Is contentment just a mental feeling? - Answered by Swami Tadatmananda in Week 4 satsang

 

Q. Is contentment just a mental feeling?

A.  Happiness and sadness are in the mind, correct? And are therefore said to be anatma. They're not atma since they can be observed. They're known. But then can we not also say that contentment is also in the mind and therefore contentment is not atma .  

Perfect contentment is the nature of atma. Contentment is indeed a mental state. Happiness is a mental state that comes and goes. And generally what we call contentment, even inner peace is a mental state that comes and goes. But what we're seeking here is not a particular mental state. If you gain a state of contentment or inner peace through spiritual practice, that's great. But no mental state is permanent. It will come and it will go.

So we seek something more steady, more reliable. And what we're seeking is the discovery that your true nature as pure consciousness is utterly unaffected by whatever happens in your mind. If peace is present in your mind or disturbance is present in your mind, when you discover that your true nature as pure consciousness remains utterly unaffected, then it doesn't bother you.

The word contentment is misleading. It sounds like a mental state. So let me instead of saying contentment, try this. The recognition that you are okay no matter what. That perspective. That world view that you are okay no matter what. That's what we mean by the word contentment to be. Regardless of the situation to be absolutely okay to be at peace with the situation. That's what we mean by contentment not a passing state of mind.

Who are the teaching of Vedanta for since atma is already complete and unchanging? - Anwered by Swami Tadamanandaji in Week 3 Satsang

 

Q. We discussed how atma is not affected by vrittis. This made me think who are these teachings addressed to since atma is already complete and unchanging. To the mind and not to this not to the essence consciousness. Is this correct?

A.  Remember the word vritti is a Sanskrit term we use to describe all mental activities. Those mental activities could be thoughts, cognitions. Those mental activities could be emotions. Those mental activities could be perceptions. What you see here, taste, touch and smell. All of those are vrittiis. They are all mental activities. And consciousness is not affected by those vrittis.  

Atma is already satcidananda already unborn, uncreated, limitless, vast, full and complete. So then what is this Vedanta for? Atma is already that. Or how about some very typical um language used in in Hinduism, in general when it when it said your true nature is divine. Please note that it's not said that you will become divine but that your true nature is already divine. It's not a matter of becoming divine. It's a matter of discovering your true divine nature, your already divine nature.

So then who are these teachings addressed to? Atma doesn't need Advaita Vedanta. So if atma is already complete and unchanged then your teachings must be addressed to whom? To the mind and not to the essence consciousness. Is this correct?  The answer is yes.

The teachings of Advaita Vedanta are not for the sake of atma. We can't really say for the sake of the mind either- the problem of suffering is in the mind. What is the locus of suffering, where does suffering take place?  Pain may take place in your body, suffering always takes place in your mind. So we say the locus of suffering is in your mind and if the locus of the problem is your mind the locus of the solution will be your mind. Locus means the place. So if the problem is in your mind the solution has to take place in your mind. But we can't really say that your mind suffers. When you feel terrible, do you say, "Oh, my mind feels terrible." You don't say that. You say, "I feel terrible." You don't say, "My mind suffers." You say, "I suffer."

So who is Vedanta meant for? Vedanta is not meant for atma- satcitananda which is pure consciousness, already divine, already limitless, full and complete. Teaching of Atma is not for the sake of atma. Nor are the teachings of Vedanta for the sake of your body or mind. Your body and mind will continue to experience pain. As long as you have a body and mind, pain will come.

 For whom are the teachings of Vedanta? The simple answer to this is, whoever says I am suffering, for that person thee teachings of Vedanta have purpose, meaning and value.

You say ‘ I am suffering’. Who is that I? That's the big question. And we're not quite ready to get into that in detail, but ultimately that's  the point. There's something a little subtle here.

The problem is in the mind, but the problem is not the not the mind. Again, let me make that clear. You don't say my mind is suffering. You say I am suffering.

Why? Here's a Vedantic analysis of that question. Why do you say I suffer? I am suffering. Using some Vedantic teachings, we can understand it like this. You have failed to discover your true nature as pure consciousness. You have failed to discover the truth that the consciousness which is your essential nature is utterly unaffected by the problems of your body and even unaffected by the problems of your mind.

Atma consciousness being utterly unchanging,which will be a major topic perhaps later. My guru liked the expression self non-recognition to describe this problem.  Your failure to recognize your true self as such ananda -he called it self nonrecognition which is a very precise way of talking about a particular kind of ignorance. Ignorance of your true nature as atma.

And here we can finally go a step further and observe that due to self-non-recognition you suffer. Self non-recognition is ignorance. Ignorance is in your mind. And to get rid of that ignorance in your mind, we require self-knowledge. We require the discovery of your true self as satcitananda. Gaining self-knowledge, atma-jnanam. That self-knowledge removes ignorance. The particular kind of ignorance that causes suffering.

So who is Vedanta for? Vedanta is for the one who says I suffer. And that person says I suffer because of self non-recognition because of ignorance and that particular ignorance is what is addressed in the teachings of Advaita Vedanta.

Is mental happiness and the happiness of ananda different? - Answered by Swami Tadatmananda in Week 3 Satsang

 

Q. Is mental happiness and the happiness of atma different?

A.  So this goes back to an important discussion we had in last week's satsang about Ananda. In that discussion we made it very clear that when we say your true nature is ananda we said you cannot translate ananda as bliss or blissful as a an experience, in that context. 

Ananda is who you are. Ananda is not a transient experience. And just to complete that review of what we saw last week, I said that ananda in Vedantic context is not really translatable into English. The word bliss is absolutely wrong in this context. Ananda can mean bliss in other contexts. But when we use the expression such an atma-ananda in that context atma most certainly does not mean bliss.

What does it mean? Words that can lean in the right direction are words like contentment, fullness, completeness, perfection. One of our uh students suggested inner beatitude, being blessed in nature.

So all of these are fine. But if you ask what particular English word is an exact translation of ananda in this context, we don't have one. So with that in mind, we can come back to  the question  of the difference between mental happiness and happiness of atma. Mental happiness as we know is an experience that comes and goes. 

Atma doesn't come and go. Ananda doesn't come and go. Atma is ananda. Atma doesn't come and go. Atma is pure consciousness. Consciousness doesn't come and go. You don't come and go. Experiences come and go.

So here again we have to re-translate ananda. So we don't say the happiness of atma. Atma doesn't possess happiness. Atma is happiness.  I wrote down a metaphor to use. 

Atma is happiness.

To understand what that means, imagine if sugar could think. This is a silly example. I think this example was given by Sri Ramakrishna and some others. It's  a kind of a folksy kind of metaphor. If sugar scould think and the sugar thinks I wish I were sweet, sugar wants to be sweet. Sugar is already sweet. Or if sugar says, "I want to experience sweetness." Sugar is sweetness. Sugar wants to experience sweetness. What for? Sugar is sweetness.

In the same way, the goal of Vedanta is not to experience some kind of ananda because any experience comes and goes. The goal here is not to experience ananda but to discover your true nature as Ananda.  As such ananda is pure consciousness.

Question regarding goal of meditation - Answered by Swami Tadatmanandaji in Week 3 Satsang

 

Q.  Is the goal of meditation to gain chitta shuddhi and chitta naichalyam?  Is purity of mind necessary for gaining enlightenment? Is meditation for the sake of  gaining adhikaritvam for studying Vedanta?

A. Chitta here means mind – it  has other meanings in different contexts. Chitta Shuddhi is purity of mind. Is purity of mind necessary for gaining enlightenment? Absolutely.

Why? First of all, we have to understand what do we mean by purity of mind? What is a mental impurity? That we can define very clearly. Mental impurities are emotions like hate, anger, frustration, sadness, depression, those are mental impurities. And if your mind is full of such mental impurities, you're not likely to make much progress in your spiritual practice in general. So chitta shuddhi then is the removal of those mental impurities like anger and hurt.

 So the goal of meditation here is chitta Shuddhi - purity of mind and secondly chitta naishchalyam – naishchalyam means steadiness, the ability to focus your mind, the ability to concentrate your mind with one-pointed attention. This is absolutely a requirement and again any dedicated practitioner of meditation can definitely gain chitta Shuddhi- purity of mind and chitta naishchalamyam - that ability to concentrate and have a one-pointed mind.

Does meditation help you gain preparedness for the study of Vedanta? Absolutely.

 

Why is savikalpa samadhi required for enlightenment - Swami Tadananandaji answers in Week 3 Satsang

 

Q. One of the videos was on adhikaritvam, preparedness - being a prepared student for Advaita Vedanta. Regarding samadhanam as a qualification for studying Vedanta, why is the highest state of mind, savikalpa samadi required?

A. One of the six qualifications for becoming a prepared student is to have samadhanam. Samadhanam means a meditative concentration. Samadhi is a state of meditative absorption Let me rephrase the question. Is samadhi, any kind of samadhi, Is the experience of samadhi necessary for enlightenment?

No. Enlightenment does not depend on any kind of experience including any kind of special spiritual experience. Then you might ask well if  gaining enlightenment doesn't depend on the experience of samadhi, then why is samadhanam included as a requirement for being an Adhikari, a prepared student?  It is required in the sense that meditation is required. Meditation is certainly not optional. You may or may not gain samadhi through your practice of meditation, but without that practice of meditation definitely you will never get enlightened. Meditation prepares the mind in a way that no other practice can.

So meditation is an irreplaceable step or practice to get prepared for enlightenment. Whether or not it brings samadhi or not is  another thing. You may achieve samadhi. Honestly for a long for a dedicated practitioner of meditation gaining samadhi is not such a big deal. Takes time, takes dedication. But even when you gain samadhi, then you discover that it's just a an experience. It's a wonderful experience. But like any experience, even the experience of samadhi comes and goes. It's not the goal of spiritual life.

What does the sun as the illuminator metaphor illustrate in Vedanta?

 

The sun metaphor (or light metaphor) is used to illustrate the relationship between Consciousness (the Seer, or Dṛk) and the mind (the Seen, which contains Vṛttis or mental objects) .

The metaphor teaches that Consciousness is the unaffected illuminator of the mind's contents:

• The Light/Sun is Consciousness (Dṛk): Consciousness is like the sun or light, which shines upon and reveals objects . It is the "revealer of Vṛttis" in your mind (perceptions, cognitions, and emotions) .
• The Objects are Mental States (Vṛttis): These are the thoughts and emotions that are being revealed .
• The Principle of Non-Affection: The core illustration is that the sun is utterly unaffected by what it shines upon .
• When the sun shines on a holy scripture, it does not become holy .
• When the sun shines on a filthy gutter, it does not become impure .

The conclusion for the self is that just as the sun remains untainted, the light of your consciousness remains unaffected by the mental states it reveals . Therefore, when consciousness reveals the presence of sadness in your mind, consciousness does not become sad, and when it reveals happiness, it does not become happy .

What does the orange crystal metaphor illustrate?

 

The orange crystal metaphor is used to illustrate the relationship between Consciousness (the Seer, or Dṛk) and mental states (the Seen, or Dṛśya), particularly emotions like sadness, to explain why we feel affected even when we are not.

The metaphor establishes the following points:

• The Crystal represents Consciousness (Dṛk): It is fundamentally clear, unchanging, and utterly unaffected .
• The Orange Cloth represents the Mental State (Sadness or Vṛtti): The color (oranges) belongs entirely to the cloth, just as sadness belongs entirely to your mind .
• The Appearance is the False Experience: When the clear crystal is placed next to the orange cloth, the crystal appears orange . Similarly, when sadness is in your mind, your consciousness seems sad or feels affected . This feeling is a false appearance (an appearance is something which is not real) that deceives us .
• The Key Distinction: The metaphor demonstrates that while the crystal appears orange, the oranges does not affect or taint the crystal one bit . In the same way, the sadness in the mind does not truly affect the conscious being, who remains untainted and clear .

The goal of the metaphor is to help the student distinguish the difference between appearance and reality in their own experience, so they can know that the sadness that feels like it has "rubbed off" on their conscious self is a false appearance .