Smacked in the head Hello again, Isaiah (or is it Isaiahji now? I thought about calling you Iji which seemed easier for the tongue to wrap around. Would that be bad form to refer to you as Iji?) Anyway, here we go... Isaiah: Isaiah, Isaiahji, Iji, Hey buddy, whatever works for you. Jules: You smacked me in the head with these questions: For whom would the knowledge be hard and fast? For you, or for Jules? Are you the self that knows Jules, or are you Jules that knows the self? Can the self perform an action to make itself the reality it already is? Can Jules? As such I've been taking a bit of time examining this and here are my answers: the knowledge can only be hard and fast for the buddhiintellectwhich, while arising in the self is not the self. That is, the buddhi is dependent on the self but the self is not dependent on the buddhi. The knowledge occurs not to a whom but to a faculty which is dependent on the self for its existencemithya. That sounds a bit convoluted, reading back, so I'll try to simplify. The knowledge can only be hard and fast for the intellect which is part of the apparent compound being that is referred to as Jules: the body-mind-intellect. The self, the true I, needs no hard and fast knowledge as it's already free of all obstructions as anything that arises in it has no effect. Isaiah: Correct. Very good. Jules: As for the, Are you the self that knows Jules or are you the Jules that knows the self? question, this is where I definitely had to apply some discrimination and it's quite possible I've discriminated wrongly but here we go: Jules can't know the self so the idea of Jules being the knower of the self is just thatan idea. The self, however, is aware of the apparent Jules jiva. Which am I? The logic applied here would result in the answer that I can only be that which is aware of Julesthe self.

Isaiah: Yes. Correct. Now take the inquiry one step further: if you are the self, and the self is non-dual, is there really a Jules to be aware of? Or is there only you, the self? Jules: This knowledge, though, is elusive and I do tend to get caught back up in the idea that Jules is the doer, the enjoyer and so forth. I mean, it's known but I tend to slip back into a state (eh) of ignorance throughout day to day life and get involved. Isaiah: If it is known to you, how can you be slipping back into ignorance? Who is slipping back into ignorance? Jules: This is where I'm very shaky. Isaiah: You concluded correctly when you said hard and fast knowledge belongs to the intellect. Now, ask yourself, what does shaky knowledge belong to? Jules: Unless of course, everything I've said is ignorance in which case, I'm very shaky everywhere! Isaiah: You are on the right track Jules. You are doing great. Jules: In examining tendencies it seems that rajas and tamas (perhaps tamas is the most predominant here) dominate. It's certain that sattva doesn't predominate as the self is not very often reflected in a clear mind and that's one of the very functions of sattva (other than happiness), correct? Isaiah: Its unlikely that tamas and rajas are predominant in your mind. If tamas were predominant in your mind, inquiry would be impossible. If rajas were predominant in your mind, it would be nearly impossible. Successful inquiry presupposes a predominantly sattvic mind and you are successfully inquiring. When the mind is predominantly sattvic, the effects of rajas and tamas are felt more acutely. This is probably why it feels like rajas and tamas are predominant in your mind: because your mind is sattvic, they are very noticeable. It is similar to eating a predominantly healthy diet. When your body becomes very clean and fine-tuned through good nutrition, introducing even small amounts of unhealthy foods can have a profound negative effect. For someone eating a regular diet,

one sugary sweet will not bother them. But for someone eating a very healthy diet, one sugary sweet can make them feel terrible. They are still predominantly healthy, but they are much more sensitive to the effects of the unhealthy food. The other functions of sattva are: creativity, knowledge, equilibrium, peace, harmony, compassion, love, etc. Jules: As for the last question, the self can perform no actions, no, to make itself what it already is. The very idea seems ludicrous. Can Jules? No. Jules is what it isan appearance in awareness; mithya. Whether it can perform actions to rid itself of the ignorance that causes it to believe it's a separate, limited being is another question, entirely, though. Cultivating a predominately sattvic mind and the karma yoga attitude can help ameliorate the ignorance but Julesas an appearance in awarenesswill still exist; it will merely be recognized as that which it is: an appearance, an arising, in awareness. Isaiah: Yes. Jules cannot perform an action (even self-inquiry) that will allow him to create or gain the self. He can only understand, through knowledge, that he is already the self. Jules: Ultimately, after all that typing, I'm not entirely certain I've answered your questions. I think I've done my best though according to my own level of understanding. Isaiah: Youve done great. Jules: As a side note: I recall your interactions with James and Sundari in which you spoke of being a nutritionist. One thing that is definitely an issue for me is my diet. It's definitely not optimal for cultivating a more sattvic disposition. If you have any resources or links to help me out with diet (my googling results in some pretty contradictory information) that would most definitely be appreciated. Hope you had an enjoyable festive season, sir! Cheers, Jules

Isaiah: I am not a nutritionist, although I work for one. Studying nutrition can be beneficial, but as you have seen, there is a tremendous amount of contradictory information. But here are some general guidelines that, in my experience, are rarely, if ever, contradicted:

1. Eat fresh. Minimize your intake of processed foods. The closer a food is to the form it was grown or raised, the better.

2. Eat more fruits and vegetables (emphasis on the vegetables). The benefits of this practice is undeniable. I am not saying you have to be vegetarian, just that you should eat a lot of plant foods.

3. Dont obsess about your personal nutrition. Worry is the number one obstacle to good health. A relaxed person who eats an average diet is probably better off than a neurotic person who eats an excellent diet.

4. Be true to yourself. You are the judge of whether a particular diet works for you or not. There is an endless list of shoulds and should-nots in the world of nutrition. Whether these recommendations work for you is ultimately determined by your own experience. A food that makes one person feel good may make you feel bad. A food that is sattvic for one person may be rajasic for you. Experiment and see what works, but be open to change. Since your mind and body are constantly changing, the optimal diet to nourish your body and mind will constantly change. This is why blanket statements about nutrition are not always helpful.

Take care, Isaiah