Self Knowledge is not Memory Based

Hi James,
I have received your DVDs and books and going through them slowly. I
congratulate you for this really wonderful work to serve humanity. These are truly
divine inspired works coming through you.
I have a question that has many parts around the same point. I sometimes get
answers but somehow the same questions come back again and again. Here it is:
Mani: I see directly that the only thing that I am certain of in this universe is "I
am" or the intuitive understanding that "I exist" - not as an idea of something
but an eternal presence that is always there, no matter what happens.
Everything else is my projections.
However, it seems like I forget this understanding time to time and fall back to
identifying myself with externalities and suffer, although I wake up sooner or
later. Then from hindsight I laugh at myself for my ignorance. However, when I
am caught up in the melodrama and forget my basic primordial state of "I am."
I consider the melodrama as reality, participate in it, forget my true nature and
suffer.
`
So, I see directly that forgetting the basic state is cause of all suffering. But, my
question is: Does one ever fall back to ignorance after enlightenment?
Ram: It depends on your definition of enlightenment. If enlightenment is self
knowledge then you need to know that this knowledge is not memory based. You
can forget objects that are not present, but once you know the self you cannot
forget it because you are always present. Do you ever forget your name? You do
not. Why? Because you are always present.
Even in the case where you have knowledge of a physical object you do not
forget what it is when it not present because the next time you see it, you know
what it is. Why? Because the knowledge is firm. For example, have you ever
forgotten what an automobile is?

The knowledge I am the self is not based on what the experiencing subjectthe
perceiver/ feeler/ thinker entityexperiences because you are not a
perceiver/feeler/thinker entity. This entityOK, the person you think you areis
an object, a thought, in you, meaning awareness. So, it is good no matter what
the person experiences. It is just knowledge of your nature, your identity.
If you see enlightenment as a special experience that the experiencing entity has
gained, then you will definitely lose it because all experience, including the
experience of the reflection of awareness in a pure mind (which the ill-informed
call enlightenment), comes and goes.
But the most important point is that if you know what it means to be awareness,
you will not get identified with the vasanas that arise in you and take your
attention away from yourself. What does it mean to say I am awareness? It
means that you are whole and complete. It means that you are confident that you
can deal with anything that life has to offer. If you understand this you will not let
your attention be hijacked by the fears/desires that appear in you. You will not
be interested in pursuing anything in the world because you are already
complete. You only pursue things because you believe they will complete you.
So, judging by your statements your discrimination is not perfect. When you are
enlightened, your discrimination is perfect and you never fall away from
yourself, not that this is actually possible, although that is how it seems.
I cannot be sure, but it sounds to me like you do know who you are but lack
confidence in it. If you say no to your fears and desires backed by the
understanding that you are the self, your confidence in the knowledge will grow
and grow until it becomes one hundred percent. Then you will never dip back
into the world and suffer.
I think this situation happens because you have not realized the inherent defects
in all objects. When you see that they do not deliver what they purport to deliver,
your desire for them will dry up. What is your age and what kind of lifestyle do
you have? Are you actively involved in the world or do you have a lot of time for
contemplation?

If one falls back into ignorance, enlightenment doesn't end suffering. If you
dont fall back into ignorance, then why did I forget my true state in the first
place (before Vasanas or karmic obligations took over me)?
Ram: There is no why. That is just the way it is. What we can say is that is that
there is a way out. Once you are established as the self you will see how
ignorance works.
If enlightenment brings true freedom, then whether I suffer or not (or whether I
forget my true nature or not) should depend upon me. But, I only get that when
I wake up or from the hindsight - not when I am caught up in the melodrama.
Even if it is a temporary departure from my true state but it causes enormous
suffering and I have no way to escape it.
Ram: It depends on what you know, not on you. It seems to me that you have
the wrong idea of who you are because you cannot wake up. You can have an
insight into your nature but you cannot wake upbecause you never slept. This
waking and sleeping metaphor suggests to me that you think enlightenment is
something that happens, something that you can maintain. It is not an
experience that you can maintain. It is simply you. Do you have to do anything
to be you? You dont. So the maintenance is only in terms of the application of
self knowledge to the impulses arising in you that are attempting to seduce you
into chasing some object. If you apply the knowledge diligently on a moment to
moment basis, the knowledge will become steady wisdom. And at some point no
more effort will be required. It is like your name. You do not have to practice
saying your name every day for fear of forgetting. You are clear about who you
are, so there is no effort. If you need the knowledge, it is there at your finger tips
and if you dont, it stays in the background until it is needed.
The next problem with your understanding is revealed by your use of the word
state. It shows that you think enlightenment is some kind of experience that the
experiencing entity can gain. This is why it comes and goes.
And finally, if it is a non-dual reality ( I believe it is), then does it really mean
anything to say a Buddha got enlightened when millions are in ignorance?

Ram: This doubt can be resolved by understanding that the ignorance standing in
the Buddhas account can only be removed by the Buddha. If I breathe it does
not mean that you do not have to breathe. If I think a thought of green apples, a
green apple thought does not appear in your mind. If I murder a man, you are not
put in jail. Enlightenment does not transfer because the individual needs to
remove his or her own ignorance. Each individual formulates his or her ignorance
of the self in different ways, according to his or her conditioning. And since no
two individuals are conditioned the same, what applies to one does not apply to
another. This confusion is brought about because the relationship between the
individual and the total is unclear. It may not mean much to anyone else, but it
means a lot to the Buddha. It may provide inspiration for others to seek
enlightenment, but each individual has to do the work his or her self. The
Christians have the same notion when they say that Christ died for our sins, that
his suffering redeemed us. But it is obviously not true because suffering is alive
and well.
In a non-dual reality there are no Buddhas, no enlightened beings. There is only
one self with apparent ignorance or apparent knowledge. When the intellect
understands that it is awareness, its ignorance disappears and, looked at from the
level of Maya, we say that it is a Buddha. When the knowledge is firm, you can
say that he or she is enlightened.
Even the word enlightenment needs to be looked into because the self, you, are
not enlightened nor are you unenlightened. If you want to use the enlightenment
word, it is better to define enlightenment as the hard and fast knowledge, I am
the light i.e. awareness/being assuming it cancels the ego as a doer and
neutralizes the binding likes and dislikes.
How one will ever know whether she is enlightened?
Ram: Your desires and fears dry up. You quit seeking things.

Is end of suffering is the only indicator?

Ram: Yes. That is the proof.

If it is, then it is again a catch 22: why do I forget my true nature from time to
time and still see that I am unable to maintain my awakening forever?
Ram: As I pointed out, enlightenment is not awakening. Awakening is some kind
of experience. You cannot maintain any experience. Experience is not under the
control of individuals. It is produced by the whole field of existence.
Enlightenment is not an experience that happens. It is just the removal of
ignorance about your nature, although you could call that an experience. Go
through Chapter Two in my book, How to Attain Enlightenment, and carefully
follow the logic. See if you can develop the discrimination between knowledge
and experience.
Self knowledgeenlightenmentis freedom from experience and the
experiencing entity. The experiencing entity, the person you think you are, is
already the self under the spell of a misunderstanding. That is all. The
misunderstanding needs to be removed. This does not require maintenance,
except in the sense that I suggested above.

I am sorry for such a long e-mail. I would greatly appreciate your wisdom on
these very intriguing questions haunting me from my high school days.