Change and the changeless

[egodust]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, egodust wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> I would be grateful for a further elabaration
> of paragraph 3. I did not understand the concept of apparent ego.
>

Yes, what I'm alluding to is the ego that apparently (or by all
compelling appearances) uniquely defines the individual, as being
so-and-so with such-and-such skandas, sankalpas, etc.  You'll
notice the very next statement clarifies this by pointing out the
arbitrariness and interchangeability involved, in terms of substituting
one ego with any other.


> I think that one has to raise above the maaya and above the thought that
> the jeeva is bound. Then only, the jeeva will be out of the so-called
> shackles. In reality, there are no shackles. It is only the shackles
> created by the jeeva's own thought. The jeeva (or the core of what is
> jeeva) is ever free.
>
> Coming back to the change and the Changeless, where is the change in I ?
> The changes in the body, changes in the thoughts, changes in the intellect
> (hence the concept of jnani and ajnani) are only the superficial changes,
> not to the core I. The core I is eternal, unchanging, nishchala and
> nirmala.
>

OM nityamownananda.


_______________________

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

http://digital.net/~egodust