This document discusses the concepts of self-realization and the nature of the self or "atman." It explains that when realization occurs, the self does not exist, as realization requires the "explosion of the ego." True knowing leaves no room for a separate self. It says Buddha more accurately spoke of the "realization of no-self," as when realization happens there is no self present. Ultimately both Buddha and Mahavira meant the same thing despite using different terms - that beyond ego and ignorance is simply existence without a separate self.
This document discusses the concepts of self-realization and the nature of the self or "atman." It explains that when realization occurs, the self does not exist, as realization requires the "explosion of the ego." True knowing leaves no room for a separate self. It says Buddha more accurately spoke of the "realization of no-self," as when realization happens there is no self present. Ultimately both Buddha and Mahavira meant the same thing despite using different terms - that beyond ego and ignorance is simply existence without a separate self.
This document discusses the concepts of self-realization and the nature of the self or "atman." It explains that when realization occurs, the self does not exist, as realization requires the "explosion of the ego." True knowing leaves no room for a separate self. It says Buddha more accurately spoke of the "realization of no-self," as when realization happens there is no self present. Ultimately both Buddha and Mahavira meant the same thing despite using different terms - that beyond ego and ignorance is simply existence without a separate self.
This document discusses the concepts of self-realization and the nature of the self or "atman." It explains that when realization occurs, the self does not exist, as realization requires the "explosion of the ego." True knowing leaves no room for a separate self. It says Buddha more accurately spoke of the "realization of no-self," as when realization happens there is no self present. Ultimately both Buddha and Mahavira meant the same thing despite using different terms - that beyond ego and ignorance is simply existence without a separate self.
it, we discuss it, we confute, refute, convince... we say this is right, this is wrong, this religion is right, that religion is wrong, this scripture is accurate, that scripture is not accurate, we go on debating and discussing things for which, in ourselves there is no opening.
The opening comes through the explosion of the self.
One thing more to be understood: The explosion is the explosion of your ego also. When you know, when you come to know yourself – this is a miracle and this is a mystery – the self remains only in ignorance. The self is part of the ignorance. We say self-knowledge, but really when the knowing comes, the self goes. There is no self then. Then there is only knowing. Then you are not. Then there is only existence, then there is only being. That being is atman.
Atman is not the self, the ego. One thing to be understood: You cannot know yourself, because the moment you come to know, you are not there, only the knowing remains. And that knowing without an ego, goes to the very endless end. Because there is no boundary now.
THIRD QUESTIONER: THEN, THE WORDS ATMA SAKSHATKAR HAVE NO MEANING FOR YOU?
A: Really, all these words are conceived dualistically. In fact, there is nothing like atma sakshatkar, ”realization of the self,” because when the realization is, self is not, and when the self is, realization is not. So ”realization of the self”... these are two contradictory terms.
It is like this: If there is darkness in the room, there is darkness. Then you bring a lamp to know darkness. You bring a lamp because, in the darkness, how one can know what darkness is? So you go out and you come back with a lamp to know the darkness. But when there is the lamp, there is no darkness! Yet when there was no lamp, there was darkness. So there is no enlightening of the darkness. There is no such thing as darkness seen in the light. There is no such thing.
There is no such thing as self realized. Self is ignorance; when you come to realize that which is, there is no self.
Buddha was more accurate in his expressions. He said, ”realization of no-self.” That is exactly nearer to the reality than realization of the self – realization of no-self, an enlightening of no-darkness, because when the realization comes, there is no self. So Buddha says that no self is the reality. That could not be understood; it is very difficult. He said: existence of no self, anatman. There is no atman, there is anatman. And he meant something, something meaningful. But he could not be understood. We can understand atman because it approximates the ego. We can think about the self because it is something like an extended ego, a bigger ego.... So we can conceive of it....
THIRD QUESTIONER: BUDDHA SAYS ”NO ATMAN”...
A: Buddha says no atman.
THIRD QUESTIONER: MAHAVIRA SAYS THERE IS ATMAN.
A: Mahavira says there is atman, but without the ego: there is no ego – atman is. Buddha says there is no atman. And the reality is they mean the same thing.
