Introduction to Vedanta-11

[Guest guest]

Self realization or God realization:

 

If one asks the question, ‘what do I have to do to

realize that I am Brahman?’ – What should be the

answer? I am Brahman whether I realize it or not,

just as ring is gold, whether it recognizes it or not.

What ring has to do to become gold? Does it have to

sit down and meditate that I am gold- I am gold etc.

Does it have to do some self-less service or karma

yoga, perform some religious activities, take a dip in

the Holly Rivers or perform havens, etc. None of them

make a ring into gold. It has to simply understand

what it is – it is nothing but pure gold and ring is

gold only in that form with that name. There is no

other substantive other than gold. One can use some

fancy words to take the ring’s mind of from its

identification with its form and name. It is the very

essence, very core of its personality or the very self

of the ring or indweller of all the ornaments,

antaryamin, which is beyond any modifications and

beyond the birth, growth, decay and destruction of all

names and forms, etc.

 

Moksha is freedom from limitations. Moksha cannot be

gained or given, nor does it involve going somewhere,

vaikunTa or kaliasa or eternal heavens, etc. These are

all come under the criteria of gaining something that

I do not have (apraaptasya praaptam). To gain

anything that I do not have, work has to be done. Or

it should be given freely by the compassionate God.

If God is infinite compassionate being, He should give

moksha to everyone and so that nobody need to suffer

in this universe.

 

No..No..No.. God is full of compassion, but He can

give moksha only to those who deserve it. It

essentially implies that one has to earn it. The

problem is reduced similar to my boss distributing

promotions to those who deserve them. If I have to

earn for it or deserve, then it depends on my efforts

to be on His good-side to deserve His grace. That

which can be given can be taken back too. One who can

promote can also give pink slips too. If God is some

superior being who punishes those who do not behave

and favors those who follow His will, we reduced the

problem back to a temporal problem. The solution, by

definition, will be also temporal only, that is

limited by space and time. Obviously these are very

elementary concepts. Moksha or liberation, on the

other hand, is freedom from all limitations. Therefore

it cannot be gained or given.

 

When Vedanta says you are Brahman, tat tvam asi, there

is noting to gain or to go somewhere. Moksha is not

of the type of gaining something that I do not have

(apraaptasya praaptam). It can only be praaptasya

praaptam or gaining something that I already have,

which implies that it is intrinsic to my own nature;

that is nobody can give it, and therefore can take it

away from me. If I already have it, then why should I

gain moksha? True, unless I do not know that I have

it. In that case gaining truly involves understanding

or recognizing or realizing that I am already Brahman

or I am ever Brahman. Therefore it is not something to

do but something to understand or recognize. Like any

other knowledge, to gain self-knowledge or

understanding of one’s true nature, intelligent

inquiry of the nature of the self is required. Here

the inquiry is more subtle than an inquiry used in the

analysis of any objective science, for it is an

inquiry about my true nature or inquiry of the

subject, I, which cannot be objectified. Therefore to

realize I am Brahman, I have to inquire within, using

the methodology outlined in Vedanta. Hence

realization of Brahman or the self within does not

involve any action. Besides any action being finite,

the result will also be finite. What we are seeking is

infiniteness itself and therefore it cannot be product

of any finite action or even a series of finite

actions.

 

Hence, the process involves gaining the knowledge of

the reality of myself and the world that I experience.

It involves recognition that I am that reality, the

substantive for both the subject I and the object, the

world. One cannot become Brahman; finite cannot

become infinite. Hence Vedas declare in the form of

aphorism- YOU ARE THAT-THAT THOU ART – TAT TVAM ASI.

It is only recognition that ‘I am’- the

existent-conscious entity that I am – in fact is

Brahman. Hence Vedanta says ‘knower of Brahman

becomes Brahman – brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati’.

Knower of a thing cannot become that thing. However

scripture says knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

This can happen only if knowing Brahman is knowing

oneself. Hence, it is the self-knowledge or

recognition that ‘I am Brahman- aham brahmaasmi’. In

order to recognize what I am, I have to drop all the

notions I have about myself as I am this body, this

mind, this intellect, etc. I have to shift my

attention from all names and forms but to the very

substantive because of which all names and forms are

known or even possible to exist. This helps the shift

of my attention, from what I think I am, to recognize

what I am. Vedanta says you, as the

conscious-existent entity, are the very substantive

for whole world of plurality of objects. Thus

self-realization involves three aspects: a recognition

that 1) Brahman alone is the absolute truth, 2) the

world of plurality that we experience is mithya or is

only relative and not absolute, whose substantive is

nothing other than Brahman and 3) ‘I am’ is none other

that Brahman and Brahman alone. Shree Shankara states

these in cryptic forms: 1) brahma satyam, 2) jagat

mithyaa, and 3) jiivo brahmaiva naaparaH. This is the

essence of advaita Vedanta emphasized in the

scriptures. For the realization of who am I, all

these three aspects are involved. It is not just the

simple inquiry of ‘who I am’ but involves clear

understanding of the nature of the absolute reality,

understanding the nature of the world that we

experience and finally the identity of the self as the

universal self. Krishna expresses this aspect in two

forms: The self-realization involves recognition that

I am the self in all beings and things, and all things

and being are in myself. (sarva bhuutastham aatmaanam,

sarva bhuutani ca aaatmani). From bhakti point the

same statement is expressed as ‘He who see me

everything and everything in me, he alone sees

(understands) (yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi

pasyati). Thus ‘Who am I?’ enquiry has to culminate

in this knowledge. That enquiry has to be done using

the understanding of the scriptures as the basis.

Hence Vedanta emphasizes three aspects in terms of

enquiry: listening to the scriptures (shravaNam),

reflecting on the meanings until there are no more

doubts (mananam), and internalizing the teaching until

it becomes one with the seeker (nidhidhyaasanam). It

is not an intellectual inquiry but it is an inquiry

with the intellect. For that inquiry mind should be

made suitable. What is needed for this inquiry is not

a sharp intellect (teekshNa buddhi) that divides, but

a subtle intellect (suukshma buddhi) that integrates.

It is not the mind that analyzes but the mind that

synthesizes, not the mind that classifies but the mind

that unifies. It is the mind that sees oneness in the

multitude of plurality and not that which sees

multitudes as a reality. For that, one needs to

develop certain amount of dispassion and

discrimination to pursue that inquiry. Vedanta itself

guides the seeker progressively with a methodology of

teaching as the seeker matures in his understanding.

Hence, as discussed before, an appropriate teacher is

required to provide that guidance based on his own

experience as a seeker. One is led to an appropriate

teacher in the course of one’s evolution towards the

higher goal in life, provided one is sensitive enough

to recognize those opportunities. One recognizes that

‘this person is my teacher’, when one recognizes the

intense benefit that one is gaining by the teaching

that one is receiving. Vedantic teaching is not just

verbal communication but through the very life that

one leads. It is like the parents teach their

children not only verbally but by their very living of

those values that they teach. A teacher who is well

established in understanding of oneself cannot but

demonstrate that understanding that “He is in all

beings and all beings are in him” – through his very

life that he lives. Once you are exposed to advaita

Vedanta, it would not leave you even if you take a

detour for some reason. Hence Dattaatreya says in

Avadhuuta Gita – ‘Iswaraanugraht eva pumsaam advaita

vaasanaa’ – only by the grace of god only one gets

inclination to learn advaita Vedanta. It is graceful

way of saying that one has to earn it by contemplative

living.

 

Consciousness and reflected consciousness:

 

We have discussed above the relation between the

Brahman and the world. We introduced the concept of

Iswara or God-Hood; lord of the entire universe, a

creator-sustainer and annihilator. Iswara is there as

long as the creation is seen separate from the seer,

I. Since creation is seen as separate from the seer,

I, the creator who is the cause for the creation is

also separate from I. Advaita does not say ‘I am

Iswara or God’. In the statement of ‘tat tvam asi’,

that thou art, what is equated is the essence of

Iswara, the existence-consciousness, and the essence

of myself which is existence-consciousness are one and

the same, since there cannot be divisions in the

existence nor in the consciousness. This equation is

actually arrived at by what using what is known in

Indian logic as ‘bhaaga tyaaga laxana’ or jahat ajahat

laxaNa. It involves discarding parts that

differentiate the two and only taking those that are

common to both. What are discarded are superficial

qualities (names and forms) and what are equated are

the essential or swaruupa laxaNas. Thus Iswara is all

pervading, all knowledge, all skills, controller of

maaya etc. On the other hand I am localized entity

with very little knowledge and skills, and being

affected by maaya. The identity of both is recognized

by discarding all these superficial qualities and

equating only their essential qualities. A simple

example is a statement, ‘He is that Devadatta’. That

Devadatta whom we met many years ago (time and space

wise remote) when he was a cute little boy, is this

fat, ugly looking Devadatta. In this identification

we are pointing to only one and not two (advaita),

that is one and the same individual called Devadatta.

There are no two Devadattas here. In the identity

relation, one drops all the superficial qualities of

this Devadatta that we are seeing right now (this fact

and ugly looking) and that Devadatta whom we met at

different time and space (cute little boy), but

equating only the swaruupa laxaNas of both- the core

the individual because of which one is Devadatta and

without which one is not Devadatta. This is called

bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa or discarding partial

superficial data and equating the remaining.

 

Thus as long as I feel I am separate from the Universe

that is seen or experienced, there is a creation and

creator, Iswara or God. Does God have a form? If I

think I have a form, then God can have a form too.

What type of form he has? Whatever form that is

conceptualized by culture, tradition and one’s

imaginations. In Hinduism Gods are symbolized in

forms that capture the imaginations and invoke

devotion in the individuals. For example, He is blue

in color or lying down in the snake bed with all the

seven hoods turn towards Him. Blueness is indicative

of infinite nature just as sky is blue or ocean looks

blue. Snakes in all religions are symbolic of

Vaasanas (which will be discussed later), the seven

hoods represent the five senses, mind and intellect

all turned inwards looking at the Lord who is in yoga

nidra or contemplative sleep. Laksmi, symbolic of the

prakRiti or nature is at his service. Forms are useful

for the mind to conceptualize the infinite nature of

the Lord. These are intended to convert extroverted

mind to introvert. But once the mind is available for

contemplation, Vedanta provides clear pointers for

further contemplation to the higher, which is beyond

names and forms. He is not the forms that you worship

but He is because which perception of all forms is

possible. When there is no name or form, one can call

it by any name or imagine any form, if one understands

that the truth is beyond all names and forms.

 

In the realization of oneself, the creator-creation

and the self all merge into one that is Brahman that I

am. We will now address the question of how the

notion that ‘I am an individual’ arises, or what is

the nature of individual (jiiva) and what is its

relation to Brahman? When I say ‘I am’ (aham asmi),

the ‘I’ refers to the consciousness aspect and the

‘am’ refers to existence aspect. However, when I

introduce myself, who I am, I will start with ‘I am’

plus additional information that distinguishes myself

from all others beings in the world. We have already

noted earlier that being a subject, ‘I’ cannot be

defined, since any definition objectifies the subject.

Hence, all the distinguishing features that use for

‘I’ to define myself, do not belong to ‘I’, the

subject, but belong ‘this’, this object that I can

point out. When I say I am this body, this mind or

this intellect, I am equating the subject I with the

object ‘this’. There is obviously an inherent

confusion in the very definition for ‘I’ that I use,

where I am equating a conscious-existent entity, I,

with the unconscious entity ‘this’. ‘This’ normally

refers to either to my body, my mind or my intellect.

For example, when I say I am 5 and half feet tall,

weigh 150lbs, born in India, studied and worked as a

scientist in US, married so and so, and father of so

and so, orbited 62 times around the sun, etc. all

refer to this body, mind and/or intellect complex that

I am fully conscious of. I can go on with my bio

data, providing pages and pages of information of ‘all

about myself’, but truly nothing about myself. All

these pages only contain attributes at my body level,

my relationships at emotional or mind level and my

accomplishments at an intellect level. Nothing more I

can say about myself beyond that. I cannot also stop

my introduction just with a statement ‘I am’ period,

although that is all that can be said about the

subject I. Hence in my understanding of myself as an

individual ‘I am’, I combine two things – ‘I am’ – an

existent-conscious entity that I am and ‘this’ – inert

entity that corresponds to body/mind/intellect (BMI)

that I identity at that instant. By definition, that

which has attributes is an inert entity. Hence, all my

bio-data correspond to my BMI, which are inert

entities while I am a conscious entity. Here, we have

a peculiar combination of ‘I’ the conscious entity

identifying with local equipments BMI, which are

inert. This unholy combination results in an

individual ‘I’ that is different from all other

individuals in the universe. We are able to live in

this confused world only because everybody is equally

confused and is making the same mistake of false

identification of ‘self’, ‘I’, with the non-self,

‘this’.

 

Thus, individual or jiiva arises as a combination of

‘I am’ plus localized entity with body, mind and

intellect complex with which I identify myself. This

false identification of myself, a conscious entity,

with ‘this’ or non-self, an inert entity is called

error of superimposition or adhyaasa, that we

discussed before with reference to Brahman and the

world. This false self is called ‘ego’ or ahankaara or

localized I. For the purpose of analysis, Vedanta

classifies body made up of gross elements as gross

body (sthuula shareera), mind and intellect as subtle

body, made up of subtle elements. Shareera, body,

actually means that which slowly disintegrates. Thus

all the bodies are ultimately perishable in time. The

subtle body consists of thoughts or more accurately

the flow of thoughts, just as a flow of water is

called a river. Based on functions, the subtle body

is further classified into four components; 1) mind or

manas, the emotional center, 2) intellect, buddhi, the

discriminative center, 3) ego or ahankaara, and 4)

memory, chitta. We can group all together refer it as

mind. We discussed some aspects of ego before which

involves identification of ‘I am’ with thought pattern

or thought-content. In all my worldly transactions or

at the level of vyavahaara, when I say ‘I am’, it is

the ego that I identify with as I am, the individual.

Since the ego is centered on the existent-conscious

entity that I am, it behaves like a conscious entity,

although the consciousness is actually similar to a

reflected consciousness. It is similar to moon light,

which is nothing but a reflected light from the sun.

Hence it has no existence of its own, that is, there

is no moon-light other than the sun light. In other

words, it has no substantive of its own, other than

the sun light. Similarly, this body-mind-intellect

complex act as conscious entity in all of the worldly

transactions, but that transactability is not of its

own but comes from the conscious entity that ‘I am’.

Thus because of identification with the BMI complex, a

false I is created by identification of true self with

the false self. Are there two selves then – a true

self and a false self. No. False self is false and

therefore no validity on its own. True is the only

reality. But at transactional level, the false self

acts as though it is the true self, since one has no

knowledge of that true self that one is. The error is

again of the type ‘adhyaasa’ where a false-self ‘I’ is

superimposed on the true self, ‘I’. Hence when I ask

you, “Are you a conscious entity?” or “Are you an

existent entity?”, your immediate response is “Yes I

am”. But what actually you imply is I am existent

entity as ‘this’ and ‘this’ or conscious entity as

this individual ‘I’ with the BMI complex, without

questioning yourself, ‘How can I be this, where ‘I am’

is the subject and ‘this is’ is an object of my

perception?’. Thus, the total consciousness that I am

which is all pervading principle is ‘as though’

reflected in the local medium of reflection, the

subtle body, behaves as though it is real conscious

entity. This reflected consciousness (chidaabhaasa),

is called jiiva or the individual self. Some refer to

this as ‘soul’, although what exactly it implies is

not known. From our analysis, it is the all pervading

consciousness as though reflected in the local medium,

subtle body or inner equipment (antahkaraNa)

constituting of the mind, intellect, ego and memory.

An individual ‘I’ arises by identification of total

consciousness with the reflected consciousness.

 

Transmigration of Soul:

 

Pure consciousness is all pervading and eternal. Its

reflection through the medium of subtle and gross

bodies is the expression of life. Identification with

the reflection is the notion of jiiva. The reflection

depends on the medium of reflection. It is similar to

convex, concave or plane mirrors where the reflection

is distorted due to the lack of straightforwardness

(aarjavam) of the reflecting surface. Hence when the

mind and intellect are crooked, the reflecting

consciousness also appears crocked. When the mind and

intellect are impure, the reflection is also dull. If

the mind and intellect are pure the reflection will be

pure and shine in all its glory. Thus the BMI surface

acts ‘as though’ like a prism refracting pure light of

consciousness into the VIBGYR pattern of different

individuals each with different wave length. But the

essence is one and the same consciousness-existence

entity that “I am” – without any reflections or

distortions.

 

Here, we note that reflection or refraction is not the

problem. The VIBGYR pattern is not the problem, the

existence of BMI complex is not the problem. Even

their crookedness is not the problem. They are part

of the nature just as existence of gold in varieties

of ornamental forms is its nature. Then where is the

problem? The problem arises with the identification

of ‘I am as this’. That is the problem arises when I

take the image of reflection or reflected

consciousness as the original I, the all pervading

consciousness. Since ‘I am’ is ‘I am’ and ‘this is’

is this is, the existence of either of these two is

not a problem just as gold is gold and ring is ring.

When gold feels ‘I am a ring’- that identification

with a name and form contributes to suffering or

samsaara. In that very identification, the problems of

the names and forms become my problems. BMI is

limited and the limitations of BMI become my

limitations, although as existent-consciousness entity

that I am is limitless. Since BMI continuously

changes with what Vedanta calls as six-fold

modifications consisting of presence, birth, growth,

disease, decay and death, while ‘I am’ is changeless

and eternal entity, but due to identification, I feel

I am undergoing these six-fold modifications and

suffer as a consequence of this identification.

 

Death is nothing but separation of subtle body from

gross body. Subtle body consisting of flow of

thoughts constituting – mind, intellect, ego and

memory gathers all its faculties – the faculties of

senses, etc and moves to different fields of

experiences (lokas). It takes back a new gross body by

entering into the womb of a mother which we call as

birth. Birth and death are therefore association and

disassociation of the subtle body with the gross body.

In the gross body, the consciousness reflects as

existence – as the body is. In the subtle body, the

consciousness is reflected as a being with notions of

‘I am this’.

 

Witnessing consciousness and reflected consciousness:

 

Since the problem of suffering arises with the

identification of the total consciousness with the

reflected consciousness, the problem can be eliminated

when this identification ceases. Solution sounds very

simple, but the difficulty arises in the execution,

since this identification that I am the body, mind or

intellect is very intense, reinforced perhaps by

several lives. The problem is compounded, since any

efforts to de-identify only crystallizes the ego

further. Who is trying to de-identify? Is it pure

consciousness? Pure consciousness is always pure and

one without a second. Reflected consciousness exists

as long as the reflecting medium exists i.e. as long

as the BMI complex exists. Neither one has any

problem. Only a byproduct of these two – a notional I

that arise in the mind as ego as I am this – is the

false guy and has to realize that he is not the true

self but a false one. No ego can realize that he is a

false guy and still exist – since the very realization

involves its own destruction. He only adopts a new

language – I am now a spiritual seeker and want to

meditate and realize who I am – There is still that

wanting mind or longing mind, now wanting to realize.

Wanting mind therefore remains in the process which is

nothing but expression of ego. Ego wants to want than

wants to have that is it is never satisfied with what

it has. Hence Vedanta suggests that once one

recognizes the problem, the best method to solve the

problem is just be an observer of the operation of the

ego. It is no more a wanting mind but observing mind

or as conscious observer of the wanting mind. That is

the witnessing mind which does not do or want but be

non-interacting witness of the very operation of the

egoic mind. Thus during the sadhana stage we have

witnessing consciousness, I, which is not involved in

any action or in any enjoyment, and the egoic mind

which wants to enjoy or act to fulfill its wants. This

is picturized in Mundaka Upanishad as the two birds

sitting on the same branch of a tree, one enjoying the

fruits (fruits of the actions) while the other is just

observing as the witness (dvaa suparNaa sayujaa

sakhaaya..). Krishana puts this in a different way –

“I am the all pervading consciousness and all beings

are in me. However, I am not affected by their

modifications- look at my glory, Arjuna”.

 

This duality is only notional as long as the

identification is there. The notional duality is taken

as real due to this identification. The problem can

only solved by detaching oneself from all these

identifications; but this detachment cannot involve

another action or another process, since any process

will only reinforce the attachment, providing further

reality to the false. The falseness arises only

because there is no substantive for BMI complex as

well as the world of objects around. BMI is part of

the world since it is this body, this mind and this

intellect and this world of objects. Hence all ‘this’

constitute inert objects. Krishna states emphatically

that ‘this body and this world provides a field of

experience’ or kshetam (idam shariiram kounteya

kshetam ityabhidhiiyate) and gives exhaustive details

of what constitutes the ‘this’ or idam. Since all

this is pervaded by me, the knower of the field,

kshetam, I am that total consciousness that enlivens

all this fields of experiences. Hence recognition that

‘I am not this’- should involve shifting myself from

the notional I or reflected consciousness to

witnessing consciousness with clear understanding ‘I

am neither a doer nor an enjoyer – akartaaham

abhoktaaham’.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda