Avoidable confusions

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

Why is advaita - one without the second - referred to as awareness,

which connotes living entities? Entities have awareness. But, entities

are ruled out as illusion.

 

We also have Self & self. Two same-sounding words that are supposed to

be very different.

Could'nt we atleast use two dis-similar sounding words?

 

Then there is also the 'I' and the 'i'.

 

Lots of avoidable confusions.

Would'nt you say?

 

sundar

[Guest guest]

'i' and 'self' stand for the body-mind complex that is normally referred to in

day-to-day conversations.

 

'I' and the 'Self' stand for the one without the second. If it is one without a

second then we cannot talk about it at all. But on lists such as this we still

try and talk about it. So we have to use words for describing the 'untalkable'

which should nevertheless not be mistaken for the 'talkables' to denote which

the words were created in the first place. Hence the use of capital 'I' and

'S'.

 

If we have to talk about something which by definition is untalkable, we have to

use absolutely minimum words and those words though not reaching that untalkable

thing, should still be able to take us as close to it as possible. hence the use

of a few incontrovertible words such as:

 

Sat = Existence. We say, Chair is, book is etc. The common denominator in all

these statements is 'is' or existence.

 

chit = Awareness. We know. How can we know unless there was this awaremess? So

awareness is the next incontrovertible word to describe It.

 

ananthA = infinity. There is nothing else but this existence-awareness. So it is

infinity. Infinity is lack of limitation and that is the state of happiness or

Ananda.

 

So we call that 'untalkable' One (capital O is another convention) as 'sat chit

ananda'. These are not 3 things, but only One. These are not even 3 qualities

of that only One. As I said that One is untalkable. Yet we want to talk about

It. So we use 3 words. That's all.

 

Confusion cannot be avoided in talking about the untalkable. Silence is the best

communication. In silence there is total clarity and no confusion. That's why

Bhagwan said 'summA iru' - Be silent.

 

Regards,

Venkat

 

 

 

sundar22ca <sundar22ca > wrote:

Dear friends,Why is advaita - one without the second - referred to as awareness,

which connotes living entities? Entities have awareness. But, entities are ruled

out as illusion.We also have Self & self. Two same-sounding words that are

supposed to be very different.Could'nt we atleast use two dis-similar sounding

words?Then there is also the 'I' and the 'i'.Lots of avoidable

confusions.Would'nt you say?sundar Post message:

RamanaMaharshi Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi- Un:

RamanaMaharshi List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-ownerOur Shortcut URL:

http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi<a

href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a>

How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with

Photos. Get Photos

[Guest guest]

Please edit messages for length. Moderator

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Dear Friends,

 

Nice to hear/read from you all through this email

list..its more impressive, informative and much more

helpful for growth of spirituality.

 

Bhagwan said 'summA iru' - Be silent:

 

Here Bhagwan means that, the stillness of the mind &

thoughts is it?

 

Regards,

Mallika.

[Guest guest]

Venkat,

Sat-Chit-Ananda is a good word for the One. There is no need to call

it I or Self (to avoid confusion).

 

Also, the body-mind complex should not be given the possessive

pronoun 'i'. It can be given a name like Sundar. But, it should not

be called 'i'.

 

For convenience may be. But it should be clearly understood that

there is no 'possessiveness' about it.

 

'i', 'you' etc, should be clearly words of convenience. There should

be no possessive pronouns. Since they really do not exist (as found

by those that did self enquiry).

sundar

 

RamanaMaharshi, S Venkatraman <svenkat52>

wrote:

> Sundar,

>

> 'i' and 'self' stand for the body-mind complex that is normally

referred to in day-to-day conversations.

>

> 'I' and the 'Self' stand for the one without the second. If it is

one without a second then we cannot talk about it at all. But on

lists such as this we still try and talk about it. So we have to use

words for describing the 'untalkable' which should nevertheless not

be mistaken for the 'talkables' to denote which the words were

created in the first place. Hence the use of capital 'I' and 'S'.

>

> If we have to talk about something which by definition is

untalkable, we have to use absolutely minimum words and those words

though not reaching that untalkable thing, should still be able to

take us as close to it as possible. hence the use of a few

incontrovertible words such as:

>

> Sat = Existence. We say, Chair is, book is etc. The common

denominator in all these statements is 'is' or existence.

>

> chit = Awareness. We know. How can we know unless there was this

awaremess? So awareness is the next incontrovertible word to describe

It.

>

> ananthA = infinity. There is nothing else but this existence-

awareness. So it is infinity. Infinity is lack of limitation and that

is the state of happiness or Ananda.

>

> So we call that 'untalkable' One (capital O is another convention)

as 'sat chit ananda'. These are not 3 things, but only One. These are

not even 3 qualities of that only One. As I said that One is

untalkable. Yet we want to talk about It. So we use 3 words. That's

all.

>

> Confusion cannot be avoided in talking about the untalkable.

Silence is the best communication. In silence there is total clarity

and no confusion. That's why Bhagwan said 'summA iru' - Be silent.

>

> Regards,

> Venkat

>