SPIRITUALITY STUDIESVolume 9 / Issue 2 FALL 2023
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 Publisher: The Society for Spirituality Studies Published in partnership with the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue and the European Union of Yoga Available online: www.spirituality-studies.org Editor-in-Chief: Doc. Dr. Martin Dojčár PhD. Graphic Design: Martin Hynek Contact: editor@spirituality-studies.org ISSN 1339-9578 Donate Spirituality Studies’ mission is to deliver top-quality studies, articles, educational materials, and information related to spirituality in its multiple forms. At the same time, the journal provides a forum for sharing personal spiritual experiences. By combining academic and experiential approaches to spirituality, Spirituality Studies aims to provide a unique platform for dialogue between a variety of viewpoints, approaches, and methodologies in the study of spirituality. Spirituality Studies publishes all articles under the open access policy, allowing their unlimited public use. Please consider donating to support the continued publishing of Spirituality Studies as an open-access journal for free. ←← Śrī Ramana Maharshi (1879–1950). Portrait by G. G Welling, dated January 1, 1948; colored. Content 1 Editorial Martin Dojčár 2 An Interview with Michael James: The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi Clarify the Philosophy and Practice of Advaita Vēdānta Martin Dojčár 18 Religionesque: A Term for Dealing with Contemporary Alternative Religious Forms in Empirical Studies Sára Eszter Heidl 29 Silent Singing: A Musical Path Through the Voice for Contemplation Carmen Ramírez-Hurtado, Victoria Cavia-Naya 48 Was Soloviev Catholicus? Ján Dolný, Róbert Lapko 54 In Search of God: A Desperate View of the Conflicts of the Present Abraham Skorka 60 Book Review Adrián Slavkovský
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 1 EDITORIAL Editorial In the wide range of contemporary explanations of spirituality, conditioned by diverse approaches and perspectives of their authors, one core concept is crucial for a thorough comprehension: spirituality revolves around self-transcendence. The very essence of spirituality is the act of surpassing oneself. But what precisely does this entail? The English term transcendence derives from the Latin verb “transcendere”, which is composed of the verb “scandere” and the preposition “trans”. The former word stands for “moving upward” or “to climb”, whereas the latter denotes “through” or “beyond”. Conclusively, the term indicates a motion that “goes through” or “beyond” our usual human experience that is always tied to an object of our awareness. No matter if an object of our awareness is a sensory or mental phenomenon, it appears within the “light” of our awareness and becomes attached to a subject of experience, the “I” related to that object. Since the primary object of any experiencing subject is the body in a broad sense, the awareness or identification “I am this body” arises. This “I” attached to the body represents the self in the self-transcendence formula. As explained by Michael James in the opening interview of the Fall 2023 edition of Spirituality Studies, “The ‘I’ that knows all other things is ego, the first person or subject, which is what knows itself as ‘I am this body’, but since this body is an object known by ego, it cannot be what ego actually is, because ego is aware, whereas the body (like all other objects) is not aware.” In its spiritual sense, self-transcendence refers to the process of “reaching beyond” the experiencing subject (ego, self or “I”), which is constantly related to objects, to the turning point, where this false awareness of ourself as “I am this body” is surpassed and the underlaying reality of what truly “is” (Lat. esse) is “disclosed” (Gr. alātheíā) as pure, that is contentless awareness “I am”. All contributors to this edition of Spirituality Studies offer their unique perspectives on this process, whether it is the exposition of teachings of Ramana Maharshi, framing spirituality conceptually for empirical research, practicing contemplative singing, addressing social violence from Midrashic perspective, or evaluating Thomas Merton’s novitiate conferences. Dear readers, I encourage you to explore these enlightening insights featured in the Spirituality Studies journal. Cordially Martin Dojčár
2 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 An Interview with Michael James: Martin Dojčár Received September 22, 2023 Revised October 1, 2023 Accepted October 1, 2023 Key words Ramana Maharshi, Advaita Vēdānta, jñāna, ātma-vicāra, yoga In this interview with Martin Dojčár, Michael James discusses the core of Śrī Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, providing an overview as a kind of roadmap that includes their philosophical framework conceptualized in the terminology of Advaita Vēdānta darśana, as well as their direct implications for contemplative spiritual practice. The teachings’ conceptual and spiritual aspects are addressed in terms of their textual grounding in primary literary sources. The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi Clarify the Philosophy and Practice of Advaita Vēdānta
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 3 Martin Dojčár Michael James is one of the most prominent contemporary promoters of the teachings of the Indian sage Śrī Ramana Maharshi (1879–1950). His approach is based on the primary sources’ scholarship and experiential practice of contemplation (self-investigation). Michael’s understanding of Śrī Ramana’s teachings has been shaped by the direct influence of his close friendship and association with Sadhu Om (1922– 1985), a Tamil jñānī, poet, writer, editor, and devotee of Ramana Maharshi. Michael can be reached by email at mdajames@gmail.com. Doc. Dr. Martin Dojčár PhD. serves as Professor of Religious Studies at Trnava University and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Spirituality Studies. His research interests include comparative mysticism, yoga, and interfaith dialogue. He authored numerous publications from these areas and can be contacted at info@martindojcar.com. At the age of nineteen Michael James travelled overland to India in search of something that would give a meaning and purpose to his life. After travelling around India, Nepal, and Śrī Lanka for eighteen months, walking in the Himalayas and visiting many holy places, temples, ashrams, Buddhist monasteries, and meditation centres, during which time he first heard about Śrī Ramana Maharshi (1879–1950), in September 1976 he eventually came to Tiruvannamalai (where Śrī Ramana had lived for fifty-four years) hoping to learn more about him and his teachings. After arriving there, the first book he read was Who am I?, an English translation of Nāṉ Ār?, the most significant work written by Śrī Ramana in prose, and as soon as he read it he knew that he had found what he was looking for, because it became clear to him that more than knowing anything else, the most important thing for us to know is what we ourself actually are. To understand more about the teachings of Śrī Ramana, particularly about how to put them into practice, Michael began to read other books, which he found interesting but not entirely satisfactory, until he read The Path of Sri Ramana by Sadhu Om (1922–1985), which in those days was the only English book that clearly and correctly explained the practice of self-investigation (Sa. ātma-vicāra). Seeking further clarification, Michael began to frequently visit Sadhu Om, who was one of the foremost disciples of Śrī Ramana and a Tamil poet who had composed thousands of verses and songs on him and his teachings. Knowing that Sadhu Om had been entrusted by Muruganar, Śrī Ramana’s closest disciple, to edit all his unpublished verses, and had written in Tamil prose an explanatory paraphrase of Guru Vācaka Kōvai, a collection of more than 1250 Tamil verses in which Muruganar had recorded many of the important oral teachings of Śrī Ramana, Michael wanted to know more about it, so Sadhu Om suggested that together they could translate it into English. Over the course of the next eight years, till the end of Sadhu Om’s bodily life in March 1985, Michael assisted him in translating not only Guru Vācaka Kōvai but also all the original Tamil writings of Śrī Ramana and several other texts, which gave Michael the opportunity to learn classical Tamil and to gain a deep understanding of the simple but extremely profound and subtle teachings of Śrī Ramana, who is generally referred to by his devotees and followers as Bhagavan.
4 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 What is the starting point of Bhagavan’s teachings? Is it a distinction between the unnatural state and the natural state of man? Could you possibly give an argument for the “advantages” of the natural state over the unnatural state that the sceptics might consider? There are various starting points from which we can begin to explain his teachings, but each of them approaches the subject primarily from one of three angles, namely: Sat (Sa. “existence”, “being” or “reality”), what actually exists, what actually are we, are we what we now seem to be or are we actually something else, and what is the distinction between what actually exists (and is therefore real) and what merely seems to exist (and is therefore unreal); Cit (Sa. “awareness”, “consciousness” or “knowledge”), what is aware, how can we be aware of ourself as we actually are, what is real awareness, what is its nature, what is the distinction between transitive awareness (awareness of objects or phenomena) and intransitive awareness (pure awareness, awareness that is just aware without being aware of anything other than itself), what knowledge is correct or real and what knowledge is incorrect or illusory; and Ānanda (Sa. “happiness”, “joy” or “satisfaction”), what is real happiness, where can it be found, can it be found in anything other than ourself or in ourself alone, why do we all love to be happy, why are happiness and love always inextricably linked, is it possible for us to experience permanent and unlimited happiness, and if so how? All these questions are of central concern in his teachings, so each of them would be a good starting point. However, though all these questions will be of concern to anyone who thinks deeply, some of them may not be of concern to the majority of people, but the one thing that does concern all of us is happiness. Whatever we may desire, want or like, we desire it, want it or like it because we believe it will give us happiness or satisfaction. Therefore, since we all like to be happy, Bhagavan generally chose this as the most appropriate and appealing starting point of his teachings, and hence in the first paragraph of his prose treatise Nāṉ Ār? (Eng. Who am I?) he wrote [1]: Since all sentient beings like to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own nature, which one experiences daily in sleep [note: meaning dreamless sleep], which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [note: awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means. Regarding your second question, namely whether the starting point of Bhagavan’s teachings is a distinction between the unnatural state and the natural state of man, I would not generally begin to explain his teachings in quite these terms, but since you have asked in these terms I will reply accordingly. When Bhagavan says in the above passage that it is necessary for oneself to know oneself, that implies that in our present state, in which we are still seeking happiness as if it were something other than ourself, we do not know ourself as we actually are, so what is it that prevents us being aware of ourself as we actually are? At present we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, a bundle consisting of “five sheaths” (Sa. pañca-kōśa), namely a physical body, the life that animates it, and the mind, intellect and will that seem to function within it. Being aware of ourself as the one infinite, indivisible and immutable existence (Sa. Sat), awareness (Sa. Cit) and happiness (Sa. Ānanda) that we actually are is our natural state, whereas being aware of ourself as this bundle of “five sheaths” is an unnatural state for us, one in which we are constantly dissatisfied, because so long as we remain in it we are thereby seemingly separated from the infinite happiness and satisfaction that is our own real nature and that we are therefore constantly craving. Regarding an argument that sceptics may consider, the focal point of Bhagavan’s teachings is “self-investigation” (Sa. ātma-vicāra), and questions are the starting point of any
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 5 Martin Dojčár investigation, so his teachings encourage us to consider many deep and subtle questions, particularly questions about things that we generally take for granted, such as the questions I refer to above in the first paragraph of my answer to this set of questions, so these teachings are designed perfectly for those of us who are of a sceptical frame of mind. However, many sceptics are only superficially sceptical, and their scepticism is often a means by which they defend their own firmly held and dogmatic beliefs, such as belief in materialistic metaphysics, so unless such sceptics are willing to question their own beliefs and assumptions and to consider deeper and subtler questions about what we ourself actually are and about the nature of existence, awareness and happiness, these teachings will not appeal to them, and no arguments will be sufficient to make them willing to seriously question their own dogmatic beliefs. Therefore, these teachings will appeal only to those sceptics who are genuinely open-minded, eager to learn and willing to seriously and carefully consider the very deepest and subtlest metaphysical and epistemological questions that can be asked. What is the purpose of ātma-vicāra (self-investigation) in a broader sense, i.e., how can it help us in our daily lives? What can make it a recommended practice for contemporary man? Why is there so much emphasis on the “I” and its investigation? Could you perhaps give an argument that sceptics might consider in this regard? The purpose of self-investigation is for us to know and to be what we actually are, but this requires willingness on our part to surrender our identification with and attachment to whatever we may now take ourself to be but is not what we actually are. Our “daily life” means the daily life of the person we now take ourself to be, but is this person what we actually are? If this person is not what we actually are, its “daily life” is not our real life, so we should not be concerned about it, but should seek to be aware of ourself as we actually are. However, this is not to say that we will not experience any benefits in our daily life by practising self-investigation, because the deeper we go in this practice, the more detached we will become from the person we now take ourself to be and therefore from all the concerns of this person’s daily life, and the more detached we thereby become, the less we will be affected by all the problems, joys and sorrows that life inevitably throws at us so long as we experience ourself as if we were a person. This detachment occurs because to the extent to which we investigate ourself deeply, our identification gradually shifts from whatever we mistake ourself to be to what we actually are, namely Sat-Cit, pure existence (Sa. Sat), which is pure awareness (Sa. Cit), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness, namely our awareness of our own existence, “I am”. Our false identification, “I am this body” or “I am this person”, will not be eradicated completely and forever until we become aware of ourself as nothing other than Sat-Cit, but it will gradually be weakened and will eventually dissolve entirely by patient and persistent practice of self-investigation. Self-investigation is therefore a practice that is recommended not only for contemporary man but for all people at all times and in all circumstances, because the root cause of all problems, limitations and suffering is ego, which is a false awareness of ourself, namely awareness of ourself as “I am this body”, in which the term “body” does not refer just to the physical body but to the entire person consisting of the “five sheaths” (Sa. pañca-kōśa) that I mentioned earlier, as Bhagavan points out in verse 5 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: “The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore, all five are included in the term ‘body’.” [2] That is, whenever we rise and stand as ego, namely throughout the states of waking and dream, we always experience ourself as “I am this body” (in which “this body” refers to whatever body we currently mistake ourself to be, which is not the same body in both waking and dream), but we never experience ourself as a dead body or as a sleeping body, so since it is a living body, body and life (Sa. prāṇa,
6 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 which is what manifests as breathing and all the other physiological functions that animate and give life to what would otherwise be a lifeless corpse) are always experienced in combination, and since it is a body that seems to be awake (as even the body that we experience as ourself in dream seems to be), not only body and life but also mind, intellect and will (which are the five elements known as pañca-kōśa or the “five sheaths”) are all experienced in combination throughout the states of waking and dream. Therefore, Bhagavan used the term “body” as a collective name to refer to all these “five sheaths”. We rise and stand as ego only in waking and dream, because whenever we fall asleep (or go into any other similar state such as coma, general anaesthesia or kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi), we as ego subside and dissolve back into our source, namely Sat-Cit-Ānanda (Sa. “pure existence-awareness-happiness”), albeit only temporarily, because sooner or later we will rise again as ego in either waking or dream. Since we do not exist as ego in sleep or any other state of manōlaya (Sa. “temporary dissolution of ego and mind”), we are then perfectly happy and do not experience any problems, limitations or suffering, but as soon as we rise again as ego in waking or dream, we thereby impose limitations on ourself by experiencing ourself as “I am this body”, and hence we begin to experience all sorts of problems, dissatisfaction and suffering. Therefore, it is clear from our own experience that our rising and standing as ego is the root cause of all the limitations, problems, dissatisfaction and suffering that we experience. Since ego is a false awareness of ourself, namely awareness of ourself as a body, which is not what we actually are, it can be eradicated only by correct awareness of ourself, meaning awareness of ourself as we actually are. Since it is only as ego that we are aware of anything other than ourself, in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness (awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself), we need to turn our attention back towards ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself. This simple but extremely deep and subtle practice of turning our attention back towards ourself, away from all other things, and trying to hold firmly on to such self-attentiveness is what Bhagavan means by the term ātma-vicāra (Sa. “self-investigation”), as he makes clear in the sixteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, “The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ is only for always keeping the mind on oneself” [3], thereby implying that the term ātma-vicāra is a name for the practice of keeping our mind or attention fixed firmly on “ourself” (Sa. ātman), namely on our fundamental awareness, “I am”. Regarding the final two questions in this set, namely why there is so much emphasis on “I” and its investigation, and whether I could give an argument that sceptics might consider in this regard, the answer is simple: There could not be any awareness without something that is aware, there could not be any knowledge without something that knows it, and there could not be any experience without something that experiences it, and what is aware, knows and experiences is the subject or first person, which is what is always aware of itself as “I”. In other words, the self-referential pronoun “I” (or its equivalent in any other language) is the natural name of whatever is aware, knows or experiences, because it is the name by which it naturally refers to itself. Though we often refer to the body as “I”, we do so because of our confused identification “I am this body”, but the body (and each of the “five sheaths” that comprise it) is an object known by us, so what is actually aware of itself as “I” is not the body but only ourself, the one who is aware both of ourself and of all other things. Therefore “I” is whatever is aware, so it is the knower of all knowledge, the experiencer of all experiences, the perceiver of all perceptions, the seer of all sights, the hearer of all sounds and so on. Without “I”, therefore, there could not be any awareness, any knowledge, any experience, any perception or any other such thing, so “I” is the ground or foundation of all such things. If we try to conceive or imagine the existence of anything without
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 7 Martin Dojčár “I”, we would be attempting a logically impossible task, because there could not be any conception or imagination without an “I” that is conceiving or imagining it. Therefore, as Bhagavan asks rhetorically in verse 3 of Āṉma-Viddai: “Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, so what? If one has known oneself, then what exists to know?” [4]. That is, since “I” is the knower of all knowledge, if it does not know what it itself actually is, how can it know what anything else actually is? The “I” that knows all other things is ego, the first person or subject, which is what knows itself as “I am this body”, but since this body is an object known by ego, it cannot be what ego actually is, because ego is aware, whereas the body (like all other objects) is not aware. Therefore, since ego knows itself as something other than what it actually is, its knowledge of itself is incorrect, so its knowledge of all other things must be equally incorrect. Before trying to know anything else, therefore, we should first try to know ourself as we actually are rather than as we now seem to be. In order to know what we (this “I”) actually are, we need to investigate ourself, so rather than investigating anything else, what we should investigate first and foremost is ourself, because only when our knowledge or awareness of ourself is clear, correct and certain will we be able to judge accurately the correctness and reliability of whatever other knowledge we may have. Can you explain “self-investigation” in more detail? Should we think of it as a kind of technique or method similar to yoga techniques or, let’s say, clinical psychology methods? Further, what is the meaning of aham-sphuraṇa, which Bhagavan mentions in this context? As I explained above, “self-investigation” (Sa. ātma-vicāra) is the simple practice of being keenly self-attentive in order to know ourself as we actually are. In other words, metaphorically speaking, it is just keenly observing or looking at ourself in order to see what we actually are. Since we are not an object but only what is aware, we cannot look at or attend to ourself as we would look at or attend to any object, but since we are always aware of ourself as “I”, we can look at or attend to ourself by simply turning our awareness back on itself, so to speak. No words can accurately convey what this simple practice of self-attentiveness actually is, so whatever words may be used are only pointers, and hence we need to consider such words carefully and try to understand for ourself what they are pointing at. We cannot learn how to ride a bicycle by reading books or listening to lectures about it, but only by getting on a bicycle and trying to ride it. At first, we will wobble and fall many times, but if we keep on trying, we will gradually get the hang of it, and eventually it will become second nature to us. Likewise, we cannot learn or understand how to be self-attentive merely by reading books or listening to lectures about it, but only by trying to be self-attentive. However, whereas riding a bicycle is a gross physical action, being self-attentive is an extremely subtle redirecting of our awareness or attention back towards ourself, away from all other things, so in order to attend to ourself correctly we need to clearly understand what is the “self” or “I” that we are to attend to. Unless we understand that we are not any of the “five sheaths” (i.e., the physical body, life, mind, intellect or will) but only the awareness in which all such things appear and disappear, when we try to attend to ourself, we will attend to whatever we take ourself to be rather than to what we actually are. Therefore, a certain degree of understanding is necessary before we can begin to investigate ourself, but if we investigate ourself with that required degree of understanding, we will thereby begin to develop a much deeper and clearer understanding than we could ever gain merely by reading books or listening to explanations. In order to see something, we need to look at it, but we would not generally call looking at something a technique or method for seeing
8 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 it, because a technique or method is necessary for doing something that is in some way difficult or complicated, so just looking at something is too simple to be called a technique or method. Likewise, though being self-attentive is an extremely subtle kind of looking or observation, it is too simple to be called a technique or method. Looking at or observing anything other than ourself entails three things, namely ourself, the observer, whatever it is that we are observing, and the act of looking or observing, whereas looking at, observing or attending to ourself entails only one thing, namely ourself, because we are both what is observing and what is being observed, and observing ourself is not an action, because it does not entail any movement of our attention away from ourself. Since we are awareness, we can observe ourself only by being aware of ourself, and since our very nature as awareness is to be aware of ourself, we can observe ourself only by just being as we actually are without rising as ego. Therefore, in self-attentiveness the observer, the observed and the observing are one and the same thing, namely ourself as the pure awareness that we always actually are. Hence, being a state of perfect oneness, there is nothing that could possibly be simpler than just being self-attentive. The techniques of yoga and the methods of clinical psychology are all intended to achieve some effect and bring about some outcome, whereas in self-investigation we are not seeking to achieve anything other than to be what we always actually are. As Bhagavan often used to say, there is no new knowledge that we need to achieve, because whatever is achieved anew will sooner or later be lost, so we are not seeking anything new but only what is permanent. What we seek to know in self-investigation is only ourself, which is what we always know as “I am”. However, though we always know ourself as “I am”, when we rise and stand as ego we know ourself not just as “I am” but as “I am this body”, so what we are seeking is not to achieve a new knowledge but only to remove this wrong knowledge, “I am this body”. If we remove this wrong knowledge by being aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as the pure awareness “I am”, what will remain is only this pure awareness, which we have always known as “I am”. Regarding the term aham-sphuraṇa, what Bhagavan meant by this term is simply the increased clarity of self-awareness that we experience to the extent to which we go deep in the practice of self-investigation. That is, aham means “I”, and in this context sphuraṇa means “clear shining” or “clarity”. So long as our attention is directed outwards, away from ourself towards any other thing, we are aware of ourself as “I am this body”, but when we direct our attention inwards, towards ourself alone, we begin to recognise that what we actually are is not this body or any other phenomenon but only our fundamental awareness “I am”, so instead of being aware of ourself as “I am this body”, we gradually become increasingly aware of ourself as “I am I”. This clarity of awareness of ourself as “I am I” is therefore what he called aham-sphuraṇa, “the clear shining of I”. As we go deeper in the practice of self-investigation, this clarity of awareness of ourself as “I am I” becomes increasingly clear, so there are different degrees of aham-sphuraṇa. The degree of clarity (Sa. sphuraṇa) that we begin to experience when we first attend to ourself is generally very faint, but as we attend to ourself more and more keenly, it shines brighter and clearer (but only to the extent to which we attend to it), until eventually it shines so clearly that it consumes ego entirely and forever. Is there really a difference between self-investigation and surrender? Both are considered by Bhagavan to be primary paths to liberation. But doesn’t self-investigation end in surrender? And is it even possible to surrender apart from self-investigation? We can begin to surrender even before we begin to investigate ourself, because surrender generally begins on the path of bhakti (Sa. “love” or “devotion”) even before we come to
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 9 Martin Dojčár understand that God is what we actually are, but we cannot even begin to investigate ourself without thereby beginning to surrender ourself, because as Bhagavan revealed, the nature of ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to things other than itself, but to subside and dissolve back into its source and substance, namely Sat-Cit, by attending to itself. Therefore, to the extent to which we are self-attentive we will thereby subside, and the subsidence of ourself as ego is self-surrender. On the path of bhakti our love is gradually refined and purified. Most devotees worship God and pray to him for whatever benefits they hope to thereby gain from him, whether in this life or the next, so they do not love God for his own sake but only for the sake of whatever they hope to gain from him. This is therefore not genuine love for God, but by his grace over time their love is slowly refined and purified, so they gradually come to love him for his own sake rather than for any benefit they could gain from him. Since true love seeks to give rather than to receive, the more our love for God grows, the more we will want to give ourself entirely to him, so this is the point at which surrender begins. In order to give ourself wholly to God, we should want nothing for ourself, and should be happy with whatever he chooses to give us. In other words, we should have no will of our own, but as ego it is our nature to have a will of our own, so when we want to surrender ourself to him, the first obstacle we come across is our own will. Therefore, surrender begins with our attempts to surrender our will to his will: “Thy will be done”, “Not my will, but only your will”, or as Bhagavan expressed it beautifully in verse 2 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam, “Your will is my will; that is happiness for me” [5]. However, though we can surrender our will to some extent without surrendering ourself, since the very nature of ourself as ego is to have a will of our own, we cannot surrender our will entirely without surrendering ourself. Therefore, if we sincerely try to surrender our will entirely to God, we will gradually come to understand thereby that what we need to surrender to him is not just our will but ourself entirely. But how can we give ourself entirely to God? Since the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish to the extent to which we attend to anything other than ourself, but to subside and dissolve back into our source to the extent to which we attend to ourself alone, self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can surrender ourself entirely to God, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?: “Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [note: one who is firmly fixed as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any thought except ātma-cintana [note: self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God” [6]. Self-surrender is therefore the culmination of the path of bhakti, and self-investigation is the culmination of the path of surrender, because our love for God is incomplete until we give ourself entirely to him, and we cannot give ourself entirely to him without investigating what we actually are. Therefore the answers to this set of questions are as follows: firstly, though surrender is different to self-investigation in its early stages, in its more advanced stages it merges and becomes one with the path of self-investigation; secondly, yes, self-investigation does end in complete surrender of ourself as ego to God, who is ourself as we actually are; and thirdly, though it is possible for us to surrender our will to a certain extent just by our love for God, we cannot surrender ourself to him entirely except by means of self-investigation. How is it possible to overcome our attachments if the investigation of the self is not intense enough? Can some preliminary means of weakening vāsanās be recommended, such as certain yoga techniques and methods or japa? We can begin a journey only from wherever we are currently located, and we all begin the spiritual journey from the state in which we are burdened with strong viṣaya-vāsanās (Sa. “inclinations” to seek happiness in viṣayas, “objects” or “phenomena”), which are the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires,
10 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 aversions, attachments, hopes and fears, so these are the limitations with which we start this journey and the obstacles that will constantly confront us as we travel back inside towards our destination. The stronger our viṣaya-vāsanās, the slower our progress will be, but the most effective means to weaken these vāsanās (Sa. “inclinations”) is to patiently persevere in this practice of self-investigation. When our viṣaya-vāsanās and consequent attachments are strong, they will impede our efforts to be self-attentive, but if we sincerely want to overcome all these obstacles, we will persevere in our efforts, and thereby we will gradually weaken and eventually overcome them entirely. Therefore however weak our efforts to be self-attentive may be, provided we persevere in making as much effort as we can, it is certainly possible for us thereby to overcome all our viṣaya-vāsanās and attachments, as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the tenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?: “Even though viṣaya-vāsanās, which come from time immemorial, rise in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarūpa-dhyāna [note: self-attentiveness] increases and increases” [7]. There are other means by which we can gradually weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās, and of all such means the most effective is meditation on a name or form of God with wholehearted love. However, the true “form” or svarūpa of God is ātma-svarūpa, the true “form” or real nature of ourself, so meditating on nothing other than ourself, “I”, with the understanding that God is what exists and shines within us as “I”, is the best way of meditating on him, and is not only by far and away the most effective means by which we can weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās, but also the only means by which we can eradicate them entirely along with their root, namely ego, as Bhagavan implies in verse 8 of Upadēśa Undiyār: “Rather than anya-bhāva [note: meditation on anything other than oneself, particularly meditation on God as if he were other than oneself], ananya-bhāva [note: meditation on nothing other than oneself], in which he is [note: understood to be] I, certainly is the best among all” [8]. As Bhagavan often used to say, even a little effort made in this path of self-investigation (which is what he referred to in this verse as ananya-bhāva, “meditation on what is not other”, is more effective in weakening our viṣayavāsanās than a huge amount of effort made in any other path, so rather than wasting our time and effort in trying to practise any other “means” (Sa. sādhana), it would be wise for us to devote as much time and effort as we can to trying to hold fast to self-attentiveness. What is the meaning of the heart in the teachings of Bhagavan? How does it relate to the pañca-kōśa teaching? There are three prānic granthis that are important in the hatha yoga tradition, while Bhagavan emphasizes the hṛdaya-granthi (cit-jaḍa-granthi). What is the difference between the yoga and jñāna perspectives? There are several words in Tamil that mean “heart”, and as in normal language, Bhagavan uses such words in a variety of different senses, so in each case we need to understand the sense according to the context. In normal language “heart” can mean the physical organ, the seat of emotions, affections, or the will, and in Bhagavan’s teachings it can also mean the mind, particularly the mind in the sense of ego, which is the root and core of the mind, and in its deepest sense “heart” means ātma-svarūpa (Sa. “real nature of ourself”), which is ourself as we actually are. “Heart” means the core, centre or inner part of anything, and the core of our emotions is our will, the core of our will is ego, and the core of ego is ātma-svarūpa, so ātma-svarūpa is the innermost core or heart of everything. If we consider our experience, the heart or centre of all that we experience is ourself as ego, because as ego we are the experiencer of whatever we experience, and since ego is the adjunct-conflated awareness “I am this body”, the heart or centre of ego is ātma-svarūpa, which is the pure awareness “I am”, so ātma-svarūpa is the ultimate heart, and hence
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 11 Martin Dojčár Bhagavan often used “heart” as a synonym for ātma-svarūpa, which is the source and substance of ego and all other things, being alone what actually exists and is therefore real, as he says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?: “What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa” [9]. As I explained earlier, the “five sheaths” (Sa. pañca-kōśa) constitute the body that ego mistakes itself to be, so it is only through ego that the ultimate “heart”, “I am”, is linked or related to the “five sheaths”, as Bhagavan indicates in verse 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: “The insentient body does not say I; existence-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, I, rises as the extent of the body. This is ‘cit-jaḍa-granthi’, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this ‘saṁsāra’ and mind” [10]. “The insentient [Sa. jaḍa] body does not say I” is a metaphorical way of saying that the body consisting of “five sheaths” (Sa. pañca-kōśa) is not aware of itself as “I”, because it is jaḍa (Sa. “insentient” or “non-aware”). “Existence-awareness [Sa. Sat-Cit] does not rise” means that Sat-Cit, which is ātma-svarūpa, the ultimate “heart”, does not ever come into existence, because it is eternal and immutable, so it always exists and shines as it is without ever undergoing any change of any kind whatsoever. “In between one thing, I, rises as the extent of the body” means that something rises as “I am this body”, thereby seemingly linking Sat-Cit, which is the pure awareness “I am”, to the body, which is not aware. Since this “I” that rises as something that is limited to the extent of the body is aware of itself as “I”, it is not the body, because the body is jaḍa and therefore not aware of itself or anything else, and since it rises and is limited to the extent of the body, it is not Sat-Cit, because Sat-Cit does not rise and can never be limited. Therefore this “I” is neither the body nor Sat-Cit but a spurious entity that appears between them, so to speak, borrowing the properties of each (namely the limited form of the body and the existence and awareness of Sat-Cit) and thereby conflating them as if they were one. This “I” is therefore what is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the “knot” (Sa. granthi) formed by the seeming entanglement of “pure awareness” (Sa. Cit) with a body, which is “non-aware” (Sa. jaḍa). Pure awareness is SatCit, which is of course never entangled with anything, but in the view of ego it seems to be entangled, because ego borrows its existence and awareness as “I am” from Sat-Cit and then conflates this “I am” with the body as “I am this body”. Since this knot is what seemingly binds us to all the limitations of “embodied existence” (Sa. saṁsāra), Bhagavan says that it is both bondage and saṁsāra. It is also what is called “ego” and the “soul” (Sa. jīva), and it is what is called “mind” when this term is used in the sense of ego, which is the subject or knowing element of the mind, as opposed to all the other elements of the mind, which are objects known by it. It is also what is called the “subtle body” in some contexts, such as when it is said that after the death of one physical body the “subtle body” is what transmigrates to another physical body, but not in other contexts, such as when three of the “five sheaths”, namely the life, mind and intellect, are described as the “subtle body” (Sa. sūkṣmaśarīra). This cit-jaḍa-granthi, which is ego, is sometimes referred to as the “heart-knot” (Sa. hṛdaya-granthi), because it is the primal knot, the knot that is the root and heart of all other knots, so though other knots are spoken about in various kinds of yoga and tantra, they need not concern us if we are following the path of self-investigation, because self-investigation is the means to sever this original knot, namely ego, and when this knot is severed all other knots will cease to exist along with it. Regarding the difference between the yoga and jñāna perspectives, I will say a little about the difference between the classical yoga of Patanjali and the path of jñāna (Sa. “knowledge” or “awareness”) taught by Bhagavan. As Patanjali says in Yōga Sūtra 1.2, “yoga is restraint of mental activity” [11], but according to Bhagavan stopping mental activity will not eradicate ego but will result only in manōlaya
12 Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 (Sa. “temporary dissolution of mind”). Therefore, in Upadēśa Undiyār, while discussing the practice of prāṇāyāma (Sa. “breath-restraint”), which is the principal means used in yoga to restrain and eventually stop all “mental activity” (Sa. citta-vṛtti), he says in Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: “Dissolution is two: ‘laya’ and ‘nāśa’. What is lying down will rise. If form dies, it will not rise” [12], thereby implying that dissolution of mind is of two kinds, laya (Sa. “temporary dissolution”) and nāśa (Sa. “annihilation” or “permanent dissolution”), so if the mind is dissolved in laya, it will sooner or later rise again, whereas if it is dissolved in nāśa, it will never rise again. Then in verse 14 he says: “Only when one sends the mind, which will become calm when one restrains the breath, on the investigating path will its form perish” [13], thereby implying that manōnāśa (Sa. “annihilation of mind”) can be achieved only by means of “self-investigation” (Sa. ātma-vicāra) and not by prāṇāyāma or any other techniques of yoga, as he said explicitly in the final sentence of the eighth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?: “Therefore ‘prāṇāyāma’ is just an aid to restrain the mind, but will not bring about ‘manōnāśa’” [14]. The root and essence of the mind is ego, so the mind will be annihilated only when ego is eradicated, and since ego is a false awareness of ourself, it can be destroyed only by correct awareness of ourself, which means awareness of ourself as we actually are. Therefore, the aim of self-investigation, which is the path of jñāna (Sa. “knowledge” or “awareness”), is not merely to stop “mental activity” (Sa. citta-vṛtti) but is only for us to be aware of ourself as we actually are and thereby to eradicate ego. To the extent to which we are self-attentive, our attention will thereby be withdrawn from all other things, and since no “thoughts” (Sa. vṛttis) can rise unless we attend to them, thinking will naturally cease to the extent to which we focus our entire attention on ourself alone. Therefore citta-vṛtti-nirōdhaḥ (Sa. “restraint of mental activity”) occurs automatically in self-investigation, but only as a by-product and not as its central aim. Some spiritual aspirants who have not considered Bhagavan’s core teachings carefully and deeply enough believe that if they can stop thinking, that is self-investigation, but this is not the case. We cannot know what we actually are merely by not thinking, which means stopping all mental activity. Every day when we fall asleep, we withdraw our attention from all other things, so all “mental activity” (Sa. citta-vṛtti) thereby ceases, but sleep is just a state of manōlaya, so from sleep we will sooner or later rise again as ego. Therefore, merely withdrawing our attention from all other things, which happens as a result of tiredness in the case of sleep and as a result of prāṇāyāma in the case of kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi, is not sufficient. In order to know what we actually are and thereby to eradicate ego, what is required is not just withdrawing our attention from all other things and thereby stopping all mental activity, but is focussing our entire attention on ourself, as Bhagavan implies in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār: “Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness” [15]. The mind’s “own form of light” is the light of pure awareness, “I am”, which is its real “form” or actual “nature” (Sa. svarūpa), and which always shines within it, giving it light to know both itself and all other things. “Leaving external phenomena” means withdrawing our attention from everything other than ourself, and the most effective means to do so is to focus our entire attention on ourself, which is what he implies by saying “the mind knowing its own form of light”, in which the verbal noun ஓர் தல் (Ta. ōrdal) can mean either “knowing” or “investigating”. Whereas “leaving external phenomena” is an adverbial clause, “the mind knowing its own form of light” is a noun phrase and the subject of the main clause of this sentence, so the central message of this verse is “the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness”, and the adverbial clause “leaving external phenomena” is added to emphasise that in order for the mind to investigate and know its own form of light, it must be focused on this light so keenly that it thereby ceases to be aware of anything else whatsoever.
Spirituality Studies 9-2 Fall 2023 13 Martin Dojčár When the entire mind is focused on its own “real nature” (Sa. svarūpa), the light of pure awareness that shines as “I am”, so keenly that it thereby ceases to be aware of anything else, it will thereby dissolve forever in this light, and what will then remain is this light alone, which is the one real awareness or true knowledge, as Bhagavan implies in this verse by saying: “the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness”. What is Bhagavan’s contribution to the Advaita Vēdānta tradition? More specifically, what makes his teachings stand apart from previous non-duality teachings? And what does non-duality actually mean according to Bhagavan? Is it a kind of non-duality or unity of consciousness and prāṇā, as explained, for example, in Kashmir Śaivism (where it is represented by Śiva and Śakti), or is it rather the transcendence of the subject-object distinction in the experience of a jñāni? Bhagavan’s teachings are Advaita Vēdānta in its purest, clearest, simplest, most radical and most practical form. For various reasons over the centuries since Gaudapada wrote his Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, classical Advaita Vēdānta has become increasingly diluted and complicated, losing sight of the practical implications of the mahāvākyas and other passages of the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā and Brahma Sūtra on which it is based, so Bhagavan clarified not only the core philosophy of Advaita Vēdānta but even more importantly the correct practice of it, because it is only by practice that its real aim, namely the eradication of ego, can be achieved. Therefore, for those of us who want to understand the simple yet deep and subtle essence of Advaita Vēdānta and how to put it into practice so that we can actually know and be what we always actually are, the contribution that Bhagavan has made is immeasurable and invaluable. There are many aspects of his teachings that make them stand apart from classical Advaita Vēdānta, so I can only touch upon a few of them here. In classical Advaita Vēdānta the root cause of all problems and all misery is said to be avidyā (Sa. “ignorance”), meaning ignorance of our own real nature, so since ignorance can be removed only by knowledge, the solution for all problems and all misery is said to be vidyā (Sa. “knowledge”), meaning knowledge of our own real nature. Bhagavan clarified the meaning and practical implication of this teaching by expressing it in fresh terms, saying that the root cause of all problems and all misery is ego, which is a false awareness of ourself (meaning awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), so it can be removed only by correct awareness of ourself (meaning awareness of ourself as we actually are), and in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to investigate ourself by being keenly self-attentive. By teaching this he implied (and sometimes he stated explicitly) that what is called avidyā is nothing but ego, the false awareness “I am this body”, and what is called vidyā is nothing but the pure awareness “I am”. By re-expressing this classical teaching in these fresh terms, he was thereby able to clarify not only the respective natures of avidyā and vidyā, but also the practical means by which we can experience vidyā and thereby remove avidyā. That is, having pointed out that avidyā is ego, he then went on to explain that the nature of ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to anything other than itself, but to subside and dissolve back into its source by attending to itself, thereby making it clear that keenly focused self-attentiveness is the only means by which ego (and hence avidyā) can be eradicated. Another important feature of his teachings that make them stand apart from classical Advaita Vēdānta is the central importance he gave to bhakti (“love” or “devotion”), the crucial role of which is often neglected or misunderstood in classical Advaita Vēdānta. As he often said, “Bhakti is the mother of jñāna”, thereby implying that we cannot investigate and know what we actually are without wholehearted and all-consuming love to surrender ourself completely. Love (Sa. bhakti) is therefore the key to success in self-investigation, which is the path of jñāna.
www.spirituality-studies.orgRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjkyNzgx