Vedanta/neo-Vedanta Debate

Vedanta/Neo-vedanta, Advaita/Neo-advaita

an email debate (sort of)

The following is an unplanned dialog that took place recently (in the month of November, 2006), between Jai Maha Dev and a certain respected American Vedantist, who chooses to remain unnamed (for this reason, we have given the name Laksman to this anonymous person). Shri Maha Dev is the author of this site (Aditya Dham) and Shri Laksman Ji is the author of a website which is devoted to the dissemination of Vedanta and Advaita.

Using an alias, Maha Dev Ji experimented with the publishing of a controversial blog titled the Masters of Deception, in which he sought to awaken spiritual seekers to the dangers of blindly following their own ego or the ego and personality of certain well-known persons in the field of religion and spirituality. Shortly after publishing the blog, he came across the writings of Laksman Ji, and requested his opinion regarding the blog. Thus began an exchange of emails that evolved into a discussion that touched on some of the important ideas pertaining to Vedanta and Advaita. With the authors’ permissions, we are sharing these emails because we feel this dialog sheds light on the topics of Vedanta and Advaita which are often misunderstood in our modern times.

Please note that some of the language in the emails is not appropriate for the minds of young children.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 Jai Maha Dev, using the alias Dev Singh, wrote to Laksman:

Kindly give your opinion about the following site and tell me which info you think should be changed, if any, and why. Having browsed your site, I feel an affinity with your 'real' ness.

mastersofdeception.blogspot.com

Laksman replied the same day (Nov. 11^th):

Hi Dev,

I think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.

I understand this is a blog, but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations are anything more than an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials to buttress your views.

To put a positive spin on your definition you seem to be saying that an enlightened person is a saint. What's missing is the idea of a jnani, someone who knows the truth of their own nature but does not develop sattvika vasanas, in other words someone who is just a regular person 'following his or her nature' as Krishna says in the Gita.

If it were my blog, I would present the position that following Dharma is superior to Self realization. So if you have a person who claims to be Self realized you can write him off because he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next to following dharma enlightenment is the most important thing in the world.” But you have to be careful what you mean by dharma because some activities are dharmic in certain situations and not in others.

The other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate indicator of enlightenment. I'm not saying that people like Sai Baba and Da Free John and Swami Rama should get a pass but there are many enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities from the outside but do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.

As far as your list is concerned you are right in about 80 percent of the cases and wrong in about 20% if you want my opinion. Anyway, I hope this has been helpful.

Laksman

Dev’s response on Nov. 12th:

Dear Soul Friend,

Thank you for your observations, insights, and reply. Having gone through perhaps 20% of your site (so far), I perceive that you are certainly an advanced soul, considerably more imageless (without bias) than probably 90% of those people involved in Eastern studies. I perceive your studies must have been (are) quite deep and where certainly influenced by your contact with very evolved souls, but most especially (your studies are deep) because you have been doing your own ‘homework.’

Though you did not object in your reply to my opinion of both Swami C. and his former disciple, I have just now read in your info that you hold both of them in very high esteem. Unlike fanatical followers (of which you certainly are not, and nor am I implying these two swamis have fanatical followers) you were quite restrained and dignified in your reply, all the more so because you didn’t even ask for any clarification regarding my opinion (on this matter). No doubt, you are not one to be very much (if at all) interested in opinions, particularly of someone who you don’t even know. However, before saying anything else, I feel you should know that (unlike some of the others I mentioned) I do not claim any first hand knowledge of either of these two men (although I did meet Swami C. once, very briefly, at MIT in 1974, and felt he was certainly an evolved soul). Nevertheless, I stand by what I have written, which I feel is a true and honest assessment of both men (based on other information and knowledge available to me).

Now, regarding various points in your reply:

“I think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.”

‘Definition of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment. But anyway, here goes: he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge of the Self. That Wisdom removes the darkness of Ignorance from the mind (and by extension, the intellect); hence, the Self stands clear in that clarified, enlightened mind. Of course, the Self is ever-clear, and ever established in its own Self, but its presence in the mind (in the context of the living self, Jivatman) is either awakened (standing clear) or not. Most people (jivas) are sleeping in Ignorance, which explains why their perception and awareness are distorted and not clear.

Now, one who is REALLY established (that is, one whose mind has really been cleared of all images and false knowledge) will not only be enlightened, but will also be enlightening. It is an effortless effort to do so (enlighten) since that Light is self-effulgent (i.e., is not the reflection of another entity).

One (that Jiva) whose Ignorance of the Self has truly been eradicated from the mind, will naturally manifest the qualities of that real Self. Although the ego and mind remain with the Jiva, that enlightened Jiva is no longer under any compulsion, because its negative vasanas have either been annihilated or superceded by positive ones (non-violent vasanas, i.e., tendencies and desires which are in no way in violation of one’s real Self).

Anyone whose nature is contrary to the nature of the Self cannot be said to be truly enlightened, regardless how much they may know ABOUT the self. Knowing about and knowing are quite different from each other. ‘Knowing is Doing’ which means the Self that has been realized in the mind is actualized in ones behavior.

There are many characteristics which reflect the ignorance of the Self (i.e., which clearly show one is not truly enlightened). Of course, we could just as easily take a Saguna approach and say that there are many characteristics which reflect the Knowledge of the Self. As you know, Lord Krishna in his response to one of Arjuna’s questions, has beautifully told us what these characteristics are. Without referencing the Gita, I can say with certainty that these qualities include the following:

That person will not seek ego-recognition or satisfaction
That person will be devoid of selfish motives
That person will be devoid of false pride, haughtiness, and snobbishness
That person will not cause any injury to another being (including animals) for any selfish reason (i.e., for the purpose of gratifying one’s ego or mind)
That person will NOT have bad habits which will influence others in a negative, self-destructive way. They will not use their intellect and ego to justify their ego-centered tendencies and actions.

This is an extremely abbreviated list, but it is sufficient to establish whether or not the various people mentioned in the MastersOfDeception blog are enlightened or not.

“It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.”

Yes, without a doubt, that person will be a vegetarian. The other half of this sentence ‘who is not successful in the spiritual world’ appears to be a little bit of sarcasm, or maybe you really do misunderstand me. Let me clarify: an enlightened person (I don’t like using this phrase) has absolutely NO desire to be successful in the spiritual circus or marketplace, and will actually AVOID making ‘performances’ and ‘deals,’ and by virtue of this that person IS successful in the so-called spiritual world, regardless how evolved they are.

“I understand this is a blog but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations are anything more than an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials to buttress your views.”

Honestly, I have no need to convince anyone of anything. You are no doubt familiar with the term VASUDEVAKUTUMBAKAM. My only desire is my duty to warn my family members of dangerous people they may encounter. It was not possible to list all the good, the bad, and ugly; nor was it necessary to provide evidence which is widely available (or at the very least, is certainlyknown to the confidents of those mentioned who are still living). However, many people are in denial because their self-delusion has become their comfort zone. Most people, however, have simply never come in touch with the undiluted Truth and so they continue to stumble in the darkness of their ignorance. In every case (listed above), this one feels moved to cut to the chase and set the record straight (as I understand it). In case I am wrong, I certainly welcome one and all to correct me.

“To put a positive spin on your definition you seem to be saying that an enlightened person is a saint. What's missing is the idea of a jnani, someone who knows the truth of their own nature but does not develop sattvika vasanas, in other words someone who is just a regular person 'following his or her nature' as Krishna says in the Gita.”

My Invisible Friend, Laksmanji, a Jnani is one who knows their own Real Nature (Higher Nature) and their lower nature too, AND embraces the Real (nature) and is not moved (motivated) by the Unreal (lower nature). The ‘Unreal’ means Ignorance. Only one who is ignorant of the Self will manifest demonic qualities, or will remain as an ordinary self-involved individual. In other words, one who really knows the Self will definitely be a Saint (though most likely unknown to the world at large), and one who is engaged in the process of enlightenment (i.e., is sincerely inquiring into the nature of the Self) will certainly be a saintly person. Being a saintly person means (to me) that that person is making a concerted effort to rise above himself (ego-centered self), which can only be done through the acquisition of divine Wisdom (AtamGyaan, Soul-knowledge). One’s actions (or more correctly, one’s Guna-Karam-Subhav: qualities, behavior, and nature) are proof-positive whether or not one has assimilated this Knowledge. Having acquired it without assimilating it is really meaningless; just as is ‘knowing the truth but acting against it’, or knowing the truth but not being truthful, or ‘talking the talk’ but not ‘walking the walk.’

No doubt (as declared by Patanjali) the enlightened state is beyond the quantitative or qualitative imprints (samskaras). The Self is beyond the sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic qualities of Prakriti, and always remains such. But we are living souls; we are embodied in mind and matter. Our essence (the Self) is unchangeable, but our lower nature is constantly changing. These changes in our lower nature (mind and body) are certainly not random or uncontrolled. We (as living souls) have the power (inherent in the Self) to shape our mind (and life) into a beautiful dance, a beautiful expression of our Essence (Self). It is only by PRACTICE that we ultimately attain the state of effortless effort; then everything seems to flow effortlessly, like the movement of a skilled dancer, musician, or artist. It will NEVER just happen by simply knowing ABOUT the Self.

Too many Vedantists know too much for their own good, because they do not put what they know (about) into practice: they DO NOT take hold of their own mind and shape it into something beautiful and useful, but instead they retain their selfish inclinations and impressions and imagine themselves to be in the world but not of it. The fact is, many of them are buried up to their necks in this world of unreality, but they hide in their neo-vedantic egos and personalities, and continue to fool themselves and others.

“If it were my blog I would present the position that following Dharma is superior to Self realization. So if you have a person who claims to be Self-realized you can write him off because he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next to following dharma enlightenment is the most important thing in the world. But you have to be careful what you mean by dharma because some activities are dharmic in certain situations and not in others.”

Dharma simply means the Nature of the Self, and it is absolutely impossible to realize the Self without practicing the nature of the Self (Dharma). Unfortunately, you are definitely playing mind-games, which should be expected of you since that is what all neo-vedantic people are doing. However, in your case, I think you are an exceptional person who knows a lot, but is also capable of going beyond what you know, think you know, and don’t know.

I am not a very well-read man, and have never heard of this person Dogzen, but I can say without hesitation the person is deluded. He (or she) talks of dharma and enlightenment as though they are commodities in the marketplace (or the mind), when in fact they constitute our own Being. One who is established in the Self.. . . ~~or heck, leave that aside~~. . . ~~One who is truly established on the Path, . . . . leave that be too~~. . . . ONE WHO IS A TRUE HUMAN BEING, one who is honest with himself (or herself), one who is Real (to the core of their own being) knows what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is real and unreal, what is dharmic and adharmic. ‘Knowing the Truth’ is NOT an intellectual grasp of ‘things.’ It is beyond the language of thought, but it is not thoughtless. It is beyond the mind but it is not mindless. It is beyond emotions and feelings but it is not beyond experience. It is the Self, but it is NOT selfish.

[After going through some of the Dogzen newsletters available from the Dogzen site, I must recant my comments about Dogzen. I personally found some of the techniques presented in the site to be very good and useful. I was too quick to judge and should have at least done a google search on Dogzen before writing this paragraph. DEV]

“The other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate indicator of enlightenment. . . . . there are many enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities from the outside but do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.”

The second half of this sentence is of course true, and irrespective of so-called prarabdha karma. That is, an enlightened soul, or in any case a very evolved soul, may still have ordinary likes and dislikes, etc., which are NOT of the type that would be injurious to others (or one’s self). To say that these vasanas do not affect one’s realization, however, cannot be true. Realization is not a static ‘experience’ (as you will surely agree), but it is the State of Being, and That (State of Being) is Changeless yet Ever-New, which means it is always fresh, beginingless and endless. The one (living self) that realizes the Self never gets stuck in any image. The realized Soul remains in the state of limitless (ASEEM) Consciousness. There is no end to refining our mind. The one who stops refining their perception and awareness is not self-realized but self-deluded.

Only those in whose minds the ego remains embedded will continue to live in self-delusion and confusion. The ego cannot be removed from the mind except through the application of divine wisdom. The seeds of divine wisdom are found in the Vedas and the various teachings that have emanated from them (and continue to emanate from them). You have studied many vedic teachings but I feel you have not given enough attention to the Vedas themselves, otherwise you would not have some of the views that you seem to espouse.

I will continue to go through the materials on your site, because I have not come across any other sites that contain as much wisdom as your site (as far as I can tell up to this point). I am not a ‘surfer-seeker’, nor am I a wannabe guru, saint, or whatever. I am a simple human being like you with an ‘I’ for the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Thank you for sharing your insights with me. I will endeavor to put what I have learned into practice. OM

Your nameless well-wisher,

Dev

Laksman’s response on Nov. 13th:

Hi Dev,

Did you want feedback on your interesting letter? I have a policy of not speaking unless I am asked. There are a few points that I could comment upon that might be of interest to you. I basically agree with most of your views, however. Usually I reply in detail to the letters that come through my website but in the case of yours I get the impression that you know...or think you know...quite a lot and the tone of your letters seems quite cocksure and rather aggressive...which does not always make for satisfying communications. I do not want to pick a fight with anybody. Would it be fair to say that you see yourself as some sort of warrior for the truth? Incidentally, I do not use sarcasm in emails with strangers. The questions and comments are straightforward. It is always better to communicate face to face in cases like this because a lot more subtle information is available that can make it easier to evaluate the other person's words and their intentions. It is easy to misunderstand in emails unless there is genuine love between the communicators. If I was not so old I might like to take you on in friendly dharma combat...if that were something that appealed to you...but almost forty years of sadhana and easy life has mellowed me out to the point where I am totally uninterested in quarreling over beliefs, opinions, doctrines, ideas, etc. In any case I am happy to respond to some portions of your letter if you want. It may take a few days as I am in transit on my way to India for the winter season.

Laksman

Dev’s reply on Nov. 14^th:

Dear Jivatma,

Please do respond at your leisure. Soul friend, I do not know you except for the little bit I have gleaned from your writings, which can only represent, at best, an infinitesimal bit of who you are, or appear to be

I am not really interested in appearances, since really it is all just another permutation of Avidya (ignorance). Who you are, I am that; who I am that you are. Whether or not you really know it doesn't appear to be a question in your mind, but then appearances can be misleading. Sometimes questions should appear but they do not, and by that too one can be misled.

I am not cocksure, but I do possess AtamVishwas (Soul confidence), which sometimes prompts me to speak my mind, just as it can make me to keep my mouth shut (which is usually the case). I believe in speaking the Truth straightforwardly, but with love and candor as counseled by the Sage Manu. I do not see myself as anything, really, just another beginingless, immortal Soul engaged in the Sport of Life, for the time-being.

I speak to you as one human being to another, without any aggression or repression. I am far from being a perfect being, but in my own right (Light of Consciousness) I am a Siddha because my power is the power of Truth. What is that? That is nothing, except to call a spade a spade, and see things as they really are and not just as they appear to be.

I should stop here for now because this stuff is beginning to sound too holy for me. I am a whole human being and my only purpose is to manifest the Total Well-being in this life and forever.

Certainly face to face communication would be better, but I have no problem communicating a few ideas like this (as both of us seem to have very good written communication skills). I'll promise to remember that I am communicating with the Self in the Self through the Self. There is no battle here, just as there are really no opposing teams on the field, it just appears that way for the sake of the Game. When the Game is over we will all leave the field, remove our different uniforms, and go back to being who we have always really been: the Self.

OM

Sent by Laksman on Nov. 15^th:

Hi Dev,

Yes, I like the idea of communicating with you. You can appreciate my reluctance to get too friendly too fast...although I have not had one difficult contact from the website...a couple of 'spiritual' crazies but that is all. The email that I have nearly completed in response to your last letter is more or less about communicating enlightenment, not about you or me personally. As I point out it doesn't matter to me whether someone is 'enlightened' or not. If they are polite well-mannered people I will communicate on any topic. The proof of the pudding in the enlightenment game is giving and receiving love. It doesn't matter if the person is a saint or a sinner. The blog is provocative so I needed to find out what is behind it...that is all. I find it difficult to communicate with 'righteous' and 'holy' people. Anyway, look for a reply soon.

Om and Prem,

Laksman

Dev’s email simultaneously sent on Nov: 15th:

Respected Soul-friend,

Having gone through more of your writings, I think it is only fair that I should be more open about myself, as you certainly have about yourself. I believe that we could engage in a very useful dialog together and come to a deeper understanding of the real Self.

Please go through the Aditya Dham website (adityadham.com) and the associated blog (blog.adityadham.com). My real name is Jai Maha Dev. The name Dev Singh is the name of a distant (long past) relation (non-blood). The MastersOfDeception website (as you may have noticed) is a very recent creation; one which I hesitated to publish and which I still have second thoughts about (that is, second thoughts about having published). Realizing that you are a man of noble character, I have divulged this to you and request that you not reveal the real identify of Dev Singh, aka Sahunta Devananda.

I look forward to deepening our spiritual relationship and expanding our understanding of the Self.

OM

Laksman’s response on Nov. 16th:

Hi Dev,

The secret of your true identity is safe with me. Not to worry. I checked out the site. As I said about your blog I believe it would be more effective if you made a point of defining your terms. For example one has to read quite a bit in the Images section to figure out what you mean. Other than that it is a good site, well organized and clean. As you will see when you read the email I just sent we have quite different views of enlightenment...or at least words to describe enlightenment. I think it would give your site more depth if you included the view I present in addition to the experiential 'state' view.

Laksmanji

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

Laksman (from previous email) “I think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.”

Dev (excerpt): ‘Definition of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment.

Laksman: Self evident to whom, Dev? Perhaps you are a jnani and therefore it is self evident to you but what about a person who might read your web log? If they were interested in following any one of these gurus I should think they would not know what enlightenment was. Therefore, it might be of interest for them to have some kind of idea of what they were seeking and how the guru in question was either capable or incapable of helping them.

Dev (from previous email): But anyway, here goes: he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge of the Self. That Wisdom removes the darkness of Ignorance from the mind (and by extension, the intellect); hence, the Self stands clear in that clarified, enlightened mind. Of course, the Self is ever-clear, and ever established in its own Self, but its presence in the mind (in the context of the living self, Jivatman) is either awakened (standing clear) or not. Most people (jivas) are sleeping in Ignorance, which explains why their perception and awareness is distorted and not clear.

Laksman: You say ‘its presence is either awakened (standing clear) or not” Do you mean that a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind? I’m not sure how ‘its presence’ can be ‘awakened or not.’ It is the view of Vedanta that the Self is neither awake nor asleep. I think the sruti would agree that the Self is not ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ either. A third doubt that your statement brings up is this: in my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything. There are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic states of mind which affect the mind’s perception but they don’t belong to anyone. Perhaps you will think this is all semantics…and indeed it might appear that way…but my opinion is that while formulating enlightenment from a human point of view is understandable in so far as human beings will not seek it unless they feel there is something in it for them, to speak of it this way can also be misleading. If someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he or she is the Self. I would hope that such a statement might stimulate inquiry and that the inquiry lead to the removal of the ignorance, “I am a person.” As long as someone hangs on to the human identity they will not know the truth. Yes, in a non-dual reality everything is the Self and since the Self is Awareness everything in Awareness is also Awareness...so everyone is enlightened by default. But this is not the end of it.

If someone sincerely asked me who I was I would not say that I was a person who attained enlightenment. I would say that I appear to be a person because I have a very convincing person act but that the person I once thought I was, the one that seems to be there from the outside, is long gone. If someone wanted a more direct statement, keeping in mind the limitation of words, I would say that I am limitless Awareness, minus apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance. I would say that I’m not enlightened nor am I unenlightened. I would say that I am that in which enlightenment and endarkenment exist. I would not say that I am not evolved or unevolved. I suppose that what I’m trying to suggest is that this ‘who is enlightened’ game is not really helpful, not only because of the abstract nature of the subject but because it really takes a jnani to know a jnani. This is why I suggested that if you feel the need to judge someone you use Dharma as a standard. It is easier for a seeker to understand and a more important viewpoint. What good is enlightenment if a person’s behavior violates dharma?

Dev (from previous email): Now, one who is REALLY established (that is, one whose mind has really been cleared of all images and false knowledge) will not only be enlightened, but will also be enlightening. It is an effortless effort to do so (enlighten) since that Light is self-effulgent (i.e., is not the reflection of another entity).

Laksman: I agree with this completely. Does this statement apply to you?

Dev (from previous email): One (that Jiva) whose Ignorance of the Self has truly been eradicated from the mind, will naturally manifest the qualities of that real Self. Although the ego and mind remain with the Jiva, that enlightened Jiva is no longer under any compulsion, because its negative vasanas have either been annihilated or superceded by positive ones (non-violent vasanas, i.e., tendencies and desires which are in no way in violation of one’s real Self).

Laksman: I can’t argue with this.

Dev (from previous email): Anyone whose nature is contrary to the nature of the Self cannot be said to be truly enlightened, regardless how much they may know ABOUT the self. Knowing about and knowing are quite different from each other. ‘Knowing is Doing’ which means the Self that has been realized in the mind is actualized in ones behavior.

Laksman: Yes, but (here’s the famous ‘but’) it may take some time for the enlightenment to manifest behaviorally owing to prarabdha. Prarabdha does not affect the jnani but it will affect people with whom the jnani comes in contact. This is why in the old days gurus recommended that the newly enlightened ‘sit in a cave’ like Ramana Maharishi for some time depending on their prarabdha. This is probably why you have a negative evaluation of C.. His guru told him that he did not think it wise to teach so soon after his Moksha, but he didn’t listen. I knew him very well. I was personally with him from morning till night for almost two years and saw him often for about twenty years. We were like brothers. And he was an amazing mahatma but there were traces of rajas and tamas in him…which caused a few small problems but which did not in any way impede his effectiveness as a guru. And I can tell you for a fact he was completely beyond money and women. He was an ocean of compassion and one of the most generous people I’ve ever met. He took care of my room and board for two years and never asked a thing from me. He was a pukka sanyassi.

Dev (from previous email): There are many characteristics which reflect the ignorance of the Self (i.e., which clearly show one is not truly enlightened). Of course, we could just as easily take a Saguna approach and say that there are many characteristics which reflect the Knowledge of the Self. As you know, Lord Krishna in his response to one of Arjuna’s questions, has beautifully told us what these characteristics are. Without referencing the Gita, I can say with certainty that these qualities include the following:

• That person will not seek ego-recognition or satisfaction
• That person will be devoid of selfish motives
• That person will be devoid of false pride, haughtiness, and snobbishness
• That person will not cause any injury to another being (including animals) for any selfish reason (i.e., for the purpose of gratifying one’s ego or mind)
• That person will NOT have bad habits which will influence others in a negative, self-destructive way. They will not use their intellect and ego to justify their ego-centered tendencies and actions.

This is an extremely abbreviated list, but it is sufficient to establish whether or not the various people mentioned in the MastersOfDeception blog are enlightened or not.

Laksman: I disagree. I know quite a few people who fit this definition who are definitely not enlightened. These kinds of qualities can be unconsciously developed through lifetimes of evolution. This is a pretty good definition of a saint but if you read the autobiographies of saints it is quite clear that while many may have indirect knowledge of the Self most do not have direct knowledge “I am limitless, non-dual Awareness” which is my definition of enlightenment.

A problem is created when someone sets out to judge enlightenment in people: what is the means of knowledge? A belief or an opinion is not a means of knowledge. So asking someone else to believe what you believe is, in my opinion, not helpful spiritually. Unless you have lived with someone for a long time and you are a dispassionate person you cannot really figure out a person’s true motives. People who are into judging others…no matter how noble the reasons…often have an axe to grind. For every person who sees guru X as a rakshasa there is someone who sees guru X as a saint…so who is ‘right?’ It all depends on your views, which depend on your values. And people generally come to their values honestly. Nobody sets out thinking “I’ll delude myself and become a selfish nasty person.” It happens. This is why I like Christ’s approach. He said, “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” It doesn’t seem to me that you are making a distinction between the sin and the sinner. I don’t know about you or about your motives but to take this blog seriously I would have to believe that Dev is enlightened. You may be or you may not be…but how is a stranger visiting a web log to tell? A person’s own words are not enough…in so far as self delusion is one of human’s most salient characteristics. I will eat my words, however, if you start getting emails from people who claimed that they got burned by gurus on your list and should have paid attention to your warnings.

Laksman (from previous email): “It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.”

Dev (response to previous email): Yes, without a doubt, that person will be a vegetarian. The other half of this sentence ‘who is not successful in the spiritual world’ appears to be a little bit of sarcasm, or maybe you really do misunderstand me. Let me clarify: an enlightened person (I don’t like using this phrase) has absolutely NO desire to be successful in the spiritual circus or marketplace, and will actually AVOID making ‘performances’ and ‘deals,’ and by virtue of this that person IS successful in the so-called spiritual world, regardless how evolved they are.

Laksman: I agree with the last sentence although not completely because there are no rules for jnanis. Knowing who you are is the big success, not what you do or don’t do with the knowledge. My view is that if you are enlightened you should keep your mouth shut because to say that you are enlightened is not evidence of special attainment since enlightenment is the nature of all beings. In fact it is evidence of a long stay in ignorance…which would be better left unmentioned. This whole who is enlightened business is a complete non-starter.

As far as the vegetarian idea is concerned even plants are living beings. You’re taking life when you eat them. Just because they have a rudimentary Subtle Body it is OK to eat them? I suppose this might force you to modify your definition to exclude vegetarians. Maybe you should claim that enlightened people can only be breatharians. But they what would happen to their enlightenment if they inhaled a few microbes…which are living beings as well…and which is happening all the time to everyone? And what about Tibetan lamas in the winter with not a vegetable in sight? Their spirituality is compromised because they eat Yak butter and meat? In case you didn’t notice, Dev, life eats life. Nobody can avoid it. Even meat eaters are vegetarians once removed. The cows eat vegetables and they eat cows. So they are actually eating vegetables.

Laksman: (from the previous email) “I understand this is a blog but what is going to convince anyone that your evaluations are anything more than an opinion? It would be better if you had testimonials to buttress your views.”

Dev (response to previous email): Honestly, I have no need to convince anyone of anything. You are no doubt familiar with the term VASUDEVAKUTUMBAKAM. My only desire is my duty to warn my family members of dangerous people they may encounter. It was not possible to list all the good, the bad, and ugly; nor was it necessary to provide evidence which is widely available (or at the very least, is certainly known to the confidents of those living). However, many people are in denial because their self-delusion has become their comfort zone. Most people, however, have simply never come in touch with the undiluted Truth and so they continue to stumble in the darkness of their ignorance. In every case (listed above), this one feels moved to cut to the chase and set the record straight (as I understand it). In case I am wrong, I certainly welcome one and all to correct me.

Laksman: OK. I wouldn’t say you were ‘wrong’ but I wouldn’t say you were ‘right’ either. I’m just suspicious of people with a self-defined ‘duty’ to protect the ignorant for this reason: as long as you try to protect them you keep them ignorant. People only learn when they make their own mistakes. Fucking up can make you think. And thinking is good. If I just blindly do what I’m told because Dev or anyone else tells me it is for my own good, I will still be an idiot at the end of the day. I have been teaching Vedanta for almost forty years and I have found that the best way to protect people is to teach them how to think for themselves. Often people come to me who are ‘following’ a very bad guru and I do not try to dissuade them from it. In the first place almost nobody takes the advice of other people…particularly when they are attached to their desires…and secondly it is good to suffer from a lack of discrimination. These lessons really stick. If I tell you not to do something…like God told Eve…there is always a doubt. And that doubt will send you right into the arms of suffering. If God had said, ‘Those apples are very healthy; they have the recommended amounts of calcium and iron” Eve would have never looked twice at them. She would have gone off to the candy store for some chocolate. Sometimes people left Swami C. and the devotees often said, “Hey, Swamiji, why didn’t you try to keep them from leaving?” And he would say, “Let them go. Maya is a much better teacher than I am.”

When America was about to go to war with Iraq many people told the President that it would not work. But did he listen? He had to do it and mess up completely and now he is singing a different tune.

Laksman: (from a previous email) “To put a positive spin on your definition you seem to be saying that an enlightened person is a saint. What's missing is the idea of a jnani, someone who knows the truth of their own nature but does not develop sattvika vasanas, in other words someone who is just a regular person 'following his or her nature' as Krishna says in the Gita.”

Dev (response to previous email): My Invisible Friend, Laksmanji, a Jnani is one who knows their own Real Nature (Higher Nature) and their lower nature too, AND embraces the Real (nature) and is not moved (motivated) by the Unreal (lower nature). The ‘Unreal’ means Ignorance. Only one who is ignorant of the Self will manifest demonic qualities, or will remain as an ordinary self-involved individual. In other words, one who really knows the Self will definitely be a Saint (though most likely unknown to the world at large), and one who is engaged in the process of enlightenment (i.e., is sincerely inquiring into the nature of the Self) will certainly be a saintly person. Being a saintly person means (to me) that that person is making a concerted effort to rise above himself (ego-centered self), which can only be done through the acquisition of divine Wisdom (AtamGyaan, Soul-knowledge). Ones actions (or more correctly, one’s Guna-Karam-Subhav: qualities, behavior, and nature) are proof-positive whether or not one has assimilated this Knowledge. Having acquired it without assimilating it is really meaningless; just as is ‘knowing the truth but acting against it’, or knowing the truth but not being truthful, or ‘talking the talk’ but not ‘walking the walk.’

Laksman: OK, Dev. I agree but it takes time to assimilate it. At what point does one pass the Dev enlightenment test? When there are no negative vasanas? When there are 95% sattvika vasanas? All qualities are in Maya and even the divine qualities are only meaningful because of the demoniac qualities. It seems to me that non-dual vision means that everything in Maya is equal to everything else in so far as it all serves the Self. Speaking as a person I used to be an evil doer and it was the correct path for me because it lead me to the Self at an early age. If I’d been a nice decent well meaning holy person always doing the right thing and following the good advice of others I may not have waked up at all. Virtue is not always helpful. A golden chain can bind you as completely as an iron one. It’s nice to want to save people from their folly but remember the Inquisition.

Dev (from previous email): No doubt (as declared by Patanjali) the enlightened state is beyond the quantitative or qualitative imprints (samskaras). The Self is beyond the sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic qualities of Prakriti, and always remains such. But we are living souls; we are embodied in mind and matter. Our essence (the Self) is unchangeable, but our lower nature is constantly changing. These changes in our lower nature (mind and body) are certainly not random or uncontrolled. We (as living souls) have the power (inherent in the Self) to shape our mind (and life) into a beautiful dance, a beautiful expression of our Essence (Self). It is only by PRACTICE that we ultimately attain the state of effortless effort; then everything seems to flow effortlessly, like the movement of a skilled dancer, musician, or artist. It will NEVER just happen by simply knowing ABOUT the Self.

Laksman: From the human point of view this is true. But I don’t accept it. As I said I’m not a human being. So ‘we’ does not apply to me. It may apply to you, however. I am not living and I am not embodied. This idea is just a humble ‘spiritual’ way keeping oneself limited. I also do not accept the formulation of enlightenment as a ‘state.’ This confusion started a long time ago with a misreading of the Mandukya Upanishad which called the Self ‘the forth.’ It does not say ‘the forth state’ but this is how people read it who studied its discussion of the three states. The Upanishad meant that the Self is the forth factor, i.e. the invariable Awareness in and beyond the three states.

I understand Patanjali’s definition of enlightenment…chitta vritti niroda. But it is not a good definition. It is good for anta-karana suddhi, purification of the mind, but that is all. It turns enlightenment into an event that depends on karma and doership. Enlightenment is the nature of the Self and the Self cannot be attained through action.

Dev (from previous email): Too many Vedantists know too much for their own good, because they do not put what they know (about) into practice: they DO NOT take hold of their own mind and shape it into something beautiful and useful, but instead they retain their selfish inclinations and impressions and imagine themselves to be in the world but not of it. The fact is, many of them are buried up to their necks in this world of unreality, but they hide in their neo-vedantic egos and personalities, and continue to fool themselves and others.

Laksman: This is true of many Vedantists but it is equally true of many people following other spiritual paths.

Laksman: (from a previous email) “If it were my blog I would present the position that following Dharma is superior to Self realization. So if you have a person who claims to be Self realized you can write him off because he doesn't follow dharma. As Dogzen said, "Next to following dharma enlightenment is the most important thing in the world. But you have to be careful what you mean by dharma because some activities are dharmic in certain situations and not in others.”

Dev (response to previous email): Dharma simply means the Nature of the Self, and it is absolutely impossible to realize the Self without practicing the nature of the Self (Dharma). Unfortunately, you are definitely playing mind-games, which should be expected of you since that is what all neo-vedantic people are doing. However, in your case, I think you are an exceptional person who knows a lot, but is also capable of going beyond what you know, think you know, and don’t know.

Laksman: I’ll just ignore the insult, Dev, because you don’t know me. I am surprised you don’t get the idea since it is basically in harmony with your view of enlightenment. In any case I am not an exceptional person. It may seem that way to you but it doesn’t seem that way to me…and I should know since I’m me. Since you don’t seem to get the idea perhaps you would like me to explain it again?

Dev (from previous email): I am not a very well-read man, and have never heard of this person Dogzen, but I can say without hesitation the person is deluded. He (or she) talks of dharma and enlightenment as though they are commodities in the marketplace (or the mind), when in fact they constitute our own Being. One who is established in the Self.. . . or heck, leave that aside. . . One who is truly established on the Path, . . . . leave that be too. . . . ONE WHO IS A TRUE HUMAN BEING, one who is honest with himself (or herself), one who is Real (to the core of their own being) knows what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is real and unreal, what is dharmic and adharmic. ‘Knowing the Truth’ is NOT an intellectual grasp of ‘things.’ It is beyond the language of thought, but it is not thoughtless. It is beyond the mind but it is not mindless. It is beyond emotions and feelings but it is not beyond experience. It is the Self, but it is NOT selfish.

Laksman: Accepting your view of enlightenment these statements make sense but I think your definition doesn’t do enlightenment justice.

Laksman (from previous email): “The other problem as I see it, is that behavior is not always an accurate indicator of enlightenment. . . . . there are many enlightened people who have non-binding vasanas that may appear to be impurities from the outside but do not injure others nor do they affect their realization.”

Dev (response to previous email): The second half of this sentence is of course true, and irrespective of so-called prarabdha karma. That is, an enlightened soul, or in any case a very evolved soul, may still have ordinary likes and dislikes, etc., which are NOT of the type that would be injurious to others (or one’s self). To say that these vasanas do not affect one’s realization, however, cannot be true. Realization is not a static ‘experience’ (as you will surely agree), but it is the State of Being, and That (State of Being) is Changeless yet Ever-New, which means it is always fresh, beginingless and endless. The one (living self) that realizes the Self never gets stuck in any image. The realized Soul remains in the state of limitless (ASEEM) Consciousness.

Laksman: We are world’s apart on this one, Dev. Realization is the direct knowledge I am the Self. The Self is nir-vasana, meaning it is unaffected by the vasanas. The Self is not an experience. Experience is the Self but the Self is not experience. If I am the Self then how can experience i.e. vasanas change me? You seem to believe that there is some embodied being who realizes something and this realization is a kind of experience and this realization has certain hard and fast behavioral implications. If this is what you call enlightenment then the vasanas definitely do affect it. But this kind of realization is just another vasana. It’s a good vasana considering the samsaric alternatives but anything that can be affected by something else is not real. Identification with the person has to die for the knowledge ‘I am the Self’ to arise. What you are talking about is what I call Self realization or experiential enlightenment…which is good compared to the samsaric state but it is still in Maya because the subject object duality is still taken to be real.

Dev (excerpt from previous email): There is no end to refining our mind.

Laksman: This is true if you are a doer. For the Self there is no refining to do. If I am the Self I won’t be refining the mind. You might read the story of how the Sixth Patriarch got to be the Sixth Patriarch. The secret to what I’m saying is in his poem.

Dev (excerpt from previous email): The one who stops refining their perception and awareness is not self-realized but self-deluded.

Laksman: If you define enlightenment this way, I can’t argue. But I don’t see it this way. I could give you more reasons but I’ve written a lot and I’m tired. So I will leave you with one question. ‘Who is going to stop refining and why?’ Rather than write more on this topic if you want to understand my views of enlightenment perhaps you can read [more of my writings] on enlightenment, knowledge, and experience on the web. You might also benefit from reading the Stages of Enlightenment section in the ‘What is Advaita Vedanta’ pamphlet.

I’ve been fighting this battle for a long time, Dev. You have the experiential view and I hold the identity view. There is a way to resolve it if you want to but from the dogmatic way you express yourself I’m not sure you would be open to considering the Vedantic view. So let’s see how you react to what I’ve said here and take it from there. .

It is difficult to understand what I am saying because of a deeply engrained human orientation. It is the vasana that holds all positive and negative vasanas together. Your definition is fine…for you. But if you were to ask for advice..which doesn’t seem likely…I would suggest that you inquire into the meaning of ‘human’ or ‘person.’ And I would respectfully suggest that you won’t find anything there. As far as I’m concerned its fine if you chose to be a human being and define enlightenment the way you do. But I don’t fit into it. And because I don’t doesn’t mean that I’m playing mind games or don’t know what I’m saying or am some clever intellectual Vedantist. You are free to think what you like. I know what I know.

Dev (from previous email): Only those in whose minds the ego remains embedded will continue to live in self-delusion and confusion. The ego cannot be removed from the mind except through the application of divine wisdom. The seeds of divine wisdom are found in the Vedas and the various teachings that have emanated from them (and continue to emanate from them). You have studied many vedic teachings but I feel you have not given enough attention to the Vedas themselves, otherwise you would not have some of the views that you seem to espouse.

Laksman: The ‘divine’ wisdom I’m expounding here is the distinction between Self realization and enlightenment. Please read the ‘Stages of Enlightenment’ section in the What is Advaita Vedanta pamphlet. I’ve given quite a serious study to the jnana kanda section of the Vedas which deals with moksha. It is true that I am not an expert on the karma kanda but since it deals with vedika dharma which I follow already and the acquisition of artha, kama and dharma it does not interest me.

Dev (from previous email): I will continue to go through the materials on your site, because I have not come across any other sites that contain as much wisdom as your site (as far as I can tell up to this point). I am not a ‘surfer-seeker’, nor am I a wannabe guru, saint, or whatever. I am a simple human being like you with an ‘I’ for the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Laksman: Good. I’ve not found another site that is as good as the ******* site either. As far as your statement that I’m a simple human being like you is concerned, you should leave off the ‘like you’ if you want to be more accurate. If you want to think of me in this way that is just fine with me but it is not correct.

Dev (from previous email): Thank you for sharing your insights with me. I will endeavor to put what I have learned into practice. OM

Your nameless well-wisher,

Dev

Laksman: It’s my pleasure, Dev.

Om and Prem,

Laksman

Dev’s reply to Laksman’s comments (sent on Nov. 19^th):

Dear Divine Self,

You were very kind to take the time to engage in this dialog with me, and I am certain both of us will learn from this experience. Laksmanji, I harbor absolutely no ill-will toward you at all, and my replies to your responses are given only in the spirit of love, and the love of Truth.

As neither of us really knows the other, it is not unlikely that we could misconstrue one another’s intentions and words. It is sometimes difficult to detect the tone in which unspoken words are written, and this too can lead to misunderstanding.

Anything you have written to me, or will write in the future, I do not take personally (sense I do not relate on the ‘person’ level). This whole thing is a drama.

Keep Shining!

(The italicized texts are Laksman’s most recent replies, followed by Dev replies in bold text:)

Laksman (from earlier email): “I think what's missing on this website is a definition of enlightenment. If you have a definition then you can perhaps evaluate the words and lives of the people who fit into your definition. It seems your definition is someone who is a vegetarian and who is working on his or herself and who is not successful in the spiritual world.”

Dev (excerpted reply): ‘Definition of enlightenment’ . . . this is Self-evident, and if it is not, it is NOT enlightenment.

Laksman: Self evident to whom, Dev? Perhaps you are a jnani and therefore it is self evident to you but what about a person who might read your web log? If they were interested in following any one of these gurus I should think they would not know what enlightenment was. Therefore, it might be of interest for them to have some kind of idea of what they were seeking and how the guru in question was either capable or incapable of helping them.

Dev Reply: Yes, my answer was not clear, so I will try again. What I mean to say is that many people are seeking guidance because they are in a quandary as to “Who am I,” and once the answer to this question is known, the knower is enlightened. This is what I meant by ‘self-evident,’ meaning that a true seeker of enlightenment will know Enlightenment when they find it, because that enlightenment is the knowledge of their own Self. No doubt there are also many people who think enlightenment is some kind of attainment that gives them special powers, etc., but genuine seekers really want to know “Who am I.” The MastersOfDeception blog is meant for these genuine seekers (both novices and those already on the path) who do not have Self Knowledge and who really want it (enlightenment) for no other purpose than the Self itself.

I think it is necessary to digress for a moment to give you a little more information regarding the blog under question. Very little thought went into creating the MastersOfDeception blog, and as I said, I hesitated to publish it. Laksmanji, this writer does not think of himself as a spiritual policeman, or one who needs to save the world and make everyone think like himself. I fully realize everything happening here (in this World of Prakriti) is just a big drama. In fact, there is nothing happening at all. Anyhow, for the time-being (for those beings caught up in the drama of Time), I published the blog with some reservations.

Can this blog do any harm? I think it may help people to take another look at what they are doing, how they are thinking, and where they might be headed. Better to err on the side of caution because this life (in its present form) will never come back to us again. Better for a seeker to think twice before blindly following anyone; better for followers to think twice in case they may have the ‘wool pulled over their eyes.’

Originally, the following paragraph was included near the beginning of the blog, but I removed it thinking it would not really serve the purpose of the blog:

‘Our own personality and ego are the biggest fraud going. Where is it going? It is going to our head. We are so self-involved, and this is why we do not experience the Self. Direct experience requires direct practice; but we do not practice self-awareness, we practice self-involvement. The proof is in our practices, it is not in our intentions, nor is it in our intellectual understanding.’

I know the blog may come across sounding somewhat self-righteous to some people, but I did not let that concern me. ‘Righteous indignation’ can be a virtue. Aryama – Chastiser of the wicked; Sahuntya – Exterminator of wickedness; and many other such Names of God (qualities or characteristics of the Self), when earnestly sung with an open heart (expressed with a clear mind) only go to glorify the Self in this Sport of Life.

From earlier email:

Dev: But anyway, here goes: he or she is enlightened upon whose mind has shown the Light of Wisdom, the Knowledge of the Self. That Wisdom removes the darkness of Ignorance from the mind (and by extension, the intellect); hence, the Self stands clear in that clarified, enlightened mind. Of course, the Self is ever-clear, and ever established in its own Self, but its presence in the mind (in the context of the living self, Jivatman) is either awakened (standing clear) or not. Most people (jivas) are sleeping in Ignorance, which explains why their perception and awareness is distorted and not clear.

Laksman: You say ‘its presence is either awakened (standing clear) or not” Do you mean that a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind?

Dev reply: The key to understanding the above paragraph is the phrase ‘in the context of the living self, Jivatman.’ Much of our (you and me) differences of understanding and expression are rooted in this fundamental concept of Jivatman, which I will discuss shortly, but for now I will answer the immediate question.

“Do you mean that a person is clear about the presence of the Self in the mind?” NO. A ‘person’ may be clear about the presence of the Self in the mind, but that clarity (coming as it does from a ‘person’) would only be intellectual and not real, i.e., it would be an intellectual grasp of Truth and not true understanding or knowing. Only the Self is real, and only the Self can be clear (or not) about its own presence.

You continue with: “I’m not sure how ‘its presence’ can be ‘awakened or not.’ It is the view of Vedanta that the Self is neither awake nor asleep. I think the sruti would agree that the Self is not ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ either.” Regarding the first two sentences: we can say the Self is neither aware nor asleep, but we can also express this as ‘the Self is Ever-Awake.’ However, the Jivatman does indeed sleep and wake. Regarding the last sentence, presumably you are saying that the Self is not ‘presence’ because this would require some separate place in which the Self could be present; likewise, it could not be ‘absence’ because this presumes some ‘place’ separate from the Self. Again, this is where Jivatman comes into play. The Jivatman is much misunderstood, almost as much as is the Self. In order to clarify this matter, I will have to go into some detail here, but you will also find many strains of this same knowledge on the Aditya Dham website.

What is this Jivatman? The Jivatman is the embodied Self. Yet, we hear (as explained in the Sruti) that the Self is Pure Consciousness (or as you say, limitless awareness), and therefore clearly it can never be tainted by the existence (or not) of the body, mind, ego, and everything associated with these (such as actions, impressions, tendencies, and thought processes). So, is the Self ever (at any time) embodied or not? The answer is both yes and no. The Self is embodied as a living being to play the Sport of Life, to act in this Drama of Creation. But just as someone puts on a uniform and plays soccer or cricket on the field, but really in essence (as a human being) has nothing at all to do with either the uniform or the field or even the game, in the way the Self though embodied as the Jivatman never really becomes the ego, intellect, mind, senses or body, but ever remains the Self only.

It is important to realize that the Jivatman is an integrated whole and cannot really be grasped or understood as merely the sum total of its supposed parts. This is because the Self (ATMAN), being all-pervading and therefore indivisible, can neither be said to be in a particular part nor separate from it.

This Jivatman is not an ego, not a person, not a mind, and not any body. In essence, this Jivatman is the Self. It is the Jivatman that realizes (or not) the Self. This realization takes place in the mind when the mind is enlightened. The state of enlightenment and the state of ignorance are both states of mind. Whose mind? It is the mind of the Jivatman, the embodied soul.

Again, the Jivatman is not an ego, person, mind, etc., nor is it simply the sum total of all these: the Jivatman is the Self playing the Drama of Life. Is there something other than this Self? Yes, there is: first of all it should be clear that besides the Self there is the Drama of Creation, the Sport of Life, this Lila fashioned of Prakriti. What is this Prakriti? Prakriti is the primordial substance from which all the props in this Drama of Life are formed by the power of the Self. This Drama is put together (fashioned from Prakriti) by the Pranic force of Consciousness (the Self). In other words, Prana is inherent in the Self; its manifestation as Spirit (PURUSH) causes the manifestation of Creation (the beginning of the Drama or Game) by setting Prakriti into motion (infusing it with Energy).

Prakriti exists eternally. It remains unmanifested until infused with PRANA. The Self also exists eternally. It remains unmanifested (in the context of Creation) until it manifests its power as Pranic force and joins itself (as Purush) with Prakriti; this manifestation of Consciousness (the Self) resulting from the joining of Purush with Prakriti is Cosmic Consciousness (Mahatattva), and that aspect of Cosmic Consciousness that discerns itself (as associated with Creation, the Drama) is called the self-consciousness or EGO. The Drama eventually unfolds to the point where all the various elements of this Creation appear, and during all of this the Jivatman is fully manifested.

Note that the Self, being all-pervading, pervades Prakriti at all times, both before and after the manifestation. The infusing or joining of Prakriti with Purush, like everything that happens later, is also a drama (a play of Maya).

In its subtlest form, the Jivatman exists from the very instant the Self appears as PURUSH and PURUSH joins with PRAKRITI. The highest state of Being is attained when even this subtlest state of the Self is dissolved (the Self as the Self alone exists).

This brings to mind the following mantra from the Rig Veda:

Om Tad Vishno Paraman Padam Sadaaa Pashyanti Suryaa Diviiva Chakshuuraatatam

Meaning: Those wise sages, having shaped their mind like the nature of the sun, perceive the Highest State of Being of Vishnu (that is, they directly experience, as no different from themselves, the All-pervading Supreme Being), just like light spread out in all directions (i.e., their awareness is not spotty or intermittent like flashes of lightening in a dark sky, but is just like light spread around everywhere).

Who experiences this Highest State of Being and Who is this Being? The Self experiences the Supreme Self Who is the Supreme Being. We are not the Supreme Being, this is why the ultimate knowledge of the Supreme Being is in our experience of that Supreme Being. There is no higher knowledge than this experience. We refer to this experience as the ‘experience of the Highest State of Being’ because really that is exactly what we are experiencing: a state of closeness to GOD. It is not the first time we experience that Supreme State (MOKSHA) nor will it be the last. It is not the first time we have played the Sport of Life and it will not be the last. This goes on forever, and a most beautiful (blessed) Life it is, because this Life is not only ours but is also infused with the Energy of the Supreme Being, our own Supreme Self.

There comes a time in a relationship when two people stop trying to know each other and just experience their closeness. The relationship of the Self with the Supreme Self (Atman with Paramatman) is like that too, only we are the ones with the limited knowledge. I say this knowing you will probably disagree. We can be different from one another but still be united. This is how it is with the soul and GOD. However, we cannot really know (experience) GOD if we differ with Him. We can intellectually know the Truth without being in agreement with it, but we can NEVER experience the Truth if we are not in agreement with the Truth.

As you can no doubt see, my use of the words ‘knowing’ and ‘experiencing’, or ‘knowledge’ and ‘experience’ are often blended. In my writings I sometimes use the phrase ‘Knowing is Doing’, which I could just as easily say ‘knowing is experiencing.’ So, according to my view, we really only know something when we experience it, otherwise, our ‘knowing’ is really only a ‘knowing about’. There are some things I only want to know about and would not want to experience. For example, I know about how cyanide is a deadly poison, but certainly don’t want to experience it. There are also some things I only know about and experience indirectly, but that’s good enough for me. For example, I know about how the Earth is round, and even though I’ve never experienced it by traveling all the way around it, I am satisfied with the scientific proofs and explanations.

Knowing the Self is another matter altogether: I know the Self; I know I am not the body, not the mind, not the ego, not the persona. I am the Self. The Self is the Self. This the Self knows. This the Self experiences, not in the mind but within itself. Now, the Self has neither interior nor exterior and is not confined to time or place. From the perspective of the Self there is neither time nor place, and there is no time or place separate from itself: time and place appear as the Creation, which appears in the Self, and the Self in the Creation (as Jivatman).

Whether ‘I know’ as Atman or as Jivatman, the Self that must be known is the Supreme Self. As the Self approaches (by knowledge, by knowing) the Ultimate Truth (the Supreme Self), the Self realizes (knows that to know itself) it must go beyond itself; it must stop knowing and start experiencing. When this realization matures, the Jivatman is awakened and experiences itself as Atman (the Self); that is, the dream is over and the dreamer realizes that the dream of being in bondage was only a dream and not real. The awakened self (enlightened Jiva) experiences (knows) itself as Atman; or worded differently, the Self (Atman) knows (experiences) itself as the enlightened Self. In this state of enlightenment or Self-Realization, the Self (as Pure Consciousness) must realize its own Essence (the Supreme Self) to attain the highest Consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness, the Absolute. However, having become established in one’s own being (Self), the Self reveling in the sweetness of its own Pure Consciousness, may remain in such a state for a very, very long time (many, many cycles of the Creation), or not.

To attain the Highest State of Being, the same state Lord Krishna refers to as ‘My state’, or ‘Myself’, or ‘My Abode,’ and which the above mantra calls out with ‘Paramam Padam Sada,’ one must make the ultimate Yajna and offer one’s own Self into the Self (Supreme Self). There is nothing left to know or experience then (that is, until the next time, some 311 trillion years hence, according to some).

Continuing now with your reply: “A third doubt that your statement brings up is this: in my experience there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything.” I think we have addressed this and hopefully clarified that, indeed, there is no ‘person’ to be clear or not clear about anything because a ‘person’ is really only a mental formulation and is not (in and of itself) the living Self (Jivatman).

“There are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic states of mind which affect the mind’s perception but they don’t belong to anyone. Perhaps you will think this is all semantics…and indeed it might appear that way…but my opinion is that while formulating enlightenment from a human point of view is understandable in so far as human beings will not seek it unless they feel there is something in it for them, to speak of it this way can also be misleading.”

Enlightenment is for souls embodied as human beings. As a human being, we have countless samskaras and associated vasanas from many, many incarnations (in both animal and human forms). The sattvic, rajasic and tamasic qualities of our actions, impressions, tendencies and thoughts, affect our perception (the perception of the embodied soul) and can either help or hinder whether or not we (human beings) attain enlightenment. Initially, a human being learns to be selective and make careful choices because they want to avoid pain and suffering in their life. Eventually, they begin to yearn for Self-knowledge; they want to know who they are, what they are, and why they are here; in other words, they long for Enlightenment.

“If someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he or she is the Self. I would hope that such a statement might stimulate inquiry and that the inquiry lead to the removal of the ignorance, “I am a person.” As long as someone hangs on to the human identity they will not know the truth. Yes, in a non-dual reality everything is the Self and since the Self is Awareness everything in Awareness is also Awareness...so everyone is enlightened by default. But this is not the end of it.”

Dev reply: You have written: “If someone asked me what enlightenment was I would say there was one Self with apparent knowledge or ignorance (of itself) and you are that Self, not a person who knows that he or she is the Self.” Then, according to you, the Self, who we both know is not a person, possesses both apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance of itself. The question then arises: where does the Self ‘possess’ this ‘apparent’ knowledge and ‘apparent’ ignorance of itself? If you say this knowledge and ignorance are inherent in the Self, then this would lead us to conclude that the All-knowing, Never-ignorant Self, whose nature is eternal and unchangeable, inherently possesses knowledge and ignorance which are not really real but only apparent. In this case, the Self would always possess apparent knowledge and apparent ignorance and enlightenment would be out of the question. I know of no scripture that would substantiate the statement: the All-knowing Self (and indeed, the Supreme Self, since you make no distinction) possesses apparent knowledge and ignorance of Itself. It is pretty much universally accepted that GOD is never ignorant (unlike us), and not even apparently ignorant.

“I would hope that such a statement might stimulate inquiry and that the inquiry