Change and the changeless

[Govind Rengarajan]

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> I am most surprised at this question. I think the question raised is the
> most hypothetical I have ever heard and I cannot see how it can be
> answered. We are what we are based on what we were. One cannot erase
> everything or anything. To try to figure out what the intellectual self
> would be if and if something had happened or not happened is the most
> futile exercise.

        The point I was trying to make here is that the "Self"
        should be known without any bias whatsoever to a
        person who is realized. And this knowledge (of Self), I
        *believe* is beyond direct explanation.
>
> If my understanding of the SELF is wrong, I would like Shri Rengarajan
> to explain to me what his understanding of the SELF is. Does he think,
> contrary to what I said, that SELF is confined only to a small space,
> only to one individual or to one particular species ? What is his concept
> of the SELF, if it is different from what I have given ?

        My *concept* of Self is similar to yours which
        I gathered from reading and listening among other things.
        But I do not have any direct experience of it. The reason I
        replied to your earlier mail was to make sure of the
        difference between a direct knowledge of "Self" and an
        understanding of the *concept* of "Self". And to this you
        have replied:

>My answer to the question is: I recognize that the human intellect
>cannot comprehend the SELF. But, whatever concepts I have of the
>SELF are by sAdhana, by contemplation of the SELF continuously, by
>meditation on the SELF and above all by Shri Lalitha's grace.

        Thanks. This is what I wanted to know.

        BTW, if the tone of my earlier mail sounded offensive to
        you, I am sorry. It was not meant to be.

        namO nArAyanA,
        govindarajan