Franco: I finished writing a poem and could see how it made no sense to claim ownership of it. It’s clear that I didn’t create the inclinations that make me enjoy writing, and without those the poem would not have appeared.
I could see how there were an infinite number of factors that made this event happen, and ultimately it was my conditioning and the field interacting which determined everything.
I thought the following was a more precise way of describing what happened: “The universe wrote a poem through this body”. Or also, “A poem was written here”. (This last one reminded me of Alan Watts talking about how in some languages you could have a verb without a noun or an action without the need to define a subject.)
Would you say these were accurate descriptions from the jiva’s point of view?
I felt I could recognize how it was all Isvara’s doing, but also felt a sense of separation appear between “me” and God.
I know “I” didn’t write the poem. But if God did it, and reality is non-dual, then is it not true that “I” somehow wrote it? How can I be non-separate from God and still know that “I” didn’t write the poem?
I see how it makes no sense to assign ownership to the usual sense of “I” (Fernando). But am I not creating some separation by negating this “I”, which in some way is not “not-God”? Is this “I” the ego? Am I confusing ego with jiva?
As you can tell, a lot of confusion “has appeared here”…
Thank you for your help.
With gratitude and love,
Sundari: Your reasoning is correct when you conclude that Franco as the ego/doer (conceptual jiva) did not write the poem. There are so many factors in the field required for anything to happen that to claim doership is quite absurd, really. This is central to karma yoga, as I am sure you are aware. Karma yoga is essential to negate the doer/ego. But it is also the cause and effect teaching, where we discriminate duality from nonduality, the doer from Isvara or God. Here all doing takes place thanks to the presence of God or Isvara, who is the only doer. The jiva or doer is just an idea appearing in the mind of God. But there is a lot more to the methodology of Vedanta.
The feeling of separation comes in because you do not take the reasoning to its nondual conclusion, which is the non-origination teaching. Who does God or the ‘I’ actually refer to? If reality is nondual, which we know it is, then the ‘I’ referring to God/Isvara/the Self is the same as the ‘I’ referring to Fernando. How can there be a difference? The only issue is who takes credit for that, ego or Self?
In the cause and effect teaching suffering is removed by eliminating the doer and its claim to ownership. But the non-origination teaching eliminates cause and effect altogether because there is no real cause and no real effect. I.e., the dream and the conceptual jiva exist, but they are not real. Real being defined as that which is always present and unchanging, which can only refer to the one and only permanent factor: the ever present unchanging knower of the dream, the Self.
You may know it, but here is one of the greatest of all great sayings in Vedanta, because it captures the essence of the teachings: Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Bramaiva Na Parah. It means:
I, the Self, am limitless Consciousness and the Jiva is non-different from me.
Isvara and the eternal Jiva (Jivatman) are eternal principles in Consciousness, which only manifest whenever Maya manifests. Maya is also an eternal principle or power in Consciousness. There is essentially no difference between Jiva and Isvara except in their capacity to create. Isvara creates the objective world and the conceptual Jiva creates its subjective world, its world of thoughts and feelings—which also come from Isvara, the gunas. Isvara is omniscient, creates all objects, subtle and gross and the jiva only knows the objects it has contact with. It cannot create a flower, the sun, the moon, and the stars, or even a poem. This is called the creation, or cause and effect teaching.
This discussion hinges on whether or not the apparent reality (and Isvara as creator) actually exists. It seems to exist because you as jiva can experience it, and it is clear that the Field is intelligently designed and run. So, there must be an intelligent ‘creator’ Or cause behind the creation. But if the jiva (mithya/duality) is just a superimposition onto nonduality, the apparent reality is as good as non-existent because you can negate it with Self-knowledge. So, there is no ‘causer’ either.
The creation teaching is confusing and extremely subtle, but it is a means to an end. It provisionally accept duality in order to negate it. Its main purpose (as all other prakriyas adopted by the Upanishads) is not to make you believe in causation or the creation. It is to reveal the truth of the Self being attribute-free, limitless, part-less, beginningless and endless Consciousness. And, that the creation is neither real nor unreal. The creation has a dependent reality on you, Consciousness. The aim of the creation teaching is to eliminate all the variable non-essential factors (vyatireka) which leave the one invariable essential factor (anvaya) – the Self, Consciousness.
Therefore, since the Self never changes, the cause and effect proof is meant to unfold the fact that not only is the Self limitless, you are non-separate from it. The proof works because it is a result of knowledge, only. Experience is a secondary factor because Consciousness is the only factor that can never be negated, no matter how materialistic the investigation.
Once you have understood the cause and effect teaching, the next stage of self-inquiry goes further, to the non-origination theory. Vedanta says that the cause and effect prakriya is a set-up and not the whole truth because the non-origination teaching (Mandukya Karika) states that there is no creation, to begin with. How can they be?
It answers the logical question: How can Sat, Consciousness, be the basis of the material creation if it is non-dual Consciousness? The material creation is not material. It is a projection caused by Maya, which is not the same OR not different from Sat, Existence/Consciousness. You can’t get something out of something that is incapable of modification. Sat is not the cause of anything. How could it be? If it was, it would not be non-dual.
The Mandukya also points out that the Self implies not-Self. When you know you are the Self, there is no satya and mithya or Isvara – Jiva (God – Franco) for you, anymore. Sathya and mithya are just concepts/principles used to teach you that you are the Self and can be discarded. They are teachings designed to destroy the notion of doership. Mithya ‘becomes’ satya because it was satya all along. You see everything as just ISNESS, a direct experience of Existence as your identity, the Self. While the jiva still apparently experiences differences, they are known to be only apparent, not real, differences. Duality remains or seems to, but you never identify with it again. If this teaching is assimilated, Self-knowledge puts a permanent end to all separation. Everything is the Self because there is no other option.
Then you can say Isvara wrote the poem, but seeing as God/Isvara and Fernando share the same identity as the Self, if there is a poem, the poem appeared thanks to you, the Self.
I hope this helps
Much love
Sundari