Guest guest Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Who knows The Self? If you say there is no one to know .... or that it itself does not -- not know it or does know it. who knows that is either knows or does not know it? To whom does it arise or not arise? How did the first realized being come to know the truth? or did that being not come to know it since he does not exist. Well then The Self being the conscious absolute who is conscious of the consciousness. not having form as-such of its (his her) own.. creates this entire delusion called consciousness in order to tell itself (herself, himself) what itself (herself, himself) IS NOT and by that come to realize what itself (herself, himself) actually is. That is why it is not possible for any existent ego or being to come to know The Self... it is always The Self who comes to know The Self as that Self is ONE-ALL_THRU.... SO if anything or anyone is either deliberately or spontaneously coming into being (remember being and existing is merely an illusion of existing and being) it is coming because what has arisen is a reflection of an aspect of infinite possibility existing in non-existence. Hence what has seemed to arise is a speck of the potency of the Self .... or as Sri Krishna says.. all this exists as and in my potency... hence the existence exists spontaneously in order that the self come to know himself as the non-limited conscious-absolute-- being.... It is no use running about saying all there is is consciousness. because that is only half the story.... the other half is limitlessness. Whereas consciousness is all that exists in existence.. consciousness cannot be known or seen to exist if there is the absence of comparison as is the case in the Conscious Absolute ... BECAUSE the NESS clause in the word consciousNESS is qualitative, indicactive and attributable only in the event of subject object reality.. The problem lies in the English phrase (the absolute consicousness) as if there is a difference between the self and his conscient nature. NO th e correct phrase to use is the Conscious Absolute as itself (herself, himself)exists PRIOR to the consciousness... we should stop running about saying all there is .... is consicousness. with respect and love bindu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 binduji - PraNaams. I must apologize - I fail to understand your message. I am not sure the source of your information. Here is what I understand. >Who knows The Self? It is not something to know but something to be. Self is self-conscious and self-existent unlimited entity. The notions are in the mind - the notions that I am limited jiivaatma drops out in the realization that I am Brahman. In the mind then it will be associated with unbroken or akhanDa aham Brahmaasmi vRitti occurs for aatma jnaani -The same meaning when Krishna says aatmanyeva aatmaana tushhTaH - one revels in oneself. At vyaavahaarika level - one can simply answer your question - the one who is asking the question is the one who will know. >If you say there is no one to know .... or that it itself does not -- >not know it or does know it. who knows that is either knows >or does not know it? I am sorry I am totally confused with these statements. All Vedanta says it is not an object to know - hence Kena says those who understand it , understand it not. The subject-object distinctions or knower-known and knowing (triputi) dissolve into one since all are supported by the same conscious principle. >To whom does it arise or not arise? There is no arise of consciousness - no udeti na astameti - since consciousness has to be there to recognize both raise and set. It is ever existent principle. Realization is the realization of one's true nature. > >How did the first realized being come to know the truth? >or did that being not come to know it since he does not exist. Again statement is confusing to me. There is no first being second being etc. Existence-conscious principle is ever present. Again it is not something to know just be what you are. >Well then The Self being the conscious absolute who is conscious >of the consciousness. not having form as-such of its (his her) own.. >creates this entire delusion called consciousness in order to >tell itself (herself, himself) what itself (herself, himself) IS NOT >and by that come to realize what itself (herself, himself) actually >is. Sorry I could not make head and tail of the above statements even to respond. Concept of 'absolute' comes only when there is a relative. Existence-consciousness alone is there. Period. Delusion is there only for the one who thinks he is deluded. Infinite has no delusion for it worry about. >That is why it is not possible for any existent ego or being to come >to >know The Self... it is always The Self who comes to know The Self as >that Self is ONE-ALL_THRU.... Ego is false (but is taken as real) and the false guy falls in the realization of one's true nature. >SO if anything or anyone is either deliberately or spontaneously >coming into being (remember being and existing is merely an illusion >of >existing and being) it is coming because what has arisen is a >reflection >of an aspect of infinite possibility existing in non-existence. Hence >what has seemed to arise is a speck of the potency of the Self .... or >as Sri Krishna says.. all this exists as and in my potency... Sorry failed to understand the meaning that is conveyed. Frankly I do not think Vedanta is that complicated. It is about one's own true nature. You are that - it is simple as that. I am existent and I am consciousness - I think every body understands - but they mistake that I am existent as ... and I am conscious of .. .All Vedanta says is drop all the objectifications ... neti neti to realize the subject you are. > >hence the existence exists spontaneously in order that the self come >to know himself as the non-limited conscious-absolute-- being.... It >is >no use running about saying all there is is consciousness. because >that >is only half the story.... the other half is limitlessness. binduji - I do not see any real difference what you said and what you are calling as running around. Existence is eternal and existence is conscious. There cannot be anything other than existence-consciousness. Therefore it has to b infinite. Existence is infiniteness and consciousness is infiniteness - there is no first half and other halfs . You can call it sat - chit or ananda (anantam). As Ramana says sattayaahi chit and chittayaa hi aham. "Sat is chit and chit is I am". >Whereas consciousness is all that exists in existence.. consciousness >cannot be known or seen to exist if there is the absence of comparison >as is the case in the Conscious Absolute ... BECAUSE the NESS clause >in >the word consciousNESS is qualitative, indicactive and attributable >only in the event of subject object reality.. Binduji - please examine your sentences - you start with the statement consciousness is all that exists ... and then you say ness is qualification - but obviously you seem to claim that Conscious Absolute - that absolute is not a qualification. Any description using words about that which cannot be described is only relative and nothing can be said about absolute and nothing need to be said either. All these descriptions are only for ignorant who wants to be knowledgeable. Anything that is qualified comes under object. It is nirguNaH. Any description is for an object rather than for a subject. >The problem lies in the English phrase (the absolute consicousness) as >if there is a difference between the self and his conscient nature. It is not only in the English phrase but also in the description of that which cannot be described by any finite words. Hence silence is better than sometimes confusing words. That is why it has to be taught by a teacher who brings life to the words in a context. > >NO th e correct phrase to use is the Conscious Absolute as itself >(herself, himself)exists PRIOR to the consciousness... I think any phrase you use is relative not absolute. There is nothing Prior to consciousness either. These are again playing with the words. >we should stop running about saying all there is .... is >consicousness. I agree. It is better to be silent - if one is mature enough to understand that language of silence. Hari OM! Sadananda > >with respect and love > >bindu > > > > > > > _______________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.