Dear Sri Egodust

[Allan Curry]

Namaskar

egodust writes:

>As I stated earlier:  "...there can be no conceptual answer to the
>atmavichara,"  which implies, of course, that there can neither thus
>be any verbal answer.  Each individual has to find it for themselves.
>

    Yes, yes, of course but I'm asking you about something
    you've already referred to, not something which you are
    unable to talk about.

You've said:...

>    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.

    I'm asking about this indeterminate source or ground
    of your information. I have already "found" an
    indeterminate source or ground of my own thought
    thousands of times and it is seems "untraceable to any
    knowable entity" and the sense of there being a "finder"
    seems to disappear in and as the act of finding the
    indeterminacy at its core. I can't say whether this
    indeterminate source or ground is atman or not. I just
    don't know but that's the way it is and that's OK.

    You have recently commented on what the atman can
    say about all the egos in the world and the atman's
    relationship to them. So I figured maybe you know about
    atman *and* the "indeterminate source or ground" of your
    own information, both of which you've already referred
    to. You can't get off the hook by saying that you can't
    say anything about it, because you've already said quite
    a bit about it. So perhaps you would now be so good as
    to just answer the question, regarding the indeterminate
    source or ground of your own information: is it atman?

    "Yes", "No" or "I don't know" are three legitimate answers.

regards,

- Allan Curry