Pearls from the Sages: Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon

[Guest guest]

From Notes on Spiritual discourses

 

" 438. WHAT IS INDIVIDUALITY?

Individuality is not what the ordinary man takes it to be. He takes it

to be adherence to one's own body, senses and mind; and at the same

time he believes that the individuality is changeless. Such an

individuality is never possible.

The advaitin seeks that individuality or principle in him which

continues unchanged, even when the body and the mind change every

moment.

That individuality, if it should be changeless, can only be the real

`I'-principle (Atma). "

 

(My note on the above passage:

It is interesting to note that the word " individual " comes from the

latin individuus, from in-'not' + dividuus 'divisible', or that which is

non-divisible. It parallels our terminology, Advaita.

So then, the very word individual carries the advaitic seed, although

taken from the vantage point of the Ahamkara, it just denotes the

opposite sense, the sense of being a separate entity from the whole with

an " individual " set of characteristics or attributes, which in

themselves are also separate and not unified (what a semantic paradox!).

As Sri Atmanadaji says, the real " individuality " cannot be other than

Atma.)

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> From Notes on Spiritual discourses

>

> " 438. WHAT IS INDIVIDUALITY?

> Individuality is not what the ordinary man takes it to be. He takes it

> to be adherence to one's own body, senses and mind; and at the same

> time he believes that the individuality is changeless. Such an

> individuality is never possible.

> The advaitin seeks that individuality or principle in him which

> continues unchanged, even when the body and the mind change every

> moment.

> That individuality, if it should be changeless, can only be the real

> `I'-principle (Atma). "

>

> (My note on the above passage:

> It is interesting to note that the word " individual " comes from the

> latin individuus, from in-'not' + dividuus 'divisible', or that which is

> non-divisible. It parallels our terminology, Advaita.

> So then, the very word individual carries the advaitic seed, although

> taken from the vantage point of the Ahamkara, it just denotes the

> opposite sense, the sense of being a separate entity from the whole with

> an " individual " set of characteristics or attributes, which in

> themselves are also separate and not unified (what a semantic paradox!).

> As Sri Atmanadaji says, the real " individuality " cannot be other than

> Atma.)

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

 

Namaste Mounaji,

 

Thanks for posting the above. I find it interesting,

in that my teacher often uses the word 'me' as a pointer

to the self. My teacher does this to emphasis and

indicate how extremely 'personal' the self is.

 

Sometimes when we think of the meaning of the word

'personal' we might think, well that doesn't seem to

fit with the teachings of Vedanta which tell us

that we are not the body or mind or sense organs.

We are none of those things which we think go

into making up the person, the personal 'me.'

 

And yet, this exceedingly personal 'me' is indeed

the self which is sought. What makes me, me?

That which makes me, me really is the self.

 

The self also happens to be your 'me,' and the 'me'

of every living being. We all have the same 'me.'

What this mind loves the best is also what that mind

loves the best. And what is that?

Why me of course :-)

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

" Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> What this mind loves the best is also what that mind

> loves the best. And what is that?

> Why me of course :-)

 

 

Dear Durgaji, Namaste

 

Very much to the point.

And since the most " personal " , the most intimate also.

In poetic language, the Beloved...

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

mouna