The Direct Path

4 min read

6 days ago

Listen

Some believe that the Vedantic pursuit is a very complex one, with numerous terms, concepts, texts, practices, techniques, etc., and requires various equally complicated ways of getting to the goal. This is a misconception.

Contrary to this common belief, it is a very direct approach to realizing the Truth. In fact, the knowledge of the Self is referred to as direct knowledge.

There are three kinds of knowledge.

1. Knowledge gained by direct perception through one or more senses. This is called pratyaksha (in Sanskrit; literally it means ‘in front of the eyes’).

2. Indirect knowledge that is attained by inference. This is called paroksha (literally it means ‘beyond the range of sight’).

3. Immediate or direct knowledge. This is called aparoksha (literally it means not indirect, or immediate, or not mediated).

The first two relate to the knowledge regarding all the phenomena in the universe we live in.

The third (direct knowledge) is applicable to knowing the Self that forms the main goal of the Vedantic pursuit.

The knowing in the case of direct knowledge is very different from knowing in the case of direct perception and inferential knowledge. That is the reason why more often the term realizing is used in the context of the Self.

Why is this knowledge of the Self different?

Because it relates to our own true unchanging nature or identity.

In the case of the knowledge from direct perception and inferred knowledge, the observer (knower) is different from that which is observed (known).

But, in the case of realizing the Self, the Self is not an “object” for the senses, mind, or intelligence. In fact, here, the ‘knower’ and the ‘known’ are one and the same.

That is the reason it can be realized (or known) directly without any other “means”. Using any other means is only a distraction.

The moment something else comes in, “mind” comes into play, either on its own or using the intelligence. The moment the mind finds something to “observe”, we are trapped in the mind, and fail to go beyond the mind.

Let us not forget that what we have set out to realize (or know) is “beyond” the mind and intelligence.

Here is a paradoxical situation: How do we go beyond the mind?

We start thinking about it? How do we use the mind to go beyond the mind?

That is why the “direct path” is the only one that will work here. There is no other option.

All the texts advocate this direct path alone.

That is why even in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna straight away gets into the discussion of the Self, before explaining anything else. It is worth wondering why?

Of course, there are traditions and texts that are “seemingly” elaborate. This is because the needs of individuals are different. Each seeker picks up a path suitable to them.

In all the Upanishads, the subject is the same — the Self. Many of the principal Upanishads are very short.

However, the various texts take different approaches addressing varying needs of individual seekers.

The directness of the path depends on where you are.

When you seek guidance from a teacher, the instructions are given relative to where you are.

This is also reflected in the works of Adi Shankaracharya. Though the subject is always the same — the direct knowledge of the Self — he presents it through texts of varying length and detail.

Here are some of his compositions.

Ekashloki conveys the essence in just one verse, Dashashloki conveys it in 10 verses, while Ātma-bodha presents it in 68 verses and Shatashloki in 101. Aparokshānubhūti, consisting of 144 verses, offers a more reflective exposition, whereas Viveka-chūḍāmaṇi, in 580 verses, develops the teaching in a more systematic manner. And Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgrahaḥ, comprising 1006 verses, provides an extensive immersion into the same truth.

While the goal and the path remain the same, the degree of explanation varies according to the needs of the seeker.

The attempt is always to lead one “to the unknown” only through “known” references.

But, here, in the context of the Self, all “known references” fail to take us to the Self. They, in fact, often take us farther away.

Ramana Maharshi says in Upadesha-sāram, verse 17: “When one investigates “what is this mind?”, it comes to light that there is no such thing as mind. This is the direct path.”

That is why, whenever you say, “is it this?”, the response will be “not this”. The only way is the “direct way”.

Yoga-vāsishtha 5.7.49 sums it up beautifully: “Until everything is completely relinquished, the Self is not attained. When everything is renounced, what is left is called the Self.”

I believe there is no exact way to convey this message. My intent was only to invite reflection on the idea of the “path.” I hope it has sparked some thoughts in that direction.