Dear James,
Thank you so much for your patience in responding to my basic and sometimes unclear questions. The question of who the knower is has been confusing me for a while and I believe I’m understanding the concepts much more clearly after your message.
I have read Tattva Bodh and had some teaching exchanges about the jiva, but I clearly didn’t understand it as well as I thought at the time, or maybe simply needed to hear it more to reinforce my understanding.
After reading your reply several times, I also listened to the existence teaching from the Bhagavad Gita videos again, and read some satsangs on the difference between the eternal and non-eternal jiva.
I still have a doubt about what reflected Consciousness/Self refers to, ie where it fits into the system. Is it another way of referring to what gives a sentient being its “I”-sense or impression of existing (see 9 & 10 below)? Is this why the Eternal jiva is not also reflected Consciousness, because although it is made up of the Self and Maya it has no individual sense of existence which it can confuse as its identity? In other words, when the Eternal jiva “says” “I”, it encompasses all “I”s, which it knows as only one “I”, itself?
James: Yes. When the Self is associated with a Subtle Body, the “I sense” appears. The “I sense” is not the “I,” which exists in its own right. The “I” is unborn so it is not worried about existing. It is existence itself. But because the identified Self associates with a body, it assumes that it exists in its own right and worries about change/death, whereas its existence is borrowed from existence itself. When it separates itself from the body in its understanding it discovers that it is existence/consciousness itself and its worries cease.
From what I’ve written below, have I understood your statements when you say: “A” jiva is three things: Original pure existence/consciousness, a material reflecting medium, which we call a Subtle Body, and which people generally call the mind, and finally the reflection itself”; and “The reflected self is not (to be) taken from its own perspective because it is non-eternal, not eternal as you say”?
James: Yes. The reflection lasts as long as the reflecting media is present. When karma that generated the reflecting media stops, the reflection stops, which in samsaric terms means that “you” die, which is not possible because you are the unborn immortal Self even when you think you are born and mortal.
This is how I would summarise my understanding so far.
- Self / Consciousness = limitless, non-dual, whole, complete, ordinary awareness
- Isvara = Self + Maya (sattva + rajas + tamas) = macrocosmic gross, subtle and causal bodies
- Eternal jiva = Isvara = (macrocosmic) reflecting medium
No. Eternal jiva = unborn consciousness/existence.
- Non-eternal (personal) jiva = Self + Maya, apparently identifying with a microcosmic reflecting medium (single gross-subtle body, ie body + sense (perceiver)-mind (feeler)-intellect (thinker) complex
No. Non-eternal jiva is purely a conceptual entity. An idea that happens when Maya hides the Self.
- Non-eternal jiva says, erroneously: “I am the doer, thinker, perceiver, knower etc” (Erroneous because 1: Isvara [Self + Maya] does, thinks, perceives, knows etc, through the instrument / filter of the non-eternal jiva; and because 2: “I” as subject belongs to the Self not to the non-eternal jiva who is identifying as the subject of “its” actions etc)
Yes.
- Eternal jiva “knows” that “I am not the doer, thinker, perceiver, knower etc”
If it is not under the spell of Maya. If it is, it thinks it is a doer/enjoyer subject to birth and death
- Eternal jiva “knows” that the non-eternal jiva is inert, borrowing its consciousness and apparent reality (“I”-sense) from Consciousness / the Self.
Yes. If it’s ignorance is removed. I think you are assuming that there are actually two jivas. The two jiva teaching is only to aid in discrimination. There is only one jiva i.e. the Self. Ignorance make it think it is non-eternal.
- Eternal jiva is freed of the notion that it is the non-eternal jiva; knows that it is dependent on the Self for its existence.
Yes, to the first half of the statement, no to the second because the eternal jiva is existence itself and not dependent on anything. It is free of all objects.
- Non-eternal jiva (reflected Consciousness), before self-realization = “I”-sense as ego entity, identified with the subtle body; Self apparently obscured by Maya; mithya is it; “bliss is in objects”
Yes.
- Non-eternal jiva (reflected Consciousness), after self-realization = “I”-sense as the Self / Consciousness; Self apparently revealed by a sattva-purified intellect and knowledge; not deluded by the obscuring power of Maya; discrimination between sathya and mithya; I am bliss.
Yes.
Thank you very much for your time! It makes a big difference to have you answer my questions as they really reflect my current understanding or lack of it, and so your answer helps untangle particular points that have been problematic for me.
You are very welcome, Danielle. Your understanding is good, just a few semantic issues.
Love,
James
