Guest guest Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 SAI RAM Dear Brothers and Sisters, In the previous submissions we tried to understand the implications of a few terminologies found in the scriptures which have been used to indicate the Atma. In the Gita, Arjuna requests the Lord to describe His glories. The Lord confesses his inability to describe them fully as they are infinite. The Lord declares, " Even that which constitutes the universe is only a small part of the unmanifest reality " ( Mama tejo`msa sambhavam). The Reality or Atma is beyond the scope of the mind and therefore can not be described in words, even by the Lord. Words, however, reveal the Truth, which is experienced within us as our own Self, the Atma. In the Kenopanishad, the student asks the question, " Propelled by what does the mind think, the pranas breathe, the speech speak, the eyes see forms and the ears hear sounds? The student is not interested in what the mind thinks or what the eys see. He is also not interested in the anatomy and physiology of the body and mind. Left to themselves, the mind or eyes can not function. There must be some silent entity which propels them. The student wants to confirm the above deuction from the teacher. The questions which come to the mind of the student are: " Is there Consciousness , which propels the inert? If so, is it independent or does it depend on another sentirnt being? Is it finite or infinite? What is its relation to me? Is it one with me or different from me " ? The teacher in reply says, " there is Consciouness which is independen, infinite and and is your own true nature. It is revealed as the mind of the mind, the ear of the ear and the eye of the eye " . This implies that Atma is not the object of the senses nor the organs of perception (adrisyam). It neither has, nor is it, any sound, touch,form(or colour), taste or smell. It is also not the object of the organs of actions(agraahyam). It can not be grasped by the hand, reached by the legs, described by the words etc. It is not hearing in the ears or the sight in the eys (achaks-srotram). It is not the sense organs of perceptions nor is it the ability in the hand to grasp and move in the leg (apanipadam). It is not the organs of action. Is it then a feeling(as emotions can not be seen or heard)?. What we see is only an angry face, not anger as such. Is it a concept of the intellect (as thoughts or ideas can not be seen or heard)? Atma is neither an emotion nor a concept of the mind or intellect--- as it is the very propeller of the mind. It is because of the prescence of Atma that the mind and intellect feel and think. When everything is thus negated one may start doubting the very existence of Atma. We may even conclude that Atma is a void (sunya). The horns of a human being can not be seen, heard or thought of, as they do not exist. Reality is not a void nor is It non-existent. It is the Atma due to which the mind and senses function. The very working of the mind and the senses proves the existence of Truth or Reality or Atma. The very working of the bulb or fan proves the existence of electricity even though electricity is not seen or heard directly. Thus it is established that Atma is and it is of the nature of Consciouness. The next question is: Is it independent or does it depend on another entity for its sentiency? (to be continued) With Loving Sai Rams, G.Balasubramanian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.