End Of Knowledge

Tag: non-duality

  • Existence Equals Consciousness

    Student: I am having trouble understanding how existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam) are the same thing. They appear to be different.

    Vishnudeva: The “difference” between existence and consciousness is only a seeming difference “created” by the apparent manifestation of rupa, form (viz. objects). But if upon investigation form is found to be unreal (mithya/asat) then any difference “created” by form is equally unreal. In other words, to answer the question of how there is no difference between existence and consciousness, you must first question your assumption that the appearance of objects is actually dividing reality (you/atman/brahman) into the categories of “existence” and “consciousness” in the first place. If form is not real, then no real division is being created between existence and consciousness. 

    But the manifestation of form as an actual entity, independent of its cause, is impossible. Why? Because if a form has manifested, then it manifested from a cause that was already existent (because nowhere in life do we see anything manifesting from nothingness). And if the form latently pre-existed in the cause, then its manifestation is not a novel creation different from the cause, but the cause itself assuming an incidental form. Because the incidental form, upon analysis, is false (seeing as it is just the cause in a different form), then nothing was created. If nothing was created, then no difference was created between existence and consciousness. There is only the appearance of difference. 

    Once again, we return to the faithful clay pot metaphor. The pot-form is not itself a thing, but rather an incidental, false appearance of the clay. And if the pot-form is false, then any change or division it seems to impart to the clay is also false. So, no real division is created in the clay by the appearance of the pot-form. To be clear, Vedanta is not denying the experience of objects, such as a pot-form. But it is certainly denying that forms are actually real. And by denying that forms are actually real, Vedanta denies that any appearances created by forms—such as the seeming division between existence and consciousness—are actually real. 

    Something to consider: Speaking from the empirical perspective (vyavaharika), the experience of the clay-pot form is false. But is the entire experience of the clay pot false? No, because even though you are undeniably experiencing the falseness of the pot-form, you are simultaneously experiencing the reality of the clay underlying the false pot-form. You must admit that the the pot-form “is” (meaning, “it exists”) because it is experienced. But the “isness” or existence of the pot-form does not belong to the pot-form itself, because the pot-form cannot exist independently of the clay. Instead, the existence of the pot-form is really the existence of the clay itself.

    So, while on the one hand you are experiencing the mithya (false) pot-form, you are also experiencing the satya (real, meaning, “empirically real”) clay. The satya clay and the mithya pot are, for lack of a better description, experienced “side-by-side.” In other words, from the standpoint of experience, the two are inseparable. Thus, it is through understanding alone that we can see the mithya pot and know that we are in fact experiencing the satya clay. 

    Taking this a step further, consider the experience of clay itself. Clay, as a form (object appearing in consciousness), is false (for reasons you already know). But is the entire experience of the clay false? No, because even though the clay-form is false, you nonetheless experience that the clay “is”; it exists. But does the “isness”/existence of clay belong to the clay itself? No, because “isness” exists uniformly throughout all objects. Particular objects come and go but “isness” in general remains. Hence, “isness” cannot belong to any particular object. This means that in the experience of the clay, you are experiencing the mithya clay as well as the satya “isness” i.e existence in general. But when you negate the actuality of the mithya clay, then you understand that all you are really experiencing is the satya “isness.” 

    Student: But wait, how can I experience myself as “isness”? If I say I am experiencing “isness” then doesn’t that mean “isness” is an object, and hence, not my self?  

    Teacher: You are only experiencing objects as objects. But as previously mentioned, “isness” i.e. existence is not an object. It is a “state” of being, meaning the fact that objects are existent, rather than non-existent. Speaking of non-existence, when you are experiencing the clay, are you experiencing your self as non-existent? 

    Student: No. 

    Teacher: So, the clay “is” and your self “is.” This “isness” is present in both the subject and the object. But when existence is not itself an object with qualities, then how does the “isness” of the subject (viz. consciousness free of qualities) differ from the “isness” of the object? Or, in other words, how can you differentiate your “isness” from the “isness” of the objects?  

    Student: I can’t. “Isness”/existence is one. The seeming difference only belongs to the insubstantial forms. 

    Teacher: Good. Another question: How can you say that you exist? 

    Student: Because I am conscious. 

    Teacher: Correct. But notice that you are not actively “being conscious” in order to exist. You exist for the very fact that you are obviously, self-evidently, and effortlessly, conscious.  

    Student: True. 

    Teacher: Then how is that consciousness different from your existence? When you have investigated the nature of the mind and discerned that it is merely an object appearing in consciousness, then you have seen that the mind (and by extension, thought) cannot establish the existence of the self that is aware of the mind. When the mind cannot establish your existence, then what is left?  

    Student: If the mind is false, and therefore cannot establish my existence, then consciousness is the reality of my self. 

    Teacher: So, if 1) you are consciousness, 2) you exist, then how is consciousness different from existence? You have already seen that existence cannot belong to the forms themselves, so there is only one other option—consciousness. It is not that existence comes out of consciousness, or that consciousness comes out of existence. In reality, they are the exact same thing. Try to find a difference between the two that is not dependent on the appearance of an insubstantial, false form, in the mind.  

    Here is another way to think of it: The word “exists” is a verb that means, “to have objective reality or being.” But if we say, “the tree exists,” is the tree performing some action to either create or maintain its “isness”? No. If it be argued that existence is an action, then what is the agent of that action? If such an agent exists, then upon what is the agent’s existence based? Is there then a second agent that maintains the first agent’s existence, while the first agent maintains the existence of the tree? If that be the case, then there could a third agent to maintain the existence of the second agent, and a fourth agent to maintain the existence of the third agent, ad infinitum. Hence, existence is not what something does; existence is what something “is”; existence is the nature of reality that is not dependent on objects or action.

    So, rather than saying, “the tree exists,” it would be more accurate (though slightly awkward) to say, “Existence is tree-ing.” In other words, the existence itself that must have necessarily existed prior to the tree-form is now appearing as a tree-form. Otherwise, we are left with the logical conundrum of predicating the existence of existence on the appearance of forms that we would not even be acknowledging if they did not first exist as existence itself. 

    Look at the forms. Notice that they exist. Then notice that the existence of the forms (the fact that they are, rather than are not) is not produced by the forms themselves, nor does it belong to the forms. A tree, a rock and a man all equally “are.” This means that forms have existence, but existence itself has no form.  

    Now, ask yourself: What else is existent, but neither belongs to, or is produced by, forms? Or, what else exists but is not an object? 

    Student: Easy. Consciousness. 

    Teacher: Now, considering that both consciousness and existence are formless non-objects with no defining characteristics, how then can you establish a difference between the two? Only if consciousness and existence are objects with characteristics can you distinguish one from the other. But no such basis for establishing a difference between the two actually exists. Trying to differentiate existence from consciousness is like trying to differentiate space from space. 

    Speaking of space: When a clay pot appears in space, it seems to divide space into “inside space” and “outside space.” But in reality, space remains undivided because the space “inside” the pot is the exact same space as the space “outside” of the pot. There only seems to be a division because of the pot. In the same way, the appearance of forms makes you look like “inside consciousness” and “outside existence.” But the seeming difference between “existence” and “consciousness” is merely created by the false appearance of the form, because formless existence and formless consciousness are the exact same thing. So, once again, try to find a difference between the two. 

    Try to find consciousness without existence, and existence without consciousness. By the law of agreement, if consciousness and existence are always experienced together, with absolutely no break or variation, then they are not two different things being experienced simultaneously. Instead, they are the exact same thing. For instance, when you experience fire, you invariably experience heat and light. Remove heat and light, and there is no fire. Heat and light, then, are the very nature of fire. You cannot start a fire to create light, but not heat because they are the same thing. 

    Similarly, you never experience consciousness apart from experience, or vice versa. Remove existence and there is no consciousness (because consciousness itself exists). Remove consciousness, and there is no existence (because who or what exists apart from consciousness?). Can you imagine being conscious without existing? Can you imagine existing without being conscious? No. So, if existence and consciousness are invariably present together, and neither has distinguishing characteristics, how can it be shown that the two are different?

    To recap: The nature of the self is existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam). Existence and consciousness are the exact same “thing.” But when the mind is present, it seems to divide the self into a conscious subject that knows existent objects. But, upon investigation, the mind is a false appearance. Therefore, the division created by the mind between consciousness “inside” and “existence” outside, is also false.

  • Maya Does Not Exist

    Billy: Who is affected by Maya? Is it the Ego or the Atman?

    V: Maya does not exist. Gaudpada, Advaita Vedanta’s first known teacher, makes the non-existence of maya explicitly clear in his Mandukya Karika at verse 4.59. I will include the commentary on this verse by Shankaracharya, Vedanta’s greatest teacher, for emphasis:  

    “The entities that are born are thus not born in reality (meaning: Though the universe and its inhabitants appear in Atman, they never actually come into existence). Their birth is like the appearance of a thing through maya (magic). Just as things produced by magic have no reality, the universe has no reality.” 

    Shankara’s commentary: 

    “(An objection is raised): Then you are, in effect, admitting that maya is an existent entity (by saying that it creates the universe).”

    “Answer: Not so. As the verse above says, ‘sa cha maya na vidyate,’ meaning, ‘ And that maya does not exist.’ The idea is that maya is a term relating to something non-existent (because the creation never actually comes into being. It only appears to do so.)”

    From this verse and the subsequent commentary, you can see that the term “maya” does not refer to a thing in and of itself. Instead, it is a term indicating that the appearance of the universe is false. Though Atman alone exists, it inexplicably appears as something other than Atman. This is maya.

    For a better understanding of maya, you can look at the traditional Vedanta parable of the rope snake: You are walking by a well on a dark night. You look down and we see a snake coiled by the well bucket. You freeze in terror. But, after several moments, the snake does not move or make a sound. You work up the courage to examine the snake more closely, only to find that it is not a snake at all, but a coil of rope attached to the well-bucket.

    In this story, a real rope is mistaken to be an unreal snake, similar to the way that the real Atman is mistaken to be an unreal universe. Here, you may be tempted to ask, “But how does this mistake occur? And to whom does it occur?”

    But why ask these questions? In the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, you never bother to ask why you saw the snake. And once you recognize the rope, you merely dismiss the appearance of the snake as unreal and move on. For all intents and purposes, the imagination of the snake occurred to you, but this is no problem because you know that the snake never existed in the first place. Hence, it was no real problem. No further inquiry, therefore, is required regarding the nature of the illusory snake or how it came to appear.

    Why? Because to investigate the “existence” of this illusory snake is to essentially ask the non-sensical question, “How did this non-existent snake come to exist?” A snake that is non-existent in the beginning (before it is imagined on the rope), and once again non-existent in the end (after the real rope is is recognized), is, logically, also non-existent in the middle (while it is being imagined).

    To explain further: Before the snake is imagined, it is utterly non-existent. And a non-existent entity, such as the child of a woman who cannot bear children, by definition, cannot exist, because existence and non-existence are of opposite natures, like light and darkness. Sure, this non-existent child can be imagined to exist, but this imagination does not bring the non-existent child into actual existence (because the child is just and idea in the mind). So, the existence of the snake is ruled out from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the snake is imagined and thought to be existent. But, upon inquiry, it is seen that the snake is not a snake, but a rope. Once again, the snake has been recognized as non-existent. If the snake does not exist in the first place, and does not exist in the end, then it did not exist in the middle while it was being imagined.

    So, in the case of the non-existent snake, it does not come into actual existence when it appears in the mind. The snake also does not come into existence in the rope because the rope ever remains a rope. Nor is the snake produced by the rope, because there is no potential for a snake within the rope (rope fibers cannot produce snakes). Neither does the snake does not come into existence through an interaction of the mind with the rope, because as previously mentioned, the snake neither exists in the mind or in the rope. Combining the two, then, will not magically create a real snake.

    When this is the case, the question of, “How did this snake come to exist?” becomes irrelevant, because the snake never actually came into existence. Similarly, the question of, “Why is there maya (the appearance of the universe) and who is affected by this maya?” is irrelevant because maya, illusion, is, by definition, non-existent. For instance, if you have a dream that you are abducted by aliens, do you try investigate the nature of those dream aliens upon waking?

    Billy: No. I simply dismiss them as non-existent. But unlike a dream about aliens, I do not know that maya is non-existent.

    V: Then, it is you who is affected by maya.

    Billy: But you said that I am Atman, who is unaffected by maya.

    V: If you know that you are Atman, who is unaffected by maya, then why are you asking about a maya that neither exists nor affects you?

    Billy: Ah, I am getting the picture now.

    V: Yes, you are. But right now, you are letting the tail of maya wag the dog of Brahman. You’ve got the situation backwards. You are trying to use the “rules” of the illusory maya world to understand the illusory maya world, when you should be trying to understand the real Atman. And when you understand Atman—or more importantly, that you are Atman—then the false, non-existent nature of maya is revealed. Then, you see that you, Atman, were never affected by maya in the first place. The entire idea of being deluded by illusion is seen to be part of the illusion itself. It was a problem that never existed. It only existed because you thought it existed.

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • The Elephant Mind

    Hello Vishnudeva,
    When I meditate, my mind gets distracted and unwanted thoughts come into play. I can’t clear my mind and make it completely empty.

    V: That’s okay, because in Advaita Vedanta understanding one’s self is the purpose of meditation, rather than getting rid of thoughts. And this is a good thing, because as you have seen, it is virtually impossible to force the mind to stop thinking. In fact, efforts made to willfully restrain the mind lead to frustration and inner tension, both of which, ironically, are inimical to the practice of meditation itself.

    So, try not thinking of meditation as actively managing the mind. Instead, think of the mind as a tank of muddy water that you are passively observing. Here, the mind is the water, and the dirt floating in the water is thought. And trying to coerce the mind into not thinking is like trying to get dirt to settle to the bottom of a tank of water by throwing in more dirt. Why? Because the desire to clear the mind, and the mental efforts made to do so, are just more thoughts. They only further muddy the water of the mind.

    But when you simply observe the mind without judgement, it will, like an undisturbed tank of muddy water, settle and become clear on its own. Let the thoughts arise and resolve of their own accord, doing your best not to judge them, dwell on them, or contemplate their meaning. And when you inevitably get “hooked” by one of the mind’s alluring ideations or distracting anxieties, then just watch the mind judge, deliberate, reminisce, worry and ponder, and wait to see if it settles down, rather than stirring the mind up further by trying to force it to stop. If the mind clears up on its own, then good. If not, then simply watch it in all of its muddy glory until the allotted meditation time is over, and then “try” again next time. When you sit to meditate in the same place and at the same time everyday, your mind will eventually get the hint about what you are trying to do, and it will become more cooperative. And once you are able to allow the mind clear of its own accord through passive observation, you are ready to use meditation for its intended purpose, which is self inquiry.

    But this approach, because it requires immense amounts of diligence and patience, rarely comes easily to people. So, when a meditator is not yet able to allow their mind to settle on its own through passive observation, Vedanta offers another option: the practice of japa. With japa, the meditator interjects a thought into their mind—in this case, a sacred mantra—and then focuses all of their attention on that that thought, to the exclusion of all other thoughts. The other thoughts are still present in the mind, no doubt, but because the meditator is occupied with the mantra alone, their attention remains steady, focused and undivided, rather than flitting hither and thither from thought to thought.

    Here is a common story that explains the methodology of japa. In India, there are elephant trainers called mahouts. And when these mahouts would parade their elephants through the village, the elephants would cause chaos as they walked the streets with their trunks swinging about, knocking over vendor’s stands and snatching bananas and coconuts.

    Now, in order to stop the elephants form running amok in the village, did the mahouts restrain the elephants and wrestle them into submission? No, because it is impossible for a man to overpower an elephant by force. Instead, the mahouts gave the elephants something to do—they gave the elephants a stick to hold with their trunks. And when the elephants had a stick to hold on to, their trunks were properly occupied and they no longer felt the need to swing them around causing trouble.

    Your mind is like an elephant that must be coaxed into behaving, because it cannot be forcibly overpowered. The swinging trunk of the elephant is the process of your mind thinking, and the bananas and coconuts in the vendor’s stalls are the various thoughts. The mantra that you focus on in meditation is the stick. And by giving the elephant mind a stick to play with, the trunk of thinking is occupied. When the trunk of thinking is properly occupied, it no longer feels the needs to swing about wildly, continuously dividing its attention in an attempt to find newer, juicer or more interesting bananas and coconuts (thoughts). By directing the mind’s attention towards one single thought, all attention towards other thoughts is withdrawn, by default. The thoughts are there, but you are no longer paying attention to them. Considering that the mind cannot be compelled to stop thinking, this is the more sensible approach to meditation. And by training the mind with japa to not give needless attention to frivolous thoughts, you will be preparing yourself to meditate by passively observing the mind. Because “observing the mind” is really just allowing thoughts to appear in the mind, without fixing your attention on them.

    Here are some tips for doing japa properly:

    1. Use only a single mantra for this practice, one that you find meaningful. Continuously switching mantras is unhelpful, and using a mantra that your mind finds unappealing is ineffective.
    2. There are three ways to repeat the mantra: loudly, quietly and mentally. Saying the mantra loudly is especially good if, at first, you find it difficult to completely focus on the mantra. Once you’ve mastered the ability to keep your attention on the loud mantra, you can then practice saying it quietly, like you are muttering. Then, you can move on to repeating the name mentally.
    3. If you have trouble concentrating on the mantra alone, you can use a mala, which is a loop of beads similar to a Catholic rosary, or a Muslim misbaha. Using a mala aids in concentration by anchoring the repetition of the mantra to a physical object, thus occupying both the mind and the body.
    4. In the absence of a proper mala, any beads will do. Recently, one of my students made a mala out of some old Mardi Gras beads he had lying around, and his practice of japa has been progressing nicely. (I absolutely loved this “Mardi Gras Mala”, because it shows that it is not the paraphernalia, but the practice itself, that matters).
    5. To use the mala: Put your right ring finger through the loop of beads and let it hang at the first bead (called “meru”; you will know this bead because it is usually larger than the rest of the beads and marked with a tassel). Repeat the mantra one time, and then use your thumb or middle finger to cycle to the next bead. Repeat until you come to the other end of the mala. This is one round. You will know when the round is over when the meru bead is in front of your middle finger or thumb and you cannot move to the next bead. To do another round, flip the mala over so the meru is once again behind your ring finger, like when you started.
    6. Your goal is to bring your full attention to the mantra. But be gentle with your mind. Remember that you are coaxing it, rather than fighting it. If you find your mind wandering, don’t waste attention on being concerned about the the wandering. Just observe the wandering like a disinterested witness and gently bring your attention back to the name.
    7. Establish a set place and time to do your practice. Any place will do as long as it is clean and relatively quiet. And any time that suits you is fine as long as it is the same time everyday. Through regularity, your mind will come to recognize the time and place you choose as “meditation time” and “meditation place.” Then, the mind will know that it is time to concentrate, rather than wildly chase after thoughts, and it will fall into the practice of japa more quickly and easily.
    8. Sit on the floor or in a chair, whichever is most comfortable. You want the body to be at ease, in order that your mind doesn’t become distracted by physical discomfort. Breathe and fully relax the body. Then hold the mala comfortably with your right hand, while letting the remainder of the mala rest in your left hand.
    9. In addition to your formal meditation practice, you can also mentally repeat the mantra while you go about your daily affairs, especially if those activities are mundane and normally mindless, like washing dishes or taking a shower. An activity that requires your attention, such as driving, would not be suitable (or safe) for japa.

    If you have additional questions, just let me know. And good luck!

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • A “Hard” Question

    Namaste,

    How can the Atman(consciousness) appear as something hard? My sense of touch seems to disprove the Advaita stance that the physical world is merely an appearance of the non-physical self.

    In dreams, things appear real to me. But in my personal experience, I’ve never felt a hard or soft thing inside a dream. Hence, I don’t find the idea that the world is like a dream to be very useful. Please help.

    Hello,

    This a complicated subject, that in my experience, I will not be able to adequately explain in a single email. So I will give a summary of the issue. And if you feel so inclined, we can start an ongoing conversation.  

    Right now, you are saying that a hard object has an objective existence, meaning that it truly exists, in physical form, outside of your Self i.e. outside of your consciousness. But how can you tell me that this hard object exists? Only because it appears in your mind.  

    And how can you tell me that the object feels hard? Only because you experience the sensation of “hardness” in your mind in the form of a thought.

    Since that is the case, then you only know the object and its “hardness” as a thought. Even though you may experience thoughts and sensations in waking life differently than you experience thoughts in dream, they are nonetheless both thoughts.  

    While waking life and dream life thoughts may feel different, they both only appear as thoughts, in you, the conscious Self. Yet, while no one hesitates to dismiss dream life as fanciful, we take waking life at face value because it “feels real”, not considering the fact that these feelings and sensations are just thoughts in our minds. 

    To prove that a physical world actually exists, independently of the conscious Self, you would have to step outside of your consciousness and attempt to verify a physical world without using your mind and senses. 

    Why? Because the mind and senses are the only instruments we have available to use for acquiring knowledge, for proving something. Right now you are using the evidence of your mind and senses to say that the physical world is actually “out there”, outside of your consciousness. 

    I am not arguing that your mind and senses don’t make a very convincing case for a real, physical world. But observe how many times in your life that your mind and senses have deceived you. For example, everyday your mind tells you that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. But in reality, this is not true.

    So I would ask you to prove to me that this physical world actually exists, because I only experience it as a thought, as an object in my consciousness. This is no special power that I have, because it’s already like that for you too. We are both the conscious self, passively witnessing the universe as a thought appearing in us. Through inquiry, you merely see for yourself that this is true. 

    One note: I am not saying that the world exists purely in your mind, meaning in SJ’s mind. SJ is but an individual. An illusory person. He does not create the universe. Nor does the universe only exist when SJ’s individual mind is aware of it, as some schools of Buddhism and philosophical Idealism claim. For instance, I assure you that I exist here in America, writing this email while you are halfway around the world, completely unaware of what I am doing.    

    In summary: There is only you, the Self. From you, the Self, arises Isvara, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Isvara is a thought in the infinite awareness of you, the Self. From there, the universe arises as thought in Isvara’s mind. One thought within that thought of the universe is the body-mind called SJ. In turn, the body-mind called SJ experiences the “thought-universe” of Isvara, in the form of thoughts in his own mind. 

    There is no physical world. Just the thought of one in Isvara’s mind. And every individual person (jiva or body-mind) experiences that “thought world” of Isvara in their own minds. But Isvara, the universe and the individual people who inhabit it are nothing but thoughts in you, the Self.

    I hope that helps. 

    All my best,

    Vishnudeva

  • Relationships & Non-Duality

    S: What is the relation of the Self to the body/mind?

    V: Relation is only possible between two different things. But the self alone exists. So there is no relationship between the self and the body/mind because there is no actual body/mind. There is only the self appearing to be a body/mind. The appearance of the body/mind is none other than you. All you have to remember is that appearing as a body/mind does not affect your true nature in any way.

    S: I am aware of the sensations of the body, and thoughts of the mind appear to me like other perceptions from the world. But I am not aware of pain in another’s body or mind. In that sense, it is different from other objects. What is the special/additional relationship I have with the body?

    V: Again, there is no special relationship. You’re looking at this issue from the perspective of the mind, not the self. 

    Where does S.’s body/mind appear? In awareness. Where does Vishnu’s body/mind appear? In awareness. Does this mean there is more than one awareness or that awareness has a special relationship to either of our body/mind’s? No. Just as one sun illuminates all objects on earth, there is only one awareness in which all body/minds appear. Awareness is aware of your body/mind in the exact same way it’s aware of mine. 

    When you say, “I don’t know your thoughts” what you are saying is, “My mind doesn’t know your thoughts.” And this is correct because the mind is a limited instrument with a limited range of perception.  It will not experience what another mind is experiencing.  But awareness illuminates both your mind and my mind equally.  To the self, there is not even a “my mind” or “your mind.” There are just minds appearing. So while your mind may not be able to read my thoughts, as the self, you “know” (illuminate) my mind the exact same way that you “know” S.’s mind. 

    S: Also, terms like ‘act as an embodied spirit’ or ‘play the role of a son/friend, etc.’ also suggests hypocrisy and artificialness. How do I cope?

    V: Yes, it can be strange to know that you’re the self while other people don’t. But that’s just how it goes. When you radically change your thinking, it takes time to adjust. And most people will never understand what you know. It can be disorienting at first, but you just get used to it over time. 

    So just be S., all the while knowing you aren’t S. There’s nothing artificial about it because it’s true. Act normal. Live your life. Friends and family are good. Enjoy them. Your relationships with people aren’t fake just because you know you’re the self. In fact, they are much more real because you can relate to people in a more open, loving way. Why? Because you know you don’t have to be compelled to act from the selfish standpoint of the ego.

    So self-knowledge isn’t intended to interfere with your personal relationships. It simply helps you approach those relationships with more understanding, objectivity and compassion. You can actually care about people on a deeper level when you know they are none other than yourself. Your relationships can become more authentic because your thinking is in alignment with the truth. The only inauthentic way to relate to people is from the false standpoint of the ego. Let me know if that helps. 

    All my best – V