A Vedanta Check Up

Hi Isaiah
Isaiah: Hey Charles, nice to hear from you. I figured you would be a motivated inquirer
and it seems I was right. It's nice to know you're putting in the 'work'. I'm not really
seeing any questions in this e-mail, so I assume you want me to make sure your
understanding is on track. You're a smart guy, so I'm going to be picky. Beware :)
Charles: I wanted to check in as I feel I have been progressing at a steady clip.
Yesterday I finally understood the jiva idea, i.e. that's a story and I can see it and it is not
me so if jivaman wants to talk, fine, if not, fine, but it doesn't really affect me. It was so
simple. What a big joke! Kinda sad too, given what we put ourselves through for that
idea.
Isaiah: Yes. The jiva is the self seeming to identify with the body / mind. It is the ego,
the doer, that cooks up the story of, I am this, I am that. I did this, I did that. Such and
such happened to me. Since the ego is an inert thought, it actually can't do anything
or lay claim to anything. It is an illusion. And, as you know, if you can see the ego and
it's 'story', then it can't be you or affect you. But...what are you? Furthermore, what is
your relationship to the jiva, to Isvara, and to the creation? Understanding this
relationship is the key to self-knowledge. Otherwise, your knowledge is incomplete. I
am not saying you don't know this, but you don't elucidate it here.
Charles: So now I am just kinda being, with few thoughts or desires; I have been pretty
empty before with bouts of jivamuck in between, but I feel this knowing won't go away.
So . . .all good!
Isaiah: If it is firm knowledge, it won't go away. If it is just the result of a sattvic subtle
body, it might go away when the gunas shift. Now, since you weren't clear about who
you were in the first paragraph, I have to ask: Who is 'just kinda being, with few
thoughts and desires etc.'? Is it you, or the jiva?
Charles: At the same Charlese I know to continue inquiry; it's great to find out where
jivaman creates jivamuck and own it with self-knowledge; that's called cleaning up
karma, and it's fulfilling work!

Isaiah: Sounds great Charles. You would be surprised how many people are unwilling
to to do spiritual practice to 'clean up' their mind in order to prepare it for selfknowledge. Keep it up.
I think it's probably a wording issue, but like I said, I'm going to be picky. I'm not sure
what you mean by 'own it (jivamuck) with self-knowledge'. Who is it that is owning
what? What is there for you to own?
Charles: Otherwise I guess improving my subtle body is daily work and will help me
develop greater humility, accommodation, love etc. that improve the dualistic
experience.
Isaiah: It will definitely improve the dualistic experience. But the real reason to do it is
to facilitate proper inquiry, in order to gain self-knowledge. Then, when you know who
you are, experience can be what it is, and it won't matter to you. If you want to change
it, fine, if not, fine.
Charles: I don't mean to speak with an air of finality as I am sure many parts of self
inquiry are still a work in progress, but the knowledge has been doing the job recently.
Isaiah: Yes, it sounds like the knowledge is working. Keep up the inquiry. It's good that
you are committed to it without having to be told to do so.
Charles: I think it really started to take off after I integrated karma yoga. I had a family
meeting recently and I didn't get what I wanted, so I was disturbed, and then on the
way home, a voice said, practice karma yoga, and that started it. It was shaky at first but
became easier and easier. It's kinda pathetic how we want the universe to provide at
our beck and call; that could be grist for the judgement mill of others, but dispassion
leads to compassion and once vasanas are non-binding, it's easier not to get caught in
other's stuff.
So while practicing karma yoga I really "got" the idea that vasanas are just the gunas
and you don't have to react to them, which was a huge relief.
Isaiah: Great. Karma yoga gets you doing action for the sake of the self, instead of
strictly according to your vasanas (likes / dislikes), which helps you not to react to them
as much. And when you know that the gunas dictate the vasanas, and the gunas work
in predictable patterns, you are better prepared to 'resist' them, through
understanding. Granted, there are many positive vasanas, such as a vasana for self-

inquiry, as well as many harmless vasanas, such as preferring tea over coffee. The
positive ones should be cultivated and the neutral ones can be ignored.
Charles: Basically excess tamas and rajas (as well as deep existential uncertainty)
brought me to vedanta and they have been such slave drivers for 6 + years. I recently
flipped from tamas to rajas, both of which have been decreasing in intensity. I generally
sleep only 4 or 5 hours in those states and I was on my way to another bout of
tired/wired, but this Charlese I just saw the little thoughts arising, and they got smaller
and smaller til they were just little blips of information and then *yawwwn* I fell asleep
and slept 8 hrs. Through discrimination - seeing that the thoughts were just gunas - I
extricated myself from attaching to the thoughts and desires, and it really kept my mind
from running amok. Sleeping a full 8 hours sounds like the accomplishment of a 3 yr
old, but given how binding they can be, slowly extricating myself from rajas and tamas
has been awesome.
Isaiah: Good, Charles. It sounds like you are committed to gaining a mind suited for
inquiry.
Charles: Also, just a few days ago I began to accept myself more completely (warts and
all as James said). I think just accepting your imperfections and not trying to change
them helped stabilize the knowledge that it's all just an idea.
Isaiah: Right. This is 'taking a stand' as awareness. Strictly speaking, from the
standpoint of awareness, there is no apparent person to accept; there is only the self.
But, conditionally taking mithya into account, you can say the self 'witnesses' the
apparent person without any judgment of any kind; the self by nature is completely
accommodating to the objects appearing in it, similar to space. Furthermore, the
apparent person is nothing but a product of the gunas; none of the apparent person's
'stuff' belongs to them, it belongs to Isvara (not that Isvara is a big person). Since all of
the 'stuff' belongs to Isvara, then the apparent person can be accepted as they are.
Charles: And then yesterday I negated the need for jivaman.
Isaiah: This too is good. But, let's take it one step further: When you say 'I' negated
the need for the jiva, which 'I' is talking, who is the negater? Ironically, it is the jiva! If
the jiva is negating the need for the jiva, then how do you know this is happening?
Who are you?
Charles: I haven't been writing because I feel like I don't have questions that won't be

resolved by isvara through dualism, reading esatsangs, or self-inquiry; at the same

Charlese, I am sure my knowledge is shaky and I still kinda identify with the gross body,
just not so much with the subtle body.
Now maybe you'll write back and tell me, wait, stop, you're deluding yourself, you don't
know, but if so, that would just be a fear of the jiva, and it wouldn't really affect me,
right?
:)
Charles
You're doing great Charles. Keep up the good work and try to think about the questions
that I asked.
Much love,
Isaiah

Hi Isaiah,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses, I responded again, which may make posting
them as esatsangs a bit more confusing - I apologize - it was simply the easiest way to
respond to your questions. I put the newest responses in Italics; I hope it doesn't give
you too much of a formatting headache.
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): I'm not really seeing any questions in this e-mail, so I
assume you want me to make sure your understanding is on track. You're a smart guy,
so I'm going to be picky. Beware :)
Charles: I want you to be picky! How else to make sure the knowledge is clear and "rock
solid"? You are right, I was hoping to get a status check to see where the holes in my
self knowledge lie.
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): Yes. The jiva is the self seeming to identify with the
body / mind. It is the ego, the doer, that cooks up the story of, I am this, I am that. I
did this, I did that. Such and such happened to me. Since the ego is an inert thought,
it actually can't do anything or lay claim to anything. It is an illusion. And, as you

know, if you can see the ego and it's 'story', then it can't be you or affect you.
But...what are you? Furthermore, what is your relationship to the jiva, to Isvara, and
to the creation? Understanding this relationship is the key to self-knowledge.
Otherwise, your knowledge is incomplete. I am not saying you don't know this, but
you don't elucidate it here.
Charles: I didn't mention it because right now I basically know it only through negation.
I know that nothing that I can define or objectify is me, so I am what is not objectifiable,
but is aware of objects.
Isaiah: Correct, you are on the right track. First you negate all objects as 'notself' in order to break your identification with them. When this is done
consistently, you see that everything you experience lacks any inherent reality; it
is 'empty', meaning it has no actual existence. It is unreal. Since you have
formerly identified with all of these objects (namely the mind / body and it's
experiences), it may seem like you are 'empty' or a 'void of nothing'. But then
you have to inquire, Am I this void of nothing, or is it too an object? It is an
object. How do I know this object? It is because I am aware. If there is only an
object and awareness, and you cannot be an object, you have to be awareness.
Although it is obvious that you are awareness, owing to ignorance, it doesn't
seem that way. Hence, you come to this conclusion through implication and
negation. Now, since you are not an object, you do not experience yourself as an
object; you are just yourself. It is similar to how an eyeball can see objects, but
not itself. But it does not need to see itself to know it is an eyeball; it knows it is
an eyeball by merit of the fact that it sees. In the same way, you, the self, can be
aware of objects, but you can't be aware of yourself as object. But you do not
need to experience yourself as an object to know you are awareness; you know
you are awareness by merit of the fact that you are aware.
Charles: I almost want to say, "aware of all objects" but that sounds like omniscience
and I am certainly not omniscient, I am simply aware of all objects, subtle and gross
that come and go in my awareness.
Isaiah: If you take yourself to be the subtle body, then no, you are not
omniscient. It has, and always will have, a limited scope of knowledge. But, if
you take yourself to be awareness, the yes, you are omniscient, so to speak. How
so? Omniscience means total knowledge of everything. Now, is this total
knowledge an object, or is it awareness? Since it is something known, it must be

an object. So total knowledge is an object that appears in you, awareness. That

means that as awareness you 'know all things', or as you more accurately put it,
you are 'aware of all objects'. If there is any object anywhere, awareness has to
be there to illumine it, so all objects are known by you, awareness. If you take
yourself to be Charles, it doesn't seem that way because Charles's mind only has
certain
knowledge. But how is Charles's mind known? By awareness. How is any
mind known? By awareness. How is the total mind, with total knowledge known? By
awareness. If you follow this logic you will understand how you are the
awareness of all objects with omniscience (total knowledge) just being another
object.
Charles: Now in vedanta, scriptures regularly say "all objects are within me," which is
still a bit puzzling because it seems to reference some sort of physical location, not to
mention omniscience beyond the jiva's awareness as mediated by the 5 sheaths, but if I
take that to mean, they are known by me (via my limited 5 sheaths) then it makes
sense.
Isaiah: The jiva has no awareness, it is inert, unconscious matter. It is simply an
instrument capable of facilitating experience. It is like a camera. If a camera is
just sitting on a table, even though it has the proper equipment to 'see' (lens, iris,
film plane etc), and even if it is pointed as something, it is not seeing anything; it
is inert, unconscious matter. Only in the presence of a conscious being is it
possible to 'see' something through the camera. It is similar with awareness and
the jiva. The nature of awareness is consciousness; that is what it is. The nature
of the jiva is unconscious matter. Consciousness has no sense organs so it cannot
see. Jiva, although it has sense organs, is inert, so it cannot see. Only when jiva
'reflects' or 'borrows' consciousness from awareness does sight (perception /
experience) occur. But since awareness is free of all experience, and the jiva
can't experience anything because it is unconscious, the experience belongs to
neither the jiva nor awareness. It is simply the interaction between them. It is
like the sun and the moon. The moon has no light of it's own, it reflects light from
the sun. However, the reflection itself belongs to neither the moon nor the sun.
It just happens when the two interact. So, to summarize: the jiva has no
awareness, it is just an unconscious instrument capable of facilitating
perception / experience when it reflects awareness.
So I assume here that by, 'the awareness of the jiva' you mean the perception /
experience of the jiva. Since this perception / experience is limited, then no, it
cannot know all objects. The perception / experience of the jiva is itself an

object. Known by what? Awareness. And since awareness is not an object, it is

indeed 'beyond' the perception / experience of the jiva. Awareness is that in
which ALL objects appear (or else how could you say they were there?), and this
is why 'all objects are in me'.
'All objects are in me' doesn't mean awareness is a physical location; it is not
spatially limited, it limitless (ananta). So why does the scripture use that phrase?
It is because Vedanta employs the methodology of superimposition and negation
(adhyaropa apavada). This means it conditionally accepts certain concepts in
order to negate them. In truth, there is only non-dual awareness. There is no
'not-self', there is no five sheaths, no jiva etc. However, it SEEMS like there is, so
it is simply unskillful teaching to merely deny their apparent existence. Hence,
Vedanta conditionally accepts and then superimposes a concept such as the 'notself' onto awareness, while giving you the logic to negate it's reality. When
Vedanta says, all objects are within me it is a temporary superimposition
designed to facilitate understanding. There cannot actually be 'in' or 'out' in nondual awareness. But when you don't know this, you erroneously think you are
'in' objects such as the mind and body. Therefore, the concept of all objects
being in you is presented to help you investigate this fallacious notion. This can
be used as a starting point in inquiry to 'separate' yourself from objects and to
see how the objects are always appearing in you and changing while you,
awareness, are always present and unchanged; you are not 'in' the objects nor
affected by them.
Charles: When saying, "they are in me" it seems to reference a physicality like, they are
in my body and i am some primordial air that is more subtle than all objects, yet there is
no way to validate this - unless it is direct knowing outside of experience?
Isaiah: The more pervasive something is, and the less gross it is, the more subtle
it is. Awareness is all-pervasive and completely non-physical so it is, as the
scriptures say, 'more subtle than the subtlest'.
Look at it like this: are you an object? No. Then you can't be 'in' an object.
Where do the objects appear? 'In' awareness, meaning they can only be said to
be there when they are illumined by awareness. Are you aware? Yes. Does any
object of experience need to validate this? No, because it is obvious that you are
aware. Awareness 'experiences' itself, meaning that, because it's very nature is
consciousness, it is always aware of itself. Awareness is aware, with or without
objects.

There is no 'direct knowing outside of experience' because knowing is itself an

experience. All knowledge occurs in the mind, including the direct knowledge, I
am limitless awareness. However, this knowledge negates the possibility that
you are the one that thinks this thought because the knower, the mind, is an
object in you, awareness. If 'knowing' is a synonym for consciousness, then it is
outside of experience. But awareness is technically not a 'knower' because from
it's 'point of view' there is nothing for it to know; there is only itself.
Charles: Moreover, I feel like my knowledge and practice of "not-self" is pretty well
established. I can negate objects appearing in me as not-self at will. From previous
reading though, it seems you first negate everything as not self, and then at some point
you see everything as the self. I have yet to wrap my head around this one.
Isaiah: Well, that is the 'final' step, so to speak. It comes as a natural result of
dedicated inquiry. The practice of the 'not-self' is a beginning step to break your
identification with objects. Through this practice of negation you see that you
cannot be an unreal, unconscious object, and that you must be awareness.
However, you have been told that awareness is non-dual. So how can there be
awareness and objects, a duality? This question prompts inquiry into whether or
not there are any actual objects. What is an object? Any object can only be the
five elements (matter), in their subtle or gross forms. So you are left with two
factors: awareness and matter. Now, if there is actual matter, it would have to
exist independently, like awareness. But it doesn't. Matter can only be said to
exist when there is awareness of it. Therefore, the existence of matter is
dependent on awareness and thus, it resolves into awareness; there is only
awareness. It is like a clay pot where there are apparently two factors: the clay,
and the name/form 'clay pot'. Is there an actual 'clay pot'? If there was, then it
would exist independently, but it does not. Upon analysis, it is seen that 'clay
pot' depends completely on clay for it's existence. Therefore, it resolves into clay.
While it appears there is a clay pot, there is only clay. It is the same with
awareness and matter. Owing to ignorance, you think you are seeing matter, but
it is actually only awareness. And in the same way that a clay pot is clay, but clay
is never a clay pot, matter is awareness, but awareness is never matter. When
you understand this, the implication is that you know all objects are you, but you
are always free of objects.
Another way to look at it is to ask where matter is known. It is known in
awareness. Is there a gap between awareness and matter? There is not. They

are non-separate. Still, it seems like there are two separate things:
consciousness and unconscious matter. Now, are there two forms of reality stuck
together or is there only one we are mistakenly seeing as two? In order to sort
this out we inquire whether or not each one exists independently? If so, then
there would be two forms of reality and nothing can be done to reconcile them:
duality would be an actuality. But as we have seen, matter does not exist
independently; it depends on awareness. Additionally, matter is not conscious
and the consciousness is. You cannot get consciousness out of unconscious
matter, try as you may. This means that the matter depends on and comes from
consciousness; upon analysis it is resolved in consciousness. The matter is
actually awareness, appearing to be unconscious owing to maya. But as I said
before, the awareness is never the matter: it is not available for objectification, it
is not bound by Charlese and space, it is unborn and undying, it is not subject to
change.
Charles: I mean, yesterday I was looking at a cat and admiring the cat nature, the
automatic movement of the tail, the awareness that it possessed limited by its own
unique form, not wanting it to be different, like getting out of the way as I was trying
use the toilet, but rather accommodating and admiring the limitations it has and
delighting in the exchange. So, I can increasingly see the beauty and intelligence in all
creation. This also to people who may be seemingly rude or ignorant, because it is
expressive of a nature that makes the totality possible, it may not be a wise expression
for their own long-term happiness, but that's how karma works, and it works, so it just
adds more intelligence and beauty to the whole creation.
Isaiah: You are starting to appreciate Isvara. This is very good. An attitude of
gratitude and acceptance helps to create a mind suited to inquiry.
Charles (from previous e-mail): So now I am just kinda being, with few thoughts or
desires; I have been pretty empty before with bouts of jivamuck in between, but I feel
this knowing won't go away. So . . .all good!
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): If it is firm knowledge, it won't go away. If it is just the
result of a sattvic subtle body, it might go away when the gunas shift. Now, since you
weren't clear about who you were in the first paragraph, I have to ask: Who is 'just
kinda being, with few thoughts and desires etc.'? Is it you, or the jiva?
Charles: I am pretty certain it is me, awareness, watching the events of life unfold,
watching the mind respond, negating unskillful reactions and just enjoying everyday

reality.
Isaiah: No, it is the jiva. Awareness cannot 'be', which implies an action or a
state; awareness just 'is', meaning it's very nature is existence. Also, awareness
has absolutely no thoughts or desires because it has no mind. True, it does
'watch' the events of life unfold (meaning all objects appear in awareness), but it
does not negate or enjoy anything, because it is action-less and free of all
experience.
Ask yourself if that which is 'just being, with few thoughts and desires' and that
which 'negates unskillful reactions and enjoys everyday existence' is you, or an
object known to you. To say that it is there, it must be an object known to you.
Therefore, it is not you. In fact, it is a jiva with a sattvic subtle body that is
utilizing knowledge to interpret it's experience, rather than it's normal samsaric
viewpoint.
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): I think it's probably a wording issue, but like I said, I'm
going to be picky. I'm not sure what you mean by 'own it (jivamuck) with selfknowledge'. Who is it that is owning what? What is there for you to own?
Charles: This was an unfortunate choice of diction on my part. The word pwn, is a
somewhat recent colloquial term from the internet, which means to completely
dominate and in this case I would say negate. So, to redefine I would say, it has become
almost crystal clear when the subtle body tries to get wrapped up in something, i.e.
reacting to a situation it doesn't like, following out a vasana etc. that I (awareness?)
can fully comprehend and negate the movement almost as it arises. It clears the system
(the body mind complex) effortlessly, with basically no residual. This fact to me is one of
the best ways to validate the truth of vedanta. For example, even if I can't "experience"
the self, the fact that self knowledge attains absolute mastery over the subtle body is
pretty strong evidence that self knowledge works and it is the truth.
Isaiah: As was shown above, it is the jiva, armed with knowledge that
'comprehends and negates', not awareness. Awareness, you, is that which knows
the comprehending and negating. It is true that this knowledge has a powerful
effect on the jiva's thinking and thus gives one faith in continued self-inquiry. I
understand that this is what you mean above.
But....Vedanta is not validated by experience (such as the clearing of the mind /
body). It is validated by inquiry, which leads to knowledge (not that it needs

validation because it is just the truth). Is the fact that you are not an object
proven by experience? No. In fact, experience tells you that you are object.
Only knowledge proves that you aren't. Is the fact that reality is non-dual proven
by experience? No. Experience tells you that reality is a duality. Only knowledge
proves it is a non-duality. This is a technical point but a very important one. If
you look to experience for validation of truth, such as the clearing of the mind
through inquiry, someCharleses it will be there someCharleses it won't. What
happens
when inquiry doesn't work to calm the mind? Does the truth that you are
the self disappear? If it depends on experience, then yes. If it depends on
knowledge, then no. That's why we are going for knowledge, and not a particular
experience, not that experience is a bad thing; it just won't lead to permanent
freedom.
Finally, it is true that you cannot experience yourself as an object. But don't you
experience yourself as being aware? Yes. So, you do 'experience' yourself insofar
as you are always aware of yourself. You are self-aware, and this does not
depend on objects. For instance, you are aware in deep sleep, with not objects
present. Now, you may argue that because there are no objects in deep sleep
that you are not aware, but this does not stand to reason. Chit, awareness or
consciousness, is synonymous with sat, existence. They are the same. So unless
you think you do not exist in deep sleep, you are definitely aware in deep sleep.
It is just your nature: you exist and you are aware. Do you not experience
yourself this way? Of course you do, it's just not a transient, unconscious object
you can point to. It's just you.
Charles: Otherwise I guess improving my subtle body is daily work and will help me
develop greater humility, accommodation, love etc. that improve the dualistic
experience.
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): It will definitely improve the dualistic experience. But
the real reason to do it is to facilitate proper inquiry, in order to gain self-knowledge.
Then, when you know who you are, experience can be what it is, and it won't matter
to you. If you want to change it, fine, if not, fine.
Charles: Experience is what it is happening, and it's beautiful. I? or Jiva? still want(s) to
create fun, interesting things in this lifeCharlese. So, Isvara is slowly allowing my
svadharma to unfold without all the excess desires and fears. It is like a calcified pipe, as
the fears and desires (calcium buildup) are negated both through awareness and then
through action/non-action (action shows the fears to be just fears, non-action shows

the desires to be simply desires) then I am more easily able to serve the macrocosmic
mind.
Isaiah: I know I mentioned this above, but action-less awareness does not
negate, which is an action. It also does not have any desires (which are objects).
Further, it is whole and complete, so there is nothing for it to desire. If the one
negating and desiring is known to you (which it is), it isn't you; it is the jiva.
Otherwise, you are right. Armed with knowledge, what you fear does not have to
be avoided and what you desire does not have to be acted on. This makes life
flow more smoothly and it puts the individual in harmony with the total.
However, my point above was that moksha is freedom FROM the experiencing
entity. If it wasn't, then freedom would depend upon certain circumstances and
thus, not be very free. If you know you are the self, and therefore free of the
experiencing entity (the jiva), then the experience of the jiva can be great or
totally terrible and you will understand it doesn't matter either way. THAT is
freedom. Granted, it's not to say that the jiva won't try to have the best
experience possible, but it will be of no concern to you, the self.
Charles: The causal body functions more effectively in a mind not bullied by fears and
desires,
Isaiah: I think you have this backwards. The mind is actually an effect of the
causal body. So, it is a mind that functions more effectively when the causal body
is not full of rajasic / tamasic vasanas, thereby creating fears and the desires in
the mind. The macrocosmic causal body, composed of the three gunas, is Isvara.
The macrocosmic subtle body is the macrocosmic mind.
Charles: .and yet, at the same Charlese as I am aware of even the macrocosmic mind
I am outside of it...
Isaiah: Yes, if by 'I' you mean awareness.
Charles: ...so I can decide whether or not to follow it, while understanding that in the
dualistic reality not following dharma and svadharma has (apparent i.e. changing,
dualistic) consequences.
Isaiah: Yes again. This is the jiva starting to understand what it means to be
awareness appearing as the jiva in the apparent reality.

Charles: I would bet that I am outside of those consequences insofar as I am apart from
experience and can completely decide how to interpret it.
Isaiah: Yes. You, awareness, are 'outside' of those consequences, meaning
unaffected. Jiva, the one that decides how to interpret experience, is affected;
the deciding faculty belongs to the jiva's subtle body. However, when jiva is
armed with knowledge of itself as awareness, as well as knowledge of Isvara (the
gunas), it is better equipped to interpret experience.
Charles (from previous e-mail): And then yesterday I negated the need for jivaman.
Isaiah (from previous e-mail): This too is good. But, let's take it one step further:
When you say 'I' negated the need for the jiva, which 'I' is talking, who is the negater?
Ironically, it is the jiva! If the jiva is negating the need for the jiva, then how do you
know this is happening? Who are you?
Charles: Okay, so I am beyond the need for the jiva. The jiva is a story built up on an
unclear mind and is without substance, though residual effects still remain, they are
quickly negated.
Looking forward to your reply!
Charles
Isaiah: If by 'unclear mind' you mean ignorance, then yes, identifying with the
story of jiva is an effect of ignorance. But what I meant above was this: when
you say you negated the need for jiva, was this negator and negation known to
you? Yes, it was. This means it was not you. You are the awareness by which the
negator and negation are known. Thinking you are the negator of the need for
jiva is ironically a continued identification with the jiva.
To summarize: you're doing good Charles. None of my comments above are
meant to be criticisms or indications that there is anything wrong with your
inquiry. It is progressing naturally. I am only trying to help you go on to the next
step. Keep it up.
Much love,
Isaiah