Is it possible?

[doppelganger]

How else would I know to make the point? For the record, it is constant change. Spinning was a feature of the analogy.

Precisely. The only constant is ceaseless change. By the time conscious thought comes around to "it is" it isn't. And by the time "I am," I'm not.

I'm a million different people from one day to the next. And the universe of changing information is at the point of eternal "now" where raw sensory signals meet memories stories in the neurological architecture of my brain . . . so the "Atman" changes from now to now . . . to now . . to now, as well.

It's the ego that wants to reduce the universe to a collection of static things. "Enlightenment" is just an awareness of the tricks played on us by grammar and ego, it does not stop those tricks from occurring, but by being aware of them, it changes the way thought is moved by them when they occur.

 

[YmirGF]

Precisely. The only constant is ceaseless change. By the time conscious thought comes around to "it is" it isn't. And by the time "I am," I'm not.

Earlier in the thread the idea of "desiring to understand" came up, which I merrily poo-poo'd stating that "understanding" would be the least of ones concerns because it is all one can do to keep up. Understanding comes MUCH later and occurs after the event - for the most part. There simply isn't time to assimilate. It's like watching the Superbowl and dissecting a given play right after it happened. It is true that you would understand much more about the mechanics behind that play but the reality is, while you were taking the time to understand, you missed the subsequent plays. It's all about focus.

I'm a million different people from one day to the next.

And I never thought I'd live to be a million, let alone 15,000,000,000.

And the universe of changing information is at the point of eternal "now" where raw sensory signals meet memories stories in the neurological architecture of my brain . . . so the "Atman" changes from now to now . . . to now . . to now, as well.

Superbly put, if I may say so. That is certainly my perception, so it's nice to see, it's not just me.

It's the ego that wants to reduce the universe to a collection of static things. "Enlightenment" is just an awareness of the tricks played on us by grammar and ego, it does not stop those tricks from occurring, but by being aware of them, it changes the way thought is moved by them when they occur.

In general, I don't approve of dumping on the poor, disrespected, ego. There are, of course, limitations to the ego, but as long as the ego understands its limitations and its role, all is well. It's when the ego digs in its heels and no longer allows for change that things come off the rails.

 

[atanu]

How else would I know to make the point? For the record, it is constant change. Spinning was a feature of the analogy.

So, as the witness of ceaseless change you were also ceaselessly changing?

...

 

[MathewJames]

Do you agree that such an entity is truth? If not why? If yes, then why?

Do you agree that such an attainement is possible? If not why? If yes, then how?

...

Agree. There is only TRUTH.

Agree. It is attained by giving up human pride.

 

[atanu]

Agree. There is only TRUTH.

Agree. It is attained by giving up human pride.

I agree.

...

 

[YmirGF]

So, as the witness of ceaseless change you were also ceaselessly changing?

...

Now you're getting it.

Agree. There is only TRUTH.

Agree. It is attained by giving up human pride.

I hate to break the news but truth is relative to understanding. In that respect there is no inviolate truth, as it were. Frankly, pride has nothing to do with it either, though I am fairly confident that many will vehemently disagree.

The key is, if you think or believe that pride is an issue, then indeed, you must do something to put that pride in check. What isn't well understood is the process by which we put hurdles in our path. They don't need to be there, but we think they should be and so we have to scale them, one by one.

 

[doppelganger]

In general, I don't approve of dumping on the poor, disrespected, ego. There are, of course, limitations to the ego, but as long as the ego understands its limitations and its role, all is well. It's when the ego digs in its heels and no longer allows for change that things come off the rails.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those ego-deniers. It's part of being and its function is to help keep the body alive. But it comes with a lot of embedded fears and hangups that put it out of touch and at odds with its universe, leading to a tendency to need to cling to certainty about things that are not actually certain. So while it has its purpose, when it is misunderstood as an avenue to truth or "God," having an ego does tend to cause confusion and anguish.

 

[MathewJames]

truth is relative to understanding. In that respect there is no inviolate truth, as it were.

What isn't well understood is the process by which we put hurdles in our path. They don't need to be there, but we think they should be and so we have to scale them, one by one.

I agree truth is relative to understanding. And that no one person has that full understanding, as such truth (in fullness) can not be found in this world. But IMO there is a singular Truth, it just can not be found because we are humans.

The concept of a process in which we put hurdles in our path is also well said. I thing most of my hurdles are put in my path by my pride.

 

[atanu]

Precisely. The only constant is ceaseless change. By the time conscious thought comes around to "it is" it isn't. And by the time "I am," I'm not.

I'm a million different people from one day to the next.

Hello Doppel

Is that from any scripture, or your understanding, or your experience?

...

 

[atanu]

Now you're getting it.

Thanks. Good news.

I understand that the atman, which is indivisible, devoid of any the Subject/Object distinctions is changeless. In its state of Seer (as subject in the Subject/Object differentiated realm of Mind) also it is changeless.


...,

 

[Pegg]

An authoritative Vedanta scripture declares:

Do you agree that such an entity is truth? If not why? If yes, then why?

Do you agree that such an attainement is possible? If not why? If yes, then how?

...

If there really is only one true creator of us, then what he tells us must be true. That truth is most certainly attainable according to Jesus, he said "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

he also said that truth would bring freedom
John 8:31 “If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples, 32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.”

knowing such truth will bring you freedom.

 

[atanu]

If there really is only one true creator of us, then what he tells us must be true. That truth is most certainly attainable according to Jesus, he said "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

he also said that truth would bring freedom
John 8:31 “If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples, 32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.”

knowing such truth will bring you freedom.

I agree there.

...

 

[YmirGF]

Thanks. Good news.

I understand that the atman, which is indivisible, devoid of any the Subject/Object distinctions is changeless. In its state of Seer (as subject in the Subject/Object differentiated realm of Mind) also it is changeless.

Oh, I am quite familiar with what the books will tell you. Get out and explore a bit and then come back and tell me that it is changeless. Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[painted wolf]

An authoritative Vedanta scripture declares:



Do you agree that such an entity is truth? If not why? If yes, then why?

Do you agree that such an attainement is possible? If not why? If yes, then how?

...

Sure, if freedom is a state of mind... you are as old as you feel and so on.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Spinning ceaselessly?

...

 

[atanu]

Interested readers may wish to go through the scripture.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/111000-what-atman.html

...

 

[Onkara]

Hi YmirGF and doppelgänger
May I ask, do either of you reject the concept of a soul or Atman, based on your observations above?

 

[YmirGF]

Hi YmirGF and doppelgänger
May I ask, do either of you reject the concept of a soul or Atman, based on your observations above?

An interesting question. To be honest, I hadn't realized that Atenu wanted the garden variety answers to Atman when I first started in this thread. Any boob, who can read, can trot out what Atman theoretically is and what it's qualities are after examining a few books if, of course, memory is not enough. Under those restrictions, I would have to, necessarily, agree entirely with what the others have posted because within those narrow definitions, Atman is described as being changeless, etc... yadda, yadda, yadda.

That said, I do not like using the term "soul" due to the inherent religious baggage the term has come to include. It appears that I will now be adding "atman" to my list of banned terms as I simply do not agree with the standard drivel surrounding the term that is accepted as being somewhat factual.

To answer your question, do I, YmirGF believe in the soul or atman? The short answer would be a qualified, "No, I do not." I do however believe in the phenomena or symbolic reality that both terms allude to, however bastardized the information about that symbolic reality has become. I much prefer the term "entity" or "personality energy essence" as both terms are relatively free from distortions. With these terms, I can allude to the very same phenomena and vigorously assert that they are virtually "change incarnate", rather than being some inviolate aspect of personality that is Absolute and beyond any further change.

Edit: It actually strikes my funny bone, being asked, do you believe in soul/atman. For me, it goes a few steps beyond simple belief as it is my direct experience. It's sort of like asking me if I believe in the wind. The reason it strikes my funny bone is, I don't believe I am a soul, it is what I experience as being the core of the self that I am. In those terms, I am a soul who finds themselves living on a backwater little world, in a curious time, that is both endlessly entertaining and rewarding. I'm glad I decided to come back. It's a lovely place to vacation.

 

[atanu]

An interesting question. To be honest, I hadn't realized that Atenu wanted the garden variety answers to Atman when I first started in this thread. Any boob, who can read, can trot out what Atman theoretically is and what it's qualities are after examining a few books if, of course, memory is not enough. Under those restrictions, I would have to, necessarily, agree entirely with what the others have posted because within those narrow definitions, Atman is described as being changeless, etc... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Hello Ym

That is true. When a garden is seen, the explanations pertain to the garden like situation. Atman is explained at several levels: physical body level, mind level, Seer (subject) level, and the immutable fullness level.

-- it goes a few steps beyond simple belief as it is my direct experience.

So, there is you and there is an experience (of an entity?)

But, there is knowledge of subject/object free state also and that also can be verified by many. In this state time loses all meaning. Since, time loses its meaning, change or changelessness do not hold any meaning. This whole is the substratum of mind and time. But at no time, the substratum is not.

What you are speaking of is the state where Atman (or entity if you prefer) is dwelling as both the subject and the object and not the fullness devoid of subject/object.

I will be away for about 20 days. We may discuss further later.

Regards

...

 

[doppelganger]

Hi YmirGF and doppelgänger
May I ask, do either of you reject the concept of a soul or Atman, based on your observations above?

I use a concept of the "soul" or "Atman" that means something in the context of my own inner experience and introspection. How they might be used by someone else, may or may not work for me. If it doesn't then I guess you could say I "reject the concept," but you can just as easily say that you (or someone else) are rejecting the concept as I understand it to have meaning.