The Premises of Satsang and Advaita Vedanta

Introduction

The following will illuminate the basic premises of Satsang and Advaita. In my opinion this discussion is overdue, as in Satsang very profound experiences are possible that can seriously change the personality and are almost irreversible. Therefore it concerns me that the Satsang movement has recently gained great influence in the West and that this is not accompanied by critical analysis. During the year 2000, there were about ten websites related to Satsang teachers, today more than a hundred websites exist.

The Sanskrit word ‘Satsanga’ can be translated as ‘gathering in truth’ and stands for a formal meeting with an awakened master. These meetings, called Satsang, Meeting or Darshan, are about recognizing the fundamental reality, the Ground of Being. For this the term A-dvaita is used, which can be translated as Non-Duality. Accordingly, the underlying philosophy of Satsang is called Advaita Vedanta. This teaching and paradigm goes back to the mystical line of Hinduism; Gaudapada and Shankara are important founders.[1] Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) can be called the originator of the modern Satsang movement; many teachers refer to him today.[2] Hence Satsang is the Dharma and the practice of Advaita Vedanta.

The Advaita paradigm is thus based on certain assumptions and conceptions about reality, but at the same time it assumes that this would not be the case. The given reasoning is that the practice is about leaving all concepts and assumptions behind to find enlightenment or to embody the natural state of being. Because the truth would be revealed beyond the concepts of mind, Advaita Vedanta could not be a paradigm, but a manifestation of the truth itself. This contradiction that a paradigm claims that it is not a paradigm did not occur to me for many years.

To illuminate the assumptions of Advaita Vedanta, it is necessary to look at the ingredients of a paradigm. In his influential essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn first pointed out that every scientific discipline involves a paradigm that is composed of four components and is held by the experts of the discipline.[3] The ‘symbolic generalizations’ are the formulas that are easily used by all group members, eg I = V / R. Furthermore, there are metaphysical parts which are not questioned and can be described as trust in certain models. An example of this component is ‘All perceptible phenomena are due to atoms.’ The third component of a disciplinary system is the values of a community, as exemplified by ‘quantitative predictions are preferable to qualitative ones.’ The last component, in the sense of an experimental manual, is called an ‘exemplary experiment’. Due to this new view, the concept of paradigm was soon transferred into many disciplines, but also often interpreted that science would build on any optional data systems. In spite of these misunderstandings – Ken Wilber speaks about the ‘most influential misunderstood book’ of the last century[4] – the central contribution of Kuhn persists that each discipline is based on a series of premises that operate unconsciously and are not usually questioned. This applies not only to the natural and social sciences, but also to ideologies and religions.[5] 

The basic elements of the Advaita paradigm

How can the metaphysical parts and the unquestioned assumptions of Advaita Vedanta and Satsang respectively be identified? As a start it is helpful to look at enlightenment, as it opens up from Satsang events and in literature.[6]  

Basically, it is for the seeker to recognize that he/she is already in the essential natural state in which neither improvement nor deterioration have any significance. The recognition of this fact, which occurs spontaneously or by grace, is considered the end of the search. While not necessary, it is helpful to seek the presence of an enlightened teacher in order to attain this state. The dialogue with the teacher serves the insight that the mind is the central obstacle to recognize reality.

In its ongoing restless activity, the mind creates an artificial, intellectual world, obscuring the view of that which is behind, the Nondual, the Ground of Being. In particular, the mind constructs a personal story which one identifies with and creates the impression of an individual being. When the mind works constantly slower in Satsang and suddenly stops, it is clear that the mental activity has created both the world and your ego. It becomes obvious that there has never been a self that can decide and act purposefully. Accordingly, there exists only the Source that is also called the Ground of Being, Consciousness, Brahman or the Nondual. This insight ends suffering and leads to peace and equanimity.

In view of this notion of enlightenment, the following statements of the Advaita paradigm are given below:

1. The fundamental reality is the Ground of Being, Brahman or the Nondual.
2. There is no Supreme Being (God) and therefore no creation.
3. The mind is the main obstacle to realize truth and the cause of suffering and illusion.
4. The mind is attached to thoughts and feelings, it constructs a story with which you identify yourself as the ego and gives you the feeling of an individual being.
5. The realization that the ego was created by the mind, shows that you as an individual self with a free will does not exist and has never existed. What you subjectively perceive as your ego is an impersonal expression of the Nondual.
6. In addition, you realize that everything was always perfect, has always been in its natural state and is at any time.
7. All issues and conflicts in the world only depend on the fact that the mind creates them. Without a mental evaluation they were just what they are - without lack or falsity. All values are only projections of the mind.
8. Emotions and thoughts are a subunit of the mind. Therefore it is not necessary to heal wounded emotions, in order to gain the highest knowledge.
9. The traditional enlightenment represents the highest state of knowledge.
10. Everything is a great cosmic drama, a big joke, you laugh about once you have seen through it.
11. Advaita is not a paradigm and can not be questioned, because each paradigm is only a projection of the mind. Advaita is the expression of truth.

These statements can be supported by one another and be discussed in various ways. However, it is actually clear that Advaita Vedanta is a paradigm that is based on certain assumptions and therefore does not represent the absolute truth.

Why Advaita Vedanta does not consider itself a paradigm

Before we discuss some assumptions one has to deal with the fact that in the Advaita tradition the discussion of its assumptions are seen as absurd or futile. This is because the mind with its activity is regarded as the cause of all problems (statement 3), as the fundamental obstacle to knowledge. Therefore, the discussion of a right or wrong way is viewed as a waste of time and thinking about Advaita is counterproductive. Hence the philosophical self-understanding of Advaita is not to be a philosophy or paradigm, but merely a mental crutch, which becomes dispensable due to knowing the futility of any theory. Ramana Maharshi compared concepts with fading tools: 'you use a thorn to remove another thorn in the foot'.[7] Poonja expressed that the true teachings do not leave a trace in the memory and that it therefore does not exist.[8]

Another reason not to discuss Advaita is that in this paradigm there is no personal self or ego. This is seen as the result of mental activity (statement 5) and is supposed to represent reality as an impersonal manifestation of the Source or the Nondual. Whether knowledge and realization occurs depends solely on grace. Since according to Advaita the individual has no free will and no possibility to act, it makes no sense to talk about a right or wrong way or about the assumptions of Advaita. Since everything is assumed to be happening by itself, one does not need to deal with the motivations for one's actions.

There are more reasons why the assumptions of Advaita and Satsang are not discussed. For example a critical analysis is hindered by too much subservience to authority. On the part of the followers there is often a personality cult in which the authority of the teacher replaces the critical debate. Many followers tend to regard asking no questions as a sign of inner progress, because one has recognized that the liberation lies beyond the mind. For them it is enough to feel the energy of the teacher and somehow hoping for insight or enlightenment. This can cause some supporters to remain for years with their teacher without a clear idea about the path and the destination. Thus they are like tourists who arrive at the airport with their suitcases and are placed on any plane, without knowing where their journey takes them.

Even if a teacher behaves in an authoritarian or egocentric manner, it is hardly ever considered as a personal expression, but viewed as an irrelevant action. If someone criticizes the teacher, the question is seen as insubstantial and returned with a new question - ‘Who is asking?’ - or ashamed as an expression of the controlling mind. Since from the perspective of the teacher there is no individual, the teacher can immediately follow each impulse, a critical investigation of the motives and consequences of an action is unnecessary. Thus, the Advaita paradigm apparently evades any investigation and blinds out its own contradictions.

Anyone who regards the mind as the central mechanism of delusion and the self as not real evades any possibility to critically discuss the assumptions and foundations of Advaita and Satsang. Then the idea of not being the agent can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, a no longer verifiable circular argument: because there should only be the action of the Ground of Being, each individually motivated action is conceived in the first place as an action of the Ground of Being. There is apparently no longer a distinctiveness to deal critically with the assumptions of one’s own behavior. Then, this paradigm becomes a belief system that always confirms itself. In order to be able to critically discuss Advaita, the assumption is imperative that there exists an individual self with a free will and that the mind is not the central cause of delusion and suffering. That this assumption is not only mental, but can also be confirmed – beyond the mind in the emotional body – will be shown later.

Following this procedure, in relation to Advaita, the elements of a paradigm show up in the terms Thomas Kuhn has defined. As a symbolic generalization many teachers use a picture of Ramana Maharshi on stage. Among others, one of the shared values is to ask only a few questions and otherwise stay silent to find out that one is silence itself. In terms of exemplary experiments and methods, it can be argued that in these meetings neither preparation nor meditation techniques are viewed as necessary, expressed by Bittrich and Salvesen in their book about Satsang.[9] And as in the fourth component Thomas Kuhn defines paradigms, there are metaphysical assumptions and basic premises of Advaita.

The central premises of the Advaita paradigm

In the structure of Advaita paradigm, basic premises show up that constitute the specific aims, methods, explanations and values that frame the whole paradigm. These are the following premises:

I. Because the ego is created by the mind, there is no individual self, and no free will.

II. The fundamental reality is the Ground of Being, Brahman or the Nondual.

III. Emotions are as thoughts a subunit of the mind and therefore irrelevant.

The central premise is that there is no individual self or ego. If one accepts this, it is logical that the ego is only a concept of mind. Then the thinking mind takes the central role in terms of deception and suffering. And if there is no self as an actor, then most of the other goals, methods, explanations and values arise as logical conclusions out of this premise. Without a self there is no opportunity to actively improve something; then it seems that everything is always perfect and always has been in its natural state (statement 6).

The second premise of Advaita paradigm is closely linked with the assumption that the self does not exist – that the fundamental reality is the Ground of Being, Brahman or the Nondual. Namely, if there is no self, then the apparently individual action has to come from an external source. From this it follows that the Nondual moves and animates all things and beings equally and that there is no Supreme Being (God) and no creation (statement 2). The existence of a Supreme Being makes sense only if there is a creation that evolves and develops.

The third premise seems at first insignificant: since thoughts and emotions ‘come and go’, they are regarded as a subunit of the mind. Therefore, the healing of wounded emotions is considered as incidental and not necessary for the development of consciousness (statement 8). In fact out of this premise no explicit conclusions can be derived. However, it means that the motives of one´s actions are hidden and emotional healing is considered unnecessary and insignificant.

All other goals, methods, explanations and values are based on these three premises of the Advaita paradigm. Thus they create particular beliefs that shape the appropriate behavior and determine the life of each follower in a mostly unconscious way. It is therefore an important question: how can anyone ever be able to recognize the premises of this paradigm and challenge them.

Examination of the premises of the Advaita paradigm

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn develops a three-phase model of science development, which describes a paradigm shift. The most dominant phase is that of ‘normal science’, during which the researchers differentiate the existing theories, however, they do not seek to change them. If discrepancies occur between the theoretical statements and experimental data in an increased way that cannot be resolved, a crisis will be caused. This will be solved only if new theories give successful answers and are accepted by the scientific community. A new disciplinary system is created, which replaces the old system or paradigm. The ongoing transition from one paradigm to another by revolution is the pattern of a mature science.[10]

In a similar manner it is possible that an Advaita follower has an experience, which is in contradiction to his/her previous assumptions. If this experience repeats, he knows that the previous assumptions were not true. If he becomes aware that he can act and decide independently, he will no longer believe in the nonexistence of the ego. He may not be able to understand this insight, if no new and broader paradigm is established. This is only possible when he takes into consideration this new data and develops an alternative paradigm, which considers the goals, methods, explanations and values of the first paradigm from a broader perspective and processes the data in new ways. Then he can integrate and understand his hitherto contradictory experiences in the new context.

So what kind of contradictions could be found within the premises of the Advaita paradigm? In my opinion, the statement that the self does not exist is already deeply contradictory. How could someone who does not exist as an individual be able to make a true statement at all? He/she might simply state not knowing whether he exists as an individual. Then everything would be relative and indeterminate. The ability to compare different positions on his own existence and to come to the conclusion, not to exist as an individual, actually requires a permanent, self-affirming individuality to begin with!

Of course I know many teachers who see no contradiction in it: they believe that after the expiration of an individual self-representation the Nondual would operate directly and purely through them and that their statements and actions were irrelevant therefore. In this way it is of course always possible to justify one’s actions and hide their shadow aspects. Then – in extreme cases – having sexual relationships with followers is considered an impersonal expression of physical desire, which is not questioned.

However, when a follower considers that the behavior of his/her teacher is inconsistent and personal, a contradiction appears for him. He may question the teacher and look for a new path. In his critical analysis he may not be able to refute the premise of the nonexistence of the ego by means of reason. But it could strike him that there is no way to prove this premise either! It is actually only an assumption that may or may not be believed. In general, however, it is not offered by Satsang teachers as a premise, but proclaimed as absolute truth. If teachers would indicate clearly that this is the assumption of their paradigm and methods, then everyone could deal with it in their own critical analysis. Currently, this is not done.

Theohumanity as a meta-paradigm

As shown above, a follower of a theory is able to investigate and change his previous assumptions when a new paradigm is offered that contains a greater perspective and therefore may integrate and explain previously conflicting experiences. In relation to the Advaita paradigm, I believe that now a new spiritual paradigm exists that can match this claim.

This paradigm is called Theohumanity and was founded by American, Daniel Barron. In the mid-eighties, Daniel Barron awoke in the Zen tradition and worked for several years as a Buddhist teacher. When he noticed discrepancies in the Eastern teaching, he ended his teaching career. In the course of an intensive examination of Eastern and Western systems, he developed a profound method of emotional healing and a new spiritual paradigm.[11] 

Theohumanity is based on the following nine assumptions:

1. The most mature state of spiritual maturity cannot be attained by means of any past or present spiritual paradigm or path alone; it occurs only through the healing of fear at the level of the Heart and not through belief, transcendence, faith, or works; and requires a prior foundation of authentically embodied emotional maturity.
2. A state of emotional maturity cannot be attained by means of any traditional or modern psychotherapeutic paradigm or methodology alone, and requires the deconstruction of the strategic versions of ourselves we identify with and experience as our present self.
3. Human morality and ethics are only and ever measurable at the level of unconscious motivation, and not at the level of any intention, action, or outcome.
4. What we have called God is comprised of Allness, Nondual, and Maker Aspects of Being.
5. The cause of all human suffering comes from three unconscious root-sources: the Terror of Being, (the unconscious fear of emotional unworth and energetic disconnect from human life); the Terror of Not-Being, (the unconscious fear of death or loss of personal ego and its attachments and identifications); and the Terror of Non-Being, (the unconscious fear of retaining personal consciousness but surrendering personal will, growth requirements, and life outcomes to an unseen Maker-Creator Being.)
6. Enheartenment, the most mature state of human consciousness, is attained only by the triple embodiment of the states of Personhood, Sagehood, and Sainthood consciousness within one incarnative chapter of life.
7. The Heart of Personhood consciousness is attained by healing the unconscious fears of ego maturation in the form of emotional body conflict and congestion via Somati-based enlightenment of the emotional body through the practice of Emotional Body Enlightenment (EBE).
8. The Heart of Sagehood consciousness is attained by healing the unconscious fear of ego obliteration via Satori-based enlightenment of the mental body through the practice of radical Self-inquiry and Avrassanic/vipassanic meditative discipline.
9. The Heart of Sainthood consciousness is attained by healing the unconscious fear of ego capitulation to the Allness and Maker-Creator Aspects of God via Samadhi-based enlightenment of our etheric or chakral bodies through the practice of contemplation of silence, resonant prayer, and heartfelt surrender of personal power and all outcomes of life to Its Will.[12]

In terms of Thomas Kuhn, these are the metaphysical parts and values, ie, the central premises of a paradigm. The uniqueness is that in Theohumanity the premises are not held as absolute truth, but as assumptions that everyone can investigate with the available methods themselves.

Comparing the premises of Theohumanity with those of Advaita Vedanta, it becomes clear that they exclude each other almost completely. From the perspective of Advaita, all Theohumanity-premises that are associated with emotions (assumptions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9) are senseless. In the Advaita paradigm, emotions are not important because they are regarded as a subunit of the mind. If enlightenment occurs, then it is assumed that this would liberate emotions and suffering. The sixth assumption of Theohumanity is that Enheartenment represents the most mature state of consciousness, this is not understood from the perspective of Advaita, because in its paradigm only one kind of enlightenment exists.

From the perspective of Theohumanity, all Advaita premises show to be misunderstandings or historical misinterpretations. This is becoming ever more apparent by summarizing the Theohumanity-premises:[13]

I. Our self is real and sacred.

II. We are responsible for our unconscious.

III. The primary expression of our being, are our emotions

If you compare the premises of the two paradigms, it leads to the following:

Premises of Theohumanity	Premises of Advaita Vedanta
Our self is real and sacred.	There is no individual self, and no free will.
We are responsible for our unconscious.	Since there is no individual self, there is no responsibility. The liberation of the unconscious happens by itself.
The primary expression of our being, are our emotions.	Emotions are like thoughts a subunit of the mind and are therefore not significant.
What we previously referred to as God, comprises of Allness, Nonduality and Creator Aspects of Being.	The fundamental reality is the Ground of Being, Brahman or the Nondual.

This comparison of Theohumanity and Advaita Vedanta demonstrates that almost all the premises are opposite to each other. The only common point of reference represents the Nondual, the Ground of Being. However, while in Advaita access to the Nondual is regarded as the highest state, in Theohumanity this is seen as enlightenment of the mental body (Sagehood) and only one third of the highest spiritual maturity. In Theohumanity, the Nondual is not the last and only reality, but the original Ground-aspect of Divine Being; of equal importance are Maker and the diversity of the Dualistic World (assumption 4). This shows that Theohumanity may be referred to as a meta-paradigm compared to Advaita Vedanta.

The central premise, that distinguishes the two paradigms, is the assumption of a self or non-self. When examined from the perspective of Theohumanity, it is quite interesting what arguments Satsang teachers use to prove their assumption of non-self, including the following:

-      Actions cannot be controlled regarding their results.

-      The self can neither be experienced nor described.

-      In the moment of enlightenment the idea of an ego disappears.

In my opinion none of these statements excludes the existence of a self. Ramesh Balsekar mentions as evidence for the nonexistence of the self that you cannot control the results of your actions. In many cases this is quite correct, as the realization of the requested result depends on a variety of circumstances over which one has no control. But that does not mean you cannot decide to perform an action with a specific goal. In many cases the required result actually becomes real! Similar to this, the fact that you cannot experience, distinguish or describe yourself in consciousness as an individual does not prove that there is no self. Daniel Barron explains that the origin of the self is a mystery, but no illusion.[14] Another argument for the nonexistence of the self is that the ego would dissolve in enlightenment. Here, too, Theohumanity offers a different explanation: Indeed in enlightenment the concept of self, the ego, which the person has been identified with, dissolves. However, the individual soul consciousness is preserved and subsequently experiences an identity that is liberated from rigid concepts! The idea of nonexistence is thus limited to a particular domain of enlightenment. If someone undergoes the profound healing work that in Theohumanity is called Enlightenment of the Emotional Body (EBE) then the emotional body as the seat of authentic being is present and felt at all times. If the traditional enlightenment of the mental body happens later, the idea of nonexistence and having no free will only occurs temporarily, no longer permanent. Enlightenment and mystical experience are thus compatible with the existence of an individual self.

Outlook

In the course of this discussion, I have pointed out that Advaita Vedanta cannot claim to represent absolute truth and to own the only path to enlightenment via Satsang. Rather, it represents a paradigm that is based on certain premises and can therefore be discussed. Today I am quite disillusioned, having for many years considered Advaita and Satsang as the pioneers of spiritual evolution.[15] If one defines the Nondual as fundamental reality and concludes from that the nonexistence of the self, one also regards all aspects of personal and worldly phenomena as empty. The results are a creeping but far-reaching reduction of our world where meaning and vitality are lost. This particularly applies to personal wishes, romantic relationships and the connection to Maker. For this reason I regard Theohumanity as a hopeful paradigm and contemporary map for our spiritual journey.

---

1. Christian Salvesen (2003): Advaita. Vom Glück, mit sich und der Welt eins zu sein, O.W. Barth
2. T.N. Venkataraman, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Three Volumes in one); In German: Ramana Maharshi (2000): Gespräche mit dem Weisen vom Berge Arunachala, 4. Auflage, Ansata Verlag
3. T. S. Kuhn (1962, 1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; In German: Thomas Kuhn (1997): Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen, Suhrkamp Verlag
4. Ken Wilber (1998): The Marriage of Sense and Soul. Random House, New York;  In German: Ken Wilber (1998): Naturwissenschaft und Religion, Krüger Verlag
5. Daniel Stacy Barron (2011): the Soil and the Seed. Outskirts Press
6. Robert Adams (2007): Silence Of The Heart. Dialogues With Robert Adams; Ramesh S. Balsekar and Blayne Bardo (1999): Who Cares?! The Unique Teaching of Ramesh S. Balsekar; Ramesh S. Balsekar (1990): Pointers from Nisargadatta Maharaj; Gangaji (2007): You Are That; Om C. Parkin (1998): Die Geburt des Löwen: Dialoge zur Selbsterforschung, Lüchow Verlag; Poonja H.W.L. (1995): The Truth is; Samarpan (2003): Glücklich sein in jedem Moment, Kamphausen Verlag; Isaac Shapiro (2006): It happens by Itself, Arunachala Press; Eckhart Tolle (1997): The Power of Now, Namaste Publishing 
7. final score 2
8. Poonja H.W.L (1992) Wake up and Roar. Pacific Center Publishing, Hawai; In German: Poonja H.W.L. (1999): Wach auf. Du bist frei. Kamphausen Verlag
9. Dietmar Bittrich; Christian Salvesen (2002): Die Erleuchteten kommen. Satsang: Antworten auf die wichtigsten Fragen des Lebens. Arkana Verlag
10. final score 3
11. Daniel Stacy Barron (2010): enheartenment. Outskirts Press
12. final score 9
13. final score 3
14. final score 9
15. Thomas Wachter (2010): Jenseits von Satsang – ein Erfahrungsbericht. In: Tattva Viveka 44