Search & Read
Doer-I or Self-I?
Sundari: Hello, Don, good to hear from you; we too are always on holiday, and never on holiday!
Don: I’ve been reflecting on the non-duality of existence, but “struggling” with the actuality. It seems the “I” finds itself localizing in the mind, which in turn is located in the head, the body. The question or difficulty has been how to realize “the other,” i.e. people, as “the Self.”
Sundari: The “I” is localized? What or who do you refer to when you say “I”? If you do not mean the Self, which is all-pervasive, you must take the “I” to be the jiva, in which case your discrimination has gone way off-base and you would have difficulty seeing others as the Self, the same I as you, because your vision is dualistic. Discriminating satya from mithya means that you understand that EXISTENCE, the “I,” of all objects (including the mind/brain) belongs to consciousness, not the objects. If you understand this, it is self-evident that every “I” is you.
The mind is located in the head? Really? The mind is the subtle body, and it pervades the gross body. The gross body is attached to it, or “within” the subtle body, not the other way around. Within does not mean “in,” it means “subtler than.” The mind, being the instrument for consciousness to apparently experience objects, is an object know to it. If you are equating a sense of agency, or the subjective awareness of initiating, executing and controlling your volitional actions in the world, then you have wrongly assigned meaning to “I.” In that case, your sense of self, or “I,” is the pre-reflective awareness, or implicit sense that you are the doer, executing bodily movement(s) or thinking thoughts, i.e. the small self, or jiva, and not you, consciousness.
And how can that be, since the only self-evident thing in existence is EXISTENCE, YOU, the one and only I, consciousness, the knower of all objects, including the small “I”?
Don: Sitting this morning, I saw the value of quiet sitting in the morning with the development of the sattvic reflective quality of the subtle body. It shed some insight into the question that the gunas were seen as objects, not Self. Everything witnessed is an object, and that includes all thoughts and people. Seeing that all objects are mithya, as projections or creations of Isvara/Maya vibrating consciousness, or the Self. These objects are manifested by the mechanism of Isvara, which is the gunas and karma.
Sundari: Yes, correct, except Maya seemingly vibrates consciousness; consciousness never vibrates or moves or creates anything. We have been over this with your question regarding the Mandukya karika.
If you get this, why the previous question? It seems to me that you are still studying Vedanta but missing the subtle meanings, and therefore the knowledge does not translate for the jiva.
Don: As such, all objects, although being mithya and not of the same order of reality as the Self, they are also not other, just as a gold ring or a gold bracelet are not other than gold; or a clay pot, cup, plate are not other than clay. Objects are merely name, form and function superimposed or projected onto Self, existence, limitlessness.
Sundari: Yes, Maya has the curious ontological status of “neither real nor unreal” but dependent. Maya and all objects have a dependent reality of consciousness, existence, which is why we can negate them with knowledge. If this were not true, ignorance (avidya) could never be removed nor suffering end.
Don: With this understanding, the “I” is beyond space, time, experience, action, beyond words and definition, and in truth, there is no beyond.
Sundari: Well, yeah!! “I” always refers to consciousness, if you understand yourself to be the Self and not the jiva.
~ Much love, Sundari