Thank you yajvan for a most insightful post.
I am of the same opinion, but I'm not so good at articulating it
Thank you yajvan for a most insightful post.
I am of the same opinion, but I'm not so good at articulating it
My take, as of now:
We are persons in that our soul is construed as composite. To say of one that he is a monad of consciousness is to render him or her as impersonal. For the distinguishing feature of a person is that he is not passive but active; the activity springing from the interplay of variegated elements and faculties. But we are persons, or else no one should be treated any differently than non-persons. And consciousness is passive; a silent Witness. We are not doers of anything, but insofar as this passivity gets intermingled with the sense of doership we are personal beings.
This personhood however is a superimposition and so is not the locus of our being in that Atman is the true reference to "You" or "I." This is pure, unconditioned attention and love, but not divorced from a personal context of activity.
So really we are both one and the other. There is no contradiction. It is coming to the same thing from differing angles.
How can I put this in a sentence? Try next time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks