liberation

Liberation or Self-Knowledge is not an understanding | Advaita Vedanta

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Many erroneously think liberation is mere understanding in the mind ‘I am That’ or the ability to discern the difference (viveka) between what is lasting (nitya) and what is temporary (anitya), and thereby know in the mind that you are That which is lasting, and the temporary depends on you.

Sri Ramana Maharshi, completely in line with the vedanta scriptures, explains that Jnana or Liberation is nothing of the kind – it is not mere intellectual understanding or thoughts or discernment (viveka) in the mind, although this may be a useful precursor.

Here are two verses that Sri Ramana wrote himself:

‘Cease all talk of ‘I’ and search with inward diving mind whence the thought of ‘I’ springs up. This is the way of knowledge. To think, instead, ‘I am not this, but That I am,’ is helpful in the search, but it is not the search itself.’

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses on Reality), Verse 29

‘When the Vedas have declared, ‘Thou art That’ – not to seek and find the nature of the Self and abide in It, but to think ‘I am That, not This’ is want [ie. lack] of strength. Because, That abides forever as the Self.’

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses on Reality), Verse 32

If this is a new or strange teaching for you, please explore the recommended reading list here to understand these teachings in full.

UPANISHADS

In the Amritabindu Upanishad Jnana is defined as follows in verse 5:

‘The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.’

Some people think I selectively quote merely to prove my own point, but note that this above verse was also quoted to make this very same point by Swami Vidyaranya (1296-1386), author of the wonderful Advaita Vedanta text Panchadasi and Shankaracharya (head monk and preserver of Advaita Vedanta) of Sringeri Math, in his work Jivanmukti Viveka.

GAUDAPADA AND SHANKARA

Sri Gaudapada wrote the following in his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, explaining how in liberation no mind exists:

3.32 When the Truth of Atman has been realised, the mind ceases to think; then the mind attains the state of not being the mind. In the absence of things to be perceived, it becomes a non-perceiver.

Shankara gives his commentary on this verse 3.31 explaining how the entire phenomenal existence is dependent on the mind and how mind is stilled or stopped in liberation, agreeing with Gaudapada above:

‘This duality as a whole, that is mano-drsyam, perceived by the mind; is nothing but the mind, which is itself imagined – this is the proposition [Tom: ie. meaning of the verse]. For duality endures so long as the mind does, and disappears with the disappearance of the mind.

‘For when the mind ceases to be mind when, like the illusory snake disappearing in the rope, the mind’s activity stops through the practice of discriminating insight and detachment, or when the mind gets absorbed in the state of sleep, duality is not perceived. From this non-existence is proved the unreality of duality. This is the purport. How does the mind cease to be the mind? This is being answered [in the next verse and commentary]’

The rest of the text continues in this manner.

MORE SHANKARA

We see the same teaching in Shankara’s masterpiece Vivekachudamani which explains all the teachings given in Shankara’s various commentaries in a much clearer form. Here is verse 169 where he equates the mind with ignorance:

169. There is no Ignorance (Avidya) outside the mind. The mind alone is Avidya, the cause of the bondage of transmigration. When that is destroyed, all else is destroyed, and when it is manifested, everything else is manifested.

Then he states the world is but an illusion projected by the mind, like a dream, essentially equating the mind with maya:

170. In dreams, when there is no actual contact with the external world, the mind alone creates the whole universe consisting of the experiencer etc. Similarly in the waking state also; there is no difference. Therefore all this (phenomenal universe) is the projection of the mind.

Shankara then warns the seeker to stay away from the mind:

176. In the forest-tract of sense-pleasures there prowls a huge tiger called the mind. Let good people who have a longing for Liberation never go there.

MANONASA

Shankara teaches us that the mind eventually must die (manonasa, a traditional synonym of self-realisation), and the method of how this is achieved:

277. The Yogi’s mind dies, being constantly fixed on his own Self.

407. This apparent universe has its root in the mind, and never persists after the mind is annihilated. Therefore dissolve the mind by concentrating it on the Supreme Self, which is thy inmost Essence.

481. My mind has vanished, and all its activities have melted, by realising the identity of the Self and Brahman; I do not know either this or not-this; nor what or how much the boundless Bliss (of Samadhi) is

502. How can there be merits and demerits for me, who am without organs, without mind, changeless, and formless – who am the realisation of Bliss Absolute? The Shruti also mentions this in the passage “Not touched”, etc.!

🙏🙏🙏

Simply let go of seeking! (and why that doesn’t work)

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

This was originally post on Facebook here

1. Seeking will necessarily continue until the ego is completely destroyed. You cannot simply chose to stop seeking or ‘let go of seeking’. THE EFFECTS WILL BE TEMPORARY AT BEST, and this is ultimately dissatisfactory. Seeking (and its counterpart, suffering) will always come back until ego is completely gone. That’s just the way it is. There will always be a sense of lack until the self is discovered.

2. And ego is not destroyed by trying to destroy the ego… Your true nature prior to the arising of ego (ie. source) must be discovered, and the ego ends as a side effect of this discovery of truth.

3. Only when ego is completely destroyed in this way, is it then seen that the ego never existed in the first place. Ego never arose at all! The world (which is a projection of ego, and is also known as duality) never came into existence at all, not even as an appearance! (Why would anyone want this? Because it is heaven, because it is bliss, because it is what you are truly seeking for and have always been seeking for. It is total love, it is your own true self.)

4. Merely saying ‘there is already no such thing as ego’, without having truly discovered the formless objectless worldless Source-Subject-Self, doesn’t work to genuinely end seeking or genuinely end suffering. This is merely an empty proclamation for the mind.

5. This discovery of your true nature is never for the mind (or the body, or the body-mind). Mind is the same as ego. Ego is the same as mind. There is literally no difference. If the discovery is for the mind, suffering may be reduced, but suffering and seeking will still persist on a subtle level until the self is truly known, devoid of thought, devoid of mind.

6. If realisation is for the mind or in the mind, then you are still on the level of seeking, and the true formless self, the source of all, the subject, is yet to be truly discovered – you are still a seeker. The general advice here is to find a teacher, learn the genuine method of self-enquiry and put the teaching into practice.

7. Without a teacher it is very difficult for most to truly learn self-enquiry, which cannot usually be taught from books or from static words, but is transmitted in a variety of ways, including through the well-timed words/interactions of a teacher and through the silence and the presence of the sage. For some the technique can be revealed by simply going/sinking within, towards the I AM (which is the true or ultimate teacher), away from objective phenomena, but this seems to be very rare. The exact path to self-inquiry and self-realiaation (or self-knowledge) for each apparent individual person varies greatly, and so for most a teacher is necessary, or at least very helpful.

8. ‘To know the (worldless objectless) self, is merely to be the (worldless objectless) self.’

9. Eternal love, adoration and gratitude to my beloved guru and teacher, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, who is truly the nature of my very own Self, residing in the Heart of all beings, whose radiant presence shines forth in all times and in all places, whose teachings can be discovered by simply turning within and searching within, and who has revealed these teachings to me both in his precious words and within my Heart.

Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachala Ramanaya Om

🙏🙏🙏

Shankara: Absolute separation from the body is liberation | Bliss (Ananda) and the Self | Advaita Vedanta | Commentary on Upanishads

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Tom: Shankara writes the following in his commentary of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.29.7. My comments are interspersed in italicised red with Shankara’s writings in black.

Here Shankara is making the point that strictly speaking there is no knowing or knowledge in Self-Knowledge/Self-Realisation/The Self, meaning there is no existence of or involvement of the mind in Self. He gives the analogy of water being thrown into a larger tank of water – that initial water does not retain its separateness by which it can know the larger body of water into which it was thrown. Self-knowledge is just a phrase used to point to That which cannot be put into words.

If there was an entity that could know Brahman or know of Brahman, then that would imply 2 entities, Brahman and and knower of Brahman. Or it would imply differentiation of Brahman. Either of these would contradict shruti (revealed scripture/revealed knowledge).

Similarly, Shankara states that bliss is not cognised in Self-Realisation for the same reasons. Rather Bliss is the nature of Self, not something experienced by the Self or by some self-realised entity or person (which is another illusion).

Incidentally, Shankara also reveals just how radical liberation is, stating that in liberation there is no body, no organs, no mind, no knowledge:

Also see: What exactly is Jnana (knowledge) according to Shankara and Gaudapada and the scriptures?

[Shankara:] Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support . Hence too there will be no knowledge, there being no body and organs. If knowledge could arise even in the absence of the body and organs, there would be no necessity for any one to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in liberation), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman.

Tom: Shankara clearly states in liberation there is total or absolute separation from Body, and then says there is no body in liberation. Without a body, there can be no mind and without a mind there can be no cognition or knowledge (in the ordinary sense of these words).

We see similar teachings from Sri Ramana Maharshi: in Ulladu Narpadu verse 12, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

True Knowledge is Being, devoid of knowledge as well as ignorance of objects. Knowledge of objects is not true knowledge. Since the Self shines self-luminous, with nothing else for It to know, with nothing else to know It, the Self is Knowledge. Nescience [ignorance] It is not.

In Upadesa Saram verse 27, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

That is true knowledge which transcends
Both knowledge and ignorance,
For in pure knowledge
Is no object to be known.

OBJECTION: Suppose we say that the Supreme Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows Itself as Bliss Absolute?

REPLY: No, (this has just been answered). Even the person under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain one’s real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply also) .

Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, one does not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated person knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated one, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, “I am the Bliss Absolute”, then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Srutis; and there is no third alternative.

Tom: See my explanation in the introduction above

Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between awareness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of this bliss, then that is Its nature; hence there is no sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss.

Tom: the point here is that if Brahman is ‘constantly aware of it’s own bliss’, then this bliss is simply the nature of the Self, as Self is One, and it doesn’t make sense to think of an entity that cognises or perceives bliss in some way in Self-Realisation.

Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as for instance one knows oneself and another (by an act of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguishing between a state of awareness and one of unawareness in the case of one whose mind is uninterruptedly absorbed in making an arrow, for instance.

Tom: Shankara’s argument here is saying that to speak of ‘constantly knowing bliss’ during self-realisation would only make sense if there would be a possibility of not knowing bliss during self-realisation, which is not possible, so again, bliss is the nature of Self and not a cognised object.

If, on the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the intervals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know something else; and the Self would become changeful, which would make It non-permanent.

Tom: If the bliss of Brahman came and went, or increased and decreased, then that would mean the Self is subject to change (which it isn’t) and is therefore impermanent (which it isn’t).

Hence the text, ” Knowledge , Bliss “, etc, must be interpreted as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised.

Tom: Regarding the initial statement of Shankara’s above, namely that there is no body in Liberation, here are some quotes of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s that say the same, taken from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

86 Don’t ask, “How did this error rise,
Why this ignorance that the Self
Itself is as the world transformed?”
Seek rather and find out to whom
This happened, and the error [Tom: of the world appearance] will
Persist no more.

87 What is the Self’s self-transformation
As the world? A coil of straw
Appearing as a snake? Look hard,
You see no snake at all. There is
No transformation, no creation, none,
No world at all. [Tom: ie. ajata vada]

97 Only the mind, by maya’s might
Deluded, and looking outward sees
The body. The true Self knows no body.
To call the Self of Pure Awareness
The body’s owner or indweller
Is an error.

[Tom: This is reference to Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna states the Self is the knower of the body, and various other scriptures which advise that the Self is somewhere deep within the body, dwelling in each and everyone’s body, here Bhagavan Ramana is saying even this is not true, pointing us to a deeper teaching]

1230 The things you think of as existing
Do not exist. But That of which
You know not if it does exist
Or does not [Tom: ie. the supreme birthless deathless unchanging ever-pure blissful Self], That alone exists.

Q. Tom, if you can, please can you summarise the basic essential teaching in a paragraph? | Advaita | Liberation | Enlightenment

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Questioner: Tom, if you can, please can you summarise the basic essential teaching in a paragraph?

Tom: It cannot be fully put into words, but it is something like this: You are actually and already the One Infinite Divine Spirit whose nature is Eternal Happiness and Bliss.

You are not the body-mind at all, and thinking that you are is the prime illusion, or ignorance, that brings all suffering.

In order to discover this Truth (that is already the case, ie. it is a fact), one must turn away from all objective phenomena, including thoughts, feelings, etc, and intuitively go towards the I AM and discover this for oneself. Cultivating a spirit of love, happiness, affection and devotion can be a great help in this endeavor.

The reason we must turn away from all objects is that in attending to various objective phenomena the notion ‘I am the body-mind’ is perpetuated. This is very important to understand and realise. Only when we turn away from objects, either intentionally or spontaneously/by grace, is there a possibility of Self-Realisation. Otherwise we remain trapped in the (false) beliefs ‘I am a body-mind or person’ and ‘the world is real’.

Once we realise the Self, there is no need to integrate this understanding into daily life or anything like that, as Self-realisation is not an understanding for the mind, and in Self-realisation, all duality ceases: there is no entity left to integrate, no understanding or knowledge to integrate, and nothing left to integrate with. There is only the Infinite Blissful Self.

Teachings, such as those that talk about being adverse to the world, and all genuine spiritual teachings in fact, are just there to encourage and facilitate this discovery, and the form the teaching takes depends on the context in which they are given, including where the apparent seeker is at.

It is not about being some block of wood (a body-mind) that is detached and cut off, but about discovering something, the only thing, that is true and real – your True Nature, your Self.

This discovery is truly the most wonderful ‘thing’. (It is not a thing)

This discovery is not for or by the body-mind (or ego) at all, but is ‘by the Self’ so to speak…here words fall short, but poetically we say the Self itself discovers or realises the Self.

Hope that makes sense

Thank you

🙏

(much longer than a paragraph, I know!)

Questioner: can you support the above teaching you have given using authoritative quotes from Sri Ramana Maharshi or the Scriptures?

Tom: yes, sure, if you carefully read this article here, you will see all these above points mentioned and backed up by quotes from Sri Ramana Maharshi. The only point not backed up by quotes in that article is about not needing to integrate the teachings after realisation/liberation, for more on that see here. For quotes from the Vedanta scriptures see here.

Best wishes & namaste.