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. 11^th):

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,

Dev

 

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. 14^th:

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. 15^th:

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. 12^th (regarding Laksman’s original reply). This reply was sent on Nov 16^th.

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. 19^th):

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, 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,

 

Jai Maha Dev

 

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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier):  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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier):  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 forewarn 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 (from earlier):  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 (from earlier):  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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier):  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 (from earlier):  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 (to Laksman’s earlier email): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier):  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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier): 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 (from earlier):  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 you 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 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).

“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 play the Game of Life again if and whenever it chooses to do so.

[Lakshman continues]. . . .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, Lakshman– “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.”   Dev response: 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 needs 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–but we DO NOT pervade each other: I do not pervade you and you do not pervade me.

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.  Realizing this, you perform 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 being 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 soul 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,

Jai Maha Dev

 

Laksman’s reply on Nov. 27th:

 

[Laksman sent his reply to Dev’s previous email (of the 26^th) 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 26^th, 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 we 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 Rajarishi, Maharishi, and Maharishi, Brahmarishi?  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 into 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous 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 (reply to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (reply to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email):  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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email):  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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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 (from previous email): 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 (from previous email): 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 (to Laksman’s previous email): 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. 30^th.

 

Note that this email includes Dev’s responses to Laksman’s recently received email of the 28^th, which was his reply to Dev’s email of the 26^th responding to Laksman’s email of Nov. 22^nd.

 

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 you 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 your 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).

Laksman: 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.

Laksman: 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? NO. 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.

Laksman:  In any case let’s play your game.  Since I’m so ignorant what is the agenda that is hidden from me?  It is one thing to try and sow 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 that 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?

Laksman: 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.)

Laksman:  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 (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.

Laksman: If this is true then what is the meaning of your words that it sleeps and wakes?

Dev (from previous dialog):  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 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 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 you 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, no 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 realizing this, you perform action (in the form of self-study, devotion, etc.) to drop the thought.

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 the 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.

Laksman:  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).

Laksman: 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.

Laksman: 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.

Laksman: 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.

Laksman:  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 not 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

——————————————

Following is an excerpt from Satyarth Prakash, written by Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati almost 150 years ago.

The beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists are discussed below in the form of a dialog between a True Vedantist (TV) and Neo-Vedantist (NV).

NV- 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 forwater, or like a town of angels or like a juggler’s trick. (Brahmaa) God alone is real.

TV~ What do you call real?

NV- What does not exist and yet appears to do so.

TV~ How can a thing appear to exist when it does not exist at all?

NV- By adhyaropa.

TV~ What do you mean by adhyaropa?

NV-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.

TV~ 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).

NV- 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?

TV~ 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.

TV (continuing)–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.

TV (continuing)–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.

NV- 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.

TV~ Who erroneously experiences this illusion of the world in Brahma?

NV- The human soul.

TV~ Whence did the human soul originate?

NV- Out of ignorance.

TV~ What is the origin of ignorance and where does it reside?

NV- Ignorance is without a beginning and resides in Brahma.

TV~ Was there ignorance of self or of something else in Brahma and who was it that became ignorant?

NV- Chidabhasa

TV~ What is the nature of this Chidabhasa?

NV- It is Brahmaa. Brahmaa becomes ignorant of Brahmaa, in other words, He forgets His own nature.

TV~ What is the cause of this forgetfulness?

 NV- Nescience.

TV~ Is nescience an attribute of an Omnipresent, Omniscient Being or of one who possesses finite knowledge.

NV- Of the latter.

TV~ 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.

TV (continuing)–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.

NV- It is all an attribute of Upadhi.

TV~ Is Upadhi possessed of consciousness or not? Is it real or otherwise?

NV– It is indescribable, in other words, it cannot be said of it that it possesses consciousness or is without it, is real or apparent.

TV~ 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.

NV- 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.”

TV~ 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)?

NV- “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.

NV (continuing)–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.

TV~ 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 anwayaa nd 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.

TV (continuing)–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 in Mathura is not the same that lives in 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.

NV- Even a formless object can be reflected, just as ether (sky) is reflected in a mirror or in water and looks blue or dull gray, in like manner Brahmaa casts His reflection in all Antahkaran.

TV~ 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.

NV- What is it then that looks bluish on high and is reflected in a mirror?

TV~ It is the particles of dust and water (that have gone up from the earth). If there were not aqueous vapor above, where could the rain come from? Hence what looks like a tent (and over-spreads us) is 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.

NV- Are then the illustrations relating 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?

TV — 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?

NV- Brahma.

TV~ Is Brahma Omniscient or possessed of finite knowledge?

NV- 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).

TV~ Who is it that becomes subject to the influence ofUpaadhi?

NV- Brahmaa

TV~ 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?

 NV- Is the soul identical with Brahmaa or not?

TV~ 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.

NV- We recognize no distinction between right and wrong, and all human utterance is devoid of actuality.

TV~ If all that you believe and say is false, how can you afford safe guidance?

NV–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.

TV~ 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.

NV- Do you believe in the existence of the beginingless Maya that resides in the and envelopes Brahmaa?

TV~ 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.”

NV– 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.

TV~ Are you yourself a well-read man or not?

NV- Yes, I have read a little.

TV~ 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.

TV (continuing)–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.

TV (continuing)–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.

TV (continuing)–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.

NV- Vyasa is the author of Shariraka Sutraas which also inculcate the identity of God with the soul. For example he says,

1. “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.
2. “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.
3. “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.
4. “Vyasa holds that God and the soul are not different, because the passages like the above occur in the Upanishads.” VEDANT 4: 5.
5. “When a seer (yogi) attains superhuman powers and regains his Divinity, he is no 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?

TV~ You have wrongly translated these aphorisms. The following is their correct translation:-

1. “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.”
2. “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.”
3. “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.”
4. “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.”
5. “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 interpretation 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 (superhuman) 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.

Documents related to the email Debate