It is my Million Dollar Q as well curiosity...
Does anyone ever thought about this word "Self" and why such term is invented?
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??
Just curious
It is my Million Dollar Q as well curiosity...
Does anyone ever thought about this word "Self" and why such term is invented?
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??
Just curious
Namaste Grames:
I view 'Self" as something like the word "Hindu" . Its a word that got there historically for some odd reason. The person attempting to describe it in English chose the word "Self' and somehow it stuck. I am not sure of the history, or when the tern "Self-realisation" came into being. Perhaps there is a linguistics historian on here.
It has caused some confusion as have many words coined by the British and other explorers. But that is the way it is now, as with "Hindu."
But if we didn't have Self, we'd have Essence, or Core, or Inner Truth, or Inner God. So despite words, That is still there.
It's also interesting that a few original words just got borrowed, like "karma".
Aum Namasivaya
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~
Namasté grames
I too find it curious that 'SELF' has become so popular in defining brahman, ātma, etc. It seems to cause some confusion. I think it would be better to say Universal SELF, then we get closer to its orginal intent. That is, One Being, One Existence.
EM writes
I think he is on to something as Self-realization does a better job of depicting the essence of the word. This Self-realization is ātmānubhava ( ātma + ānu +bhava or the ātma coming to existence ~realization~).I am not sure of the history, or when the tern "Self-realisation" came into being. Perhaps there is a linguistics historian on here.
My teacher hardly used this term SELF, but preferred pure awareness, pure consciousness, Being, etc. For me these terms rang true.
praṇām
Last edited by yajvan; 02 September 2009 at 08:20 PM.
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
F max muller while writing the preface to the sacred book of the east (part I of his translations of Upanishads), takes credit of using the word self to translate Atman for the first time instead of soul,mind or spirit.
his logic was that it will be a fundamental mistake of using words which may be predicate, in place of a word which is a subject only, and can never become a predicate. he therefore used selfs instead of selves for the first time in a translation, which was never used in English language of his time.
Westerners are bound to get confused with usage of this word 'self'. As in 'self defence' it connotes body, 'self control' is related to mind control, etc
where as for us Atman means only one entity and one meaning.
Namaste
'At' means thereupon or therefrom.
'man' means "I" or "Me" and which pertains to manas (mind).
------------------
That wherefrom "I" arises or that which gives rise to the "I" or "Me", is Atman.
That Atman also moves, breathes, etc. etc., through the manas.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 03 September 2009 at 06:27 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Hmm,
Self - self are two different words which easily works out for Advaita.
My Q is,
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??
grames asks:
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??
<<It is like asking, 'What would a rich banker do if the world operated without cash?'>>
Yet no one (no advaitan) understands the genius of this most simply question.
IMO the question is not about alternative translation of the word self [IMO the english word 'self' is perfect for interpreting the idea of atma] ---the question seems to me to be a superb "trick-question".
The trick question means "If an advaitan philosopher had no "self" no negate ---then what would be left, in the end, to advaita-sise? No self means no Advaitin philosophy so, if the advaitin acknowledges that there is a self ---that makes advaitin 'self-negators'"
sorry for the sad news ---yours & ours' SELF is absolute and cannot be negated as an omniscient presence,
bhaktajan
Funny. As if Self word was the cornerstone of upanishadic sages who have taught advaitatma.
In fact, if the WORD had not proliferated, then it would not be possible to comprehend "The Truth is one, sages call it by different names". Also, because the WORD has indeed become many, it is difficult to understand ""The Truth is one, sages call it by different names".
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 04 September 2009 at 12:30 AM. Reason: repeart words. hehe.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
I heard a Sufi song in the morn. The part refrain, as if sung by a female, goes like : "tum aur main ek hi hai. agar tum ho, to main kaun hui?"
You and Me are same only. If YOU ARE then Who AM I?
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 04 September 2009 at 02:42 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks