Change and the changeless

[Allan Curry]

Namaskar

egodust writes:

>So that, moksha is founded on the certainty that one cannot be
>defined/confined by ego.  In fact, one's apparent ego has as much
>to do with one's Self as does any other ego.  The atman can say:
>"The entire world of egos is part of who I am; and yet these
>[even collectively] represent such an insignificant part, as to
>be substantially irrelevant."  What are the implications of this?

    Is the author of the above the atman who can say
    "The entire world of egos is part of who I am..." or is
    the author of the above one of the egos the atman is
    speaking about?  If the author is atman, does the author
    also have certain knowledge of this fact?  If the author
    is not atman, how does he know what atman can or cannot say?

regards,

- Allan Curry