Atmananda was a master in emphasizing the mistake that possibly lies in this short-sightedness. For this kind of enquiry will always remain trapped in what he called the ‘objective’. Atmananda used the terms objective and subjective in a way that is uncommon in the West. To him objective was not an indication for the impartial, but for everything that can be observed, everything that is an object to the senses and thoughts. The same goes with subjective: here he did not mean a view or opinion coloured by a person, but that which is merely Subject – that which can not be observed by definition, and which by Itself constantly illumines whatever is the object.5
This means that the enquiry into something ‘inside’ as a findable ‘essence’ or ‘core’ will never offer any insight in the Ultimate. Hence, one cannot say that the modern research of physics and true self-enquiry are one and the same thing, as is suggested nowadays in some advaitic circles. Physics will always remain the field of the ‘objective’.*
This is likewise the case with a concept like ‘all-encompassing’, in notions such as ‘Cosmos’, ‘Space’ or ‘the Infinite’. Atmananda once provided a useful indication or insight:
“Space (Akasha), though not perceptible to the senses, is certainly conceivable by the mind. So it is really objective in nature. If we take out of Space this last taint of objectivity, it ceases to be dead and inert, becomes self-luminous, and it immediately shines as its background – the Reality.”6
The ‘I’-Principle Is The Only Ultimate Reality
Everything in Atmananda’s teaching is about the Subject. It refers exclusively to That which knows. That which knows is not a Knower (not a He or She), but Knowing as such (Jnana). He named this ‘Knowing as such’ also ‘Experience’ (Anubhava), meaning Experiencing as such, and also Feeling as such (Rasa). All three are synonyms of the Wonder which in fact ‘I’ am. Take for instance the following:
“The ‘I’-Principle is the only Experience that one can have. Even though he be an ignorant man, he can only experience Himself. … If the experience has many objects, it is no Experience. You are superimposing objects upon your Experience. Your Experience is one and the same, always”; and “I have already proved to you that no one can know or experience anything other than one’s own Self, the ‘I’-Principle. … The only experience is ‘I’, and ‘I’ is the only word which denotes experience”; and “The ‘I’-Principle is the only thing that exists; ‘I’ requires no proof either. The objective cannot exist independent of this ‘I’, and therefore the ‘I’-Principle is the only ultimate Reality.”7
This radical way of speaking, in which virtually everything can be reduced to That which knows, implies that objects need not be ignored or removed, but can be considered pointers to Reality. In order to recognize the Self, most texts in the Advaita tradition consider it a must for a student to learn not to pay attention to sensory objects. However, Atmananda made it clear that as a matter of fact, nothing is an obstacle. One is never really swallowed by an object, or hindered by an obstacle. Nothing needs to be removed. “Nothing hides consciousness.”8
The so-called ego too, is not an enemy; on the contrary, Atmananda said it is a help:
“Even the much despised ego is a great help to the realization of the Truth. The presence of the ego in man, though in a distorted form, is infinitely better than the absence of it, as for example in a tree”; and “It is the whole ego that seeks liberation and strives for it. When it is directed towards the ultimate Reality, the material part automatically drops away and the Consciousness part alone remains over as the real ‘I’-Principle. This is liberation.”*
Think of Your Guru Only In The Dualistic Sphere
Atmananda’s emphasis on radical non-duality does not mean that he assumed that in the day to day contact between people, the ego has already totally dissolved, and that this was also the case in the contact his students had with him as their teacher. In other words, he did not have the illusion that that which he outlined to be ultimately true, was already true for his students or readers in their activities. Thus, he did not think it to be helpful at all to honour the ‘differencelessness’ or nonduality in his actual activities as teacher and police officer. He considered it a pitfall to shout all too soon that ‘everything is Consciousness’ in a worldly or relational environment, and he continued pointing out ‘difference’ as long as this was the true state of affairs to the student. Thus he considered advaita, non-duality, not applicable to the relationship between teacher and student.
“Think of your Guru only in the dualistic sphere. Apply your heart wholly to it and get lost in the Guru. Then the Ultimate dances like a child before you.”9 And moreover: “Advaita is only a pointer to the Guru. You do not reach Advaita completely until you reach the egoless state. Never even think that you are one with the Guru. It will never take you to the Ultimate. On the contrary, that thought will only drown you. Advaita points only to the Ultimate.”10
Atmananda considered a devotional attitude to be a great help. But in an instruction he made it clear that such an attitude is only appropriate towards your own Guru.
“That particular person through whom one had the proud privilege of being enlightened, that is the ONLY FORM which one may adore and do Puja to, to one’s heart’s content, as the person of one’s Guru. It is true that all is the Sat-Guru, but only when the name and form disappear and not otherwise. Therefore, the true aspirant should beware of being deluded into any similar devotional advances towards any other form, be it of God or of man.”11
Another statement reveals how strict and dualistic he was in respect to the student and guru relationship:
“A disciple should never bow allegiance to two gurus at the same time”; to which he added that “accepting more than one guru at a time is even more dangerous than having none at all.”12
The following story illustrates how in his daily life Atmananda showed that each of the levels (the Absolute and the relative) requires its own approach, and that consequently, one does not apply the non-dualistic approach to the relative level of being. At the beginning of his career as a station inspector of the Police Department, Atmananda once interrogated a man he suspected of having stolen something. The man had constantly denied it. Then Atmananda told him:
“If you have really committed the theft, as I believe you have, it will be better that you confess it and admit your mistake. If, on the other hand, you want to hide the truth from me, you may be able to do so for the time being, but that Principle in you which is watching all your actions will make you suffer throughout the rest of your life for having lied once. You will never be able to hide the Truth from that Principle in you.”13
This shows the sensitivity required to live the truth, and not peremptorily claim that untruth is simply Consciousness as well. If we realize that this statement is made by a truly radical non-dualistic teacher, it stimulates us to consider the apparent paradox within all this.
All Activities Are Acts of Worship To Me
In spite of this accurate handling of ‘difference’ on the level where differences simply have to be handled, Atmananda was a truly radical non-dualist. His radicality made him use a style of writing in which he does not speak about an ‘I’ or an ‘I’- Principle, but from the perspective of that. In Atma Darshan he wrote some passages in which Consciousness itself is speaking, in which ‘I’ is speaking, not a person called ‘Atmananda’. It invites the reader to look at things from this perspective of ‘I’, as the one and only Reality:
“I am that Consciousness that remains over after the removal of everything objective from Me. … Realizing that every object wherever placed is asserting Me, I enjoy Myself everywhere and in everything”; and: “It is in Me that thoughts and feelings rise and set. I am their changeless Witness. I am the Light of Consciousness in all thoughts and perceptions and the Light of Love in all feelings.”14
A couple of years later he continued this style of writing in Atma Nirvriti:
“The world shines be
cause of My light: without Me, nothing is. I am the light in the perception of the world”; and: “How can thoughts which rise and set in Me, be other than Myself? When there is thought, I am seeing Myself; when there is no thought, I am remaining in My own glory.”15
These are beautiful texts, which through their originality can bring about a shock of recognition, even more so than traditional texts about ‘the’ Self. The Self, after all, remains an indication for something in the third person. Whilst speaking about the Self, the suggestion can linger that that is something else than ‘me’, who is after all, simply I, first person. No, I am already That. I am That. ‘The I’ is not That. It is about the recognition of the fact that I am now already That, Consciousness Itself, and that, therefore, I am allowed to speak as such about Myself. The author is giving us, the readers, the example of how to recognize Yourself, and then to speak from that perspective as a consequence. The reader is likewise invited in the following passage to experience this recognition:
“I am pure happiness. All the activities of the sense-organs and the mind aim at happiness. Thus all their activities are puja [acts of worship] done to Me. I am ever in repose, disinterestedly perceiving this puja. Again and again they touch Me unawares and lapse into passivity. Coming out of it, they continue their puja again. Once they understand that by their activities they are doing puja to Me, and in passivity they lie touching Me, all their suffering ceases. Thereafter, action done will be no action, and passivity will be no passivity, because ignorance has been rooted out.”16
You Are Always In Your Real Nature
Atmananda conveys in these texts the understanding that in our thinking and speaking about ourselves a reversal can occur. We are already looking from that which we are looking for; we really need not go anywhere. Many authors describe thinking and feeling as enemies but really these faculties express the celebration of ‘I’. All my thinking is ‘heading’ in My direction, in order to arrive at a dissolution in the peace that I am, and this heading in My direction is not an assault. The wrong supposition that thoughts or feelings still have to be removed first, results in fact from the identification with someone who suffers – a someone who is disturbed by these thoughts and feelings. Atmananda justly calls this a puja (and translates puja as meaning ‘acts of worship’), because That towards which this worship is directed is so totally No-thing that thoughts and feelings can only be devoured Therein. It is, therefore, appropriate to say that I, being No-thing, or No-body or Nomind, am the only true direction for all thoughts and feelings – they form a plea to be dissolved, to be ultimately allowed to rest in Me.
“The real nature of thought is Consciousness, and the true nature of feeling is Happiness. Whenever a thought or feeling arises, you are in your Real Nature as Consciousness and Happiness”; and: “When you are in deep sleep, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in deep sorrow, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in extreme dispassion, or when you are terror-stricken, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in heated logical argument, you are in your Real Nature. When you come to the end of all activity (what is called death), you are in your Real Nature. In all these experiences you stand divested of even the idea of a body or mind, and when you transcend the mind, you are always in your Real Nature.”17
This passage really covers all states we can experience, there is no more to be said. I am never deprived of my Real Nature, I can never escape It. ‘I’ is what everybody says – exactly the same word, always ‘I’, always pointing to Itself, which everybody experiences as ‘Myself’, my Real Nature. Each state or feeling of separateness has been devoured in Me. ‘I’ is no door anymore, but the Devourer Itself.
* Atmananda once phrased his specific kind of logic as follows: “They [the Grecian philosophers] go by logic and I go also by logic. But there is much difference between the logic employed by them and the logic employed by me. The logic employed by me is something subjective. The logic employed by them is something objective. That is the difference.” Tattwa, p. 119.
* I presume the most subtle which is aimed at by modern physics, is rather an equivalent of Prakriti (Primordial Matter), a term which is in the dualistic Samkhya teaching the principle of ‘the objective’. In Samkhya this is the opposite of its other core principle, that of Consciousness (Purusha), or ‘Subject’.
* Discourses, nr. 512 and 802; Vol. 2 p. 18 and 126 (1st ed. p. 191 and 272273). That which Atmananda called here ‘the material part’, is similar to what Ramana Maharshi indicated by the term ‘this’ (idam), as distinguished from ‘I’ (aham); for which see chapter 1. Atmananda sometimes used these terms as well: “Without the ‘I’ (aham) being there, there can never be the ‘this’ (idam).” Discourses, nr. 1324; Vol. 3 p. 94 (1st ed. p. 443).
THREE
Nisargadatta Maharaj
In my opinion Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj was one of the greatest teachers of the twentieth century. What in particular makes him so great is his remarkable ability to show that everything that was asked him is made up of concepts, and to annihilate these concepts by exposing their uselessness. Whatever question or remark the visitor or disciple came up with, Nisargadatta pointed out that it boiled down to clinging to patterns of thought or concepts and he referred to their origin, their seed. Everything, everything really was undermined as being a concept and consequently not true, and that included also something he himself had just said. As he emphasized, the only reality is that which is conceptless.
Whilst reading transcripts of his talks with visitors, it becomes evident that he himself, the great underminer of concepts, was continually offering concepts. He jumped from level to level, used numerous Sanskrit terms for a certain level, used the same or closely related terms for another level, and
then had the whole matter dissolved in what he called ‘the deep dark blue state of non-experience’, or some other description of the Absolute.
Unfortunately this resulted in many seekers who have caught a glimpse already of who they really are, to continue their search, because of the message ‘you are only the Absolute’. Often people assiduously claim that they ‘know consciousness already’ but they also express frustration that they have failed to take ‘the next step’.
I do not think there is a next step. It is all about going to the limit of what can be experienced, and to remain still there. One should not be led astray by any comment on the Absolute and be lured to go in search of it.
But, as can be argued, Nisargadatta is making comments exactly on the Absolute all the time, and shows again and again that everything else is unreal! This surely is the confrontation: to hear that we are That, and not be able to experience it, let alone search for it. That is the paradox Maharaj is presenting us with all the time. How are we supposed to deal with this paradox?
‘I Am’ Is The Greatest Foe and The Greatest Friend
Maharaj himself answered this question – and that by offering a concept. One specific concept, which he indicated by using the term ‘the knowledge I am’, or ‘I am-ness’. He used the term ‘I am’ to point to the basic and plain knowledge or feeling to be, to be consciously present. Earlier in this chapter Nisargadatta Maharaj was called ‘great’ especially because he totally undermined each and every concept. But really he can be called so just as well because in turn he presented this one concept. He considered this concept ‘I am’ as something to be digested, swallowed, dissolved. And so he described it as ‘the ultimate medicine’. It’s true he called it ‘the disease itself’ at least as often, or ‘the greatest misery’, but in the same respect he indicated in many places the very same concept is exactly the medicine, and is the indicator to freedom. So again we are facing here with a paradox: something being a disease yet in its essential nature it is the medicine itself.
There is a quote that holds the key to the entrance to this paradox. In my opinion it is the most beautiful quote there is, because the whole mystery of existence is described in a few sentences, including the handle to enter th
e mystery. Everything is in it, and all further texts of Maharaj can be interpreted from this perspective.
“This touch of ‘I am-ness’ is in each being; this beingness has that touch of love for the Absolute, and it is a representation of the Absolute. … Only the Absolute prevails. The truth is total Brahman [Para Brahman] only, nothing else but Brahman. In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, ‘I am’ started, and with that, separation started, otherness has come. But this ‘I am-ness’ is not just a small principle; that itself is the Mula-Maya, the primary illusion. … The great Maya principle is making you do all her tricks, and you are also abiding in what she says, and finally, that light of yours, that beingness, gets extinguished. … That Maya is so powerful that it gets you completely wrapped up in it. Maya means ‘I am’, ‘I love to be’. It has no identity except love. That knowledge of ‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, it will turn around and lead you to the highest state.”1
The Touch of ‘I Am’ Is The First Vibration
The sense of ‘I am’ is a universal principle, present in exactly the same way in each being, prior to the interpretation ‘I am John’ or ‘I am Ann’, in other words, ‘I am this person’. Nisargadatta (that is, his translators) used to indicate this sense of ‘I am’ with the term ‘consciousness’ (chetana). It makes sense to linger over the meaning Nisargadatta ascribed to this term, just because he often called this consciousness illusory while at the same time the term ‘consciousness’ has been used by other teachers to indicate exactly the Ultimate (even though this was often the translation of the term chit instead of chetana, the English term is the same). He supplied numerous synonyms for it like ‘knowingness’, ‘Krishna state’, ‘child consciousness’, ‘Atman’, ‘seed’, ‘witness’, ‘God’, ‘being’, ‘beingness’, ‘sattva’, ‘the chemical’, ‘Saguna Brahman’, ‘the manifest’, ‘the supreme principle’:* they all come down to the same.
I is a Door Page 3