#absolute reality

In our journey towards spiritual awakening, we often encounter the perplexing notion of time. Our minds are conditioned to perceive time linearly: past, present, and future. This perception is deeply ingrained in our consciousness, shaping our understanding of reality. However, the Absolute— the ultimate reality—exists beyond this linear framework. In the realm of the Absolute, everything that…

🔱  Om Namo Bhagavathe Sri ArunachalaRamanaya   🔱  

🕉️  

The Paramount Importance of Self Attention, by Sri Sadhu Om, As recorded by Michael James

Part Six - Mountain Path: July – August 2013 - Excerpt

Note of 7th January 1978 (Part 2)

🕉️  

Ignorance is of two types: 'I know' and 'I don't know'. Both depend upon the rising 'I', and both disappear when that rising 'I' is scrutinised. In verse 9 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says: 

Dyads [pairs of opposites such as knowing and not knowing] and triads [the three factors of objective knowledge: the knower, the knowing and the known] exist [only by] clinging always to 'one' [namely our mind or ego, which alone experiences such knowledge or ignorance]. If [anyone] looks within the mind [to discover] what that 'one' is, they [the dyads and triads] will cease to exist [because the ego on which they depend will be found to be non-existent]. Only those who have seen [this non-existence of the ego] are those have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

In the state of jñāna [knowledge] no 'I' can rise either to say 'I know myself' or 'I do not knοω myself'. This is the truth that Bhagavan teaches us in both verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu and verse 2 of Sri Arunāchala Ashtakam:

Saying 'I do not know myself' [or] 'I have known myself' is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object known, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth of everyone's experience.

When within [my] mind I investigated who the seer is, [and] when the seer [thereby] became non-existent, I saw that which remained [namely beginningless, endless and unbroken being-consciousness-bliss]. The mind does not [now] rise to say 'I saw', [so] in what way can the mind rise to say 'I did not see'? Who has the power to elucidate this [by] speaking, when in ancient times [even] you [as Dakshinamurti] elucidated [it] without speaking? Only to elucidate your state without speaking, you stood shining [from] earth [to] sky motionlessly [or as a hill].

To say 'I knοω myself' is as absurd as saying 'I do not knοω myself'. In verse twelve of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

That which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance is [true] knowledge. That which knows [anything other than itself] is not true knowledge. Since it shines without anything that is other [than itself] to knοω or to make known, self is [true] knowledge. Know it is not a void.

Bhagavan once told Muruganar: "It is not only that self does not know other things, it does not even know itself as 'I am this'." In verse 26 of Upadesa Undiyar he says: 'Being self alone is knowing self, because self is devoid of two. ...'. That is, there are not two selves so that one could be known by the other. Since self is indivisibly single, it can know itself only by being itself. And since being conscious of itself is its very nature, its being itself is itself its knowing itself. In verse 8 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] substance [the absolute reality or God] in name and form. However, knοω [that] knowing the reality of oneself [by] subsiding in and becoming one with the reality of that true substance is seeing [it] in reality.

Here 'knowing the reality [or truth] of oneself' may mean either knowing the non-existence of the ego or knowing what we really are. However, 'knowing the non-existence of the ego' fits better in this context, considering the phrase 'subsiding in the reality of that true substance', though both meanings amount to the same thing. Whichever way it is taken, 'the reality of oneself' can be correctly known only by our subsiding in and becoming one with the reality of that true substance, which is our real self.

Worshiping that true substance (which is also called 'the supreme reality' or 'God') in any name or form may be a means to see visions of it in that name and form, but it cannot be a means to experience knowledge of the true nature of that reality, which is devoid of any name or form. In order to knοω the true nature of the reality one must know the true nature of oneself, the knower. Therefore in verse 1073 of Guru Vachaka Kovai Bhagavan says:

Since the many [forms of] God that are obtained [as visions or other such dualistic experiences] by clear [pure-hearted] worship undergo appearance and disappearance and [thus] perish, only one's own [true] nature, which always exists with clarity [or certainty], is the true form of God that exists immutably.

If God is experienced or known as other than the knower, he becomes an object of knowledge and as such he depends for his existence upon the knower. Since the knower is unreal, so too is whatever it knows. Therefore, the absolute reality or God can only be known truly by the knower being one with it. When the knower and the known are both resolved into the one reality, that is true knowledge.

⚜

If one knows what one’s own nature is, then what will remain and shine is only the beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-consciousness-bliss [anadi ananta akhanda sat-chit-ananda]. 

⚜