From a site visitor: You might remember that I ordered a copy of FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE not long ago. I agree with Tyla that it’s the most important book I’ve ever read, but two questions came up while I was reading. 1. When the manifesting is taking place, the conscious-energy, as you referred to it, is moving from the field and headed toward manifestation in some physical form or matrix. You show its movement from the Absolute to the True Self to the witness to the Child Ignorance stage. First, what is the difference in the True Self and the witness? Also, it seems that the True Self and witness would come after the Child Ignorance stage. Why do you teach the reverse? (This is not to debate your teaching, just to understand it.) Thank you. Randall
[Continued from yesterday. Again, the postings under this heading are for those at the advanced level. Today’s postings will be foundational, clarifying terms that are often misunderstood and thus misused.]
F.: To clarify some terms that will be used in this series, be aware that some Advaita teachers use the term “atman” or "Self" or “True Self” to refer to THAT which is “in” that pool of energy-at-“rest” from which the conscious-energy cycles into manifestation. Their use of “THAT” and “True Self” interchangeably causes many protégés to take the Absolute to be some “place” where some bundle of consciousness “goes” post-manifestation and remains "bundled." That misunderstanding has resulted in some believing that "the bundle" can re-manifest, in tact, in some "lower" or "higher" life form (terms that themselves reveal a belief in duality). Those same persons would evidently believe that you could thaw a huge snowball, toss that handful of water into the ocean, then thrush your hands into the ocean and pull up only that exact quantity of H2O, and use the former snowball-turned-water to make an ice cube.
[The early Advaita teaching regarding "Self" and the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was misinterpreted by some who wanted body-mind-personality continuity. From that misunderstanding evolved all religions, all concepts regarding an “afterlife,” and the dreamed up dogma which contains such concepts as a Self or “soul” that will be forever in one recognizable form or other. Their confusion also led to notions such as “life-after-death” for "beings" and eternal “places” for a soul or Self to reside, including “a geographic heaven and a geographic hell.”]
The reality is that the True Self—the totally pure or re-purified consciousness—is that which can know the Absolute, but only when manifested. As you read FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE, see Self as (a) transitional, the condition that exists when the consciousness is manifested, re-purified, and thus no longer identified with the phenomenonal; (b) capable of knowing and understanding the Nonmenon; but (c) abiding as the Absolute but not yet unmanifested or reintegrated into the field of energy pointed to with the term "the Absolute." Also, both the True Self and the Absolute can only be known via the purified, manifest consciousness. Self can witness THAT and can know THAT, but THAT knows nothing and THAT which is not manifested (or that which was manifested but has unmanifested) can never know anything. The True Self is limited to the beingness. THAT, conversely, is limitless and is beyond any beingness or non-beingness, and those who have been led to believe otherwise have been fooled.
The summative expression “I AM THAT; I AM”—if used to argue that a self or Self’s beingness extends beyond manifestation—is a tool used by those seeking continuity and who are ignoring the Original Understanding. It is the tool of those who would convince persons to believe that a physical body can survive eternally and can experience either fire-induced pain or orgasm-induced pleasure…forever. It is the tool of those who would convince persons to believe that some ethereal form or “soul” can survive eternally and can experience an ecstatic, rapturous, euphoric existence of a divine nature. (That, too, would require some form of being or beingness, whereas the Absolute is beyond both beingness and non-beingness.) It is the tool of those who would convince persons that what is, was, and shall be has some Selfness or Beingness which can be associated with the phenomenonal but that will remain in tact (post-manifestation) in some Nonmenonal state of existence or state of being.
[Continued from yesterday. Again, the postings under this heading are for those at the advanced level. Today’s postings will be foundational, clarifying terms that are often misunderstood and thus misused.]
F.: To clarify some terms that will be used in this series, be aware that some Advaita teachers use the term “atman” or "Self" or “True Self” to refer to THAT which is “in” that pool of energy-at-“rest” from which the conscious-energy cycles into manifestation. Their use of “THAT” and “True Self” interchangeably causes many protégés to take the Absolute to be some “place” where some bundle of consciousness “goes” post-manifestation and remains "bundled." That misunderstanding has resulted in some believing that "the bundle" can re-manifest, in tact, in some "lower" or "higher" life form (terms that themselves reveal a belief in duality). Those same persons would evidently believe that you could thaw a huge snowball, toss that handful of water into the ocean, then thrush your hands into the ocean and pull up only that exact quantity of H2O, and use the former snowball-turned-water to make an ice cube.
[The early Advaita teaching regarding "Self" and the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was misinterpreted by some who wanted body-mind-personality continuity. From that misunderstanding evolved all religions, all concepts regarding an “afterlife,” and the dreamed up dogma which contains such concepts as a Self or “soul” that will be forever in one recognizable form or other. Their confusion also led to notions such as “life-after-death” for "beings" and eternal “places” for a soul or Self to reside, including “a geographic heaven and a geographic hell.”]
The reality is that the True Self—the totally pure or re-purified consciousness—is that which can know the Absolute, but only when manifested. As you read FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE, see Self as (a) transitional, the condition that exists when the consciousness is manifested, re-purified, and thus no longer identified with the phenomenonal; (b) capable of knowing and understanding the Nonmenon; but (c) abiding as the Absolute but not yet unmanifested or reintegrated into the field of energy pointed to with the term "the Absolute." Also, both the True Self and the Absolute can only be known via the purified, manifest consciousness. Self can witness THAT and can know THAT, but THAT knows nothing and THAT which is not manifested (or that which was manifested but has unmanifested) can never know anything. The True Self is limited to the beingness. THAT, conversely, is limitless and is beyond any beingness or non-beingness, and those who have been led to believe otherwise have been fooled.
The summative expression “I AM THAT; I AM”—if used to argue that a self or Self’s beingness extends beyond manifestation—is a tool used by those seeking continuity and who are ignoring the Original Understanding. It is the tool of those who would convince persons to believe that a physical body can survive eternally and can experience either fire-induced pain or orgasm-induced pleasure…forever. It is the tool of those who would convince persons to believe that some ethereal form or “soul” can survive eternally and can experience an ecstatic, rapturous, euphoric existence of a divine nature. (That, too, would require some form of being or beingness, whereas the Absolute is beyond both beingness and non-beingness.) It is the tool of those who would convince persons that what is, was, and shall be has some Selfness or Beingness which can be associated with the phenomenonal but that will remain in tact (post-manifestation) in some Nonmenonal state of existence or state of being.
For clarity, therefore, take the summative expression at its very simplest level to refer to "unmanifested energy with the potential to manifest and then be aware of" (that's the I AM THAT portion) and "manifested energy with an ability to be aware of, if not bastardized or if re-purified" (which is the I AM portion). Read nothing more into the phrase. See that it is pointing only to (1) energy with the potential for awareness or (2) energy with awareness. See too that, since both point to the same energy, no duality is implied. The phrase points only to the “states” or “conditions” of the one, same energy—whether the energy is kinetic or potential. In truth, it’s all one type of energy, whether kinetic or potential, whether manifested or not.
Even if those teachers and protégés take the True Self to be nothing more than some speck of energy—some most “basic of basics”—which has the potential to manifest and to make the I-Amness known, they have been misled. That is not the True Self. Selfness only happens when manifested, not when in that state of potentiality. Is the Absolute also THAT which can be referred to as "what was, is and shall be"? Of course, certainly to the degree that the Laws of Thermodynamics make clear that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. But those wishing and hoping and desiring continuity grasp that untruth of eternal Selfness and cling to it, wanting their “True Self” to continue eternally. They want the self or the Self to be that which is, was, and shall be. They have been fooled or they are fooling themselves. The pure consciousness realizes (that is, the True Self knows or the Pure Witnesssing sees) that No Selfness, no Being, no Beingness and no non-Beingness, is eternal. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
Even if those teachers and protégés take the True Self to be nothing more than some speck of energy—some most “basic of basics”—which has the potential to manifest and to make the I-Amness known, they have been misled. That is not the True Self. Selfness only happens when manifested, not when in that state of potentiality. Is the Absolute also THAT which can be referred to as "what was, is and shall be"? Of course, certainly to the degree that the Laws of Thermodynamics make clear that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. But those wishing and hoping and desiring continuity grasp that untruth of eternal Selfness and cling to it, wanting their “True Self” to continue eternally. They want the self or the Self to be that which is, was, and shall be. They have been fooled or they are fooling themselves. The pure consciousness realizes (that is, the True Self knows or the Pure Witnesssing sees) that No Selfness, no Being, no Beingness and no non-Beingness, is eternal. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
