that which Maitreyi wanted to know is
that which by seeking, all is known
is but the Self within
aham Brahmasmi
the world resolves into my senses
the senses resolve in the mind
the mind resolves in the "I"
and the "I" resolves in the Self
what is left to be known?
once the Self is known
what is left to be seen?
when there is nothing left to see
the Self prevails when you destroy the veils
of duality caused by the absence of vidya
it is not an effect caused
it is that which is uncaused
beyond the ken of causality
That which is to be known solely through Atmavichara
once the Self is known
what is left to be seen?
when there is nothing left to see
the Self prevails when you destroy the veils
of duality caused by the absence of vidya
it is not an effect caused
it is that which is uncaused
beyond the ken of causality
That which is to be known solely through Atmavichara
-rudra
1 comment:
I was curious from the url of your blog, have you read Ayn Rand?
Not expressed as eloquently as the quote in your post, but had written something on similar lines - here (click). Of course, I gave it a frivolous ending!
But, I really don't think there's any tangible purpose to my life. So I study whatever I find interesting - including (in fact, more of) the external world.
And there's one inherent paradox in the quote, I feel.
The 'self' or the 'I' cannot be studied when it is static. And it can be not static only if reacts to something. Reaction entails two things - that the state of the self changes and that the stimulus be external.
So our sensations are very sterile and passive. Like for instance, you might see a glass jar fall and break.
Imagine the number of sensations involved - you see it fall and break into multiple pieces; you hear the jar break. You see its contents spill. Some of those contents come and get splashed on you, and so do the pieces of glass, which might pierce into your skin. Here, the touch and pain sensations are involved.
The point I'm driving at is - individually none of these sensations would make you react. Your 'I' is largely inert to individual sensations. But when they happen in concert, the brain synthesizes these sensations into an EXPERIENCE.
In the process your brain creates an external reality for you. And the 'I' in you reacts precisely to that external reality. Here, the external reality is the process of falling and breaking of bottle, which your sensations had registered plus its consequences - the feeling of loss you feel depending upon how much you'd valued the contents and the bottle, and the work you might have to do in clearing away the glass pieces.
So reaction from the 'self' cannot occur in isolation, i.e., without taking cognizance of what happens in the external environment. And hence, to fully understand the 'self' we've to also understand the 'external reality', which requires to be constructed using intellectual effort, and not merely by taking a stock of stimuli bombarding our sense organs.
I made sense?
Who's Rudra?
The most philosophical and personal I've got on my blog was in my discussion with Harshad here (click).
Post a Comment