Language and Teaching

Posted on by

I think we have probably had enough discussion on the ‘Experience versus Knowledge’ question. I cannot imagine many visitors wanting to read through 50+ comments on the topic! So here is an article that I have just had published in the Newsletter of Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK. It is on a subject closely related to the above question and indeed was touched upon in some of the comments…

Language and Teaching

Language is something we tend to take very much for granted. When someone says something to us, and providing we recognize the words, we think that we understand what it is that the speaker intends to communicate. And we respond appropriately. This is often not verbal – when it is, there is a subsequent opportunity to resolve any misunderstanding. Our response is usually to form an immediate mental opinion or judgement upon what has been said. And this is probably not merely a spoken or unspoken comment upon the particular topic expressed but also upon the person who made the statement. This all happens instantaneously and automatically. Thus it is that it can actually be worse for our comprehension if we already know something about the topic to begin with than if we are completely ignorant. What we take in will be significantly coloured by what we believe to be our prior knowledge (which may actually be ignorance).

We tend to learn the meanings of the everyday words that we use as we grow up, in the family-and-friends context. Here, repetition and normal interpersonal interactions will usually clear up any wrong ideas quite quickly so that any particular group or stratum of society will reach a consensus of meaning. The exceptions would principally relate to any word encountered only infrequently, in which case one might take away an entirely wrong conception of its meaning. I used to read several books per week in my childhood (mostly science fiction!). When I encountered a new word, I would sometimes assume that I understood what it meant by the context in which it occurred. The next time I met the word, I recalled that assumed meaning and continued reading. On several occasions in later life, I have been somewhat disconcerted to discover that such a word meant something quite different.

As regards more specialized terms, these usually relate to education in a school or college context. Here, any errors are corrected through reading, listening, communicating and, as a final resort, tests and examinations!

By the time we reach early adulthood, most of us have a command of virtually all of the words that we will use or encounter in our day to day lives. And we all know how to use a dictionary to look up any new ones. No problems, then, you might say!

Not so! The problems arise when we encounter a word that we have always used in a particular way but in which the speaker or writer means something else entirely. Even worse, there are also situations in which the speaker has an incorrect understanding of a word and assumes that the hearer will have the same (mis)understanding. Here, the scene is set for total confusion!

Words can change their meaning over time, as well. Children today would think I had gone mad if I said I was going to hang a mobile over the baby’s cot. Words can even come to mean precisely the opposite of their original ones, as evidenced by the well-known example of ‘person’ (from the Latin persona, meaning ‘mask’). And new words are coming into existence all the time. Today I saw, in the racks of ladies’ trousers in Marks and Spencer, sections labelled ‘Treggings’ and ‘Jeggings’!

So, why all this preliminary talk about words and their meaning? Well, in Advaita, this potential problem is seriously compounded by another problem. Many of the key terms used in the teaching were originally in Sanskrit. And some of these Sanskrit terms have no clear translation.

Unfortunately, many seekers have mistrust or even a phobia about Sanskrit. After all, they want to find out about such things as freedom and happiness; they are not interested in spending years learning a new, and particularly difficult language! In fact, not only are they expected to learn lots of new words and weird ways of combining them, but also they have to learn a strange new alphabet. Even if they ignore the correct, scripted form, they are expected to understand all of those lines, dots and squiggles or cope with seemingly random capital letters in the middle of words! Surely this is all unnecessary?

What we find in the teaching of Advaita is that there are many words, terms and concepts that have no direct equivalent in English. Of course, this is not to say that you need to learn Sanskrit in order to understand the concepts. English (and all other modern languages) are sufficiently complex, mature and robust that all of the teaching can be explained, given time and application. But, in order fully to appreciate all of the nuances and to avoid mistaken ideas, we really have to go through a similar process as was traversed for our everyday language capability.

The sort of example I have in mind is a typical question by a seeker: “Is the world real or illusory?” It is likely that the questioner expects a single word answer, with maybe some explanation for that answer. But that single word answer would have to be ‘No’, followed by an answer that is perhaps rather longer than the questioner expected! The reason is simple: unless you are a cosmologist, quantum physicist or philosopher, you probably find it hard to conceive that there could be something other than ‘real’ or ‘illusory’. If it is not one, surely it must be the other, you might think.

Advaita is able to explain this – but not in a single-word answer! The world is not an illusion – we experience it whenever we are awake. But then we experience a dream world whenever we go to sleep and dream, and surely that is not real? It does not help much to say that others also experience this waking world, because I could equally well say that others in my dream also experience my dream world. The first great Advaitin, Gaudapada, wrote lots about this in his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad (my latest book, ‘A-U-M: Awakening to Reality’, reveals all of this) and the bottom-line conclusion is that there is no world at all! (But that is another story.)

Another, extremely important example is the word ‘enlightenment’. Seekers use this word all the time and assume that the person to whom they are speaking uses it in a similar way. But it may convey all sorts of mistaken ideas. It is rarely used in traditional teaching for that reason. The Sanskrit term with which it is usually thought to correspond is mokSha, which actually means ‘liberation’, in the sense of being freed from the eternal cycle of rebirth.

Enlightenment has nothing to do with God (merging with, returning to or coming from), because there is no God in reality. Nor is it an experience of any kind, even ‘of oneself’, so that blinding lights, feelings of peace or supreme happiness may signal eye disease or use of drugs – but not enlightenment. It is not about getting what you want (or getting rid of what you do not want). Modern seekers frequently confuse seeking enlightenment with ‘self-help’, looking to somehow become complete and fulfilled. There is no ‘higher self’ to be reached; enlightenment is not an enhanced state of consciousness and you cannot be ‘almost’ or ‘partially’ enlightened – you either are or you are not. It is not even about becoming liberated, which you might think given the meaning of mokSha. You are in fact already free – the problem is you do not know this. And there are other misconceptions, equally erroneous (see my book ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’ for a detailed analysis).

Enlightenment is simply the realization, in the mind of the person, that I am not the body-mind but Consciousness – and that is all there is. It is the replacement of Self-ignorance by Self-knowledge. It is the certainty that reality is non-dual; the knowledge that the world is not real in itself; the reality of the world is also Consciousness. It is its apparent separateness that is illusory.

These, then, are examples of why we need carefully to define all our words before embarking upon any attempt to ‘explain’ life, the universe and everything to someone else. A statement which may be revealing and extremely helpful to someone who understands the meaning of each of the words may be confusing or quite misleading to someone who does not.

So, we have a problem! Someone may ask a question of a teacher and an answer may be given. Ideally, this will be in the context of a gradual unfoldment of Advaita over a period of many years. The key words used in question and answer will have been defined and used in specific ways and both will clearly understand their meaning.

In the much less ideal context of a ‘satsang’ meeting, where the teacher may only just have encountered the seeker and the meeting may only last a couple of hours, there is a clear danger of misunderstanding. However, if the teacher is experienced and able to intuit the essence of what is being asked, he or she may be able to provide a response in such a manner that the student will understand and benefit.

But, if a seeker is only able to read a transcript of a dialog, is entirely unaware of the level of the questioner and probably does not have his or her own clear understanding of the topic and its many related aspects, then the likelihood of misunderstanding increases dramatically – and there is often no possibility of asking the teacher for clarification. Even worse, the written material may have been translated from another language. Now we compound the problem even further because the translator has first to understand the dialog before it can be translated. (And the original may also include Sanskrit terms so there is further scope for corruption of meaning.)

This, then, is the situation with respect to all written material from any teacher. If the material is, for example, a commentary on an Upanishad, then it may not be so serious. It is likely that translations of Sanskrit words will be given and that the commentary will use these in the manner originally intended by the scripture. Thus, we have what is potentially a gradual unfoldment, defining the terms that will be used subsequently. Obviously nowhere near so good as being in the presence of the teacher (where questions can be asked to eliminate doubt) but much better than randomly asked questions and answers without prior explanation of the words which will be used.

Unfortunately, this problem applies all Q&A type material – including that of Ramana and Nisargadatta. No one doubts that both were brilliant at answering live questions from seekers, to their obvious benefit. But this format does not constitute a systematic teaching, even in the live context, as already explained. In the case of a seeker merely reading (a translation) from a book, the answers may prove inspiring and even revelatory but they may also instil confusion or erroneous notions which prevent, rather than aid enlightenment. Seekers should be aware of this danger. Ideally, all such material should be used as an adjunct to traditional teaching and never as the only source of Self-knowledge.

Obviously I do not claim that my own writing is in the same league as the transcribed discourses of sages such as these (even where they are second-hand and translated). What I do always endeavour to ensure is that I explain topics ‘bottom-up’, defining all the terms first and ensuring that concepts needed to be understood for any particular topic have already been explained earlier. And there is a comprehensive glossary of terms in every book, usually with Sanskrit script and transcription-with-capital-letters. My hope is that, in this manner, I can at least avoid some of the problems described above.

53 thoughts on “Language and Teaching”

  1. Dennis,

    “Enlightenment is simply the realization, in the mind of the person, that I am not the body-mind but Consciousness – and that is all there is.”

    1. So enlightenment is merely another mental activity. The earlier mind continues with the added ‘realization’ of something or the other.
    2. Who is the I that says I am not the body or I am Consciousness or this and that? From where does this I arise?

    “It is the certainty that reality is non-dual”.

    This is hardly self enquiry. Who is the entity demanding certainty? Is it an uncertain mind that is rooted in fear?

    “Unfortunately, this problem applies all Q&A type material – including that of Ramana and Nisargadatta”. And “this format does not constitute a systematic teaching”, “Seekers should be aware of this danger. Ideally, all such material should be used as an adjunct to traditional teaching.”

    Forgive me if I sound abrasive. Why are we so caught up with Ramana or X or Y and finding fault or assessing their format as systematic teaching or not? What makes you think we are capable of doing this? Is this relevant? Who are we to say whether their methods of teaching should be used as an adjunct or a primary source?

    By the way there is a lot of ‘traditional’ teaching that is in the question/answer format. Not just Ramana and Krishamurti. The Buddha had dialogues with Ananda. Rama had questions for Vasishta. The Bhagawad Geeta is a series of answers to questions asked by Arjuna. And then there is Socrates…..

    If anything older teachings are susceptible to modifications and multiple interpretations by pseudo intellectuals over the centuries. Many ‘gurus’ have made a living in this manner. It would be correct to say that such material must be used with far more scrutiny and skepticism.

  2. Twopaisa,

    “1. So enlightenment is merely another mental activity. The earlier mind continues with the added ‘realization’ of something or the other. “

    Enlightenment is the supreme ‘mental activity’ – akhaNDAkAra vRRitti; the thought ‘in the form of the undivided’; the realization that all appearance is mithyA, including the mind, body, ego of the person realizing this.

    “2. Who is the I that says I am not the body or I am Consciousness or this and that? From where does this I arise?”

    The ‘I’ who says it realizes that he/she is not that ‘I’ but brahman.

    “This is hardly self enquiry. Who is the entity demanding certainty? Is it an uncertain mind that is rooted in fear?”

    The entity looking for certainty is indeed rooted in insecurity but the certainty that is found is that ‘I am not really that entity but brahman’.

    “Forgive me if I sound abrasive. Why are we so caught up with Ramana or X or Y and finding fault or assessing their format as systematic teaching or not? What makes you think we are capable of doing this? Is this relevant? Who are we to say whether their methods of teaching should be used as an adjunct or a primary source? “

    ‘We’ are not caught up in it. People keep quoting from Ramana and Nisargadatta and expressing views which show a failure to understand, whether because what was said was unclear or it was mistranslated or out of context or they have given incorrect emphasis to certain words etc.

    Traditional teaching uses lots of texts and is presented according to proven techniques in a particular order, systematically by someone who understands the original Sanskrit and has studied for many years (and also usually has Self-knowledge, though this is not absolutely necessary). Some of these texts are indeed in a Q&A format. It is a valuable method, although the questioner may not have the same questions that we do…

    “If anything older teachings are susceptible to modifications and multiple interpretations by pseudo intellectuals over the centuries. Many ‘gurus’ have made a living in this manner. It would be correct to say that such material must be used with far more scrutiny and skepticism.”

    This is not actually true because the words of the original text are learned by heart and passed down from source to present day. The methods, metaphors, stories etc for explaining the original source are also passed down from teacher to disciple in the sampradAya system, albeit that they might be adapted to modern listeners.

    • Dennis,

      I. “Enlightenment is the supreme ‘mental activity’ – akhaNDAkAra vRRitti; the thought ‘in the form of the undivided’; ”

      The very nature of thought is limitation by memory and therefore division from the rest. Repeating ‘I am undivided’, by the thought process is no different than repeating something like ‘I am from Mars’.

      II. “The ‘I’ who says it realizes that he/she is not that ‘I’ but brahman.”

      So the I still exists which means the ego is alive and well. Only it has learnt to chant ‘I am not I but Brahman”.

      III. “People keep quoting from Ramana and Nisargadatta and expressing views which show a failure to understand, whether because what was said was unclear or it was mistranslated or out of context or they have given incorrect emphasis to certain words etc.”

      How do you know you have the “correct” view/emphasis/translation in order to judge everyone else as having failed to understand? This sort of self righteousness is the fast track to fanaticism. And keep in mind, all this is only academic in any case since you are not claiming to be enlightened.

      IV. “the words of the original text are learned by heart and passed down from source to present day. The methods, metaphors, stories etc for explaining the original source are also passed down from teacher to disciple in the sampradAya system, albeit that they might be adapted to modern listeners.”

      So we have your word that the ‘original’ text have been learnt by heart for hundreds of years without any errors! ( a side note. You might be interested to know that a trained pandit studies in a veda patasala for about seven years. And the best student scores around 90% on the exams. So even the best gets 10% of the material wrong. Imagine how much original text will remain in a persons head in just 10 generations.)

      Ah, there is also ‘adaptation’ though. In other words, I know what is right and so I will adapt the text ‘suitably’ for the lesser mortals. The good old guru business.

  3. Two Paisa,

    As you can see, all the questions have answers to them according to this system that Dennis subscribes to. Dennis chooses to live with this. You might choose the JK approach or a combination thereof. The only thing I can repeat for whatever it’s worth to anyone who chooses to consider it is that what we experience will never equate with the Truth. Self and Consciousness are not capable of understanding it or surviving its Revelation. What survives is a completely transcendant state utterly devoid of self on any level. Self and consciousness cannot will itself to end so there is no action that one can take to bring the revelation of Truth. It is wholly outside of the human dimension. Many of us have insights and unusual experiences that we call by many names but self awareness remains throughout all human experience. The ending of self awareness can only be brought about by Truth or whatever one might call it. Self cannot survive this and that is why some sages talk about a ‘death’ as Ramana, UG, and Maharaj have. JK only alludes to higher experiences of a self and never moves past it. His approach is very similar to the Buddhist approach and the practice of Vipassana. Truth is not a human experience. This is why it is so rare. Icons like the Buddha and Christ went through a transformation that was far beyond what Advaita and most Hindu systems talk about. They simply don’t account for the ending of all self awareness and consciousness and the bodily transformation that it entails. That bodily transformation is what is sensed when you look at people like Ramana. He is gone in the human sense. The Divine is operating there and you can sense it and this Presence of the Divine is what does the work. Death and Transfiguration was his lot. Self enquiry was just his way of grabbing your attention. He could have been talking about anything because what was happening had nothing to do with what he was saying. If you can figure any of this out, you haven’t understood a thing about Truth or the Divine. And, by the way, I am also talking to myself when I say all of this.

  4. Anon,

    “As you can see, all the questions have answers to them according to this system that Dennis subscribes to.”

    And this is a bad thing??

    “what we experience will never equate with the Truth.”

    This is also what traditional Advaita says.

    What I don’t understand is why, given that
    a) traditional Advaita can answer all questions
    b) experience, knowledge, mind etc are all valueless according to you and have to go

    Why should anyone listen to anything you say? Must it not also be equally valueless? Or is your knowledge/experience of a special kind that is not subject to the limitations of all other spiritual systems?

  5. Dennis,

    It is not a bad thing to have answers for all questions. The reality of it is that answers don’t transform people. They just make them feel good temporarily. Nothing really has changed.

    I didn’t say that experience, knowledge, and mind are valueless in themselves. They are not what will transform a person ala Ramana, UG, & Maharaj as they all have pointed out quite clearly. All are necessary for your survival. But they have little to do with ‘Enlightenment’ as is written in scriptures and personal accounts of sages.

    Advaita never addresses the end of self experience and consciousness which is not possible through the efforts of self. It stops with an experience of Oneness which is still in the sphere of self and consciousness. The Buddha made this quite clear in 5th c. BC. No self to be found anywhere.

    Why shouldn’t someone consider what I am saying? All they have to do is observe their own experience and how things are. Nothing special about this. I am not trying to lead someone into another state of mind. I am pointing out what your state of mind is all about. If it doesn’t add up, forget about it. You should be observing what is going on, and what is going on is much more than questions and answers. I have no interest in trying to talk you out of your own belief system, Dennis. It’s not possible.

    • Anonymous,

      Let me see if I can respond cogently to a couple of your points.
      Dennis asked why anyone should listen to you, and you responded by asking why not consider what you are saying? Have you considered the recursive nature of your position? You’ve said many times that concepts and “conceptual pollution” are the problem, right? Yet it’s literally impossible for you to state your own position without using certain concepts and/or cognitive framing yourself. Put another way, and with no offense intended: If all concepts, all words, all teachings are of no true value, as you seem to be declaring, then neither are yours, by definition. It’s a position that collapses on itself when carried through to its logical conclusion. If you are correct, then we should stop listening to you. If this is not what you are saying, then please consider that it’s how you are sounding — to my ear, anyway.

      You wrote: “Advaita never addresses the end of self experience and consciousness which is not possible through the efforts of self. It stops with an experience of Oneness which is still in the sphere of self and consciousness. The Buddha made this quite clear in 5th c. BC. No self to be found anywhere.”

      Well, Shankara says the Buddha was wrong, so there! With all due respect, it seems like you are trying to argue with Advaitins (on a blog titled Advaita Vision no less!) without having bothered to first read their core texts or Shankara’s commentaries thereon. He left no stone unturned. Confer the Brahma Sutras, for example, which examines and dismantles numerous rival views of the day, including different variations of Buddhist doctrine. The arguments are all there if you want to please investigate first and *then* try to refute them. For readability, I highly recommend A.J. Alston’s 6-volume series on Shankara, with one entire volume devoted to Rival Views. 🙂

      Cheers,
      Charles

      • “Well, Shankara says the Buddha was wrong,”.

        More reason not to put your faith blindly in such conclusions but exercise discernment. Ramana has also addressed this and talked of the Buddha having realized the Self. But surely some Hindu zealots could have put this spin as part of their propaganda in many centuries.

        • Of course the Buddha had realized the Self, but he didn’t stop there. Self Realization is not the transcendant realization of the Buddha and other sages that have appeared throughout history. There are further developments, so to speak, that many saints and sages have not come to. But it is pointless to discuss who is right and who is wrong. What is indisputable is the ability of the human experience to will itself by any means into Divine Revelation. This is the relevant insight of the insufficiency of the human mind to know anything about the Divine, Brahman, Truth, or whatever you choose to call it. As Socrates said, ‘I only know that I don’t know’. This seems like a mild statement, but it is only through this unknowing that there is any hope of a close encounter. The vessel must be emptied out before it can be filled. This is just figurative, of course.

          The discernment must be your own.

          Can you quote Sankara saying the Buddha was wrong? I’d like to see what he said in his own words. Perhaps they are not his own words, but some commentator’s? Was this view also shared by Gaudapada?

          • Anonymous,

            Here are two quotes pertaining to the Buddha, from A Shankara Source Book (A.J. Alston), Volume 4, Rival Views, p. 285. The first quote is taken from the Brahma Sutra Bhyasa (i.e., Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras), and the second is from his commentary on Gaudapada’s Karikas.

            1. And the Buddha, by teaching three mutually contradictory doctrines emphasizing the reality of the external object, and of Consciousness and of the Void respectively, showed himself to be a mere loose talker. Or it may be that he was consumed with hatred for the people and taught them contradictory doctrines in the hope that it would confuse them. In any case, there must be no respect for this Buddhist teaching on the part of those who seek their true spiritual welfare.

            2. This non-dual principle of reality, void of knowledge, knower, and known, has (as the Acharya Gaudapada says) ‘not been declared by the Buddha.’ It is true that in refuting the existence of external objects, and in supposing that Consciousness alone existed, he has said something close to the truth. But the true non-dual principle of reality can nevertheless only be found through the Upanishads.

            • Charles,

              Your quotes are exactly what I refer to as a ‘mistaken understanding’ in the Advaita tradition, and the first one, if it is a real utterance by Sankara, is as bad as Dayananda’s intellectual commentaries.

              The 2nd quote, which I assume is someone else’s take on Gaudapada, doesn’t accept that the Buddha’s point of view could possibly even transcend the ‘non-dual principle’. Non duality is still an arising in consciousness, a state of mind. Truth is neither non-dual or dual. This is a basic philosophical point that scholars can debate for aeons. But, for us, it hardly matters who is correct. Let’s not argue about it and thanks for the response.

            • Anon, Twopaisa, Venkat,

              There are lots of examples from scriptures and Shankara commentaries in which it is explained that Self-knowledge arises when a prepared mind hears such teaching as tat tvam asi – you are That. This is the bhAga-tyAga-lakShaNa that I have mentioned many times (look it up at the main website) and it triggers the ‘catastrophic’ event in the mind that brings ‘enlightenment’ (akhaNDAkAra vRRitti).

              I could dig out some of these quotes but it would take time – and what’s the point when objectors make such statements as “if it is a real utterance by Shankara, is as bad as Dayananda’s intellectual commentaries”?

              Instead, let me ask (again, I think) how you can you show that an experience could bring enlightenment? Here is an observation that I made in the first edition of ‘Book of One’:

              “In the Science Museum in London, they once had an interesting room as part of an exhibition on perception, optical illusions and so on. Passing down a corridor, there was a window on your right, which appeared to look into a room in a house. There was a door in the opposite corner and everything seemed perfectly normal until someone entered the room through that door – they seemed disproportionately small. What was worse was that, as they moved forward into the room, they grew in size quite rapidly until, as they neared the window, their body had become enormous.

              “At first sight there just seemed no explanation for this at all. The mind was forced to accept what the eyes were telling it but could make no sense of it since another part of the mind told us, quite reasonably, that this could not be true. Fortunately, when you continued down the corridor and round the corner, you discovered that you were able to look into the room through the door and even walk into it so that the next visitors could experience the same illusion. In fact, the room’s perspective was not normal. The floor sloped up steeply towards the window; angles that had appeared to be right angles, because corners in rooms are always right angles, were not. Now that we had the complete picture, we could appreciate how the illusion arose and no longer be taken in by it, even though the eyes would still transmit the same message if we returned to look through the window again. “

              The initial experience cannot be explained. Only when we gain knowledge do we understand.

              Lest you should try to claim that it was the second ‘experience’ that gave understanding, here is a simpler example. We see the red sky of the setting sun. Is the sky really red? Of course not. The shorter wavelengths of light are being scattered because of the extra thickness of the atmosphere and our perceptual apparatus and brain interpret the wavelength of the light that is left to enter the eye as the ‘color red’. There is no way that we will fail to see red in our experience, although there is no such thing as ‘red’ in reality. Only knowledge (derived from science in this instance) can bring this understanding.

              OK. I have demonstrated how knowledge can bring enlightenment whereas experience cannot. Now you do the same for the opposite claim.

              And, if I can anticipate the claim that all of this is mere intellectual mind-play, let us also agree what exactly we mean when we say that someone is enlightened. Advaita defines it in various ways. Let us use the well-known phrases. It is the realization that: Brahman is the reality; the world is mithyA; the jIva is nothing but Brahman. You are That (Brahman); I am Brahman.

              How does an experience reveal any of these? (If, by enlightenment, you do not mean any of these things, then I suggest you no longer participate on this blog!)

              • An experience doesn’t reveal it and I never claimed that it does. If you thought I was implying it, I’m sorry it wasn’t explained better.

                I have no argument against Brahman being what it is. All my arguments are against how this is interpreted. But I see no point in debating it or trying to change your mind or anyone else’s. You can interpret this any way you’d like.

  6. Dennis

    Wow.

    “People keep quoting from Ramana and Nisargadatta and expressing views which show a failure to understand, whether because what was said was unclear or it was mistranslated or out of context or they have given incorrect emphasis to certain words etc.”

    I suspect that I am one of those people. And yet you have not yet challenged a single quote by Ramana or Nisargadatta as to the interpretation of it. (Let alone the commentary from Sankara on Brhadaranyaka Up v.2.4.12 – you might want to revisit)

    You say you respect Ramana, yet you don’t subscribe to his self-enquiry method as a means to realisation. This seems to be the same sleight of hand that Paramarthananda, Swartz and Dayananda do. So in that case why do these reverential commentaries on his works? Or do you believe, as they state, that his self-enquiry has been ‘misunderstood’ or ‘mis-translated’ by ‘cultists’?

    You state Dayananda as a ‘traditional’ teacher, yet time and again this has been credibly challenged, to which you have no response, yet you plough on.

    Have you ever bothered reading Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha, the 35th Sankaracharya of Sringeri?? He – like Ramana – became enlightened in his teens, before being taught the scriptures. He subscribed to eka jiva vada as an advanced teaching and to nirvikalpa samadhi as a step to jnana, though he also said it was not strictly necessary, as self-enquiry was also a means. Try reading Exalting Elucidations – though perhaps it also has been mistranslated or misunderstood?

    The trouble with believing that jnana is simply an unwavering knowledge of truth in the mind, as opposed to something which is beyond mind / concepts (as in Socrates’ “I only know that I do not know”) is that one cannot then admit any doubt about the system of knowledge to which one subscribes. Then there can be no humility; only a fanatical certainty that I am right, and everyone else is wrong, because I cannot admit any doubt in my conviction . . . for if I did, I cannot have jnana. It is an elegant trap that Dayananda has constructed.

    • Venkat,

      This has been an eye opener. We have some fanatics in the world who insist on everybody accepting say their particular brand of Islam and issue fatwas to those who disagree. Advaita also does not appear to be free of these mullahs. You have taken a person to the water. Now move on.

  7. Venkat,

    Let me pose a question for you, if I may. Since most scholars date the Ashtavakra Gita prior to Shankara, I will assume you accept this ancient work as part of the “true” tradition. Here are a few quotes from it:

    I.3. You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor space. In order to attain liberation, know the Self as the witness of all these and as Consciousness itself.

    II.11. He who considers himself free is free indeed, and he who considers himself bound remains bound. ‘As one thinks, so one becomes’ is a popular saying in the world, and it is quite true.

    XV. 1. A man of pure intellect realizes the Self even by instruction casually imparted. A man of impure intellect is bewildered in trying to realize the Self even after enquiring throughout life.

    Verse after verse is like this, speaking of Liberation in terms of knowledge, realization, consideration – all “cognitive” terms — and not in terms of Samadhi, experiences, mystical states, etc. The tone is close to sarcasm when speaking of those of “impure intellect” who need to do practices and concentrate the mind, and there is no talk of Nirvikalpa Samadhi as essential to Moksha. I don’t know whether Swami Nityaswarupananda, whose comments from 1969 appear in the edition I’m quoting from, was from one of the lineages you would accept as traditional, but the translation and commentary for this text do seem to support the Knowledge side of this Knowledge-vs.-Experience argument. It certainly seems that this interpretation is by no means unique to Swami Dayananda, and in fact is very ancient. Why do you take the position that the moksha=knowledge teaching is a corruption by Swami D., when a book written so long ago says essentially the same thing?

    Regards,
    Charles

    • Charles,

      Have not read this version of Ashtavakra Gita, so cannot comment.

      “Why do you take the position that the moksha=knowledge teaching is a corruption by Swami D., when a book written so long ago says essentially the same thing?”.

      For the simple reason that Dayananda or recent commentators are by no means the only ones to corrupt and distort older texts. FWIW, It may be useful to keep the (in)famous statement by Aurobindo in mind – Scriptures even the Gita have been mutilated at the hands of the medieval intellects.

      • Twopaisa,

        “Dayananda or recent commentators are by no means the only ones to corrupt and distort older texts”

        This is demonstrably rubbish. Swami D invariably quotes the ORIGINAL Sanskrit and translates word by word. How can you give priority to some other commentary, which has no Sanskrit content at all and can be shown to have mistranslated and/or misunderstood key words?

        • Dennis,

          I had already pointed out the utter mutilation of Upadesa Saram by Dayananda on another thread. If someone did not know any better, he would take this to be the correct explanation of what Ramana wrote. I generally do not discuss/critique personalities but was forced to make an exception in that instance. You will hear no more from me on this.

  8. Twopaisa,

    My point was that Swami D.’s interpretation was not necessarily a distortion at all, since there are older texts that support it. Beyond that, I don’t see much point in debating the purity of the source texts. They are at best pointers anyway.

    • Charles,

      My point was that so called older texts are also likely distorted by many Dayanandas of earlier generations. That one source you cited sticks out as a classic example.

      No more on this. Let us move on.

    • Charles

      I am not advocating any ‘true’ tradition. I am simply pointing out that dayananda is by no means authoritative on what is traditional , given that he is at variance in his interpretation with the sankarachryas of sringeri.

      On ashtavakra Gita, it is an absolutely beautiful text. In it, there is not a word about studying scriptures. It simply says know that you are that witness consciousness . . . but in order to do that you have to have a pure mind, absolutely clear of desires and fears. Note previous discussions with Dennis, which says you can be a jnani, because in his schema jnana is a matter of positive knowledge, without necessarily being totally free of such desires and fears. (This also contradicts brahma sutra and Bhagavad Gita, which state that jivanmukta is coincidental with jnana).

      So when it says “know the self as the witness of all these and consciousness itself”, the issue turns on the interpretation of “know”. Of course it is possible to say that this is a positive, cognitive knowledge that one has to learn. But it can also be interpreted as an absence of false knowledge that you are a body-mind, and point to a direct beingness.

      Ashtavakra speaks from lofty heights to janaka who is also highly advanced. As such his statements that say “know that you are consciousness” are direct injunctions to an already advanced pupil. They are like the whacks that zen masters reputedly give their students to spur them onto realisation.

      You might want to read Nityaswarupananda’s introduction to his translation. In it he talks about the limitations of reason and the need for supra-intellectual intuition (for want of better words) that builds on top of reason. This is the difference between paroksha jnana and aparoksha jnana. The latter is what ashtavakra speaks of, and clearly what Nityaswarupananda believes. You might also want to read Chinmayanada’s commentary on ashtavakra; it will convey the same point.

      You might also like to read sankaracharya’s vivekachudamani, which is wholly consistent with ashtavakra:
      381: Reflecting on this atman continuously, and without any foreign thought intervening, one must distinctly realise it to be one’s real Self.
      383: fixing the purified mind in the self, the witness, the knowledge absolute, and slowly making it still, one must then realise one’s own infinite self.

      Again, this is not cognitive knowledge to learn, but a self- attentiveness akin to Ramana’s teaching on self-enquiry.

      I have no problem recognising there are differences in views on this. Part of reflecting on these matters is to clarify this for ourselves. I do take issue when it is claimed that there is only one traditional teaching which can be relied on, and others are just misguided. But then this is the path of evangelists from all religions.

      • Venkat,

        Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I did read the AG from cover to cover, including Swami N.’s introduction, and I still think it supports the interpretation put forth by Swami Dayananda. Certainly, you are free to disagree with that interpretation. But can you please be less disrespectful about it? We all know that Vedanta is a critical tradition, and Vedantins are nothing if not disputatious! However, when you talk in such terms as “market share,” “growth strategy,” “sleight of hand,” “intellectual sop,” and so on, you cross the line to outright disrespect. What we have here is a disagreement over interpretation of scripture, which is nothing new and has been going on for thousands of years. That is very different from accusing a revered and respected teacher of purposely distorting the teachings in order to make money, which is essentially what you have done in prior posts on this topic. That said, I do take your point and agree that “traditional Advaita” is not limited to the interpretation espoused by Swami Dayananda.

        • Charles,

          “What we have here is a disagreement over interpretation of scripture, which is nothing new and has been going on for thousands of years”.

          That is precisely the point a few have been making in different words.
          1. There is no such thing as old ‘kosher’ scripture.
          2. The older the text, the more diverse, often contradictory, interpretations right through the centuries.
          3. It much more difficult (though some people still try) to distort the teachings of more recent sages and get away with it. For example, Ramana’s teachings are well preserved in his own handwriting.

          At the end of the day, this is another reason to stay away from endless academic debates. An iota of self knowledge far outweighs a ton of books. Let those who distort continue their work. We simply cannot stop them. And they are helping us by demonstrating the worthlessness of such debates.

          • Twopaisa,

            “An iota of self knowledge far outweighs a ton of books.” I fully agree with you on this point, despite having a rather large collection of the things! Regarding your point 1, that’s debatable depending on the scripture in question. Point 2, I won’t quibble with. Point 3, depends on what sage we’re talking about, but I’m glad Ramana’s teachings are well preserved in his own handwriting. They stand a far better chance of surviving the centuries that way.

  9. Venkat,

    Your post precisely illustrates a couple of the points I have been making.

    1) “You might also like to read sankaracharya’s vivekachudamani”

    Most scholars are agreed that Shanakra almost certainly did NOT write vivekachUDAmanI, albeit that is an excellent text for the most part.

    2) “381: Reflecting on this atman continuously, and without any foreign thought intervening, one must distinctly realise it to be one’s real Self.
    Again, this is not cognitive knowledge to learn, but a self- attentiveness akin to Ramana’s teaching on self-enquiry.”

    Hari Prasad Shastri’s version includes the Sanskrit. His translation of the last part of this is ‘Identify yourself with it (Self-Witness) through inhibiting all differentiation in the mind (lit. through an akhANDakAra vRRitti).

    • This is mind control, Dennis. Mind is self motivated to attain something. What can be attained is not the Eternal, the classic Hindu mistake. All is in the realm of self and consciousness, which is certainly not eternal.

  10. Anonymous,

    Sorry to belabor this, but here again, you seem to be unfamiliar with the basics of Advaita. What you don’t seem to realize is that most of your arguments miss the mark (to those of us studying Advaita), simply because you are using terms with a different understanding of their meaning. For example, “Eternal,” is a word indicative of time, yet per Advaita, time arises in Consciousness (or apparently so), and not the other way around. So when you say to an Advaitin, “What can be attained is not the Eternal, the classic Hindu mistake,” you’re not making much sense. Who said anything about the Eternal? What mistake are you talking about? And what makes you think that Buddhist arguments are going to win the day on an Advaita blog anyway? 🙂

    • Charles, Advaita certainly touches on many of the things that affect all human beings. So do all the other traditions and ‘freelancers’. I’ve tried to stay away from the ‘philosophical’, ‘cosmological’ points that each uphold as I don’t see the practical value of holding them up and repeating what they say as a means towards real ‘understanding’. Perhaps it is my fault of allowing myself to be drawn in to ‘comparative’ analysis of one or the other.

      Even if we define what we mean by ‘Eternal’, we will not come to an understanding, either mutual or personal, of what that might be. So I am not going to debate any of this on that level. Please just disregard whatever I said about the Divine, or Eternal. If you want to talk about consciousness, this is a different matter as we all have this in common. And, as I’ve said, self and consciousness arise together. You can’t remove one from the other and declare a winner.

      Both Buddhist and Advaita traditions are full of ‘commentaries’. I have zero interest in either. I am only interested in what informs my own experience. The rest is entertainment. So when I criticize something, I see it as not being true in my own experience. Why do I trust myself? I don’t, but my ‘mistake’ is better than following ‘your’ mistake. This is how we come to the illusions that inhabit us. Surely, each of us is unique and will come to our own understanding in a different way than the next person. This understanding is not within any tradition. This is my whole point.

      In the meantime, please carry on……..:-)

      • Anonymous,

        Thanks for your responses. I think the main difficulty here is simply that we’re all trying to use words to discuss That which cannot be captured with words. All words are dualistic in nature, as they separate some “thing” from the Totality, so no combination of the little “things” represented by words are going to add up to the Whole. But we do have to try to understand the meanings of those words we are using as pointers, and what I was trying to call to your attention is that you’re using certain words in a way no Advaitin would agree with. For example, you wrote: “…self and consciousness arise together.” I beg to differ! Consciousness (capital C for emphasis) is all there is. Consciousness does not “arise” and neither does the Self. Consciousness = Self = Brahman. What you seem to be talking about is what some Advaitins would refer to as reflected consciousness (small c).

        Regards,

        • Charles,

          I understand that Advaita states that Consciousness is all there is. My definition of consciousness is human experience. Self is created out of this, the human experience which also includes your body, not only your mind. You cannot separate the two, body/mind, consciousness/self. This is where all dualities take place. This is my basic view.

          If you define Brahman as the Absolute. The Absolute in my view would be prior to consciousness and no human experience could possibly know or experience it. It can only know consciousness and self. It’s always struck me that the great sages had gone beyond this human dimension and the admission price was the end of their human experience. This is the death that Ramana and UG have described in their conversations. It’s a steep price to pay, wouldn’t you say? 🙂

          For me, it doesn’t really matter what we believe about this mysterious process. I’m primarily interested in my own sense of being and what it is all about. That is the real practice in any case, very similar to what Maharaj talks about and others I have mentioned. I could bring in all sorts of quotes by masters outlining and describing this, but what good does it do? No one gets it. So I prefer to talk about simple things, not philosophical theories and cosmologies that don’t really make a difference in one’s moment to moment existence and don’t change you fundamentally.

          • Anonymous,

            Thanks for clarifying your views.

            “My definition of consciousness is human experience.” If this is your definition of consciousness, then I must ask whether you take the position that non-human animals are not conscious?

            “Self is created out of this, the human experience which also includes your body, not only your mind.” The by the term, Self, we mean completely different things. This is fine with me. I have no intention of trying to dissuade you from your position. I was only trying to point out that we’re not talking about the same thing when we are using the words “consciousness” and “Self.”

            “It’s always struck me that the great sages had gone beyond this human dimension and the admission price was the end of their human experience. This is the death that Ramana and UG have described in their conversations. It’s a steep price to pay, wouldn’t you say?”

            In the Western esoteric tradition it is said that the price of the Great Work is all that you have and all that you are. Same idea, different setting and context. That said, I do not agree that the “death” you are talking about here ends human experience. If that is the case, how did Ramana have conversations? How did he show up to testify in court over a property dispute at the ashram? Why did he bother reading the daily newspapers? None of this translated to “human experience”? He was actually just a ghost sitting there? 🙂

            Regards,

            • Charles,

              Obviously life continues for some. UG once told me that many that have come into this did not survive it in terms of the body moving about, doing ordinary things like everyone else. What survives is the life of the senses, the body, but without an entity seemingly guiding it. You can read the accounts of Ramana and UG in their own words and draw your own conclusions. Jesus was the most famous example of this. His own resurrection and transfiguration after death is the only celebrated event of its kind portrayed in any religion. It is there for you to ponder. Is it so different to ponder this than ponder about Brahman? Only our imaginations can speculate on these topics. Better to be present to your own experience, I think.

              • Anonymous,

                Sorry if I am being pedantic, but I have to point out that the resurrection and transfiguration after death of Jesus is by no means the “only celebrated event of its kind portrayed in any religion.” I would point to the Egyptian story of Osiris, as well as the Greek legend of Orpheus, as two examples of far more ancient myths based on the same leitmotif. And in “The Golden Bough,” Frazer provides hundreds of historical examples that pre-date Christianity. The “dying god resurrected” is a story that was already very ancient 2,000 years ago.

                • Jesus wasn’t a God.
                  Years ago, I remember a scholar of Indian Religions coming up with some examples of this found in some obscure texts describing similar events. There are also accounts of spontaneous disappearance, going up in light, fire, etc.

                  Whether these things are true and possible is not really a concern here, but the resurrection and transfiguration of Jesus into Christ is a central issue in Christian Mysticism and esoteric schools.

  11. Dennis

    “Most scholars are agreed that Shanakra almost certainly did NOT write vivekachUDAmanI, albeit that is an excellent text for the most part”

    And yet it is highly regarded by the Sankaracharyas of Sringeri. [Even Dayananda commented on it, though selectively]. So, from the translation by Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, who was the 33rd pontiff of Sringeri:
    381: This atman is self-luminous, the witness of everything and ever shines in the vijnakosa. Resting your mind on it which is different from the unreal, enjoy it with your expansive unlimited consciousness.
    382: One should realise this as one’s own real nature, contemplating on it continuously without any other contrary thought.

    Chinmayananda is even more clear:
    381: Eternally shines this Atman, the self-effulgent witness of all things, which has the intellect for its seat. Making this Atman which is distinct from the unreal your point of contemplation, meditate upon it as your own Self, eliminating all other thoughts.
    382: Contemplating continuously upon this Atman with no intervention of any other thought, one must distinctly It as one’s own Real Self.
    And just to be even clearer, his commentary states:
    “Thus through unbroken contemplation upon this Self, which is without any distinction within and without, you shall come to EXPERIENCE your own real divine nature very clearly”

    As for Hari Prasad Shastri, you might want to read his translation and commentary to the previous verse:
    380: Give up dwelling on the not-self, which is impure and a source of suffering. Dwell rather on your Self, which is of the nature of bliss, for this is the source of liberation.

    Commentary: The great realisation of the Absolute Consciousness as the Self takes place NOT in the mind through logic or reason, but in the awakening of the higher faculty called samadhi.

    I suggest you need to read the gist / flow of the translations rather than fixating on specific words. Having read broadly around Hari Prasad, he is not saying anything different from Ramana. In his “Meditation, Theory and Practice” he writes:
    “Reason very often prepares the way, but the great leap in the dark is always taken by intuition, through meditation. Meditation brings into action the faculty of intuition and it is this mystical sense which gives us the capacity to approach the absolute Truth . . . In order to know Truth, even intuition is not enough; there is yet another faculty to be aroused – that of vision. Unless we SEE God, we cannot know Him, and the spirit of man can see God. The word ‘see’ is perhaps not the right one, but it appears to be the best we can use. We see, we know, we realise; this is absolute knowledge, direct experience, whereby God becomes real to us, in us.”

    I think that is pretty clear?

  12. Charles,

    I’m afraid you really haven’t read Nityaswarupananda’s translation of Astavakra Gita.

    He clearly explains that chapter 5 (“Dissolution of mind”) and chapter 6 (“The Higher knowledge”) is “intended to bring into bold relief the nature of Supreme knowledge. In the 5 chapter, Astavakra spoke of laya. Janaka in reply speaks here of a higher outlook in which even this attempt at dissolution arises out of a vestige of ignorance; for the pure Self was never at any time limited”.

    Now before you become excited that this confirms your knowledge argument, consider the following verses:

    8.2: Liberation is attained when the mind does not desire or grieve, or reject or accept, or feel happy or angry.
    Commentary: When the mind is calm and free from mental modifications, we realise our true nature and thus attain liberation.
    [Note: this does not talk about a cognitive acquired knowledge].

    12.7: Thinking on the Unthinkable One, one only has recourse to a form of thought. Therefore giving up that thought, thus do I firmly abide.
    Commentary: The Self is beyond thought and cannot be an object of thought. Meditating on It is therefore nothing but creating a certain model of mind, and that is not Brahman. To realise Brahman, one must go beyond the limitations of the mind and become Brahman itself.

    Chinmayananda’s commentary on this verse:
    To reflect and contemplate upon this Self which is Unthinkable is itself a play of our thoughts. In the early stage of the sadhana, this method is extremely valid, as all other restlessness of the Intellect gets quietened . . . But to one who has already exploded into the higher plane of Consciousness, and who is living vividly the experience of the Infinite Self, for him to sit in meditation, to contemplate upon the Unthinkable is to come out of the thoughtless state into the restlessness of thought. Therefore, says Janaka, giving up that thought do I indeed abide in Myself.

    I’m afraid your choice of Astavakra Gita really does not support Dyananda’s contention at all. In fact I dot think any of that school have commented on this text, since it doesn’t really help their cause. It was a favourite of Ramakrishna and Ramana, for obvious reasons – in that it conveyed the Jnana in the way they had experienced it.

    As for disrespect for Dayananda . . . I don’t. I just take issue when he and his followers hold themselves as the only authoritative interpretations of advaita, and others as showing a “failure to understand” or “incorrect emphasis on certain words” or “mistranslated or out of context”.

    Especially when it is plain to see that Astavakra, Vasistha, Sringeri masters, Ramakrishna, Ramana, let alone Chinmayananda, Atmananda, Hari Prasad and Nisargadatta hold very different interpretations from that of Dayananda.

    And let’s be clear, they HAVE mis-appropriated Ramana as one of their own, whilst also dismissing his self-enquiry method, and accusing his followers as cultists who have mistranslated or misunderstood this. To call it a sleight of hand is frankly polite; It is dissembling.

  13. Venkat:

    You wrote: “I’m afraid you really haven’t read Nityaswarupananda’s translation of Astavakra Gita.”

    Seriously? Wow, yourself! Yes, I have indeed read it, very carefully, more than once. Our interpretations differ, that’s all. So what?

    As Sam Harris noted after his debate with Daniel Dennett on free will, at some point one has to acknowledge that one simply doesn’t understand what one’s opponents are talking about. In this case, I will admit that I remain completely baffled at the argument that Moksha is an experience, when by definition all experiences are temporal in nature, beginning and ending in Samsara.

    Also, please try to bear in mind that respect or disrespect is a subjective matter. What one person thinks disrespectful another person may have no issue with, etc. You are certainly free to reject what I’m saying if you wish to. But to my ears, yes, you have been over-the-line disrespectful, both toward Dennis (who has kindly provided this discussion forum and also accepted *you* as one of the designated bloggers on this site), as well as the Swami and his Pupils.

    Best Regards,

  14. Charles,

    So how do you explain vs.8.2 and 12.7 and their commentaries in accord with Dayananda cognitive knowledge?

    As to disrespect to Dayananda’s followers (to be fair, I personally have not heard Dayananda’s commentary on Ramana, so I can’t comment on him), it is surely disrespectful, and hypocritical, to:
    (1) Be derisive of self enquiry, “who am I?”
    (2) Yet acknowledge Ramana as a jnani (though dismissing his primary teaching) and make commentaries on his teaching to fit their conceptions; and
    (3) Reconcile these contradictory positions by claiming that (unspecified) followers of Ramana are “cultists” who have not understood Ramana’s teaching. In which case “cultists” must include Murugunar, Lakshmana Sarma and Sadhu Om, his long-standing disciples, since they do not divert one iota from self-enquiry.

    If they don’t agree with Ramana’s teaching then just say so, or totally ignore it and stick to the traditional sources. Why go through these acrobatics to make it fit the their framework? Unless they are trying to capitalise on his fame?

    I have not been disrespectful to Dennis. I have pointed out that he has been inappropriately dismissive of
    “People keep quoting from Ramana and Nisargadatta and expressing views which show a failure to understand, whether because what was said was unclear or it was mistranslated or out of context or they have given incorrect emphasis to certain words etc.”
    And essentially implying that he knows best, because he follows a traditional teaching from Dayananda. And all other teachings are neo- or misunderstood.

    If you don’t like to have your quotes and statements being challenged by contrary evidence / quotes, then you are not practising viveka / vairagya.

    If Dennis would like me to withdraw from the site, he knows that he just needs to say so.

  15. Venkat,

    Thanks for your reply. Let’s please wrap up on the disrespect issue. As I said, I was stating my *personal opinion* on how you have been coming across. Repeating what you have already said earlier is not going to alter that opinion. What I was criticizing was the tone that you sometimes take in making your challenges. I certainly wasn’t asking you to leave the site or stop commenting, and I do personally value your comments and insights. For example, thanks for calling my attention to a book that I would now like to read, Exalting Elucidations. I also appreciate the passion and intensity that you bring to these discussions, not to mention an ability to retrieve quotes like you have about 1,000 of them ready to go at any given time! 🙂

    “So how do you explain vs.8.2 and 12.7 and their commentaries in accord with Dayananda cognitive knowledge?”

    I’m not able to comment on Swami Chinmayananda, since I’m not in possession of his full commentary on this work. But I just read Swami N.’s comment again on AG 8.2. You quoted only the very last sentence of what constitutes an entire paragraph of commentary. What he is describing therein is a mind that is resting in a state of complete quietude. Although he does not reference the gunas, what comes across to me in this description is a mind that is free of Rajas or Tamas, resting in Sattva. Our true nature is already there, as the Swami notes, but obscured by the agitations of mind-stuff. He is using the old metaphor of a lake with ripples, etc.

    Regarding 12.7, yes, the Self is beyond thought and cannot be an object of thought. A model created by thought cannot possibly “capture” the Whole. But the actual text of 12.7 only says we must “give up” trying to think about the Unthinkable. We have already been informed by many previous verses in the text that we are already Pure Consciousness, completely free as we already are. How then can we “become” something we already are? It is just a figure of speech, a pointer. If “realization” does not take place in the apparent mind of an apparent jiva, where in the universe would it take place?

    Regards,

  16. Charles

    I apologise for my comment “you haven’t really read ashtavakra”. It was impatient in tone and unnecessary.

    Thank you for reading the substance of the rest of it.

    The thing about Astavakra and Vasistha is that they continually point to giving up thoughts, for want of better words, to no-mind. No mind shouldn’t, I don’t think, be taken literally. But it is saying, I think, a dissolution of ego, so you function in the world without any sense of me and mine; so the usual thought chatter that goes on in our minds has subsided. It is not a conceptual knowledge of non-separation, though that it clearly a good starting point.

    I think Nityaswarupananda’s translation and light commentary are excellent. It is also worth getting Chinmayanada’s commentary. It is, I think, his best work.

    In zen, as you know, there is only limited reference to scriptures. However there is a tradition of dharma combat. When a wandering zen monk wants a place to stay at night, he knocks at the door of a zen monastery, at when point he is subject to a koan or test of his understanding. If he wins the debate he gets to stay; if he loses he moves on. And through the process, understanding is hopefully enhanced.

    Best
    venkat

    • Venkat,

      It does seem that the abandonment of conceptual thinking plays a role in the seeker’s ‘journey’ towards ‘peace of mind’. The dissolution of ego may or may not be a by-product of this abandonment. It depends on what you define ego to be. If ego is the so-called ‘master of the house’, the house does not quite fall with the ego. For me, ego is an activity, a central aspect of self that habitually (or involuntarily) turns on itself for survival. If ego stops turning towards desire and its will, the house loses its master but not its framework. I think this is why it is referred to as ‘ego-death’ by some. This by itself is a significant change in the perspective of the seeker.

      So what gets this activity to stop turning on itself? So many say it is hard work, meditation, following a path. By trying any or all of these, you come to know you cannot touch this. It is one of those things that is not in your power to control. This central insight allows you to stop pursuing what is impossible to have, impossible to achieve. The snake stops biting it’s tail.

    • Venkat,

      Thanks for your reply, and no problem at all from my side. As I said, I admire the intensity you bring to these discussions. On your recommendation, I will hunt up a copy of Chinmayananda’s commentary on AG, as well as Exalting Elucidations. Thanks for those references.

      I do think there has been some serious misunderstanding and confusion over this so-called “cognitive teaching,” but we can leave that discussion for another day!

      Cheers,

  17. Anon, Twopaisa, Venkat,

    There are lots of examples from scriptures and Shankara commentaries in which it is explained that Self-knowledge arises when a prepared mind hears such teaching as tat tvam asi – you are That. This is the bhAga-tyAga-lakShaNa that I have mentioned many times (look it up at the main website) and it triggers the ‘catastrophic’ event in the mind that brings ‘enlightenment’ (akhaNDAkAra vRRitti).

    I could dig out some of these quotes but it would take time – and what’s the point when objectors make such statements as “if it is a real utterance by Shankara, it’s as bad as Dayananda’s intellectual commentaries”?

    Instead, let me ask (again, I think) how you can you show that an experience could bring enlightenment? Here is an observation that I made in the first edition of ‘Book of One’:

    “In the Science Museum in London, they once had an interesting room as part of an exhibition on perception, optical illusions and so on. Passing down a corridor, there was a window on your right, which appeared to look into a room in a house. There was a door in the opposite corner and everything seemed perfectly normal until someone entered the room through that door – they seemed disproportionately small. What was worse was that, as they moved forward into the room, they grew in size quite rapidly until, as they neared the window, their body had become enormous.

    “At first sight there just seemed no explanation for this at all. The mind was forced to accept what the eyes were telling it but could make no sense of it since another part of the mind told us, quite reasonably, that this could not be true. Fortunately, when you continued down the corridor and round the corner, you discovered that you were able to look into the room through the door and even walk into it so that the next visitors could experience the same illusion. In fact, the room’s perspective was not normal. The floor sloped up steeply towards the window; angles that had appeared to be right angles, because corners in rooms are always right angles, were not. Now that we had the complete picture, we could appreciate how the illusion arose and no longer be taken in by it, even though the eyes would still transmit the same message if we returned to look through the window again. “

    The initial experience cannot be explained. Only when we gain knowledge do we understand.

    Lest you should try to claim that it was the second ‘experience’ that gave understanding, here is a simpler example. We see the red sky of the setting sun. Is the sky really red? Of course not. The shorter wavelengths of light are being scattered because of the extra thickness of the atmosphere and our perceptual apparatus and brain interpret the wavelength of the light that remains to enter the eye as the ‘color red’. There is no way that we will fail to see red in our experience, although there is no such thing as ‘red’ in reality. Only knowledge (derived from science in this instance) can bring this understanding.

    OK. I have demonstrated how knowledge can bring enlightenment whereas experience cannot. Now you do the same for the opposite claim.

    And, if I can anticipate an assertion that all of this is mere intellectual mind-play, let us also agree what exactly we mean when we say that someone is enlightened. Advaita defines it in various ways. Let us use the well-known phrases. It is the realization that: Brahman is the reality; the world is mithyA; the jIva is nothing but Brahman. You are That (Brahman); I am Brahman. (For ‘Brahman’, read ‘Consciousness’ with a capital ‘C’ if you prefer; or ‘Awareness’ if you have been brought up with Nisargadatta.)

    How does an experience reveal any of these, when it necessarily involves duality? (If, by enlightenment, you do not mean any of these things, then I suggest you no longer participate on this blog!)

    • Dennis,

      “If, by enlightenment, you do not mean any of these things, then I suggest you no longer participate on this blog”.

      Don’t know whether you are serious. But it is certainly a new low for an old dog like me. Somebody spearheading Advaita (oneness, non-duality) from one side of his mouth and simultaneously asking ‘others’ who may think differently to keep away. Just when I thought I had seen everything.

      As for your question, it has been answered several times by people here.

      “How does an experience reveal any of these, when it necessarily involves duality? “.

      The mind is the cause of duality. When this mind as we know it is dead (Mano Nasha since you think the veracity of anything in Sanskrit cannot be contested!), the cause/creator of duality is dead, so duality is dead. This is the meaning conveyed by statements such as ‘experience without the experiencer'(Krishnamurti/Ramana et al). So as you can see (only if you want to), it is false to say that experience must mean duality.

      • I hope this theoretical discussion, one that has revealed more heat than light, mercifully comes to an end and we can focus on how each one of us is actually living.

  18. Anyone who wants to discuss Advaita is welcome on this blog, and they can happily hold allegiance to any teacher of Advaita. (The stance of ‘Advaita’ was effectively defined by the Brahmasutras as commented upon by Shankara. Differing interpretations have existed down through the millenia but the essential beliefs remain.)

    Those who classify themselves as Buddhists or U.G. Krishnamurtyists or any other school, and whose only interest is in condemning or criticising the views of Advaita and in establishing their own viewpoint, are not welcome. I’m sure there are other websites where such views are held and where discussions of those views is acceptable.

    I want visitors to this site to be assured that they will only find helpful Advaita material here. Certainly ‘difficult’ questions must be discussed (even ‘argued’) but in a spirit of cooperative investigation, neither critical nor dismissive of others, and never condemning accepted teachers.

    Anyone who cannot stand by these simple priniciples is likely to find themselves banned from posting. And any serious seeker must agree that this is perfectly reasonable.

  19. Dennis,

    I think twopaisa has succinctly answered your challenge on experience, but perhaps I can have a go in my own words.

    We are told in advaita that the ultimate truth is that there is no birth, no death, no one. There is only pure consciousness, Brahman, which is without parts, without division. Mandukya 2.16 states “first is imagined the jiva and then are imagined the various entities, objective and subjective, that are perceived”.

    So pure consciousness imagines a person and a world. There is no such thing as mind – just a collection of thoughts that pass across the screen of consciousness, as do the apparent objects in the apparent external world. One set of thoughts arise which, because of the congruence of always seeing the world from the perspective of this particular body, stake out an ego-identity with the perceptions that constitute this body, as separate and distinct from the rest of the seemingly ‘external’ objects that pass before it. This is what Ramana calls the I-thought. So the thought of separation has arisen and with it, desires / fears / suffering.

    Elimination of this I-thought then just leaves pure consciousness. Deep sleep comes closest to this experience. Hence Ramana writes in his essay Nan Yar (Who am I?):

    “To attain that happiness, which is one’s own true nature, which one experiences daily in dreamless sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary”.

    At an early stage in Advaita a conceptual thought is planted that the separate ego that you are is illusory, which we then need to realise the truth of. As a concept in itself, it probably does provide an antidote to the separate ego and its desires / fears / suffering. But a concept is just another imagined thought that passes across the screen of consciousness. And there never was any such thing as a mind.

    So I think under your schema, liberation implies countering a false concept (of separation) with a ‘true’ concept (that you are everything / Brahman / consciousness), and continuing to do so, until only the true concept remains. But there is still a mind/ego that is doing the countering, however much there is certainty in the thoughts arising in consciousness that say I know that I am not this separate body-mind.

    Liberation, as I understand it, would be when this I-thought disappears from the screen of pure consciousness, rather than just being countered by another thought. This is the subsidence of the (non-existent / imaginary) mind / ego that I think Ramana, Vasistha and others talk of. Then there is just a flow of experiencing across this screen of consciousness, without any thought-identification with any particular part of it, as an experiencer. Experiencing without the experiencer.

    Hence Astavakra talks of the liberated one as:
    “There is no attachment or aversion in one for whom the ocean of the world has dried up. His look is vacant [no inner motive], his action purposeless, and his senses inoperative [sense objects do not leave any impressions on his mind].”

    And why Nisargadatta says
    “The Guru is basically without desire. He sees what happens, but feels no urge to interfere. He makes no choices, takes no decisions. As pure witness, he watches what is going on and remains unaffected. Nothing in particular affects him, or, what comes to the same, the entire universe affects him in equal measure.”

    Now given this is saying that the mind is non-existent, there would seem to be nothing that can be done by an I-thought to eliminate itself. But as JK puts it, by observing yourself and your reactions, thought will, realising its limitation, fall silent, and then the Infinite MAY happen. And Ramana talks about self-enquiry, about abiding in one’s own awareness – in effect stepping back from the body-mind-experiencer, to the witness-consciousness that is aware of body-mind-world, and only paying attention to that.

    This is the pathless path, because it is a journey of trial and error and happenstance, that I can only do myself, albeit pointed in the right direction.

    Dennis, given your last post, I think it is probably appropriate for me to withdraw from being a blogger – thanks for putting up with me.

    Best wishes,

    venkat

    • Venkat,

      This post is fine. I have no problem with anyone expressing views contrary to my own; I am happy to to argue and for us to present evidence supporting those different views. I agree with Charles in applauding your commitment and your ready access to masses of quotes. I do not want to lose you as a blogger and I am sure other readers would agree. Please stay, and simply check your messages for tone befrore posting! :>) We all have the same objective, even if we have differing views as to how to attain them.

      I will compile a list of quotes in favor of knowledge over experience and aim to post in a week or two.

      Best wishes,
      Dennis

    • Venkat,

      I don’t think this issue is about you or individuals. People talk no end about mind, no mind, this is right interpretation, that is wrong etc etc. Theories are very comfortable to hold. Why? Because they provide a buffer, a distance, a wide circumference to the survival of the centre (me). We can keep debating about issues ‘out there’ at a safe distance and there is no problem, no threat to the centre. Move the radius of this circle slightly inwards by a tiny fraction. That is you question my belief or interpretation. Then, I (mind) get(s) very agitated. But I don’t see that this disturbance is taking place because you have pushed me ever so slightly towards self examination. If I ever see this, it could very well be the beginning of actual self enquiry. But I resist resolutely. So self enquiry never begins. And I never face the fact that I am resisting self enquiry even though I claim to want it. Books and debates (about self enquiry) continue at the outer level creating another level of illusion (of understanding).

      Although one may talk and discuss endlessly about the general, it is only the particular that can open the door to even begin self enquiry. And the particular is available every day in every incident in our lives. Only if we want to use the opportunity.

      Keep posting.

  20. Apologies, allow me to reiterate Shankara’s brilliant commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.12 (from Sw Madhavananda’s translation):

    “That separate existence of yours, which has sprung up from the delusion engendered by contact with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, enters its cause, the great Reality, the Supreme Self, which stands for the ocean . . . When that separate existence has entered and merged in its cause, in other words, when the differences created by ignorance are gone, the universe becomes one without a second.”

    “These elements, transformed into the body, organs and sense-objects, from which the self comes out as an individual . . . are merged like rivers in the ocean, by the realisation of Brahman through the instruction of the scriptures and the teacher, and are destroyed. And when they are destroyed like the foams and bubbles of water, this individualised existence too is destroyed with them . . . After attaining (this oneness) the self, freed from the body and organs, has NO MORE PARTICULAR consciousness . . . How can the knower of Brahman, who is established in his nature as Pure Intelligence, possibly have any such particular consciousness? Even when a man is in the body, particular consciousness is sometimes impossible (e.g. as in deep sleep); so how can it ever exist in a man who has been absolutely freed from the body and organs? So said Yajnavalkya – propounded this philosophy of the highest truth to his wife, Maitreyi”

  21. We often find in the history of the world that based on differences in spoken language, wars were fought, nation states were created or destroyed, countries are divided or their borders redefined. Even what is indicated by the word “atom,” implicitly what cannot be divided, may be divided. But I cannot imagine how differences in the written language can ever divide Advaitins committed to impartite Oneness.

    I join Charles and Dennis to say that we enjoy the precise and clear postings from Venkat, his vast repertoire of Quotes from a variety of sources, and his equal facility with both traditional and Indian Direct path teachings. Unlike many others who take a position just to protect their false prestige or ego, I always found that Venkat did not hesitate to express his regret if he felt that his writing had hurt others. His clear thinking and calling a spade a spade is an asset especially in the muddied environment that goes by the name of “teaching.” So please permit me to say that I will also appeal that he should continue as a Poster at this web site which is dedicated to Advaita and not to any particular teacher, thanks to the broad vision that Dennis supports.

    regards,

  22. Thank you all for the kind words. I have learnt and clarified much for myself as a result of reading and writing on this website – thank you Dennis. I think it is time to practise the self-abidance that I preach.

    Best wishes to all,

    venkat

Comments are closed.