Q: Advaita tells us that Consciousness is what we are and it is always the case. Why is ‘knowledge’ necessary? Knowledge is knowing about something. Simple pointing out of the fact of Consciousness seems to be the only thing necessary. This is simple and immediate. I am Consciousness right now and nothing needs to be thought or said about it.
Since there is only Consciousness, and as Consciousness, there is nothing else to think about or that can be thought about, there are no ‘levels’ for Consciousness. So therefore, there isn’t a second ‘transactional’ world to know or think about.
A: But it is not Consciousness that is thinking about these things, is it? You are confusing absolute reality (which is Consciousness right now and there is no second thing etc.) with the obvious (to perception) world and thoughts that are in front of you (the jīva) right now. It is the apparent dichotomy between these that has to be rationalized by the mind, with the help of Advaita. Again, the concept of cidābhāsa is helpful here.
Q: So enlightenment really is a matter of ‘completely understanding this’ and nothing else?
A: The fact that reality is non-dual is not going to change the fact that ‘you’ (Brahman in the guise of a jīva) still perceive an apparent duality. That is what has to be understood.
Q: That really is the key isn’t it, and what needs to be known for sure. It cannot be escaped. This is really a huge thing! Then it really is like an actor playing a role in a movie; just dealing with names and forms…
A: That can be a useful metaphor, yes, as can dreaming – with which most of us are more familiar!
Q: So how do you ‘live’ once you have acquired this Knowledge? Are you just totally present, not thinking about anything and letting things just ‘happen’? Or do you have a ‘distance’ from everything, knowing that ‘all is Brahman’ and not taking anything seriously?
A: Mostly the second, I would say. Habit is a powerful thing. If you have always reacted in a particular way to something, it is likely that will continue to happen for some time. Not doing so, and behaving more in the first way, is the ‘fruit of knowledge’ that only comes from prolonged nididhyāsana. See recent post – https://www.advaita-vision.org/question-about-manana-and-nididhyasana/.
Q: I think separating the appearance of names and forms from Brahman makes it still seem like duality, and causes problems. The dream metaphor also makes it seem like the world is ‘not real’ as well. I now understand that there is only Brahman, and this includes name and form. ‘All this is Brahman’!
A: Yes! I think that this is the best way of looking at it. If you have read all the discussions at the website, you will know that Ramesam and Venkat try to insist that, when one is ‘fully enlightened’, the world literally disappears. But that makes no sense and contradicts much of what Ṥaṅkara said. By far the most reasonable way of understanding this is that the names and forms of the world appearance continue, but are known to be Brahman.