NON-DUALITY
Not Self = Pure Objectivity = Emptiness {Known}
Anatman (=Not Self , not 'No Self') *Relative Side (Creation/Creator God/Universe in Science) Ultimate Reality Brahman Tao Spirit Shunya/Mahashunya (Empty Fullness) God/Godhead {Epistemology} Note: Important to realize Brahman, Tao, Spirit or God/Godhead is not some uniform, all-pervading, featureless but still Divine blob or goo; its not a total evaporation off all diversity and multiplicity, leaving behind a an immaculate but amorphous/formless All-Knowing, All Merciful, celestial Vacuum. All is God, All is Brahman is not a logical proposition, or some type of mental information about the universe, because taken thusly, we can only picture its meaning to be a reduction of all multiplicity and diversity to a uniform, homogeneous and unchanging Divine Mush. This is precisely why it is better to use the term Nonduality (not 2) vs Oneness because Oneness is opposed or opposite Manyness, but Ultimate reality is BOTH The One and the Many. Note: Plotinus and others have used the word Godhead which splits into God and Creation, but this is all words. I will use God and Godhead interchangeably, never referring to God as separate from creation. |
Being = {Knowing}
Knower = Known *Relative Side (Process of Knowing) Prajna Rigpa/Yeshe Jnana Gnosis Enlightened Mind Feeling of Being {Gnosiology} Note: The Nondual Ultimate Reality cannot be known through reason, intellect, concepts, pictures, philosophies, teachings, etc. for the simple reason that there is no position outside of it that can know it. It must be lived, and nondually experienced or recognized (for lack of better words). Not experienced in the sense of there being an experiencer an act of experiencing or perceiving and that which is experienced. Its the impossible to explain nonduality of all three. Knower = Knowing = Known. This is the highest Self Realization or Sahaj Samadhi in which it is recognized there has never been anything but THIS. |
Self = Pure Subjectivity = Consciousness {Knower}
Atman *Relative Side (Subject, "I", "I AM", "Me") Universal Consciousness Primordial Awareness I AM Self, True Self, Higher Self, Great Self Pure Being, Pure Presence (in the Now) {Ontology} Note: The Self is not some monolithic monster dominating awareness, rather it is the empty ground of all awareness and all consciousness. It is pointing to an unqualifiable awareness or Pure presense that is nondual and beyond words and concepts. The Self is the One State or One Taste underlying all states , all knowing and all experiences. Self does NOT refer to a dualistic witness, or any kind of separate individuated soul or higher self. Self points to the radical oneness or nonduality of consciousness. There is nothing outside the Self, nothing other to it. In the final Sahaj Samadhi or One Taste the Self is recognized to be same as God/Brahman/Ultimate reality. Sunya, and ultimately Mahasunya unifies Self, Prajna and Brahman. This realization is recognized to have always been, it has never left us. Knower (Self) = Knowing (Prajna) = Known (UR/Godhead/Brahman) |
Self vs 'Not Self' (Anatman = 'Not Self' , NOT 'No Self')
But there are many who say there is no "I" which is taken to be a fundamental difference (Incorrectly) between the 2 great non dual traditions in Advaita and Buddhism. Advaita says "I" or the Self (Atman) is the only reality where Buddhism says Anatman. Confusion in terminology. But sanskrit word Anatman does not mean no self it means NOT SELF! If I say this is not a Phone (pointing to wallet), I am not saying there's no phone.
One of the sayings from Buddha from the Pali cannon which is often quoted as the authority for this doctrine of 'no-self', "All dharmas are Anatma. Dharma comes from a sanskrit word which means to hold , meaning 'holding together' or what is upheld. Some people interpret it as everything that is formed or made, is "no self" when actually it means everything that is formed or made, is "NOT self"
Buddha also says "There is that to which is unborn, unchanging , infinite, unlimited, there IS such a thing. If there were not, there would be no escape from birth, limitation, and all the other limitations. So Buddha has NOT denied the existence of reality.
To say something has no self, is to say it doesn't exist. But if anything exists, it has a self, because it is. So everything is its own self. So when Buddha said that all harms are 'anatma, he is not saying there is no self; he is saying that everything manifest, everything cognizable and even the cognized, is not the essence, is not what we essentially are. Same is said in Vedanta, this body, this mind all these things are not self. These are unreal. There is no mind, it is an illusion.
Arguments and Differences only happen at the level of the mind: In any intellectual activity there will be many views. A lot of debates over different views and in debates people tend to exaggerate differences in order to try and assert that 'my way is right'. Ramana Maharshi said all arguments are useless because we are not going to achieve anything. All differences are mind created and if we are to know Reality, we have to go beyond differences.
It is true in a sense there is no self (with a lower case "s"), because what we now take to be ourselves (illusion/Ignorance) is unreal, it is a mere appearance. But underlying this for every appearance, there has to be some basis. At the basis of whatever illusion there is, there has to be someone experiencing that. If there is absolutely no experiencer at all, there could be no illusion.
But there are many who say there is no "I" which is taken to be a fundamental difference (Incorrectly) between the 2 great non dual traditions in Advaita and Buddhism. Advaita says "I" or the Self (Atman) is the only reality where Buddhism says Anatman. Confusion in terminology. But sanskrit word Anatman does not mean no self it means NOT SELF! If I say this is not a Phone (pointing to wallet), I am not saying there's no phone.
One of the sayings from Buddha from the Pali cannon which is often quoted as the authority for this doctrine of 'no-self', "All dharmas are Anatma. Dharma comes from a sanskrit word which means to hold , meaning 'holding together' or what is upheld. Some people interpret it as everything that is formed or made, is "no self" when actually it means everything that is formed or made, is "NOT self"
Buddha also says "There is that to which is unborn, unchanging , infinite, unlimited, there IS such a thing. If there were not, there would be no escape from birth, limitation, and all the other limitations. So Buddha has NOT denied the existence of reality.
To say something has no self, is to say it doesn't exist. But if anything exists, it has a self, because it is. So everything is its own self. So when Buddha said that all harms are 'anatma, he is not saying there is no self; he is saying that everything manifest, everything cognizable and even the cognized, is not the essence, is not what we essentially are. Same is said in Vedanta, this body, this mind all these things are not self. These are unreal. There is no mind, it is an illusion.
Arguments and Differences only happen at the level of the mind: In any intellectual activity there will be many views. A lot of debates over different views and in debates people tend to exaggerate differences in order to try and assert that 'my way is right'. Ramana Maharshi said all arguments are useless because we are not going to achieve anything. All differences are mind created and if we are to know Reality, we have to go beyond differences.
It is true in a sense there is no self (with a lower case "s"), because what we now take to be ourselves (illusion/Ignorance) is unreal, it is a mere appearance. But underlying this for every appearance, there has to be some basis. At the basis of whatever illusion there is, there has to be someone experiencing that. If there is absolutely no experiencer at all, there could be no illusion.
Self or No Self/No One?
Self = I AM = Atman = Universal Consciousness = Primordial Awareness = Witness that is one with what is witnessed = Nondual Self.
It is NOT a separate self or Ego, or self consciousness/awareness/witness that is separate from what is witnessed or experienced. This misunderstanding is using dictionary definitions of these terms and saying this is dualism when it is NOT. ALL language is dualistic, so we need to choose our words carefully. I think it is clearest to capitalize these words to distinguish from there separate dualistic counterparts. Self vs self, Consciousness vs consciousness, I am versus I AM, Awareness vs awareness, etc. In this book when such words are Capitalized they point to the Nondual final One State or Ultimate reality.
Read Ramana Maharshi, and he clearly points to the Self as being all there is with NO subject object duality.
This needless debate between Self vs No Self (or no one) or Permanence versus Impermanence is a needless dualism in the Nondual community. Interestingly this debate has raged since the early days of Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and simply rests with the limitations of language.
There seems to be a duality in the nonduality community that really can be boiled down to Self or Consciousness versus No Self (no one) or emptiness. This unfortunate turn forgets the great unification done by Yogachara or Vijnayata Buddhism that equated Consciousness to Emptiness but used Consciousness as a more clear pointer to Ultimately reality,
Some nonduality teachers deny that the Self or consciousness or awareness can be nondual. And while consciousness or awareness seems to imply a duality based on dictionary definitions, so does saying there is "no one". Both have their opposites as is the nature of language being inherently dualistic. While I truly believe both camps or schools of nonduality point to the same mystery of nonduality, I feel there is a BETTER choice of words. Let me explain:
Taking the radical stance that there is no one, is misleading and in the author's opinion not a healthy perspective both philosophically and psychologically. However, it is not wrong as nonduality or Emptiness embraces All. All perspectives from their own vantage point (or even lack of it), must be included. So I don't want to create a performative contradiction (where the content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it). I really want to help in any way that I can to bridge all the varying viewpoints, messages and teachings of non-duality by saying that ultimately they all point to the same recognition if they are authentic. And by authentic, I mean the teacher or messenger genuinely is living non-duality where there is no longer a Subject - Object duality. That is there is no separate self. There is a fragrance or feeling found in the words of True Masters, that is not found in scholars. The words are a finger pointing to the cool moon of Supreme nondual truth. And this Truth is beyond words, so don't bite the finger, look at the moon!
My claim is that consciousness, True Self, awareness can point to the same nonduality as no self or no one. The difference highlights the limits of language, but as we'll see their does seem to be a better choice in light of philosophical soundness and developmental psychology (starting Page 732).
Vedanta and Many Nondual Teachers to this day, Emphasizes the Self or Witness (which Ramana calls the I-I). You can also call this Universal Consciousness or Primoridal Awareness. A couple modern teachers would Include Ramana Maharshi, Jean Klein, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille and others.
The Buddhists (which the exception of Yogachara or Consciousness Only Mahayana Buddhism) emphasize No Self and No I and there is No one, as some modern nondual teachers do as well most notably Tony Parsons and Jim Newman.
BUT, Both are pointing to the same pure, nondual, unqualifiable Emptiness - Shunyata or Nirguna - which is the simple Suchness, Isness or Thusness of the entire world, and it is not other than the pure, natural, spontaneous, everpresent consciousness that is your own true state right now.
In its pure form Awareness, Consciousness or the Witness is NOT DUALITY, as some nondual teachers mistakenly say, reverting to dictionary definitions that cannot and do not apply here. In its pure form the Witness dissolves into everything it witnesses - the mirror mind is one with its objects, Emptiness is one with Form. As so, both Vedanta and Yogachara and Vajrayana Buddhism emphasize, pure consciousness itself is nondual, empty, and finally unqualifiable.
And that is the problem, the ultimate mystery cannot be spoken, and no words can accurately definite It, words are at best pointers and these Self or No Self approaches ultimately POINT to the same Nondual One Taste. Whether it is being the Self of the Universe, or Shrink down to nothing, in either case, what is left is Oneness. It is known in Logic that Everything and Nothing are actually the same, For in nothing all possibilities are present and in Everything nothing but all possibilities are present.
I have listened to MANY nondual teachers and all the True Nondual teachers all agree that there is no SEPARATE Self, that is the Primary Illusion. Whether you call that realization No Self or Nothing but The Self, in either case there is only Oneness without a second.
Self = I AM = Atman = Universal Consciousness = Primordial Awareness = Witness that is one with what is witnessed = Nondual Self.
It is NOT a separate self or Ego, or self consciousness/awareness/witness that is separate from what is witnessed or experienced. This misunderstanding is using dictionary definitions of these terms and saying this is dualism when it is NOT. ALL language is dualistic, so we need to choose our words carefully. I think it is clearest to capitalize these words to distinguish from there separate dualistic counterparts. Self vs self, Consciousness vs consciousness, I am versus I AM, Awareness vs awareness, etc. In this book when such words are Capitalized they point to the Nondual final One State or Ultimate reality.
Read Ramana Maharshi, and he clearly points to the Self as being all there is with NO subject object duality.
This needless debate between Self vs No Self (or no one) or Permanence versus Impermanence is a needless dualism in the Nondual community. Interestingly this debate has raged since the early days of Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and simply rests with the limitations of language.
There seems to be a duality in the nonduality community that really can be boiled down to Self or Consciousness versus No Self (no one) or emptiness. This unfortunate turn forgets the great unification done by Yogachara or Vijnayata Buddhism that equated Consciousness to Emptiness but used Consciousness as a more clear pointer to Ultimately reality,
Some nonduality teachers deny that the Self or consciousness or awareness can be nondual. And while consciousness or awareness seems to imply a duality based on dictionary definitions, so does saying there is "no one". Both have their opposites as is the nature of language being inherently dualistic. While I truly believe both camps or schools of nonduality point to the same mystery of nonduality, I feel there is a BETTER choice of words. Let me explain:
Taking the radical stance that there is no one, is misleading and in the author's opinion not a healthy perspective both philosophically and psychologically. However, it is not wrong as nonduality or Emptiness embraces All. All perspectives from their own vantage point (or even lack of it), must be included. So I don't want to create a performative contradiction (where the content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it). I really want to help in any way that I can to bridge all the varying viewpoints, messages and teachings of non-duality by saying that ultimately they all point to the same recognition if they are authentic. And by authentic, I mean the teacher or messenger genuinely is living non-duality where there is no longer a Subject - Object duality. That is there is no separate self. There is a fragrance or feeling found in the words of True Masters, that is not found in scholars. The words are a finger pointing to the cool moon of Supreme nondual truth. And this Truth is beyond words, so don't bite the finger, look at the moon!
My claim is that consciousness, True Self, awareness can point to the same nonduality as no self or no one. The difference highlights the limits of language, but as we'll see their does seem to be a better choice in light of philosophical soundness and developmental psychology (starting Page 732).
Vedanta and Many Nondual Teachers to this day, Emphasizes the Self or Witness (which Ramana calls the I-I). You can also call this Universal Consciousness or Primoridal Awareness. A couple modern teachers would Include Ramana Maharshi, Jean Klein, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille and others.
The Buddhists (which the exception of Yogachara or Consciousness Only Mahayana Buddhism) emphasize No Self and No I and there is No one, as some modern nondual teachers do as well most notably Tony Parsons and Jim Newman.
BUT, Both are pointing to the same pure, nondual, unqualifiable Emptiness - Shunyata or Nirguna - which is the simple Suchness, Isness or Thusness of the entire world, and it is not other than the pure, natural, spontaneous, everpresent consciousness that is your own true state right now.
In its pure form Awareness, Consciousness or the Witness is NOT DUALITY, as some nondual teachers mistakenly say, reverting to dictionary definitions that cannot and do not apply here. In its pure form the Witness dissolves into everything it witnesses - the mirror mind is one with its objects, Emptiness is one with Form. As so, both Vedanta and Yogachara and Vajrayana Buddhism emphasize, pure consciousness itself is nondual, empty, and finally unqualifiable.
And that is the problem, the ultimate mystery cannot be spoken, and no words can accurately definite It, words are at best pointers and these Self or No Self approaches ultimately POINT to the same Nondual One Taste. Whether it is being the Self of the Universe, or Shrink down to nothing, in either case, what is left is Oneness. It is known in Logic that Everything and Nothing are actually the same, For in nothing all possibilities are present and in Everything nothing but all possibilities are present.
I have listened to MANY nondual teachers and all the True Nondual teachers all agree that there is no SEPARATE Self, that is the Primary Illusion. Whether you call that realization No Self or Nothing but The Self, in either case there is only Oneness without a second.
As for referring to the Real (Emptiness) as a continuously residing self (or True Self or Pure Consciousness, etc): Since Nagarguna had already demonstrated that the Real is neither self nor no self (nor both nore neither), but that in the phenomenal realm, there is no self without the states and no states without the self, then the metaphor of a True Self could be a better bridge to Sunya. In the phenomenal realm the self is necessary and useful while their is simply no 'no-self'. Using 'no-self' as an attempt to describe the nondual isness runs into contradictions as nonduality unifies the phenomenal and noumenal, the relative with the absolute.
Note: It's not that a phenomenal self gives way to no-self (for pure Emptiness is neither self nor no self); and not that a phenomenal no-self gives way to pure emptiness (because there is no phenomenal no-self); but rather, a phenomenal self gives way to pure Emptiness (that is strictly speaking neither self nor no-self nor both nor neither), but which we can call the True Self. Saying there is 'no one here', or 'no-self' in the nondual isness just doesn't work.
Thus Emptiness as True Self, Emptiness as pure Consciousness, Emptiness as rigpa (pure knowing Presence), Emptiness as primordial Wisdom (prajna, jnana, yeshe), Emptiness as primordial Purity, even Emptiness as Absolute Subjectivity; all of these bridging notions began to spring up in the Mahayana and Vajrayana to replace the notion of 'no-self', which strictly speaking is wrong both phenomenally and noumenally.
In the Nirvana Sutra of Mahayana tradition, the absolute was often metaphorically categorized as "Mahatman" or "Great Self" or "True Self", which was no phenomenal self. Zen master Shibayama would find that the ultimate state could be best metaphorically (because that is the best we can do with language) indicated as "Absolute Subjectivity". As he puts it, this does not refer to a subjecivity that stands over against objectivity. It is 'Absolute Subjectivity', which transcends both subjectivity and objectivity and freely creates and uses them. It is a 'Fundamental Subjectivity', which can never be objectified or conceptualized and is complete in itself, with the full significance of existence in itself.
And to avoid confusion, you can say the True self means no separate self. All the diverging teachings or messages of nonduality ALL have this as a common denominator - There is no separate self. So in this context no-self would be acceptable to mean no separate self (not a void altogether). Zen master Shibayama puts it, "when the world is I-myself, there is no self. When there is no self, the whole world is nothing but I-myself, and this is the no-mind of Zen". No mind is not no-self, it is better described as a pure Self with no mind. Ramana called it the I-I, the True Nondual Self behind the small phenomenal self or separate self. Suzuki Roshi puts it, "small mind finds itself in Big Mind".
The True Self, is the your Original Face before the birth of one's parents. Suzuki
So you can see the difficulty of language in pointing to nonduality, because language itself is inherently dualistic.
**Psychology**
But from a philosophical and psychological perspective it is better to start with a Self that is cohesive, strong and integrated, before plunging into Emptiness otherwise, you can end up with borderline disorders.
Material Fusion of Early Infants IS NOT the same as Spirituality Unity
They are literally poles apart. Returning to the infantile oneness is a REGRESSION not an Evolution. In fact it is as regression as you could get. Wilber calls this the Pre/Trans Fallacy. Also points to (mistaken) return to the past ancient cultures.
Major transitions from the great apes to the first humans a few million years ago. Represents basic needs from food, water, air, warmth, shelter, rest.
In todays world, it represents the infant's awareness in the first few months of life.
Most developmentalists call it a fusion state, or a pure state of non-differentiation.
The basic idea is that awareness cannot differentiate between itself and the environment. It is basically just matter and basic physiological needs (material fusion, not spiritual unity).
Note: It's not that a phenomenal self gives way to no-self (for pure Emptiness is neither self nor no self); and not that a phenomenal no-self gives way to pure emptiness (because there is no phenomenal no-self); but rather, a phenomenal self gives way to pure Emptiness (that is strictly speaking neither self nor no-self nor both nor neither), but which we can call the True Self. Saying there is 'no one here', or 'no-self' in the nondual isness just doesn't work.
Thus Emptiness as True Self, Emptiness as pure Consciousness, Emptiness as rigpa (pure knowing Presence), Emptiness as primordial Wisdom (prajna, jnana, yeshe), Emptiness as primordial Purity, even Emptiness as Absolute Subjectivity; all of these bridging notions began to spring up in the Mahayana and Vajrayana to replace the notion of 'no-self', which strictly speaking is wrong both phenomenally and noumenally.
In the Nirvana Sutra of Mahayana tradition, the absolute was often metaphorically categorized as "Mahatman" or "Great Self" or "True Self", which was no phenomenal self. Zen master Shibayama would find that the ultimate state could be best metaphorically (because that is the best we can do with language) indicated as "Absolute Subjectivity". As he puts it, this does not refer to a subjecivity that stands over against objectivity. It is 'Absolute Subjectivity', which transcends both subjectivity and objectivity and freely creates and uses them. It is a 'Fundamental Subjectivity', which can never be objectified or conceptualized and is complete in itself, with the full significance of existence in itself.
And to avoid confusion, you can say the True self means no separate self. All the diverging teachings or messages of nonduality ALL have this as a common denominator - There is no separate self. So in this context no-self would be acceptable to mean no separate self (not a void altogether). Zen master Shibayama puts it, "when the world is I-myself, there is no self. When there is no self, the whole world is nothing but I-myself, and this is the no-mind of Zen". No mind is not no-self, it is better described as a pure Self with no mind. Ramana called it the I-I, the True Nondual Self behind the small phenomenal self or separate self. Suzuki Roshi puts it, "small mind finds itself in Big Mind".
The True Self, is the your Original Face before the birth of one's parents. Suzuki
So you can see the difficulty of language in pointing to nonduality, because language itself is inherently dualistic.
**Psychology**
But from a philosophical and psychological perspective it is better to start with a Self that is cohesive, strong and integrated, before plunging into Emptiness otherwise, you can end up with borderline disorders.
Material Fusion of Early Infants IS NOT the same as Spirituality Unity
They are literally poles apart. Returning to the infantile oneness is a REGRESSION not an Evolution. In fact it is as regression as you could get. Wilber calls this the Pre/Trans Fallacy. Also points to (mistaken) return to the past ancient cultures.
Major transitions from the great apes to the first humans a few million years ago. Represents basic needs from food, water, air, warmth, shelter, rest.
In todays world, it represents the infant's awareness in the first few months of life.
Most developmentalists call it a fusion state, or a pure state of non-differentiation.
The basic idea is that awareness cannot differentiate between itself and the environment. It is basically just matter and basic physiological needs (material fusion, not spiritual unity).
Vedanta Cases for Self
Superior Advaita
There is no such thing as a creator, there is no such thing as production, there is no such thing as transmutation/transformation, every is perfect all the time, whole and absolute already. Purity and Perfection of divine reality. Cannot add or take away.
Great Self within
Greatest game of tag there is, you're it!
I am that! And all beings are that too!
Untouchable and Unspeakable Yoga.
Must be way to point to it.
6 Proofs
1) Eternal Subject - you are not the objects. No way of existing except in you. Elements connected to your senses. Projections. 5 elements , 5 sense organs, 5 subtle organs. Buddha, 5 elements are the 5 desires. You produces worlds of time and space.
Name and form and time and space come out of YOU. Projections.
If you think creation is independent of you, that is Maya. It is made for you and by you?
Consciousness and connection to elements needs subject.
2) You are Witness of all things.
Witness of prakriti, but came out of you. It is there to serve you. Prakriti is insentient.
3) Intelligent existence. First modification of consciousness is knowledge or intellect. External alone manifests intelligence. Not random. Connect consciousness and intelligence to outward manifestations. It is everywhere. Man - God walking on two legs.
Karma works through intelligence.
4) Cohesive - Various experiences occur simultaneously which indicates a subtle coordination.
Psychology - Need a cohesive Self.
5) Inherent Freedom - The desire for freedom from bondage implies a Reality that is free by nature. Why would we seek freedom if things were not already free.
6) Eternal Stability - Pure, Ever Aware, Ever Free
Stationary is your purusha.
Purusha picks up book of nature and read it and put it down.
You had them inside of you, nothing moving. You are reading the
Experiences of nature, but you are going nowhere.
If you think you are going somewhere, that is a dream.
Where is the space it will move, if all of space is in the Self.
Where will it go in time, if all of time is in the Self.
***Moving around in a dream in a space that is inside of it.
Illusory Dimensions of Mayic Variety.
Prakriti, 24 cosmic principles
Purusha, 6 Proofs
Superior Advaita
There is no such thing as a creator, there is no such thing as production, there is no such thing as transmutation/transformation, every is perfect all the time, whole and absolute already. Purity and Perfection of divine reality. Cannot add or take away.
Great Self within
Greatest game of tag there is, you're it!
I am that! And all beings are that too!
Untouchable and Unspeakable Yoga.
Must be way to point to it.
6 Proofs
1) Eternal Subject - you are not the objects. No way of existing except in you. Elements connected to your senses. Projections. 5 elements , 5 sense organs, 5 subtle organs. Buddha, 5 elements are the 5 desires. You produces worlds of time and space.
Name and form and time and space come out of YOU. Projections.
If you think creation is independent of you, that is Maya. It is made for you and by you?
Consciousness and connection to elements needs subject.
2) You are Witness of all things.
Witness of prakriti, but came out of you. It is there to serve you. Prakriti is insentient.
3) Intelligent existence. First modification of consciousness is knowledge or intellect. External alone manifests intelligence. Not random. Connect consciousness and intelligence to outward manifestations. It is everywhere. Man - God walking on two legs.
Karma works through intelligence.
4) Cohesive - Various experiences occur simultaneously which indicates a subtle coordination.
Psychology - Need a cohesive Self.
5) Inherent Freedom - The desire for freedom from bondage implies a Reality that is free by nature. Why would we seek freedom if things were not already free.
6) Eternal Stability - Pure, Ever Aware, Ever Free
Stationary is your purusha.
Purusha picks up book of nature and read it and put it down.
You had them inside of you, nothing moving. You are reading the
Experiences of nature, but you are going nowhere.
If you think you are going somewhere, that is a dream.
Where is the space it will move, if all of space is in the Self.
Where will it go in time, if all of time is in the Self.
***Moving around in a dream in a space that is inside of it.
Illusory Dimensions of Mayic Variety.
Prakriti, 24 cosmic principles
Purusha, 6 Proofs