Reply to statements made by members of the group 3

[Guest guest]

Reply to Hur Guler 16 January 2001

 

" There is a difference between awareness as reflected in

consciousness and pure awareness beyond consciousness.

Reflected awareness, the sense of 'I Am', is the witness,

while the pure awareness is the essence of reality.

Reflection of the sun in a drop of water is a reflection

of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun itself.

 

Nisargadatta pointed an ego-less level, a state of pure

awareness that cannot be described. How can the dualistic

mind describe the pure awareness of no thing while

no-i present "

 

Is it being stated that the Witness is a reflection of the

Absolute Self? If the Absolute Self is unknown and unknowable

and without form, and the Witness is known and has an

appearance or form how can the two be compared?

Something unobservable cannot be compared with anything else?

If the Absolute Self is unobservable and unknowable

who is able to compare the two in order to say that the one

is a reflection of the other?

If it is not possible to observe the Absolute Self but it is

possible to be the Absolute, which is devoid of duality,

then only the Absolute is able to know that the reflected

awareness is different from itself, but to observe any difference

compromises the zero or oneness of the Absolute?

Does the Absolute see anything as being different from itself?

 

Observing my own reflection in water I notice that the medium

of the water changes and distorts the image reflected in it.

If the Absolute wishes to know itself, the use of any reflection

to achieve such a purpose seems relatively flawed?

If reflected awareness is the sense of 'I Am' and the Witness,

can the Absolute be completely without 'I'?

Why does 'I Am' appear in the reflection but is not in the Absolute

which is the source of the reflection? If no-I is present in the Absolute

how does it appear in the reflection?

The word 'ego' is of recent etymology, apparently derived from Freud, is it

wise to introduce such a term into ancient Vedanta?

Does Vedanta need a word or concept like 'ego' to compliment

its philosophy? Is the phraze 'an ego-less level' being used to indicate

absence of 'I' or 'I Am' at a certain level of the Self?

Is it possible for the Self, or any self, to have no compliment

of 'I' present in it? Is the Self synonymous with 'I'?

Does the One have an 'I'? Does the zero have an 'I'?

 

The dualistic mind does describe the pure awareness of no thing.

It describes it as: " the pure awareness of no thing " . The mind can

glimpse the Truth but cannot comprehend it. Later it will make

an attempt to describe what it glimpsed. Whether anyone has

ever understood anyone else through the use of words formed at

the surface vibrations of the mind is highly unlikely. Words bear

random, almost no, correspondence with what is being described.

Nevertheless these words are offered for entertainment to the group.

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.