The Teaching of
Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon
on Advaita
Vedanta
as
presented by his disciple
Sri Ananda
Wood
Note that the
following commentary is provided by Ananda Wood, a disciple of the sage
Atmananda Krishna Menon (1883 - 1959). The material is not copyrighted and may
be freely used by any true seeker. It is extracted from a discussion, led by
Ananda, on the Advaitin Egroup during Nov - Dec 2003 and the text for the
complete discussion may be downloaded by members.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/atmananda1.htm
The Advaitin Egroup's
homepage is at http://www.advaitin.com/
and a mirror for the list
is at http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/
Homepage for this
webpage: www.sunyaprajna.com
1. Universal and Individual - the 'cosmological'
and 'direct' paths.
2. The three states - enquiry from everyday
experience.
3. 'I am consciousness' ('Prajnyanam asmi') - reflection
back into the 'I'.
4. Witness of thoughts - change and the
changeless.
- Consciousness and Enlightenment
- Memory
- Higher and Lower Reason
- Knowing
- Further Comments on Deep Sleep
5. All objects point to consciousness - 'Existence
has the chair.'
6. Happiness - not in objects or the mind, but coming from
the real 'I'.
- Love and Devotion
7. The background - where all experiences arise, abide and
subside.
8. Merging back - 'Sleep in consciousness.'
- Some Questions
In the preface to Atma Darshan (page 2), Shri
Atmananda says:
"Of the two lines of thought,
namely those of bringing the individual under the universal and the universal
under the individual, it is the latter that has been adopted here."
A distinction is thus made between two approaches
to realization, which Shri Atmananda called 'cosmological' and 'direct'. In the
'cosmological' approach, an 'individual person' or 'jiva' is considered as an
incomplete part of an encompassing universe. Hence that approach is described
as one 'of bringing the individual under the universal'. It requires an
expansion of consideration to a universal functioning - which is ruled by an
all-powerful 'God' called 'Ishvara', or which expresses an all-comprehensive
reality called 'brahman'.
Literally, 'brahman' means 'expanded' or 'great'.
When what is considered gets expanded, beyond all limitations of our physical
and mental seeing, then brahman is realized. Such expansion may be approached
through various exercises that have been prescribed, to purify a sadhaka's
character from ego's partialities. In particular, there are ethical practices
that weaken egocentricism; there are devotional practices that cultivate
surrender to a worshipped deity; and there are meditative practices that throw
the mind into special samadhi states where usual limitations are dissolved into
an intensely comprehensive absorption.
Through such prescribed practices, a sadhaka may
get to be far more impartial, and thus get a far broader and more comprehensive
understanding of the world. A teacher may accordingly prepare a sadhaka,
through a greatly broadened understanding of the world, before directing an
enquiry that reflects back into non-dual truth. That cosmological path involves
a characteristic attitude of faith and obedience, towards the tradition which
has prescribed its mind-expanding and character-purifying practices.
Accordingly, that path has been given public prominence, in traditional
societies which have been organized on the basis of obedient faith.
In the 'direct' approach, a
teacher straightaway directs a reflective enquiry, from a disciple's current
view of world and personality. On the disciple's part, the enquiry depends upon
a genuine interest in truth, sufficient to go through with a deeply skeptical
and unsettling questioning of habitual beliefs on which the disciple's sense of
self and view of world depends. This calls for an independent attitude - not
taking things on trust, but rather asking questions and finding things out for
oneself.
For traditional societies, such an independent
attitude has been publicly discouraged, for fear of destabilizing the obedient
faith that has been needed to maintain their social order. Accordingly, there
has been a tendency to keep the direct approach somewhat hidden, away from
ordinary public notice. As for example, the skeptical questioning of the
Upanishads was kept somewhat hidden until its publication in the last century
or two.
In the modern world, we have developed a different
kind of society - where education is far more widespread, and independent
questioning is encouraged from a much earlier stage of education. So it is only
natural that the 'direct path' or the 'vicara marga' should have been made more
public, most famously through Ramana Maharshi.
In Shri Atmananda's teachings, there is a
continuation of this trend towards independent questioning, by the individual
sadhaka. Here, each 'individual person' or 'jiva' is considered as a misleading
appearance that confuses self and personality. The questioning is turned
directly in, reflecting back from physical and mental appendages to inmost
truth of self or 'atman'.
The questions turn upon their own assumed beliefs,
which take for granted mind and body's mediation showing us an outside world.
Reflecting back from mind and body's outward mediation, the questioning returns
to direct self-knowledge at the inmost centre of experience, from where the
enquiry has come.
As the enquiry turns in, all observation and
interpretation of the universe is brought back in as well, to an inmost centre
that is truly individual. All perceptions, thoughts and feelings must return
back there, as they are interpreted and taken into lasting knowledge. Hence
this approach is described as one 'of bringing the universal under the
individual'.
In short, Shri Atmananda's teachings start out
with a direct enquiry into the 'atman' side of the traditional equation 'atman
= brahman'. The enquiry is epistemological, examining the question of 'what is'
by asking: 'How is it known?' Examining each object from the inmost standpoint
of knowing self, the complete reality of world is reduced to non-dual
consciousness, where self and reality (atman and brahman) are found identical.
And the examination is carried out without need of
recourse to traditional exercises of bhakti worship or yogic meditation. In
fact Shri Atmananda often discouraged such exercises, for many of his
disciples, particularly for those whose samskaras were not already involved
with them.
Clearly, this approach is not suited to everyone.
For many in the modern world, traditional practices of religion and meditation
are of much-needed value. In recent times, roughly contemporary with Shri
Atmananda, the traditional approach has been taught by great sages like
Kanci-svami Candrashekharendra-sarasvati and Anandamayi-ma, for whom Shri
Atmananda had great respect.
In fact, Shri Atmananda made it very clear that
his teachings were living ones, meant specifically for his particular
disciples. He was quite explicitly against the institutionalization of such
teachings, saying that the only proper 'institution' of advaita must be the
living teacher (if one insists on talking of an 'institution' at all).
So, as I go on to further postings about some
prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it should be understood that these are
only the reports of a particular follower, whose reporting is inevitably
fallible. Some published works by and on Shri Atmananda are indicated in the
post script below.
*****
Further Observations
Vicara or enquiry is essential to the completion
of knowledge in any path. When the traditional path is called 'cosmological',
this does not imply a lack of vicara. It simply means that along with vicara
there is also a considerable component of cosmology, which seeks to describe
the world and to prescribe suitable actions for improving our personalities and
the world around them.
Vicara must be there in both paths -
'cosmological' and 'direct':
On the one hand, the 'cosmological' path gets its
name from having a cosmological component that is lacking in the direct path.
On the other hand, the 'direct' path is so called
because it looks directly for underlying truth. However bad or good the world
is seen to be, however badly or how well it is seen through personality, there
is in the direct path no concern to improve that cosmic view. The only concern
is to reflect directly back into underlying truth, from the superficial and
misleading show of all outward viewing.
The direct path is thus no recent development. It
was there from the start, before traditions and civilizations developed. And it
has continued through the growth of tradition, along with the personal and
environmental improvements that traditions have prescribed. For these
improvements are inevitably partial and compromised; so that there are always
people who aren't satisfied with such improvement, but just long for plain
truth that is not compromised with any falsity.
To find that truth, no cosmological improvement
can itself be enough. At some stage, sooner or later, there has to be a jump
entirely away from all improvement, into a truth where worse or better don't
apply. The only difference between the cosmological and direct paths is when
the jump is made. In the direct path, the jump is soon or even now. In the
cosmological approach, the jump is put off till later on, in order to give time
for improving preparations to be made for it.
There are pros and cons on both sides, so that
different paths suit different personalities. An early jump is harder to make,
and it means that the sadhaka's character is still impure; so even having
jumped into the truth, she or he keeps falling back unsteadily, overwhelmed by
egotistical samskaras. Then work remains to keep returning back to truth, until
the samskaras are eradicated and there is a final establishment in the sahaja
state.
A later jump can be easier,
with a character so purified that little or no work remains to achieve
establishment. But there are pitfalls of preparing personality for a late jump,
because a sadhaka may get enamoured of the relative advances that have been
achieved, like a prisoner who falls in love with golden chains and thus remains
imprisoned.
So what's needed is to find the particular path
that suits each particular sadhaka, instead of arguing for any path as best for
everyone.
*****
Shri Atmananda wrote and had published the
following books:
1. 'Atma Darshan' and 'Atma Nirvriti'
(each in Malayalam and English versions, the English versions translated by
Shri Atmananda himself)
2. 'Atmaramam' (in Malayalam) In
addition, the following books were published after Shri Atmananda's passing:
3. 'Atmananda
Tattwa Samhita' (tape-recorded talks between Shri Atmananda and some disciples -
the talks were mainly in English which has been directly transcribed, and there
were also some Malyalam parts which are translated by Shri Atmananda's eldest
son, Shri Adwayananda)
4. 'Notes on
Spiritual Discourses of Sree Atmananda' (notes taken by a disciple, Nitya
Tripta - the notes were encouraged and approved by Shri Atmananda, during his
lifetime)
The English versions of 'Atma Darshan', 'Atma
Nirvriti' and 'Atmananda Tattwa Samhita' are available for purchase.
All the books in 1 to 3 above (Malayalam and English) are available from Sri
Vidya Samiti, Anandawadi, Malakara (near Chengannur), Kerala 689 532, India.
Item 4 is currently out of print, but should be republished in due course.
Note:
After the passing of Shri Atmananda, his eldest
son Shri Adwayananda became a teacher in his own right, with many disciples who
came to learn from him, at his home: Anandawadi, Malakara (near Chengannur),
Kerala 689 532, India. The son has passed away recently, much mourned by his
followers. His teachings follow his father's approach and are available in
published form from Bluedove.
Prakriya 2 - The Three States
"Examination of the three states
proves that I am a changeless Principle (Existence)." [First of eleven Points
for Sadhana , handed out at a series of "regular talks" by Shri Atmananda,
in 1958.]
Here, waking, dream and sleep are examined, as
everyday experiences that show a self from which they are known. In the waking
state, the self is identified with a body in an outside world, where the body's
senses are assumed to know outside objects.
But in the dream state, all bodies and all objects
seen are imagined in the mind. Dreamt objects are experienced by a dream self -
which is not an outside body, but has been imagined in the mind. This shows
that the self which knows experience cannot be an outside body, as it is
assumed to be in the waking world.
Considering the dream state more carefully, it too
depends upon assumed belief. In the experience of a dream, self is identified
with a conceiving mind, where thoughts and feelings are assumed to know the
dreamt-up things that they conceive.
But, in the state of deep
sleep, we have an experience where no thoughts and feelings are conceived and
nothing that's perceived appears. In the experience of deep sleep, there is no
name or quality or form - neither conceived by mind, nor perceived by any
sense.
At first, from this lack of appearances, it seems
that deep sleep is a state of blank emptiness, where there is nothing to know
anything. No mind or body there appears; and yet it is a state that we somehow
enter and experience every day, when waking body falls asleep and dreaming mind
has come to rest. If this state of rest is taken seriously, as an experience in
itself, it raises a profound question. How is it experienced, when all
activities of body and of mind have disappeared?
The question points to a self which experiences
deep sleep, a self that somehow goes on knowing when all changing actions of
perception, thought and feeling have disappeared. That self is utterly distinct
from mind and body, for it stays knowing when they disappear. Its knowing is no
changing act of either mind or body; for it remains when all changing acts have
come to rest, in an experience where they are utterly dissolved. So it is
changeless in itself - found shining by itself, in depth of sleep.
Since change and time do not apply to it, that
self is a changeless and a timeless principle of all experience. In the waking
state, it illuminates perceptions and interpretations of an outside world. In
dreams, it illuminates the inwardly conceived imaginations of a dreaming mind.
In deep sleep, it shines alone, quite unconfused with body or with mind. In all
these states, it remains the same. It is always utterly unchanged in its own
existence, which illuminates itself.
Through this prakriya, Shri Atmananda initiated an
enquiry from everyday experience that is commonly accessible to everyone.
Accordingly, he treated everyday deep sleep as a 'key to the ultimate'. He said
that if a sadhaka is ready to consider deep sleep seriously, then this alone is
enough, without the need for a yogic cultivation of nirvikalpa samadhi.
How far does Shri Atmananda's position here accord
with the traditional advaita scriptures? This depends on which scriptures are
taken up and how they are interpreted. Two scriptures that I've studied here
are the story of Indra and Virocana in the Chandogya Upanishad (8.7-12) and the
analysis of 'Om' in the Mandukya Upanishad. I personally do not find it
difficult to interpret these two scriptures in a way that accords fully with
Shri Atmananda. But there are of course other interpretations which place
emphasis upon nirvikalpa samadhi, as a fourth state considered in addition to
waking, dream and sleep.
I would say that for the purposes of different
kinds of sadhana, it is quite legitimate to interpret the scriptures in such
ways that may seem contradictory. The contradictions are only seeming, in the
realm of dvaita where our sadhanas take place. Advaita is the goal to which the
sadhanas aspire. It's there that all contradictions are dissolved.
"Consciousness never parts with
you in any of the three states. In deep sleep you are conscious of deep rest or
peace.Inference is possible only of those things which have not been
experienced. The fact that you had a deep sleep or profound rest is your direct
experience and you only remember it when you come to the waking state. It can
never be an inference. Experience alone can be remembered. The fact that you
were present throughout the deep sleep can also never be denied. The only three
factors thus found present in deep sleep are Consciousness, peace and yourself.
All these are objectless and can never be objectified.In other words, they are
all subjective.But there can only be one subject and that is the 'I-
Principle'. So none of these three can be the result of inference since they
are all experience itself." [From Nitya Tripta, Notes on Spiritual
Discourses of Shri Atmananda , 20th January 1951, note number 27.]
*****
Further Observations
A common sense analysis is that deep sleep is a
blank in the memory record, between falling asleep and waking up. But such a
blank does not provide conclusive evidence of any positive experience by an
unchanging self. Sleep can only have a duration in physical time, as indicated
for example by the change in a clock or in sunlight.
The memory record is not a physical tape; it is
merely a sequence of passed moments. In that remembered sequence, there is a
moment of falling asleep and (if the sleep was dreamless) the very next moment
is waking up. As described from the physical world, there may be a duration of
some hours between falling asleep and waking. When this physical description is
added onto the memory record, then it may seem that there were some hours
between the two moments of falling asleep and waking up. But if the memory
record is considered in its own terms, it says something quite different. It
says that these two moments were right next to each other, with no time in
between them at all.
So where do we go from this contradiction, between
the physical view that time has passed in deep sleep and the mental view that
no time has passed at all? We can go two ways.
On the one hand, we can think that yes, there was
a period of time which memory has failed to report. But this raises further
questions. Can the failure be redressed? Even if we do not remember any
physical or mental appearances in that period, was there some experience there
that we can understand more deeply? Beneath such appearances, do we have any
further experience that is revealed to us, by the sense of refreshing rest and
peace and happiness which we seek in deep sleep and which sometimes comes across
to us from there?
On the other hand, we can take it that no time at
all has passed between adjacent moments, as one has been succeeded by the next.
Again this raises questions, even more profound. If there's no time between
adjacent moments, what makes them different? How on earth can we distinguish
them? Must there not be a timeless gap between them, after one has passed and
before the other has appeared? And if this is so between the moment of falling
fast asleep and the next moment of waking up, must it not be so between any two
adjacent moments?
So doesn't every moment rise from a timeless gap
whose experience is the same as deep sleep? And doesn't every moment instantly
dissolve back there again? So isn't every moment in immediate contact with a
timeless depth of sleep that no moment ever leaves?
In this way, are we not led to what is said in
Atma Nirvriti, chapter 17, as quoted below?
"Thus all are in deep-sleep
state, a deep-sleep state where there is no ignorance (non-knowingness)."
Such a position is achieved through a special kind
of logic, which Shri Atmananda called 'higher reason' or 'vidya-vritti'. That
is not the outward reasoning of mind, which builds upon assumptions, thus
proceeding from one statement to another. Instead, it is an inward reasoning
that asks its way down beneath assumptions, thus going on from each question to
deeper questions.
That inward logic finds its goal when all
assumptions are dissolved and thus no further questions can arise. Advaita
cannot be established by the 'lower' logic, the outward reasoning of mind. But
of the higher logic or the higher reason, Shri Atmananda said exactly the
opposite. He said that it alone is sufficient to realize the truth and to
establish advaita. And he insisted that a sadhaka must hold on to it
relentlessly, not letting go until it dissolves itself in complete
establishment. For it is the true logic. It is the truth itself, appearing in
the form of logic to take a sadhaka back into it, when love for truth gets to
be genuine.
This is a delicate issue, quite paradoxical to
outward intellect. And it is depends essentially on the relationship between
teacher and disciple. The following is from Nitya Tripta's book ('Notes on
Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda', 8th March 1958, note 29):
" Is 'vicara' thinking about the
Truth? No. It is entirely different. 'Vicara' is a relentless enquiry into the
truth of the Self and the world, utilizing only higher reason and right
discrimination. It is not thinking at all. You come to 'know' the meaning and
the goal of vicara only on listening to the words of the Guru. But
subsequently, you take to that very same knowing, over and over again. That is
no thinking at all. This additional effort is necessary in order to destroy
samskaras. When the possessive identification with samskaras no longer occurs,
you may be said to have transcended them. You cannot think about anything you
do not know. Therefore thinking about the Truth is not possible till you
visualize it for the first time. Then you understand that Truth can never be
made the object of thought, since it is in a different plane. Thus thinking
about the Truth is never possible. The expression only means knowing, over and
over again, the Truth already known."
There is knowing in deep sleep, but it is not a
knowing of any object that is separate from self. The experience of deep sleep
is pure knowing or pure light, unmixed with any object. The objects that
appeared in waking and in dreams are thus absorbed by deep sleep into pure
light, utterly unmixed with any darkness or obscurity. It's only in the waking
and dream states that darkness or obscurity gets mixed up with light, through
the seeming presence of objects.
When seen correctly, deep sleep is identical with
nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a state of absorption in pure light. This is not of
course to deny that the yogic cultivation of samadhi has its benefits, in
training concentration, in purifying character and in forcefully turning
attention to a state of objectless experience. But, since deep sleep is so
commonplace and so easily entered, most people are not interested to consider
it seriously.
The only state in which we can conduct any
analysis at all is the waking state. The whole aim of this [three-state]
prakriya is to find that 'independent standpoint'. Of course the enquiry starts
off conducted from the waking state, just as one looks at someone else from
one's partial personality. But if the enquiry is genuine, why shouldn't it find
a deeper, more impartial ground that is shared with other states? Is it so
different from finding common ground with other people, when one is genuinely
interested in their points of view?
To find such common and impartial ground, one has
to stand back from superficial partialities, thus going down beneath their
limiting assumptions. That is what's meant to be achieved, by turning waking
mind towards an enquiry of dream and sleep experience. In turning its attention
to consider dreams and sleep, the waking mind is turned back down, into its own
depth from where it has arisen.
When it considers dreams, it is still mind - which
thinks and feels through memory and inference, both of them unreliable. But
when the mind goes further down to try considering deep sleep, the only way it
can succeed is to get utterly dissolved in consciousness itself, where knowing
is identity. There nothing is remembered or inferred; for knowing is entirely
direct, as a complete identity of that which knows with what is known.
So, on the one hand, it is right to admit that one
can't see in advance how the analysis or the enquiry is going to succeed. That
is quite beyond the superficial waking mind where the enquiry starts off. And,
if analysis means "the objective and rational pursuit of the
mind-intellect", then this can't be adequate. But, on the other hand, when
Shri Atmananda spoke of 'enquiry' or 'reason' or 'logic' or 'analysis', he did
not restrict these terms to the mind-intellect. In particular, he said that
genuine enquiry must necessarily transcend the mind, through 'higher reason' or
'higher logic' or 'higher analysis'. That higher reason is a questioning
discernment which becomes so keen and genuine that the truth itself arises in
response to it and takes the sadhaka back in, beyond all mind and partiality.
In advaita, all ideas and arguments are useful
only to that end. As they proceed, they sharpen reason and discernment, to a
point where all causality and all distinctions get dissolved. As reason reaches
there, its results can't be foreseen or described, but only pointed to. That's
why deep sleep is so significant. It points to dissolution in an utterly
impartial and thus independent stand, where no confused distinctions can
remain.
*****
According to advaita, a true advaitin doesn't
merely remember something from deep sleep, but actually stands in just that
experience which is the essence of deep sleep. The advaitin doesn't merely
remember that experience but knows it in identity, as utterly at one with it.
And this knowing in identity is most definitely fully present in the waking and
all states, whatever may or may not appear.
Hence, the Gita says (2.69, in a free
translation):
One whose balance is complete stands wide awake in
what is dark unconscious night, for any being seen created in the world.
Created beings are awake to what sage sees as a night where true awareness is
submerged in dreams of blind obscurity.
In a way, the only way to non-dual truth is by
learning from a living someone who directly knows deep sleep, while speaking in
the waking state. That learning cannot be achieved by reading books or by any
amount of discussion with people like yours truly. From such reading and
discussion, a sadhaka can only hear of ideas and arguments that living teachers
use to take disciples to the truth. To be convinced of the truth to which such
arguments are meant to lead, the sadhaka must be guided by a living teacher who
stands established in that truth.
Regarding the 'experience' of deep sleep,the
following note by Nitya Tripta may be helpful:
How do you think about or remember a past
enjoyment? ('Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda', 26th March 1951,
note 68)
"You can only try to
recapitulate, beginning with the time and place, the details of the setting and
other attendant circumstances or things, including your own personality there.
Thinking over them or perceiving them in the subtle, following the sequence of
the incident, you come to the very climax, to the point where you had the
previous experience of happiness. At that point your body becomes relaxed, mind
refuses to function, you forget the long cherished object you had just
acquired, and you forget even yourself. Here you are again thrown into that
state of happiness you enjoyed before. Thus, in remembering a past enjoyment,
you are actually enjoying it afresh, once again. But some people stop short at
the point where the body begins to relax, and they miss the enjoyment proper.
" Similarly, when you begin to
think about your experience of happiness in deep sleep, you begin with your
bedroom, bed, cushions ... and pressing on to the very end you come to the
Peace you enjoyed there. You enjoy the peace of deep sleep; that is to say you
find that the peace of deep sleep is the background of the variety in
wakefulness, and that it is your real nature."
*****
The enquiry starts with the mind and its confused assumptions. But what it does is to question the assumptions, in an attempt to clarify their confusions. In effect, as the enquiry proceeds, the mind keeps digging up its seeming ground, from under its own fe