Change and the changeless

[Gummuluru Murthy]

On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Charles A. Hillig wrote:

>
>
> Hi, Gummuluru,
>
>      But isn't that just another strategy?     Are you suggesting that I
> "change" from what I am doing to start focusing in on my "changelessness?"
>
>      If I do that, I've already defeated myself by changing from "I CAN
> change" into "I can NOT change."
>

As Prashant Sharma said in one of his postings, the use of the word "I"
is causing problems.

I see the difficulty in the argument. Let me explain what I try to convey.

The intellectual I is the one that is meditating.
The intellectual I's objective is to be one with the Self I. The Self I is
unchanging. The intellectual I thinks it is changing.
                               ^^^^^^
For the intellectual I to be merged with the Self I, the intellectual I
should shed its upadhis and see no change in itself.

>      Since it's just another position,  the question still remains:  "WHO
> is the "holder" of this position concerning change?"
>

This question can only be answered in the intellectual frame, because in
the Absolute frame, there are no answers or questions. It is very
difficult to answer, but the answer can only be the intellectual I.

>      We are changeless because "we" are not really "here" at all.
>
>       Never have been,  Never will be.
>
>      Only the Self is present.
>
>
>
>                               With Blessings,
>
>                                    Chuck Hillig
>

Eventually That will be the position, but an alternate way to put it may
be "We are everywhere rather than not really here" (?)


Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute   Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------