Vedanta/Neo-vedanta, Advaita/Neo-advaita

176 Pages·2006·0.79 MB·English

by  Jai Dev

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
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 Laksman Ji’s 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. 11th):

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.
1
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
2
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
3
• 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 certainly known 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
4
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.

5
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.
6
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. 14th:

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.
7
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. 15th:

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

8
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. 12th (regarding Laksman’s original
reply). This reply was sent on Nov 16th.

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
9
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
10