Dave: What you call the “localization of existence” is the principle of individuality. That exists undeniably, as me writing this and anyone reading this knows. You will get some saying “there’s no one here” or other such things, but if that’s used to deny the experience of localization then the conversation is over before it starts. That’s just silliness. 

In Vedanta, the word real has a very specific definition, which is “ever-present and unchanging.” Typically, when the individual is referred to, it means the body/mind/sense complex, and that does not fall into the category of “real” because it is a constantly changing assemblage. It’s existence or appearance is impermanent, having not existed at one point, then created, and at some future point will not exist again. In that sense alone it is not real by Vedanta’s definition, but it certainly does exist and does matter. 

The world, or the field of experience, is also created and ever changing, although the span of existence of the world is effectively infinite in comparison to the span of existence of an individual. Both, however, fall into the category of seemingly real, which means neither real nor unreal. Not real because always changing and impermanent, and not unreal because existent and experienced undeniably. 

A person with the vision of Vedanta cares about everything. The “state of the world” for them is the circumstances they find themselves in, just like the circumstances anyone finds oneself in. They do the best they can to serve the needs of the total, including others and the environment. They treat the world as themselves. They take care of themselves as needed and enjoy themselves whether they are performing a needed task, doing something they enjoy, or enduring something they do not enjoy. 

They understand that everything is perfect as it is, but that does not mean they look at all the ignorance and unnecessary suffering in the world and think, “it’s all just fine;” that’s called denial or spiritual bypassing. Everything is perfect as it is means something completely different than that. It means that inwardly they know nothing can change them, that they are whole and complete exactly as they are, that they lack for nothing, and that the nature of reality (consciousness, existence, self, me/you) is limitless wholeness (bliss). 

That means they act as someone who has put their proverbial oxygen mask on first, to use an air travel reference, and is therefore undistracted by any sense of lack or need for fulfillment. They are free to assist others to put their own masks on as well, whether that “other” is a person, an animal, a situation, or the environment. No one is required to do anything specific here, so this is not meant as a moral obligation, but rather to say that compassionate action is baked into what that individual is and represents. 

If the majority had this viewpoint, the predominant driving force in the world would not be seeking and consuming, as it is now. Whether it is seeking for survival, security, love, freedom, or anything else, a sense of fundamental lack is what drives the “state of the world” to be what it is. No one can be responsible for that widespread problem; we can only be responsible for what is in front of us. That is true whether one’s viewpoint is that I am a lone, tiny, separate, mortal individual in a giant world, or, that there is nothing other than me here. 

Evan: That definition of real is very helpful, thank you. I’m not sure what you mean by “it means they know inwardly that nothing can change them.” Are you saying that a “realized person” recognizes their true self to be unaffected by causes and conditions and can thus act in the interest of collective harmony rather than for the sole sake of fulfilling the needs of the body?” 

Dave: Yes to the first part, but I’d put the second part differently. Such a person is free to act or not as they see fit. They are not swayed by “shoulds,” by a do-gooder (virtue signaling) mentality, by the need to make themselves look a certain way (to themselves or others), or by a sense of fundamental lack and inadequacy. There is a care for the whole there, but it comes from drawing no essential distinction between themselves and anything else, rather than from an imagined or moralistic “ideal” of behavior. 

Evan: Would this be different than saying, “the realized person fulfills the needs of the flesh body without anxiety (recognizing its nature as impermanent and not self), and uses what is available to actualize harmony and good for others?” Maybe my main confusion is that your statement implies that the realized person has no need for the oxygen mask. But doesn’t anybody with a flesh body needs the oxygen mask to actualize harmony in the world of form? 

Dave: Yes, that is the gist of it, but a person in whom self-knowledge is firm doesn’t draw essential distinctions between themselves and “others.” Present circumstances primarily dictate their actions, in accordance with their highest values. Their inward sense of fullness, ease, confidence, and well-being is where their actions seem to arise from, absent the emotional/psychological lack and existential insecurity that otherwise plagues a mind hypnotized by the belief that the sense of individuality is real. Such people are “acceptable to themselves,” as Swami Dayananda often says. They “do-good,” not because they try to, but by virtue of the fact that the needs of the total effortlessly and thus “naturally” come first, as circumstances dictate. They are part of those circumstances too, that “total,” so their own needs and desires are also accounted for appropriately. They are normal people who do not identify as people per se. If they “identify,” it is as existence shining as blissful awareness; the belief in an option having been negated by knowledge. 

They need the oxygen mask, but they’ve put it on and never taken it off. They “actualize harmony in the world” just by being themselves. At the most fundamental inward level, they do not recognize anything but harmony. When they act to correct a “disharmonious” situation, they do so knowing there is no real problem, so their actions are free from the anxiety caused by unexamined and unresolved motivations. 

Whole and complete

Nothing is missing from me

Resounding, I echo

Innocence unborn

A silent perfume

An unlit sun

Everything at once

Shining undetected

Resting openly

Concealing nothing

Infinite knowledge

Formless bliss

My unannounced self

A posture of love

Of unsupported ease

Me as I am

The unopposed yes

The frictionless caress

Uncaused benevolence

Bill: I want to establish the habit of seeing that subject and object are one, and all people are the same subject I/awareness. 

Are there thought exercises to do to help my brain apprehend moment to moment that the I-ness I am must be the same as your consciousness, Brahman, and even objects, such that I can act from this assumption?

Dave: You don’t need to maintain anything in Vedanta, that is what is so darn beautiful about it. You are whole and complete exactly as you are, exclusive of nothing ever.

That means you do not need to “experience” from a non-dual perspective, hold a vision or idea in mind, or change anything about your experience as it is now – now – now – or now. It is always now because now isn’t a teeny tiny unit of time, it is your own ordinary boundary-less presence that has no qualities but seemingly lends “being” to everything that appears.

The benefit of this knowledge is the ease of being that arises from no longer depending on anything to make me what I already am (whole). This is why James often repeats the expression “take it easy.” Truly taking it easy is not maintaining a conscious thought (although that is a valid practice until it is no longer needed), but rather is a fundamental background attitude of gratefully accepting all circumstances. It really is in the background, since once it is assimilated as knowledge it is exactly like your lack of need to remember your name. Where is the freedom if you need to carry something around? 

Am I any less whole and complete when I am ignorant of my true nature? Not one bit. If I was, liberation would not be possible because it would mean some “thing” is missing. How would I ever know what that was, given there is always an unknown factor? These ideas are what ignorance is, and ignorance is 100% compatible with non-dual existence shining as awareness. 

We are incomplete only when we believe we are, but if we no longer believe we are, then our seeming limitation is acceptable to ourself too. Liberation is knowledge of my whole and complete nature, nothing more. 

Bill: It’s hard for me to tell if I have doubts about what I know or just a habit of seeing things a certain way?

Dave: You have been listening to Vedanta for a while and do understand the concepts clearly, but assimilating new ideas does not necessarily uproot the old ones. Those old ideas are just like habits in that they are the default grooves into which the mind goes until new pathways are created.

So yes, I think habit is a great way of looking at it. Changing habits is simple but not at all easy, and it takes time and attention. My approach is simply not to assume anything. Any habit, any old idea, any experience can emerge anytime. That way I am prepared as best I can be no matter what, and nothing need be avoided. That’s a lot easier than maintaining a (false) idea about how habit free I am or how pure my mind is or isn’t. Just take it as it comes, and take it easy. 

Of course, not all relationship is created equal, owing to the values of the individuals involved. Some are emotionally rewarding and mutually uplifting, while others are draining, undermining, and burdened by co-dependency and fear. In fact, the idea of relationship itself has a built in – if hidden – element of fear, because relationship implies two. Where there are two there is no way to determine what is real, since everything is relative. Where there are two, desires and aversions, as well as opinions, inevitably conflict, and compromise becomes the only solution for maintaining peace. 

This works well to a degree, especially when the biases of each individual mesh pleasantly together and allow for a peaceful and loving coexistence, but when relationship is the primary source of meaning in our lives, danger lies in wait. Inevitably, compromise leads to resentment, blame, and lack of fulfillment because – in the end – only self knowledge satisfies. Fear remains fundamental to relationship because where there are two there is the unknown, and where there is the unknown there is doubt. 

Therefore, a truly successful relationship with another is rooted in the recognition that there is no other, or that the other is yourself. At least one individual in a relationship must not distinguish between their own internal world of thought and emotion, and those of the other. Without both individuals possessing a value for that viewpoint, the relationship itself becomes more important than the well-being and contentment of each, and an unfair burden is placed on external objects (the relationship in this case) to deliver happiness. 

If one’s values align with dharma, relationship with another is non-different from relationship with oneself. Relating to one’s own rajasic and tamasic thoughts, emotions, and tendencies is no different than relating to those energies in another, and problematic conflict (internal or external) can only arise when a predominance of one or both of those gunas is captaining the ship. 

When sattva is cultivated through dedicated practice of karma yoga, jnana yoga, and devotion, no thought, emotion, or disagreement ever touches the sacred heart of a relationship where non-dual love is the highest value. Self knowledge allows relationship to flow smoothly because it makes it possible to advocate fully for oneself and the other at the very same time, since the difference is non-essential. Then the idea of personal relationship itself resolves into devotion and surrender to Ishvara, and grateful acceptance of all results.

Dave: There is no next step with regard to self knowledge. Knowing you are not the Jiva, which is knowing you are awareness, is the knowledge. 

Awareness = Existence = You, and as there is nothing other than that, so you shine as everything. Everything “else” depends on you for its existence.

Bill: Ok, I understand the logic behind that, but I will need to contemplate it more because attachment to the Jiva is still there. I will keep doing the “work” until that attachment is gone!

Dave: The thing is, there is no work to do, there is only something to know. You are awareness right now, whole and complete, and you always have been. There is absolutely nothing you can do to become what you are. There is only knowing it, which means recognizing it, as it is.

You do understand the logic clearly. It is important not to doubt that. The contemplation needed is not so much on the logic itself, but on how the logic does its work. How does the logic apply to me, right now? That is the question. The logic is flawless because it is simply expressing the fact of what I am, so the “problem” I believe still exists must lie elsewhere. 

Think of a person who wants to learn how to play the guitar. He needs to get a guitar, take lessons, implement many techniques, and gradually he will learn the guitar. He has a lot he can and must do, since he is not yet a guitar player and wants to become one. Knowledge alone is insufficient to achieve his goal. Doing is required. 

Now, think of a person who is searching for his glasses, and his friend points out “hey, they are right there in your hand.” What does that person need to do to know where his glasses are? Nothing, the glasses are already in his hand! The ignorance about the location of his glasses vanishes when knowledge of the location appears.

The moment he understands it, a thought is generated that says “lift your hand up and observe that the glasses are in your hand.” This happens automatically. Once he does that, another thought will be generated that says “put the glasses on.” This also happens automatically.

Therefore, nothing more than understanding that “the glasses are in my hand” is actually required of him, because once he understands (which is not an action), no more effort is even possible for him to find his glasses. They are no longer lost. Any “doing” after that takes place automatically, as dictated by the situation.

Bill: I notice that the Jiva is trying to pull me back into ignorance and forget who I am. Yet, I know that is not accurate because the Jiva is inert and has no power of its own. It is quite the enemy!

Dave: The Jiva is not “trying to pull you back into ignorance,” the Jiva is ignorance! It is inert yes, but you make it not inert (not really but as if) when you give it your power. 

Your enemy is yourself, the one that thinks it wants to be free but actually is perfectly content with this story of “not getting there yet.” I am not saying YOU don’t want to be free, I am saying that there is a part of you that thinks it wants to be free – a part which you feel good about – but it is the enemy in disguise because it is the very same part that tells you you are not free. 

This part is the doer of action, and it is very, very sneaky! It is also extremely proficient at its job, which is its own survival. It does not have the capacity to actually desire freedom, since it is inert, but it is a shapeshifter that just as happily assumes the role of “dedicated inquirer” as it does “stuck person who does not get it yet.” Both are perfectly fine with it, as they each fulfill the purpose of its survival. 

You (awareness) do not and cannot “want” to be free, because you just are (free). You love the idea of freedom and you crave freedom because you love yourself as you already are. Freedom and wholeness feel familiar and natural because that is you. That’s why you never want to get away from those feelings. Jiva is fine as it is too. It is only a problem when you take it – and its requisite problems – to be what you are. 

A: I feel for you. It is difficult to imagine what it is like to be under the unrelenting threat of physical harm. That environment is not conducive to a sattvic mind, but existence shining as awareness is whole and complete whether the mind is peaceful or disturbed. That means whatever happens, you are just fine. Even your disturbed mind, worn out from fitful sleep and non-stop agitation, is fine as it is. I am not suggesting that you should find the experience pleasant, that is a spiritual myth. It only means that you are unchanged by whatever you experience. This may seem like cold comfort to a suffering Jiva, but to you (awareness) it is the warm crackling fire of truth. 

There is nothing you can do to see or feel existence, because all experience is you. As long as you are experiencing, you are never feeling anything other than existence in the form of experience. The separation you feel, and the frustration, are bound together in a closed loop comprised of the unavoidable circumstances you find yourself in and the idea that the unwanted experience affects you. You can’t change the circumstances present at the moment, they will change on their own in due time, but even if you did the fear would scurry back into hiding awaiting the next unwanted circumstance. 

Knowledge, which you have expressed clearly, is that you are existence shining as awareness, but the value of knowledge for you lies in taking a stand in awareness. The effort of continually shifting attention to knowledge no matter the circumstances is what taking a stand in awareness looks like. You have to fight for it. The frustration you feel is energy, and you can make good use of it to power the sword of discrimination. As you do so, that frustration gradually transforms into confidence in your own understanding. All the energy that was previously bound up in fear driven ideas is released and available to you once again. This is discrimination in action.

Q: It is just so hard in these circumstances. When I try to apply the knowledge, my mind says “you’re just hypnotizing yourself” or “who are you to make such claims?” Sometimes the feelings are so strong that I worry I will lose the knowledge I have gained since I found Vedanta.

A: If you gained something then you could lose it, that is true. But you did not gain anything, really. You noticed something, when it was pointed out, that was there all along. The difference is everything. Vedanta is knowledge, self knowledge. As such, it is impervious to loss or destruction because it is knowledge of something that was never born and does not change. If that something was not you, you could forget it, but it is you. What you can lose, albeit temporarily, is your peace of mind, perhaps more easily than before you found Vedanta. When that happens, see it as a great blessing because it is owing to the presence of conscience. The same conscience that stops you from harming others or wracks you with guilt when you do, cares for you equally. It will not allow you to rest comfortably in ignorance. Suffering becomes a gift. 

Q: Ok I get it, that helps. The worry is less already when you say that, but I know it will come back. Is there anything I can do about that?

A: Yes, keep using that sword. Take a stand in awareness, and with time it will become natural to view experience neutrally. And, keep the karma yoga attitude of gratitude in mind always, every day. Experience is a freely given gift of Isvara, over which I have no control. Why worry? From that viewpoint, it is OK if worry comes and it is OK if it goes. You are always OK, so what’s the difference? Notice where you are in this scenario. You are worried about forgetting when your attention is driven outward by fear towards the objects in your mind, specifically the thought, “what if I forget this?” You are the knower of the fear thought, which will pass soon enough, so what to do?

Shift your attention to your ever present self and allow yourself to relax. That is taking a stand in awareness. Do yourself a favor and make the distinction between yourself and objects once and for all. Settle that with yourself, and recognize what it actually means: you are unaffected by anything that ever happens. In a very real way, that is the only knowledge you require, because the implied meaning is “I am” which is not subject to remembering and forgetting. “I am” never began. Prior to Vedanta, the intellect does not appreciate that “I am” is me, owing to the conviction that something is lacking. That ignorance never interfered with “I am.” Think of any experience in your memory, and you will notice the unmistakable presence of “I am” shining brightly. Ignorance was never a problem for you. Once you know that “I am” is you, and that no object ever was, it is game over for seeking and game on for guna management.

Q: Wow that is awesome. There is no problem then, even when I’m struggling. I think the idea that I can lose the knowledge actually came from my “failures” with other spiritual teachers and teachings. I got used to failing! They sound like they are speaking about the same thing but somehow they leave out the importance of “I am.”

A: Yes. Most teachers and teachings do make a big deal about the “I am,” but “I am” is merely an experience to them. They cannot admit that because they do not recognize it. Their knowledge is not actually self knowledge but dualistic experiential knowledge. It looks like self knowledge because “I am” is taken to be knowledge, but it is not. “I am” is beyond knowledge and experience. It is you, as you are. This is a very subtle point, and unless it is understood, there is no freedom from experience. 

Discovering “I am” does solve half the problem, which is better than nothing, but it does not address or incompletely addresses the other half: the world. The world, which is another word for experience, implies the presence of Jiva (and in turn, Isvara) to which fear and desire exclusively belong. When the world is not accounted for, Jiva is left out in the cold to fend for itself without any tools to do so. To be sure, isolating “I am” as myself is an essential start, but that is only the beginning of the process.

We all do what we can to feel OK in the world, and managing the energies of life is how we do it. Clinging to the experience of “I am” without knowledge is an inherently fear driven approach, disguised as a spiritual identity. It perpetuates a dualistic relationship to life by reinforcing the illusion of separation. Vedanta is a toolbox of thoughts that demonstrate non-dual thinking from the point of view of fullness. The fun begins when guna management shifts from being a means of coping with life or getting what I want, which are the only options available from a mindset of lack, to self expression.  

The aphorism “someone who enjoys their work never works a day in their life” comes to mind here. The “work” of a student of Vedanta is joyful because not only has the goal already been “achieved”, but duality – including the sublime and the mundane, the pleasurable and the painful – itself has resolved into “me.” There really is no need anymore to distinguish between the real and the unreal, Jiva and Isvara, or any pair of opposites. I am both and neither because “I am.” 

If these words are inspiring it is because they ring true. If they ring true it is because they are yours. They contain no practical implications for the self, because as self you are beyond implications. However, they benefit Jiva immeasurably by relieving it of the burden of acting for results. There really is only one result we desire, and that is the removal of desire and fear. The result of that is a contented life, ease of being, and the end of second-guessing myself. Is everything going to work out? Will I be OK? Take a stand in awareness no matter what and that question will never arise again. 

Dave: The viewpoint of Vedanta is that there is no second thing. That does not mean that there is no apparent second thing, in fact all we experience is duality if we believe we are looking “out” of a subject “at” objects. The logic of Vedanta reveals that that is not the case, and that there is no actual boundary at any “point” between you and anything. What we see as duality is how “non-duality” appears. As such, there is no second thing to act, whether an act would be deemed evil or loving.

So what actually is going on then when atrocities from the smallest to the greatest are committed? From where would malevolence arise? Vedanta says the cause is ignorance of my nature as limitless existence consciousnesses; or, the non-appreciation of my unimpeded whole and completeness. Lacking this recognition, I “become” a separate individual in an infinite universe over which I have no control, and the cycle of samsara begins. The moment I see others as “not self,” they become less important than me – even if that happens unconsciously. In that ignorance, all manner of violence becomes possible.

Yet while the ignorance principle is eternal, since where there is something that can be known it is always possible not to know it, “individual” subjective ignorance is not. It is subject to removal by self knowledge, so while it is beginning-less, it is not endless. The shift from self ignorance to self knowledge is therefore not an actual shift, but rather a recognition that self ignorance was always merely a belief. Existence, on the other hand, which is consciousness (you), cannot be removed because it is formless and limitless.

With regards to your question, this means that while all is only God, ignorance of that is not only possible but hardwired into human beings as apparent individuals. This inevitably, albeit seemingly, creates duality until ignorance is removed by knowledge. God is not ignorant, but God is also not a person with likes and dislikes, and so is “bound” by its nature to deliver the results of action impersonally.

As there are not two creations, so there must not be two creators. As that creator/creation is only God, it must be the intelligent, energetic, and material cause of itself. If you take God’s perspective, nothing is happening because there is only God. Water makes no distinction between an ocean, a raindrop, or sewage. In all forms, water remains pure and seems to take on different forms, even though it is always only water. From the perspective of ignorance only form is recognized, but from God’s perspective there is only water.

This perspective doesn’t inoculate us against the pain caused when unwanted experiences occur, no matter the cause, but it does change the subjective context in which those occur. It does this by shifting our source of satisfaction from outward to inward. After all, if there is something which is completely out of our control, what use is worry? If we are worried about what we cannot control, that worry is supported – consciously or unconsciously – by a belief that things can be other than they are. This is never true, but the one and only way to see this is to look at life from God’s perspective. This perspective, and our non-separation from God, implies that the “enlightened” viewpoint is to discover and claim its perspective as your very own.

No one chooses ignorance. It isn’t even an option. Someone without self knowledge sees only form and is not aware of the presence of water. Therefore, they are at the mercy of their compulsions towards or away from form (ideas, objects and experiences) and unwittingly subject to the entire range of behaviors from the most loving to the most abhorrent cruelty. On the other hand, someone in whom self knowledge obtains, recognizes their desires and aversions but is not compelled to act on them when they run counter to Dharma. Dharma is a priority for them, not because they are do-gooders or bound to dharmic action, but out of love for themselves and the whole – between which they make no distinction. They no longer have any compelling reason to perform adharmic action. Those who do not realize what they are, are ignorant (not unaware, but ignoring) and thus capable of all manner of atrocity until their ignorance is removed.

Dave: Great question. Freewill belongs to you, existence shining as awareness, not to the person represented by the body-mind-sense complex. That person does not have freewill because he is not a conscious entity, but rather an inert object – a fully automated process – that is known to you. You have no control over what arises in your mind, but since you are not that process you are free to respond as you see fit to whatever arises. You have an intellect for the purpose of determining the appropriate response. The question becomes whether you use your intellect in service of your worldly desires or of the desire for self knowledge.

Q: But aren’t my mind and intellect also part of the automated program that I have no control over whatsoever?

Dave: You don’t have control over the conditioning or the content of thought generated in your mind, but you have the capacity to reshape even that by virtue of your discriminating faculty (intellect) and your response to what appears. What is cannot be altered, but freewill is future facing, not past. You respond to every situation for the benefit of your future self, even as the present situation has already played out. Doing is done before you have anything to say about it, but as the action-less self evident witness, the intellect affords you the opportunity to apparently influence the future by your attitude and interpretation of experience.

Your mind does not enjoy this same freedom. As with everything else created, it is subject to the ever shifting winds of change. However, the intellect does enjoy the unique capacity to know you as its very own self, and to recognize your signature intelligence, benevolence and stability amidst the unending flux of creation. How? Because it is you. The uncontrollable unstable creation is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is governed by the very same unchanging benevolent intelligence that arises in your own intellect when the illusion of duality is pierced. The key to freedom is aligning yourself with that intelligence.

Q: It sounds like you’re suggesting that we not only have freewill, but the power to create our own reality.

Dave: In a manner of speaking, yes. Remember, the topic here is you, not some external reality. That means that everything that appears – including Isvara – is only you. Your mission, if you choose to accept it (😉), is to understand what that means. The evidence has all been disclosed, all witnesses have testified, and you are the judge and jury. Non-dual thinking, Vedanta, is observation, inquiry, and analysis of what you are and how you function. Not once are we ever referencing anything outside of you.

Therefore, look closely at your own experience. You know that your mind and senses can deceive you, and yet you also know that your mind and senses are the only means you have to experience the world. The conclusions that can be drawn from this challenging scenario are many. Spiritual bypassing, nihilism, and the idea that there is no freewill are tempting options to the fearful and unsophisticated part of ourself that seeks security at all costs. However, if your interest is in understanding reality as it is, then even your most closely held conclusions mean nothing to you. Your well-being and self worth are tethered elsewhere, so you are free to navigate life as you see fit.

Do you have freewill if what happens is not up to you? Can you create your own reality if there’s no freewill? The answers would seem to be no. Yet if you meditate to quiet your mind, and contemplate the teachings of Vedanta to understand it, can that lead to a greater sense of well-being and dispassion? Can you eat sensibly and workout regularly, and thereby improve your quality of life? Can you recognize that your lingering anger towards a person or situation is actually coming from yourself, and find a way to heal that suffering? The answer to all these questions is yes. It all depends on your perspective.

That is all you really need to know about freewill with respect to your own well being, and all we really care about in life is our well-being, contentment and satisfaction. If you conclude there is no freewill, you still have the apparent freewill I described above. If you conclude that you create your own reality, you are still subject to whatever happens, even the parts you would have preferred didn’t happen. Drawing conclusions is the nature of the intellect, but the conclusions that are drawn are only worthwhile to the degree that they serve you. If your desire is to be free from suffering and ignorance, then conclusions serve you when they point you to your ever-full nature as existence/consciousness, and not when they don’t.

Vedanta exists for the same reason that there is freewill. How would something like Vedanta, a means of knowledge to remove ignorance and gain self knowledge, even appear were it not for the self evident nature of consciousness? It wouldn’t because without you, existence shining as awareness, who would know the world?

Q: It just hit me that even my initial question had an obvious answer. Not an answer exactly, but I mean that the question implied the answer, me! I am the answer because even if I couldn’t resolve the logical discrepancy myself, I knew there was one. That means I am already free from paradox. Is that what you meant before when you said the topic is me?

Dave: That’s a great insight, and yes, that is exactly what I was pointing to. Remembering that you are the topic cuts right through anything. It engenders mature, independent, and nimble thinking because the real topic of any inquiry is always what you value most. Then whether you are trying to resolve a profound spiritual paradox, or a charged disagreement with a spouse, your touch will be light and free and any conclusions you come to will be in service to the greatest good.