without feeling that you have violated your own conscience,
then there is nothing I can really say to influence you in this regard.
As for inhaling a few microbes (which again, are probably not living beings but
living matter), there is a world of difference between that and killing a cow;
especially when the former is unavoidable but the latter is solely by one’s own
choice and is totally unnecessary. Laksman:
There’s harm in everything…if you have a fearful mind. Laksman:
(from the previous email) “And what about Tibetan lamas in the winter with not
a vegetable in sight? Their spirituality is compromised because they eat
Yak butter and meat?” Dev: There have been many great Mystics,
Saints, and Sages, and many ordinary people too who live in regions of sparse
vegetation, and have never eaten meat. Besides, the Yaks had to consume
a lot of vegetation themselves (being vegetarians), so surely there must be some
vegetation available, and if not, human beings are nomadic by nature and will
migrate to areas where food can be found. Tibetan lamas who eat meat, like
many other Buddhists, are not true followers of the teachings of Lord Buddha.
Laksman: For me this conversation is
not only about vegetarianism; it is about whether or not we can communicate successfully.
I haven’t enough invested in this vegetarian idea to quarrel with you about it.
You have healthy feel good views about food but they don’t qualify as spiritual
in my opinion. You will perhaps be surprised to know that I’m a pure vegetarian
but I’m not identified with it. Injury to living beings is only one reason for
it. I can imagine sitting down to a nice turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and
not feeling guilty. Laksman: (from the previous email)
“In case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats life. Nobody can avoid it.
Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed. The cows eat vegetables and
they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.”
Dev reply: Excuse me for saying (and I really do not mean to hurt your feelings)
but you are really revealing your ignorance here. You are deliberately ignoring
(going against) your Higher Nature, your Real Nature, your Dharma, which is NOT
to cause avoidable pain and suffering to any creature. Laksman:
You didn’t hurt my feelings in the least, Dev. I don’t have feelings.
I’m not a human being, remember? I found the above paragraph rather amusing.
Even if I was a human being I wouldn’t be offended because I don’t know you…for
the present you’re just an earnest voice from cyberspace that may or not be connected
to someone I might want to know. ….. Dev reply:
Exposing people to the truth does not keep them ignorant. I have no duty to protect
the ignorant; my duty is to speak the truth and remove ignorance. Laksman:
They have to know that it’s the truth first, Dev. Truthful statements are
not the truth. A wicked person or a self deluded person can make truthful
statements. One needs to know who is making the statements first and why…before
one is inclined to believe. Personally, I am not inclined to believe anything
about anything. I have senses and a mind and I can figure out what’s going on
without help. I operate from understanding born of experience. My
point is: who is to know that Dev’s version of the truth is The truth? It
could just as easily be an opinion. I’d also be curious to know who gave
you that duty. Did God or your guru tell you to do it? Or is it self assumed?
Perhaps it would be instructive to recall Krishna’s statement
in the Gita, “Let not the wise unsettle the minds of the ignorant.”
To me this is one of the Gita’s greatest statements. It shows that at heart
Vedic culture is not a bunch of fanatical self-righteous moralistic rule following
Brahmin karma kandis bound and determined to tell you what to believe and how
to live your life. Krishna says this
because people do not change because they are told what is good for them.
They only change when through their own experience they realize that they are
bringing suffering on themselves. If the US government would just legalize drugs and shut
up about how awful they are, drug use would plummet. People are perverse.
They are like children. You tell them to do something and they will do the
opposite. It is best to let people experiment and find out for themselves.
Sure, there are people who are completely incapable of thinking for themselves
and living their own lives and the yamas and niyamas are useful for them in so
far as it is not helpful to them or to others that they do evil.
….. Dev reply: Why try to justify our ignorance? This Drama exists
for the purpose of removing our ignorance. We are here to discover (uncover) the
Truth and not to cover it up with more ignorance. The Treasure is buried
very deeply and one will have to continue to dig until It is completely uncovered.
It is covered by Ignorance and ego brought about by Maya. Whose Maya?
It is our own Maya. We have to stop deluding ourselves; it won’t just happen
on its own. It is a process, and that process should never stop. It will
indeed stop, but only when we are completely enlightened. Laksman:
It stopped for me. Evidently it didn’t stop for you. …..
Laksman: (from the previous email) “Speaking as a person I used to
be an evil doer and it was the correct path for me because it lead me to the Self
at an early age. If I’d been a nice decent well meaning holy person always
doing the right thing and following the good advice of others I may not have waked
up at all. Virtue is not always helpful. A golden chain can bind you
as completely as an iron one. It’s nice to want to save people from their
folly but remember the Inquisition.” Dev reply: The
path of ignorance is never the right path; the only right path is the path of
Dharma, which means to make our mind and behavior conform to our Real Nature.
No one is perfect, but no one can remain content (forever) in their self-imposed
limitations and ignorance. It is our nature to strive for perfection, to break
free from the bonds of ignorance. Laksman:
The more this conversation goes on the more it seems to me that we are not suited
to continue it. We seem to agree on certain things but I find it very difficult
to communicate with you, Dev. The exchange above is a case in point. You
seem incapable of understanding what I’m saying and if you do then you make a
statement that is completely unsympathetic as if this were some sort of contest
to see whose views were the purest. OK, you have the high road, Dev.
I’m not up to your level. Dwaita is better than advaita. Yoga trumps Vedanta.
Veg is better than non-veg. Is that what you want to hear? My point
is that no matter whether you take the high road or the low road all roads lead
to the Self. It’s not clear what you want from me. 99% of the
many people who write in have a simple spiritual question to which I reply to
in detail. Sometimes I never hear from them again, sometimes a satsang develops
that goes on for years and turns into a lasting friendship. In your case
you wanted an opinion on your blog. I have tried to oblige you. But
we have exchanged enough words for me to figure out that you don’t seem to want
satsang or if you do your idea of satsang is somewhat different from mine;
an inquiring tone seems to be absent on your part. You seem to have an agenda
that is unclear to me. Do you want me to know how enlightened you are? If
so, why do you care? I’m nobody. Do you want to save me from my ignorant
views? It’s a waste of time. I’m already saved. I was saved
before they invented the idea of salvation.
….. Dev reply: Of course you are a human being.
You are a beautiful human being, the creation of the Self. No one does them
self or anyone else any good by denying their own humanness. You are the Self
embodied as a human being for a purpose: the purpose of the Self. The Vedas
reveal what that purpose is. Wouldn’t you say it is ludicrous to think that
everything that exists, exists only for the sake of having its existence denied?
This is irrational and unreasonable and contrary to the Self.
Laksman: Here’s another example of
your arrogance. I say I’m not a human being and you say, “Of course you’re
a human being.” Mine is a truthful statement…if you understand something.
I made that statement to see what you know. It was meant to make you think,
“What does he mean by that?” You didn’t. It immediately created a
reaction because it was not in harmony with your beliefs. So you put me
in a box. “He’s a human being. End of story.” I’m not sure what
is so wonderful about being a human. Maybe you read that rubbish in Shankar
or the Buddhist texts about the ’precious human birth.’ Or let’s put it
this way, it’s no more wonderful to be a human being than to be anything else.
In fact you might make a case that human beings are more of a problem for the
creation than anything else. If you want to see me as a human being that’s
fine with me but we will definitely be unable to get very far together spiritually
if you do. In fact this discussion is hitting a snag already because of
your attachment to this view. Arjuna didn’t understand what Krishna was
saying at first at all but he was able to suspend disbelief long enough to get
the message. In this case it seems that my non-dual statements are running
up against your beliefs…and stopping there. In any
case I’ve seen enough. It’s time for full disclosure. I will now explain
Laksmanji’s agenda… if you haven’t figured it out already. .
You may be attracted to me but you have no idea who is on the other end of
this email, Dev. I’m not really who you think. Yes, you read my autobiography
and some of the website and you formed certain opinions but that website is just
like a big juicy worm on a hook. It catches fish. But I am not the
person portrayed there. Let’s put it this way. I’m a spiritual salesman
and I’m selling non-duality. It’s a very costly product. The price
is an open trusting nature and a willingness to consider new ideas. Would
you like to buy? In case you want to play the Laksmanji satsang game you
need to have a practical serious question…about your sadhana…and I will give you
a straightforward reply to the best of my ability. This conversation seems
to be going in the direction of a long winded debate on abstruse topics that do
not touch my heart. I’ve made that statement about not
being a human being hundreds of times. Sometimes people don’t get it but
they usually understand that there is something behind it and that it might be
interesting to know what… probably because I don’t come across as a fool.
Understanding non-duality takes a certain degree of subtle thinking and is aided
by some transpersonal experiences. My statements are true but the meaning
is not immediately available to literal minded people. Some contemplation
is required. When I was younger and not such an experienced communicator
people would often raise their eyebrows when I made such statements and change
the subject because they thought I was nuts… rather like the people who crucified
Christ must have felt when he said, “I and my Father are One.” I suppose
you might have told Christ that if he was a good little spiritual robot and kept
working on his anger issues and tendency to violence (remember the whip
in the temple episode) he might one day get into the supreme state for a very
long time… after of course first checking to see if he was a vegetarian.
Probably he wasn’t since he is said to have fed the multitudes loaves (good stuff)
and fishes (bad stuff). You’re probably a kind person and would let him
strive for liberation if he promised to give up meat, however. :+)
I admit that non-dual thinking is quite strange if you are literal
minded. Recall the difficulty Arjuna had accepting Krishna’s statement about past lives. Krishna is speaking from the non-dual level
and Arjuna, like Dev, is thinking he’s a person. I’m speaking from the non-dual
level. These days I’m generally smart enough to know how much non-duality
a person can handle before they hit the delete button so it is rarely an issue.
Most people I meet have been in the spiritual world a long time…done all the yogas,
sadhanas, gurus, etc…and hardly anyone except the fundamentalist types like the
Vaishnav bhaktas (were you once a Hari Krishna?) who hate non-duality seem to
have a problem with this statement. Like the statement, “Nothing ever
happened’ or “It is the smallest of the small, the biggest of the big” my statement
makes perfect sense… if you have non-dual vision or even a few out of body experiences
under your belt. I’ve carefully peppered non-dual statements into my emails to
see your reaction and it seems to me that you have taken them as ego statements.
An unfortunate pattern seems to be developing in our conversation. As the
Beatles song says, “I say yes, you say no. I say goodbye. You say hello.”
In any case to tell a stranger point blank that his or
her self statement is not true…whether or not it is true by your lights…is certainly
a tactless and clumsy way to communicate. Perhaps you’re a bit naïve.
In any case it shows a greater concern for protecting your own views than a willingness
to understand mine. It makes me wonder why non-duality is such a threat
to you. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but at the top of [my]
home page it says, “Dedicated to the dissemination of non-dual wisdom.” I admit
that it is rather like the fine print in legal contracts and for that you can
fault me…but it would be a bit déclassé to put a big blinking warning on the front
page, “Keep Out! Dangerous Toxic Site for Dualists and Evolutionists. Read
further at your peril!” We’ll go on a bit more if you wish but
you’re not asking the right questions to keep me interested. In fact you
aren’t asking spiritual questions at all, Dev. You’re telling me something
or trying to show off your knowledge, I think… although I’m sure you don’t see
it this way. Maybe you’re looking for a soul mate. You had a question
about the blog which I answered in a straightforward manner. But the blog
question wasn’t a satsang and it doesn’t feel like what has followed is a proper
satsang either. I’ve made certain statements to try and nudge the conversation
in a non-dual direction but you do not seem to want to go there. That’s fine with
me but you need to know that non-duality is my passion. If you want to communicate
with me we need to speak the same language. I have a wide circle of people
with whom to satsang and the site is generating enough interest to keep me busy
for the rest of this lifetime and beyond. There is quite an interest in non-duality
these days. I hope this doesn’t hurt your feelings…being a human being
perhaps you have them… although you did say above that you wouldn’t take things
personally. It is certainly not my intention to insult you or to nip this
conversation…which you seem to be enjoying…in the bud but I would be remiss in
my duty to myself if I didn’t express myself truthfully. I put my heart and soul
into these emails. I think there must be about a thousand pages of satsangs on
the website…and that is not all of them. I get nothing for my trouble except
the satisfaction of helping people appreciate what Vedanta can do for them.
And it looks like I’ve gone about as far as I can with you because you seem to
be quite attached to your views. There is never an argument with non-duality,
Dev. It is something that one is meant to appreciate. I’m not invested
in it. I love it and I’m a good teacher but I’m old and pretty wise and
I don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole any more. So unless you
are interested in considering the non-dual way of seeing it is probably better
for us to call it quits. I’m familiar with all the yogic views, the evolutionary
views, the whole big messy spiritual soup. At some time during my
sadhana I believed almost every weird supposedly spiritual idea that I read or
heard on my path. But I had a great guru who shined the light on my ignorance
and one day after a lot of reflection my sadhana ended. I didn’t stop it.
It stopped automatically…because I understood who I am. And who I am is
not who you think I am.
As I said, Dev, the website is a big juicy worm wrapped around the fishhook of
non-duality. Some fish factories process the dwanda fish and others process
the advaita fish. If an advaiti fisherman catches a dwanda fish he puts
it back in the ocean of samsara where it can enjoy itself. It seems Laksmanji
caught a dvanda fish. Is that right? Should I toss it back?
Or would you like me to chop off your dualistic head like Shiva did to Ganesh
and send you to the advaita cannery? It’s up to you. I bet you’d look good with
only one tusk. I’m not going to go on commenting on this email.
Let’s see what your reply is and then we can see whether or not it would be profitable
for us to continue. Om and Prem Laksman On
Sun, 26 Nov 2006 Dev wrote
: Jai Bhagwan, Laksmanji
Divine soul, I have responded to your previous email (actually, this is in
response to your email sent on 11/22, but you also sent a similar one on 11/25,
which appears to be a duplicate, so I will not respond to that one).
Regarding the attached file, I will repeat what you said of your previous email:
'don't take it too seriously.' If my tone seems sometimes harsh, kindly
overlook it realizing (as you surely do) that fire cannot burn the Self, nor water
drown It, nor swords cut It. If our dialog should end here. . . . well,
we know, we have only been talking (writing) to ourSelf. OM
TAT SAT
Following
is Dev’s response to Laksman’s email of 11/22. . . Dear
Laksmanji,
Well
my friend, perhaps our dialog is coming to an end. Based on your reaction to my
previous replies, it seems you do not wish to continue, and perhaps you will not
even get through this entire email. Although, I don’t really see any reason why
wouldn’t go through everything I have written: it can only challenge you
to evolve or reinforce what you already know. Regardless
what you read (or read into) what I have written, I could never possibly have
any ill will toward you, whether silent or verbalized. You are Atman, I
am Atman, everyone is Atman. In essence you are my own Self and I am your
own Self, so how could we be angry or annoyed or impatient with one another? I
used to hold the neo-vedantic view that Advaita meant everyone is GOD. When it
was suggested that Advaita means something other than this, and that though I
am indeed eternal, having no beginning or end, that the primordial (matter-like)
substance that is the essence of this world which is created and dissolved endlessly,
is also eternal, having no beginning or end, and that within and yet beyond
myself (Soul) and all of this (the world, the body, mind, intellect, ego, etc.)
eternally exists as ever-manifest the All-pervading, Formless, Indivisible, One-Without-A-Second,
SatChitAnanda, Supreme Being, I too was incredulous. However, being
of the mind never to get stuck in any image, and vigilant of the subtle nature
of ego and determined to know without a shred of doubt the Truth, the whole Truth,
and nothing but the Truth, I gave it my consideration. You
are thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of the teachings you have received and
those teachings have no doubt served you well. You have revised, over and over
again, what you have learned by applying your own innate knowledge coupled
with your direct experience. You have firm conviction in what you say and you
speak with authority. However, you do have (according to my understanding) a hidden
agenda that is hidden even from yourself. You cannot change the way you
think because you think you are beyond thinking. You cannot go higher because
you are beyond evolving. You cannot go beyond your limits because you are
already limitless. You cannot raise your consciousness because you are the
Supreme Consciousness. You cannot learn because you already know everything. The
neo-vedantic interpretation of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Gita, and other
works comprising the Shruti and Smriti texts has to be done away with (the neo-vedantic
interpretation, that is) and one must begin afresh. Consciousness is not
stagnant but dynamic and ever-new (PRANAV, OM ), and likewise, everything we learn and experience in this ever-new
world is also ever-new. The Wise never get stuck in any image. The neo-vedantic
notions of Advaita enable people to excuse themselves and everyone else for all
their stupid, selfish, violent thoughts and actions. True Vedanta reveals
that GOD is One Without A Second; it only says that there is no other GOD but
GOD; it does not say that you, I, and everyone else (who are also all eternal)
do not exist. Each of us too is One Without A Second because each of us
is eternal and therefore so is our uniqueness eternal. There is absolutely
no conflict with Advaita; the conflict only arises when we try to set ourselves
up as GOD. If
you are really open-minded you will read Satyarth Prakash and Maharishi Dayananda’s
Introduction to the Commentary on the Rig Veda. Whatever you have heard of him,
or whatever impression of him you may have formed as a result of the words and
actions of unenlightened followers, you will have to dismiss in order to truly
consider the accuracy or not of his knowledge. Like us, he too was a human being
and therefore fallible, but by and large his knowledge was very accurate and I
dare say he far exceeds either you or I in both shastric acumen and experience. I
know you feel I come across as arrogant and dogmatic in these emails, but you
should at least consider that you may be looking into a mirror. You seem to forget
that I am just an imperfect human being, so I have no problem with recognizing
my own imperfections. On the other hand, if you think you are GOD, as you
certainly assert, you will find it very difficult to acknowledge your own shortcomings;
and even if you acknowledge them it is unlikely you will see any need to change
them sense they (the shortcomings) cannot affect GOD. I am not being sarcastic,
I am simply telling it as it is, which is the way you have spoken (written) it
to be. Anyway,
here are my replies to your most recent comments/replies.
-----
Dev (from previous dialog): Yes, my answer was not clear, so I will try again.
What I mean to say is that many people are seeking guidance because they are in
a quandary as to “Who am I,” and once the answer to this question is known, the
knower is enlightened. This is what I meant by ‘self-evident,’ meaning that a
true seeker of enlightenment will know Enlightenment when they find it, because
that enlightenment is the knowledge of their own Self. No doubt there are
also many people who think enlightenment is some kind of attainment that gives
them special powers, etc., but genuine seekers really want to know “Who am I.”
The MastersofDeception blog is meant for these genuine seekers (both novices and
those already on the path) who do not have Self Knowledge and who really want
it (enlightenment) for no other purpose than the Self itself. Laksman:
If there are such people and these people came to your website they would not
really need this information because a true seeker is always completely protected
by his or her bhakti. Dev
reply: In my experience, people are protected by their awareness and wisdom
coupled with love. Bhakti is incomplete and blind without wisdom; bhakti
without eyes cannot save anyone, not even itself (i.e., even one’s devotion will
dry up without wisdom). I have seen the bhakti of a sadhak wither and die
because that sadhak did not develop their power of discernment with wisdom.
Likewise, I’ve seen many a sadhak’s wisdom fail them miserably when that wisdom
lacked the embrace of divine love. You have said “No one can injure them.”
Certainly, but this is really true of everyone. We only injure ourselves,
and we do this when we follow our ego and ignore good advice. People set themselves
up for a fall but don’t realize it. We are victimized by our own ignorance,
and if someone exposes that ignorance perhaps we will realize our folly and change
for the better. The one who shares the wisdom of consciousness has no ulterior
motive whatsoever. -----
Dev (from previous dialog): This Jivatman is not an ego, not a person, not
a mind, and not any body. In essence, this Jivatman is the Self. [Bold
text below is Dev’s interspersed reply/comment]
Laksman: If this is true then what is the meaning of your words that it sleeps
and wakes? In a game of football, a player goes on the field, plays
the game and either wins or loses. The wining and losing are only meaningful
in the context of the game. Similarly, sleeping and waking are only meaningful
in the context of the sport of Creation (existence, life, etc.). In
any case when I say that I am not a person I mean that I am the Self or the Jivatman,
if you prefer. According to my understanding/experience (and scripture would
back me up on this) the Self and the Jivatman are identical. However, the
difference in words is accounted for by the superimposition (adyaropa) of individuality
(jiva) on the Self. The Jivatman, me, is not limited like a jiva.
Individuality is a superimposition on the Self, but this Self is NOT the
Supreme Self. Anyway, in reality the Self cannot be superimposed upon.
The superimposition (of individuality) is upon the mind. Individuality (ego),
like the mind, is an evolute of Prakriti. It is an expression (manifestation in
Prakriti) of the uniqueness of the Self. Ego is (eventually) superimposed upon
the mind as a natural consequence of our interacting with the world of matter
without the knowledge of the Self (i.e., without Wisdom).
You
insist on the identity of the Self and Supreme Self and think that Advaita and
Vedanta support this assertion. Your thinking is based on the neo-vedantic teachings
that form the basis of your understanding, which is why you misunderstand the
true meaning of Advaita. It
is self-evident that you are not the Supreme Self, yet you have trained your mind
and intellect to imagine you are so. This too is adyaropa, but you do not perceive
it.
Additional
Dev comments: Whatever happens in the dream, really happens in the dream
but never really happens. Certainly the Self and Jivatman are identical,
even as the player on the field wearing the uniform is not really any different
after he steps off the field and removes the uniform. However, while playing the
game, AND HE DOES INDEED PLAY THE GAME, he does assume the role (identity) of
a player without ever losing his real identity. While playing on the field, he
plays with gusto, and puts his whole self into the game. The game doesn’t have
any real meaning or purpose; but that doesn’t stop him from playing on the field.
When the game is over it doesn’t mean he will never play again. Certainly
he will play again, because there is no reason not to, just as there is no reason
he had to in the first place.
----- Dev (from previous dialog): It is the Jivatman that realizes (or
not) the Self. This realization takes place in the mind when the mind is
enlightened. The state of enlightenment and the state of ignorance are both
states of mind. Whose mind? It is the mind of the Jivatman, the embodied
soul. Laksman: OK. This is pretty clear and I can’t argue with
it. However, it is my understanding/experience that ‘embodiment’ is an upadhi,
something projected by ignorance that is not actually there. It seems to
be there, however and therefore people believe that the Jivatman and the Self,
the Paramatman are distinct entities. Shankara’s statement “Jivo Brahamaiva
na parah” indicates the non-duality of the two as does the Mahavakya, ‘Tat tvam
asi” .
Dev
reply: The Self as an embodied self, or Jivatman, is no less real than the
Self without an embodiment. The Jivatman is NOT the embodiment, no more
so than the actor is the costume or the player the uniform. Even the embodiment
itself (ego, mind, body, etc.) is also real, though temporary, because its essence
is Prakriti which is eternal. According
to your view (the neo-Vedantic view), “the ‘embodiment’ is an upadhi,
something projected by ignorance. . .” So, ignorance projects
the embodiment, but whose ignorance is it, or how did come about? If you say Ignorance
arises from the eternally Wise (non-ignorant) Self, then your understanding is
flawed and unacceptable even to the ignorant. On the other hand, if you accept
that that there is absolutely no element of ignorance in the Self, and that the
embodiment is therefore not projected from the Self, then from where does
it originate? Ignorance originates from the union of Purush and Prakriti,
which in turn results in the projection (the Creation). Prakriti is the eternal
substance of this eternally cyclic creation. You are not this Creation,
though this creation is you in the sense that you are the creator; just as an
artist is not the art, but the art is the artist, but only in the sense that the
art is the expression of the artist, because the artist is not the paint, the
brush, or the canvas (and neither are rocks, water, air, etc., Consciousness,
though they are certainly pervaded by consciousness.) …..
Dev (from previous dialog): Whether ‘I know’ as Atman or as Jivatman, the
Self that must be known is the Supreme Self. As the Self approaches (by knowledge,
by knowing) the Ultimate Truth (the Supreme Self), the Self realizes (knows that
to know itself) it must go beyond itself; it must stop knowing and start experiencing.
When this realization matures, the Jivatman is awakened and experiences itself
as Atman (the Self); that is, the dream is over and the dreamer realizes that
the dream of being in bondage was only a dream and not real. The awakened self
(enlightened Jiva) experiences (knows) itself as Atman; or worded differently,
the Self (Atman) knows (experiences) itself as the enlightened Self. In this state
of enlightenment or Self-Realization, the Self (as Pure Consciousness) must realize
its own Essence (the Supreme Self) to attain the highest Consciousness, the Supreme
Consciousness, the Absolute. However, having become established in one’s
own being (Self), the Self reveling in the sweetness of its own Pure Consciousness,
may remain in such a state for a very, very long time (many, many cycles of the
Creation), or not. Laksman: Perhaps you would be so kind as
to tell me how you know this. Is it your direct experience? Dev
reply: Yes, most certainly it is. If you have read my articles on
knowledge and experience you can probably guess that I have a problem with this
idea. I give you the benefit of the doubt on the language issue but the
statement ‘the Self may remain in such a state for a very, very long time” doesn’t
add up. Discounting the inappropriateness of the word ‘state,’ the ‘state’
you are referring to is already the Self if this is a non dual reality…which the
sruti says it is. Since ‘states’ are not doers, nor is the Self a doer there
is actually no one to ‘ remain in’ anything. Finally, what would the purpose
be of ‘remaining in this state for a long time’ since the Self is paramsukka,
paramananda by nature? Any benefit It would derive from remaining in this
state it already has. I see this idea as a rather silly fantasy cooked up
by doers with spiritual vasanas who don’t understand that they are the Self.
The way out of this predicament is to seek jnanam in line with scripture since
the problem of seeking is a problem born of ignorance. Dev
reply: The fundamental disconnect between your understanding and mine is
this: we have two completely different grasps of Advaita. You have understood
Vedanta and Advaita based on the knowledge propounded by your lineage of teachers,
which could possibly be traced all the way back to Shankaracharya.
No doubt you have not merely accepted their knowledge blindly but have spent many
years in deep reflection and self-inquiry, and have arrived at a firm conviction
in the efficacy of that knowledge. Laksmanji,
my wisdom comes from direct experience of Sruti and is backed up by tradition,
having for its authority the wisdom of the saints and sages since times immemorial.
The
Vedic tradition was practically lost after the Mahabharat war 5000 years ago.
This is certainly evidenced by the deplorable conditions that prevailed subsequent
to that time. In the last 4000 years many various religions and philosophies
have sprung up and seen their heyday, but the perennial Wisdom itself (embodied
by the Vedas) has never changed. Shankarcharya expounded his particular interpretation
of Vedanta in order to refute the Jains and Buddhists (particularly Jainism) which
had become entrenched in the Indian society of his day. You could
research these matters for yourself if you are so inclined, but honestly I am
not. It matters little to me what Shankacharya’s intentions were or what has become
of his teachings. I am not a man of letters. I am a learned man only in
the sense that I have learned the lessons of my life’s experiences and continue
to do so. Based
on my experience, self study (self-inquiry) and the knowledge I have gleaned from
the Vedas and teachings of Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati, there are three eternal
noumenon: (1) the Supreme Self, GOD, who is One Without a Second; (2) the
innumerable Souls; and (3) Prakriti. The Supreme Self is SatChitAnand, that
is, the Supreme Self is eternally existent, eternally Conscious, and eternally
Blissful. The Soul is eternally existent and eternally conscious. Prakriti
is eternally existent. Prakriti is pervaded by both the Supreme Self and the innumerable
souls. The innumerable souls are pervaded by the Supreme Soul, Paramatman. The
Supreme Self is indeed Paramananda (Supreme Bliss) by its very own nature; we
(the innumerable souls) are blissful on account of our proximity to the Supreme
Self. The ‘proximity’ or closeness is already established by virtue of the
relationship of the Pervader to the Pervaded, however this ‘closeness’ is manifest
or unmanifest based on the soul’s relationship with Prakriti. The ‘relationship’
is the Drama, the Sport, the Lila. In other words, the soul is blissful
(or not) depending on whether or not it has attained enlightenment, which means
simply that it has purified the mind with wisdom to such an extent that it perceives
(through the medium of the mind) its own reflection or nature as Pure Consciousness.
This ‘knowing’ one’s Self by the Self through the mind is the lower Samadhi.
When the Self knows the Self by the Self alone (without the mind) this is the
higher Samadhi. Both of these are ‘states’ or conditions because one depends
on the presence of the mind and the other its absence. One whose Samadhi is firm
is enlightened, but this is not the end of it. Beyond this is Kaivalya,
wherein the Self is isolated from all states of Prakriti. Isolated from all phases
of Prakriti and completely free of Ignorance, the Self is united with the Supreme
Self, its own Essence, and this union or YOGA is the direct experience of Supreme
Bliss, and this state is called MOKSHA. As you say, something that is a
‘state’ or ‘experience’ is subject to change. So, is MOKSHA subject to change?
Certainly it is, why not? It is the nature of the Self to embody itself
and play the Drama of Life. Of course, when one is Liberated, one is totally free
to be embodied or not, and is under absolutely no compulsion whatsoever either
way. [Instead of just rejecting this idea, please carefully consider it. There
is no harm in it. There is nothing to lose but your own ego; and if you don’t
have an ego then there really is nothing to lose. Believe it or not, I say this
with all humility.] You
contend that the Self is always blissful, but this is contrary to everyone’s experience.
On the other hand, when you realize that your own Essence (the Self of the Self,
the Soul of your Soul) is indeed ever blissful, then you truly know that
Bliss, which means your knowledge is experiential, otherwise it is only intellectual.
You can say what you want (for example, that you are GOD), but it does not make
it so except in your own imagination or intellect. GOD (the Supreme
Self) is NEVER annoyed or agitated, never subject to pain and pleasure, birth
and death, ignorance and enlightenment. But I am, and so are you, and so
is everyone else. Why fight your own real nature and pretend to be GOD? It is
only one’s own ignorance that causes one to misunderstand. Ignorance is removed
with the Wisdom of Consciousness. Neo-vedantists
ignore the significance of this Lila and try to brush it away by saying it is
all Maya. This Maya is nothing but the inherent power (artistic power, if
you will) of the Self (both the Supreme Self and the innumerable souls).
Krishna refers to it has his Yogmaya, and it is through this power that the illusion
of the union of the Self (in the form of Purush) with Prakriti is established.
Being eternally pervaded by Atman, the two (Purush and Prakriti) are inseparable,
so the uniting of the two can only be of the nature of an illusion, and the premise
that this ‘union’ is real is nothing but Ignorance (Avidya). “I
see this idea as a rather silly fantasy cooked up by doers with spiritual vasanas
who don’t understand that they are the Self. The way out of this predicament
is to seek jnanam in line with scripture since the problem of seeking is a problem
born of ignorance.” Well, sir, it is understandable that you would see it this way based on
your interpretation of the scriptures. But leaving the scriptures out of
it, the fact is that we are having this written conversation, because we are human
beings, and no matter how much we know or think we know, we will never know everything.
This is why the Self continues to make inquiry, i.e., continues to seek to expand
its understanding (seek jnanam). When our understanding is truly complete
and full, we will be truly liberated souls. We can never be free merely by ignoring
our shackles (in this case, the rusty chains of orthodoxy in the form of neo-vedanta).
Dev (from previous
dialog): To attain the Highest State of Being, the same state Lord Krishna refers
to as ‘My state’, or ‘Myself’, or ‘My Abode,’ and which the above mantra calls
out with ‘Paramam Padam Sada,’ one must make the ultimate Yajna and offer one’s
own Self into the Self (Supreme Self). There is nothing left to know or experience
then (that is, until the next time, some 311 trillion years hence, according to
some). Laksman: “Na karmana, na prajayaa, dananenaa…” etc.
You cannot ‘make’ any sacrifice, ultimate or not, to attain the Self. Why?
Because you already are the Self. You can only ‘attain’ what you already
are by jnanam.
Dev
reply: Yes, but the Self that YOU are is NOT the Supreme Self. You are not
GOD, you never were, and you never will be. Why do you have a need to be
GOD? This need is created only because it is necessary in order to validate the
neo-vedantic interpretation of Advaita. Once you understand Advaita in its true
sense, you will also easily grasp the meaning of ‘action in inaction and
inaction in action.’ An
action may get you something that you don’t have but it will not produce the Self
in the form of enlightenment. The
state of Ignorance was produced by the union of Purush and Prakriti. That which
produces the union is known as Yogmaya because this union is an illusory union.
The producing of the union is an action yet it is not an action: it is not an
action because the union is never really produced since Purush and Prakriti are
inseparable (i.e., Atman ever pervades Prakriti). The union of Purush and
Prakriti is the commencement of Avidya, from which the entire Creation is
produced. This illusory union is finally dissolved when the Self sacrifices its
own Self into the Self (Supreme Self) by means of the Highest Knowledge (Brahma
Vidya). Then the final state of Enlightenment (the removal of Ignorance) is attained
(produced). The
‘tenth man’ teaching is meant to illustrate this fact. So this ‘offering’
is just the letting go of the belief that you are anything but the Self or that
the Self can be experienced at some later date. The statement about ignorance
returning after 311 trillion years is so stupid I can only laugh. Ignorance
can return after a split second if the knowledge is not firm. So,
you say it “is just the letting go of the belief that you are anything
but the Self…” Is this ‘letting go’ not an action? Who is
‘letting go?’ The Supreme Self (GOD) lets go of nothing because the Supreme
Self is never ignorant, not even seemingly ignorant. It is only you and I who
are apparently ignorant, and this appearance is created by Yogmaya. Whose
Yogmaya? It is our own Yogmaya. Each and every one of us has stepped on to the
field, put on our uniforms, and is playing this Game by our own free choice. It
is not the choice of the Supreme Self, and neither is it the command of the Supreme
Self that we should do so, it is totally our own free choice as immortal beings.
Naturally (prakritically), once we start playing the Game we do get caught up
in it, and our actions produce reactions due to our ignorance, and we remain stuck
in this karmic cycle until our ignorance is removed with the Wisdom of Consciousness.
Regarding
the ‘311 trillion years’ thing, as I said, that is ‘according to some.’ Though
I may not subscribe to the time frame, you can see from my writings that I have
absolutely no problem with calling Moksha a ‘state,’ and it is clear to me that
the liberated Self can certainly playing the Game of Life again if and whenever
it chooses to do so.
You have to remember that while the Gita has the status of an Upanishad
it is a Pauranic text and like the Upanishads from which it gets its ideas contains
both the language of experience (yoga) and the language of identity (Vedanta).
Unfortunately it does not explain the contradiction between these two languages
and the purpose of each so that seekers can become confused and imagine that enlightenment
is some sort of experience.
The
Pauranas personify the Self because it is for people whose intellects are extroverted.
This is why the hero is Arjuna, a rajasic person with an unsophisticated emotional
mind. But the downside of this approach is that an undiscriminating mind
can take the whole story literally. The Gita understands this and tries
to get around this by positing a ‘Supreme Person’ but again this is possible to
misunderstand. In the fifteenth chapter it first establishes two ‘selves’ the
askshara purusha and the kshara purusha for the purposes of discrimination.
Then it introduces the ‘Supreme Person.’ This Supreme Person (uttamapurusha)
is not a person. Person is a symbol that has a certain affinity with what
it is meant to symbolize but like all symbols it is not meant to be taken literally.
The ‘Supreme Person’ is just Chaitanya, Awareness. Why is it ‘supreme?’
Because it is the Awareness of both change and changelessness which are represented
as ‘purushas.’ Both change and changelessness are apparent realities known
by virtue of non-dual Awareness… if you want a straightforward scientific no-bullshit
statement of fact. ‘Supreme’ is an unfortunate dualistic word that gives the impression
of two or more selves. In fact there is only one Self. If there is
only one Self the appearance of two or more selves is just that…an appearance.
But if you can’t see that then you end up worshipping the Supreme Person as somebody
other than you who can give you what in your spiritual emptiness you want…or think
you want… or you end up striving to experience this ‘supreme person’ in the form
of some sort of ‘high state’ of consciousness like nirvikalpa samadhi that you
believe you can make permanent or you find yourself hoping for some kind of personal
darshan of this supreme being all dressed up in silks with the great Kasthuba
gem on his chest and his thousand arms waving in the breeze like the tentacles
of a sea anemone. The joke here is that you are always experiencing the
Self but because the mind is gross and extroverted and doesn’t know what the Self
is you believe that you are not so you turn yourself into an object and
try to ‘get it.’ It’s a big frustration, actually. And the culprit?
Language confusion. This is why traditional Vedanta places such an importance
on a guru with scriptural knowledge. He or she can elucidate the language
problem and save the seeker the inevitable difficulties that come when you
don’t understand the way words work. Dev reply: The Gita’s discussion of the Akshara, Kshara, and Uttama purushas
clearly establishes the threefold nature of Reality: Prakriti, Atman, and Paramatman:
Nature, the Self, and the Supreme Self. You can give it any interpretation
you like. Frankly, I much prefer your interpretation to that of the Vaishnavists
and other Sanatanists. ----- Dev (from previous dialog): Continuing
now with your reply: “A third doubt that your statement brings up is this: in
my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything.” I
think we have addressed this and hopefully clarified that, indeed, there is no
‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything because a ‘person’ is really
only a mental formulation and is not (in and of itself) the living Self (Jivatman).
Laksman: If there is no person to be clear, then there is no person
to attain the ‘highest state.’ If you say the Self is going to attain something,
you have the problem of doership because the sruti clearly states that the Self
is not a doer. It is ‘already accomplished.’ It is already every state than
can be attained so it will not set out to attain anything. Presenting the
Self in this way is helpful for doers with gross intellects who have spiritual
vasanas because it channels their prodigious energy into sadhana which will eventually
sattvasize their minds and make inquiry possible. Unfortunately, when the
mind gets sattvic there are still unhelpful spiritual impressions concerning the
nature of the Self and the way to attain it which need to be examined and discarded
in light of non-dual teachings. Dev
reply: A ‘person’ is a fictional character created in the mind via the agency
of ego. It is not the ‘person’ that needs to be clear, rather the ‘person’
needs to be cleared out of the mind altogether; meaning, one need to completely
abandon this idea that one is a ‘person.’ ‘Abandoning the idea’ means dropping
one’s attachment to it. In other words, one has to drop one’s attachment
to one’s own self. The
living Self (Jivatman) removes the ego from the mind, resulting in Enlightenment.
Now, the Jivatman stands clear (of ego, mind, body, etc.), but this is not
the final state of Kaivalya. However, this Enlightenment (as well as Kaivalya)
are NOT sattvic states of mind. The ‘sattvasization’ of the mind is certainly
necessary for the accomplished (adept) achievement of Savikalpa Samadhi, but the
seedless Samadhi (Nirbija Samadhi, the final stage in Nirvikalpa Samadhi) is only
brought about when the mind is purified of all desires, including the desire to
be desireless. In
the state of Kaivalya (Moksha), both Nature (Prakriti) and the Jiva return to
their primordial states (which are unmanifest Prakriti and Purush, respectively).
Still, an extremely fine veil of Ignorance remains until the Self (as Purush,
technically the subtlest state of Jivatman) disappears and all that remains is
the Self absorbed in the Self (Supreme Self), and this is called the Highest State.
It is a ‘state’ because the Self can choose again to manifest as Purush and ‘unite’
with Prakriti during the process of Creation. Regardless whether or not
the Liberated Soul chooses to ‘act’ again in the Drama of Creation, the Drama
of Life (Creation) will go on (“the show must go on”). This Show has always been
going on since Eternity and will continue for Eternity, with intermissions marked
by MahaPralaya. Just because someone attains Liberation doesn’t mean everyone
else simultaneously attains it. Definitely not. Each and every one of us
is an immortal Soul, whole, complete, and indivisible, uncreated and indestructible.
There is nothing that can change that. We can neither become more or less than
that. However, we can certainly hide behind the veil of Ignorance and attend this
fantastic masquerade party of Existence if we so choose to. …..
Dev (from previous dialog): Enlightenment is for souls embodied as human
beings. As a human being, we have countless samskaras and associated vasanas from
many, many incarnations (in both animal and human forms). The sattvic, rajasic
and tamasic qualities of our actions, impressions, tendencies and thoughts, affect
our perception (the perception of the embodied soul) and can either help or hinder
whether or not we (human beings) attain enlightenment. Initially, a human
being learns to be selective and make careful choices because they want to avoid
pain and suffering in their life. Eventually, they begin to yearn for Self-knowledge;
they want to know who they are, what they are, and why they are here; in other
words, they long for Enlightenment. Laksman: I agree. The only
question is ‘What is enlightenment?’ And you and I have very different views
on this. I’m certainly not going to accept your view and I’m sure you will
not accept mine so it seems the discussion on this topic is finished. Dev
reply: My view is experiential. It should be obvious (self-evident)
to each of us that we are NOT All-powerful (omnipotent), All-knowing (omniscient),
and Everywhere Present (omnipresent). What is not so obvious (and requires
wisdom to know) is that our consciousness pervades the entire Universe (and beyond)
because as Atman we completely pervade Prakriti. The
existence of the Supreme Self is initially evident by way of inference only.
For example, we perceive this vast, intelligently designed Universe and naturally
infer there must have been a Designer behind the design, a Supreme Being possessing
the Intelligence and power to create this vast Universe (none of us is that intelligent
or powerful). It requires both wisdom and devotion (really they are inseparable)
to actually know (realize) that our essence (the essence of Atman) is the Supreme
Self (Paramatman), and that our Essence pervades everything (Prakriti) and every
one (every Soul). Each of us is unique, eternal, uncreated, immortal. Even though
we share the same cosmic body (the Universe) and same subtle body (Prakriti),
and same Soul (Supreme Self), we remain distinct from one another. Realizing
this makes us responsible for our own actions in this world (Creation), and also
makes us realize that no one can really change anyone (nor is there any desire
to do so: that is, there is no desire of Atman to do so, though that desire may
certainly arise in the ego-driven mind). ----- Dev
(from previous dialog): You have written: “If someone asked me what enlightenment
was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge or ignorance (of itself)
and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he or she is the Self.”
Then, according to you, the Self, who we both know is not a person, possesses
both apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance of itself. The question then
arises: where does the Self ‘possess’ this ‘apparent’ knowledge and ‘apparent’
ignorance of itself? If you say this knowledge and ignorance are inherent
in the Self, then this would lead us to conclude that the All-knowing, Never-ignorant
Self, whose nature is eternal and unchangeable, inherently possesses knowledge
and ignorance which are not really real but only apparent. In this case,
the Self would always possess apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance and enlightenment
would be out of the question. I know of no scripture that would substantiate
the statement: the All-knowing Self (and indeed, the Supreme Self, since you make
no distinction) possesses apparent knowledge and ignorance of Itself. It
is pretty much universally accepted that GOD is never ignorant (unlike us), and
not even apparently ignorant. Laksman: This is good reasoning, Dev.
The key word in my statement is apparent. Apparent means that it seems to
exist but it doesn’t actually exist. So this means that the Self is actually
free of knowledge and ignorance… which is what you are arguing. In any case
the point of that statement is that you are the Self and not a person. If
you think you are a person, as you seem to, you are assuming a limited identity.
When you feel limited you strive for freedom from limitation. A limited
identity is a problem because how do you get from a limited identity to a limitless
identity? You can’t do it through action (sadhanas) because no amount of finite
actions will ever add up to limitlessness. You can only see that you made
a mistake by thinking of yourself in a limited way and drop the thought.
Dev
reply: It should be clear to you now that I have no problem with assuming an identity,
just as I have no problem assuming a role to play in a drama, or putting on a
uniform and playing the game according to the rules. My true identity is
never lost, therefore it is never really gained either, but in the context of
this Life (the Game) I assume an identity as a human being and attain enlightenment.
Ultimately, I become liberated in the state of Moksha. This does not mean
that the unreal becomes real, because that would be impossible, just as it is
impossible for the Real to become unreal, or the immortal mortal, or the indivisible
divisible. How
does one get from a limited identity to a limitless identity? It is a process.
That process is sometimes called ‘spiritual growth,’ it has also been called sadhana.
Part (but not all, and NOT the final part) of sadhana is realizing that you
made a mistake by thinking of yourself in a limited way, and taking the action
(in the form of self-study, devotion, etc.) to drop the thought. [The italicized
words are your own.] -------
Dev (from previous dialog): On the other hand, if we reveal to the
seeker the knowledge that the mind, body, etc., are the seeker’s own instruments
of knowledge, which, if wisely employed will enable the seeker to discover (uncover)
their own true Self, the seeker might then inquire: ‘Who am I’ who possess this
mind and body; why do I not know my own self; how did I forget my real nature,
and how can I realize who and what I really am? Laksman:
Yes, that’s fine. But the jury is not out on the question of Who am I?
It is well known. If someone doesn’t know it then a valid means of knowledge
is necessary, quite apart from the ‘seeker’s own instruments’ which will not reveal
the truth on their own. If they were constructed to reveal the truth nobody
would have a doubt about who they were in the first place. The fact is that
‘the seekers own instruments’ are very limited and turned in the wrong direction.
To turn them around you need work, i.e. Yoga. And to help them understand
a valid pramana like Vedanta is needed. Dev
reply: ‘The jury is not out?’ I think this is backwards because the
jury is certainly out, i.e., people have NOT made up their mind as to the answer
to the question ‘Who am I. ’ (Perhaps this was a typo on your part?)
People DO NOT know the Self due to their ignorance which is reinforced by their
actions. The ‘seeker’s own instruments’ are certainly incapable of
revealing the truth on their own, as you have rightly stated. I agree with this
paragraph but would add that Pramana too is a mental activity (as described by
Patanjali), that is, it is one of the modifications of the mind. When one’s
Pramana is truly Vedantic, it leads ultimately to mental balance and the total
equilibrium of the GUNAS, thus resulting in the direct experience of the Self.
When this direct experience (in the form of Samadhi) is repeated again and again,
it eventually becomes the nature of the mind to be so naturally still that the
reflection of the Self in that mind is extremely clear and focused. That mind
becomes fit for liberation; which means the mind (in this case, the Antarkarana
Chatushtaya) becomes a fit instrument of the Jiva to realize (by means of divine
Wisdom) the true nature of (1) itself, (2) the Self, and (3) ultimately
the Essence of the Self, the Supreme Self. Laksman:
(from the previous email) “If someone sincerely asked me who I was I would not
say that I was a person who attained enlightenment. I would say that I appear
to be a person because I have a very convincing person act but that the person
I once thought I was, the one that seems to be there from the outside, is long
gone.” Dev reply (from previous dialog): No doubt the person you were
is long gone, since that person is changing every second and is never the same.
But is the ‘person’ part of you really gone? No, you are still a person,
but you are so much more than just that. You still have ego, but you are
so much more than that. You are the living Self (Jivatman) and one day you
may become a Jivamukta, or if you attain your liberation after the death of the
body, you might one day become a Videhamukta. But in any case, right now
you are still an embodied soul. Laksman: When I say I am not
a person I mean the person is me but I am not the person. All bodies are in me;
I am not in them. All persons are in me. I am not in them. You are
incorrect when you say I will ‘become a Jivanmukta.” I will not ‘become’
anything, Dev. I am already everything that is. If you want to imagine
some kind of future ‘state’ or condition when you will be free that’s fine with
me. And if you want to project it on me, it up to you. But I’m sorry
to say this statement does not apply to me. Dev
reply: Okay Laksmanji, understanding this paragraph in light of the knowledge
that the ATMAN (our own Self) is all-pervading, meaning it completely pervades
PRAKRITI, and therefore everything evolved from Prakriti can be said to be pervaded
by ATMAN. However, for this to work one must realize that the material universe
(which includes the subtle substances like the mind, intellect, ego, etc.) is
not the Self, nor is it projected from the Self, but is projected by
the Self through the medium of the eternal, indestructible PRAKRTI. If you
embrace the neo-vedantic view of Advaita and assert that only the Self exists
then you cannot accept this, hence, you will have to assert that Prakriti is unreal
and that the Supreme Self (sense you don’t accept the existence of any other Self)
is the author of Ignorance; in other words, according to this view Ignorance must
emanate from the Supreme Being who is eternally All-knowing. The neo-vedantic
view is irrational and unacceptable, and just not true.
How can you possibly know what is true for me? You obviously do not accept
my words because they contradict your beliefs. Mind you I don’t care if
you accept my words.
Dev
reply: Now it would seem you are reacting and going on the defensive. I
can know what is true for you if I know what is true for me, if the essence of
you and me is the same, which it is. I do not accept your words (some of
the things you say) because they are not in consonance with divine Wisdom or even
simple logic. They do not contradict my beliefs because we are not talking
about ‘belief systems’ here. I love it when something I hear contradicts
my beliefs, because that spurs me to look deeper. On the other hand, my convictions
are based on the principles of Consciousness, and those principles are the basis
of my character. If I have true integrity (which I do), I will hold firm to my
principles and gladly let go of my images. Remember,
I did not initiate this discussion. I did not ask for your opinion but you
seemed to want to discuss with me so I offered my experience/knowledge in good
faith. Dev
reply: Yes, I did initiate this discussion by asking you for your opinion about
the MastersofDeception blog. You might be interested in knowing how this
came about. Just after creating the blog I did a google search on Ramana Maharishi
and somehow ended up reading [an article relating to him which you had written].
Reading that article, I was very impressed by your candor and the depth of your
understanding. I knew full well that you were of a neo-vedantic mindset,
however, you struck me as one who was a free-thinker, original, honest, and not
easily swayed by either praise or censure. Thus, I genuinely sought your opinion
regarding the blog because I felt your opinion would be unbiased. Our
discussion has evolved into a dialog about other things not strictly having to
do with the blog, and I have welcomed this dialog though neither you nor I sought
it. It is what it is, and it has been useful if for no other reason than the Wisdom
it has revealed. For
this discussion to continue you would tentatively have to take on my statements
of non-dual identity and investigate within yourself to see whether or not they
could be true…for you. If they are true for you, then they can be true for
me because there is no difference between us. Dev
reply: You seem to be saying that I have to accept your statements on non-dual
identity otherwise we are too different from one another for the dialog to continue.
This is certainly a dogmatic approach. I have considered the neo-vedantic
statements on non-dual identity and investigated them for many years before coming
to the firm conclusion that they are not the whole truth. If you are really
an open-minded man, you will at least consider what I have written. However,
I am an extremely uneducated man possessing very little shastric knowledge by
which I could substantiate every thing I have said. Therefore, I have suggested
that you read Satyarth Prakash and the Introduction to the Commentary on the Rig
Veda by Maharishi Dayananda, which provide many proofs based on Tradition. I’m
saying that you are the Self, that you are already liberated and that there is
nothing to attain because you are me. If ‘you’ can’t see it and want to
believe in some future liberation it is up to you. But future liberation
is meaningless to me because when you are everything there is nothing you can
be free of. Freedom is the nature of the Self and you are the Self.
As long as you see yourself as Dev, a person, you will strive for liberation.
The longer you strive the deeper your separation vasana becomes. Dev
reply: What you call the ‘separation vasana’ certainly exists in every seeker.
However, the ‘separation vasana’ is no where near as much of a problem as the
‘neo-vedantic vansana.’ The neo-vedantic vansana doesn’t let one fully manifest
the freedom of the Self because one thinks one is free before one is actually
free. It is like stepping on to the field to play a game and announcing you have
won the game, and then you walk of the field. It would be better if you
at least play the game to win after announcing you have won. This I can
accept. Can you see the bias
you are bringing to this conversation? I will explain my bias later in this
letter if it is not clear to you already. Dev reply: Ask ten of your Satsangis to read our dialog and give
us their unbiased opinions. You may be surprised to find a number of them reconsidering
your views. ……. Dev reply (from previous dialog): Laksmanji,
we are not playing the ‘who is enlightened’ game, but that question need only
be addressed to ourselves. If you are referring to the MastersofDeception
blog (which I assume you are since this paragraph seems to be pointed there),
the aim of the blog (one aim of the blog) is to reveal that many of those people
whom we generally believe are Enlightened (are true knowers of the Self) are often
not so enlightened after all. No doubt that some are, and others are good but
confused people, some are just plain confused, and others are down right nasty
charlatans. It matters little that ‘it takes a jnani to know a jnani’; but what
does matter is that it takes an open-minded human being (one who has dropped their
bias and emotional or mental prejudices) to recognize a fraud. Laksman:
That’s right, Dev, but a mature person would not be taken in by a fraud.
And if a person takes advice from someone on the internet they don’t know well
he or she will probably also be foolish enough to be taken in by a charlatan who
might just as well tell them, “Oh, the Masters of Deception Blog?” That’s
Dev. He’s a blogger. Everybody knows his trip. He’s just a self righteous
guru wannabe. Imagines he’s a defender of the faith but doesn’t offer any
hard facts…just regurgitates worn out opinions. It’s all hot air.
Probably his mom or pop abused him when he was young and he hates authority figures
even though he pulls an authority trip with his list and hides behind web anonymity.
He figures people will love him if he looks out after them. It’s a savior complex
masquerading as compassion. Maybe he’s envious because he has no followers.”
Etc. You know the drill. These fake gurus are not as stupid as you think.
They know just how stupid people are. In any case good luck with your blog
and I hope you save many souls. Dev
reply: This paragraph, like the previous one, seems to be a bit of ranting
(something unbecoming of the Self), or maybe you are just be really funny, because
it certainly is hilarious. You are not a charlatan but people who don’t know you are taking your
advice over the Internet. Just because they are taking your advice over the Internet,
does this mean they would be foolish enough to be taken in by a charlatan?
….. Dev (from previous dialog): Please read the blog again. My aim
is not to judge for the sake of judging, but for the sake of disinterestedly helping.
You yourself have said in one of your Satsang writings that making judgments is
not wrong; it is actually essential. Certainly one’s judgment should not be based
on mere belief or opinion, as these definitely do NOT constitute knowledge.
One’s judgment should be based on one’s direct experience, the testimony of reliable
witnesses, and inference based on a set of valid clues. I think you would agree
with me here, and that we have simply misunderstood one another.
Laksman: That is correct. It’s going to happen over and over because
we have different orientations. Dev
reply: I do not believe I misunderstand you at all, but I know for certain you
misunderstand me because you have not fully understood the Self. However,
since I know the Self is limitless, I realize there can be no limit to my knowing;
in other words, what I know now is certainly NOT the end of all knowledge, therefore
I might not (and in all probability, do not) know you and may in fact misunderstand
you. ….. Dev (from previous dialog): We hold politicians
to such scrutiny, and for good reasons; similarly, nowadays we have sex offender
lists that are openly published on the Internet to hopefully foreworn the innocent
(though I have some reservations about this). This whole thing is a drama:
the good, the bad, and ugly. I think there is no problem with adding some positive
(albeit image-breaking and sometimes shocking) input in name of ‘service to humanity.’
For your own information, the gross charlatans listed on the site (and certainly
not everyone listed is or was a charlatan at all, but are/were very noble souls,
including of course Swami C) were people with whom I had direct contact or whom
someone very close to me had direct contact with, or whose adharmic behavior is
widely known (Osho). Others have been listed (who to my knowledge were NOT
charlatans) but have been included only for the sake of revealing how so many
of us blindly follow others and worship them without realizing that these persons
were NOT gods, but people just like ourselves, who made mistakes, and had work
to do on themselves, and may indeed still be working on themselves even after
their death. Laksman: I think the blog would be helped by the
inclusion of the ideas we have been discussing so people could get a better idea
of who you are and why you feel it is necessary to save people from their folly.
Incidentally, there already is quite a famous and well established guru rating
website which has a much more reasonable tone than yours. Masters of Deception
is a very provocative title, meant to inspire fear. In my humble opinion
fear sucks… even if it’s good fear. Dev reply: The tone of the MasterofDeception blog is certainly strong
and firm because the subject matter is serious. Both the title and contents
of the blog are meant to engender caution not fear. The established guru
rating website you mention, if you are referring to the Sarlo site, is not very
reliable, considering the webmaster’s master is OSHO. ….
Dev reply (from earlier dialog): Laksmanji, I have no axe to grind and no
butter to spread. Laksman: I didn’t say you did. I’m saying
that the way you formulate things suggests that maybe you do. Dev reply: I will reflect on this and reform my thoughts and expressions
if it seems fitting that I should. Thank you. …. Dev reply
(from earlier dialog): I disagree. You seem to be saying that one’s
power of discernment depends on one’s opinions (views), which in turn are based
on one’s values. I assume by ‘values’ you mean principles. In my mind,
there is a set of universal principles (values) which are an inherent part of
everyone. I will explain: By virtue of the omnipresent nature of Consciousness,
the qualities of that Consciousness must necessarily be present in all of us.
The qualities of that Consciousness are referred to (by me) as our Real Nature.
Our Real Nature embodies the principles of Consciousness, and those principles
are written in the conscience of every living being. Thus, essentially we all
have the same root values. These values are expressed as the five Yamas, which
form the foundation of Yoga. These yamas are called universal vows. Why?
Because every human being by virtue of their own conscience must make these vows
(promises to one’s own self) and stick to them, and if they don’t, they will be
betraying their own true nature. Regardless of the tendencies one may have
accumulated over one’s innumerable incarnations (many, many, in non-human forms),
when one is embodied as a human being one’s higher nature compels one to acknowledge
this nature (these principles of consciousness) and abide by it (i.e., be one’s
Self). Thus, you could say that we all ‘come to our values’ when we come
into this human life, because when we are born as human beings these intrinsic
values (of Consciousness itself) are written (so to speak) in our conscience.
Laksman: This is well written and I agree. I wasn’t referring
to universal values. I was referring to the values that unselfaware people
develop as a result of allowing their vasanas to interpret their experiences in
life. Dev
reply: Perhaps we have a different understanding of the term ‘vasana.’ I
use this term to mean ‘tendency’ or ‘inclination’, ‘urge’, and ‘desire.’
A vasana is always associated with a samskara (impression in the mind stuff).
It is all part of the Karmic Cycle of action (karma), impression (samskara), tendency
(vasana), thought pattern (vritti), and then again action (karma). Our life’s
experiences are created by our actions which result in impressions in the mind.
Automatically a tendency (vasana) is created in the mind as a result of the impression
(unless the action is done without ego, in which case the action will be non-binding,
meaning it will not create a chain reaction of impression-tendency-thought-reaction
(i.e., so called ‘Karma’). The
vasanas (tendencies, inclinations) prompt one to think (understand, misunderstand,
imagine, dream, and remember). One’s values are formed from one’s thinking. You
have correctly stated that one’s values are developed or formed from one’s interpretation
of one’s experiences in life. I also agree with you that someone who lacks
Self Knowledge (what I call the Wisdom of Consciousness), will allow their vasanas
(tendencies, inclinations, and desires) to ‘make up their mind’ and form their
values. I call this the ‘deformed mind’, and to reshape it so that one’s
values are in alignment with the principles of Consciousness (the nature of the
Self, i.e., one’s True Nature), wisdom (Self-knowledge) is absolutely essential.
….. Dev reply (from previous dialog): Are you saying that in order to
believe the information on the site the reader would have to believe the one who
posted it is enlightened? The one who posted it need only be knowledgeable enough
to call a spade a spade, a charlatan a charlatan, a saint a saint, a seeker a
seeker, and a noble human being a noble human being. The words of the Wise, even
a single word, is sometimes enough for a truth seeker, even a truth seeker who
is seriously self-deluded. Those who are not truth seekers, even if they
be very wise in their own eyes, will remain blinded by their ego even if the truth
were to blaze before them like the light of thousand suns.
Laksman: The point I’m trying to make is: why should your evaluation
of these people be believed?’ This is why I think it would be good if you
explained your self. I’ve spent a large fraction of my adult life selling
all sorts of things…from goods and services to ideas… and I have found that the
most effective way to get one’s idea across is to gain a person’s confidence.
To do that you need to reveal who you are. The take it or leave it approach
creates doubts. I’m having the same difficulty with your words in these emails.
It may be completely a style thing but I need to know more about why you think
like you do. You come across as a take no prisoners type of guy…almost bigoted.
I know you aren’t but it is possible to get that impression from the way you use
words. Very often religious dogmatism and conviction born of truth are indistinguishable.
In any case I’m not attracted to this kind of approach. Just the fact that you
have assumed this white knight in shining armor defender of truth role makes me
suspicious. I think, ‘What’s wrong with this guy? Doesn’t he have
anything better to do than criticize others?”
Dev
reply: Laksmanji, I take the approach that I am speaking to my own Self.
Maybe this doesn’t work for you, but from what I can tell by going through your
writings you actually seem to have a very similar speaking/writing manner.
In any case, based on your critique, I am reevaluating the blog. Thank you. …..
Dev reply (from earlier dialog): I guess you’re saying (please correct me
if I’m wrong) that after someone reads the list they will be inclined to ignore
it because they will not perceive it was compiled by their own well-wisher and
invisible friend, or by an enlightened being. Consequently, they will possibly
end up receiving a ‘personal’ darshan of Satya Sai Baba, be molested by him, then
later leave in disgust and remorse and send me an email saying they should have
heeded my warning. Well, hopefully that will not be the case. But after
all, this is Samsara, and this Samsara exists in the minds of the ignorant and
in the minds of those who ignore their own conscience. This Samsara will go on
forever. Laksman: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not
saying you shouldn’t post the blog. In fact I could add some very juicy
tidbits to the rubbish on a number of gurus but it’s not my style to criticize
in a public forum. I have one long criticism of the teachings of a Neo-Advaita
guru on the website but the name is changed and I give him high marks for moksha
and for a good character but take him to task for his teaching.
Dev reply: I value your opinion (which
is why I asked you for it in the first place), and I have decided to remove the
blog (at least for now). …..
Dev reply (from previous dialog): This is a mistaken notion that
‘there are no rules for jnanis.’ A knower of Truth is ruled by the truth to be
truthful; a jnani is ruled by wisdom to act wisely. A jnani will act according
to Dharma; he or she will not violate the law or rule of their own Being, their
own True Self. In the mind of the Wise, only wisdom rules; they are not ruled
by the tyrant ego, they are not ruled by their whims, moods, or desires.
Certainly, (due to existing vasanas) a jnani may still have many whims, moods,
and desires but he or she will be ruled by their own conscience which is overshadowed
by the characteristics (qualities) of the real Self. It is true, however,
that a jnani is not bound by any external rules, obligations, or the mental images
and projections of others. Laksman: I didn’t mean that a true
jnani will violate dharma only that no external rules and no particular lifestyle
or behavior applies. In other words a jnani need not be a saint. He
or she may or may not eat a Big Mac without losing wisdom. :+)
Dev reply: A jnani may or may not eat meat in a life or death situation,
but will definitely NOT eat meat just because he or she doesn’t want to go out
of their way to avoid it. A Wise man or woman (a jnani) will always act
with power of discernment; if they do not, then they have already lost the Wisdom
and are no longer Wise, i.e., no longer a Jnani. ….. Laksman:
(from the previous email) Knowing who you are is the big success, not what you
do or don’t do with the knowledge. Dev reply (from previous dialog):
Knowing who you are but not being who you are is a shame and a sham; it is certainly
not a success. For example, one who knows the principles of good health but doesn’t
put those principles into practice is one who is a prisoner of their mind and
ego. In other words, one who knows better but doesn’t do better is one who is
complacent and mentally lazy. One who claims to know the Self but continues
to be pushed around by his or her small self (ego), does not really know the Self,
because the knowledge of the Self sets you free. Laksman: I
meant that knowing is being. Knowing is doing. If you really know
that you are whole and complete your actions will reveal who you are. .
There is no choice involved it. Dev reply: This small paragraph tells me everything I need to know
about you, which is also the only reason we have been carrying this dialog on
for this long. Regardless of any difference we have in understanding, this
one paragraph says we have the same Self. ….. Dev reply (from
previous dialog): Enlightenment certainly does indicate that the mind was
previously in the state of darkness (Ignorance), but so what? There is nothing
here to hide. It is completely irrelevant who is enlightened, unless this ‘who’
refers to ourselves. Realizing we are not enlightened, or not as enlightened
as we could be, we might inquire by searching more deeply within ourselves and
also perhaps seeking help from those who we trust. Laksman:
I was trying to make the point that if you are evaluating people it is better
to evaluate them solely on the basis of whether or not their behavior was in harmony
with dharma. There are endless statements in the sruti that there is no
prarabdha for jnanis… which are intended to debunk the association between behavior
and moksha. Yes, there is a connection seen from one point of view but no
there isn’t seen from another. Dev
reply: Yes, I agree, Dharma is the best barometer by which to evaluate gurus,
teachers, swamis, etc. I had hoped to bring out in the blog the characteristics
of the reader’s own real nature (Dharma), albeit both directly and in contradistinction,
but your analysis tells me I have failed to do. Thus, as I’ve already said,
I have shut down the blog for now. …. Dev reply (from previous
dialog): In answer to your first question, according to my view they do not have
a Subtle Body because the subtle body refers to the embodiment of Atman.
Grass, herbs, fruits, vegetables, grains, etc., are not the bodies of souls. But
nearly everyone in the spiritual field will agree that animals, birds, and even
fish do indeed have souls (or rather, the Atman is embodied as the Jivatman in
these sentient life forms). Laksman: My point is where do you
draw the line. A rock, a tree, an animal, a human being. All are the
Self. In the apparent reality the Self eats the Self. Perhaps you
might study Gita Chapter 2. I daresay that if you were dying of starvation
and a big fat salmon jumped out of a stream on the bank you would not see
it as God offering itself to you. I’m sure your vegetarian principles would
probably cause you to put it back in the water and starve to death. Dev
reply: Your point should not require a reply, but anyway: “where do you
draw the line. A rock, a tree, an animal, a human being. All are the
Self.” This is like saying “sex is sex, so what does it matter. Where do you
draw the line: sex with one’s wife, sex with another woman, sex with a man, sex
with a little girl, sex with a boy, sex with a lamb, sex with a chicken. . .”
Come on now! We do not need to argue this point. Sure everything is the
Self, but in this Game of Life you can not cheat and win. Fair is fair.
Foul is foul. Violence is violence. Your
analogy of the salmon jumping out of the stream is not a very good one, since
it would be very unlikely that there was not sufficient vegetation to keep me
alive without eating the salmon; hence, I would most definitely put it back in
the water but NOT starve to death. It I were truly in a life or death situation
and the only way to stay alive was to eat a piece of meat, I may or may not eat
it. Who knows, maybe I would choose to meditate to death. I guess the jury is
out on that one. -------
Dev reply (from previous dialog): Regarding the rest of this paragraph, it
is clear that you do not see any harm in eating animals. If you can look into
the eyes of a cow, dog, lamb, horse, or other animal and kill it with your own
hands and eat it, without feeling that you have violated your own conscience,
then there is nothing I can really say to influence you in this regard.
As for inhaling a few microbes (which again, are probably not living beings but
living matter), there is a world of difference between that and killing a cow;
especially when the former is unavoidable but the latter is solely by one’s own
choice and is totally unnecessary. Laksman: There’s harm in everything…if
you have a fearful mind. Dev
reply: Fear is the product of violence. One who violates their real nature
will be fearful of the consequences. The Self is all-compassionate and all-merciful,
but Nature is very unforgiving. As a human being, the embodied self knows
this (intuitively) and therefore fears doing what is wrong. It would be
foolish to think that actions do not have consequences. We are free to do
whatever we want, but we are not free from the consequences of what we do.
One who says “I am not the doer, and actions do not affect me,” and then proceeds
to do wrong actions or seek appreciation and recognition for his good actions,
is simply deluded and is not a Knower of the Self. --------
Laksman: (from the previous email) “And what about Tibetan lamas in the winter
with not a vegetable in sight? Their spirituality is compromised because
they eat Yak butter and meat?” Dev
reply (from previous dialog): There have been many great Mystics, Saints, and
Sages, and many ordinary people too who live in regions of sparse vegetation,
and have never eaten meat. Besides, the Yaks had to consume a lot of vegetation
themselves (being vegetarians), so surely there must be some vegetation available,
and if not, human beings are nomadic by nature and will migrate to areas where
food can be found. Tibetan lamas who eat meat, like many other Buddhists,
are not true followers of the teachings of Lord Buddha. Laksman:
For me this conversation is not only about vegetarianism; it is about whether
or not we can communicate successfully. I haven’t enough invested in this
vegetarian idea to quarrel with you about it. You have healthy feel good
views about food but they don’t qualify as spiritual in my opinion. You
will perhaps be surprised to know that I’m a pure vegetarian but I’m not identified
with it. Injury to living beings is only one reason for it. I can imagine
sitting down to a nice turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and not feeling guilty.
Dev
reply: Why are you getting defensive? I did not know we were quarreling about
vegetarianism. This discussion about vegetarianism has arisen because a number
of statements made in the blog unequivocally indicate one who is not a vegetarian
is going against their true nature (Dharma), and could not therefore reliably
guide one to realize one’s real nature. -----
Laksman: (from the previous email) “In case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats
life. Nobody can avoid it. Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed.
The cows eat vegetables and they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.”
Dev reply (from previous
dialog): Excuse me for saying (and I really do not mean to hurt your feelings)
but you are really revealing your ignorance here. You are deliberately ignoring
(going against) your Higher Nature, your Real Nature, your Dharma, which is NOT
to cause avoidable pain and suffering to any creature. Laksman:
You didn’t hurt my feelings in the least, Dev. I don’t have feelings.
I’m not a human being, remember? I found the above paragraph rather amusing.
Even if I was a human being I wouldn’t be offended because I don’t know you…for
the present you’re just an earnest voice from cyberspace that may or not be connected
to someone I might want to know.
Dev
reply: No comment. -----
Dev reply (from previous dialog): Exposing people to the truth does not keep
them ignorant. I have no duty to protect the ignorant; my duty is to speak the
truth and remove ignorance. Laksman: They have to know that it’s the
truth first, Dev. Truthful statements are not the truth. A wicked
person or a self deluded person can make truthful statements. One needs
to know who is making the statements first and why…before one is inclined to believe.
Personally, I am not inclined to believe anything about anything. I have senses
and a mind and I can figure out what’s going on without help. I operate
from understanding born of experience. My point is: who is to know that
Dev’s version of the truth is The truth? It could just as easily be an opinion.
I’d also be curious to know who gave you that duty. Did God or your guru tell
you to do it? Or is it self assumed? Dev
reply: I agree with you, that truthful statements are not the truth. Only
truthful teachers can teach (reveal) the truth. However, there is power
in words, even if it is only information. Though information cannot teach,
it does inform, and for many people that is all they will ever get. Very few people
are actually ever taught by a Satguru, so they will rely on the information available
to them and understand it as best they can, drawing upon their own experiences
and innate knowledge. Just
like you, “I am not inclined to believe anything about anything. I have senses
and a mind and I can figure out what’s going on without help. I operate
from understanding born of experience.” Laksman:
Perhaps it would be instructive to recall Krishna’s statement in the Gita, “Let
not the wise unsettle the minds of the ignorant.” To me this is one
of the Gita’s greatest statements. It shows that at heart Vedic culture
is not a bunch of fanatical self-righteous moralistic rule following Brahmin karma
kandis bound and determined to tell you what to believe and how to live your life.
Krishna says this because people do not change
because they are told what is good for them. They only change when through
their own experience they realize that they are bringing suffering on themselves.
If the US
government would just legalize drugs and shut up about how awful they are, drug
use would plummet. People are perverse. They are like children.
You tell them to do something and they will do the opposite. It is best
to let people experiment and find out for themselves. Sure, there are people
who are completely incapable of thinking for themselves and living their own lives
and the yamas and niyamas are useful for them in so far as it is not helpful to
them or to others that they do evil. Dev reply: Yeah, you’re right. This is my understanding and experience
too. ….. Dev reply (from previous dialog): Why try to justify
our ignorance? This Drama exists for the purpose of removing our ignorance. We
are here to discover (uncover) the Truth and not to cover it up with more ignorance.
The Treasure is buried very deeply and one will have to continue to dig until
It is completely uncovered. It is covered by Ignorance and ego brought about
by Maya. Whose Maya? It is our own Maya. We have to stop deluding
ourselves; it won’t just happen on its own. It is a process, and that process
should never stop. It will indeed stop, but only when we are completely
enlightened. Laksman: It stopped for me. Evidently
it didn’t stop for you. Dev
reply: Wonderful. By the grace of the Self we will meet one day. …..
Laksman: (from the previous email) “Speaking as a person I used
to be an evil doer and it was the correct path for me because it lead me to the
Self at an early age. If I’d been a nice decent well meaning holy person
always doing the right thing and following the good advice of others I may not
have waked up at all. Virtue is not always helpful. A golden chain
can bind you as completely as an iron one. It’s nice to want to save people
from their folly but remember the Inquisition.” Dev
reply (from previous dialog): The path of ignorance is never the right path;
the only right path is the path of Dharma, which means to make our mind and behavior
conform to our Real Nature. No one is perfect, but no one can remain content (forever)
in their self-imposed limitations and ignorance. It is our nature to strive for
perfection, to break free from the bonds of ignorance. Laksman:
The more this conversation goes on the more it seems to me that we are not suited
to continue it. We seem to agree on certain things but I find it very difficult
to communicate with you, Dev. The exchange above is a case in point. You
seem incapable of understanding what I’m saying and if you do then you make a
statement that is completely unsympathetic as if this were some sort of contest
to see whose views were the purest. OK, you have the high road, Dev.
I’m not up to your level. Dwaita is better than advaita. Yoga trumps Vedanta.
Veg is better than non-veg. Is that what you want to hear? My point
is that no matter whether you take the high road or the low road all roads lead
to the Self. Dev reply:
Laksmanji, I am not unsympathetic and looking down on you from some moral high
ground. Sorry if this is how I am coming across. You are making statements and
I am simply replying with ‘no axe to grind and no butter to spread.’
It’s
not clear what you want from me. 99% of the many people who write in have
a simple spiritual question to which I reply to in detail. Sometimes I never
hear from them again, sometimes a satsang develops that goes on for years and
turns into a lasting friendship. In your case you wanted an opinion on your
blog. I have tried to oblige you. But we have exchanged enough words
for me to figure out that you don’t seem to want satsang or if you do your idea
of satsang is somewhat different from mine; an inquiring tone seems to be
absent on your part. You seem to have an agenda that is unclear to me. Do
you want me to know how enlightened you are? If so, why do you care?
I’m nobody. Do you want to save me from my ignorant views? It’s a
waste of time. I’m already saved. I was saved before they invented
the idea of salvation. Dev
reply: Well Laksmanji, I do call this Satsang, and I am enjoying it. Anyway,
you have given me your opinion on the blog, and I want to thank you for that.
Based on that, I have closed the site for now, as I mentioned earlier. I
haven’t any agenda whatsoever in carrying on this dialog. To be honest,
I really don’t know why we’ve been carrying on like this. I can only think
the Self must have some purpose that I am not presently aware of. So be
it. …..
Dev reply (from previous dialog): Of course you are a human
being. You are a beautiful human being, the creation of the Self. No one
does them self or anyone else any good by denying their own humanness. You are
the Self embodied as a human being for a purpose: the purpose of the Self.
The Vedas reveal what that purpose is. Wouldn’t you say it is ludicrous
to think that everything that exists, exists only for the sake of having its existence
denied? This is irrational and unreasonable and contrary to the Self.
Laksman: Here’s another example of your arrogance. I say I’m
not a human being and you say, “Of course you’re a human being.” Mine is
a truthful statement…if you understand something. I made that statement
to see what you know. It was meant to make you think, “What does he mean
by that?” You didn’t. It immediately created a reaction because it
was not in harmony with your beliefs. So you put me in a box. “He’s
a human being. End of story.” Dev reply: I have to tell you that you are completely misreading
me here. When I said you are a beautiful human being I am only making a very positive
statement, and speaking (writing) from my heart (Self). Laksmanji, I am not reacting
to you, I am responding. I did not put you in a box, but yes, I do think you have
put yourself in one (i.e., the neo-vedantic box). But that is your problem,
not mine. No doubt you think I am in my box and that you are box-free.
Well, I will say that I am sure I still have some images because I know I can
still go deeper. You are apparently satisfied with having gone as far as
you have gone. I’m not sure what is so wonderful about
being a human. Maybe you read that rubbish in Shankar or the Buddhist texts
about the ’precious human birth.’ Or let’s put it this way, it’s no more
wonderful to be a human being than to be anything else. In fact you might make
a case that human beings are more of a problem for the creation than anything
else. If you want to see me as a human being that’s fine with me but we
will definitely be unable to get very far together spiritually if you do.
In fact this discussion is hitting a snag already because of your attachment to
this view. Arjuna didn’t understand what Krishna was saying at first at
all but he was able to suspend disbelief long enough to get the message.
In this case it seems that my non-dual statements are running up against your
beliefs…and stopping there. Dev
reply: We have assigned completely different connotations to the term human
being. I think you see it as a negative because you equate it with ‘person’.
I do not think of myself as a person at all. I am not a person. I never was a
person. I will never be a person. I do not worship or adore persons
at all. Not even one little bit. A person to me is a mythical being. Arjuna
was caught up in his personality, his personhood, and only when the hood was removed
did he realize what Krishna was saying. Obviously
you and I are not so advanced or we would not misunderstand each other.
On the other hand, this misunderstanding may have led us to a greater understanding,
in which case, this misunderstanding may prove useful too, and is perhaps the
‘doing’ of our own enlightened selves.
Laksman: In any case I’ve seen enough. It’s time for full disclosure.
I will now explain Laksmanji’s agenda… if you haven’t figured it out already.
.
Dev
reply: This should be fun. . .
You may be attracted to me but you have no idea who is on the other end of
this email, Dev. I’m not really who you think. Yes, you read my autobiography
and some of the website and you formed certain opinions but that website is just
like a big juicy worm on a hook. It catches fish. But I am not the
person portrayed there. Let’s put it this way. I’m a spiritual salesman
and I’m selling non-duality. It’s a very costly product. The price
is an open trusting nature and a willingness to consider new ideas. Would
you like to buy? In case you want to play the Laksmanji satsang game you
need to have a practical serious question…about your sadhana…and I will give you
a straightforward reply to the best of my ability. This conversation seems
to be going in the direction of a long winded debate on abstruse topics that do
not touch my heart. Dev
reply: No, I’m not attracted to you, or anyone for that matter. Surely,
you are NOT who I think you are, because who you really ARE can never be thought
in my mind, your mind, or any mind. Yes, I read your autobiography and know it
doesn’t even represent a one billionth part, not even a one googlth part of YOU.
I guess we could say it doesn’t even represent YOU at all sense you cannot be
represented by other than YOU, who is Indivisible and therefore having no PARTS.
Laksman Maharaj may be a spiritual salesman, but Laksman Maharaj is a MYTH. Yes,
you are selling non-duality and it is indeed a costly product, because the one
who buys it will not get what they bargained for: they will not realize the Ultimate
Truth (though they should certainly get something useful out of it). There are
no questions I have for you that I cannot answer on my own, so that’s why this
dialog is really not much more than a dialectical exercise.
I’ve
made that statement about not being a human being hundreds of times. Sometimes
people don’t get it but they usually understand that there is something behind
it and that it might be interesting to know what… probably because I don’t come
across as a fool. Dev
reply: No, you are certainly no fool, but neither are you GOD. Understanding
non-duality takes a certain degree of subtle thinking and is aided by some transpersonal
experiences. My statements are true but the meaning is not immediately available
to literal minded people. Some contemplation is required. Dev
reply: Please contemplate some of the things I have written here and on my website
if you wish. They are difficult for a Vedantist to consider objectively. Though
you will no doubt say the same of me as pertains to Vedanta, you should know that
I have given MUCH consideration to it (Vedanta), and also, since I have no standing
reputation, profession, or following to protect or safeguard, there is no measurable
benefit for me holding on to my view and excluding others. I am not saying you
are not open-minded, but you do have a little more vested interest here than I
(if only because you are a public figure). When
I was younger and not such an experienced communicator people would often raise
their eyebrows when I made such statements and change the subject because they
thought I was nuts… rather like the people who crucified Christ must have felt
when he said, “I and my Father are One.” Dev
reply: Believe me, there is nothing you could say that would make me raise my
eyebrows. I have seen it all and heard it all. The only reason this dialog is
continuing is because I respect you for your earnestness, forthrightness, and
non-feigned humility. This doesn’t mean I think you are perfect and have nothing
to work on. (Do you think you are perfect and have nothing to work on?)
I
suppose you might have told Christ that if he was a good little spiritual robot
and kept working on his anger issues and tendency to violence (remember
the whip in the temple episode) he might one day get into the supreme state for
a very long time… after of course first checking to see if he was a vegetarian.
Probably he wasn’t since he is said to have fed the multitudes loaves (good stuff)
and fishes (bad stuff). You’re probably a kind person and would let him
strive for liberation if he promised to give up meat, however. :+) Dev
reply: You are really very funny sometimes. First of all, Christ definitely had
issues to work on, I have no doubt of this. As for the ‘whip in the temple
episode’ this was always one of my favorite parts of the New Testament.
I have referred to this incident a number of times in the Satsangs I have given
over the years to illustrate that Jesus, being an enlightened man, was not an
image-ridden phony pacifist who pacified people by giving them a religious image
pacifier to suck on. I think he was probably a no-nonsense kind of a guy who,
due to his youthful fervor of genuine compassion, really wanted to enlighten the
ignorant, but (like many similarly minded souls before him) he got a little too
far ahead of himself and unnecessarily put himself in harm’s way. In any case,
I certainly do not believe he had attained the Supreme State (maybe because he was eating fish and drinking wine:+)).
I admit that non-dual thinking is quite strange if you are
literal minded. Recall the difficulty Arjuna had accepting Krishna’s
statement about past lives. Krishna is speaking from the non-dual level and Arjuna,
like Dev, is thinking he’s a person. I’m speaking from the non-dual level.
These days I’m generally smart enough to know how much non-duality a person can
handle before they hit the delete button so it is rarely an issue. Most
people I meet have been in the spiritual world a long time…done all the yogas,
sadhanas, gurus, etc…and hardly anyone except the fundamentalist types like the
Vaishnav bhaktas (were you once a Hari Krishna?) who hate non-duality seem to
have a problem with this statement. Dev
reply: You are really humoring me Laksmanji, honestly. For your knowledge,
my mind is literally clear because the neo-vedantic litter has long since been
removed. Arjuna didn’t have much difficulty accepting any of Krishna ’s statements,
seeing as though their entire dialog represents only one small chapter in the
Mahabharat. But a neo-vedantist who has mistaken himself for the Supreme Being
may find it extremely difficult to reach Krishna ’s abode
(state), because to do so they will have to stop thinking they can reach the Destination
without first taking the journey! Krishna is the perfect example of one who is totally
established in the Supreme Self. Because he was/is totally established in
the Supreme Self (which means no longer differing with that Supreme Self)
I suppose one could say Krishna is the
Supreme Self. But this does not mean only Krishna is the Supreme Self. It also doesn’t
mean Krishna is only the Supreme Self, i.e., Krishna also ever remains a soul just like all the
rest of us.
I do not hate non-duality, I love it! I do NOT embrace duality, I embrace
non-duality (Advaita); only my understanding is different than yours. I
am definitely not, nor have I ever been a Hari Krishna. I have never belonged
to any sect nor am I the promoter or adherent of any manmade sampradaya.
Like the statement, “Nothing ever happened’ or “It is the smallest of
the small, the biggest of the big” my statement makes perfect sense… if you have
non-dual vision or even a few out of body experiences under your belt. Dev
reply: Well, by now you will have read my email containing a little tad
of my sadhanic biodata and you will have perhaps realized that your statements
are not at all unfamiliar to me. I’ve
carefully peppered non-dual statements into my emails to see your reaction and
it seems to me that you have taken them as ego statements. An unfortunate
pattern seems to be developing in our conversation. As the Beatles song
says, “I say yes, you say no. I say goodbye. You say hello.”
Dev
reply: My friend, my responses to your statements have not been reactions.
I am sharing my insights and knowledge with you, just as you are sharing yours
with me, and all in the spirit of the Universal Self. Do I take some of
your statements as ego statements? Well, I will say this: when you say “I
am God,” I fully understand the non-dual statement you are making and realize
you certainly would not make this statement as an expression of megalomania. But
does this mean I think you are completely free of ego? No it does not. You
may very well be, but I guess we will have to wait until we meet to find that
out. As you say, it takes a Jnani to know a Jnani. Realistically,
if and when we ever meet, I am sure we will both see each other’s ego, and hopefully
we will also both see our own too. Even if we are enlightened souls, we
still have a ways to go. The Supreme Being, the Essence, of which Krishna refers
to by both his words and his own being, even great sages are not the knowers of,
what to say of you and I. A saintly person, a saint, a swami or jnani, a
Rishi, Rajarishi, Maharishi, BrahmaRishi, Deva, and then the Highest State in
which souls like Shri Krishna and others are established, all of these are indicative
of different levels of Consciousness. Few of us are truly established in
that Supreme Consciousness, which is why we need to keep chipping away (removing
our ignorance) until we become totally egoless.
In any case to tell a stranger point blank that his or her self statement
is not true…whether or not it is true by your lights…is certainly a tactless and
clumsy way to communicate. Perhaps you’re a bit naïve. In any case
it shows a greater concern for protecting your own views than a willingness to
understand mine. It makes me wonder why non-duality is such a threat to
you.
Dev
reply: You do not understand me, nor perhaps do I understand you. We are
trying to communicate our perception of perfection by means of imperfect words.
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but at the top of [my] home page
it says, “Dedicated to the dissemination of non-dual wisdom.” I admit that it
is rather like the fine print in legal contracts and for that you can fault me…but
it would be a bit déclassé to put a big blinking warning on the front page, “Keep
Out! Dangerous Toxic Site for Dualists and Evolutionists. Read further
at your peril!” Dev
reply: You are very amusing my friend. . . you might also have noticed on the
bottom of the opening page of my site (adityadham.com) the admonition: Keep Shining!
You
are doing noble work. I hope you have a long and prosperous life.
In 1986 my family started publishing a newsletter titled ‘The Light of Wisdom,’
some articles of which are published on the Aditya Dham website. Following is
the mission statement of the newsletter, and now that of the website too, which
you can see is rather similar to yours: “The
purpose of this journal is to disseminate inspiring thoughts which help to distinguish
between what is True and what is False. There is no intention whatsoever to hurt
the feelings and sentiments of anyone. On the contrary, the purpose of this journal
is to encourage all human beings to embrace the Truth and reject that which causes
pain and suffering (i.e., Ignorance).” We’ll go on a bit more if you wish but you’re not asking the
right questions to keep me interested. In fact you aren’t asking spiritual
questions at all, Dev. You’re telling me something or trying to show off
your knowledge, I think… although I’m sure you don’t see it this way. Maybe you’re
looking for a soul mate.
Dev
reply: I am sharing my understanding with you in kind for your kindness in sharing
your opinion regarding the MastersofDeception blog. That is all.
You had a question about the blog which I answered in a straightforward manner.
Dev
reply: Yes, you did, and I thank you again for that. But
the blog question wasn’t a satsang and it doesn’t feel like what has followed
is a proper satsang either. I’ve made certain statements to try and nudge
the conversation in a non-dual direction but you do not seem to want to go there.
That’s fine with me but you need to know that non-duality is my passion.
If you want to communicate with me we need to speak the same language. I
have a wide circle of people with whom to satsang and the site is generating enough
interest to keep me busy for the rest of this lifetime and beyond. There is quite
an interest in non-duality these days. Dev
reply: Go for it. . . all the power to you my friend.
I hope this doesn’t hurt your feelings…being a human being perhaps you have
them… although you did say above that you wouldn’t take things personally.
It is certainly not my intention to insult you or to nip this conversation…which
you seem to be enjoying…in the bud but I would be remiss in my duty to myself
if I didn’t express myself truthfully. I put my heart and soul into these emails.
I think there must be about a thousand pages of satsangs on the website…and that
is not all of them. I get nothing for my trouble except the satisfaction
of helping people appreciate what Vedanta can do for them. And it looks
like I’ve gone about as far as I can with you because you seem to be quite attached
to your views.
Dev reply: Well Laksmanji, I think
you must be quite clear in your mind by now that I am not surfing the waves of
cyberspace for an answer to the question “Who am I?”, because I already found
the answer to this question long ago. I know you put your heart and souls into these emails (and all your writings),
and hopefully you realize I do too. But even if you don’t realize it, it is not
important to me. I have no desire to change your way of thinking whatsoever, I
am simply speaking the Truth as I perceive it, because it is my nature to speak
the Truth, that’s all. There is never an argument with non-duality,
Dev. It is something that one is meant to appreciate. I’m not invested
in it. I love it and I’m a good teacher but I’m old and pretty wise and
I don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole any more. So unless you
are interested in considering the non-dual way of seeing it is probably better
for us to call it quits. I’m familiar with all the yogic views, the evolutionary
views, the whole big messy spiritual soup. At some time during my
sadhana I believed almost every weird supposedly spiritual idea that I read or
heard on my path. But I had a great guru who shined the light on my ignorance
and one day after a lot of reflection my sadhana ended. I didn’t stop it.
It stopped automatically…because I understood who I am. And who I am is
not who you think I am. Dev
reply: I have considered what you call “the non-dual way of seeing,” and
found it does give the vision to perceive the whole Truth. I do appreciate
your sincerity and earnestness and erudite understanding of Vedanta, and especially
the clarity and freshness of your exposition. You are no doubt a good teacher
and certainly a wise man, far wiser I would say than most (perhaps all) of the
so-called Swamis and Gurus who are wheeling and dealing in the spiritual marketplace.
However, with humility I can say your knowledge is not perfect or complete. Neither
is mine: the difference is that I realize this, whereas you apparently do not
realize it due to the limiting nature of your own knowledge.
As I said, Dev, the website is a big juicy worm wrapped around the fishhook of
non-duality. Some fish factories process the dwanda fish and others process
the advaita fish. If an advaiti fisherman catches a dwanda fish he puts
it back in the ocean of samsara where it can enjoy itself. It seems Laksmanji
caught a dvanda fish. Is that right? Should I toss it back?
Or would you like me to chop off your dualistic head like Shiva did to Ganesh
and send you to the advaita cannery? It’s up to you. I bet you’d look good with
only one tusk.
Dev
reply: These allusions to ‘fish’ remind me of a term from Yog Vashisth,
‘Drishta Jaal,’ meaning a fish net of images. Everyone is caught up in their
own stinking fish net of images. People have gotten so used to the smell that
they no longer have a natural aversion for it. Similarly, it is very easy to get
caught up in our own mental imaginary (much like a cannery) and never take our
boat across the sea of samsara and reach the shores of Eternity. Perhaps
you have crossed the sea of samsara, Laksmanji, and your mind is firmly grounded
on Vedanta and non-duality. But this is not the end of it. Eternity
goes on forever and ever. When even the Vedas become of no use (as we approach
the Supreme Self) then what to say of Vedanta or any thing else. Well,
I have found this dialog useful, and hopefully you have also. By the grace
of God we may one day meet face to face. I would like that. OM In
Wisdom, Service, and Devotion, Laksman’s
reply on Nov. 27th: [Laksman
sent his reply to Dev’s previous email (of the 26th) a couple of days
later. In the meantime, several other emails, including this one, were exchanged.
To see Laksman’s reply to Dev’s email of
the 26th, go to the final section of this dialog which incorporates
both Laksman’s replies and Dev’s responses, followed by an excerpt from Satyarth
Prakash containing a hypothetical debate between a True Vedantist and a Neo-Vedantist.] Hi
Dev, Thank you for your well written, temperate and interesting reply.
I'm at an email shop and don't have time to reply directly to all the statements
but I will read your letter more carefully and think about it. In any case, let's
theoretically accept your idea that there is 'more' that 'I' am imperfect in my
knowledge and that I have yet to 'experience' the Supreme
State. And let's say that I'm
a deluded Neo-Advaiti with an agenda that is not known to me. (Incidentally, I
have written several long articles attacking Neo-Advaita and was just asked by
the editor of a [well-known publication] to write an article on Neo-Advaita and
you can be sure since it is a very conservative publication that they do not expect
me to go easy on Neo-Advaita so I have a bit of a reputation as a rather severe
critic of Neo-Advaita and definitely do not see what I'm saying or my attitude
as in any way Neo-Advaitic. This must mean that we have rather different views
of Neo-Advaita. Perhaps your statement is due to my non-evolutionary views?
If this is true it seems that perhaps you have been sent to guide me on to 'the
supreme state.' Will you please tell me what I have to do? Perhaps
you can outline the steps I need to take as now you have whetted my appetite for
a bliss that seems to far excel the complete happiness and contentment I constantly
experience. If you are unable to do this perhaps you can direct me to someone
who can? Being a practical person (I need to be a person to do this don't
I? This is going to take a lot of work too as it was such a long time ago
that I believed that I was a limited human being...incidentally being the Self
has worked out quite nicely and I'm quite attached to the bliss of Self realization)
I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that I need something more than the mere
idea that there is something more. I believe that my success in business
was due to the fact that I didn't buy into all the amazing schemes that were presented
to me to make even more money but just kept practically plugging away every day
collecting the cash. Also the idea of accepting your statements on faith
is not appealing since it seems that you also are not 'in' this supreme state.
How am I to know that your statements are anything more than beliefs? As
I said earlier I have no beliefs. I operate only on the basis of experience born
understanding. Perhaps if you were able by your yogic power or some other
way to give me a glimpse of this 'state' it would increase my appetite for it.
Or maybe you can recommend a guru who would be willing to visit me and show me
first hand? The problem with the whole idea from my point of view is
that I feel very wonderful all the time...I'm even quite enamored of the occasional
little irritations that the world sends my way...and my life is so full and rich
with great bhaktas and jnanis that I can't in my delusion imagine anything better.
My bank account is full and I have perfect health and a woman who loves me unconditionally...so
even in a worldly sense life is just grand. Do I have to walk away from
all this for the possibility of the 'supreme state?' Is there any guarantee
that I will 'get' it? What is the time frame involved? Will it last?
I'm sorry that in my ignorance I have to ask all these silly practical questions...but
there you are; that's just the way I am. I'm rather like Indra who fell
off his cloud and landed in a pig pen and when he regained consciousness he believed
he was a pig and happily lived a pigs life. The Gods were disgusted by this
and told him that he was Indra, king of the Gods but he said, "You're wrong.
I'm just a pig." I've found that the only thing that makes
me move or change is dissatisfaction and I can't find the slightest dissatisfaction...sadly
your words don't do the trick... so I implore you to please help me develop some
desire for this state. Since you are so certain about it perhaps you are
just being humble when you say that you have not attained it so if you were to
come and see me I might be able to get a glimpse of it and then set out on the
apparently long journey to experience it. OK. Enough (light) sarcasm.
The ball is in your court. Hit it back. Hard! Love, Laksmanji Dev’s
replies to Laksman’s previous email, sent
the same day (11/27): Laksman: Hi Dev, Thank you for your well written, temperate and interesting
reply. . . This must mean that we have rather different views of Neo-Advaita. Dev
reply: Yes, we do have different view of neo-advaita. I have read yours and pretty
much concur. Have you read mine?
Perhaps your statement is due to my non-evolutionary
views?
Dev reply: If you read my article, Evolution of the Soul (and other articles),
on the Aditya Dham website, my evolutionary views are espoused there. Do
you find any substance in these views, and if not, why not?
If this is true it seems that perhaps you have been sent to guide me on
to 'the supreme state.' Will you please tell me what I have to do?
Perhaps you can outline the steps I need to take as now you have whetted my appetite
for a bliss that seems to far excel the complete happiness and contentment I constantly
experience. If you are unable to do this perhaps you can direct me to someone
who can? Dev
reply: Well, there is nothing to do really. Nothing at all. It is really simply
a matter of not doing, which means it is a matter of getting our own small self
out of the way. The ego (Upadhi, if you will) is extremely subtle, and in the
end, it is the only screen separating the Self from the Supreme Self. Having purified
the mind to such an extent that one is naturally happy and content, it seems that
few are inclined to proceed any further. But of course, as in any art, those truly
exceptional artists realize there is no limit to the extent of artistic expression,
especially if one realizes that what one seeks to express is limitless. When the
artist is the living Self, and the art the expression of one's own Eternity, one
eventually becomes the art and no longer relies on the outer expression, and no
longer has a use for going places, seeing things, remembering stuff, or keeping
little jars of paint (mental pocket holes of colorful cultural, philosophical,
and religious trappings). One remains fluid like the water and free like the wind,
having nothing to prove or disprove, nothing to know or not know, and nothing
to do or not do. And yet, one remains extremely focused (mentally alert) and vigilant
and ever-ready to learn more (to expand further, to go deeper), because one lives
in the imageless Consciousness that is one's own Self. We are the imageless
Self. We cannot be imagined in the mind. We are formless; we are neither formed
of flesh and bones (as a human being) nor are formed of words and ideas (as a
neo-vedantist or other intellectualist). We are the Self. So, what is all of this?
Is this also the Self? Yes, it is. It is the Self in self-evolution. Yet,
there is THAT which never evolves or devolves, and THAT is the Supreme. We cannot
play games with our life and then say it was all the Supreme. We cannot make mistakes
and say it was all the Supreme having a dream. The neo-vedantist say
the Self is One Without a Second. Okay, good, this is true, but is the Self not
also limitless? You will agree the Self is Limitless, which means its qualities
are also limitless. Hence, this quality of being One Without a Second must go
on limitlessly. You are one without a second, I am one without a second, and every
one is one without a second. If you say the quality of being one without a second
is limited to only one, then the quality of 'one-without-a-secondness' is limited,
which means the limitless Self now possesses a limited quality, and this statement
is certainly irrational. I have only used this argument above to reveal
that neo-vedanta is incomplete, I have not used it to reveal the truth, because
the truth is that the soul, though one without a second, is NOT the Supreme Self
which is One Without a Second. The Supreme Self is both Saguna
and Nirguna, meaning simply that there are qualities which it possesses and other
qualities of which it is devoid of. The Supreme Self (or simply, the Self, because
the Supreme Self is the Self of the Self; PARAMATMAN), is All-Wise and Never-Ignorant;
the Self is All-Good and Never-Evil; the Self is Ever-Conscious and Never-Unconscious.
We are NOT the Supreme Self (though in ESSENCE we ARE, since the Supreme
Self is the Self of our Self). We NEVER stop being the Self and the Supreme Self
NEVER stops being the Self of our Self. Paramatman is NOT a temporary
characteristic of the eternal Supreme Being (Who possesses absolutely NO temporary
characteristics). Likewise, we were never created. We have always
existed as the Self whose Self is the Supreme Self. That's why this drama
of Creation has been going on forever and will continue forever. It is LIKE a
dream but it is NOT a dream. It is Real. We are Real. The Supreme
Self is Real. Being
a practical person (I need to be a person to do this don't I? This is going
to take a lot of work too as it was such a long time ago that I believed that
I was a limited human being...(incidentally being the Self has worked out quite
nicely and I'm quite attached to the bliss of Self realization) I'm sure you will
appreciate the fact that I need something more than the mere idea that there is
something more. Dev reply: It is strange that the neo-vedantist
needs nothing more than an idea that "I am the Self" to be the Self.
The Game is not that easy my friend. We (the innumerable souls) would not
have any fun playing this Game if it was not a challenge. You have been
on this journey for trillions of years, so having been introduced to Vedanta a
few decades ago is not really such a long time ago in the context of Eternity.
Vedanta has enabled your mind to clearly perceive that you (the perceiver) is
NOT a person, place, or thing. This was probably the intention of Shankaracharya,
since so many ignorant Jainees (and others) during his time were enmeshed in ignorance
and worshipping persons, places, and things in place of the Truth.
He was able to help people turn inward to the Self and his teachings have certainly
been invaluable in this respect. With a firm footing in Self-knowledge, one is
ready to continue their inward journey, but many opt for the relatively blissful
experience of knowing the Self (at least some nature of the Self). After
all, this knowing that one is not a person, place, or thing is a very freeing
experience; all the more so when it becomes one's very being (i.e., not just an
experience). But this is not all. There is more. If it were not so,
then why have Rishis become Rajarishis, a Rajarishis Maharishis, and Maharishis
Brahmarishis? How and why is it that Lord Krishna is accepted as being beyond
even all of these? Are you, my friend, established in the Highest
State of Being expressed
by Shri Krishna? How can you ever KNOW that Supreme Being (and no, I am
not talking about Krishna) if you do not
recognize that what you know now is only a 'state' of knowing, and is not the
Supreme? I
believe that my success in business was due to the fact that I didn't buy into
all the amazing schemes that were presented to me to make even more money but
just kept practically plugging away every day collecting the cash. Also
the idea of accepting your statements on faith is not appealing since it seems
that you also are not 'in' this supreme state. How am I to know that your
statements are anything more than beliefs? Dev reply: It
is not at all a matter of faith or belief, it is all a matter of self-inquiry,
Self-knowledge, and understanding born of direct experience. As
I said earlier I have no beliefs. I operate only on the basis of experience born
understanding. Perhaps if you were able by your yogic power or some other
way to give me a glimpse of this 'state' it would increase my appetite for it.
Or maybe you can recommend a guru who would be willing to visit me and show me
first hand? Dev reply: First of all, it is only by your own yogic
power derived from practical application that you will have an insight in to the
Truth, which I think you probably already have, which is why you still have an
appetite to know more. Secondly, the thirsty go to the well, the well does not
go to the thirsty. Anyway, the well is within you and you already know this.
You just have to continue drawing out the wisdom. The
problem with the whole idea from my point of view is that I feel very wonderful
all the time...I'm even quite enamored of the occasional little irritations that
the world sends my way...and my life is so full and rich with great bhaktas and
jnanis that I can't in my delusion imagine anything better. Dev
reply: You are certainly a blessed human being, or if you prefer, a blessed soul.
You are more than just blessed, you are extremely blessed. It is not an
accident though. You have gotten where you are by dint of your own practices.
You made the effort to go beyond your self and have realized the Self. After perhaps
many, many incarnations you have unearthed the Treasure, and you are ecstatic
and wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Perhaps the time will come when
you will want to know where that Treasure came from; and will you ever play the
Game of 'Treasure Hunt' once again? My
bank account is full and I have perfect health and a woman who loves me unconditionally...so
even in a worldly sense life is just grand. Dev reply:
Lucky you (I'm just kidding). I have the unconditional love of the Supreme Self,
that is all I can say for certain. I have been in business for more than 20 years
and gone through one bankruptcy, and still do not have a full bank account. .
. oh well. I have been with the same faithful wife (to whom I too have been faithful)
for 26 years, and have 3 grown children. I love them all unconditionally
because I love them as the Self. I see each of them as an immortal being,
temporarily outfitted in the human form and acting together (for the time being)
on this stage of life, acting out the roles of husband, wife, sons, daughter,
etc. This interaction is fulfilling and enlightening only because of the fullness
of Consciousness prevailing in my mind as a result of the application of Wisdom.
In the words of the Wise: Good Luck is Good Effort. With this in mind, I continue
to make an effort to improve my interactions with my family members and sparkle
my life in wisdom, service, and devotion. [Sorry for the wordy digression,
but I thought you might like some insights into the 'personal' life of this writer.]
Do I have to walk away from all this
for the possibility of the 'supreme state?' Dev reply:
Absolutely not. We only have to do away with our own ego. That's all. When
we really become completely egoless we will know the fullness of Consciousness,
we will know the Supreme Self, because we will finally meet the Supreme Self face
to face (so to speak). Is
there any guarantee that I will 'get' it? What is the time frame involved?
Will it last? Dev reply: Well, given the extent of Eternity,
and the natural aptitude of the Self to keep plugging away at it, I would say
that the mathematical probability is as good as saying, "yes, you are guaranteed
to win the Game" (albeit, eventually, which in terms of our limited
conception of time, could take a gooleth to the gooleth power of Creations,
which might as well be never to the 'person' who asks the question). The time
frame involved is meaningless, as you know, since reaching the Supreme Self means
reaching Timelessness Itself. However, from a practical standpoint, since you
are really only playing the Game with yourself, you can decide to stop playing
whenever you like. For the same reason (which is no reason) you can choose
to play this game all over again at any time you wish; hence, your experience
of the Supreme State
will last as long as you like. Of course, you, the Self, are ALWAYS connected
to That Supreme Self in the eternal relationship of the Pervader to the Pervaded.
We remain the same Self regardless whether or not we know it. In other words,
ATMAN never ceases being ATMAN, just as PARAMATMAN never ceases being PARAMATMAN.
If one holds the view that Jivatman emanates from Atman, goes
through many incarnations and perhaps many, many cycles of Creation, and eventually
attains Moksha, and is NEVER born again, this view is also correct. For
example, just as in each cycle of Creation the earth and other planets are created
anew and we cannot say this Earth planet is the SAME earth planet that previously
existed, in the same way we can say the Jivatman is liberated forever and never
comes back again. I'm
sorry that in my ignorance I have to ask all these silly practical questions...but
there you are; that's just the way I am. I'm rather like Indra who fell
off his cloud and landed in a pig pen and when he regained consciousness he believed
he was a pig and happily lived a pigs life. The Gods were disgusted by this
and told him that he was Indra, king of the Gods but he said, "You're wrong.
I'm just a pig." Dev reply: Well, this is nice analogy, but
I like the following Mantra from the Rig Veda even better. OM
TVAM SOMAASI SATPATISTVAM RAAJOTA VRTRAHAA. TVAM BHADRO ASI KRATUH.
You, the Real Self, are Self-satisfied, not seeking anything outside your Self.
You (the Real Self) are the true master (of this Game of Life), you (the Real
You) are the ruler of your own mind and the Annihilator of Darkness (Vritrahaa).
Your very nature is to do good and spread the prosperity of Divine Wisdom through
all your actions in this world. I've
found that the only thing that makes me move or change is dissatisfaction and
I can't find the slightest dissatisfaction...sadly your words don't do the trick...
so I implore you to please help me develop some desire for this state.
Dev reply: Well, Laksmanji, having become established in the
Real Self (your own Self), if you have completely annihilated every trace of Ignorance,
and are absolutely certain that there is no chance whatsoever that you might be
ignoring the obstructing presence of some very faint shade of ego, then you are
in deed truly blessed (graced) with that unimaginable power of the Supreme Being.
However, keeping in view that this Life is indeed a Game of Maya, we
know the element of chance is always there (until the Game is over). It seems
to me, though I cannot see you, or hear you, or get inside of your mind (which
I would have no purpose or right to do anyway), that you are still playing the
Game and are not ready to stop playing just yet. Is there no chance
that you might not have reached your full potential? If the answer to this
question is no, then naturally you would have no desire to explore the matter
further. Since you are so certain
about it perhaps you are just being humble when you say that you have not attained
it so if you were to come and see me I might be able to get a glimpse of it and
then set out on the apparently long journey to experience it. Dev
reply: Well, I am most certainly certain about It, and I most certainly have not
attained It. Seeing each other we might get a glimpse of how far we have come
and how far we have to go. How much that matters depends on how far we have
gone. In any case, we are surely beginingless beings on an endless journey
that we have taken many a time without ever leaving Home. Time is Consciousness.
Consciousness is Ever-New yet Changeless. The Ever-newness perceived through the
medium of Prakriti appears as time. Atman is the perceiver and the perception.
The means of perception is Prakriti. Beyond both is the Supreme Self.
OM OK.
Enough (light) sarcasm. The ball is in your court. Hit it back. Hard!
Love, Laksmanji Dev reply: You are the Shining
Light! Keep shining, my friend. Dev Laksman’s reply to the previous email, sent
on 11/29: Dev
(in reply to earlier email): Yes, we do have different view of neo-advaita. I
have read yours and pretty much concur. Have you read mine? Laksman
(from previous email): Perhaps your statement is due to my non-evolutionary views?
Dev reply: If you read my article, Evolution of the Soul (and other articles),
on the Aditya Dham website, my evolutionary views are espoused there. Do
you find any substance in these views, and if not, why not?
Laksman: You see, Dev, we are looking
at reality from very different perspectives. I understand your perspective
because I once saw things in the way you do. It will not be possible for
you to understand my perspective because it has not happened to you. The
only way you can make sense of my words is to believe that I am a deluded person.
There is substance to these views if you take the world and the jivas to be real.
It is understandable if you do because this is how it seems to the senses.
Because it seems this way there is huge body of spiritual literature, called Yoga,
that has evolved. The only way it can understand the Self and the realization
of the Self is in terms of its basic assumptions. So it says that a jiva
can attain enlightenment through evolutionary, read yogic, means. It posits
a doer and a state to be attained…to keep it simple. The reality, however,
is quite different. In reality there is no doer and nothing to be attained.
When you actually inquire into the doer you cannot find anything substantial.
You only find an idea. Reality is non-dual. This is the meaning of
advaita. If it is non-dual then the Self, moksha, is already accomplished
i.e. it is your nature. You cannot do anything except inquire or have it
revealed to you by a proper guru to ‘gain’ your nature. Or, if you are lucky
you may have an experience or experiences in meditation or through other means
like shaktipat…or entirely unsolicited…that give you direct insight into the nature
of reality. When and if that happens you become open to the message of the
Upanishads. The fundamental message of the Upanishads is that this is a
non-dual reality, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Non-duality
means that you are everything that is. Yes, the jiva and all jivas are you
but at the same time you have much greater limitless identity as Chaitanya, Awareness.
You see that you can do absolutely nothing to gain this….you cannot evolve toward
it…because it is an accomplished fact. All you can do is appreciate it.
And it destroys your notion of yourself as a doer/enjoyer/evolver. This
happened to me and this is why I speak as I do. I can understand why you
can’t understand and why you insist on seeing me as a human being.
But when you speak to me as a human being you are not speaking to me. You
are talking to an idea. You are projecting a ‘Laksman’ on Awareness, me.
I did that at one time but my own false projection has been completely destroyed.
So our problem is that you are talking
with the Self but you think you are talking to someone else. The people
that come to me innocently are ready to see reality from the non-dual perspective.
They have usually done all the yogas and had all the samadhis and are purified
souls. But they still feel limited. It got them ready but it left
them at the doorstep to the Self. So I help them through the door.
I could not teach you because you have
not realized the limitation of your approach and from tremendous effort you have
put into your sadhana…with the evolutionary idea first and foremost…you are very
attached to the way you see things. There is nothing wrong with it at all.
You live a good life, you follow dharma, you are as good as free. But you
are not free of the doer, the evolver. It has become an identity.
In a way its good compared to the typical samaric identities. It’s ‘spiritual.’
But in another way it isn’t good because it is not the highest truth about you.
So somehow, sometime, a crack will open up in your consciousness and you will
get a glimpse into the non-dual nature of yourself and then you will be able to
hear the message of the Upanishads.
Laksman:
(from the previous email) If this is true it seems that perhaps you have been
sent to guide me on to 'the supreme state.' Will you please tell me what
I have to do? Perhaps you can outline the steps I need to take as now you
have whetted my appetite for a bliss that seems to far excel the complete happiness
and contentment I constantly experience. If you are unable to do this perhaps
you can direct me to someone who can?
Dev
reply: Well, there is nothing to do really. Nothing at all. It is really simply
a matter of not doing, which means it is a matter of getting our own small self
out of the way. The ego (Upadhi, if you will) is extremely subtle, and in the
end, it is the only screen separating the Self from the Supreme Self. Having purified
the mind to such an extent that one is naturally happy and content, it seems that
few are inclined to proceed any further. But of course, as in any art, those truly
exceptional artists realize there is no limit to the extent of artistic expression,
especially if one realizes that what one seeks to express is limitless. When the
artist is the living Self, and the art the expression of one's own Eternity, one
eventually becomes the art and no longer relies on the outer expression, and no
longer has a use for going places, seeing things, remembering stuff, or keeping
little jars of paint (mental pocket holes of colorful cultural, philosophical,
and religious trappings). One remains fluid like the water and free like the wind,
having nothing to prove or disprove, nothing to know or not know, and nothing
to do or not do. And yet, one remains extremely focused (mentally alert) and vigilant
and ever-ready to learn more (to expand further, to go deeper), because one lives
in the imageless Consciousness that is one's own Self.
Laksman: From my perspective there is only
one problem with this statement. You say ‘one lives in the imageless self.’
Can you see that this means that you and the Self are seen as two different things?
I don’t live ‘in’ the imageless Self. I am the imageless Self. Or
if you want a slightly less accurate statement, I ‘live’ as the imageless Self,
not that the Self lives or dies. Dev: We are the imageless Self.
We cannot be imagined in the mind. We are formless; we are neither formed of flesh
and bones (as a human being) nor are formed of words and ideas (as a neo-vedantist
or other intellectualist). We are the Self. So, what is all of this? Is this also
the Self? Yes, it is. It is the Self in self-evolution. Yet, there is THAT
which never evolves or devolves, and THAT is the Supreme.
Laksman: That is what I am. I have nothing
to do with the part of me that evolves except observe it. It evolves on
its own. You have identified me as a tiny fly speck of mortality called
the soul.
Dev: We cannot play games with our life and then say it was all the Supreme.
We cannot make mistakes and say it was all the Supreme having a dream.
The neo-vedantist say the Self is One Without a Second. Okay, good, this is true,
but is the Self not also limitless? You will agree the Self is Limitless, which
means its qualities are also limitless. Hence, this quality of being One Without
a Second must go on limitlessly. You are one without a second, I am one without
a second, and every one is one without a second. If you say the quality of being
one without a second is limited to only one, then the quality of 'one-without-a-secondness'
is limited, which means the limitless Self now possesses a limited quality, and
this statement is certainly irrational. I have only used this argument
above to reveal that neo-vedanta is incomplete, I have not used it to reveal the
truth, because the truth is that the soul, though one without a second, is NOT
the Supreme Self which is One Without a Second. The Supreme Self
is both Saguna and Nirguna, meaning simply that there are qualities which it possesses
and other qualities of which it is devoid of. The Supreme Self (or simply, the
Self, because the Supreme Self is the Self of the Self; PARAMATMAN), is All-Wise
and Never-Ignorant; the Self is All-Good and Never-Evil; the Self is Ever-Conscious
and Never-Unconscious. We are NOT the Supreme Self (though in
ESSENCE we ARE, since the Supreme Self is the Self of our Self). We NEVER stop
being the Self and the Supreme Self NEVER stops being the Self of our Self.
Paramatman is NOT a temporary characteristic of the eternal Supreme Being (Who
possesses absolutely NO temporary characteristics). Likewise, we were never
created. We have always existed as the Self whose Self is the Supreme Self.
That's why this drama of Creation has been going on forever and will continue
forever. It is LIKE a dream but it is NOT a dream. It is Real. We
are Real. The Supreme Self is Real.
Laksman: Fine, Dev. So who is the
‘we?’ Why not just say ‘I’ and be done with it? I don’t think you
will be able to do that because you still see ‘It’ as an object. You don’t
want to own it. Laksman:
(from a previous email) Being a practical person (I need to be a person
to do this don't I? This is going to take a lot of work too as it was such
a long time ago that I believed that I was a limited human being...incidentally
being the Self has worked out quite nicely and I'm quite attached to the bliss
of Self realization) I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that I need something
more than the mere idea that there is something more. Dev reply:
It is strange that the neo-vedantist needs nothing more than an idea that "I
am the Self" to be the Self. The Game is not that easy my friend. We
(the innumerable souls) would not have any fun playing this Game if it was not
a challenge. You have been on this journey for trillions of years, so having
been introduced to Vedanta a few decades ago is not really such a long time ago
in the context of Eternity. Vedanta has enabled your mind to clearly perceive
that you (the perceiver) is NOT a person, place, or thing. This was probably the
intention of Shankaracharya, since so many ignorant Jainees (and others) during
his time were enmeshed in ignorance and worshipping persons, places, and things
in place of the Truth. He was able to help people turn inward to the Self
and his teachings have certainly been invaluable in this respect. With a firm
footing in Self-knowledge, one is ready to continue their inward journey, but
many opt for the relatively blissful experience of knowing the Self (at least
some nature of the Self). After all, this knowing that one is not a person,
place, or thing is a very freeing experience; all the more so when it becomes
one's very being (i.e., not just an experience). But this is not all.
There is more. If it were not so, then why have Rishis become Rajarishis, a Rajarishis
Maharishis, and Maharishis Brahmarishis? How and why is it that Lord Krishna is
accepted as being beyond even all of these? Are you, my friend, established in
the Highest State of Being expressed by Shri Krishna? How can you ever KNOW
that Supreme Being (and no, I am not talking about Krishna)
if you do not recognize that what you know now is only a 'state' of knowing, and
is not the Supreme? Laksman:
I won’t reply to this because you are not talking to me. You are talking
about an idea, Neo-Vedanta. I could take apart all your reasoning and logic
but it is pointless. Some day what I say will all make sense. This
enlightenment business is actually very very simple. It is so simple that
you are missing it with this huge system of ideas. Laksman:
(from the previous email) I believe that my success in business was due to the
fact that I didn't buy into all the amazing schemes that were presented to me
to make even more money but just kept practically plugging away every day collecting
the cash. Also the idea of accepting your statements on faith is not
appealing since it seems that you also are not 'in' this supreme state.
How am I to know that your statements are anything more than beliefs?
Dev reply: It is not at all a matter of faith or belief, it is all a matter
of self-inquiry, Self-knowledge, and understanding born of direct experience.
Laksman: The purpose of
Self inquiry is to remove the ignorance one has about one’s Self. When the
ignorance is removed it is clearly known that there is only one Self. When
you look at it through the filter of Maya the one Self appears as two or many.
Laksman: (from the previous email) As I said earlier
I have no beliefs. I operate only on the basis of experience born understanding.
Perhaps if you were able by your yogic power or some other way to give me a glimpse
of this 'state' it would increase my appetite for it. Or maybe you can recommend
a guru who would be willing to visit me and show me first hand? Dev reply:
First of all, it is only by your own yogic power derived from practical application
that you will have an insight in to the Truth, which I think you probably already
have, which is why you still have an appetite to know more. Secondly, the thirsty
go to the well, the well does not go to the thirsty. Anyway, the well is
within you and you already know this. You just have to continue drawing
out the wisdom. Laksman:
I’m [leading] you on with these questions, Dev. Notice I said, at the beginning
“let’s theoretically accept…” It was just a way of drawing you out.
I do not have an appetite to know more about anything concerning the Self or the
world. I’ve never seen such an eager guru as you. And your last statement
is not true. I am the wisdom. You can ‘continue to draw out’ all you
like but please don’t project this desire on me. As pointed out at the end,
my whole email was gentle sarcasm. Laksman: (from the
previous email) The problem with the whole idea from my point of view is that
I feel very wonderful all the time...I'm even quite enamored of the occasional
little irritations that the world sends my way...and my life is so full and rich
with great bhaktas and jnanis that I can't in my delusion imagine anything better.
Dev reply: You are certainly a blessed human being, or if you prefer,
a blessed soul. You are more than just blessed, you are extremely blessed.
It is not an accident though. You have gotten where you are by dint of your
own practices. You made the effort to go beyond your self and have realized the
Self. After perhaps many, many incarnations you have unearthed the Treasure, and
you are ecstatic and wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Perhaps the time
will come when you will want to know where that Treasure came from; and will you
ever play the Game of 'Treasure Hunt' once again? Laksman:
You’re incredibly obtuse, Dev. I am the Treasure. The treasure hunt
ended in 1971. Laksman:
(from the previous email) Do I have to walk away from all this for the possibility
of the 'supreme state?' Dev reply: Absolutely not. We only
have to do away with our own ego. That's all. When we really become completely
egoless we will know the fullness of Consciousness, we will know the Supreme Self,
because we will finally meet the Supreme Self face to face (so to speak).
Laksman: I addressed the ego idea in
the email I just sent. Laksman: (from the previous email) Is there
any guarantee that I will 'get' it? What is the time frame involved?
Will it last? Dev reply: Well, given the extent of Eternity, and
the natural aptitude of the Self to keep plugging away at it, I would say that
the mathematical probability is as good as saying, "yes, you are guaranteed
to win the Game" (albeit, eventually, which in terms of our limited conception
of time, could take a gooleth to the gooleth power of Creations, which might as
well be never to the 'person' who asks the question). The time frame involved
is meaningless, as you know, since reaching the Supreme Self means reaching Timelessness
Itself. However, from a practical standpoint, since you are really only playing
the Game with yourself, you can decide to stop playing whenever you like.
For the same reason (which is no reason) you can choose to play this game all
over again at any time you wish; hence, your experience of the Supreme
State will last as long as you like.
Of course, you, the Self, are ALWAYS connected to That Supreme Self in the eternal
relationship of the Pervader to the Pervaded. We remain the same Self regardless
whether or not we know it. In other words, ATMAN never ceases being ATMAN,
just as PARAMATMAN never ceases being PARAMATMAN. If one holds the view
that Jivatman emanates from Atman, goes through many incarnations and perhaps
many, many cycles of Creation, and eventually attains Moksha, and is NEVER born
again, this view is also correct. For example, just as in each cycle of
Creation the earth and other planets are created anew and we cannot say this Earth
planet is the SAME earth planet that previously existed, in the same way we can
say the Jivatman is liberated forever and never comes back again. Laksman:
Again, this was just a joke, Dev. I’m surprised considering what I’ve said
so far that you didn’t pick up on it. I meant that when you promise somebody
something that is going to happen in the future you are really taking them for
a ride. This whole spiritual riddle can be sorted out in the present.
Laksman: (from the previous
email) I've found that the only thing that makes me move or change is dissatisfaction
and I can't find the slightest dissatisfaction...sadly your words don't do the
trick... so I implore you to please help me develop some desire for this state.
Dev reply: Well, Laksmanji, having become established in the Real Self
(your own Self), if you have completely annihilated every trace of Ignorance,
and are absolutely certain that there is no chance whatsoever that you might be
ignoring the obstructing presence of some very faint shade of ego, then you are
in deed truly blessed (graced) with that unimaginable power of the Supreme Being.
Laksman: This is how it
is, Dev. It’s probably almost this way with you but I think there is some
lack of confidence in your words because you won’t say ‘I’ when you speak of the
Self. You talk about it…which is indirect knowledge…but you don’t speak
as It..which is direct knowledge. And you think that something will be different
in the future. Anyway it’s none of my business. Dev:
However, keeping in view that this Life is indeed a Game of Maya, we know the
element of chance is always there (until the Game is over). It seems to me, though
I cannot see you, or hear you, or get inside of your mind (which I would have
no purpose or right to do anyway), that you are still playing the Game and are
not ready to stop playing just yet. Laksman:
Is there an element of chance that you will wake up tomorrow morning and forget
that you are Dev? I doubt it. There is no element of chance involved
for me because I am not in Maya. Maya is in me. Dev:
Is there no chance that you might not have reached your full potential?
If the answer to this question is no, then naturally you would have no desire
to explore the matter further. Laksman:
There is no full potential or partial potential for me, Dev. There is only
actual. You might consider how so much of your thinking is future oriented.
For me there is no time. It stopped in 1971 and never started again. Everything
is present and actual…eternally. Laksman: (from the
previous email) Since you are so certain about it perhaps you are just being humble
when you say that you have not attained it so if you were to come and see me I
might be able to get a glimpse of it and then set out on the apparently long journey
to experience it. Dev reply: Well, I am most certainly certain about
It, and I most certainly have not attained It. Seeing each other we might get
a glimpse of how far we have come and how far we have to go. How much that
matters depends on how far we have gone. In any case, we are surely beginingless
beings on an endless journey that we have taken many a time without ever leaving
Home. Laksman: I don’t need
to see anybody to see how far I have to go. It is not possible for me to
‘go’ anywhere. I am already where I would go. I think we have really
come to the end of this conversation, Dev. I can’t be what you think I am
so my words have no impact on you. It’s fine. I didn’t solicit this
conversation as you know. So I wish you well on your journey.
Om and Prem, Laksman Dev’s responses to Laksman’s previous email, sent on Nov. 29th:
Laksman:
You see, Dev, we are looking at reality from very different perspectives.
I understand your perspective because I once saw things in the way you do.
It will not be possible for you to understand my perspective because it has not
happened to you. The only way you can make sense of my words is to believe
that I am a deluded person. There is substance to these views if you take
the world and the jivas to be real. It is understandable if you do because
this is how it seems to the senses. Because it seems this way there is huge
body of spiritual literature, called Yoga, that has evolved. The only way
it can understand the Self and the realization of the Self is in terms of its
basic assumptions. So it says that a jiva can attain enlightenment through
evolutionary, read yogic, means. It posits a doer and a state to be attained…to
keep it simple. The reality, however, is quite different. In reality there
is no doer and nothing to be attained. When you actually inquire into the
doer you cannot find anything substantial. You only find an idea.
Reality is non-dual. This is the meaning of advaita. If it is non-dual
then the Self, moksha, is already accomplished i.e. it is your nature. You
cannot do anything except inquire or have it revealed to you by a proper guru
to ‘gain’ your nature. Or, if you are lucky you may have an experience or
experiences in meditation or through other means like shaktipat…or entirely unsolicited…that
give you direct insight into the nature of reality. When and if that happens
you become open to the message of the Upanishads. The fundamental message
of the Upanishads is that this is a non-dual reality, appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding. Non-duality means that you are everything that is.
Yes, the jiva and all jivas are you but at the same time you have much greater
limitless identity as Chaitanya, Awareness. You see that you can do absolutely
nothing to gain this….you cannot evolve toward it…because it is an accomplished
fact. All you can do is appreciate it. And it destroys your notion
of yourself as a doer/enjoyer/evolver. This happened to me and this is why
I speak as I do. I can understand why you can’t understand and why you insist
on seeing me as a human being. But when you speak to me as a human
being you are not speaking to me. You are talking to an idea. You
are projecting a ‘Laksman’ on Awareness, me. I did that at one time but
my own false projection has been completely destroyed.
So our problem is that you are talking with the Self but you think you are
talking to someone else. The people that come to me innocently are ready
to see reality from the non-dual perspective. They have usually done all
the yogas and had all the samadhis and are purified souls. But they still
feel limited. It got them ready but it left them at the doorstep to the
Self. So I help them through the door.
I could not teach you because you have not realized the limitation of your approach
and from tremendous effort you have put into your sadhana…with the evolutionary
idea first and foremost…you are very attached to the way you see things.
There is nothing wrong with it at all. You live a good life, you follow
dharma, you are as good as free. But you are not free of the doer, the evolver.
It has become an identity. In a way its good compared to the typical samaric
identities. It’s ‘spiritual.’ But in another way it isn’t good because
it is not the highest truth about you. So somehow, sometime, a crack will
open up in your consciousness and you will get a glimpse into the non-dual nature
of yourself and then you will be able to hear the message of the Upanishads.
Dev
response: Truth (Reality) does not change with one's perspective of it;
one's perspective only changes how one sees (understands) the Truth (Reality).
Reality is non-dual which simply means there are not two realities, there are
not two Truths. The problem with neo-vedanta is that it misconstrues this fundamental
truth and applies it to the perceiver only. Thus, in the view (understanding)
of the neo-vedantist, there is only the consciousness of the perceiver. This is
extrapolated to include everything, including both the act and object of perception.
In other words, everything is consciousness. To substantiate this, one must
assert that the world as we ordinarily see it is unreal. The problem with this
is that it is completely irrational and contrary to everyone's experience. Of
course, a neo-vedantist has no problem with this, because for them this life is
all about solving the existential puzzle. But really, 'solving the existential
puzzle' is only meaningful for the neo-vedantist who posits it. Let
us consider for a moment this notion that everything is Consciousness, or that
Consciousness is all that there is, or that there is only Unlimited Consciousness.
First of all, such a statement is not substantiated anywhere in the Vedas. But
leaving that aside, it not substantiated by any one's experience either. You say
it is not a matter of experience but a matter of knowledge, but the bottom line
is that it is a matter of consciousness. Your consciousness is NOT unlimited,
and no one's consciousness is unlimited (except the Supreme Consciousness, if
one so believes). You cannot demonstrate that your consciousness is unlimited,
nor can you prove it logically or even by means of sophistry. I too
(and many others) have had many experiences similar to those you have described
in your autobiography. The difference between you and me is that you understand
your experiences in the framework of neo-vedanta, which has led you to believe
that your own consciousness is unlimited. Laksman:
(from the previous email) If this is true it seems that perhaps you have been
sent to guide me on to 'the supreme state.' Will you please tell me what
I have to do? Perhaps you can outline the steps I need to take as now you
have whetted my appetite for a bliss that seems to far excel the complete happiness
and contentment I constantly experience. If you are unable to do this perhaps
you can direct me to someone who can? Dev reply (to earlier email):
Well, there is nothing to do really. Nothing at all. It is really simply a matter
of not doing, which means it is a matter of getting our own small self out of
the way. The ego (Upadhi, if you will) is extremely subtle, and in the end, it
is the only screen separating the Self from the Supreme Self. Having purified
the mind to such an extent that one is naturally happy and content, it seems that
few are inclined to proceed any further. But of course, as in any art, those truly
exceptional artists realize there is no limit to the extent of artistic expression,
especially if one realizes that what one seeks to express is limitless. When the
artist is the living Self, and the art the expression of one's own Eternity, one
eventually becomes the art and no longer relies on the outer expression, and no
longer has a use for going places, seeing things, remembering stuff, or keeping
little jars of paint (mental pocket holes of colorful cultural, philosophical,
and religious trappings). One remains fluid like the water and free like the wind,
having nothing to prove or disprove, nothing to know or not know, and nothing
to do or not do. And yet, one remains extremely focused (mentally alert) and vigilant
and ever-ready to learn more (to expand further, to go deeper), because one lives
in the imageless Consciousness that is one's own Self. Laksman:
From my perspective there is only one problem with this statement. You say
‘one lives in the imageless self.’ Can you see that this means that you
and the Self are seen as two different things? I don’t live ‘in’ the imageless
Self. I am the imageless Self. Or if you want a slightly less accurate
statement, I ‘live’ as the imageless Self, not that the Self lives or dies.
Dev response: Yes, I am
the imageless Self too, but that doesn't mean we are the same self or that we
are the Supreme Self. Dev: We are the imageless Self. We cannot
be imagined in the mind. We are formless; we are neither formed of flesh and bones
(as a human being) nor are formed of words and ideas (as a neo-vedantist or other
intellectualist). We are the Self. So, what is all of this? Is this also the Self?
Yes, it is. It is the Self in self-evolution. Yet, there is THAT which never
evolves or devolves, and THAT is the Supreme. Laksman:
That is what I am. I have nothing to do with the part of me that evolves
except observe it. It evolves on its own. You have identified me as
a tiny fly speck of mortality called the soul. Dev
response: I have identified you as an immortal Soul, whose characteristics are
all eternal and unchangeable, and one of those characteristics is your nature
to become embodied from time to time to play the Drama of existence.
Dev: We cannot play games with our life and then say it was all the Supreme.
We cannot make mistakes and say it was all the Supreme having a dream.
The neo-vedantist say the Self is One Without a Second. Okay, good, this is true,
but is the Self not also limitless? You will agree the Self is Limitless, which
means its qualities are also limitless. Hence, this quality of being One Without
a Second must go on limitlessly. You are one without a second, I am one without
a second, and every one is one without a second. If you say the quality of being
one without a second is limited to only one, then the quality of 'one-without-a-secondness'
is limited, which means the limitless Self now possesses a limited quality, and
this statement is certainly irrational. I have only used this argument
above to reveal that neo-vedanta is incomplete, I have not used it to reveal the
truth, because the truth is that the soul, though one without a second, is NOT
the Supreme Self which is One Without a Second. The Supreme Self
is both Saguna and Nirguna, meaning simply that there are qualities which it possesses
and other qualities of which it is devoid of. The Supreme Self (or simply, the
Self, because the Supreme Self is the Self of the Self; PARAMATMAN), is All-Wise
and Never-Ignorant; the Self is All-Good and Never-Evil; the Self is Ever-Conscious
and Never-Unconscious. We are NOT the Supreme Self (though in
ESSENCE we ARE, since the Supreme Self is the Self of our Self). We NEVER stop
being the Self and the Supreme Self NEVER stops being the Self of our Self.
Paramatman is NOT a temporary characteristic of the eternal Supreme Being (Who
possesses absolutely NO temporary characteristics). Likewise, we were never
created. We have always existed as the Self whose Self is the Supreme Self.
That's why this drama of Creation has been going on forever and will continue
forever. It is LIKE a dream but it is NOT a dream. It is Real. We
are Real. The Supreme Self is Real. Laksman:
Fine, Dev. So who is the ‘we?’ Why not just say ‘I’ and be done with
it? I don’t think you will be able to do that because you still see ‘It’
as an object. You don’t want to own it. Dev
response: My children are my children but they are not objects and I do not own
them, nor am I, being their father, an object that they own. Though we are separate,
we are inseparable. Likewise is the eternal (beginingless and endless) relationship
of Atman and Paramatman. There are so many mantras in the Vedas that substantiate
this. Laksman: (from a previous email) Being a practical person
(I need to be a person to do this don't I? This is going to take a lot of
work too as it was such a long time ago that I believed that I was a limited human
being...incidentally being the Self has worked out quite nicely and I'm quite
attached to the bliss of Self realization) I'm sure you will appreciate the fact
that I need something more than the mere idea that there is something more.
Dev reply: It is strange that the neo-vedantist needs nothing more than
an idea that "I am the Self" to be the Self. The Game is not that easy
my friend. We (the innumerable souls) would not have any fun playing this
Game if it was not a challenge. You have been on this journey for trillions
of years, so having been introduced to Vedanta a few decades ago is not really
such a long time ago in the context of Eternity. Vedanta has enabled your mind
to clearly perceive that you (the perceiver) is NOT a person, place, or thing.
This was probably the intention of Shankaracharya, since so many ignorant Jainees
(and others) during his time were enmeshed in ignorance and worshipping persons,
places, and things in place of the Truth. He was able to help people turn
inward to the Self and his teachings have certainly been invaluable in this respect.
With a firm footing in Self-knowledge, one is ready to continue their inward journey,
but many opt for the relatively blissful experience of knowing the Self (at least
some nature of the Self). After all, this knowing that one is not a person,
place, or thing is a very freeing experience; all the more so when it becomes
one's very being (i.e., not just an experience). But this is not all.
There is more. If it were not so, then why have Rishis become Rajarishis, a Rajarishis
Maharishis, and Maharishis Brahmarishis? How and why is it that Lord Krishna is
accepted as being beyond even all of these? Are you, my friend, established in
the Highest State of Being expressed by Shri Krishna? How can you ever KNOW
that Supreme Being (and no, I am not talking about Krishna)
if you do not recognize that what you know now is only a 'state' of knowing, and
is not the Supreme? Laksman:
I won’t reply to this because you are not talking to me. You are talking
about an idea, Neo-Vedanta. I could take apart all your reasoning and logic
but it is pointless. Some day what I say will all make sense. This
enlightenment business is actually very very simple. It is so simple that
you are missing it with this huge system of ideas. Dev
response: My friend, you are in the enlightenment business, and for any business
to work there needs to be a product or service offered by one and received or
purchased by another. Neo-vedanta is a very nifty tool for helping people feel
good about themselves in a very non-material way, i.e., by objectifying everything
and seeing everything as unlimited consciousness. It may work for a while,
but eventually, like any product (in this case, a product of the Mind), it will
fail. Laksman: (from the previous email) I believe that my
success in business was due to the fact that I didn't buy into all the amazing
schemes that were presented to me to make even more money but just kept practically
plugging away every day collecting the cash. Also the idea of accepting
your statements on faith is not appealing since it seems that you also are not
'in' this supreme state. How am I to know that your statements are anything
more than beliefs? Dev reply: It is not at all a matter of faith
or belief, it is all a matter of self-inquiry, Self-knowledge, and understanding
born of direct experience. Laksman:
The purpose of Self inquiry is to remove the ignorance one has about one’s Self.
When the ignorance is removed it is clearly known that there is only one Self.
When you look at it through the filter of Maya the one Self appears as two or
many. Dev response:
When one's ignorance is removed, one realizes the nature of one's own Self and
is no longer caught up in self-delusion imagining that one is a person.
When we see ourselves as projections of this world we imagine ourselves to be
many people (a husband, a father, a son, a writer, a teacher, etc.), but when
our ignorance is removed we see clearly that we are the indivisible, invisible,
immortal Self. Through the practice of Yoga we realize our Essence, the
Soul of our Self, which is the Supreme Self. Laksman: (from previous
email) As I said earlier I have no beliefs. I operate only on the basis
of experience born understanding. Perhaps if you were able by your yogic
power or some other way to give me a glimpse of this 'state' it would increase
my appetite for it. Or maybe you can recommend a guru who would be willing to
visit me and show me first hand? Dev reply: First of all, it is only
by your own yogic power derived from practical application that you will have
an insight in to the Truth, which I think you probably already have, which is
why you still have an appetite to know more. Secondly, the thirsty go to the well,
the well does not go to the thirsty. Anyway, the well is within you and
you already know this. You just have to continue drawing out the wisdom.
Laksman: I’m [leading] you on
with these questions, Dev. Notice I said, at the beginning “let’s
theoretically accept…” It was just a way of drawing you out. I do
not have an appetite to know more about anything concerning the Self or the world.
I’ve never seen such an eager guru as you. And your last statement is not
true. I am the wisdom. You can ‘continue to draw out’ all you like
but please don’t project this desire on me. As pointed out at the end, my
whole email was gentle sarcasm. Dev
response: Laksmanji, I have certainly realized all along your gentle sarcasm in
this present email, and I replied more or less in kind, using it as a vehicle
for the exposition of Wisdom. Laksmanji, the Wisdom is as limitless as the
Unlimited Consciousness of which it is an expression. Laksman:
(from the previous email) The problem with the whole idea from my point of view
is that I feel very wonderful all the time...I'm even quite enamored of the occasional
little irritations that the world sends my way...and my life is so full and rich
with great bhaktas and jnanis that I can't in my delusion imagine anything better.
Dev reply: You are certainly a blessed human being, or if you prefer,
a blessed soul. You are more than just blessed, you are extremely blessed.
It is not an accident though. You have gotten where you are by dint of your
own practices. You made the effort to go beyond your self and have realized the
Self. After perhaps many, many incarnations you have unearthed the Treasure, and
you are ecstatic and wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Perhaps the time
will come when you will want to know where that Treasure came from; and will you
ever play the Game of 'Treasure Hunt' once again? Laksman:
You’re incredibly obtuse, Dev. I am the Treasure. The treasure hunt
ended in 1971. Dev response:
You think I am obtuse because your own ego (though imperceptible to you) is very
obtuse and does not let you see the Treasure (MOKSHA) has yet to be found.
Laksman: (from the previous
email) Is there any guarantee that I will 'get' it? What is the time frame
involved? Will it last? Dev reply: Well, given the extent
of Eternity, and the natural aptitude of the Self to keep plugging away at it,
I would say that the mathematical probability is as good as saying, "yes,
you are guaranteed to win the Game" (albeit, eventually, which in terms of
our limited conception of time, could take a gooleth to the gooleth power of Creations,
which might as well be never to the 'person' who asks the question). The time
frame involved is meaningless, as you know, since reaching the Supreme Self means
reaching Timelessness Itself. However, from a practical standpoint, since you
are really only playing the Game with yourself, you can decide to stop playing
whenever you like. For the same reason (which is no reason) you can choose
to play this game all over again at any time you wish; hence, your experience
of the Supreme State
will last as long as you like. Of course, you, the Self, are ALWAYS connected
to That Supreme Self in the eternal relationship of the Pervader to the Pervaded.
We remain the same Self regardless whether or not we know it. In other words,
ATMAN never ceases being ATMAN, just as PARAMATMAN never ceases being PARAMATMAN.
If one holds the view that Jivatman emanates from Atman, goes through
many incarnations and perhaps many, many cycles of Creation, and eventually attains
Moksha, and is NEVER born again, this view is also correct. For example,
just as in each cycle of Creation the earth and other planets are created anew
and we cannot say this Earth planet is the SAME earth planet that previously existed,
in the same way we can say the Jivatman is liberated forever and never comes back
again. Laksman: Again, this
was just a joke, Dev. I’m surprised considering what I’ve said so far that
you didn’t pick up on it. I meant that when you promise somebody something
that is going to happen in the future you are really taking them for a ride.
This whole spiritual riddle can be sorted out in the present. Dev
response: This whole thing is a drama, Laksmanji. The Past, the Present, the Future,
they are certainly relevant to the drama. There are many riddles to be sorted
out in the drama, and whether they are sorted out now or later it will not put
an end to the drama. The drama of life is not an existential riddle. The drama
of life is a journey to Eternity and that journey is as fantastic as the Destination.
No need to rush it. Laksman:
(from the previous email) I've found that the only thing that makes me move or
change is dissatisfaction and I can't find the slightest dissatisfaction...sadly
your words don't do the trick... so I implore you to please help me develop some
desire for this state. Dev reply: Well, Laksmanji, having become
established in the Real Self (your own Self), if you have completely annihilated
every trace of Ignorance, and are absolutely certain that there is no chance whatsoever
that you might be ignoring the obstructing presence of some very faint shade of
ego, then you are in deed truly blessed (graced) with that unimaginable power
of the Supreme Being. Laksman:
This is how it is, Dev. It’s probably almost this way with you but I think
there is some lack of confidence in your words because you won’t say ‘I’ when
you speak of the Self. You talk about it…which is indirect knowledge…but
you don’t speak as It..which is direct knowledge. And you think that something
will be different in the future. Anyway it’s none of my business.
Dev response: Laksmanji,
this Self that is Consciousness is not the Supreme Consciousness. You are affirming
that you are the Supreme Consciousness. The confirmation of this is known only
to the Self. The Supreme Consciousness is Self-evident, and that evidence is made
manifest when one is egoless. Dev: However, keeping in view that
this Life is indeed a Game of Maya, we know the element of chance is always there
(until the Game is over). It seems to me, though I cannot see you, or hear you,
or get inside of your mind (which I would have no purpose or right to do anyway),
that you are still playing the Game and are not ready to stop playing just yet.
Laksman: Is there an element
of chance that you will wake up tomorrow morning and forget that you are Dev?
I doubt it. There is no element of chance involved for me because I am not
in Maya. Maya is in me. Dev
response: I have woken up many times and forgotten I was Dev, because this Dev
identity too is only a fiction. Because we are the Self, our consciousness is
not interrupted by the death and birth of the body, or the formation of a personality.
The Self remains ever conscious. This is not the same as the consciousness which
Krishna spoke of when he told Arjuna that he knew
all his births from the very beginning. In other words, when one (the Self)
is really established in the Supreme Self, one knows all and one's knowledge is
not subject to increase or decrease. Dev: Is there no chance that
you might not have reached your full potential? If the answer to this question
is no, then naturally you would have no desire to explore the matter further.
Laksman: There is no full potential
or partial potential for me, Dev. There is only actual. You might
consider how so much of your thinking is future oriented. For me there is
no time. It stopped in 1971 and never started again. Everything is present
and actual…eternally. Dev
response: Based on other things you have said, this is not very believable (though
I know that doesn't matter to you). In any case, you are certainly an extremely
rare Jivatman, though you will surely deny it. Laksman: (from
the previous email) Since you are so certain about it perhaps you are just being
humble when you say that you have not attained it so if you were to come and see
me I might be able to get a glimpse of it and then set out on the apparently long
journey to experience it. Dev reply: Well, I am most certainly certain
about It, and I most certainly have not attained It. Seeing each other we might
get a glimpse of how far we have come and how far we have to go. How much
that matters depends on how far we have gone. In any case, we are surely
beginingless beings on an endless journey that we have taken many a time without
ever leaving Home. Laksman:
I don’t need to see anybody to see how far I have to go. It is not possible
for me to ‘go’ anywhere. I am already where I would go. I think we
have really come to the end of this conversation, Dev. I can’t be what you
think I am so my words have no impact on you. It’s fine. I didn’t
solicit this conversation as you know. So I wish you well on your journey.
Om and Prem, Laksman Dev
response: I sincerely thank you for your kindness and generosity of spirit. In
my mind you are a noble soul. Keep Shining. OM
Laksman’s
reply on Nov. 30th: Laksman:
You too are a noble soul, Dev. It was fun satsanging with you. As far as shining
goes it would be impossible not to shine...I am self-effulgent eternally.
May the Supreme Self bless you in everything. Love, Laksman Dev’s
reply to Laksman on Nov. 30th. Note
that this email includes Dev’s responses to Laksman’s recently received email
of the 28th, which was his reply to Dev’s email of the 26th
responding to Laksman’s email of Nov. 22nd. Namaskar
(I bow to That Ever-Shining Self) Dear Laksmanji, You are indeed
eternally effulgent divine Light. I have enjoyed our dialog and want to leave
you with only one thought, and that is this: We are the Self and nothing
else matters. Since I had already responded to most of your previous
email (before the most recent one) I am sending it here in this present email
for your entertainment.
I guess this completes our dialog, though I remain open for future discussions
at your leisure. I would prefer that we speak in person, because that would surely
be more cost-effective (time-wise, understanding-wise).
Keep Shining (as always) In Divine Wisdom & Love, Dev
Following
is Laksman’s reply to Dev’s earlier email of 11/26 (in response to Laksman’s email
of 11/22). The dialog incorporates both
Laksman’s reply and Dev’s response, and is followed by an excerpt from Satyarth
Prakash. Hi
Dev, You're probably not going to enjoy this very much but I did my best
to make it reasonable literate and entertaining. Love,
Laksman
Dev
response: Namaste
Laksmanji, Since
you have been so entertaining as to continue this dialog, I shall respond in kind.
Dev
(from previous dialog): Well my friend, perhaps our dialog is coming to an end.
Based on your reaction to my previous replies, it seems you do not wish to continue,
and perhaps you will not even get through this entire email. Although, I don’t
really see any reason why wouldn’t go through everything I have written:
it can only challenge you to evolve or reinforce what you already know.
Laksman: Why, when you already know
I am not interested in evolving do you keep on suggesting that it would do me
good? If I need help I’ll let you know, OK? I told you my sadhana
stopped a long time ago. On whatever level you see me I’m not going to change.
The body and mind change on their own, it has nothing to do with me. There
are no challenges left for me, no mountains to climb. If you don’t like
my idea or don’t understand it, that is fine with me. I’m happy to hear
your opinion…once. I’m rather quick to understand; I picked up your idea
right from the beginning. So why do you feel the need to keep telling me?
This “I’m more spiritual than you’ game comes up throughout this and other emails.
I’ll point this out as I patiently go through this letter. Hopefully you
will think about this and if you want to play the ‘holier than thou’ game will
you please seek a more willing victim? Please, Dev, show some respect; I do not
want to hear it. Dev
response: I respect you as Atman, what more do you want? Do you want
me to respect you as Paramatman? You are totally on the defensive in this email,
which can only mean you somehow feel threatened. You are not the victim
and I the victor. My only victory is over my own ego and ignorance.
It is MY ego and ignorance; it is NOT the ego and ignorance of the Supreme Self.
Until you realize that both the Soul and the Supreme Soul are eternal, each having
their own eternal, unchangeable nature, and that both eternally pervade the eternal
non-conscious substance called PRAKRITI, you will never feel perfectly at ease
with your self and everyone else, because you will not be REAL. If you are
REAL then you will admit your own fallibility and stop insisting that you are
Unlimited Consciousness. You are completely incapable of substantiating
that you are Unlimited Consciousness, because you cannot be other than what you
are. You will never be any more or less than that, and that is an eternal,
self-contained, immortal, conscious being, in whom resides the Supreme Self, and
in Whom you reside, in the eternal, indestructible, unchangeable relationship
of the Pervader and the Pervaded.
………..
Dev: Regardless what you read (or read into) what I have written, I could
never possibly have any ill will toward you, whether silent or verbalized.
You are Atman, I am Atman, everyone is Atman. In essence you are my own
Self and I am your own Self, so how could we be angry or annoyed or impatient
with one another? Laksman: I don’t
think you have ill will for me at all, Dev. I just fail to understand why
you think that I want to hear your criticisms. If you present you views
in a dispassionate non-judgmental way I’m more than happy to discuss. But
it has to be a civilized discussion. If you say I need to be ‘challenged’
(note the aggressive dualistic nature of this word) so I can evolve, the subtext,
in case it is lost on you, is: there is something wrong with me as I am.
For your words to be useful I would have to tell you that I felt there was something
wrong with me and then I would humbly seek your advice. But I didn’t do
that. Please reconsider Krishna’s wise
words, “Let not the wise unsettle the minds of the ignorant.”
Dev
response: Again, this email comes across as unnecessarily defensive. First of
all, constructive criticism is very good, and something you yourself do quite
often (at least in your writings). Secondly, what is 'uncivilized' about this
discussion? Thirdly, I never said you needed to be challenged (though it
seems you feel you are being challenged, and therefore perhaps need to be); I
only said that what I have written 'can only challenge you to evolve or reinforce
what you already know.' This is certainly true too of everything you have written
in this email. Next, neither you nor I need to 'humbly ask' the other for advice
in order to benefit from this exchange of thoughts over the Internet. We are not
sitting face to face having this discussion, so it is quite natural that we would
both be communicating through an internet identity, i.e., through 'email protocol',
and there is no way we can really get the vibration of each other (there is no
way for the eyes to sparkle, the smile to grace the face, or the hearty laughter
to fill the room). And finally, your quotation from the Gita is certainly inappropriate
in our case since neither you nor I are ignorant. Whether or not we have a self-image
to protect is another matter. Myself, I love to break my self-image (i.e.,
I know undoubtedly there are still traces of ego in my being, which I am happy
to remove). In any case if I’m the Atman as you say, how can there
be any evolution for me? Dev response: The True Self, ATMAN, is
certainly changeless and therefore never evolves or devolves. However, as you
know, this is not the case with the Jivatman. I hold that we are both Jivatmans,
first of all, just by virtue of the fact we are embodied beings having this discussion.
If we were Jivamuktas, which you could be, we could still have this discussion
but even a Jivamukta is not the Highest. Krishna was not
a Jivamukta, because a 'liberated soul' necessitates one's previous state of bondage.
Krishna is Atman. ATMAN is never subjected to bondage,
but the Jivatman is. As you might say, ATMAN is not Jivatman, Jivatman is ATMAN.
When the Jivatman is dissolved in the Yajna of Wisdom, the ever-effulgent ATMAN
is all there is. Within this ATMAN is the Supreme Self. This was the 'state' of
Krishna (I believe). I use the word 'state' for lack
of another word, though in truth it is not a state because ATMAN is ever ATMAN.
Again, I don’t think you have ill will, Dev. You’re a well intentioned
guy…a bit to good and serious for my taste…but you have picked the wrong person
to be superior with. I know you don’t see it that way but that’s the way
it comes across. I’m sorry to be so blunt. This evolution trip is
just a big ego game and it bores me to tears. Dev
response: Again, Laksmanji, I am not playing the 'holier than thou' trip with
you. As a matter of fact, the word 'holy' is a big turn off for me, and I think
those people who refer to themselves or others as 'His Holiness' are damn fools.
They are damned because their ego is still in the way but they don't see it.
……….. Dev: I used to hold the neo-vedantic view that Advaita meant
everyone is GOD. When it was suggested that Advaita means something other than
this, and that though I am indeed eternal, having no beginning or end, that the
primordial (matter-like) substance that is the essence of this world which is
created and dissolved endlessly, is also eternal, having no beginning or end,
and that within and yet beyond myself (Soul) and all of this (the world, the body,
mind, intellect, ego, etc.) eternally exists as ever-manifest the All-pervading,
Formless, Indivisible, One-Without-A-Second, SatChitAnanda, Supreme Being,
I too was incredulous. However, being of the mind never to get stuck in
any image, and vigilant of the subtle nature of ego and determined to know without
a shred of doubt the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, I gave
it my consideration. Laksman:
I didn’t say I was God. I said I was the Self. God is just a symbol
of the Self for people who see themselves as created beings. They need to
explain their origin and the origin of the creation so they call it God.
They need something to focus their minds in worship so they call the Self God.
It’s a good idea but it’s just an idea. In non-dual reality there is no
‘creation’ and therefore no need for an explanation. Both ‘creature’ and
‘creator’ are projections of limited minds. There is only me, limitless
non-dual Awareness.
Dev
response: Well, here we have, plain and simple, the Mahavyaka of all neo-vedantists:
In non-dual reality there is no ‘creation’
and therefore no need for an explanation. Both ‘creature’ and ‘creator’
are projections of limited minds. There is only me, limitless non-dual Awareness.
This is not non-dual reality, but rather, non-dual unreality. You state
there is no creation and therefore no need for an explanation for the creation,
and then you explain that both ‘creature’ (in other words, Creation) and ‘creator’
are projections of limited minds. This begs the question, “are the limited minds
from which the creator and creation are projected, part of the creation or not?”
Obviously, they are part of the creation, so your statement is completely irrational
and has no substance. You then assert “There
is only me, limitless non-dual Awareness.” So, limitless, non-dual Awareness
is the projector of limited duality? Is limitless, non-dual Awareness the projector
of unawareness? Limitless, non-dual Awareness
is the Absolute Self (call it God, Allah, or King James, or whatever label the
mind assigns to It). The Absolute is not the author of little me, and little me
is not limitless non-dual Awareness. Little me is a fiction projected in the mind,
projected from ego and ignorance. The root of ignorance lies in the union of the
conscious spirit and the unconscious matter (Purush and Prakriti). It is Ignorance
because there can be no union of that which is inseparable. The two are inseparable
by virtue of one being the pervader of the other, and both being eternal (uncreated
and indestructible). I
like your explanation that God is just an idea or a symbol of the Self. The thing is, it is a symbol of the Supreme
Self and not the symbol of you or me or anyone else. -------
Dev: You are thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of the teachings you have received
and those teachings have no doubt served you well. You have revised, over and
over again, what you have learned by applying your own innate knowledge
coupled with your direct experience. You have firm conviction in what you say
and you speak with authority. However, you do have (according to my understanding)
a hidden agenda that is hidden even from yourself. You cannot change the
way you think because you think you are beyond thinking. You cannot go higher
because you are beyond evolving. You cannot go beyond your limits because
you are already limitless. You cannot raise your consciousness because you
are the Supreme Consciousness. You cannot learn because you already know
everything. Laksman: No,
I don’t know everything. That’s God’s job. I supply God with the Awareness
that makes it possible for It to know everything. I’m not bothered with
relative knowledge and silly ideas like omniscience. I know who I am.
Dev
response: So, according to you, God is just a symbol of the Self who is you. You
do not know everything, but you supply God with Awareness that makes it possible
for God to know everything, even though you who are limitless Awareness doesn’t
know everything. Please consider the ridiculousness
of this. Furthermore,
you say that you “are not bothered with
relative knowledge and silly ideas like omniscience,” presumably because your
knowledge, which is Self-Knowledge is absolute and superior to omniscience.
However, what you call Self-knowledge really is relative knowledge only
and NOT absolute knowledge. Vedanta does
NOT constitute the omniscient knowledge of the Supreme Being Whose Knowledge is
Unsurpassable. It is, however, Brahma Vidya,
which is the knowledge of the Self (knowledge
of the Absolute). I
know of no authority of any religious or sectarian persuasion who does not hold
Omniscience as an indisputable characteristic of the Supreme Being (Unlimited
Awareness, God, Allah, or whatever you wish to label it). You dismiss omniscience as a ‘silly idea’ because
you know you do not possess it nor is it possible to ever possess it.
The self that you call the Self, which is the Self that you know you are,
is obviously not the Supreme Self.
In any case let’s play your game.
Since I’m so ignorant what is agenda that is hidden from me? It is one thing
to try and sew doubt in a person and it is another to offer that person something
useful and positive. This whole argument revolves around the meaning of
the word ‘I.’ You say I am incomplete and therefore
need to change. I say I’m complete and therefore do not need to change.
So how is this going to be resolved? You won’t accept my view. You
have yet to convince me that your view is superior. Dev
response: The agenda is the agenda of the subtle ego, which we follow almost unconsciously. It is there (here), but due to Ignorance we
do not rise above it. This ego I am referring to is extremely subtle and obscures
the vision of even great Rishis, what to say of ordinary people like you and I.
‘Rising above’ it means recognizing it but not giving it any recognition.
The problem with neo-vedanta is that it does not recognize it because it mistakes
the Self for the Supreme Self, and accomplishes this by misinterpreting Advaita.
Vedanta becomes an end in itself, thus ending any further progress. One
can use Vedanta to get to the point where one realizes (understands) that one
is not this, not that, but then asserts that there is nothing more than this.
End of story. End of game.
But the story is not finished. The
game is not over. ……….
Dev: The neo-vedantic interpretation of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the
Gita, and other works comprising the Shruti and Smriti texts has to be done away
with (the neo-vedantic interpretation, that is) and one must begin afresh.
Consciousness is not stagnant but dynamic and ever-new (PRANAV, OM),
and likewise, everything we learn and experience in this ever-new world is also
ever-new. The Wise never get stuck in any image. The neo-vedantic notions
of Advaita enable people to excuse themselves and everyone else for all their
stupid, selfish, violent thoughts and actions. True Vedanta reveals that
GOD is One Without A Second; it only says that there is no other GOD but GOD;
it does not say that you, I, and everyone else (who are also all eternal) do not
exist. Each of us too is One Without A Second because each of us is eternal
and therefore so is our uniqueness eternal. There is absolutely no conflict
with Advaita; the conflict only arises when we try to set ourselves up as GOD.
Laksman: Your statement
about the nature of ‘consciousness’ is true for that small part of Consciousness
that reveals itself in Maya, the creation. The sruti is clear that Maya,
changing consciousness, is only a tiny fraction of the Self, pure Consciousness.
It is not true for pure Consciousness. I am pure Consciousness. Dev
response: Consciousness is indivisible and has no parts (as I know you will agree). Where does the Sruti say that Maya is ‘changing
consciousness,’ or that there are tiny fractions of the Indivisible Self? You
will, of course, dismiss this as Neo-Advaitic delusion. So what more can
we say? It seems you really want me to be something that I am not.
It is very puzzling to me why. I know you will say, ‘No, I want you to stop
being what you are not and be what you truly are.” There is no end to it.
Don’t you have anything better to do than to ‘challenge’ people? How about
a bit of social service work? The slums are full of unfortunate human beings
who really could use some help. Dev
response: Again, there is no ‘holier than thou’ trip going on here. We are simply sharing our understanding with
each other. I am sharing it to increase
my own understanding, which I know can certainly be increased. You seem to be wanting to fight this process
because you think you are already perfect. (I know you don’t really think like
that, but this is the way it comes across to one who is not a neo-vedantist, i.e.,
to one who does not accept the premise that the Self and Supreme Self are identical.)
Over the years people have organized events
that featured many so-called enlightened beings. The idea was that an amazing
satang would develop that would knock the spiritual socks off the attendees.
And you know what happened. They always ended up being big fights. Each
and every guru thought he or she had the inside track and the others were deluded.
Goes to show, doesn’t it? You think I’m a fool and I think you’re a fool.
How enlightened is that?
Dev
response: I know, I have attended a few and they are certainly just a charade
for parading one’s ego. Some people would
say that the real work is at the grass roots level. I would say the real work
is the work we do without any thought of our small self ego. ………..
Dev: If you are really open-minded you will read Satyarth Prakash and Maharishi
Dayananda’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Rig Veda. Whatever you have
heard of him, or whatever impression of him you may have formed as a result of
the words and actions of unenlightened followers, you will have to dismiss in
order to truly consider the accuracy or not of his knowledge. Like us, he too
was a human being and therefore fallible, but by and large his knowledge was very
accurate and I dare say he far exceeds either you or I in both shastric acumen
and experience. Laksman: I never
heard of him or read anything by him. He may exceed me in shastric acumen
and experience but this does not impress me as I am not a pundit nor do I envy
anybody’s experience. What arguments will he make that you can’t make?
Does he claim understanding that somehow surpasses and invalidates the wisdom
of the Upanishads?
Dev
response: What I am saying is an echo of the Upanishads and is supported by the
Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Vedanta Shastras. See for yourself. . . I have
copied the section pertaining to Neo-Vedanta from Satyarth Prakash, written almost
150 years ago, and placed it at the end of this email. ………..
Dev: I know you feel I come across as arrogant and dogmatic in these emails,
but you should at least consider that you may be looking into a mirror. You seem
to forget that I am just an imperfect human being, so I have no problem with recognizing
my own imperfections. On the other hand, if you think you are GOD, as you
certainly assert, you will find it very difficult to acknowledge your own shortcomings;
and even if you acknowledge them it is unlikely you will see any need to change
them sense they (the shortcomings) cannot affect GOD. I am not being sarcastic,
I am simply telling it as it is, which is the way you have spoken (written) it
to be. Laksman: I dealt with the
God issue above. Undoubtedly you will not accept it. It will just
be another example of my Neo-Advaitic arrogance and self delusion for you. Dev
response: You have dealt with the God issue by asserting it is just an idea or
symbol of the Self. You assert (elsewhere)
that the Self is not God but God is the Self. This too is a misnomer resulting
from the misinterpretation of Advaita.
Dev: Anyway, here are my replies to your most recent comments/replies.
----- Dev (from previous dialog): Yes, my answer was not
clear, so I will try again. What I mean to say is that many people are seeking
guidance because they are in a quandary as to “Who am I,” and once the answer
to this question is known, the knower is enlightened. This is what I meant by
‘self-evident,’ meaning that a true seeker of enlightenment will know Enlightenment
when they find it, because that enlightenment is the knowledge of their own Self.
No doubt there are also many people who think enlightenment is some kind of attainment
that gives them special powers, etc., but genuine seekers really want to know
“Who am I.” The MastersofDeception blog is meant for these genuine seekers
(both novices and those already on the path) who do not have Self Knowledge and
who really want it (enlightenment) for no other purpose than the Self itself.
Laksman: If there are such people and these people came to your website
they would not really need this information because a true seeker is always completely
protected by his or her bhakti. Dev reply: In my experience,
people are protected by their awareness and wisdom coupled with love. Bhakti
is incomplete and blind without wisdom; bhakti without eyes cannot save anyone,
not even itself (i.e., even one’s devotion will dry up without wisdom).
I have seen the bhakti of a sadhak wither and die because that sadhak did not
develop their power of discernment with wisdom. Likewise, I’ve seen many
a sadhak’s wisdom fail them miserably when that wisdom lacked the embrace of divine
love. You have said “No one can injure them.” Certainly, but this
is really true of everyone. We only injure ourselves, and we do this when
we follow our ego and ignore good advice. People set themselves up for a fall
but don’t realize it. We are victimized by our own ignorance, and if someone
exposes that ignorance perhaps we will realize our folly and change for the better.
The one who shares the wisdom of consciousness has no ulterior motive whatsoever.
Laksman: Perhaps you would
like to tell me in a specific way how I could ‘get better’ and offer me some reasonable
sadhana that would help accomplish my ‘transformation.’ If I thought I needed
to improve myself I certainly wouldn’t accept the advice of any Tom, Dick or Harry.
If a complete stranger writes you from cyberspace and says you are deluded
and need to change will you just swallow it without so much as a by your leave?
Come on, Dev, I wasn’t born yesterday. Dev
response: As the Vedas say, “Let the Truth come from all
corners,” so why should it not also come from cyberspace? The
specific way we can all ‘get better’ is to learn better and then do better. If
there is nothing more to learn or do then I guess there will be no getting better
either. Life is not stagnant and neither is Consciousness; it is ever-new, which
is why OM (Pranav) is accepted as the highest name or symbol of Supreme Consciousness.
Our consciousness must keep expanding ad
infinitum, because that is our nature while embodied as living beings.
Are you going to deny that you are a living being? Only living beings can
help other living beings, and the best way to help is to keep expanding our awareness
and never get stuck in a box or image. I
am not in the least bit interested in propagating religion, philosophy, or anything. I am expanding my consciousness as a living
being and inspiring those who come in my contact. That’s all. -----
Dev (from previous dialog): This Jivatman is not an ego, not a person, not
a mind, and not any body. In essence, this Jivatman is the Self. [Quoted
text below is Dev’s interspersed reply/comment to which Laksman is replying]
Laksman: If this is true then what is the meaning of your words that it sleeps
and wakes? dev: “In a game of football, a player goes on the field,
plays the game and either wins or loses. The wining and losing are only
meaningful in the context of the game. Similarly, sleeping and waking are
only meaningful in the context of the sport of Creation (existence, life, etc.).”
Laksman: That’s right but the
Jivatman is not ‘in’ the creation. The creation is ‘in’ the Jivatman, meaning
within the scope of Awareness.
Dev
response: The Self completely pervades the Creation (the manifestation of the
union of Purush and Prakriti). Thus, all of us pervade Prakriti. We are eternal and Prakriti is eternal. The
Supreme Self pervades all of us and Prakriti.
Thus, there are three eternal noumena: Paramatman, Atman, Prakriti. As a neo-vedantist you will find this impossible
to accept, and why should you accept it? YOU ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT,
unless it can be substantiated by your own experience and the Sruti. …..
Laksman: (from the previous email) In any case when I say that I am not a
person I mean that I am the Self or the Jivatman, if you prefer. According
to my understanding/experience (and scripture would back me up on this) the Self
and the Jivatman are identical. However, the difference in words is accounted
for by the superimposition (adyaropa) of individuality (jiva) on the Self.
The Jivatman, me, is not limited like a jiva. Dev: Individuality is a
superimposition on the Self, but this Self is NOT the Supreme Self. Anyway,
in reality the Self cannot be superimposed upon. The superimposition (of
individuality) is upon the mind. Individuality (ego), like the mind, is
an evolute of Prakriti. It is an expression (manifestation in Prakriti) of the
uniqueness of the Self. Ego is (eventually) superimposed upon the mind as a natural
consequence of our interacting with the world of matter without the knowledge
of the Self (i.e., without Wisdom). You insist on the identity of the
Self and Supreme Self and think that Advaita and Vedanta support this assertion.
Your thinking is based on the neo-vedantic teachings that form the basis of your
understanding, which is why you misunderstand the true meaning of Advaita.
Laksman: This is not so, Dev.
This is based on direct experience and confirmed by many statements in the Upanishads.
I realized who I was twenty years before there was even the word Neo-Advaita.
I’m not a student of Vedanta. Vedanta is not a belief system. It is
a pramana, a means of Self knowledge. It delivers the knowledge/experience
and then disappears leaving one as one is and has always been…the Self.
The true meaning of advaita is non-duality. It is a simple Sanskrit word
that only means ‘not two.’ It means there is not a God and a creation.
It means there is not an ego and a Self. It means there is not a Self and
Supreme Self. It means there is not-two. Your whole argument is based
on dwaita, Dev. It’s true for you…if that is how you see it. There
is a good book recently published by Dennis Waite entitled ‘The Book of One.’
It gives a fair and intelligent presentation of non-duality.
Dev
response: Your explanation of Advaita is not correct. Kindly have a look at the
excerpt placed at the end of this dialog. This
is only a small sampling from Satyarth Prakash. ………. Dev: It
is self-evident that you are not the Supreme Self, yet you have trained your mind
and intellect to imagine you are so. This too is adyaropa, but you do not perceive
it. Laksman:
Self evident to who, Dev? If I were a little more stupid I might be inclined
to allow your subtle attack to shake me. What’s holding me back from taking
the dust of your holy feet and confessing the error of my ways is that you have
not provided any proof of your claims or any practical way that I can see if what
you say is true. It seems to me that just believing something completely
is enough for you…and indeed it is nearly as good as direct experience/knowledge
for some people…but it isn’t good enough for me.
I’ve found that the best way to communicate is to show people directly what you
are trying to communicate. I reveal the Self to people by my use of Vedanta
pramana and people’s lives change in the same way that my guru revealed the Self
to me and my life transformed. I never say anyone has false views and then
offer some ‘pie in the sky’ idea. I just show them who they are and the
changes happen automatically. The truth will set you free, no action is
required. My life is full of very happy people, Dev. I’m very happy.
You really need someone who is dissatisfied with his or herself to guru.
There are a lot of very desperate lonely people out there without much experience
who are willing to believe just about anything.
I’ve added a short document at the end of this email from a man I met in India
two years ago that may give you some insight into the question of how to communicate
enlightenment. Enlightened or not your means of communication are not skillful.
I may be the biggest fool in the world but you can’t just bust into my life and
tell me that I’m deluded and that you know best. You can see what it gets
you.
Dev
response: The wisdom that I am espousing is not
some ‘pie in the sky’ idea, but is in fact ancient knowledge that has been distorted
in the last several millennia. Regarding your reference to the ‘truth will set
you free’, please see my article of the same title on my website for my view of
this statement. Also,
may I remind you that we are carrying on a dialog over the Internet and not in
private. The things I am saying and the way I am saying them would unlikely happen
in a different setting. I am not a guru nor do I aspire to be one. I have read the document at the end of your
email (also, you had previously sent me this in another email). I thank you for
sharing this with me. Laksmanji, you are
a very good communicator, there is no doubt about this. I have read through many
of the articles on your website and found them to be very enlightening. I have
no hesitation in saying that you are a noble soul doing very noble work. I know
too that you (as the body/mind/ego complex) are merely and instrument of the Self,
and do not really see yourself as doing anything at all. However, I would be in
remiss of my duty as an Arya (a noble human being) if I were to simply placate
your ego and go along with this idea that you are Unlimited Consciousness and
that you therefore have no further work to do on yourself. Please note, however, that this exchange of
words taking place (in fulfillment of my so-called duty) is just happening by
chance. It is not my practice or habit to do so publicly (or even privately in
general). I am not the bearer of any torch (just as I am not the wielder of any
axe). …………. Additional Dev comments: Whatever happens
in the dream, really happens in the dream but never really happens. Certainly
the Self and Jivatman are identical, even as the player on the field wearing the
uniform is not really any different after he steps off the field and removes the
uniform. However, while playing the game, AND HE DOES INDEED PLAY THE GAME, he
does assume the role (identity) of a player without ever losing his real identity.
While playing on the field, he plays with gusto, and puts his whole self into
the game. The game doesn’t have any real meaning or purpose; but that doesn’t
stop him from playing on the field. When the game is over it doesn’t mean
he will never play again. Certainly he will play again, because there is
no reason not to, just as there is no reason he had to in the first place.
Laksman: So you can’t see that
I’m just playing the game? Why is not the game that I have chosen to play
acceptable to you? Why do you want me to play your ‘supreme state’game,
your ‘evolution’ game? I’m saying I’ll play your game if you can show me
the goal in the here and now and how to reach it. In other words, Dev, ‘where’s
the beef?’ Dev
response: Oh, you are most certainly playing the Game, and you are a very skillful
player. The goal is Supreme Consciousness. To know It (to attain It) we need to
become absolutely egoless, and simultaneously realize that it is impossible to become absolutely egoless. I
think you realize this, but there is still a disconnect. ………
Dev (from previous dialog): It is the Jivatman that realizes (or not) the
Self. This realization takes place in the mind when the mind is enlightened.
The state of enlightenment and the state of ignorance are both states of mind.
Whose mind? It is the mind of the Jivatman, the embodied soul. Laksman:
OK. This is pretty clear and I can’t argue with it. However, it is
my understanding/experience that ‘embodiment’ is an upadhi, something projected
by ignorance that is not actually there. It seems to be there, however and
therefore people believe that the Jivatman and the Self, the Paramatman are distinct
entities. Shankara’s statement “Jivo Brahamaiva na parah” indicates the
non-duality of the two as does the Mahavakya, ‘Tat tvam asi” .
Dev reply: The Self
as an embodied self, or Jivatman, is no less real than the Self without an embodiment.
The Jivatman is NOT the embodiment, no more so than the actor is the costume or
the player the uniform. Even the embodiment itself (ego, mind, body, etc.) is
also real, though temporary, because its essence is Prakriti which is eternal.
Dev: According to your view (the neo-Vedantic view), “the ‘embodiment’
is an upadhi, something projected by ignorance. . .”
Laksman: You’d better study up on your Vedanta,
Dev. The upadhi idea is at least a thousand years old, probably earlier.
Modern Vedanta, Neo-Vedanta and Neo-Advaita are recent ‘perversions’ of the pure
Vedanta teachings. I only subscribe to statements that are in harmony with
common sense and reason, sruti, and my own experience. Dev
response: There are a number of excerpts from the Vedanta Shastras at the end
of the email. Due to interpolations in
the Smriti texts, as well as misinterpretations of the Shruti texts, the true
Vedanta and the meaning of Advaita have been distorted. ………… Dev: So, ignorance projects the embodiment,
but whose ignorance is it, or how did come about? If you say Ignorance arises
from the eternally Wise (non-ignorant) Self, then your understanding is flawed
and unacceptable even to the ignorant. On the other hand, if you accept that that
there is absolutely no element of ignorance in the Self, and that the embodiment
is therefore not projected from the Self, then from where does it originate?
Ignorance originates from the union of Purush and Prakriti, which in turn results
in the projection (the Creation). Prakriti is the eternal substance of this eternally
cyclic creation. You are not this Creation, though this creation is you
in the sense that you are the creator; just as an artist is not the art, but the
art is the artist, but only in the sense that the art is the expression of the
artist, because the artist is not the paint, the brush, or the canvas (and neither
are rocks, water, air, etc., Consciousness, though they are certainly pervaded
by consciousness.) Laksman:
Well, where ignorance comes from is not really to the point. In fact it
has no beginning. I merely said that if (this is the operative word in my
statement) ignorance exists and if (please note) this is a non-dual reality ignorance
would have to come from the Self. In fact the Self is limitless and if it
couldn’t be ignorant it would be limited by its inability to be (apparently) ignorant.
Dev
response: Oh my God. . . I can hardly believe you would make such a *#@&*&#&
statement: "the Self is limitless and
if it couldn’t be ignorant it would be limited by its inability to be (apparently)
ignorant." You are proving the ridiculousness of neo-vedanta.
Based on this, one (such as Baba Slave John) can make the statement, "the
Self is limitless and if it couldn't be perverted it would be limited by its inability
to be (apparently) perverted." Oh, but of course you (just like all
the other neo-vedantists) will be saved from their folly by use of the word 'apparently.'
This is nothing but sophistry, plain and simple. Apparently child molesters, rapists,
and other cruel and vicious people are really just the Self pretending to be something
other than the Self. It is all just a nightmare, or some illusion created
by Maya. Well, since this Maya is the illusive power of the Self, I guess
this must all be some kind of black magic? That may be, but such things
can never be attributed to the Supreme Self, Who is Immaculate, Never Ignorant
(not even 'apparently'), and is Perfect Goodness (SHIVA), Perfect Bliss (SHAMBU),
and Perfect Well-Being (SHANKAR) and is the Bestower of all these perfections
upon the Soul. Also,
going back to the beginning of your paragraph, "where
ignorance comes from is not really to the point. In fact it has no beginning."
Well, whatever has no beginning also has no end, so in that case your ignorance
could have no end. Oh but you use the all important 'IF' word, which I guess means
you don't really believe Ignorance ever really exists. Here is your mistake,
because Ignorance does exists (temporarily) as a result of the union of Purush
and Prakriti and the manifestation of the Creation. Ignorance exists cyclically,
just as the Creation does. The error with
neo-vedanta is that it does not accept that the substance out of which this Creation
is created is REAL; but it is, and that real (eternal) substance is Prakriti.
Thus, Ignorance resolves back to the union
of Purush and Prakriti and NOT back to the Supreme Self (or even to the Self).
The Supreme Self and the Self remain untouched by Ignorance, but the Self is embodied
in the Creation (through the union of Purush and Prakriti) and appears as Jivatman
(as you will surely agree, there is no such thing as Paramjivatman). The Jivatman
is not perfect; it is fallible. The Jivatman is not all-knowing and will inevitably
make mistakes (choices leading to entanglements). ….. Dev (from
previous dialog): Whether ‘I know’ as Atman or as Jivatman, the Self that must
be known is the Supreme Self. As the Self approaches (by knowledge, by knowing)
the Ultimate Truth (the Supreme Self), the Self realizes (knows that to know itself)
it must go beyond itself; it must stop knowing and start experiencing. When
this realization matures, the Jivatman is awakened and experiences itself as Atman
(the Self); that is, the dream is over and the dreamer realizes that the dream
of being in bondage was only a dream and not real. The awakened self (enlightened
Jiva) experiences (knows) itself as Atman; or worded differently, the Self (Atman)
knows (experiences) itself as the enlightened Self. In this state of enlightenment
or Self-Realization, the Self (as Pure Consciousness) must realize its own Essence
(the Supreme Self) to attain the highest Consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness,
the Absolute. However, having become established in one’s own being (Self),
the Self reveling in the sweetness of its own Pure Consciousness, may remain in
such a state for a very, very long time (many, many cycles of the Creation), or
not. Laksman: Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me how you
know this. Is it your direct experience?
Dev reply: Yes, most certainly it is.
Laksman:
It just goes to show that experience doesn’t necessarily result in true knowledge. Dev
response: That’s true. But true knowledge doesn’t necessarily result in true experience
either. One may experience true love but
have no true knowledge of it. Likewise, one may have knowledge of True Love but
never experience it. Of
course, though, you meant something else by your statement. Therefore, my reply
is that direct experience and true knowledge are synonymous, and if they are not,
then one neither has direct experience or true knowledge.
------------ Laksman (continuing from before): If you have read my articles
on knowledge and experience you can probably guess that I have a problem with
this idea. I give you the benefit of the doubt on the language issue but
the statement ‘the Self may remain in such a state for a very, very long time”
doesn’t add up. Discounting the inappropriateness of the word ‘state,’ the
‘state’ you are referring to is already the Self if this is a non dual reality…which
the sruti says it is. Since ‘states’ are not doers, nor is the Self a doer
there is actually no one to ‘ remain in’ anything. Finally, what would the
purpose be of ‘remaining in this state for a long time’ since the Self is paramsukka,
paramananda by nature? Any benefit It would derive from remaining in this
state it already has. I see this idea as a rather silly fantasy cooked up
by doers with spiritual vasanas who don’t understand that they are the Self.
The way out of this predicament is to seek jnanam in line with scripture since
the problem of seeking is a problem born of ignorance.
Dev reply: The fundamental disconnect between your understanding and mine
is this: we have two completely different grasps of Advaita. You have understood
Vedanta and Advaita based on the knowledge propounded by your lineage of teachers,
which could possibly be traced all the way back to Shankaracharya. No doubt
you have not merely accepted their knowledge blindly but have spent many years
in deep reflection and self-inquiry, and have arrived at a firm conviction in
the efficacy of that knowledge. Laksmanji, my wisdom comes from direct
experience of Sruti and is backed up by tradition, having for its authority the
wisdom of the saints and sages since times immemorial. The Vedic
tradition was practically lost after the Mahabharat war 5000 years ago.
This is certainly evidenced by the deplorable conditions that prevailed subsequent
to that time. In the last 4000 years many various religions and philosophies
have sprung up and seen their heyday, but the perennial Wisdom itself (embodied
by the Vedas) has never changed. Shankarcharya expounded his particular interpretation
of Vedanta in order to refute the Jains and Buddhists (particularly Jainism) which
had become entrenched in the Indian society of his day. You could research
these matters for yourself if you are so inclined, but honestly I am not. It matters
little to me what Shankacharya’s intentions were or what has become of his teachings.
I am not a man of letters. I am a learned man only in the sense that I have learned
the lessons of my life’s experiences and continue to do so. Laksman:
The problem here is that you seem to see Vedanta as a belief system or a philosophy
or a school of thought. It is a pramana, a means of Self knowledge for which
no beliefs are required. It is a throwaway. This is how Shankara and
Ramanauja and countless masters used it. It was only pundits and intellectuals
that made it into the various Vedanta schools. It doesn’t matter what teachings
are used as long as they remove a person’s ignorance about jiva, jagat or Ishwara.
I use Yoga teachings too as an integral part of my teaching because on the level
of the mind they are very useful.
Dev
response: The problem with Vedanta as you (and others
use it) is that it DOES NOT remove a person’s
ignorance about jiva, jagat or Ishwara. Instead, it tries to substantiate
that the three are ONE and only ONE, whereas in fact they are distinct but inseparable
(and therefore ONE). Refer to the excerpt
about Neo-vedanta at the end of this email. …… Dev: Based on
my experience, self study (self-inquiry) and the knowledge I have gleaned from
the Vedas and teachings of Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati, there are three eternal
noumena: (1) the Supreme Self, GOD, who is One Without a Second; (2) the
innumerable Souls; and (3) Prakriti. The Supreme Self is SatChitAnand, that
is, the Supreme Self is eternally existent, eternally Conscious, and eternally
Blissful. The Soul is eternally existent and eternally conscious. Prakriti
is eternally existent. Prakriti is pervaded by both the Supreme Self and the innumerable
souls. The innumerable souls are pervaded by the Supreme Soul, Paramatman.
The Supreme Self is indeed Paramanand (Supreme Bliss) by its very own nature;
we (the innumerable souls) are blissful on account of our proximity to the Supreme
Self. The ‘proximity’ or closeness is already established by virtue of the
relationship of the Pervader to the Pervaded, however this ‘closeness’ is manifest
or unmanifest based on the soul’s relationship with Prakriti. The ‘relationship’
is the Drama, the Sport, the Lila. In other words, the soul is blissful
(or not) depending on whether or not it has attained enlightenment, which means
simply that it has purified the mind with wisdom to such an extent that it perceives
(through the medium of the mind) its own reflection or nature as Pure Consciousness.
This ‘knowing’ one’s Self by the Self through the mind is the lower Samadhi.
When the Self knows the Self by the Self alone (without the mind) this is the
higher Samadhi. Both of these are ‘states’ or conditions because one depends
on the presence of the mind and the other its absence. One whose Samadhi is firm
is enlightened, but this is not the end of it. Beyond this is Kaivalya,
wherein the Self is isolated from all states of Prakriti. Isolated from all phases
of Prakriti and completely free of Ignorance, the Self is united with the Supreme
Self, its own Essence, and this union or YOGA is the direct experience of Supreme
Bliss, and this state is called MOKSHA. As you say, something that is a
‘state’ or ‘experience’ is subject to change. So, is MOKSHA subject to change?
Certainly it is, why not? It is the nature of the Self to embody itself
and play the Drama of Life. Of course, when one is Liberated, one is totally free
to be embodied or not, and is under absolutely no compulsion whatsoever either
way. [Instead of just rejecting this idea, please carefully consider it. There
is no harm in it. There is nothing to lose but your own ego; and if you don’t
have an ego then there really is nothing to lose. Believe it or not, I say this
with all humility.] You contend that the Self is always blissful, but
this is contrary to everyone’s experience. On the other hand, when you realize
that your own Essence (the Self of the Self, the Soul of your Soul) is indeed
ever blissful, then you truly know that Bliss, which means your knowledge is experiential,
otherwise it is only intellectual. You can say what you want (for example,
that you are GOD), but it does not make it so except in your own imagination or
intellect. GOD (the Supreme Self) is NEVER annoyed or agitated, never subject
to pain and pleasure, birth and death, ignorance and enlightenment. But
I am, and so are you, and so is everyone else. Why fight your own real nature
and pretend to be GOD? It is only one’s own ignorance that causes one to misunderstand.
Ignorance is removed with the Wisdom of Consciousness. Laksman:
There is no way we can resolve this discussion, Dev. With every paragraph
a new argument develops. I’m happy to let you revel in your ignorance.
Are you happy to let me revel in mine? Dev
response: I am happy to perceive ignorance for what is, and realize that it has
both a beginning and an end. You are apparently happy to assert that apparent
ignorance has no beginning or end because this apparent ignorance is your own
apparent creation, and the fact that you can be apparently ignorant and apparently
remove it with apparent knowledge is apparently supposed to prove that you are
Unlimited Consciousness; and this is apparently supposed to make apparent sense
which it DEFINITELY does NOT.
Laksman (continuing): Do you notice the attacks you’re making?
Your knowledge is ‘experiential’ mine is ‘intellectual.” And another, “My
guru and lineage is superior to yours.” What are you getting out of this,
Dev? Does it make you happy to think that you have the ‘right’ views and
I have heretical views? What is the payoff? Do you just like to argue?
If you really believe that I’m so deluded why not look for an easier convert?
And let’s say I capitulate? Then what? Will you feel very proud that you
humbled the great Vedanta master with the big non-dual website? You have
to give me more than opinions, Dev. I’m not a fool. Dev
response: Again, Laksmanji, this really sounds like one gasping for breath. I
am not putting any squeeze on you. I am speaking the Truth and there is no payoff
for good work (action) other than good work itself.
I do not believe you are deluded and even if I did I certainly would feel
no compulsion to enlighten you. We are
simply having a lively dialog here, exchanging our views.
This is something neither of us planned or expected, it has simply evolved
into what it is, an unprovoked debate on Truth. If it is not for our own benefit,
then perhaps it will be for the benefit of others. ………
Dev: Neo-vedantists ignore the significance of this Lila and try to brush
it away by saying it is all Maya. This Maya is nothing but the inherent
power (artistic power, if you will) of the Self (both the Supreme Self and the
innumerable souls). Krishna refers to it as his Yogmaya,
and it is through this power that the illusion of the union of the Self (in the
form of Purush) with Prakriti is established. Being eternally pervaded by Atman,
the two (Purush and Prakriti) are inseparable, so the uniting of the two can only
be of the nature of an illusion, and the premise that this ‘union’ is real is
nothing but Ignorance (Avidya). Laksman:
I agree. But I’m not a Neo-Vedantist. I’m not any kind of ‘ist’ or
do I believe in any kind of ‘ism,’ non-dualism included. You tarred me with
the wrong brush. Dev
response: Well, if you read the excerpt on Neo-vedanta at the end of this document
you will see that you certainly are a neo-vedantist according to the writer’s
definition. ………..
Laksman: (from the previous email) “I see this idea as a rather silly fantasy
cooked up by doers with spiritual vasanas who don’t understand that they are the
Self. The way out of this predicament is to seek jnanam in line with scripture
since the problem of seeking is a problem born of ignorance.” Dev: Well,
sir, it is understandable that you would see it this way based on your interpretation
of the scriptures. But leaving the scriptures out of it, the fact is that
we are having this written conversation, because we are human beings, and no matter
how much we know or think we know, we will never know everything. This is
why the Self continues to make inquiry, i.e., continues to seek to expand its
understanding (seek jnanam). When our understanding is truly complete and full,
we will be truly liberated souls. We can never be free merely by ignoring our
shackles (in this case, the rusty chains of orthodoxy in the form of neo-vedanta).
Laksman: I’m not engaging in the
conversation to expand my Self understanding. I just like people and am
curious how they think and why…more or less as a pastime…so I thought I would
dig around in your brain a bit and see what I could see. From this paragraph
I can see why you have a hard time accepting that I am free, whole and complete
and seeking nothing. What is the reason for this…because you aren’t?
Let me ask you this: how will you know when you are free if freedom is your nature
and you can’t appreciate it here and now? Dev
response: I am free. I am complete. I am full.
This ‘completeness’ is boundless. This fullness has no circumference or
dimension. Consciousness is not circumscribed by time or
place. Understanding this is not the same as realizing this. Realizing this is
the same as experiencing this. This realization, this experience, is. I
love (my wife, my son, my daughter, my guru, all). I don’t have to explain it.
I know. I experience. It is. I don’t have to know or experience this. I am this.
There is nothing to figure out. There is nothing to expect. This love is. Is
there more than this? There is, there is no end to this. I
am that what knows this. I am this that knows that. What is this and what is that? That
is the Supreme and this is the Self. When
the Self is the Self Alone the Supreme Self is Known, or so it seems. Really,
the Supreme Self is never known because the Supreme Self is Limitless All-Blissful
Consciousness, and the knowing of That can never reach a limit because That is
Limitless. The
Self is the knower of the Self. Knowing one’s Self one realizes the Supreme Self
when one chooses the Supreme. -------------
Dev (from previous dialog): To attain the Highest State of Being, the
same state Lord Krishna refers to as ‘My state’, or ‘Myself’, or ‘My Abode,’ and
which the above mantra calls out with ‘Paramam Padam Sada,’ one must make the
ultimate Yajna and offer one’s own Self into the Self (Supreme Self). There is
nothing left to know or experience then (that is, until the next time, some 311
trillion years hence, according to some). Laksman: “Na karmana,
na prajayaa, dananenaa…” etc. You cannot ‘make’ any sacrifice, ultimate
or not, to attain the Self. Why? Because you already are the Self.
You can only ‘attain’ what you already are by jnanam. Dev reply:
Yes, but the Self that YOU are is NOT the Supreme Self. You are not GOD,
you never were, and you never will be. Why do you have a need to be GOD?
This need is created only because it is necessary in order to validate the neo-vedantic
interpretation of Advaita. Once you understand Advaita in its true sense, you
will also easily grasp the meaning of ‘action in inaction and inaction in
action.’ Laksman: There is no need
to be the Self (I explained the God idea above) because I am the Self. I
wouldn’t want to be God even it were possible. ………
Laksman: (from previous email) An action may get you something that you don’t
have but it will not produce the Self in the form of enlightenment.
Dev: The state of Ignorance was produced by the union of Purush and Prakriti.
That which produces the union is known as Yogmaya because this union is an illusory
union. The producing of the union is an action yet it is not an action: it is
not an action because the union is never really produced since Purush and Prakriti
are inseparable (i.e., Atman ever pervades Prakriti). The union of Purush
and Prakriti is the commencement of Avidya, from which the entire Creation
is produced. This illusory union is finally dissolved when the Self sacrifices
its own Self into the Self (Supreme Self) by means of the Highest Knowledge (Brahma
Vidya). Then the final state of Enlightenment (the removal of Ignorance) is attained
(produced). Laksman (continuing): The ‘tenth man’ teaching is meant
to illustrate this fact. So this ‘offering’ is just the letting go of the
belief that you are anything but the Self or that the Self can be experienced
at some later date. The statement about ignorance returning after 311 trillion
years is so stupid I can only laugh. Ignorance can return after a split
second if the knowledge is not firm.
Dev: So, you say it “is just the letting go of the belief that you are anything
but the Self…” Is this ‘letting go’ not an action? Who is ‘letting go?’
The Supreme Self (GOD) lets go of nothing because the Supreme Self is never ignorant,
not even seemingly ignorant. It is only you and I who are apparently ignorant,
and this appearance is created by Yogmaya. Whose Yogmaya? It is our own
Yogmaya. Each and every one of us has stepped on to the field, put on our uniforms,
and is playing this Game by our own free choice. It is not the choice of the Supreme
Self, and neither is it the command of the Supreme Self that we should do so,
it is totally our own free choice as immortal beings. Naturally (prakritically),
once we start playing the Game we do get caught up in it, and our actions produce
reactions due to our ignorance, and we remain stuck in this karmic cycle until
our ignorance is removed with the Wisdom of Consciousness. Laksman:
You want to split hairs? OK. Letting go is an action. You seem
to be all in favour of action so why don’t you let go of your Yogamaya instead
of wasting your time tying to convince me to let go of mine? You don’t seem
to understand the appeal of delusion, Dev. ……………….
Dev: Regarding the ‘311 trillion years’ thing, as I said, that is ‘according to
some.’ Though I may not subscribe to the time frame, you can see from my writings
that I have absolutely no problem with calling Moksha a ‘state,’ and it is clear
to me that the liberated Self can certainly play the Game of Life again if and
whenever it chooses to do so. Laksman: You have to remember that while
the Gita has the status of an Upanishad it is a Pauranic text and like the Upanishads
from which it gets its ideas contains both the language of experience (yoga) and
the language of identity (Vedanta). Unfortunately it does not explain the
contradiction between these two languages and the purpose of each so that seekers
can become confused and imagine that enlightenment is some sort of experience.
The Pauranas personify the Self because it is for people whose intellects are
extroverted. This is why the hero is Arjuna, a rajasic person with an unsophisticated
emotional mind. But the downside of this approach is that an undiscriminating
mind can take the whole story literally. The Gita understands this and tries
to get around this by positing a ‘Supreme Person’ but again this is possible to
misunderstand. In the fifteenth chapter it first establishes two ‘selves’ the
askshara purusha and the kshara purusha for the purposes of discrimination.
Then it introduces the ‘Supreme Person.’ This Supreme Person (uttamapurusha)
is not a person. Person is a symbol that has a certain affinity with what
it is meant to symbolize but like all symbols it is not meant to be taken literally.
The ‘Supreme Person’ is just Chaitanya, Awareness. Why is it ‘supreme?’
Because it is the Awareness of both change and changelessness which are represented
as ‘purushas.’ Both change and changelessness are apparent realities known
by virtue of non-dual Awareness… if you want a straightforward scientific no-bullshit
statement of fact. ‘Supreme’ is an unfortunate dualistic word that gives the impression
of two or more selves. In fact there is only one Self. If there is
only one Self the appearance of two or more selves is just that…an appearance.
But if you can’t see that then you end up worshipping the Supreme Person as somebody
other than you who can give you what in your spiritual emptiness you want…or think
you want… or you end up striving to experience this ‘supreme person’ in the form
of some sort of ‘high state’ of consciousness like nirvikalpa samadhi that you
believe you can make permanent or you find yourself hoping for some kind of personal
darshan of this supreme being all dressed up in silks with the great Kasthuba
gem on his chest and his thousand arms waving in the breeze like the tentacles
of a sea anemone. The joke here is that you are always experiencing the
Self but because the mind is gross and extroverted and doesn’t know what the Self
is you believe that you are not so you turn yourself into an object and
try to ‘get it.’ It’s a big frustration, actually. And the culprit?
Language confusion. This is why traditional Vedanta places such an importance
on a guru with scriptural knowledge. He or she can elucidate the language
problem and save the seeker the inevitable difficulties that come when you
don’t understand the way words work. Dev reply: The Gita’s
discussion of the Akshara, Kshara, and Uttama purushas clearly establishes the
threefold nature of Reality: Prakriti, Atman, and Paramatman: Nature, the Self,
and the Supreme Self. You can give it any interpretation you like.
Frankly, I much prefer your interpretation to that of the Vaishnavists and other
Sanatanists. Laksman:
My point is that these three ‘selves’ are only one Self appearing as three.
----- Dev (from previous
dialog): Continuing now with your reply: “A third doubt that your statement brings
up is this: in my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about
anything.” I think we have addressed this and hopefully clarified that, indeed,
there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything because a ‘person’
is really only a mental formulation and is not (in and of itself) the living Self
(Jivatman). Laksman: If there is no person to be clear, then there is
no person to attain the ‘highest state.’ If you say the Self is going to
attain something, you have the problem of doership because the sruti clearly states
that the Self is not a doer. It is ‘already accomplished.’ It is already
every state than can be attained so it will not set out to attain anything.
Presenting the Self in this way is helpful for doers with gross intellects who
have spiritual vasanas because it channels their prodigious energy into sadhana
which will eventually sattvasize their minds and make inquiry possible.
Unfortunately, when the mind gets sattvic there are still unhelpful spiritual
impressions concerning the nature of the Self and the way to attain it which need
to be examined and discarded in light of non-dual teachings. Dev
reply: A ‘person’ is a fictional character created in the mind via the agency
of ego. It is not the ‘person’ that needs to be clear, rather the ‘person’
needs to be cleared out of the mind altogether; meaning, one need to completely
abandon this idea that one is a ‘person.’ ‘Abandoning the idea’ means dropping
one’s attachment to it. In other words, one has to drop one’s attachment
to one’s own self. Laksman:
So the ‘person’ that you say I am is in your mind, right? On one hand you
say I’m Atma and on the other I’m a person. Which is it? If I’m real
I can’t be two things. I can appear to be two things…but that is all.
Your teachings are a little confusing. Tell me what I should believe.
Dev
response: My point is that we (the human race) spend so much time in our personality
that we never realize our real nature, which is not the nature of a ‘person’ but
the nature of the Self (Atman). The idea that we are a ‘person’ is (an idea) in
the mind. We are attached to this idea by means of our ego (false identification).
It’s okay to have a personality; the only problem is our attachment to ourselves
as ‘persons.’ This attachment to this idea is weakened when the mind is inundated
with wisdom (the knowledge of the Self). Through the practical application of this wisdom
the attachment (the false identification, ego) is broken, i.e., removed from the
mind. ………. Dev: The living Self (Jivatman) removes the ego from
the mind, resulting in Enlightenment. Now, the Jivatman stands clear (of
ego, mind, body, etc.), but this is not the final state of Kaivalya. However,
this Enlightenment (as well as Kaivalya) are NOT sattvic states of mind. The ‘sattvasization’
of the mind is certainly necessary for the accomplished (adept) achievement of
Savikalpa Samadhi, but the seedless Samadhi (Nirbija Samadhi, the final stage
in Nirvikalpa Samadhi) is only brought about when the mind is purified of all
desires, including the desire to be desireless. Laksman:
Is what’s bothering you about my presentation of Vedanta the idea that Yoga is
for purification of the mind and not for moksha? Do you feel that the great
tradition of Yoga is receiving a slight and you want to defend it? Sometimes
yogis do get moksha…when they give up the doer and make an inquiry.
Dev response: No one can sincerely
practice Yoga without practicing Swadhaya (Self-study, i.e., self-inquiry), and
also giving up one’s ego, which means dropping this idea that ‘I’ am the doer
(Aham-I, Kara-do, i.e., ahamkara, ‘I the doer’). …………
Dev: In the state of Kaivalya (Moksha), both Nature (Prakriti) and the
Jiva return to their primordial states (which are unmanifest Prakriti and Purush,
respectively). Still, an extremely fine veil of Ignorance remains until the Self
(as Purush, technically the subtlest state of Jivatman) disappears and all that
remains is the Self absorbed in the Self (Supreme Self), and this is called the
Highest State. It is a ‘state’ because the Self can choose again to manifest
as Purush and ‘unite’ with Prakriti during the process of Creation. Regardless
whether or not the Liberated Soul chooses to ‘act’ again in the Drama of Creation,
the Drama of Life (Creation) will go on (“the show must go on”). This Show has
always been going on since Eternity and will continue for Eternity, with intermissions
marked by Mahapralya. Just because someone attains Liberation doesn’t mean
everyone else simultaneously attains it. Definitely not. Each and every
one of us is an immortal Soul, whole, complete, and indivisible, uncreated and
indestructible. There is nothing that can change that. We can neither become more
or less than that. However, we can certainly hide behind the veil of Ignorance
and attend this fantastic masquerade party of Existence if we so choose to.
Laksman: I’m very familiar with these
views, Dev. The problem as far as a discussion goes is that we would have
to agree on the meaning of each of these ideas so we could actually have a proper
discussion. And this is not going to happen. You’re convinced that
you’re right and I’m wrong. Dev
reply: Laksmanji, I am convinced that there
is a common body of knowledge (the Vedas) by which one’s experiences can be evaluated
and the correctness (or not) of one’s views can be established.
The
problem with this kind of rightness is that it is not self-satisfying. It
always needs to justify itself by inflicting itself on others. You want
to convince me of this for some personal reason even though I did not solicit
your opinion. Dev
response: For some reason you think I am trying to force something on you, which
is just not the case. Of course I am forthright in my presentation, even as you
are. Neither of us is wishy-washy, and neither of
us is a wannabe guru or self-styled savior of the human race. We are both equally
convinced of our position regarding the matters under discussion, and personally,
I think this makes for a worthwhile test of the depth of our own understanding.
I made a mistake. I went against one of
my rules…which was not to offer opinions to strangers. You took advantage
of my good will so you could let me know that you are more enlightened than I
am. You buttered me up with a lot of nice praise and then when you felt
you had my attention you started in with your “I know more and better than you”
program. Dev
response: Brother, I did not take advantage of your good will; on the contrary,
it was only your ‘good will’ (meaning I perceived you as a real human being and
not a phony), that prompted me to initiate this dialog for the purpose of receiving
your valued opinion regarding the blog. That is all. Whatever has followed has
been a natural outcome of that, and for no selfish reasons whatsoever. If
I’d stuck with my rules this would not have happened. It’s OK. I’ll make
the best of it. But I use that site to help sincere people who want to know
who they are. It is not intended for great cyber cop jnanis like you.
I wouldn’t try to teach you anything if you asked…you’re a good honest man but
you are pig headed. Dev
response: No, my friend, I am not pig headed, maybe elephant
headed. There
are a lot of people who can benefit from my understanding, no matter how deluded
you think I am. There are five people who are undertaking the expense and
trouble of a trip to India to come and discuss the Self and their sadhana this
winter season, plus many people who are already here who come to visit me so it
is better to spend my time working with them than butting heads with you.
If
you really want to open up I’d be happy to know how in your mind this discussion
with me could resolve itself to your complete satisfaction. Do you want
me to break down and weep and grasp the hem of your holy garment and ask for forgiveness
for my errant beliefs? Should I post a sign on the website to go to your
site because that’s where the really true teachings are hiding? What will
it take to make you happy? Criticizing people is a very nasty habit. I know,
you think I’m just being defensive and you can’t understand it. Perhaps
it seems normal to you to hold the high ground and rain down the truth on others
but I tell you Dev, people who put themselves up make very tempting targets.
Dev
response: Regretfully you misread me. If we ever meet directly, any perceived
misunderstandings will soon vanish.
-------- Dev (from previous dialog): Enlightenment is
for souls embodied as human beings. As a human being, we have countless samskaras
and associated vasanas from many, many incarnations (in both animal and human
forms). The sattvic, rajasic and tamasic qualities of our actions, impressions,
tendencies and thoughts, affect our perception (the perception of the embodied
soul) and can either help or hinder whether or not we (human beings) attain enlightenment.
Initially, a human being learns to be selective and make careful choices because
they want to avoid pain and suffering in their life. Eventually, they begin to
yearn for Self-knowledge; they want to know who they are, what they are, and why
they are here; in other words, they long for Enlightenment. Laksman:
I agree. The only question is ‘What is enlightenment?’ And you and
I have very different views on this. I’m certainly not going to accept your
view and I’m sure you will not accept mine so it seems the discussion on this
topic is finished.
Dev reply: My view is experiential. It should be obvious (self-evident)
to each of us that we are NOT All-powerful (omnipotent), All-knowing (omniscient),
and Everywhere Present (omnipresent). What is not so obvious (and requires
wisdom to know) is that our consciousness pervades the entire Universe (and beyond)
because as Atman we completely pervade Prakriti. Laksman:
This whole argument depends on the meaning of the word God. You don’t seem
to be familiar with the view I expressed above that God is a concept. Actually
I’m sure we are much closer on many of these doctrinal points than it appears
but I haven’t the inclination to go through your whole presentation and try to
resolve the contradictions, not that you asked. Again, I didn’t say I was
God. I said I was the Self. It’s a big difference. God is the Self but the
Self is not God. As far as enlightenment is concerned, the relative
meaning of experience and knowledge and enlightenment are all carefully unfolded
in many of my satsangs. From the way you made this statement I can see that you
do not understand my views. Dev
response: I understand your views very well, I do not however agree with all of
them. …………
Dev: The existence of the Supreme Self is initially evident by way of inference
only. For example, we perceive this vast, intelligently designed Universe
and naturally infer there must have been a Designer behind the design, a Supreme
Being possessing the Intelligence and power to create this vast Universe (none
of us is that intelligent or powerful). It requires both wisdom and devotion (really
they are inseparable) to actually know (realize) that our essence (the essence
of Atman) is the Supreme Self (Paramatman), and that our Essence pervades everything
(Prakriti) and every one (every Soul). Laksman:
I understand Ishwara sristi and jiva sristi. This is a reasonable presentation
of the teachings. …………. Dev: Each of us is unique, eternal,
uncreated, immortal. Even though we share the same cosmic body (the Universe)
and same subtle body (Prakriti), and same Soul (Supreme Self), we remain distinct
from one another. Realizing this makes us responsible for our own actions
in this world (Creation), and also makes us realize that no one can really change
anyone (nor is there any desire to do so: that is, there is no desire of Atman
to do so, though that desire may certainly arise in the ego-driven mind).
Laksman: Then what is this
desire in to change me or to get me to want to change me? You say you’re
Atman. But it won’t be the Atman who wants me to change or you to evolve…so
it must be some desire in your ego-driven mind. You say I’m uncreated. How
is something that is uncreated going to change? Think about it.
Dev
response: I am saying that if anyone has the desire to change someone else, that
desire is certainly born of ego and not the Self. The Self as Jivatman desires
to know the Self and realize its Essence (the Supreme Self). The Self itself is uncreated but creates itself
(expresses itself) in the form of Jivatman. It is the Jivatman that evolves, not the Self.
However, keep in mind that the Jivatman is not unreal or imaginary, nor
more so than the player on the field or the actor on the stage are unreal or imaginary.
Only the identity is not the real identity but is an assumed one.
In other words, just because someone (ATMAN) puts on a uniform a goes on
to the field to play football doesn’t mean that someone (Jivatman) is not real. Even the uniform is real and so is the field
(for example, PRAKRITI is real). -----
Dev (from previous dialog): You have written: “If someone asked me what
enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge or ignorance
(of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he or she is the
Self.” Then, according to you, the Self, who we both know is not a person,
possesses both apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance of itself. The
question then arises: where does the Self ‘possess’ this ‘apparent’ knowledge
and ‘apparent’ ignorance of itself? If you say this knowledge and ignorance
are inherent in the Self, then this would lead us to conclude that the All-knowing,
Never-ignorant Self, whose nature is eternal and unchangeable, inherently possesses
knowledge and ignorance which are not really real but only apparent. In
this case, the Self would always possess apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance
and enlightenment would be out of the question. I know of no scripture that
would substantiate the statement: the All-knowing Self (and indeed, the Supreme
Self, since you make no distinction) possesses apparent knowledge and ignorance
of Itself. It is pretty much universally accepted that GOD is never ignorant
(unlike us), and not even apparently ignorant. Laksman: This is good
reasoning, Dev. The key word in my statement is apparent. Apparent
means that it seems to exist but it doesn’t actually exist. So this means
that the Self is actually free of knowledge and ignorance… which is what you are
arguing. In any case the point of that statement is that you are the Self
and not a person. If you think you are a person, as you seem to, you are
assuming a limited identity. When you feel limited you strive for freedom
from limitation. A limited identity is a problem because how do you get
from a limited identity to a limitless identity? You can’t do it through action
(sadhanas) because no amount of finite actions will ever add up to limitlessness.
You can only see that you made a mistake by thinking of yourself in a limited
way and drop the thought.
Dev reply: It should be clear to you now that I have no problem with assuming
an identity, just as I have no problem assuming a role to play in a drama, or
putting on a uniform and playing the game according to the rules. My true
identity is never lost, therefore it is never really gained either, but in the
context of this Life (the Game) I assume an identity as a human being and attain
enlightenment. Ultimately, I become liberated in the state of Moksha.
This does not mean that the unreal becomes real, because that would be impossible,
just as it is impossible for the Real to become unreal, or the immortal mortal,
or the indivisible divisible. Laksman:
Good luck with the moksha business. I say you are already liberated but
you seem to have no confidence in it. I suspect this is why you prefer to
put it off to a later date. This shows that moksha is just a belief for
you. Moksha is the nature of the Self, not some experience that you will
attain one day. If you are the Self as you say, see if it isn’t true that
you are free…here and now. Dev
response: Yes, Moksha is the nature of the Self.
Moksha (Liberation) only exists in relation to bondage.
Thus, clearly both Liberation and Bondage are the nature of the Self, meaning
that it is the nature of the Self to manifest as Jivatman and ultimately attain
Moksha. You cannot win the Game without playing it; the Self cannot know Liberation
without freeing itself (as Jivatman, the player on the Field) from bondage.
……….
Laksman: (from the previous email) How does one get from a limited
identity to a limitless identity? Dev: It is a process. That
process is sometimes called ‘spiritual growth,’ it has also been called sadhana.
Part (but not all, and NOT the final part) of sadhana is realizing
that you made a mistake by thinking of yourself in a limited way, and taking the action (in the form of self-study,
devotion, etc.) to drop the thought.
[The italicized words are your own.] Laksman:
It may seem like a process but you don’t get from a limited identity to a limitless
identity for the same reason that it is impossible for the real to become unreal,
the mortal immortal, etc. At some time during the ‘process’ you either realize
that you are limitless by nature or you don’t. If you don’t, you keep the
view that there is more and that you need to keep evolving. This means that you
see yourself as finite and limited. What is finite will never become infinite.
Dev
response: I agree with everything in this paragraph. Our disagreement is in this:
for whom does it seem like a process, and who is it at some
time during the ‘process’ either realizes that one is limitless by nature or doesn’t realize it? That one, my friend, is the Self, that one is
you and I and everyone else. That one is
not the Supreme Self Who is One Without a Second. -------
Dev (from previous dialog): On the other hand, if we reveal to the seeker
the knowledge that the mind, body, etc., are the seeker’s own instruments of knowledge,
which, if wisely employed will enable the seeker to discover (uncover) their own
true Self, the seeker might then inquire: ‘Who am I’ who possess this mind and
body; why do I not know my own self; how did I forget my real nature, and how
can I realize who and what I really am? Laksman: Yes, that’s
fine. But the jury is not out on the question of Who am I? It is well
known. If someone doesn’t know it then a valid means of knowledge is necessary,
quite apart from the ‘seeker’s own instruments’ which will not reveal the truth
on their own. If they were constructed to reveal the truth nobody would
have a doubt about who they were in the first place. The fact is that ‘the
seekers own instruments’ are very limited and turned in the wrong direction.
To turn them around you need work, i.e. Yoga. And to help them understand
a valid pramana like Vedanta is needed. Dev reply: ‘The jury is
not out?’ I think this is backwards because the jury is certainly out, i.e., people
have NOT made up their mind as to the answer to the question ‘Who am I.’
(Perhaps this was a typo on your part?) People DO NOT know the Self due to their
ignorance which is reinforced by their actions. The ‘seeker’s own instruments’
are certainly incapable of revealing the truth on their own, as you have
rightly stated. I agree with this paragraph but would add that Pramana too is
a mental activity (as described by Patanjali), that is, it is one of the modifications
of the mind. When one’s Pramana is truly Vedantic, it leads ultimately to
mental balance and the total equilibrium of the GUNAS, thus resulting in the direct
experience of the Self. When this direct experience (in the form of Samadhi)
is repeated again and again, it eventually becomes the nature of the mind to be
so naturally still that the reflection of the Self in that mind is extremely clear
and focused. That mind becomes fit for liberation; which means the mind (in this
case, the Antarkarana Chatushtaya) becomes a fit instrument of the Jiva to realize
(by means of divine Wisdom) the true nature of (1) itself, (2) the Self,
and (3) ultimately the Essence of the Self, the Supreme Self. Laksman:
Any fool who has read the sruti or has had a few non-dual epiphanies knows the
answer, Dev. True, the average samsari doesn’t know. ------------
Laksman: (from the previous email) If someone sincerely asked me who I was
I would not say that I was a person who attained enlightenment. I would
say that I appear to be a person because I have a very convincing person act but
that the person I once thought I was, the one that seems to be there from the
outside, is long gone. Dev reply (from previous dialog): No doubt the
person you were is long gone, since that person is changing every second and is
never the same. But is the ‘person’ part of you really gone? No, you are
still a person, but you are so much more than just that. You still have
ego, but you are so much more than that. You are the living Self (Jivatman)
and one day you may become a Jivamukta, or if you attain your liberation after
the death of the body, you might one day become a Videhamukta. But in any
case, right now you are still an embodied soul. Laksman: When I
say I am not a person I mean the person is me but I am not the person. All bodies
are in me; I am not in them. All persons are in me. I am not in them.
You are incorrect when you say I will ‘become a Jivanmukta.” I will not
‘become’ anything, Dev. I am already everything that is. If you want
to imagine some kind of future ‘state’ or condition when you will be free that’s
fine with me. And if you want to project it on me, it up to you. But
I’m sorry to say this statement does not apply to me. Dev reply: Okay
Laksmanji, understanding this paragraph in light of the knowledge that the ATMAN
(our own Self) is all-pervading, meaning it completely pervades PRAKRITI, and
therefore everything evolved from Prakriti can be said to be pervaded by ATMAN.
However, for this to work one must realize that the material universe (which includes
the subtle substances like the mind, intellect, ego, etc.) is not the Self, nor
is it projected from the Self, but is projected by the Self through the medium
of the eternal, indestructible PRAKRTI. If you embrace the neo-vedantic
view of Advaita and assert that only the Self exists then you cannot accept this,
hence, you will have to assert that Prakriti is unreal and that the Supreme Self
(sense you don’t accept the existence of any other Self) is the author of Ignorance;
in other words, according to this view Ignorance must emanate from the Supreme
Being who is eternally All-knowing. The neo-vedantic view is irrational and unacceptable,
and just not true. Laksman:
Prakriti’s unreal if you know the Self. Or it is known as the Self in action,
in form. If you are a jiva in Maya prakriti is quite real for you.
There are two problems with this discussion. One is that we are using very different
terminology and two you seem to insist that I be an incomplete limited being who
is not free for it to take place…even though I do not see it that way. This
allows you to guru me. But I had my guru and he did his job very well, thank you.
It is not a job that needs to be done again no matter what you think.
By now it must be so obvious to you that I’m a lost cause. I’m so deluded
that I’m never going to assimilate the truth according to Dev. Wouldn’t
you be better off looking for a more willing victim?
Dev
response: Prakriti is eternal, beginingless, endless. If one really knows the
Self one knows this, and this is surely substantiated by the Sruti. -----------
Laksman: (from the previous email) How can you possibly know what is
true for me? You obviously do not accept my words because they contradict
your beliefs. Mind you I don’t care if you accept my words. Dev
reply: Now it would seem you are reacting and going on the defensive. I
can know what is true for you if I know what is true for me, if the essence of
you and me is the same, which it is. I do not accept your words (some of the things
you say) because they are not in consonance with divine Wisdom or even simple
logic. They do not contradict my beliefs because we are not talking about
‘belief systems’ here. I love it when something I hear contradicts my beliefs,
because that spurs me to look deeper. On the other hand, my convictions are based
on the principles of Consciousness, and those principles are the basis of my character.
If I have true integrity (which I do), I will hold firm to my principles and gladly
let go of my images. Laksman:
I admit that I’m not trying to learn anything from you, Dev. I’m trying
to learn about you, however. You’re a rare and peculiar specimen in my world,
a strange exotic duality bird that just flew in the window. I can honestly
say I haven’t seen one quite like you for a long time. And I don’t
think you are trying to learn anything from me either. I think you want
to teach me something. Even the idea that I’m defensive is an attempt to
teach me. I’m not defensive (your word ‘seem’ is correct) but even if I
was what’s wrong with defensive? It’s not ‘spiritual’ enough for you?
This seems to me to be another one of your put-downs. Dev
response: This Atman has no desire whatsoever to ‘put down’ anyone. My life is
all about raising consciousness. You may be defensive or not, it is not my concern.
Neither am I ‘defending the truth’ which surely needs no defending. I am learning
from you, and your mistakes, even as I am learning from my own. ……………
Laksman: (from the previous email) Remember, I did not initiate
this discussion. I did not ask for your opinion but you seemed to want to
discuss with me so I offered my experience/knowledge in good faith. Dev
reply: Yes, I did initiate this discussion by asking you for your opinion about
the MastersofDeception blog. You might be interested in knowing how this
came about. Just after creating the blog I did a google search on . . . Our discussion
has evolved into a dialog about other things not strictly having to do with the
blog, and I have welcomed this dialog though neither you nor I sought it. It is
what it is, and it has been useful if for no other reason than the Wisdom it has
revealed. Laksman:
I’m glad it has revealed some wisdom for you. For me the revelations are
yet to come. ……….. Laksman: (from the previous email)
For this discussion to continue you would tentatively have to take on my statements
of non-dual identity and investigate within yourself to see whether or not they
could be true…for you. If they are true for you, then they can be true for
me because there is no difference between us. Dev reply: You seem to
be saying that I have to accept your statements on non-dual identity otherwise
we are too different from one another for the dialog to continue. This is
certainly a dogmatic approach. Laksman:
Not one of the ideas that I’ve put forth are ‘mine.’ They are common knowledge
if you read the sruti. I’m saying that if you investigate advaita, non-duality,
and you can see that it is a true statement about reality then it is true for
you. And if it is true for you, then it could be true for me. I don’t
need it to be true for you for it to be true for me. It just seems from
the way you speak that it isn’t true for you because you promote the ideas of
videha mukti, a ‘supreme’ self and evolution. There wasn’t anything defensive
about it because there is never an argument with non-duality. It is something
to be appreciated. The emotion you’re picking up is quite calculated, Dev.
Dev response: As I told you,
I have investigated Advaita and have absolutely no doubt of the truth in it; it’s
just that our understanding of Advaita is very different from each other. My ideas are not just made up in my mind but
are also supported by the Shastras. Of
course, as you know, the Smriti texts are open to interpretation (and, unfortunately,
interpolation), and even the Sruti (Vedas) are certainly interpreted differently
by different people. Our
dialog is not all about simply disagreeing with each other, nor should we agree
with one another just for the sake of agreeing. Ultimately, this dialog should help establish
in this minds of those engaged in it, as well those who may read it (should it
ever be published in part or full), both the salient and obvious truths. ……………
Dev: I have considered the neo-vedantic statements on non-dual identity
and investigated them for many years before coming to the firm conclusion that
they are not the whole truth. If you are really an open-minded man, you
will at least consider what I have written. However, I am an extremely uneducated
man possessing very little shastric knowledge by which I could substantiate every
thing I have said. Therefore, I have suggested that you read Satyarth Prakash
and the Introduction to the Commentary on the Rig Veda by Maharishi Dayananda,
which provide many proofs based on Tradition. Laksman:
So what is the ‘whole truth’ according to Dev?
Dev
response: When I say the neo-vedantic statements on non-duality are not the whole
truth I am referring to the premise that Prakriti and the Soul are unreal and
only the Supreme Self is Real. Neo-vedanta
then proceeds to support this assertion with various passages from the Shastras.
Please see the excerpt at the end of this dialog for an example of what
I am referring to. ………… Laksman: (from
the previous email) I’m saying that you are the Self, that you are already
liberated and that there is nothing to attain because you are me. If ‘you’
can’t see it and want to believe in some future liberation it is up to you.
But future liberation is meaningless to me because when you are everything there
is nothing you can be free of. Freedom is the nature of the Self and you
are the Self. As long as you see yourself as Dev, a person, you will strive
for liberation. The longer you strive the deeper your separation vasana
becomes. Dev reply: What you call the ‘separation vasana’ certainly exists
in every seeker. However, the ‘separation vasana’ is no where near as much
of a problem as the ‘neo-vedantic vansana.’ The neo-vedantic vansana doesn’t
let one fully manifest the freedom of the Self because one thinks one is free
before one is actually free. It is like stepping on to the field to play a game
and announcing you have won the game, and then you walk of the field. It
would be better if you at least play the game to win after announcing you have
won. This I can accept. Laksman:
Now, I get it. Your quarrel is with Neo-Advaita and you see me as a Neo-Advaita
guy. This is so funny I can’t stand it. I positively detest Neo-Advaita.
I guess we have very different ideas of what those words mean.
Dev
response: It is understandable that you would find this
incredulous; all the more so because you are NOT just some text book, scholarly,
vedantic bookworm dressed in orange robes, but are rather a maverick of sorts
who is a free thinker and not in the least bit seeking accolades from Vedantic
academics or spiritual wannabes. ………. Laksman: (from
the previous email) Can you see the bias you are bringing to this conversation?
I will explain my bias later in this letter if it is not clear to you already.
Dev reply: Ask ten of your Satsangis to read our dialog and give us
their unbiased opinions. You may be surprised to find a number of them reconsidering
your views. Laksman:
Sure, but so what? On any subject public opinion is usually nearly equally
divided. I don’t care what people think about my views. I don’t care
what I think about my views. I don’t care what you think about my views.
Views are views, what do they have to do with anything? For me the purpose
of communicating is to share love. I’m sorry that my sharing seems like
tough love but this is your karma for trying to one up me spiritually. I know
exactly where the delete button is, Dev. I’m going through this because
you are a good guy and maybe, since you say you are open, to letting you know
that You are not invited to teach me anything. And if you were invited to teach
me the way you go about enlightening people is not effective with me.
Dev
response: So you think I am trying to ‘one up’ you spiritually. That is really
hilarious. In your world there can be no ‘one up’ because there is only the One,
so you have nothing to worry about (not that you are worrying). Really we are only sharing love, and if that
is what we are really sharing (which it is) then there truly is only ONE. We both
know (I think) that love, the Supreme Love, the only love there really is, is
not a view or opinion, and no view or opinion can change That. Whether that Love
is expressed gently or with toughness, the message is always the same.
I will learn from you regardless what you say or how you say it, and I
will not wait for an invitation to do so, and neither will I give one. And don’t
worry, I’m not the kind of holy guest to show up uninvited, so I will not, and
am not, barging in on your mental space. We are mutually engaged in this dialog
by our own free choice.
………….. Dev reply (from previous dialog): Laksmanji, we are not
playing the ‘who is enlightened’ game, but that question need only be addressed
to ourselves. If you are referring to the MastersofDeception blog (which
I assume you are since this paragraph seems to be pointed there), the aim of the
blog (one aim of the blog) is to reveal that many of those people whom we generally
believe are Enlightened (are true knowers of the Self) are often not so enlightened
after all. No doubt that some are, and others are good but confused people, some
are just plain confused, and others are down right nasty charlatans. It matters
little that ‘it takes a jnani to know a jnani’; but what does matter is that it
takes an open-minded human being (one who has dropped their bias and emotional
or mental prejudices) to recognize a fraud. Laksman: That’s right,
Dev, but a mature person would not be taken in by a fraud. And if a person
takes advice from someone on the internet they don’t know well he or she will
probably also be foolish enough to be taken in by a charlatan who might just as
well tell them, “Oh, the Masters of Deception Blog?” That’s Dev. He’s
a blogger. Everybody knows his trip. He’s just a self righteous guru wannabe.
Imagines he’s a defender of the faith but doesn’t offer any hard facts…just regurgitates
worn out opinions. It’s all hot air. Probably his mom or pop abused
him when he was young and he hates authority figures even though he pulls an authority
trip with his list and hides behind web anonymity. He figures people will
love him if he looks out after them. It’s a savior complex masquerading as compassion.
Maybe he’s envious because he has no followers.” Etc. You know the
drill. These fake gurus are not as stupid as you think. They know just how
stupid people are. In any case good luck with your blog and I hope you save
many souls. Dev reply:
This paragraph, like the previous one, seems to be a bit of ranting (something
unbecoming of the Self), or maybe you are just be really funny, because it certainly
is hilarious. Laksman: I’m
famous for my sense of humor, Dev. It’s just a silly dramatization.
You’re pretty funny yourself. Your idea that something could be ‘unbecoming’
for the Self is a real hoot. What I meant was that people are damn cynical
and they are not going to just swallow up the unsupported opinions of a person
on the web that has an obvious agenda. To catch a fox like me, Dev, you
need a very clever trap. I’ve a good nose for guru wannabes and I steer
clear of them. If you spent a few weeks with a humble attitude and asked
very nicely phrased questions and carefully noted my responses and went over them
with diligence and found out all the weak points and apparent contradictions and
then very politely expressed reservation with terms like ‘All due respect, Laksmanji,
but…” I’d be quite inclined to dialog with you but this frontal attack…while it
is ‘honest’…is not working because you’re not sincere. You want to guru
me. You’ve been real quick to answer certain questions that suit you but
I have yet to hear from you about why you feel inclined to enlighten me.
Dev response: There is no
frontal attack going on here, nor is there the least bit desire to guru anyone,
nor do I feel inclined to enlighten you. With
‘all due respect, Laksmanji,’ I wonder what drives you do feel this way. I give you the benefit of the doubt because
this is a dialog between two complete strangers over the Internet.
…….
Dev: You are not a charlatan but people who don’t know you are taking your
advice over the Internet. Just because they are taking your advice over the Internet,
does this mean they would be foolish enough to be taken in by a charlatan?
Laksman: Nice to have the Dev Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval. I almost never give advice unless it is solicited,
Dev. And in practice almost no one ever follows my advice. In answer
to your question, no, because the people that write me are almost always discriminating
dispassionate people with bhakti for the truth which they seem to feel coming
through the site. I can’t remember when someone asked advice. People
have questions and I try to give them answers in light of the teachings of Vedanta.
To be quite honest I almost didn’t respond to your request…because it was soliciting
an opinion. Opinions and beliefs are a dime a dozen, Dev. We’re not
getting anywhere from my point of view because I’m taking a lot of what you say
as opinion or belief and you’re taking what I’m saying as opinion or belief.
In this case we are both equally ‘right.’ There will be no resolution.
The whole thing is a kind of amusement for me. I can see I’m not going to
get anywhere with you and it is quite fine. I have a little break between
things…I’ve just finished doing some satsangs in Europe and am in India getting
over my jet lag and setting up my apartments for the season and I’ve a bit of
time to kill and this will keep me off the streets until a real satsang starts.
I don’t want to sign off, however, until you get so angry you denounce me as a
false prophet and put me on top of the MastersofDeception blog. This is
why I’m goading you mercilessly. It will make an entertaining addition to
the satsang section of my website once it’s done. Don’t worry, I’ll turn
you into a woman and conceal your identity in every possible way. :+) We
might as well let others enjoy this stupid bickering even if it’s less than satisfying
from our respective points of view. ….. Dev (from
previous dialog): Please read the blog again. My aim is not to judge for the sake
of judging, but for the sake of disinterestedly helping. You yourself have said
in one of your Satsang writings that making judgments is not wrong; it is actually
essential. Certainly one’s judgment should not be based on mere belief or opinion,
as these definitely do NOT constitute knowledge. One’s judgment should be
based on one’s direct experience, the testimony of reliable witnesses, and inference
based on a set of valid clues. I think you would agree with me here, and that
we have simply misunderstood one another. Laksman: That
is correct. It’s going to happen over and over because we have different
orientations.
Dev reply:
I do not believe I misunderstand you at all, but I know for certain you misunderstand
me because you have not fully understood the Self. Laksman:
You mean I have not understood the Self according to Dev’s understanding of the
Self. Thank God. Just who are you, Dev, that you can pass judgment
so easily on someone without ever having the pleasure of their company?
What do you get out of such statements? You must be incredibly naïve.
If you are saying this for me, then the way you are saying it is designed to completely
fail; it is so unskillful. If you believe this then show me how I am deluded,
Dev. It is just big talk on your part.
Dev
response: Well, I cannot defend this statement, and should not have made it. It
was an error in judgment to make it (true or not), given the reply (your reply)
to which I was responding. You
swallowed a lot of fancy teachings and when you hear something that seems to contradict
how you understood them you become the big self appointed dharma warrior and attack.
You have no positive helpful way to reveal what you mean so all you can say is
that I’m deluded. Talk is very cheap, Dev. This makes me think that you
are saying it for yourself, to make yourself feel good. I won’t get into
the accepted psychology behind this kind of statements but if you’re into learning
something I’ll give you some unsolicited advice: look at the reason why you feel
inclined to make such statements to a stranger. Generally, the first rule
they teach in the good guru schools is that you need to establish a rapport with
a person before you can give them bad news. They have to love and respect
you and feel that you have their best interests at heart. Then you have
to hold their hand through the whole disillusionment process and lead them to
the better way…in this case THE TRUTH ACCORDING TO DEV! Why would I listen
to someone who butters me up with some compliments and then proceeds to tell me
I’m deluded?
Dev
response: Okay, okay Laksmanji, . . . no need to beat your stupid little shishya
to death. I did not swallow any fancy teachings and I’m certainly no dharma warrior;
I am self-regulated, and the same Self resides in everyone as their own inner
controller (Antaryami), so there is no need for any duplicate effort on my part
(which would simply be a wasted effort anyway).
Let’s say that you are right, Dev. I’ve been peddling my deluded version
of the Self for nigh on forty years. It has brought me great happiness and
a large circle of friends and admirers. It has greased the wheels of life very
nicely. I have a storybook life and am the envy of many people. Now one
day this guy comes out of cyberspace and tells me that I don’t know what I’m talking
about. I believe him. I’m a fraud. I’ve got to go back and unenlighten
all those happy people whose lives have become good as a result of my teaching.
So I go and make them all miserable and they hate me for giving them the false
knowledge. I am ruined. I have no place to stay. The money supply
runs out. I have a nervous breakdown. So I call up my guru, Dev, and
ask for help. My guru, the Great Devananda, is a big help, an Ocean of Mercy. What should I do, guruji? My
guru says, “Keep shining, Laksmanji. One day if you keep evolving you’ll
get the highest state; you’ll be free” “Gee thanks, guruji,” I say, but
what about here and now? Perhaps you’ll look after me out of your great
compassion? I’m a broken disillusioned man, completely destroyed by your
wise words.” “Heh, Heh” says my guru with a shit eating grin, “I ‘m still
on the path myself. I’m not there yet. I’m not free either.
I’m still learning and growing. Didn’t I tell you that? But never mind.
Believe me you can make it. You’ll get the supreme Self, the permanent pamamatma
state, one day. Have faith, Laksmanji. Here’s a couple of bucks for
lunch.” “Golly gee, guruji, you are a great guy, but I like burritos and
they cost four bucks.”
Dev
response: This has got to be the funniest part of this
whole dialog. Laksmanji, you have not been pedaling anything and no one has been
taken for a ride who wasn’t looking for one. Have you taken them to the Highest
pinnacle of Consciousness? No, I don’t think so, but they are still enjoying a
great view from where they are, and it sure beats getting stuck in some sleazy
whorehouse of an ashram licking the ass of a shit ass guru who probably never
learned how to wash it (if he’s from the West) or forgot how to (if he’s from
the East). So, you have probably saved many people from many charlatans.
Whether you’ve really saved them from themselves I don’t know.
Well, we know that we (the human race) are our own worst enemy and our
own best friend, and ultimately we only save ourselves from our selves. ………………. Dev: However,
since I know the Self is limitless, I realize there can be no limit to my knowing;
in other words, what I know now is certainly NOT the end of all knowledge, therefore
I might not (and in all probability, do not) know you and may in fact misunderstand
you. Laksman: Loving relationships
are based on trust and love, Dev. You don’t get good relationships with
people by telling them what is wrong with them. You show them what is good
about themselves and they love you. If you don’t take the care to establish
a loving relationship with someone they will not consider your views. The
internet is good for making contact but then you have to carefully water the relationship.
It takes a lot of patience. You can’t wait to deliver the bad news.
Dev response: Honestly Laksmanji, I have never formed a single
friendship over the Internet: never. This is the first and probably the last time
I will engage in such a dialog over the Internet. Any communication of any substance
can only take place through direct one-to-one, real, live, in the flesh, eye-to-eye,
soul-to-soul interaction. …..
Laksman (from earlier email):
I think the blog would be helped by the inclusion of the ideas we have been discussing
so people could get a better idea of who you are and why you feel it is necessary
to save people from their folly. Incidentally, there already is quite a famous
and well established guru rating website which has a much more reasonable tone
than yours. Masters of Deception is a very provocative title, meant to inspire
fear. In my humble opinion fear sucks… even if it’s good fear.
Dev reply: The tone of the MasterofDeception blog is certainly strong and
firm because the subject matter is serious. Both the title and contents
of the blog are meant to engender caution not fear. The established guru
rating website you mention, if you are referring to the Sarlo site, is not very
reliable, considering the webmaster’s master is OSHO. Laksman:
I agree. But I didn’t think yours was very reliable either and you’re not
an Osho bhakta. ….. Dev reply (from previous
dialog): Are you saying that in order to believe the information on the site the
reader would have to believe the one who posted it is enlightened? The one who
posted it need only be knowledgeable enough to call a spade a spade, a charlatan
a charlatan, a saint a saint, a seeker a seeker, and a noble human being a noble
human being. The words of the Wise, even a single word, is sometimes enough for
a truth seeker, even a truth seeker who is seriously self-deluded. Those
who are not truth seekers, even if they be very wise in their own eyes, will remain
blinded by their ego even if the truth were to blaze before them like the light
of thousand suns. Laksman: The point I’m trying to
make is: why should your evaluation of these people be believed?’ This is
why I think it would be good if you explained your self. I’ve spent a large
fraction of my adult life selling all sorts of things…from goods and services
to ideas… and I have found that the most effective way to get one’s idea across
is to gain a person’s confidence. To do that you need to reveal who you
are. The take it or leave it approach creates doubts. I’m having the same
difficulty with your words in these emails. It may be completely a style
thing but I need to know more about why you think like you do. You come across
as a take no prisoners type of guy…almost bigoted. I know you aren’t but
it is possible to get that impression from the way you use words. Very often
religious dogmatism and conviction born of truth are indistinguishable.
In any case I’m not attracted to this kind of approach. Just the fact that you
have assumed this white knight in shining armor defender of truth role makes me
suspicious. I think, ‘What’s wrong with this guy? Doesn’t he have
anything better to do than criticize others?” Dev
reply: Laksmanji, I take the approach that I am speaking to my own Self.
Maybe this doesn’t work for you, but from what I can tell by going through your
writings you actually seem to have a very similar speaking/writing manner.
In any case, based on your critique, I am reevaluating the blog. Thank you.
Laksman: It’s my pleasure.
As far as speaking to your own Self is concerned we have a slight problem: we
seem to have different ideas of what the Self is. If you want me to be a
person and you want me to be deluded I’ll humor you give you the replies of a
deluded person. That’s what you get anyway because the ‘Laksman’ in your
mind is a deluded person and it interprets the words in this email according to
its idea and you accept it. If you’re looking for delusion you will find
it everywhere. If you’re looking for the truth you will see it shining everywhere…even
in the words of fools like me.
Dev
response: Why in the world would I want to think of you as a deluded person? ‘Laksman’ in my mind is ‘The One who takes all
on the path of progress,’ meaning the inner Self that draws the mind inward to
search for the Treasure of Supreme Consciousness. You are that Laksman, I am that
Laksman, all are Laksman. …..
Dev reply (from earlier dialog): I guess you’re saying (please correct me
if I’m wrong) that after someone reads the list they will be inclined to ignore
it because they will not perceive it was compiled by their own well-wisher and
invisible friend, or by an enlightened being. Consequently, they will possibly
end up receiving a ‘personal’ darshan of Satya Sai Baba, be molested by him, then
later leave in disgust and remorse and send me an email saying they should have
heeded my warning. Well, hopefully that will not be the case. But after
all, this is Samsara, and this Samsara exists in the minds of the ignorant and
in the minds of those who ignore their own conscience. This Samsara will go on
forever. Laksman: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying
you shouldn’t post the blog. In fact I could add some very juicy tidbits
to the rubbish on a number of gurus but it’s not my style to criticize in a public
forum. I have one long criticism of the teachings of a Neo-Advaita guru
on the website but the name is changed and I give him high marks for moksha and
for a good character but take him to task for his teaching. Dev
reply: I value your opinion (which is why I asked you for it in the first place),
and I have decided to remove the blog (at least for now). …..
Dev reply (from previous dialog): This is a mistaken notion that ‘there
are no rules for jnanis.’ A knower of Truth is ruled by the truth to be truthful;
a jnani is ruled by wisdom to act wisely. A jnani will act according to Dharma;
he or she will not violate the law or rule of their own Being, their own True
Self. In the mind of the Wise, only wisdom rules; they are not ruled by the tyrant
ego, they are not ruled by their whims, moods, or desires. Certainly, (due
to existing vasanas) a jnani may still have many whims, moods, and desires but
he or she will be ruled by their own conscience which is overshadowed by the characteristics
(qualities) of the real Self. It is true, however, that a jnani is not bound
by any external rules, obligations, or the mental images and projections of others.
Laksman: I didn’t mean that a true jnani will violate dharma only
that no external rules and no particular lifestyle or behavior applies.
In other words a jnani need not be a saint. He or she may or may not eat
a Big Mac without losing wisdom. :+)
Dev reply: A jnani may or may not eat meat in a life or death
situation, but will definitely NOT eat meat just because he or she doesn’t want
to go out of their way to avoid it. A Wise man or woman (a jnani) will always
act with power of discernment; if they do not, then they have already lost the
Wisdom and are no longer Wise, i.e., no longer a Jnani.
Laksman: OK. ….. Laksman:
(from the previous email) Knowing who you are is the big success, not what you
do or don’t do with the knowledge. Dev reply (from previous dialog):
Knowing who you are but not being who you are is a shame and a sham; it is certainly
not a success. For example, one who knows the principles of good health but doesn’t
put those principles into practice is one who is a prisoner of their mind and
ego. In other words, one who knows better but doesn’t do better is one who is
complacent and mentally lazy. One who claims to know the Self but continues
to be pushed around by his or her small self (ego), does not really know the Self,
because the knowledge of the Self sets you free. Laksman: I meant
that knowing is being. Knowing is doing. If you really know that you
are whole and complete your actions will reveal who you are.. There is no
choice involved it.
Dev reply:
This small paragraph tells me everything I need to know about you, which is also
the only reason we have been carrying this dialog on for this long. Regardless
of any difference we have in understanding, this one paragraph says we have the
same Self. Laksman: Well,
I’m happy about that. It would be hard for it not to be true because there
is only one Self. ….. Laksman (from earlier email):
My point is where do you draw the line. A rock, a tree, an animal, a human
being. All are the Self. In the apparent reality the Self eats the
Self. Perhaps you might study Gita Chapter 2. . . . Dev reply:
Your point should not require a reply, but anyway: “where do you draw the line.
A rock, a tree, an animal, a human being. All are the Self.” This
is like saying “sex is sex, so what does it matter. Where do you draw the line:
sex with one’s wife, sex with another woman, sex with . . .” Come on now! We do
not need to argue this point. Sure everything is the Self, but in this Game of
Life you can not cheat and win. Fair is fair. Foul is foul. Violence is
violence. Laksman: There’s
my good old take no prisoners Guru Devji! Calls ‘em like he sees ‘em.
He’s a real man, knows what’s right and knows what’s wrong like John Wayne.
I wish I could be as certain as you about all this Mayic stuff, Dev. I’m
only certain about one thing: who I am. For all the rest I’ll refer people
to you.
Dev: Your analogy of the salmon
jumping out of the stream is not a very good one, since it would be very unlikely
that there was not sufficient vegetation to keep me alive without eating the salmon;
hence, I would most definitely put it back in the water but NOT starve to death.
It I were truly in a life or death situation and the only way to stay alive was
to eat a piece of meat, I may or may not eat it. Who knows, maybe I would choose
to meditate to death. I guess the jury is out on that one. Laksman:
It was just a bit of humorous writing, Dev. I know you would gobble the vegetation.
I believe in you. You’re a serious vegetarian guy. They say pinecones are
particularly delicious. ------- Dev reply (from previous
dialog): Regarding the rest of this paragraph, it is clear that you do not see
any harm in eating animals. If you can look into the eyes of a cow, dog, lamb,
horse, or other animal and kill it with your own hands and eat it, without feeling
that you have violated your own conscience, then there is nothing I can really
say to influence you in this regard. As for inhaling a few microbes (which
again, are probably not living beings but living matter), there is a world of
difference between that and killing a cow; especially when the former is unavoidable
but the latter is solely by one’s own choice and is totally unnecessary.
Laksman: There’s harm in everything…if you have a fearful mind.
Dev reply: Fear is the product of violence. One who violates their real
nature will be fearful of the consequences. The Self is all-compassionate
and all-merciful, but Nature is very unforgiving. As a human being, the
embodied self knows this (intuitively) and therefore fears doing what is wrong.
It would be foolish to think that actions do not have consequences. We are
free to do whatever we want, but we are not free from the consequences of what
we do. One who says “I am not the doer, and actions do not affect me,” and
then proceeds to do wrong actions or seek appreciation and recognition for his
good actions, is simply deluded and is not a Knower of the Self. Laksman:
Can’t argue with this. -------- Laksman: (from the previous
email) “And what about Tibetan lamas in the winter with not a vegetable in sight?
Their spirituality is compromised because they eat Yak butter and meat?”
Dev reply (from previous dialog): There have been many great Mystics,
Saints, and Sages, and many ordinary people too who live in regions of sparse
vegetation, and have never eaten meat. Besides, the Yaks had to consume
a lot of vegetation themselves (being vegetarians), so surely there must be some
vegetation available, and if not, human beings are nomadic by nature and will
migrate to areas where food can be found. Tibetan lamas who eat meat, like
many other Buddhists, are not true followers of the teachings of Lord Buddha.
Laksman: For me this conversation is not only about vegetarianism; it is
about whether or not we can communicate successfully. I haven’t enough invested
in this vegetarian idea to quarrel with you about it. You have healthy feel
good views about food but they don’t qualify as spiritual in my opinion.
You will perhaps be surprised to know that I’m a pure vegetarian but I’m not identified
with it. Injury to living beings is only one reason for it. I can imagine
sitting down to a nice turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and not feeling guilty.
Dev reply: Why are you getting defensive? I did not know we were quarreling
about vegetarianism. This discussion about vegetarianism has arisen because a
number of statements made in the blog unequivocally indicate one who is
not a vegetarian is going against their true nature (Dharma), and could not therefore
reliably guide one to realize one’s real nature. Laksman:
Its funny you see it as defensive. I guess when you have the tendency to attack
you are sensitive to people’s defenses. The truth comes in many ways, Dev.
The Self uses whatever vehicle it needs to awaken people; its not as fussy as
you. I wonder what it’s like to be so good and so right.
Dev response: The truth comes in many ways,
even by way of contradistinction, but truth itself is not contrary to the Truth.
……. Laksman:
(from the previous email) “In case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats life.
Nobody can avoid it. Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed.
The cows eat vegetables and they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.”
Dev reply (from previous dialog): Excuse me for saying (and I
really do not mean to hurt your feelings) but you are really revealing your ignorance
here. You are deliberately ignoring (going against) your Higher Nature, your Real
Nature, your Dharma, which is NOT to cause avoidable pain and suffering to any
creature. Laksman: You didn’t hurt my feelings in the least, Dev.
I don’t have feelings. I’m not a human being, remember? I found the
above paragraph rather amusing. Even if I was a human being I wouldn’t be
offended because I don’t know you…for the present you’re just an earnest voice
from cyberspace that may or not be connected to someone I might want to know.
Dev reply: No comment. ----- Dev reply (from previous
dialog): Exposing people to the truth does not keep them ignorant. I have no duty
to protect the ignorant; my duty is to speak the truth and remove ignorance.
Laksman: They have to know that it’s the truth first, Dev. Truthful
statements are not the truth. A wicked person or a self deluded person can
make truthful statements. One needs to know who is making the statements
first and why…before one is inclined to believe. Personally, I am not inclined
to believe anything about anything. I have senses and a mind and I can figure
out what’s going on without help. I operate from understanding born of experience.
My point is: who is to know that Dev’s version of the truth is The truth?
It could just as easily be an opinion. I’d also be curious to know who gave
you that duty. Did God or your guru tell you to do it? Or is it self assumed?
Dev reply: I agree with you, that truthful statements are not the truth.
Only truthful teachers can teach (reveal) the truth. However, there is power
in words, even if it is only information. Though information cannot teach,
it does inform, and for many people that is all they will ever get. Very few people
are actually ever taught by a Satguru, so they will rely on the information available
to them and understand it as best they can, drawing upon their own experiences
and innate knowledge. Just like you, “I am not inclined to believe anything
about anything. I have senses and a mind and I can figure out what’s going on
without help. I operate from understanding born of experience.”
Laksman: So how can you be so
sure that I’m deluded? Wouldn’t you have to experience me first? I
think you’re inclined to believe that you are pretty damn enlightened…so enlightened
in fact that you want the world to know…for its own good, of course. If
you stood in front of me this kind of conversation would not happen.
Dev response: You don’t seem to get it. I am admittedly unenlightened (in the
sense that I know I am not the Supreme Self, which means I know I am not egoless
and I know this precludes me from fully realizing the Supreme Self).
However, I am enlightened enough to know a similarly unenlightened one.
Of course, generally I would need to meet the other face to face, but that is
not always the case since much can be deduced by other means as well.
In your case, I would say you are certainly enlightened by today’s standards
and I would say you are probably more enlightened than 90% of the so-called Swami’s
and Guru’s in the spiritual market place. ……… Dev reply
(from previous dialog): Of course you are a human being. You are a beautiful
human being, the creation of the Self. No one does them self or anyone else
any good by denying their own humanness. You are the Self embodied as a human
being for a purpose: the purpose of the Self. The Vedas reveal what that
purpose is. Wouldn’t you say it is ludicrous to think that everything that
exists, exists only for the sake of having its existence denied? This is irrational
and unreasonable and contrary to the Self. Laksman: Here’s
another example of your arrogance. I say I’m not a human being and you say,
“Of course you’re a human being.” Mine is a truthful statement…if you understand
something. I made that statement to see what you know. It was meant
to make you think, “What does he mean by that?” You didn’t. It immediately
created a reaction because it was not in harmony with your beliefs. So you
put me in a box. “He’s a human being. End of story.” Dev reply:
I have to tell you that you are completely misreading me here. When I said you
are a beautiful human being I am only making a very positive statement, and speaking
(writing) from my heart (Self). Laksmanji, I am not reacting to you, I am responding.
I did not put you in a box, but yes, I do think you have put yourself in one (i.e.,
the neo-vedantic box). But that is your problem, not mine. No doubt
you think I am in my box and that you are box-free. Well, I will say that
I am sure I still have some images because I know I can still go deeper.
You are apparently satisfied with having gone as far as you have gone.
Laksman: Here we have it again, Dev.
You say it is my problem. But it is not my problem because you see me in
a Neo-Advaita box. What makes these statements of yours so ridiculous is
that nothing in the reality of my life confirms it. I’m honest enough to
know if something is out of kilter. But nothing is. My life is full
of smiling faces and happy people. It is sliding along as if on greased
wheels. Every day is a joy to be alive. I’m having a great time. I
could introduce you to dozens of fine honest people who would be happy to testify
to my effect on their lives. I have standing invitations to visit all over the
world. So this guy from cyberspace tells me I’m fucked up and I’m supposed
to take it on board? Why not wait till things head south to tell me that
I’m a mess? I’d be much more inclined to listen. To be successful
in this guru business you have to be very clever and patient, Dev. Your
bull in the china shop approach is totally unsophisticated. In the first
place you need to pick and choose your disciples. I’m a very bad choice.
I’m old and very smart and I’m so lost in my delusion that you’ll never crack
this thick skull. With guys like me it is best you pray that after their
death they get a better birth. What you don’t seem to get, Dev, is
that moksha means the end of one’s seeking. I have nothing to get from this
life. I’m here to give what I have to those who want it. If you want
to think for your own reasons that I stopped short of the final goal that’s up
to you.
Dev
response: You’re going a little overboard here with this reaction. If you react
to someone complimenting you that you are good human being, then I would say you
definitely have a problem. I would definitely
NOT say you are fucked-up or a mess. I have no goal or desire to teach you (or
anyone) anything. Like you, I am not here to get something out of life, but only
to give. Actually, I’m just breathing, that’s all (or so I appear to be). -------
Laksman (from previous dialog): I’m not sure what is so wonderful about being
a human. Maybe you read that rubbish in Shankar or the Buddhist texts about
the ’precious human birth.’ Or let’s put it this way, it’s no more wonderful
to be a human being than to be anything else. In fact you might make a case that
human beings are more of a problem for the creation than anything else.
If you want to see me as a human being that’s fine with me but we will definitely
be unable to get very far together spiritually if you do. In fact this discussion
is hitting a snag already because of your attachment to this view. Arjuna
didn’t understand what Krishna was saying at first at all
but he was able to suspend disbelief long enough to get the message. In
this case it seems that my non-dual statements are running up against your beliefs…and
stopping there.
Dev reply: We have assigned completely different connotations to the
term human being. I think you see it as a negative because you equate it with
‘person’. I do not think of myself as a person at all. I am not a person.
I never was a person. I will never be a person. I do not worship or
adore persons at all. Not even one little bit. A person to me is a mythical
being. Arjuna was caught up in his personality, his personhood, and only when
the hood was removed did he realize what Krishna was saying.
Obviously you and I are not so advanced or we would not misunderstand each
other. On the other hand, this misunderstanding may have led us to a greater
understanding, in which case, this misunderstanding may prove useful too, and
is perhaps the ‘doing’ of our own enlightened selves. Laksman:
I say pack it in on the ‘advanced’ notion. I don’t believe in such silly
distinctions. We don’t understand each other because our idea structures
are not in harmony. The way you use words is not the way I use them.
Your fundamental view is dualistic and doer oriented. Mine is non-dual.
I don’t see a doer anywhere. This is why the evolution idea doesn’t wash.
…………….. Laksman: In any case I’ve seen enough. It’s time for
full disclosure. I will now explain Laksmanji’s agenda… if you haven’t figured
it out already. . Dev reply: This should be fun. . .
Laksman (continuing): You may be attracted to me but you have no idea who
is on the other end of this email, Dev. I’m not really who you think.
Yes, you read my autobiography and some of the website and you formed certain
opinions but that website is just like a big juicy worm on a hook. It catches
fish. But I am not the person portrayed there. Let’s put it this way.
I’m a spiritual salesman and I’m selling non-duality. It’s a very costly
product. The price is an open trusting nature and a willingness to consider
new ideas. Would you like to buy? In case you want to play the Laksmanji
satsang game you need to have a practical serious question…about your sadhana…and
I will give you a straightforward reply to the best of my ability. This
conversation seems to be going in the direction of a long winded debate on abstruse
topics that do not touch my heart. Dev reply: No,
I’m not attracted to you, or anyone for that matter. Surely, you are NOT who I
think you are, because who you really ARE can never be thought in my mind, your
mind, or any mind. Yes, I read your autobiography and know it doesn’t even represent
a one billionth part, not even a one googlth part of YOU. I guess we could
say it doesn’t even represent YOU at all sense you cannot be represented by other
than YOU, who is Indivisible and therefore having no PARTS. Laksman Maharaj
may be a spiritual salesman, but Laksman Maharaj is a MYTH. Yes, you are selling
non-duality and it is indeed a costly product, because the one who buys it will
not get what they bargained for: they will not realize the Ultimate Truth (though
they should certainly get something useful out of it). There are no questions
I have for you that I cannot answer on my own, so that’s why this dialog is really
not much more than a dialectical exercise. Laksman:
Something useful is fine. And a dialectical exercise is fine. It more
or less corresponds to my idea that this is a bit of amusement.
Laksman (continuing) I’ve made that statement about not being a human being hundreds
of times. Sometimes people don’t get it but they usually understand that
there is something behind it and that it might be interesting to know what… probably
because I don’t come across as a fool. Dev reply: No, you are certainly
no fool, but neither are you GOD. Laksman:
I covered this misunderstanding above. ……….. Laksman: (from
the previous email) Understanding non-duality takes a certain degree of subtle
thinking and is aided by some transpersonal experiences. My statements are
true but the meaning is not immediately available to literal minded people.
Some contemplation is required. Dev reply: Please contemplate
some of the things I have written here and on my website if you wish. They are
difficult for a Vedantist to consider objectively. Though you will no doubt say
the same of me as pertains to Vedanta, you should know that I have given MUCH
consideration to it (Vedanta), and also, since I have no standing reputation,
profession, or following to protect or safeguard, there is no measurable benefit
for me holding on to my view and excluding others. I am not saying you are not
open-minded, but you do have a little more vested interest here than I (if only
because you are a public figure). Laksman:
As I said above I’m not any kind of ‘ist.’ Vedanta is a disposable means
of knowledge, nothing more. It is like a flashlight. You turn it on
and when you see what you need to see you turn it off. I am not identified
with it in any way. You think I’m some sort of guru figure? I’m virtually
unknown, Dev. Eighty five percent of my time is spent in completely ordinary situations
with completely normal ordinary people. I much prefer them to the spiritual
types who have all sorts of neuroses and grandiose ideas. The website and
the teachings are simply a little bit of service work, giving back a small fraction
of what my guru gave me. You have to be with a person and see their life
before you can set out to make statements about them. Dev
response: We may be much more alike than what you perhaps realize. …………
Laksman (continuing) When I was younger and not such an experienced
communicator people would often raise their eyebrows when I made such statements
and change the subject because they thought I was nuts… rather like the people
who crucified Christ must have felt when he said, “I and my Father are One.”
Dev reply: Believe me, there is nothing you could say that would make me
raise my eyebrows. I have seen it all and heard it all. The only reason this dialog
is continuing is because I respect you for your earnestness, forthrightness, and
non-feigned humility. This doesn’t mean I think you are perfect and have nothing
to work on. (Do you think you are perfect and have nothing to work on?)
Laksman: Depends on who
the ‘you’ is. …………. Laksman (continuing): I suppose
you might have told Christ that if he was a good little spiritual robot and kept
working on his anger issues and tendency to violence (remember the whip
in the temple episode) he might one day get into the supreme state for a very
long time… after of course first checking to see if he was a vegetarian.
Probably he wasn’t since he is said to have fed the multitudes loaves (good stuff)
and fishes (bad stuff). You’re probably a kind person and would let him
strive for liberation if he promised to give up meat, however. :+)
Dev reply: You are really very funny sometimes. First of all, Christ definitely
had issues to work on, I have no doubt of this. As for the ‘whip in the
temple episode’ this was always one of my favorite parts of the New Testament.
I have referred to this incident a number of times in the Satsangs I have given
over the years to illustrate that Jesus, being an enlightened man, was not an
image-ridden phony pacifist who pacified people by giving them a religious image
pacifier to suck on. I think he was probably a no-nonsense kind of a guy who,
due to his youthful fervor of genuine compassion, really wanted to enlighten the
ignorant, but (like many similarly minded souls before him) he got a little too
far ahead of himself and unnecessarily put himself in harm’s way. In any case,
I certainly do not believe he had attained the Supreme
State (maybe because he was eating
fish and drinking wine:+)). Laksman (continuing):
I admit that non-dual thinking is quite strange if you are literal minded.
Recall the difficulty Arjuna had accepting Krishna’s statement
about past lives. Krishna is speaking from the non-dual
level and Arjuna, like Dev, is thinking he’s a person. I’m speaking from
the non-dual level. These days I’m generally smart enough to know how much
non-duality a person can handle before they hit the delete button so it is rarely
an issue. Most people I meet have been in the spiritual world a long time…done
all the yogas, sadhanas, gurus, etc…and hardly anyone except the fundamentalist
types like the Vaishnav bhaktas (were you once a Hari Krishna?) who hate non-duality
seem to have a problem with this statement. Dev reply: You are
really humoring me Laksmanji, honestly. For your knowledge, my mind is literally
clear because the neo-vedantic litter has long since been removed. Arjuna didn’t
have much difficulty accepting any of Krishna’s statements,
seeing as though their entire dialog represents only one small chapter in the
Mahabharat. But a neo-vedantist who has mistaken himself for the Supreme Being
may find it extremely difficult to reach Krishna’s abode
(state), because to do so they will have to stop thinking they can reach the Destination
without first taking the journey! Krishna is the
perfect example of one who is totally established in the Supreme Self. Because
he was/is totally established in the Supreme Self (which means no longer differing
with that Supreme Self) I suppose one could say Krishna
is the Supreme Self. But this does not mean only Krishna
is the Supreme Self. It also doesn’t mean Krishna
is only the Supreme Self, i.e., Krishna also ever remains
a soul just like all the rest of us. Laksman:
Humoring you seems a proper response. Down deep you must think I’m a moron.
Or you’re just so convinced of your views that you can’t imagine why they aren’t
as clear to me as they are to you. This is a common human trait. They
think because they see it a certain way everyone should see it that way.
Dev
response: Both down deep and on the surface I see you as Atman. Likewise, I see
myself as Atman. Om Yas Tu Sarvani Bhutani Atmaneyvanupashyati.
Sarva Bhuteshu Catmanam Tato Na Vijugupsate.
Isha Up. 6 One
who perceives all beings in consciousness, and Consciousness in all beings, does
not hate anyone.
My view is that there was nothing to
be established ‘in’ because Krishna is the supreme Self. To say he is established
in something means that he is not what he is established in. The use of
experiential language indicates dualistic views. Krishna is just a name
for you, the Self. It means that you are non-dual love. The
word means ‘that which attracts.’ What is more attractive than love?
Dev
response: I understand that Krishna is a name for the Self and that the Gita
is an exposition of the nature of the Self and how that Self is attained. However,
Krishna was also a real Soul just like you and I.
He did not stop being a real Soul by virtue of manifesting the Supreme Soul.
If we are to believe that everyone has the potential to realize that same
Ultimate Self, we must posit the Self that does the realizing. In fact, there
is no positing the Self that we are, because that is what we are. The question
is, is there something beyond our Self? Yes there is, our Essence, the Self of
our Self: the Supreme Self. How do I know this? It is self-evident that I
am not All-knowing, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, and my observation tells me that
the creation of this vast, intelligently designed Universe, could only be the
creation of an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Supreme Being (Supreme Consciousness).
My nature compels me to realize that Supreme Consciousness. I am not inclined
to simply accept the notion that this Self (my Self) is all that there is, as
this certainly strikes me as very egotistical and the very antithesis of LOVE.
…………. Dev: (from the previous email) I do not hate non-duality,
I love it! I do NOT embrace duality, I embrace non-duality (Advaita); only
my understanding is different than yours. I am definitely not, nor have
I ever been a Hari Krishna. I have never belonged to any sect nor am I the
promoter or adherent of any manmade sampradaya. Laksman:
So are you going to stop trying to bring me around to your understanding?
I like the way I see it and if it is delusion from your point of view it’s too
bad…you’ll have to live with it. And if you are still inclined to guru someone
head back to the internet and dig up another so-called enlightened being.
Dev response: We are
born alone, we go to the bathroom alone, and we die alone. We will also be liberated
alone. I do not live with your delusion, only with
my own. I am the problem, I am the solution;
you are the problem, you are the solution. ……………….
Laksman: (from the previous email) Like the statement, “Nothing ever
happened’ or “It is the smallest of the small, the biggest of the big” my statement
makes perfect sense… if you have non-dual vision or even a few out of body experiences
under your belt. Dev reply: Well, by now you will have read my
email containing a little tad of my sadhanic biodata and you will have perhaps
realized that your statements are not at all unfamiliar to me. Laksman
(continuing): I’ve carefully peppered non-dual statements into my emails to see
your reaction and it seems to me that you have taken them as ego statements.
An unfortunate pattern seems to be developing in our conversation. As the
Beatles song says, “I say yes, you say no. I say goodbye. You say hello.”
Dev reply: My friend, my responses to your
statements have not been reactions. I am sharing my insights and knowledge with
you, just as you are sharing yours with me, and all in the spirit of the Universal
Self. Do I take some of your statements as ego statements? Well, I
will say this: when you say “I am God,” I fully understand the non-dual statement
you are making and realize you certainly would not make this statement as an expression
of megalomania. But does this mean I think you are completely free of ego? No
it does not. You may very well be, but I guess we will have to wait until
we meet to find that out. As you say, it takes a Jnani to know a Jnani.
Laksman: I’m not free of
it and I’m not not free of it. It has nothing to do with me. Enlightenment
is not egolessness, Dev. If I am the Self and there are jivas to illumine
I illumine their egos. You can’t even produce one ego for me to see, Dev.
Because ego is just a concept of limitation. You can work all you want to
be free of your ego but it would just be your ego working to be free of itself.
How clever is that? And once you are free of the ego how will you get free
of the ego that got rid of the ego? Ego is only a problem for egos.
There is no ego from the Self’s point of view, only apparent knowledge and apparent
ignorance. Dev response:
This all gets back to the fact that a neo-vedantist does not accept that the world
is real (that Prakriti is eternal), even though it is everyone’s personal experience
that the world is indeed real. It is real because Prakriti is real. The world
is temporary (cyclic) but real, which is why all of us have to really deal with
this on real terms, with real knowledge and real experience. The highest knowledge
(knowing) and the greatest experience comes only when one becomes absolutely egoless,
and this too requires real knowledge and real work (experience). …………..
Dev: Realistically, if and when we ever meet, I am sure we will both see
each other’s ego, and hopefully we will also both see our own too. Even
if we are enlightened souls, we still have a ways to go. Laksman:
You don’t let up, do you, Dev? Speak for yourself. Why do you persist
in telling me that I have ‘a ways to go?’ Do you think I didn’t hear you
the first time? Was not my response clear? You’re saying this because
it means something to you. Generally, if you want a communication to be
successful you do not antagonize and patronize the person with whom you are communicating.
I can’t remember how many words back I told you I didn’t buy your evolution idea.
I’m not going to buy it if you tell me one million times. I think it’s a
dumb idea. It’s great for do gooders and gurus who want to collect followers
but for anyone with a lick of common sense it is so very stupid. It is a
complete fantasy. I do not want to grow or to change or to transform or
to evolve or to be better in any way. I’m just fine as I am…warts and all.
Now, if that’s delusion so be it. Dev
response: Well, it’s delusion alright. Go for it. You own it. And
finally, I am not an enlightened soul. To repeat: I am not enlightened nor
am I unenlightened. Perhaps you’ve been dealing with intellectually challenged
people, Dev. I am not intellectually challenged. I have all my wits
about me. I usually get the idea the first time. I understand what
you’re saying. I don’t happen to agree with some of it and I’m not going
to sign on just because you are saying it. So just give it a rest. Think
of something more interesting to tell me. How long is your nose?
Dev response: According to
my wife my nose is quite long. ……………..
Dev: The Supreme Being, the Essence, of which Krishna refers to
by both his words and his own being, even great sages are not the knowers of,
what to say of you and I. A saintly person, a saint, a swami or jnani, a
Rishi, Rajarishi, Maharishi, BrahmaRishi, Deva, and then the Highest State in
which souls like Shri Krishna and others are established, all of these are indicative
of different levels of Consciousness. Few of us are truly established in
that Supreme Consciousness, which is why we need to keep chipping away (removing
our ignorance) until we become totally egoless. Laksman:
You’re already totally egoless…if you’re the Self as you claim. You can
chip away all you like but it will not get you total egolessness. You’ll
just end up with a big chipping ego. “Hi, I’m Dev. I’m completely
egoless. I chipped it all away. It was hard work but I did it. Ain’t
I great?” Better wait till you realize who you are and see the joke in all this
sadhana. Dev
response: I am the Self but I am not the Supreme Self. When all traces of ego
are erased, the Supreme Self is all there is. This ‘isness’ or the Supreme Self
is Love, and this Love is the inseparable union of the Self and the Supreme Self.
There is nothing to announce, nothing to renounce, and nothing to denounce when
one is truly egoless. ……..
Laksman (continuing): In any case to tell a stranger point blank that his
or her self statement is not true…whether or not it is true by your lights…is
certainly a tactless and clumsy way to communicate. Perhaps you’re a bit
naïve. In any case it shows a greater concern for protecting your own views
than a willingness to understand mine. It makes me wonder why non-duality
is such a threat to you. Dev reply: You do not understand
me, nor perhaps do I understand you. We are trying to communicate our perception
of perfection by means of imperfect words. Laksman:
There is nothing wrong with words. There is something wrong with the attitude
with which we are communicating. You think you’re enlightened and you found
my website and you decided that you wanted me to know that you’re more enlightened
than me. And it’s not proving to be easy. It’s a big ego trip masquerading
as a satsang.
Dev
response: This is not an ego trip; we are on a trip to
Eternity and our paths have crossed; not for better or worse, but for better and
better and the Best (the Supreme). -------- Laksman (continuing):
I hope this doesn’t hurt your feelings…being a human being perhaps you have them…
although you did say above that you wouldn’t take things personally. It
is certainly not my intention to insult you or to nip this conversation…which
you seem to be enjoying…in the bud but I would be remiss in my duty to myself
if I didn’t express myself truthfully. I put my heart and soul into these emails.
I think there must be about a thousand pages of satsangs on the website…and that
is not all of them. I get nothing for my trouble except the satisfaction
of helping people appreciate what Vedanta can do for them. And it looks
like I’ve gone about as far as I can with you because you seem to be quite attached
to your views. Dev reply: Well Laksmanji, I think you must be quite clear
in your mind by now that I am not surfing the waves of cyberspace for an answer
to the question “Who am I?”, because I already found the answer to this question
long ago. I know you put your heart and souls into these emails
(and all your writings), and hopefully you realize I do too. But even if you don’t
realize it, it is not important to me. I have no desire to change your way of
thinking whatsoever, I am simply speaking the Truth as I perceive it, because
it is my nature to speak the Truth, that’s all. Laksman:
OK. Good. Then I have a problem: you don’t seem to realize the distinction
between the Truth as you perceive it and the Truth as it is. Dev
response: The Truth is what it is, only our ego and ignorance can obscure our
vision of it. I
know that you are not surfing the internet to find out who you are; only a fool
would do that. You’re out there to let the world know that you’re enlightened.
Dev
response: We have already established that I am not enlightened.
Maybe you’re the cyber cop for the spiritual world…you’ll let all the world know
who’s a fraud and who isn’t. Were you hired for this position by the Congress
of Saints and Sages? They always give the job to the most enlightened person
they can find. I’m sorry I’m making your job so difficult but I don’t like
the dualistic jail that you want to put me in.
Dev
response: There is no one that can do the work that each of us must do ourselves.
We all have our homework to do. If we don’t do it we won’t necessarily go to jail
but neither will we realize our full potential. ………….
Laksman: (from the previous email) There is never an argument with non-duality,
Dev. It is something that one is meant to appreciate. I’m not invested
in it. I love it and I’m a good teacher but I’m old and pretty wise and
I don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole any more. So unless you
are interested in considering the non-dual way of seeing it is probably better
for us to call it quits. I’m familiar with all the yogic views, the evolutionary
views, the whole big messy spiritual soup. At some time during my
sadhana I believed almost every weird supposedly spiritual idea that I read or
heard on my path. But I had a great guru who shined the light on my ignorance
and one day after a lot of reflection my sadhana ended. I didn’t stop it.
It stopped automatically…because I understood who I am. And who I am is
not who you think I am.
Dev reply: I have considered what you call “the non-dual way of seeing,”
and found it does give the vision to perceive the whole Truth. Laksman:
My view is that the ‘whole truth’ is the non-dual vision. But I invite you
to expound the whole truth according to Dev if you are so inclined. I’m
sure they’ll throw out the Vedas when it is made known to the public.
Dev response: To my knowledge, it is completely
in consonance with the Vedas, and anything that I say that is not in agreement
with the Vedas should be ignored. The Sruti is the ultimate authority, along with
our direct experience (which can only be understood in light of the Vedas). ………….
Dev: I do appreciate your sincerity and earnestness and erudite understanding
of Vedanta, and especially the clarity and freshness of your exposition.
You are no doubt a good teacher and certainly a wise man, far wiser I would say
than most (perhaps all) of the so-called Swamis and Gurus who are wheeling and
dealing in the spiritual marketplace. However, with humility I can say your knowledge
is not perfect or complete. Neither is mine: the difference is that I realize
this, whereas you apparently do not realize it due to the limiting nature of your
own knowledge. Laksman: Did it
again, Dev. One-upped the Laksmanji. Another big score for you. I wouldn’t
expect less from the great guru Devananda. Why do you trifle with such an unworthy
fool as me? Your arrogance is nicely concealed in a bouquet of sincerity,
humility and earnest righteousness. This is what I suspected when I read
the blog. It seems you really feel that you are more spiritual than anyone
out there. Sincerity and humility and egolessness are not things to which
one should aspire, Dev. You can find very sincere demons everywhere.
Any fool can be humble. As for egolessness we have already been through
that one. Dev response:
Sincerity, humility and earnestness are the hallmarks of the Wise, and have nothing
whatsoever to do with arrogance. There is no greater power than the power of humility.
True egolessness (which is impossible without Divine Wisdom) is the essence of
all spirituality, love, and Truth. ………..
Laksman: (from the previous email) As I said, Dev, the website is a
big juicy worm wrapped around the fishhook of non-duality. Some fish factories
process the dwanda fish and others process the advaita fish. If an advaiti
fisherman catches a dwanda fish he puts it back in the ocean of samsara where
it can enjoy itself. It seems Laksmanji caught a dvanda fish. Is that
right? Should I toss it back? Or would you like me to chop off your
dualistic head like Shiva did to Ganesh and send you to the advaita cannery? It’s
up to you. I bet you’d look good with only one tusk. Dev reply: These
allusions to ‘fish’ remind me of a term from Yog Vashisth, ‘Drishta Jaal,’
meaning a fish net of images. Everyone is caught up in their own stinking
fish net of images. People have gotten so used to the smell that they no longer
have a natural aversion for it. Similarly, it is very easy to get caught up in
our own mental imaginary (much like a cannery) and never take our boat across
the sea of samsara and reach the shores of Eternity. Perhaps you have crossed
the sea of samsara, Laksmanji, and your mind is firmly grounded on Vedanta and
non-duality. But this is not the end of it. Eternity goes on forever
and ever. When even the Vedas become of no use (as we approach the Supreme Self)
then what to say of Vedanta or any thing else. Laksman:
This sounds like the end of it so I will make one more valiant attempt to set
the record straight before I slink off into my corner to lick my wounds, having
been finally bested in dharma combat by none other than my own true Self in the
form of some amazingly spiritual internet guy named Cybercop Dev. Here is
my last dying gasp: Eternity doesn’t go anywhere. It is everywhere.
Where will it go? I’ll check my email tomorrow to see how wrong I am.
Dev
response: The record of Eternity is this Drama of Creation, which goes on forever
and ever (with intermissions of course). We can move forward into Eternity or
we can stay where we are and imagine we have it all figured out. Sooner or later
we will turn the page and realize there is still another chapter, and another
chapter, and another chapter. . . When
the Self chooses the Supreme Self, the drama is over. . . until the next time.
Dev: Well, I have found this dialog useful, and hopefully you have also.
By the grace of God we may one day meet face to face. I would like that.
OM Laksman:
It’s not particularly useful for me but it was fun. It came at a good time.
It didn’t tax my jet lagged brain and provided some light comedy. It might
be of interest to others so I will put it on the web one day and see what kind
of feedback comes of it.
Dev
response: Om Tat Sat Dev
Following
is an excerpt from Satyarth Prakash, written by Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati
almost 150 years ago.
Beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists.
The beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists are discussed below in the form of questions
and answers:-
Q.
- The world is unreal like things seen in a dream, or like a piece of rope mistaken
for a snake, or like a sea-shell seen glittering in the sunshine for a piece of
silver or like a mirage for water, or like a town of angels or like a juggler's trick. (Brahmaa)
God alone is real. A.
~ What do you call real? Q.
- What does not exist and yet appears to do so. A.
~ How can a thing appear to exist when it does not exist at all? Q.
- By adhyaropa. A.
~ What do you mean by adhyaropa? Q.
-Adhyaropa or adhyasa consists in believing a thing to be different from what
it really is; the refutation of a wrong belief is called apavaada; by the help
of these two this phenomenal world can be taken to exist in Brahmaa Who is Himself
Unchangeable. A.
~ You have fallen into this mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while
a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real? If
you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask, "Does it not exist
in some other place or does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If
it does, a snake then is not unreal. In the same way, other illustrations, such
as that of a mollusk-shell mistaken for a piece of silver, can be shown to be
wrong. Similarly, things seen in dreams also exist somewhere in the world. Their
ideas exist in our consciousness, hence it cannot be said of them that they exist
by adhayaropa (i.e., by erroneously attributing the properties of one thing to
another). Q.
- If this be true, how can one see a thing in a dream that was never seen or heard
to exist in the wakeful state, such as a man' s head is cut off and he himself
weeps, or a stream of water flows uphill? A.
~ Even this argument does not support your contention, because impression of a
thing cannot exist in one's mind unless he has seen or heard of it, and there
can be no remembrance without mental impressions, and without remembrance there
can be no direct consciousness of a thing. When a person hears from another that
such and a such person's head was cut off on a field of battle and his father
or brother or some other relation was seen to weep, or when a person sees water
from a fountain jetting up, all these things make impressions on his mind. When
he is no longer in his wakeful state and dreams in his sleep of what he had seen
or heard, since he sees all these things in himself, it can be understood how
he comes to imagine that his own head is cut off and he himself weeps or that
a stream of water flows upwards. This is again not like imagining a thing to exist
which does not exist at all, it is more like sketching in which a sketcher embodies
his idea of what he had seen or heard on paper, or like painting in which a painter
by forming a metal picture of his subject paints it on canvas. It
is true though that sometimes such things are seen in dreams as are still remembered,
for instance, one sees one's teacher (in a dream), while on other occasions one
recalls things in a dream that had been seen or heard long time ago and had therefore
completely passed out of one's memory; in such cases one forgets whether one sees,
or hears the same as one has seen or heard before in the wakeful state. But things
cannot be remembered so methodically in dreams as in a wakeful state. Again
a person born blind can never dream of colors, hence your definition of the words
Adhyaropa or Adhyasaa is wrong. And what the Neo-Vedaantists called
Vivartavada is also untrue. The term Vivartavada means that a person
erroneously considers the universe to be real, while it is only illusory (Brahma
alone being a real entity), just as one mistakes a piece of rope for a snake.
Q.
- There can be no knowledge of an Adhyasa - a thing that is supported - without
the knowledge of its Adhishthan - that which supports it, - for in the above instance
had there been no rope, the idea of a snake being there would never have entered
one's mind. As there is no snake in a piece of rope, nor there ever was, not shall
it ever be, in dim light a man may mistake a piece of rope for a snake and tremble
with fear, but when he sees it with the light of a good lamp, his mistake is at
once corrected and he ceases to fear, in like manner a man erroneously conceives
that this world exist in Brahma this illusion of the existence of the world comes
to an end, and he finds that it is all Brahma. A.
~ Who erroneously experiences this illusion of the world in Brahma? Q.
- The human soul. A.
~ Whence did the human soul originate? Q.
- Out of ignorance. A.
~ What is the origin of ignorance and where does it reside? Q.
- Ignorance is without a beginning and resides in Brahma. A.
~ Was there ignorance of self or of something else in Brahma and who was it that
became ignorant? Q.
- Chidabhasa A.
~ What is the nature of this Chidabhasa? Q.
- It is Brahmaa. Brahmaa becomes ignorant of Brahmaa, in other words, He forgets
His own nature. A.~
What is the cause of this forgetfulness? Q.
- Nescience. A.
~ Is nescience an attribute of an Omnipresent, Omniscient Being or of one who
possesses finite knowledge. Q.
- Of the latter. A.
~ Do you then believe in the existence of a second conscious entity besides the
Infinite, Omniscient, Conscious Being? And where did the being possessed of finite
knowledge, you just spoke of, come from? Of course it would be alright if you
were to believe in the existence of another beginingless, finite, conscious entity
besides Brahma, but you do not, hence the objection. Again
were Brahma to become ignorant of Self, this ignorance would spread throughout
the whole Braham just a pain in one part of a man's body makes all other
parts (of his body) helpless, so would Brahma, if afflicted with ignorance
or pain in one part, feel Himself ignorant or afflicted with pain throughout His
whole self. Q.
- It is all an attribute of Upadhi.
A.
~ Is Upadhi possessed of consciousness or not? Is it real or otherwise?
Q.
- It is indescribable, in other words, it cannot be said of it that it possesses
consciousness or is without it, is real or apparent. A.
~ This is quite absurd for on the one hand you say that it is nescience, and on
the other you hold that it can neither be said to be possessed of consciousness,
nor devoid of it, neither real nor unreal. It can be compared to a piece of gold
adulterated with copper which can neither be said to be gold nor copper, but a
mixture of both. Q.
- Just as the ether of the pot, the ether of a house, and the ether of a cloud
appear to be distinct from the universal ether by virtue of being enclosed by
the pot, the house and the cloud, while in reality they are all identical with
the universal ether, in like manner Brahma appears to the ignorant different in different persons and things
by virtue of the intervention of maya, nescience, and antahkaran (the internal
organ of thought) and also by being spoken of collectively and individually, while
in reality He is one and the same in all. It is said in the Katha Upanishad, "Just
as ether pervades objects of the various sizes and shapes, such as big and small,
long, broad and round, and assumes the different forms of those objects, so does
God pervades different antahkarans an assumes their forms, but as a matter of
fact He is distinct from them." A.
~ Even this assertion of yours is wrong. Just as you believe the pot, the house
and the cloud, in the examples cited by you, to be distinct from ether, in like
manner why do you not believe the material world - both in its casual and present
visible forms - and the soul to be distinct from the Supreme Spirit, and the latter
distinct from the former (i.e., the matter and the soul)? Q.
- "Just as heat pervades all objects and thereby appears to assume various
forms, so does the Supreme Spirit by pervading the soul and matter appear to the
ignorant as one possessed of form, but in reality He is neither matter nor the
soul." Again, when a thousand trays full of water are placed in the sun,
a thousand different reflections of the sun are seen, but in reality the sun is
one, and does not perish, move or spread when the trays get broken or their water
moves or spreads, in the same manner Brahma is reflected in the antahkaran - this
reflection is called chidabhasa or the image of God. The
soul exists as a distinct entity only so long as the antahkaran lasts, but the
moment the antahkaran, having attained perfect knowledge ceases to exist, the
soul attains the nature of Brahma, i.e. becomes God. But as long as the soul is
ignorant of its true nature which is Divine, and thinks that it is the Chidabhasa
that enjoys, feels pleasure or pain, commits sinful or virtuous deeds or is subject
to birth and death, it cannot get freedom from the bondage of this world. A.
~ This illustration of yours is of no good. The sun has a form so do the trays
and the water therein, possessed forms. Again, the sun is separate from the trays
and the water therein and vice versa. These two facts alone make it possible for
the sun to be reflected. Had all these been formless or had they not been separate
from each other, there would have been no reflection of the sun. God is Formless
and being Omnipresent like ether nothing can be separate from Him., nor can they
(i.e., God and the Universe) be one and the same, as the relation of one that
pervades and one that is pervaded by exists between God and the world, in other
words, when the pervader and the pervaded seen from the anwaya and Vyatirekabhava*
point of view, they are united together and yet are always distinct from each
other.
*
Anwaya in Logic means a
"statement of the constant and invariable concomitance of the Hetu (middle
term) and the Sadhya (major term) of an Indian syllogism…..Anwaya, in fact, corresponds
to the universal A proposition of European logic 'All A is B'. Vyatirekabhava
means an assertion of the concomitance of the absence of Sadhya and the absence
of Hetu, and corresponds to the converted A proposition 'All not -B is not -a'…..A
cause or Hetu is said to be connected with its effect by Anwaya Vyatirekaryapati
when both the affirmative an negative relations between the thing to be proved
and the cause that proves can be equally asserted; such a Hetu alone makes the
argument perfectly sound and incapable of refutation. This process of arriving
at the Vyapati or universal proposition corresponds to the methods of Agreement
and Difference in Mills' Logic." - Tr. For,
if they be one, the relation of the pervader and the pervaded cannot exist but
it is clearly said in the Brihdarayaka Upanishad that this relation does
exist between God and the world. Again there can be no reflection of God because
it is impossible for a formless object to be reflected (in a transparent medium).
As to your belief regarding Brahmaa that He becomes the soul through the
intervention of Antahkaran, it is like a child's prattle, for the Antahkaran
is mutable, movable and separate, whilst Brahma is immutable and entire.
Should you not believe Brahmaa and the soul to be different from each other,
how would you answer the following objection: The
Antahkaran being movable, the part of Brahmaa which it would occupy would
become devoid of consciousness, whilst the part where it shifts from would become
possessed of knowledge, just as an umbrella cuts off the sunshine wherever it
is carried, ceases to intercept it where it has been shifted from, in like manner
will the Antahkaran by acting as an intercepting medium make Brahmaa
at one moment ignorant and bound, and at the next wise and free. From the effect
of the presence of an intervening medium like the Antahkaran, and Brahmaa
being indivisible the whole of Brahmaa will become ignorant, which can
never be true as He is ex-hypothesis, All-knowledge. Again, whatever Brahmaa,
through the medium of a certain Antahkaran, has been, say, at Mathura, the same cannot
be re-called in Kashi (Benares) by Brahmaa, since He does not possess the
same Antahkaran, as what has been seen by one cannot be remembered by another.
The chidabhas that sees a thing a Mathura is not the same that lives a Benares, and the Brahmaa that illuminates
the chidabhas of Mathura is not the same that lives at Benares. If the very Brahmaa be the
soul and not distinct from it, the soul ought to be Omniscient. If
the reflection of Brahmaa be distinct, none should be able to recall what
he has seen or heard in the past. If you say that one can remember because Brahmaa
is one and the same, we answer that pain or ignorance in one part (of Brahmaa)
should affect the whole of Brahmaa. Thus by such illustration you have
represented the Eternal, Holy, All-wise, Ever-free, Indivisible Brahmaa
as non-eternal, unholy, ignorant, and subject to bondage, and division. Q.
- Even a formless object can be reflected, just as ether (sky) is reflected in
a mirror or a in water and looks blue or dull gray, in like manner Brahmaa casts
His reflection in all Antahkaran.
A.
~ No one can see ether with his eyes as it is altogether formless, how can a thing
be reflected in a looking-glass or in water when it cannot even be seen. Only
a thing that possesses some form can look blue or deep gray, but never a formless
one. Q.
- What is then that looks bluish on high and is reflected in a mirror? A.
~ It is the particles of dust and water (that have gone up from the earth) and
of Agni*. If there were not aqueous vapor above, where could the rain come
from? Hence what looks like a tent (and over-spreads us) in reality a spherically-shaped
mass of aqueous vapor. Just as fog, when looked at from a distance, appears thick
and tent-like but gets thinner on approaching nearer, so does the watery vapor
go up in the sky. Q.
- Are the then the illustrations elating to a coil of rope and a snake and to
things seen in dreams and the like, which have been adduced above by us, beside
the point?
*
That state of matter whose
properties are light and heat, etc. See Chapter 3 for further information on this
subject.- Tr. A.
~ No, it is your understanding that is to blame, and this has already been pointed
out. Pray tell us who it is that first falls a prey to ignorance? Q.
- Brahma. A.
~ Is Brahma Omniscient or possessed of finite knowledge? Q.
- He is neither Omniscient nor is He possessed of finite knowledge, because Omniscience
and its reverse can be predicated of him alone whose (psychic vision) is barred
by a limiting medium (Upaadhi). A.
~ Who is it that becomes subject to the influence of Upaadhi? Q.
- Brahmaa A.
~ Then it is proved that Brahmaa can be both Omniscient and its reverse.
Why did you then take exception to this statement? If you contend that upaadhi
is something that has not reality in existence, with whom then did this false
conception originate? Q.
- Is the soul identical with Brahmaa or not? A.
~ It is different from Brahmaa, for if it were the same as Brahmaa,
no false conceptions could originate. He, whose conception can be wrong, can never
be All-truth. Q.
- We recognize no distinction between right and wrong, and all human utterance
is devoid of actuality.
A.
~ If all that you believe and say is false, how can you afford safe guidance?
Q.
-We don't care whether we afford safe guidance or not. Conceptions of right and
wrong originate entirely with us (and have objective reality). It is the soul
that is the witness and seat thereof. A.
~ If conceptions of right and wrong are purely subjective phenomena, you would
be a thief and an honest man at one and the same time and, therefore, a very unsafe
guide. For he alone is a trustworthy guide whose conceptions are correct, who
speaks what is right and acts up to his convictions in accordance with what is
right, and not one who is otherwise. Your statement being self-contradictory you
cannot be right. Q.
- Do you believe in the existence of the beginingless Maya that resides in the
and envelopes Brahmaa?
A.
~ No, we do not, because you interpret Maya as something which is not and yet
appears to be. Only he whose mental vision is blurred will subscribe to this belief.
It is impossible that a thing, which does not exist at all, should appear to exist,
even as it is impossible to photograph the son of a barren woman. Besides your
view is opposed to the teachings of the Upanishads as is proved by the
following passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad, "(Do thou,) O dear
son, (bear in mind) that the world had verily a material cause." Q.
- Would you refute the teachings of even scholars like Vasishtha, Shankar and
Nischaldas who were possesses of greater learning than you are? To me it appears
that Vasishtha, Shankar, and Nischaldas could speak with greater authority. A.
~ Are you yourself a well-read man or not? Q.
- Yes, I have read a little.
A.
~ Alright then, try if you can establish the truth of the doctrine promulgated
by Vasishtha, Shakara and Nischaldas, we will refute your arguments. He whose
position is proved to be right, will be regarded the greater authority. If the
position held by you in common with those teachers had been impregnable, you would
have succeeded in confuting us in debate by producing the arguments advanced by
them, and in that case your position would have been accepted as right. It
is very likely that Shankaracharya had taken up this position with the
view to refute more successfully the beliefs of the Jainis, for many a selfish
scholar in response to the requirements of expediency preaches doctrines opposed
to the dictates of his conscience. But if he really held beliefs like the identity
of God with the soul, and the unreality of the external universe, his position
was altogether wrong. Let
us now examine the claims of Nischaldas to scholarship. He says in his
book, called Vrittiprabhakar, that the oneness of God and the soul can
be inferred from the fact of both of them being possessed of consciousness. An
argument like this can be adduced only by men possessed of a poor intellect, because
things possessing similar attributes are not necessarily identical, as points
of dissimilarity may differentiate them just as the statement that Prithivi
(solids) and Jala (liquids) being dead and inert, are identical, cannot
be valid, in the same manner the contention of Nischaldas stated above
is illogical because finitude and fallibility differentiate the soul from God
and omniscience and infallibility differentiate God from the soul; it is, therefore,
clear that God and the soul are two distinct entities. Now
solidity and gankha (the property of exciting olfactory impulses) are attributes
of Prithivi (solids) which distinguish if from Jala (liquids) which
possesses rasa (the property of exciting gustatory impulses) and fluidity,
therefore solids and liquids are not identical. In like manner, God and the soul
on account of possessing dissimilar attributes, never were, nor are, nor shall
ever be one. This will suffice to show the extent of Nischaldas's learning.
As regards Yoga vashishtha, its author was a Neo-Vedaantist. It
could not have been written by Balmika, Vashishtha or Laksman Chandra,
for all of them were followers of the Vedic religion and could not therefore have
written a book opposed to its teachings, nor could they have preached anti-Vedic
doctrines. Q.
- Vyasa is the author of Shariraka Sutraas which also inculcate the identity of
God with the soul. For example he says,
- "The soul manifests itself after attaining
its true nature which is Divine, because the word (Swa) self, stands for it its
Divine Nature." VEDAANT SHASTRA 4:4,1.
- "Jaimini holds that the soul is one with
God, because there are passages in the Upanishads which declare that the soul
can attain to a state of sinlessness." VEDAANT 4:4, 7.
- "The great teacher Audulomi believes that
the soul retains the attribute of consciousness alone in the state of salvation
(hence is identical with Brahmaa) as there are passages in the Brihidaranyaka
which declare that the soul is of the same nature as God." VEDANT 4:4, 6.
- "Vyasa holds that God and the soul are not
different, because the passages like the above occur in the Upanishads."
VEDANT 4: 5.
- "When a seer (yogi) attains superhuman powers
and regains his Divinity, he is not longer subject to the authority of a higher
power, i.e., by virtue of his Divinity he attains final beatitude and remains
in the state of emancipation as his own master as well as the supreme Governor
of the universe." VEDANT 4: 4, 9.
Now
how would you explain these passages? A.
~ You have wrongly translated these aphorisms. The following is their correct
translation:- - "So long as the soul is not cleansed of all its
impurities, and does not regain its pristine purity, it cannot acquire superhuman*
powers and attain eternal bliss through communication with the Divine Spirit that
pervades the soul."
- "In like manner the great sage Jaimini holds that
so long as the soul does not attain superhuman psychic powers and free itself
from the bondage of sin, it cannot attain and enjoy eternal bliss."
- "The great Teacher Audulomi believes that when
the soul is freed from all faults and imperfections, such as ignorance, attains
purity and retains the attribute of consciousness alone, it establishes direct
relationship with the All-pervading Deity."
- "The great sage Vyasa holds that when a man attains
a beatified state in this life by virtue of direct communion with God and acquisition
of superhuman psychic powers and absolute knowledge, he recovers his original
pure self and enjoys extreme bliss."
- "When a yogi has reached a stage at which all his
volitional activity is directed towards righteousness alone, he attains to a state
of constant communion with God and obtains the bliss of salvation. Then he is
free and is his own master quite unlike what we see in this world of ours, wherein
one man is placed above another."
Had
the interpolation of the above aphorisms been different from what is given here,
the following aphorisms would not be found in the same book. (i)
“The soul which is distinct from God could not be the author of the universe,
for being possessed of finite energy and knowledge it has not the power to build
up the Cosmos. Hence the soul is distinct from God. VEDANT SHAASTRA 1:1, 16. (ii)"The
soul and God are distinct from each other, as it has been declared by the Upanishads
that they are different. Had it not been so, it would not be true that the soul
attains bliss through communion with God Who is All-bliss and that God is the
object of realization, whilst the soul seeks realization." The soul and God
are, therefore, not identical. VEDANT 1:1, 17
*
I have to use this word
for want of a better word. Here the term superhuman is used to express those powers
that are not attainable by man except through the practice of the highest form
of Yoga. - Tr. (iii)"It having been declared by the Upanishads
that God is distinguished from the soul and the primordial matter on account of
His possessing the attributes of Resplendence, Holiness, All-glory, absence of
incarnate existence, Omnipresence, and of His being Unborn and Deathless, without
the necessity of respiration, bodily existence and mind, the subtler than the
soul which again is subtler than primordial matter. On account of the Character
and attributes stated above, God is distinct from both the soul and the matter."
VEDANT 1,2, 22. (iv)"The
Upanishads inculcate the union of the Omnipresent God with the soul, and of the
soul with the Divine spirit. God and the soul are therefore distinct from each
other as union can be predicted only of two distinct entities." VEDANT 1:1,19.
"God
has been declared Omnipresent in the Upanishad and because He pervades the soul,
the soul which is pervaded is distinct from God that pervades it. This relation
can be true only of two distinct entities. Just as God is distinct from the soul,
in like manner is He different from learned men, otherwise called Devas, because
the latter enjoy the use of the senses, and manas, the earth and other material
objects, space, the atmosphere and luminaries like the sun." VEDANT 1:1,20.
(vii)"As
God and the soul are two distinct entities, the Upanishads declare that in the
recesses of the human heart there lie hidden two spirits - divine and the human."
VEDANT 1:1, 11 (vii)"The
soul circumscribed by a material body cannot be identical with God as the nature,
attributes and characteristics of God cannot be predicated of it." VEDANT
1:1,3. (ix)
"God is distinct from the soul as He pervades the senses, the manas, the
earth and other material objects, and the soul. This fact of God being Omnipresent
is clearly stated in all the Upanishads." VEDANT 1:2, 18. (x)
"The soul encased in a bodily tenement is not God, for they are essentially
different from each other in nature." VEDANT 1:2, 20. Thus
even the Shariraka Sutras* teach that God and the soul are distinct from each
other in their very nature. In the same manner, it can be proved that there can
be no Upakaram (i.e., the issuing of the Universe from Brahmaa) and Upsanhara
(i.e., the merging of the Universe into God at the time of Dissolution) as held
by the Neo-Vedantis. When
they recognize no other entity excepting God, it must be He alone then that is
subject to creation and dissolution, but the Vedas and other authoritative scriptures
declare him otherwise. This belief of theirs is, therefore sacrilegious, for it
is impossible that God Who is Unchangeable, Infinite, Holy, Eternal, Infallible,
should become subject to change, creation and ignorance. Even
at the time of dissolution God, prakriti (primordial matter), and the soul continue
to exist separately. Therefore the Neo-Vedantic theories of Creation and Dissolution
are also false. There are good many other beliefs of theirs that are opposed to
the teachings of the Shaastraas and do not stand the test of reason and experience.
|