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