Summary:
Lesson 33 explains the process of shifting the “I” from doer-enjoyer (ahamkara), to your true nature as Awareness.
Terms used in class:
- Ahamkara (I-sense, or Ego): I-sense is a function of the Subtle Body that claims ownership of experiences generated by the five senses, both external and internal, and localizes these experiences to a single living entity. It is through ahankara that the sense of individuality identity arises, allowing a person to perceive themselves as distinct from others.
For example, Arjuna's eyes make contact with Droṇa, his teacher. This sensory data is processed in Arjuna's Subtle Body, producing an experience corresponding to perceived object (Droṇa). To confidently validate that Drona is “MY” teacher, the experience must be isolated and localized to Arjuna's body-mind. Without ahaṃkāra, Arjuna couldn't discern whether this body-mind is experiencing Droṇa or some other body-mind.
In the world, “I” is naturally accepted as ahamkara. This is why we often hear ourselves saying “MY __”: my phone, my house, my wife, my liberation, my opinion, etc. This “MY” is ego. Consequently, each ignorant person says “MY LIFE”. From the standpoint of a jnani, neither the “MY” (ego) is the Self, nor “LIFE” (jagat) is the Self. The relationship between my/life and Self is a satya-mithya relationship.
- How to Distinguish Ego (Ahamkara) from Self (Awareness)?
I understand life and experiences about life are changing. But how is ahamkara also changing? Demonstrate it in a way I can relate directly.
Answer:
Ahaṃkāra, or the ego, is indeed changing and not constant like Brahman. Here are several points to illustrate this:
- Variability in Identity: Ahamkara is subject to fluctuations based on roles and contexts. For instance, the sense of “I” changes when you identify as a parent, a professional, or a friend. These roles are transient.
- Emotional Shifts: The ego is deeply intertwined with emotions, which are inherently changeable. One moment, the ego may feel pride, and the next, it may feel shame or guilt. These emotional shifts indicate that the ego is not a stable, unchanging entity. However I (Awareful being) was there before the pride came, am available while ego is experiencing pride, and continue to be an Awareful being after pride is gone, and ego has assumed guilt.
- Mental States: Ahankara is absent in certain major states of mind, such as deep sleep, dream, coma, or under anesthesia. During these states, ego assumes different roles. In waking, “I am a teacher”. I dream, “I am a thief hiding”. If ego were unchanging, it would persist through all states of mind. In other words, the teacher would persist in dream.
- Developmental Changes: The ego evolves over time, from childhood through adulthood. A child's sense of “I” is vastly different from that of an adult, demonstrating that ahaṃkāra is subject to developmental changes.
- Influence of External Factors: The ego may feel empowered and confident in one situation, and totally shy in another situation. So the ego (ahamkara) changes, but what remains is the conscious being that was there while there was confident-ego, and conscious-being is there when confident-ego has died, and shy-ego is born.
- How to Distinguish Ego (Ahamkara) from Self (Awareness)?
- Atman: Consciousness (Brahman) is all pervasive and is the content of everything, both sentient and insentient. Just like content of every wave in the Ocean, and the Ocean itself is Water. This “content of everything” is known to every human being as self-evident I. This “self-evident I” is called Atman, and doesn't refer to Ahamkara (as seen above), but to Awareness. So Atman is Awareness/Consciousness from standpoint of a single living being, while Brahman is Awareness/Consciousness from standpoint of the whole; the reality of everything (including you). Recognition of this difference is moksha.
- Brahman: that which is non-negatable and unchanging in 3 periods of time (past, present and future). Refers to undifferentiated Consciousnesses. While ātman refers to that same Consciousness operating through one individual.
- Ishvara: Intelligent (nimitta-karana) and material cause (parinami-upadana-karana) of the universe. All knowledge, all power. In short, Intelligence from which time-space and objects come.
- Jiva (or sometimes jivatma): Entity consisting of 3 bodies (gross, subtle, causal), and whose identity is mixed up with the 3 bodies.
- Jnani: Usually refers to an enlightened person. A wise person. Meaning recognizing the satya-mithya relationship between all things. Meaning: forms resolve into smaller forms > resolve into Intelligence > resolves into Consciousness.
- Karma-phala: Consequences or results delivered by performance of past actions. Can be punya (pleasant results) or papa (unpleasant/uncomfortable results).
- Mithya: That which depends on something else for it's existence (eg: wave is dependent on something else; the ocean. The ocean is dependent on something else; H2O – water). Meaning, wherever mithya, that's where satyam is. It's not like mithya (wave) is different from satyam (water) in substance. Difference is only regarding names-forms, but names-forms aren't once again different from the substance.
- Moksha: Freedom from limitation.
- Nididhyāsanam: Contemplation. It involves bringing the teaching back to our mind again and again to do away with our past habitual patterns, orientations, and disposition.
- Prasāda-buddhi: Whatever consequences of my action, I recognize it's not to be seen as a reward or punishment. But simple coming from a vast Intelligent order which doesn't make mistakes. Meaning, there's no point complaining when unpleasantness comes, rather think “What do I do with this?”. Think solution mode.
- Punya / Papa: Punya is when you receive an immediate or delayed pleasant result of your action. And Papa is when you receive an immediate or delayed unpleasant result of your action. See both as feedback, not as some punishment from God, nor some complex of “I'm so lucky!”.
- Shastra: Comprises of 3 texts: Bhagavad Gītā, Upaniṣads, Brahma Sūtras.
- Raga / Dvesha: Things I'm pulled or attracted to are likes (raga). And things I'm repulsed or have aversion to are dislikes (dvesha).
- Sattva / Rajas / Tamas: Three different dispositions or guṇas that people generally have in different measures. A person who has predominantly sattva disposition is one who is thoughtful, generally optimistic and cheerful. A Rajasic dominant mind is active, ambitious and mostly guided by “what's in it for me”. A tamasic dominant mind is characterized by negligence, slackness or sloppiness in his actions. Also guided by “what's in it for me”, but doesn't care if hurts others or her own body in the process – in fact, it often does.
- Satyam: That which exists independently (eg: H2O-water exists independently of the ocean/wave). Stands on it's own. Nothing causes it. It's self-existent.
- Svadharma: Svadharma refers to one's own unique set of duties, responsibilities, based on their individual circumstances, abilities, and position in life, which when followed, leads to personal growth and harmony in your life.
1) Journey of Shifting Identity from Ahamkara to Self:
From the moment of gestation in the mother's womb, the “I” (Atman) is linked with the body. Upon birth and thereafter, the assumption “I am the body-mind” is unquestioningly accepted. This assumption persists until it is dismantled by the practice of jñāna-yoga.
Once jñāna-yoga is taught by a qualified teacher, and the student gains sufficient knowledge about jīva (individual self), Ishvara (the Lord), and Brahman (the ultimate reality), the student needs to ongoingly assert their identity with statements like, “I am the ever present consciousness pervading this body. I am the presence in whose presence changes of my mind-body are taking place. Whatever is considered “mine” is not Me”.
By this stage, you have been exposed to a wealth of knowledge from the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavad Gītā. There is no reason to feel fraudulent or inauthentic in gradually claiming your true nature with aforementioned statements. It would only be inauthentic if such claims were made without proper understanding or methodology, as is often seen in Neo-Advaita, where people declare “I'm Awareness” without having Satya-Mithya knowledge (relationship between forms and Consciousness).
2) Self is Not a Doer, nor Enjoyer
If consciousness can't undergo change, then it can't perform action. EG: Talking, walking.
Thus Consciousness = akarta, abhokta. Thus it has no karma-phala. Just like space. Whatever happens in space, doesn't offload it's punya/papa to space, but goes to the object in space.
—
Recorded 22 Jan, 2019
“ to start identifying directly with consciousness as myself”.
These words of yours triggered something Andre.
I have never done this.
I now see clearly that no matter how intelligent I am( or am not) or how many different ways I try and look at things to achieve knowledge I can’t possibly do it, because I am always in the way as the perceived of an object.
I am just making more and more complex ways of falling into the same trap, and thinking I must be making progress because I seemingly know more today than yesterday.
It’s kinda funny really!?
Just listened to talk again.
“Higher self is not bound by limitations of the form”.
Got that,
“What happens when your body goes? What keeps illumining itself? You!”
So the eternally existent self keeps illumining itself.
But:
Am I aware that I am aware if I am without an object to reflect this consciousness?
What is my state of existence if my awareness lacks all qualities?
Doesn’t this mean I also lack the quality of awareness that I am aware?
Is this not the reason for a reflexes reality, it is created in order for God, Brahmin, Ishvara, Atman to be able to know itself?
If this is true, then is existence as a Jivanmukta, one who has achieved moksa but still has a subtle body to enable perceptions, preferable to pure existence as a state without qualities?
I don’t really believe my own argument as I am sure this would have been obvious to the Rishis, but I can’t see the flyin the logic from my current level of perception.
Flaw in logic, not flyin!
==========
Doesn’t this mean I also lack the quality of awareness that I am aware?
==========
Question is turning awareness into an object, as if “I” can be with or without it.
To correct understanding, let’s use a metaphore:
Suppose H2O is Awareness.
Ocean is Īśvara (from which waves are born, sustained and dissolved into).
Wave is individual jīva.
Can wave-Robert look for the H2O? No. Because wave is already the H2O.
Can wave-Robet ever lack H2O? No. Because H2O is all there is in past, present and future.
Can wave-Robert think about H2O? No. Because the electrical impulses of thinking themselves are H2O.
Waves entire existence is not apart from H2O.
All wave can do is own up to what is already TRUE right now. That’s the only job of Vedānta. To destroy notions which deny me from accepting the simple fact that even though my appearance is a wave (with apparent limitations at least while wave is alive), my real nature is H2O which is the reality of entire ocean.
Hi Andre.
Your first sentence answered my question completely.
I am annoyed that I could not perceive this myself.
I will try harder to have greater clarity.
?
Acharya Andre,
In taking ownership of my true nature as Ātman, I fall into two doubts when I contemplate on the All-Pervasiveness of Awareness.
Maybe it has to do with steps in the teaching, as sometimes I accidentally try to understand one part of the teaching in terms of an earlier part that has been sublated (example: teaching first differentiated between Consciousness and Mind to aid discrimination between Satya and Mithya, but now in the teaching in Lesson 33 we see that Consciousness pervades the Mind as well).
——–
My first concern is: my mind is still in the mode of “There is 1) The Knower (Subject/Ātman), and there is 2) The Known (Object/Mithya).” Even if I think, “The Object appears ONLY in Consciousness,” there’s still a difference between Satya and Mithya. When I see an object, I see it as OTHER than the Subject. How can I concretely see Objects as none other than Me, the Subject?
Maybe I’m jumping ahead and the question will be addressed in subsequent lessons? I only ask now because the All-Pervasiveness of Consciousness was introduced in Lessons 32 and 33, so it seemed appropriate now.
———
My second question is: why is it impossible that Consciousness and Matter could be two separate realities? Is it because no Matter has been perceived outside of Awareness? This seems to be the answer, but I know you can give a deeper reply.
Thank you.
Nicholas,
Keep it up. You have a wonderful, questioning mind. It will take you far and is your strength.
==================
When I see an object, I see it as OTHER than the Subject. How can I concretely see Objects as none other than Me, the Subject?
==================
Have faith in the order of this course. Reconciling, or seeing that object resolves in Subject, is only in chapter 13+, and for a reason.
==================
My second question is: why is it impossible that Consciousness and Matter could be two separate realities? Is it because no Matter has been perceived outside of Awareness? This seems to be the answer, but I know you can give a deeper reply.
==================
Consciousness and matter APPEAR to be two separate realities. They are actually not.
For example, we have a desk. What is the content of that desk? What is it made of? What is it dependent upon? The wood.
So in reality, there’s no desk. Because the entirety of that thing we call “desk”, is pervaded by the wood. The “Desk” depends on the wood for it’s existence, and has no existence apart from the wood.
However, at the same time, we can’t dismiss the desk, as it has a functional reality, such as writing and eating on.
In same way, if you look into your thought from start to end of it, what was the content of that entire thought? What was that thought FILLED BY? It was filled by your consciousness of it. There was no part of thought that was not filled or pervaded by your consciousness. Yes, the thought had color, sense, sound,etc… but besides that, it was nothing but consciousness which was taking form of a color, sense, sound. Just like wood is taking form of table, chair, legs, pole, etc.
Let me know what arises from having read this, But first consider it.
Acharya Andre,
Thank you so much for your reply. Matter not existing outside of Consciousness, but instead being name-and-form dependent Consciousness, seems so obvious after I contemplate on it. Where has Matter been without Awareness? Nowhere. Matter is only appearance. Nothing is “without” or “outside” of Awareness. I’m beginning to understand when you taught that Enlightenment is simple as “Are you aware? Then Tat Tvam Asi!”
Funny that I sincerely asked Ishvara for help reconciling my doubts, and when I wake up the next morning I see your answer in my email.
I may be having a moment of clarity that will pass due to hardwired ignorance, but I will continue to contemplate your answer as I have total faith in the teaching. Clarity seems to come and go right now but I am grateful for clear moments.
Thank you for continuing to answer my questions. I will likely have more in the future.
Whatever insight you were replying from, is as clear as I’ve ever heard your speak. May you be blessed with continued growing clarity Nicolas.
As I think about the first question, maybe I am conflating the Subject who Knows All with Doer/Enjoyer who knows particulars? I’m starting to think I’m getting Ego-knowing mixed up with Unverbalized Knowing Ātman. Difficult to separate them, as even when I think “The ego wasn’t knowing in deep sleep,” the ego is who knows that the ego was unaware in deep sleep. But Ātman is aware of the ego’s knowing of the loss of itself in deep sleep. It seems like a very subtle distinction.
Very easy to discern I-sense (ego / ahamkara) from Atma (consciousness).
In waking, “I am Nicholas. I am a Vedanta student! I am an inquirer!”.
Then in dream, whole sense of “I” is convoluted. “I am a beggar. I am a murderer!”.
Then wakes up from the nightmare of having tortured or killed someone, and suddenly says, “Thank god I am not a murderer. So pleased that I am a good, kind person!”.
Then falls into deep sleep. And sense of “murderer” and “good person” are non-existent. The I-sense has resolved.
Then again, waking comes, and I-sense returns. The opinions about “I”, comes back.
Then while in waking, this I-sense undergoes hundreds of changes. “I am moody! I am spiritual. I am son (in ref to my dad). I am friend (in ref to another person). I am employee (in ref to boss).”
Then after full day of exhaustion, the mind is too tired to think. Now thoughts momentarily stop being dumped onto this I-sense mechanism, however the I-sense is still there.
In other words, you can’t eliminate the I-sense. Even the wise person has it. Because I-sense (ego) is empirical order and is required to give sense of individuality. Otherwise, if I didn’t have I-sense, then when my body is hungry, I would start feeding you.
Therefore, we leave the I-sense alone (also called: Subject or Knower). We simply recognize cognitively that the I-sense depends on that which is ever-present; Consciousness.
Hi Andre,
I’m done with half of this video, but I have a question. If I’m consciousness and not BMI, do I need to change my vocabulary? Example: My body is hungry, not I am hungry. My body has a headache, not I have a headache, etc.
I ask this question because knowledge has eliminated ignorance. Then we have to practice what we have learned and the only way to do it is to change the vocabulary. But it would be nice if I am 24/7 at home. However, that is not the case when we are surrounded by relatives, friends, colleagues, etc.
What is your advice? Thank you.
============
PERSPECTIVE 1:
============
Consciousness is the final reality. It’s known to all as self-evident existence. I am. I exist. I am conscious.
Nobody needs to teach you to be conscious. You’re conscious effortlessly. Because consciousness is your nature.
In presence of I, the conscious being – there is one given body and mind.
The body-mind comes with a personality. It has certain way of speaking, thinking, emoting.
The body-mind complex can say things like “I am hungry”, or “This body is hungry”, or “My body is hungry”.
Both statements are illumined by “I”, the conscious being. The one who was present before the statement took place. Is present while the statement is being made. And continues to be present after the statement has ended. The conscious being survives all statements. The statement has no bearing on that which illumines the statement, which is you.
============
PERSPECTIVE 2:
============
Initially, becoming mindful to our language and thinking can help tremendously. It can help objectify the body and mind, as ongoing processes, rather then something that’s happening to me.
There was a time when I intentionally resorted to changing vocabulary, like, “My mind is slow”, rather then “I am no good”. It helped tremendously. It created space to breathe internally. Not mixing up inadequacies belonging to this instrument, to my identity. However even that is a means to an end.
============
PERSPECTIVE 3: Which addresses…
I ask this question because knowledge has eliminated ignorance. Then we have to practice what we have learned and the only way to do it is to change the vocabulary. But it would be nice if I am 24/7 at home. However, that is not the case when we are surrounded by relatives, friends, colleagues, etc.
============
We don’t have to change vocab in-front of relatives or boss or friends. It’s inviting awkwardness.
All that is here is God. The word is God. Each letter that makes up the word is God. The body and mind is God. Time is God. Then what is there to “get away from”. Why change vocab at all with this understanding.
Hi Andre,
This video is interesting but raises many questions. I agree and accept what the Upanishads say “I am Atman” or “We are Atman”. But this does not solve our problem because I, as Atman, have a body to manage, and with the body, we have uncertainties in life to manage too. Given all the adverse circumstances that can surround our body, how should we approach uncertainties and threatening situations in life? Do the Upanishands or the Vedanta have a say in how to deal with uncertainties? Or, he says, that we should face uncertainties in view that whatever happens, we accept the results like Ishwara’s prasadam, and that is the only solution and nothing else (The 4 possible reactions of karma in the video of Karma yoga). What’s your advice? Thank you.
================
Do the Upanishands or the Vedanta have a say in how to deal with uncertainties? Or, he says, that we should face uncertainties in view that whatever happens, we accept the results like Ishwara’s prasadam
================
The book starts with Arjuna’s overwhelm. He is challenged by life’s demands and uncertainties. This is true for everyone.
He asks Lord Krishna two questions:
——————–
QUESTION 1: How do I manage life’s uncertainties? What is the meaning of a relatively successful wordily life? Do I run off to Rishikesh?
——————–
Krishna says “Don’t run away, whether physically or emotionally. Avoiding issues makes them bigger”.
The very challenges and uncertainties you face, is your very opportunity for growth. Each time we take a step to uplift ourselves (whether in career, studies, meditation, health), is a step forward in evolution. Unless one relatively settles accounts with Ishvara (meaning the world) – self-knowledge remains in the head, never drops to the heart and actualizes.
And how do I live my live amidst a stream of uncertainties? I do the very best I can, one day a time, according to my strengths. Understanding there’s no “perfect” way to live or solve a problem or resolve a situation.
And how do we convert our striving to live into a spiritual benefit? Through Karma Yoga.
What is Karma Yoga?
It’s way of being. It’s specifically undertaken by those who value moksha. To become a deserving recipient of knowledge and prosperity, we become self-reflective, thoughtful, and mindful of our actions. Why? Not so that “I can become a better person”. But because not only will my life be smoother, but I’ll enjoy a clean mind, capable of appreciating presence of Ishvara in all things, and understanding the big picture.
It consists of 2 aspects:
1st aspect (Right Attitude): Action itself cannot knock off ignorance. But Action done with right attitude, can prepare you for knowledge, as it matures the mind. What is the attitude? Whenever action is done, it’s keeping with universal ethical values (dharma, which is understood to be the Lord). Your actions consider the impact on the whole system and attempt to minimize damage/hurt/disharmony/unfairness whenever possible. Also keeping in mind, it’s impossible to remain 100% pure in actions, but we give it our best anyway.
2nd aspect (Prasada buddhi): Even if result isn’t keeping with my expectations, I’m not ruffled when things don’t go my way, as I understand Isvhara’s laws never fail. Everything happens within God’s infallible laws/orders. Knowing this, one sees whatever comes as learning opportunity, a chance to grow further. What I receive from my past actions, is neither good nor bad. It’s just another thing delivered which demands another action on your part. Each time you apply an action that is keeping with ethical values, it helps purify mind further; it contributes to maturity. Each time, we respond to what happens in an unintelligent way, it forms a mental complex.
——————–
QUESTION 2: What is the knowledge that brings permanent and final fulfillment?
——————–
Self-knowledge. Which helps one recognize directly: Despite life’s challenges, it doesn’t move me (Consciousness). Knowing this, body-mind complex called Nicholas can participate in this world with greater composure, less anxiety, and more energy.
So it’s not like self-knowledge makes one lazy. It removes anxiety which drains energy. Thereby making the person more available to do what has to be done.
In short: Life challenges are to be dealt with. Problem continue for a wise person too until last breath. Nothing changes at level of relative situations. While dealing with issues, there is an understanding (not just of the head, but it’s brought down to emotional level), the whole thing is One manifesting as many.
Warmly. Andre.
Thank you Andre for your prompt and beautiful reply.
In your reply, I appreciate the sentence ” Unless one relatively settles accounts with Ishvara (meaning the world) – self-knowledge remains in the head, never drops to the heart and actualizes”.
This transfer from the Head to Heart seems very important.
However, I do not understand : What does settling accounts with the material world or ISHWARA mean?
Somebody has not settled accounts with the material world or ISHWARA does it mean:
– He is still catering to the senses?
– He is still chasing the material world with no equanimity &/or focus on Consciousness?
– He still has not attained Dispassion?
On the other hand, what does “Somebody has settled accounts with the material world” or ISHWARA mean?
Does it mean:
– He has sense control
– He has mental equanimity, so his focus is on Consciousness.
– He has dispassion.
What is the attitude (attributes) of a person who has settled his accounts with the material world (a renunciate?) and the opposite? I would rather put it this way, how will I know that I have settled accounts with the material world?
==========
What does settling accounts with the material world or ISHWARA mean?
==========
In a way, we’re always settling accounts with Ishvara, in form of people we meet, our emotional make up, managing our psychology, striving to become a cleaner and more pleasant human being, having some relative success in the material world, doing what has to be done in light of dharma. All these things are “settling accounts with ___”.
So it’s not a one-time settling. But a life long process.
An example: one is still carrying mini resentments for being hurt by someone in the past. Or operating with a low self-esteem (I’m unlovable, I’m not good enough, I can’t, I’m not meant to succeed).
If mind is bearing “I can’t” in relation to ordinary, day-to-day challenges, that’s the SAME mind that’s playing the same tune when confronted with “All that is here is Ishvara”.
In other words, intellectually “All that is here is Ishvara”, but one has the same emotional responses and judgemental thoughts, more or less, towards the society at large, or towards those who hurt us. Meaning the emotions are speaking a different language to what we heard or studied.
Please take assurance, this initial discord between head and heart is normal and expected. This is why there’s nididhyasana (closed eye meditation, or open eyes contemplation and striving to re-frame situations that happen to us in light of the knowledge). Nididhyasana is a life-long process. It can’t be sped up.
It’s life situations and challenges that drop the knowledge from head to heart. That’s why Vedic culture isn’t about running away from world, as it doesn’t give context to the knowledge. But being an active participant in the world.
Each situation becomes an opportunity to recognize the whole thing is intelligence facilitating laws and orders in which every individual and object is participating. This ongoing re-recognizing and doing the best you can in light of dharma, is “settling accounts with Ishvara”.
==============
On the other hand, what does “Somebody has settled accounts with the material world” or ISHWARA mean?
==============
There’s no definitive what this looks like externally. I’ll give own example: Number of students who come to Vedanta are hungry for answers. Meaning one is in some type of psychological/emotional pain. Why? Because one has experienced limitations of the world, experienced enough disappointments, and found nothing has really solved the fundamental problem of isolation and separation in this vast universe.
So in this sense, they’ve settled enough accounts with Ishvara to recognize limitations of material comforts.
However, even this isn’t enough. Because a larger number isn’t willing to think, or simply isn’t a thinker. One wants shallow advice, something to do. Doesn’t want to look within themselves, get in touch with the pain, and reframe it.
So in this sense, one hasn’t settled accounts with Ishvara (in form of emotional/psychological blockages). They have more settling accounts to do in that department.
Then there are types who are thinkers, with brilliant intellect and logic, but disconnected from heart. Closed emotionally. Someone that’s hard to relate with.
In this case, though intellectually brilliant, one hasn’t settled accounts with Ishvara (in form of social and emotional intelligence).
So each serves as a potential block from transferring knowledge from head to heart.
Overly emotional, doesn’t work. Overly intellectual, doesn’t work. Too isolated, doesn’t work. Too extroverted, doesn’t work. Middle-way as Buddha said it.
So settling accounts with Ishvara is really the “middle-way”, a healthy balance.
Thank you Andre for the detailed and satisfactory answer to my question. As I am given to read many text books on Vedanta, I came across the phrase “Love all and Serve all”, which I suppose helps in many respects to settle accounts with Ishwara.
Before your answer was received today, I did not know that this phrase was already an answer to my question, but now I am more or less convinced that it helps settle the score with Ishwara. “Love all” of the conviction that all that is experienced is a form of consciousness (animate and inanimate matter), so that it does not allow conflicts to arise or incubate, and “Serve all” is the devotion to Ishwara of the conviction that I am Atma.
My sincere thanks to you now and many more to come as I progress through the video series.