unexplainable Atman

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

We know intellectually that Atman cannot be comprehended by the mind.

Even if we do not have an intellectual feel for what is written in the

first sentence, we have read it in the books and have a bookish knowledge

of the statement.

 

What that means is: our explaining of the SELF is and will always be

erroneous. Any statement we make (about the SELF) will only be an

approximation to the Truth. Every statement we make (about the SELF) is

correct at the level of our undestanding. Every statement we make (about

the SELF) is incorrect in the finality of its description.

 

This was stated in many upanishads, but the Kena upanishad addresses

this paradox in some telling verses of which the verse II.3 is typical:

 

yasyAmatam tasya matam matam yasya na veda sah

avijnAtam vijAnatAm vijnAtam avijAnatAm

 

To whomsoever it is not known, to him it is known: to whomsoever it is

known, he does not know. It is not understood by those who understand it;

it is understood by those who do not understand it.

 

This refers to mumukshus that are serious vedAnta students. They are all

sAttvic in their actions and knowledge. The one who thinks he/she has

knwon (or understood It) is not saying it Truly because It cannot be

understood. The one who thinks he/she does not know It is in the right

path because It cannot be understood.

 

That It is identical with I and is unexpalinable. Further, That I is

not an *object* of ordinary knowledge. If we think we know Atman and

can describe It as an ordinary object, we do not know about It. If

we feel that we do not know It and cannot know It (as an object of

knowledge), we are on the right path.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

At 10:35 AM 3/8/99 -0330, you wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>We know intellectually that Atman cannot be comprehended by the mind.

>Even if we do not have an intellectual feel for what is written in the

>first sentence, we have read it in the books and have a bookish knowledge

>of the statement.

 

That's true... I found though that paradoxically, in reading

Viveka-Chudamani that the following things were taking place -

 

* Ego had to go in order to "absorb" the words read on a deeper level.

Thus, I found that as I read, ego was being challenged on a deep level, and

I felt both intellect and ego fading in a strange way as I read (the pages

of the book actually began to blur and the words almost to "read

themselves"). This is one reason why I consider Sankara to be a saint. He

has an amazing way of cutting through self-deception and getting directly

to the heart of things, sometimes brutally, but always with Love. The

closest I've come to the directness of His words are the words of U.G.

Krishnamurti (which although interesting, don't particularly reflect the

path I'm on).

 

* Sankara states unequivocally that knowledge of Truth and revocation of

falsehood is all that is essentially required to know the Atman is Brahman

(in other words, Atman is already Brahman, but both are hidden by

ignorance). Thus, afterwards, this knowledge was with me, and knowledge of

Brahman began to gradually filter into Experience, and is still filtering.

If you've ever visited Jerry's Nonduality site, he talks about "3 forms of

nonduality." I definitely to "Process Nondualism:"

>As time passes, the attentional energy addressed to I AM receives

attention >itself. Through Grace, the attention applied to attentional

energy addressed >to I AM, is essenced -- there is no other word for it --

into the Absolute. >Unceasingly. One is the Absolute. This is Process

Nondualism.

 

Reading Viveka-Chudamani began this "essencing process," which continues.

>What that means is: our explaining of the SELF is and will always be

>erroneous. Any statement we make (about the SELF) will only be an

>approximation to the Truth. Every statement we make (about the SELF) is

>correct at the level of our undestanding. Every statement we make (about

>the SELF) is incorrect in the finality of its description.

 

Of course that's true... attempting to describe Atman in words is

impossible. The Absolute cannot be confined to such a tiny medium as

words. Not are words only an (ultimately) foolish reflection of intellect,

but they're a dualistic medium of expression as well.

>That It is identical with I and is unexpalinable. Further, That I is

>not an *object* of ordinary knowledge. If we think we know Atman and

>can describe It as an ordinary object, we do not know about It. If

>we feel that we do not know It and cannot know It (as an object of

>knowledge), we are on the right path.

 

Agreed...

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.