The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

I recall that at the beginning there were some problems with this terminology. I don't differentiate between consciousness and awareness, but I think you considered consciousness as part of brain function or something.

The reason that I differentiate between consciousness and awareness is that consciousness arises and ceases, and is compound in its essential nature, while awareness is permanent and indivisible. The term “consciousness” encompasses six kinds of consciousness, one for each of the physical sense faculties, and one which is associated with the mind itself. Each of the sense consciousnesses arise as a result of the coming together of the appropriate sense faculty and the corresponding sense object (e.g., sound, flavour, odour, etc.), while the object of the mind is the concept. When a sense object comes into contact with its corresponding sense faculty, consciousness arises; and when that contact is lost, consciousness ceases; and so consciousness partakes of only a relative existence and is not real.

You are saying there is no difference between me and a stone?

Both are of exactly the same nature.

And yet the dream bat does not strike of its own accord, nor even the dream baseball player, but only the mind of the dreamer causes it, and so it takes the real to move the unreal. Unreal things cannot move themselves or others.

Precisely!

OK, but that is a slightly different question. The question was as to the one and the many, and how the laws of thought cannot tread here.

The laws of thought merely define the relationship between the one (absolute) and the many (relative), they cannot penetrate the Absolute, for that which is indivisible is beyond analysis or description.

How are we to have fragments of an indivisible awareness? I mean, I know what you have said about it thus far, but where is this partition in which you have your island and I have mine? I have said the awareness is caught but you say no.

It is thought which isolates the fragments from the whole, and it is the giving up of thought that will reunite it.

Does anything differ from the whole?

Not really, but they do appear to differ.

What are those?

The manifestation, recompense, and principle bodies, as we have already discussed; along with the suchnesses of: form, essence, embodiment, potency, function, primary cause, secondary causes, effect, recompense and fundamental unity.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

The reason that I differentiate between consciousness and awareness is that consciousness arises and ceases, and is compound in its essential nature, while awareness is permanent and indivisible. The term “consciousness” encompasses six kinds of consciousness, one for each of the physical sense faculties, and one which is associated with the mind itself. Each of the sense consciousnesses arise as a result of the coming together of the appropriate sense faculty and the corresponding sense object (e.g., sound, flavour, odour, etc.), while the object of the mind is the concept. When a sense object comes into contact with its corresponding sense faculty, consciousness arises; and when that contact is lost, consciousness ceases; and so consciousness partakes of only a relative existence and is not real.

Hmmm. I hardly know what to make of this. Have those orientals overanalyzed consciousness? So I become aware of a sound, and then the sound ceases. My consciousness does not cease. Have you not said that awareness must have an object? If so, then it is not different from consciousness. And what about the one that is associated with the mind itself? What is that about?

The laws of thought merely define the relationship between the one (absolute) and the many (relative), they cannot penetrate the Absolute, for that which is indivisible is beyond analysis or description.

A bit off topic I suppose, but the liturgical refrain in church Slavonic runs through my head: "Trinity, one in essence and undivided."

And yet, I don't think the Christian trinity is monotheism. Now, my own version might be. We have God the void of pure potential, and we have the emanating energies which are basically everywhere and everything (Holy Spirit) and then we have the organizing principle, which is like the mind of God (Logos/Word). It seems to me we must have this because our material universe is a mass of mathematics and engineering. Words are a code, DNA is a code language, you get the idea.
I don't have a problem uniting the first two, but the mind of God, how do we account for it in your system?

But as to my earlier question on the three bodies, I don't think they correspond.

It is thought which isolates the fragments from the whole, and it is the giving up of thought that will reunite it.

That is interesting because I did once jokingly say to my husband that my mind stays so busy because I am afraid if I stop thinking I will die.

And, apparently that is true. Now, to stop worrying seems great, to know I am invulnerable would be fantastic, but to cease existing doesn't seem so great.

[Blair]

Yeash you are an idiot.

You are going to die, accept it.

[Jehu]

Have you not said that awareness must have an object? If so, then it is not different from consciousness. And what about the one that is associated with the mind itself? What is that about?

Consider the case where your awareness is focused upon a particular object of consciousness, something you are watching for example, when someone speaks to you, and though they speak at a volume that you can easily hear, you do not hear them. Now, if awareness and consciousness were one and the same, then you should rightfully have heard the person speak, for they made a sound, and your ears were functioning, but consciousness of the sound did not arise; for your awareness was otherwise engaged.

The object of the mind consciousness is the concept or idea, and like the object of the sense faculties, one becomes conscious of an idea only so long as ones awareness is not otherwise engaged. One of the principle reason for the practice of meditation is so that we might observe first hand the arising and ceasing of mental activity, so that one can realize the illusory nature of all mentation.

A bit off topic I suppose, but the liturgical refrain in church Slavonic runs through my head: "Trinity, one in essence and undivided."

And yet, I don't think the Christian trinity is monotheism. Now, my own version might be. We have God the void of pure potential, and we have the emanating energies which are basically everywhere and everything (Holy Spirit) and then we have the organizing principle, which is like the mind of God (Logos/Word). It seems to me we must have this because our material universe is a mass of mathematics and engineering. Words are a code, DNA is a code language, you get the idea.

I don't have a problem uniting the first two, but the mind of God, how do we account for it in your system?

It is difficult to say, for this is a non-theistic system. However, I suppose the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity might fulfil this role, for it is the one universal and inviolable law which governs the actions of all things.

But as to my earlier question on the three bodies, I don't think they correspond.

I’m afraid I do not understand the question, correspond with what?

That is interesting because I did once jokingly say to my husband that my mind stays so busy because I am afraid if I stop thinking I will die. And, apparently that is true.

In one sense it is true, for when we don’t think, our ego-personality does no enter into play – and so I suppose we could say that it is dead. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said that we must be reborn in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; that the ego must die in order that we should truly live?

Now, to stop worrying seems great, to know I am invulnerable would be fantastic, but to cease existing doesn't seem so great.

Ceasing to exist (Being) is simply not possible, but ceasing to become, this we can do

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I am not clear on why we posit a separate awareness from consciousness, because of the fact that we don't hear someone speak if our awareness (attention) is elsewhere.

It is difficult to say, for this is a non-theistic system. However, I suppose the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity might fulfil this role, for it is the one universal and inviolable law which governs the actions of all things.

How do you account for the stupendous organization that underlies the material world? You may not need to call it theistic, your system is theistic enough.

I’m afraid I do not understand the question, correspond with what?

Your three bodies didn't seem to correspond to the type of trinity I have in mind, although I don't clearly remember their roles.

In one sense it is true, for when we don’t think, our ego-personality does no enter into play – and so I suppose we could say that it is dead. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said that we must be reborn in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; that the ego must die in order that we should truly live?

That might be one way of putting it, but I think he was referring to the rather dormant spiritual state most people live in becoming quickened as a prerequisite.

Ceasing to exist (Being) is simply not possible, but ceasing to become, this we can do

Existing without continuity is not very meaningful.

[Jehu]

I am not clear on why we posit a separate awareness from consciousness, because of the fact that we don't hear someone speak if our awareness (attention) is elsewhere.

Just as a shadow arises as a result of the coming together of a light source and an opaque object, two extrinsic causes, so too does consciousness arise as a result of the coming together of a sense organ and its object. Consciousness therefore, partakes of only a relative existence, and so cannot be identical with awareness, which partakes of an absolute existence. Just as the consciousness of the dream-persona is dependent upon its dream-sense faculties, so too is our waking consciousness dependent upon our relative body, and its six senses.

How do you account for the stupendous organization that underlies the material world?

The apparent complexity of the relative world is a function of the interconnectivity of all things as constitutive causes and the fact that nothing remains the same for more than an instant.

Your three bodies didn't seem to correspond to the type of trinity I have in mind, although I don't clearly remember their roles.

If you mean the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, I must admit that I do not fully understand them, and so I cannot say if there is a direct correlation between them and the Three Bodies (Trikaya) of the Buddhist Tradition – though I suspect that there is.

Existing without continuity is not very meaningful.

Why would you think that there is no continuity in the absolute mode of being? Have we not said that it is awareness that posits continuity to the relative world, where there is in fact none to be found?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

so too does consciousness arise as a result of the coming together of a sense organ and its object. Consciousness therefore, partakes of only a relative existence, and so cannot be identical with awareness, which partakes of an absolute existence. Just as the consciousness of the dream-persona is dependent upon its dream-sense faculties, so too is our waking consciousness dependent upon our relative body, and its six senses.

I would not say that a dream persona has sense faculties. It is just imagination and memory. At any rate, I do not see that my consciousness arises when an object presents itself. Have you heard of those deprivation tanks? They can induce all sorts of experiences because the mind is deprived of objects. The person is put into a water tank at a good temperature in which little sensation of temperature will be felt, and it is dark and silent. It seems to me that I have an awareness, and it can be aware of a smell if there is one, or a sound if there is one, or of both simultaneously if they are existent. But if neither is existent, their lack hardly affects this awareness.

The apparent complexity of the relative world is a function of the interconnectivity of all things as constitutive causes and the fact that nothing remains the same for more than an instant.

This may be a partial explanation, but does not really account for it fully. I don't see it accounting for DNA. My interest here was in what sort of mind has the absolute.

If you mean the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, I must admit that I do not fully understand them, and so I cannot say if there is a direct correlation between them and the Three Bodies (Trikaya) of the Buddhist Tradition – though I suspect that there is.

Explain briefly the Trikaya.

Why would you think that there is no continuity in the absolute mode of being? Have we not said that it is awareness that posits continuity to the relative world, where there is in fact none to be found?

Maybe there is but for me there is not. You say I don't exist. If so, what is the point of all this striving for knowledge and experience? The achievement of liberation is to cease existing.

[Jehu]

I would not say that a dream persona has sense faculties. It is just imagination and memory.

Though it may be only imaginary, if in your dream, you enter into a room with no light, does this not impair your dream-persona's ability to see what is in the room. Does the dream-persona not rely upon its dream-eyes in order to see?

At any rate, I do not see that my consciousness arises when an object presents itself. Have you heard of those deprivation tanks? They can induce all sorts of experiences because the mind is deprived of objects. The person is put into a water tank at a good temperature in which little sensation of temperature will be felt, and it is dark and silent. It seems to me that I have an awareness, and it can be aware of a smell if there is one, or a sound if there is one, or of both simultaneously if they are existent. But if neither is existent, their lack hardly affects this awareness.

Yes, but you are neglecting the sentient mind as a mode of perception, the objects of which are concepts stored in memory. Even if it were possible to cut one off completely from one’s physical senses, one would still have thier thoughts to take as objects of consciousness. However, if one were able to achieve a mental state wherein one was not conscious of any object (actual or imagined) whatsoever, then one might experience pure awareness.

This may be a partial explanation, but does not really account for it fully. I don't see it accounting for DNA. My interest here was in what sort of mind has the absolute.

The Absolute is not a sentient being, and therefore has no need of a mind, or any sort of sense organ. It is not something which thinks or plans, for it has nowhere to go and nothing to achieve. It simply is what it is, and it cannot be otherwise. Nevertheless, it is self aware, but not in the way that we sentient beings are self aware, at least not normally.

Explain briefly the Trikaya.

This is simply the Buddhist term for the three bodies we have been discussing; i.e., the Principle of Identity (Law Body/Dharmakaya), Manifestation Body (Nirmanakaya) and Recompense Body (Sambogakaya).

Maybe there is but for me there is not. You say I don't exist. If so, what is the point of all this striving for knowledge and experience? The achievement of liberation is to cease existing.

I have never said that you do not exist, I have said only that there is a part of you that is real, and a part that is not real, and that it is only this apparent aspect of you that partakes of birth and death.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Does the dream-persona not rely upon its dream-eyes in order to see?

I really don't know! It's a strange question. To the dreamer, it seems so. And I had never really analyzed a dream quite this way. But once you think about it, you can ask that same question in many ways. Do the muscles of the dream persona really lift the chair? Are the ears of the dreamer true sense organs? I say no, it is all just imagination.

Yes, but you are neglecting the sentient mind as a mode of perception, the objects of which are concepts stored in memory. Even if it were possible to cut one off completely from one’s physical senses, one would still have their thoughts to take as objects of consciousness. However, if one were able to achieve a mental state wherein one was not conscious of any object (actual or imagined) whatsoever, then one might experience pure awareness.

This makes sense, but I am confused as to the 6 different kinds of consciousness all of which are different than awareness. I'm just not sure.

The Absolute is not a sentient being, and therefore has no need of a mind, or any sort of sense organ. It is not something which thinks or plans, for it has nowhere to go and nothing to achieve. It simply is what it is, and it cannot be otherwise. Nevertheless, it is self aware, but not in the way that we sentient beings are self aware, at least not normally.

Sigh. Well, I do agree that the nature of God is not comprehensible to us, and only marginally knowable by us, at least at this stage of our development. We are in a strange pickle here on earth. a place of confusion and not understanding. I suspect that the question of whether God is personal or has a mind cannot be answered with a yes or a no. Nonetheless, we have evidence of some kind of divine mind or intelligence. Surely it does not think as we do, and yet I don't think it is mindless.

I don't necessarily mean mind here as a sense organ, as a brain as you seem to. I have no other, better term to use.

I have never said that you do not exist, I have said only that there is a part of you that is real, and a part that is not real, and that it is only this apparent aspect of you that partakes of birth and death.

Yeah, but I forgot about the terminology when I said exist. I didn't mean as in being actual, I meant as in being real.
It always seems a bit vague, and not something to desire. (Buddhist enlightenment.)

[Iolaus]

I have considered that the entire manifest universe might actually BE a brain, you know whose.

[Jehu]

I really don't know! It's a strange question. To the dreamer, it seems so. And I had never really analyzed a dream quite this way. But once you think about it, you can ask that same question in many ways. Do the muscles of the dream persona really lift the chair? Are the ears of the dreamer true sense organs? I say no, it is all just imagination.

Indeed, for how can the ears of a dream-persona be the true cause of its perceiving sounds, when the dream-persona itself an illusion; if fact, how can a dream-persona be said to be capable of perception at all? Nevertheless, it certainly appears that way, and so we must pay close attention to the dream analogy, for it can tell us a great deal about how the relative world of the sentient being is made manifest.

This makes sense, but I am confused as to the 6 different kinds of consciousness all of which are different than awareness. I'm just not sure.

Consciousness, as I said before, is a function of the ego-personality and arises as a result of the coming together of one or more of the six sense faculties (its primary cause) with the appropriate sorts of thing (its secondary causes), the effect of which is to become an object of awareness; which in turn gives rise to what is called sentient mind – for consciousness is the essence of mind. Likewise, in a dream, consciousness is a function of the dream-persona, the dream equivalent of the ego-personality; which then gives rise to the dream-mind. Now, the cognizant awareness which underlies the dream-mind is not identical to that which underlies the mind of the dreamer, but neither is different; it is merely a fragment of the one awareness which has imagined itself to be both subject (dream-persona) and objects (dream-world).

Sigh. Well, I do agree that the nature of God is not comprehensible to us, and only marginally knowable by us, at least at this stage of our development. We are in a strange pickle here on earth. a place of confusion and not understanding. I suspect that the question of whether God is personal or has a mind cannot be answered with a yes or a no. Nonetheless, we have evidence of some kind of divine mind or intelligence. Surely it does not think as we do, and yet I don't think it is mindless.

I don't necessarily mean mind here as a sense organ, as a brain as you seem to. I have no other, better term to use.

Yes, I understand, it is exceedingly frustrating to hit such a intellectual wall. Nevertheless, one who is heavily inclined toward the intellectual approach must repeatedly throw themselves against this wall, until they are completely exhausted - and then perhaps there is the possibility of moving beyond.

Yeah, but I forgot about the terminology when I said exist. I didn't mean as in being actual, I meant as in being real. It always seems a bit vague, and not something to desire. (Buddhist enlightenment.)

Indeed, it is not something to desire, it is simply what is. One of the great paradoxes of the wisdom traditions lies in the fact that although one must have the desire to free oneself, that very desire stands as the greatest impediment to their eventual success.

[dysfunctionalgenius]

Being projects Being!

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Indeed, for how can the ears of a dream-persona be the true cause of its perceiving sounds, when the dream-persona itself an illusion; if fact, how can a dream-persona be said to be capable of perception at all? Nevertheless, it certainly appears that way, and so we must pay close attention to the dream analogy, for it can tell us a great deal about how the relative world of the sentient being is made manifest.

Yes, but at the same time I wonder if perhaps in some ways the analogy doesn't completely cross over.

Consciousness, as I said before, is a function of the ego-personality and arises as a result of the coming together of one or more of the six sense faculties (its primary cause) with the appropriate sorts of thing (its secondary causes), the effect of which is to become an object of awareness; which in turn gives rise to what is called sentient mind – for consciousness is the essence of mind. Likewise, in a dream, consciousness is a function of the dream-persona, the dream equivalent of the ego-personality; which then gives rise to the dream-mind. Now, the cognizant awareness which underlies the dream-mind is not identical to that which underlies the mind of the dreamer, but neither is different; it is merely a fragment of the one awareness which has imagined itself to be both subject (dream-persona) and objects (dream-world).

I hardly know how to formulate a response. None of this makes much sense to me. You say that when a sound and an ear come together, it becomes an object of awareness. Well, there you have it - the awareness was there all along. I see no need to posit a separate consciousness.

Then, this becomes the sentient mind - so do we now have consciousness, sentient mind, and awareness? Three?
I am not sure I understand your point that the cognizant awareness underlying the dream mind is not the same as the one which underlies the mind of the dreamer. Isn't the dream mind and the mind of the dreamer the same thing? Or did you mean to say that the cognizant awareness that underlies my mind when I am dreaming is not the same as the one which underlies my "real" mind when I am awake?

Yes, I understand, it is exceedingly frustrating to hit such a intellectual wall. Nevertheless, one who is heavily inclined toward the intellectual approach must repeatedly throw themselves against this wall, until they are completely exhausted - and then perhaps there is the possibility of moving beyond.

Are you calling me an intellectual?

: D

Indeed, it is not something to desire, it is simply what is. One of the great paradoxes of the wisdom traditions lies in the fact that although one must have the desire to free oneself, that very desire stands as the greatest impediment to their eventual success.

Yes, I have intuited that and desire spiritual understanding only obliquely. Desiring it directly isn't wise. It lacks gratitude, for one thing. If the angels are like moths, gratitude is a flame which draws them.

[Blair]

Desiring it obliquely isn't wise either.

[Jehu]

Yes, but at the same time I wonder if perhaps in some ways the analogy doesn't completely cross over.

Like any analogy, it has its limitations, however, the process is fundamentally the same.

I hardly know how to formulate a response. None of this makes much sense to me. You say that when a sound and an ear come together, it becomes an object of awareness. Well, there you have it - the awareness was there all along. I see no need to posit a separate consciousness.

Then, this becomes the sentient mind - so do we now have consciousness, sentient mind, and awareness? Three?

What I have been trying to convey here is that awareness, in order that it give rise to consciousness, must first embody itself within a sentient form – whether that sentient form be actual or imaginary. This sentient form however, does not exist antecedent to its embodiment by awareness, but is created by awareness – either by the absolute whole (actual embodiment) or by the relative fragment (imaginary embodiment). Only after the subject “I” has emerged, is its experiential world (actual or imaginary) able to manifest.

I am not sure I understand your point that the cognizant awareness underlying the dream mind is not the same as the one which underlies the mind of the dreamer. Isn't the dream mind and the mind of the dreamer the same thing? Or did you mean to say that the cognizant awareness that underlies my mind when I am dreaming is not the same as the one which underlies my "real" mind when I am awake?

The mind of the dreamer and the mind of the dream-persona are not one and the same mind, for they differ in their essential nature (constitutive causes). Further, the mind of the dreamer is itself never the same, for it does not continue through time, but arises anew with each passing instance.

[Iolaus]

I'm gone to New York for the weekend, back sunday or monday.

[Iolaus]

Desiring it obliquely isn't wise either.

On the contrary, it is a technique that works well.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Hmm. I do not seem to have an argument.

[Iolaus]

Wherefore art thou, Jehu?

[Jehu]

I am still here, but you must give me some indication as to where you want to take this enquiry, that is, unless you are ready to bring it to a close.

[Iolaus]

AsI recall, we were discussing the path, the nature of the path.

[Jehu]

Very well, then let us see how the Path is able to bring us to this mental quality called “tranquility” or “equanimity”; a state of mind wherein our faculty of imagination neither adds to nor detracts from pure perception. A tranquil mind is one which accepts that the Universe is unfolding exactly as it must, and so is capable of action which is untainted by personal preference or consideration of future advantage; in other words, a mind that can act without constraint.

Like all things (relative entities), the Path is rooted in a primary cause (effort), and that primary cause has its own primary cause, ad infinitum, and this seemingly infinite regression is what is called “beginningless time”. Now, since all things are rooted in beginningless time, when we say that a thing arises we mean that its constitutive causes have come together in the appropriate arrangement (form), and when we say that a thing ceases, we mean that its constitutive causes are no longer bound together in that given form. The same may be said of the Path, for it arises with the first inkling that something is not right with the way that things appear to be, and the subsequent resolving of things into their constituents, by means of rational analysis. This gives rise to the evolution of a new metaphysical view which is made manifest in the way that we speak of things; that is to say, our language begins to reflect the truths that our analysis has uncovered. These truths begin to alter our actions: the things that we do, say and think, and this alters the impact that we have on the world as we live our lives. Then having seen the benefit of the Path, we increase our effort to progress, and think less and less about worldly pursuits. As a result, there arises a state of concentration which is often called “meditation”, the recompense of which is a tranquilizing effect upon the sentient mind.

[Iolaus]

Were you hoping to be finished with this discussion?

A tranquil mind is one which accepts that the Universe is unfolding exactly as it must, and so is capable of action which is untainted by personal preference or consideration of future advantage; in other words, a mind that can act without constraint.

I can see that the universe is unfolding toward perfection, or so it seems to me. Now, there may or may not be more than one way that this could occur. That isn't important.

On the other hand, that being the case, it is difficult to see just where/why one would decide to take action. Additionally, while I do perceive that a person would become much more selfless ,and service to others their main joy, I do not envision myself not caring at all to provide for my future or having no consideration for it.

A woman is the heart of her family, you know. Perhaps one day soon I will have grandchildren. But other than that, I am relatively free and am now preparing a project in which I may spend the rest of my days serving humanity. That, and gardening.

As always, where I don't comment, it means I am in agreement, or understand what you've written.

[Jehu]

Were you hoping to be finished with this discussion?

No, I simply though that you may be growing weary of the discussion - which is now entering its second year.

I can see that the universe is unfolding toward perfection, or so it seems to me. Now, there may or may not be more than one way that this could occur. That isn't important.

On the other hand, that being the case, it is difficult to see just where/why one would decide to take action. Additionally, while I do perceive that a person would become much more selfless ,and service to others their main joy, I do not envision myself not caring at all to provide for my future or having no consideration for it.

When I say that the Universe is unfolding as it should, I do not mean that it is unfolding toward perfection, for it is in want of nothing, and so is perfect as it is. What I mean is that whenever the causes and conditions are present, the appropriate thing arises, in accordance with the one inviolable law which governs all things. This is very important, for we human beings are capable of intervention, for we can alter conditions so that a thing either flourishes, or withers and dies. Just a gardener knows that every plant has its own preferred nutriments, and ensures that each gets what it needs in order to prosper, so does the awakened one tend lovingly to what is good in the world, and neglect what is not good.

A woman is the heart of her family, you know. Perhaps one day soon I will have grandchildren. But other than that, I am relatively free and am now preparing a project in which I may spend the rest of my days serving humanity. That, and gardening.

What if I were to tell you that you can serve humanity no better than to awaken to your true nature?

[Iolaus]

which is now entering its second year.

Wow! I thought we began last fall.

When I say that the Universe is unfolding as it should, I do not mean that it is unfolding toward perfection, for it is in want of nothing, and so is perfect as it is.

Well, I guess this bears some thought. There is surely a perfecting process going on, for example, we have evolution, of galaxies and life forms. Not randomly, but intelligently and with purpose.

How do you reconcile suffering, and ignorance, with perfection?

What I mean is that whenever the causes and conditions are present, the appropriate thing arises, in accordance with the one inviolable law which governs all things.

Yes, that is a form of perfection, and also a clue that there is no real guilt, all are perfect and pure.

What if I were to tell you that you can serve humanity no better than to awaken to your true nature?

I wouldn't argue with it, at the same time, one can begin serving immediately.