*Independent Existence*

A great while ago, I read something that has stuck with me since. "Whoever is free of 'I' and 'my' attains peace." How simple, how beautiful, how exactly correct. There's just one problem, language. How can one free of "I" or "my" be a who? It would be a who with out attainments, without possessions. a who without the most basic possessions of "my" body, "my" mind, an "my" life, and yet the words seem to suggest that there is one who attains peace if not anything else.

This is where everyone gets stuck. The deep rooted prejudice, the ignorance is believing that the ego is real. That "I" "my," and "mine" are not just a dream. This sounds dismissive so allow me to explain. All spiritual traditions agree on at least three things: that what can be seen does not have independent existence, that the "I" or ego does not have independent existence, and that enlightenment or freedom is attained by giving up "I", by dying. This is not physical death of course, but the realization that there is no death. There is no death for the ego because the ego isn't real. It's an illusion.

Why all of the confusion over an illusion? It's mostly the fault of language, of definitions, of assumptions. Almost universally, there is a belief in some pie in the sky egoless experience or state that resembles deep sleep where no one is there. There is just That upon which everything that does not have independent existence depends. That is called That. But there is a huge misunderstanding. The huge misunderstanding is that there is a special egoless experience. The truth is every experience is egoless. There simply is no ego! There simply is no separate self. The arising thought "I" gives the illusion that there is.

Sleep happens and upon waking the "I" arises. "I" says "I' slept well." That is the beginning of the dream. No "I" was present in sleep, that is why it was peaceful, and now "I" arises and claims to be the sleeper. It isn't so. "I" is just perjuring itself. Every experience is in fact egoless. Independence, individuality in reality is an illusion, a wonderful illusion, a beautiful play, but if it is taken as ultimately real, it can cause a great deal of suffering.

The ego doesn't have independent existence. This is an agreed upon reality. What is not agreed upon, what is not known is that there is no ego. There is just the possessive pronoun "I". The possessive pronoun is not the problem. The misunderstanding is the problem. If "I" indicates something real, then "my" and "mine" are also real. If "I" is not real then "my" and "mine" also are not real. They are an illusion, the same as "I".

If this is seen, all personal attainments, including so called spiritual attainments, lose their meaning. Words like surrender, death, enlightenment, liberation, dissolution, attainment, becoming, all lose their meaning. Since no ego is there to claim them.

At that point, all words are misleading. They have to be used, but the hearer believing him or herself to be separate can only misunderstand them. They hear enlightenment, salvation, liberation, as something that has to be done, even more so as something you can do. That is why it takes years to see this truth. The truth could have been seen all along, if the words were heard correctly. That is why the pretend teacher, gives the pretend teaching to the pretend student at precisely the right time, when he or she can hear it.

Since the beginning, there is talk of grace, but as a concept, it is misunderstood. Grace is not doing but seeing. Who sees it? For this there are no words. What can be said is that it does not have dependent existence, all else does.

Always,

Prakash