Ramji, I’m writing to ask a question that’s been on my mind for quite a long time, and which I haven’t found an answer for. It arises partly from the Mandukya Upanishad—about the relationship between Brahman and Jiva.
As I understand it, Brahman (pure consciousness) pervades everything, having no specific locus or identity. The Mandukya teaches that we are Turiya—the witness consciousness (sakshi)—and not the waker, dreamer, or deep sleeper.
Ramji: Brahman and Jiva are non-different from each other and non-different from Turiya, the witnessing awareness.
Here’s where I’m confused: if I am consciousness (which of course I know I am) —without location or identity—why do I seem continuously linked to this one body, waking each day as the same “David”? If consciousness is all-pervasive, why is my experience not distributed across all beings? Thank heavens it’s not! — but I can’t grasp what maintains or seems to maintain this particular association.
Ramji: Operative word is “seem” in line two above . The key idea to this question lies in the idea of limiting adjuncts (upadhis). Maya is the upadhi that makes every name and form seem to be different from consciousness.
1. Consciousness is not “in” the body; rather, the body and mind appear in consciousness. It illumines all experience impartially.
2. However, due to avidyā (ignorance) and the functioning of the subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra), consciousness seems to be localized — as though it were confined to a single perspective. This “I”-sense (ahaṅkāra) arises where consciousness identifies with the gross, subtle or causal body.
3. The “link” you speak of — waking each day as “David” — is nothing but the continuity of the subtle body’s causal impressions (vasanas/ saṃskāras). They persist in the causal body (kāraṇa śarīra) during sleep and fructify again on waking, maintaining the sense of personal continuity.
4. From the standpoint of consciousness itself, no linkage actually exists. Consciousness is never bound, never connected to any one body; it merely illumines whichever mind-body happens to be active, just as space seems to take the shape of the pot enclosing it, though it remains undivided.
So, the appearance of “me, this person” is the operation of the mind-body mechanism under ignorance. The experience of localization continues even after realization, but the belief in being localized dissolves.
In deep sleep or in samādhi, when the mind is resolved, the seeming localization ceases — and yet you, the consciousness, remain.
Reflection Teaching
When I look in a mirror, I see the frame, the glass, and my reflected face. The frame and glass belong to the mirror, but the face is mine. Similarly, objects belong to the world, but the awareness of them belongs to me. Everything depends on me, is born in me, rests in me, and dissolves into me. I need no external support. This is true for everyone irrespective of the differences appearing due to the upadhi.
David: As I understand it, karma is inert yet functions as the operating mechanism or program for each jiva, impersonal yet specific. Consciousness animates this process (or appears to), enabling the jiva to experience life according to its karma. Am I right so far?
Yes.
So, what exactly keeps this sakshi—which I know myself to be—tethered to this particular jiva?
It isn’t tethered. Ignorance of the original unborn limitlessness of the non-dual witness awareness seemingly tethers it.
Is it because what I experience is reflected, rather than original, consciousness?
Yes. The gunas (matter) are seemingly embedded in consciousness so every conscious entity looks different, even though the consciousness required to operate their karma is also required to operate youe karma. Karmas are different because no two conscious entities are born at the same time and place. What you experience has nothing to do with you, the sakshi. It is an object. The sakshi never becomes an object. Objects are always remote and unreal.
Or is it simply due to lingering identification with the “David” jiva?
No. Because Jiva is actually universal existence shining as consciousness, Isvara 1, original pure existence shining as conscious plus Maya, ignorance. When you look at your husband don’t you see the same awareness as yours ? If the answer is no, then you are associating his thoughts, not with his consciousness. Ignorance causes “lingering” identification. It normal to identify but only for a minute until you bring the teaching “I am awareness” to mind.
Or is it the incomprehensible play of maya at work?
Yes, but Maya is comprehensible if you understand it as an upadhi for all conscious entities.
I hope I’ve expressed the question clearly enough Ramji, and I’d very much appreciate your insight when you have time.
With love and thanks,
It was easy for me because it was well-expressed. Appreciation is always appreciated.
Love,
Ramji
