Change and the changeless

[egodust]

Allan Curry wrote:
> 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?
>

Upon the application of self-enquiry in regards to this matter--in
my estimation--reveals that the source or ground of this information
is indeterminate and untraceable to any knowable entity, egoic, atmanic
or otherwise.

The following is a disclaimer on my website, to this end:

All the writings herein by "egodust"--as implied by the name--are not
traceable to any individual that can be identified as being their
author...and the apparent identity of "egodust" is, alongside the
information disseminated on this website, irrelevant...especially in light
of the fact that such information shared is, in his own view, unnecessary.
Furthermore, "egodust" claims that the process by which this is happening
is incomprehensible to him; and that the merits of whether or not it
[the alleged metaphysical knowledge] is reflective of, or pointing toward,
'the truth' is left solely for the reader to determine.

Namaste.

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust