shivoadvaitam atma

[atanu]

Om

Rudra, the Supreme seer is Satya, Rita, and Param Brahma Purusha. Narayana, who is consciousness, is para brahma tattwa. Open minded study of the following verses from Mahanarayana Upanishad (especially the verses shown in bold) will surely reveal this.


Mahanarayana Upanishad

dvaavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

namo hiraNyabaahave hiraNyavarNaaya hiraNyaruupaaya hiraNyapataye.ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH .. 1..

trayovi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
R^ita{\m+} satyaM paraM brahma purushha .n kR^ishhNapi~Ngalam.h .uurdhvareta.n viruupaaksha.n vishvaruupaaya vai namo namaH .. 1..

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha yat.h . sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



trayodasho.anuvaakaH .

sahasrashiirshha.n deva.n vishvaaksha.n vishvashambhuvam.h .
vishva.n naaraayaNa.n devamaksharaM paramaM prabhum.h .. 1..
vishvataH parama.n nitya.n vishva.n naaraayaNa{\m+} harim.h . vishvamevedaM purushhastadvishvamupajiivati .. 2..
pati.n vishvasyaatmeshvara{\m+} shaashvata{\m+} shivamachyutam.h .naaraayaNaM mahaaj~neya.n vishvaatmaanaM paraayaNam.h .. 3..
naaraayaNaH paraM brahma tattva .n naaraayaNaH paraH .


End of citation


However, for advaitins all these are just concepts. No difference is seen between param brahma tattwa Narayana and param brahma Purusha ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye Ritam satyaM paraM brahma.viruupaaksha vishvaruupaaya Lord Shiva, who is here manifest of shivoadvaitam Self.


Param Brahma tattva can only constitute Param Brahma and Param Brahma tattva can only be present in Param Brahma Purusha.


However, please let it not be construed that what has been written above is after an image of mind and is sectarian. Far from it, since an Advaitin knows the following too well.

Svet. Upanishad

19. No one has grasped him above, or across, or in the middle. There is no image of him whose name is Great Glory.

20. His form cannot be seen, no one perceives him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him thus abiding in the heart, become immortal.

21. 'Thou art unborn,' with these words a few devotees come near to thee, trembling. O Rudra, let thy gracious face protect me for ever!

End of citation

The indestructible shivoadvaitam Atma is one and all : the Seer Rudra, the knowledge principle Narayana, the controller shula pani Shiva and Visvarupa. It is the intelligence everywhere and it is the owner of “I awareness”.


Om Namah Narayana
Om Namah Shivayya
Om

[vedanta_learner]

Om

Rudra, the Supreme seer is Satya, Rita, and Param Brahma Purusha. Narayana, who is consciousness, is para brahma tattwa. Open minded study of the following verses from Mahanarayana Upanishad (especially the verses shown in bold) will surely reveal this.


Mahanarayana Upanishad

dvaavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

namo hiraNyabaahave hiraNyavarNaaya hiraNyaruupaaya hiraNyapataye.ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH .. 1..

trayovi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
R^ita{\m+} satyaM paraM brahma purushha .n kR^ishhNapi~Ngalam.h .uurdhvareta.n viruupaaksha.n vishvaruupaaya vai namo namaH .. 1..

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha yat.h . sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



trayodasho.anuvaakaH .

sahasrashiirshha.n deva.n vishvaaksha.n vishvashambhuvam.h .
vishva.n naaraayaNa.n devamaksharaM paramaM prabhum.h .. 1..
vishvataH parama.n nitya.n vishva.n naaraayaNa{\m+} harim.h . vishvamevedaM purushhastadvishvamupajiivati .. 2..
pati.n vishvasyaatmeshvara{\m+} shaashvata{\m+} shivamachyutam.h .naaraayaNaM mahaaj~neya.n vishvaatmaanaM paraayaNam.h .. 3..
naaraayaNaH paraM brahma tattva .n naaraayaNaH paraH .


End of citation


However, for advaitins all these are just concepts. No difference is seen between param brahma tattwa Narayana and param brahma Purusha ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye Ritam satyaM paraM brahma.viruupaaksha vishvaruupaaya Lord Shiva, who is here manifest of shivoadvaitam Self.


Param Brahma tattva can only constitute Param Brahma and Param Brahma tattva can only be present in Param Brahma Purusha.


However, please let it not be construed that what has been written above is after an image of mind and is sectarian. Far from it, since an Advaitin knows the following too well.

Svet. Upanishad

19. No one has grasped him above, or across, or in the middle. There is no image of him whose name is Great Glory.

20. His form cannot be seen, no one perceives him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him thus abiding in the heart, become immortal.

21. 'Thou art unborn,' with these words a few devotees come near to thee, trembling. O Rudra, let thy gracious face protect me for ever!

End of citation

The indestructible shivoadvaitam Atma is one and all : the Seer Rudra, the knowledge principle Narayana, the controller shula pani Shiva and Visvarupa. It is the intelligence everywhere and it is the owner of “I awareness”.


Om Namah Narayana
Om Namah Shivayya
Om

Hello Atanu,

I think you are also an Advaitin, please teach me adviatic concepts.

Thank you

[atanu]

Hello Atanu,

I think you are also an Advaitin, please teach me adviatic concepts.

Thank you

Dear Learner,

I am a learner as you are. But as my Guru says that all learned things need to be un-learned before Advaita may be known, so learning Advaita should not have any premium.

I only know that my body will not be able to say "Let me live", when life ebbs away. So, knowing who says I here is more important.

In short, know thyself (Yes, that will let one know the Advaita also).

Thank you for showing interest.

Regards.


Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

Some notes hoping that these may be of use.

In recent times, the quantum physics has shown that before the so-called creation (big-bang), the existing being (smaller than a proton unified field) must have had a pre-knowledge that he was going to host a party for future intelligent beings (us). Otherwise it would have been a party to which no one came.

So, they accept that there was a seer, who is still there as such as a participator (the consciousness). All these are very well described in Mandukya Upanishad and other upanishads. So, I suggest study of these upanishads and contemplation.

Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

A good link to follow up on other links

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=65367&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Dear Learner,

In short, know thyself (Yes, that will let one know the Advaita also).

Thank you for showing interest.

Regards.


Om Namah Shivayya

Thanks Atanu,

"Know thyself" ..

is there a "knower" concept in Advaita ?

[atanu]

Thanks Atanu,

"Know thyself" ..

is there a "knower" concept in Advaita ?


Namaste,

Why not? Who is asking the question?

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste,

Why not? Who is asking the question?

Om Namah Shivayya


Thanks sir,

I was asking about the "knower" in "Advaita" state..

As per my knowledge about Advaita..there is no Knower but the only Knowledge remains in Advaita or Final state.

[atanu]

Thanks sir,

I was asking about the "knower" in "Advaita" state..

As per my knowledge about Advaita..there is no Knower but the only Knowledge remains in Advaita or Final state.

Namaste,

Isn't that knowledge itself the knower and the known also?

Knower is always there (albiet in different names). When the knower knows itself as separate from the known, it is called ignorant ego. In Advaita state the knower, pure knowledge, and the knowing are in ONE. Advaita itself is the knower in all states. Even now, Advaita is the knower in you. You will realise it if you search for the knower in you.

Contrary to some ideas that Advaita disregards the waking world observations, Advaita actually encompasses observations of all states.

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste,

Isn't that knowledge itself the knower and the known also?

Knower is always there (albiet in different names). When the knower knows itself as separate from the known, it is called ignorant ego. In Advaita state the knower, pure knowledge, and the knowing are in ONE. Advaita itself is the knower in all states. Even now, Advaita is the knower in you. You will realise it if you search for the knower in you.

Contrary to some ideas that Advaita disregards the waking world observations, Advaita actually encompasses observations of all states.

Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste,

Ok..then how the "Nirvisesha Brahman" can be explained ?

As per your post I can understand that "Knower knows himself as Pure-knowledge self is the final state to be achieved in Adviata"..am I right?

If that is the case what is the concept of "Nirvisesha" ?

Thank you

[atanu]

Namaste,

Ok..then how the "Nirvisesha Brahman" can be explained ?

As per your post I can understand that "Knower knows himself as Pure-knowledge self is the final state to be achieved in Adviata"..am I right?

If that is the case what is the concept of "Nirvisesha" ?

Thank you

"Nirvisesha" ?

Namaste,

See I am not literate. During meditation questions sprout, followed by intuitive knowledge, which often I see supported in Upanishads and Gita and also in Vedas.

I cannot answer from book. But what I have been given I can tell you. I have repeated the meaning of certain verses often. This meaning is not very often explicitly stated by gurus, but I have found it logical conclusion arising from shruti.

Both Gita and many upanishads state that the non-dual atma is knowable and must be known, though it is described simply as indescribable, ungraspable and advaita.

Ungraspable is not an object that you can take hold of. The Atma name cannot ever be mis-translated as something other than the 'very you' (not the sense percieved you). It is that which knows everything including I as this body. Similarly advaita can never be mis-translated as many, though some thinkers say that Advaita may mean the ONE (supreme) among many but you will see the fallacy the moment you combine advaita and atma together. It is ONE. EKO.


So, when Upanishad teaches you to know the EKO, can you remain a dvittiya and still know the EKO? Contemplate and meditate on your own. The answer lies in silence and not in movement. The description of Turiya Self given in mandukya Upanishad may help you.

You have remained what you are always.

In Shankar Vijayam, I read about a debate Shankara had with a VA proponent. Both had similar goal and similar concept of atma as pure knowledge. But VA proponent held a part concept, which Shankara was not interested to refute. He simply said "Moksha is not possible for you with this belief". I later understood that a second cannot know the truth as another. A part cannot know the whole.

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

"Nirvisesha" ?


Ungraspable is not an object that you can take hold of. The Atma name cannot ever be mis-translated as something other than the 'very you' (not the sense percieved you). It is that which knows everything including I as this body. Similarly advaita can never be mis-translated as many, though some thinkers say that Advaita may mean the ONE (supreme) among many but you will see the fallacy the moment you combine advaita and atma together. It is ONE. EKO.


So, when Upanishad teaches you to know the EKO, can you remain a dvittiya and still know the EKO? Contemplate and meditate on your own. The answer lies in silence and not in movement. The description of Turiya Self given in mandukya Upanishad may help you.



Om Namah Shivayya

Ok..thanks a lot.

But still some doubts at logical ground, may be your statements are fully true that in "Meditation" grounds .

leave the Nirvisesha concept, what I mean't of Nirvisesha is "without any attributes"
I thought Advaita means "EKO" without any attributes to be experienced..but from your posts I can understand that "EKO" experincing its existence(ofcourse it should also experience its Bliss).

Leave that nirvisesha concept...

Now the question about your part theory of VA in the debate between Shankara and VA proponent.(though I am not fully aware of VA)

If moksha means know thyself as pure knowledge-self, then why that knowledge-self is not aware of its own self till this point ? what made it to be ignorant after all it is "knowledge-self" ?

[atanu]

Ok..thanks a lot.

---------
Now the question about your part theory of VA in the debate between Shankara and VA proponent.(though I am not fully aware of VA)

If moksha means know thyself as pure knowledge-self, then why that knowledge-self is not aware of its own self till this point ? what made it to be ignorant after all it is "knowledge-self" ?

Namaste,

See, a dream hunger needs a dream food. You cannot prepare rice in waking state to assuage a dream hunger. Answers on Self are available in Turiya and not in waking state.

Some questions are unanswerable. Like Shankara does not answer the origin of ignorance. But do not think that VA or Dvaita have all solutions. For example, VA says karma is without a beginning but has same ambiguity wrt to karma as has advaita about ignorance. And Dvaita leaves no scope for 'moksha' and 'no-return', when scripture gives the moksha as goal to us. I am not saying that VA or Dvaita are wrong. Gurus knew what and why they were teaching certain things.

Now Lord Krishna says: Know that you are not the doer. So, that a man feeling that it has karma is the ignorance.

Anyway, the above is not a direct answer to your question. The direct answer is a counter question. How do you you know that Atma (pure knowledge self) is ignorant? Has it told your mind so? Or this presumption is of your mind? To determine the locus of the ignorant knower and differentiating it from the 'knowledge' is sadhana.

Lord Krishna has said: Forgetfulness is death. Forgetfulness of what? And who forgets? Since Lord Krishna has also said that Param Atma appears divided in bodies but is ONE.

About nirvishesha I will add that it is upto you as to how you want Atma to appear. Check up Gita and see that Lord Krishna says: See also whatever you wish to see in me. And in Vedas, it is Indra who slays the Visvarupa.


Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste,

See, a dream hunger needs a dream food. You cannot prepare rice in waking state to assuage a dream hunger. Answers on Self are available in Turiya and not in waking state.


Namaste,

Every dream will come to an end without any sankalpa by the dreamer..but I don't think that is the case with Turiya , if that is the case ..then no need of any discussions about "Self" because it would be achieved automatically.



Some questions are unanswerable. Like Shankara does not answer the origin of ignorance. But do not think that VA or Dvaita have all solutions. For example, VA says karma is without a beginning but has same ambiguity wrt to karma as has advaita about ignorance. And Dvaita leaves no scope for 'moksha' and 'no-return', when scripture gives the moksha as goal to us. I am not saying that VA or Dvaita are wrong. Gurus knew what and why they were teaching certain things.


If some thing is unanswerable , the theory can't be taken as fully valid
I think every thing was answered by Vedas(sabdha pramana) which can't be with pratyaksha pramana..otherwise how can I believe the Vedas as fully valid.




Now Lord Krishna says: Know that you are not the doer. So, that a man feeling that it has karma is the ignorance.

Anyway, the above is not a direct answer to your question. The direct answer is a counter question. How do you you know that Atma (pure knowledge self) is ignorant? Has it told your mind so? Or this presumption is of your mind? To determine the locus of the ignorant knower and differentiating it from the 'knowledge' is sadhana.


I don't know that Atman is ignorant in first place..but I know that what I am thinking as "I" is not actual "I"..and what I am thinking is "I am this body"..and what Vedas told that "I am not body but Atma(knowledge-self)"..there the question arised that "why that knowledge-self don't know its actual state?"



Lord Krishna has said: Forgetfulness is death. Forgetfulness of what? And who forgets? Since Lord Krishna has also said that Param Atma appears divided in bodies but is ONE.


To whom it appears ? when the appearence started? why it needed that appearence after all it again needs to go to its ONE state?

[atanu]

Namaste,

---------
I don't know that Atman is ignorant in first place..-------..there the question arised that "why that knowledge-self don't know its actual state?"


Namaste Vedanta Learner

See the fun. You say "I do not know that Atman is ignorant in first place". Then you say "why that self self knowledge don't know its actual state?".

There is one who does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not and another who asserts that there is lack of self knowledge.


hehe. Still you don't see the fallacy? You truly may not see, since you are cooking food in waking state to be consumed by Turiya.

A small intellect like me can also see that all VA and dvaita efforts are such; arguments based on superimposition of the waking experiences on Turiya. And Shankara has already spoken about superposition.

Discussion with you is throwing up good light, I feel.

Om

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste Vedanta Learner

See the fun. You say "I do not know that Atman is ignorant in first place". Then you say "why that self self knowledge don't know its actual state?".

There is one who does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not and another who asserts that there is lack of self knowledge.


hehe. Still you don't see the fallacy? You truly may not see, since you are cooking food in waking state to be consumed by Turiya.

A small intellect like me can also see that all VA and dvaita efforts are such; arguments based on superimposition of the waking experiences on Turiya. And Shankara has already spoken about superposition.

Discussion with you is throwing up good light, I feel.

Om

Namaste sir,

I think there is some mis-understanding .

Let me explain my understanding in some what clear terms:

I asked the question about "Moksha" ..which you said as "knowing thyself" , which is certainly not the current experience of mine..that was the reason I asked question that "why the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its atual nature?"

In other words :

"Until I read your posts or vedic knwoledge I was thinking "I am this body" , after reading your posts I came to know that my thoughts are wrong and actual "I" is pure consious knowledge , that means what I thought in previous was ignorance"

In more clear terms :

"I found my previous ignorance after you revealed that my actual nature as "knowledge-self" ..otherwise what I thought in previous would be still not considered ignorance".


Regarding Turiya and waking states..I am not aware and not able to understand your words.

[atanu]

Namaste sir,

I think there is some mis-understanding .

------- "why the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its atual nature?"

-----
-----

Namaste Vedanta learner.

I asked: Who is saying that ?"

You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.

Resolve this problem first please.

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste Vedanta learner.

I asked: Who is saying that ?"

You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.

Resolve this problem first please.

Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste ,

Frankly , I am not getting your point perfectly..

Let me explain what I understood from your question :

you mean "I was asking this question at mind level , which is not graspable by mind about "knowledge-self" " .

Or

" I was asking the question at mind level , and "knowledge-self" is beyond mind ...so you mean "knowledge-self" knows its nature if it is knowledge-self .."

If that is what your explanation..then let me explain my doubt more clearly :

who is the experiencer of my all bodily experiences?

is knowledge-self "I" which is within this body experiencing its "knowledge" , "Bliss" which is its atual state?

[atanu]

Namaste ,

Frankly , I am not getting your point perfectly..

Let me explain what I understood from your question :

you mean "I was asking this question at mind level , which is not graspable by mind about "knowledge-self" " .

Or

" I was asking the question at mind level , and "knowledge-self" is beyond mind ...so you mean "knowledge-self" knows its nature if it is knowledge-self .."

If that is what your explanation..then let me explain my doubt more clearly :



Namaste Dear Vedanta Learner,

No I am not inferring anything on your or on my behalf. I am simply asking:




You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.



Are there two beings? One says it does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And another being who has definite knowledge that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.


I am emphasising this point since I do not know whether atma is ignorant or not?, Whether I am ignorant or not?, Whether I have any relation to Atma or not?

The point is: how I can know that the knowledge self is ignorant, if I do not know the knowledge self? How can I know whether the self that I think I am is same as knowledge self or not?

Vedas simply say that all is known when Brahman is known.



who is the experiencer of my all bodily experiences?

is knowledge-self "I" which is within this body experiencing its "knowledge" , "Bliss" which is its atual state?


These two are excellent questions, answer to which must be sought. I only know that Goddess Durga kills Bhandasura (a false demon). The sense that I am a body has other sensations on which a world is built.

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste Dear Vedanta Learner,

No I am not inferring anything on your or on my behalf. I am simply asking:




Are there two beings? One says it does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And another being who has definite knowledge that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.


I am emphasising this point since I do not know whether atma is ignorant or not?, Whether I am ignorant or not?, Whether I have any relation to Atma or not?

The point is: how I can know that the knowledge self is ignorant, if I do not know the knowledge self? How can I know whether the self that I think I am is same as knowledge self or not?

Vedas simply say that all is known when Brahman is known.





Namaste sir,

My thinking capability is not upto your level .

There are no two beings ..but one is my self experience and another is knwoledge obtained from Vedas.

My experience says "I am this body" , where as Vedas reveal that "you are not your body but you are "knowledge-self" " , so why can't I experience that real nature revealed by Vedas at present moment.

[atanu]

Namaste sir,

My thinking capability is not upto your level .



There are no two beings ..but one is my self experience and another is knwoledge obtained from Vedas.

My experience says "I am this body" , where as Vedas reveal that "you are not your body but you are "knowledge-self" " , so why can't I experience that real nature revealed by Vedas at present moment.

Namaste Vedanta Learner,

The thinking capability does not belong to the form called Atanu. And your questions are clear and deep and these questions indicate a pre-knowledge, not possible, if you were really ignorant.


That there is a cognition dissonance is simply because at the moment you consider sensual experience to be the only experience-- and that too of the waking time alone. The main reason is lack of enquiry into the self. All of us simply forgot enquiring into our real nature, all the time focussing on the experienced objects rather than being focussed on the experiencer.

The self that is experiencing sensually is the same self which is gathering the wisdom of vedas, which exists in the self itself. The knowing cannot be beyond Pragnya as otherwise it will not be known at all.

Just extend your field of experience a bit and you will see that when you dream, you are not this gross body but you are then a subtle body (creating more subtle bodies in a very small space). In deep sleep, you are nobody yet you exist blissfully -- since no one is unhappy in deep sleep. On the other hand, Turiya (which is beyond sensual experience) is said to be waking deep sleep -- fully conscious yet peaceful and infinite as in deep sleep. There is no body and no objects here. Only the non-dual Atma is there.

Sensual experience is external in the sense that you observe senses but who is this you? Does this 'seer you' possess a body? How do you say that you are this solid body? Only since, there seems to be continuum in growth and decay of this fleshy body? Even if you trace back through this continuum, you will realise that you were something intangible before you acquired a spermic body in your so-called father's body. Brahma Sutras tell us that before acquiring the sperm body, you were lodged in food grains, where you descended through the medium of rains. The food grain being eaten by your father, allowed you to become a sperm within him. The sperm acquired a fleshy body inside mother's body. But what was inside that minute sperm that has become a massive body? And what was there before the sperm itself? On the other hand, moving the time to the future, when the body will be laid down, it will not be able to say "I am Vedanta Learner". So, what is not there in the beginning and at the end, is not the real you.

Hope it helps a bit.

Om Namah Shivayya

[vedanta_learner]

Namaste Vedanta Learner,

The thinking capability does not belong to the form called Atanu. And your questions are clear and deep and these questions indicate a pre-knowledge, not possible, if you were really ignorant.


That there is a cognition dissonance is simply because at the moment you consider sensual experience to be the only experience-- and that too of the waking time alone. The main reason is lack of enquiry into the self. All of us simply forgot enquiring into our real nature, all the time focussing on the experienced objects rather than being focussed on the experiencer.

The self that is experiencing sensually is the same self which is gathering the wisdom of vedas, which exists in the self itself. The knowing cannot be beyond Pragnya as otherwise it will not be known at all.

Just extend your field of experience a bit and you will see that when you dream, you are not this gross body but you are then a subtle body (creating more subtle bodies in a very small space). In deep sleep, you are nobody yet you exist blissfully -- since no one is unhappy in deep sleep. On the other hand, Turiya (which is beyond sensual experience) is said to be waking deep sleep -- fully conscious yet peaceful and infinite as in deep sleep. There is no body and no objects here. Only the non-dual Atma is there.

Sensual experience is external in the sense that you observe senses but who is this you? Does this 'seer you' possess a body? How do you say that you are this solid body? Only since, there seems to be continuum in growth and decay of this fleshy body? Even if you trace back through this continuum, you will realise that you were something intangible before you acquired a spermic body in your so-called father's body. Brahma Sutras tell us that before acquiring the sperm body, you were lodged in food grains, where you descended through the medium of rains. The food grain being eaten by your father, allowed you to become a sperm within him. The sperm acquired a fleshy body inside mother's body. But what was inside that minute sperm that has become a massive body? And what was there before the sperm itself? On the other hand, moving the time to the future, when the body will be laid down, it will not be able to say "I am Vedanta Learner". So, what is not there in the beginning and at the end, is not the real you.

Hope it helps a bit.

Om Namah Shivayya

Thank you sir.

I am trying to understand your words..give me some time ..will get back to you if I have any doubts.

[atanu]

Thank you sir.

I am trying to understand your words..give me some time ..will get back to you if I have any doubts.

Namaste Vedanta Learner,

Somehow you have entered the portal of the highest method of Vedanta -- the Self enquiry (Atma Vichara). Best wishes to you. Keeping samadrishti and love and faith on Almighty will help.

Doubts will be cleared by the Self. There is no other doer.

Om Namah Shivayya