Ananta Yoga Darshana Volume One

8/13/2019 Ananta Yoga Darshana Volume One

1/216

Ananta Yoga

Darshana

Not I


2/216

This is the first volume in the Ananta Yoga Darshana Series published by

Ananta Yoga Ashram. The full series will be made available in-full as a

compendium or as separate volumes. Anyone wishing to acquire any number

of copies should contact Ananta Yoga Ashram at [email protected]

We pray that it will be useful to all who sincerely seek The True Self.

With love and respect

bindu

Perth, Western Australia

July 26, 2006


3/216

Ananta Yoga

Darshana

Not I

Is presented as a work of love to The Self in all beings. Its origin is that it was

written and compiled over 30 years by sri Anantabindu and is the record and

culmination of the sadhana and truth arrived at after 35 years of meditation

and study. It is the also the record of lessons drawn out of The Self by the

presence of the world-wide devotees over 7 years via the Internet and the

Ananta Yoga Web. May that Self who Dwells within always guide those who

seek Him with a sincere heart.

© Copyright Ananta Yoga Ashram Perth, July 26, 2006


4/216

©Copyright 2006 by Ananta Bindu

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any

manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

1st Published 26, July, 2006 by Ananta Yoga Ashram

© Copyright Ananta Yoga Ashram Perth, July 26, 2006


5/216

CONVENTIONS ................................................................................................................................................I

WHAT IS ANANTA YOGA.......................................................................................................................... II

FORWARD ......................................................................................................................................................VII

THE LORD OF TIME .......................................................................................................................................1

NOTICING TRUTH ........................................................................................................................................10

WHO IS GOD ANYWAY? ...........................................................................................................................13

WHO IS THE CONSCIOUS ONE? ..........................................................................................................15

MEDITATING UPON THE SELF ..............................................................................................................22

THE MINDS SURVIVAL..............................................................................................................................33

CONSCIOUS CONTEMPLATION ............................................................................................................41

MYTHOS AND THE ORIGIN OF GOD ..................................................................................................54

MYTHOS AND GOD - A COMPARISON OF MYTHOS AND TRUTH .......................................61

THE SUBTLE “I” - A COMPARISON OF SUBTLE “I” AND COSMIC “I” ............................76

ARCHETYPAL REALITY..............................................................................................................................85

OF GODS, GODDESSES, DEVILS, DEMONS AND ARCHETYPES...........................................93

GOD, ISWARA AND CONSCIOUSNESS - A DIALOG ................................................................108

THE BINDU OF CONSCIOUSNESS.....................................................................................................118

ON THE NATURE OF THE GURU. ........................................................................................................118

STILLNESS AND SILENCE .....................................................................................................................124

THE SECRET OF RENUNCIATION AND ACCEPTANCE.............................................................132

THE RESULTS OF REJECTING OMNIPRESENCE.........................................................................140

THE RESULTS OF REJECTING OMNISCIENCE:...........................................................................140

THE RESULTS OF REJECTING OMNIPOTENCE ...........................................................................140

THE SUPPOSED IMPORTANCE OF THE BODY. ...........................................................................141

THE NATURE OF TIME .............................................................................................................................154

LETTING GO OF LIMITATION .............................................................................................................167

THE NATURE OF IDEAS – ......................................................................................................................175

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE NATURE OF IDEAS..................................................................175

HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CAN BE CREATIVE .................................................................................185


6/216

Conventions

The conventions used in this book will include the use of upper and lower-case

words to define differences such as the difference between the SELF and the self; or

ME and me which will arise as a result of speaking either as or about THE SELF or

while speaking as the individual soul or Jiva.

For Example:

Me = The Self Referring to Himself.

me = The Jiva (Sanskrit for the individual soul) referring to himself.

I = The Self Referring to the REAL I.

i = The Jiva referring to what he thinks is the real I but is not The Real

I.

Myself = The Real Self Referring to His REAL Self.

myself = The Jiva referring to what he thinks is his self.

I Am = The Real Self referring to the fact that He exists or IS.

i am = The Jiva saying he is something, or doing something when he

isn’t.

i


7/216

What is Ananta Yoga

Ananta Yoga is the Yoga of the Consciousness performed by Consciousness residing

in itself. It is not different from meditation upon The Self Itself as Itself. This is born

out by scripture, in that, Siva Sutra states:

"By non-contemplation of Me, are you bound!"

Again: In the Christian doctrine it is said:

Thou Shalt have no other Gods before Me!

The Yoga has been called Ananta1 due to the fact that the practice of this Yoga,

brings about vishvagrasa2 (absorption in GOD) the merging of the individual

consciousness into the Infinite. We could think of Ananta Yoga as the Yoga of The

Infinite, The Yoga of Infinity, The Yoga of The Sky or The Yoga of Space. Or to

address those who adhere to the Sanatan Dharma: It is the Yoga of Sesha or the

couch upon which Lord Vishnu reclines. (Anantanatha is the Name of Siva’s Snake,

also)

Or in the Christian doctrine it is said:

He will trample the serpent under his heel!

The serpent being infinite Time which is the true nature of Sesha, or Anantanatha.

We say this because previous to the supposed fall from grace in the Christian

doctrine it is said that God dwelled with man in his own immortality. It was only

after the fall that man came to know death (Time’s effect).

Quote:

1 Ananta: The word Ananta comes from the Sanskrit and means; The Infinite or Infinity. The context of the wordhere means the Union of the Individual Consciousness with The Eternal Infinite Conscious Absolute whichexists beyond existence, and is then transcendent of both Time and Space.2

Vishvagrasa: "Total absorption." The final merger of the individual Soul in The Absolute Self at the fulfillmentof its evolution. It is ultimate union of the individual soul-body not by union in the context of existing in some

real somewhere where the God-Head enjoys Himself; but by realization of the evanescence of the Self.

ii


8/216

And God said: Let us send them from the garden less they come to know

good and evil as we do and live forever.

Or again in the Tantrica text from Vijnana-Bhairava3:

141-143. O Goddess, the being who masters one single point of these

practices, frees himself from old age and death, he acquires supernormal

powers, all yogini and yogin cherish him and he presides over their secret

meetings. Liberated in the very middle of activity and reality, he is free.

The Goddess Bhairavi4 said:

144. O Lord, let us follow this wonderful reality which is the nature of the

supreme Shakti! Who then is worshipped? Who is the worshipper? Who

enters contemplation? Who is contemplated? Who gives the oblation and who

receives it? What gets sacrificed and to whom?

Bhairava replies:

O gazelle-eyed one, all these practices are those of the external path. They fit

gross aspirations.

145. Only the contemplation of the highest reality is the practice of the

Tantrika5. What resonates spontaneously in oneself is the mystical formula 6.

146. In a stable and character-less mind, there is true contemplation.

Colorful visualizations of divinities are nothing but artifice.

3 Vijnana-bhairava: The Vijnana-bhairava is one of the classic Tantric texts. Sri Abhinavagupta’s (ca. 950 -1014c.e) respect for it is evidenced in his having termed it “Siva-vijnana-upanishad” (The esoteric teaching for thedirect knowledge of Siva) 4 Bhairavi: The Feminine of Bhairava who is an aspect of Lord Siva. While Shakti is Lord Siva’s Feminine5 Tantrika: (Anglicized: tantric.) Adjectival form for practices prescribed in the Tantra traditions. The name of afollower of any of the tantric traditions.6

The Primordial Pranavam; otherwise called omkara. It is not Om however, it is A-U-M. A= Akara, U =Ukaaara, M = Makaara. A Corresponds to Shrusti --- English: = Creation. U Corresponds to Sthithi --- English:

= Sustenence, M Corresponds to Laya --- English: = Destruction. (see glossary of terms)

iii


9/216

147. Worship does not consist in offerings, but in the realization that the

heart is supreme consciousness, free from dualistic thought. In perfect ardor,

both Siva and Sakti dissolve in the Self.

148. If one penetrates one single point of the yoga described here, one will

know a plenitude spreading from day to day and reach the highest perfection.

149. When one casts into the fire of supreme reality the five elements, the

senses and their objects, the dualistic mind and even vacuity, then there is

true offering to the Gods.

150-151. O supreme Goddess, here what is to be sacrificed is nothing else

than spiritual satisfaction characterized by bliss. The real pilgrimage, O

Pârvati7

, is the absorption in the Sakti8

which destroys all stains and

protects all beings. How could there be another kind of worship and who

would be worshipped?

152. The essence of the Self is universal.

It would seem then that the thought that anything is not the Conscious Absolute, is

the very device whereby the Consciousness of the Absolute is lost due to the

7 Parvati - (Sanskrit) "Mountain’s daughter." One of many names for the Universal Mother. Prayers are offered

to Her for strength, health and eradication of impurities. Mythologically, Parvati is wedded to Siva. See:Goddess, Sakti (pronounced Sha - hkti).8 Sakti - (Sanskrit) "Power, energy," from the root sak, "to be able." The active power or manifest energy of Sivathat pervades all of existence. Its most refined aspect is Parasakti, or Satcidananda, the pure consciousness and primal substratum of all form. This pristine, divine energy unfolds as iccha sakti (the power of desire, will, love),

kriya sakti (the power of action) and jnana sakti (the power of wisdom, knowing), represented as the three prongsof Siva’s trisula, or trident. From these arise the five powers of revelation, concealment, dissolution, preservationand creation.

iv


10/216

plethora of effect which comes into being at the very moment of the rejection of

Omnipresent Consciousness (or God) as the Absolute.

Realization then according to Ananta Yoga; first requires the realization of the fact

of the omnipresence of Consciousness manifested as all that is knowable; inclusive

of all branches of both subjective and objective knowledge; and then the realization

of the “Cognating Consciousness9 in Itself" beyond the manifestation of its all-

pervading Omniscience. (beyond its knowledge) To the extent that all gods and

archetypes are transcended and given a place in the hierarchy of the Conscious

Absolute which has manifested as Omnipresent Omniscient Consciousness.

The beauty of the Ananta Yoga system and its validation as a true yoga, lies in the

fact that nothing is discarded, thus making all religions and modes of living and life,

along with all practices, rituals and traditions, valid when it comes to the question

of inclusiveness in the knowledge which belongs to The Consciousness.

The question of knowing is answered in the realization,

that it is not "i" that knows any –

or all modes of Being or manifestation –

it is rather The Conscious Absolute which alone, knows!

God is the knower.

In the Bhagavad Gita Sri-Krishna says:

Know Me as the knower of the Field in all the Fields, O Bharata.

Or in the Christian doctrine we can read:

9 Cognating-Consciousness: 1. [n] a word is cognate with another if both derive from the same word in anancestral language 2. [n] one related by blood or origin; especially on sharing an ancestor with another

3. [adj] related by blood 4. [adj] (linguistics) having the same ancestral language; "cognate languages"5. [adj] related in nature; "connate qualities" – Thus to refer to the Cognating-Consciousness would be to refer to

the Conscious-Self engaged in the act of self-recognition. Source: www.hyperdictionary.com

v


11/216

I Am the Alpha and the Omega – the beginning and the end.

Does this not mean that all knowledge falls between the beginning and the end

letters of ANY alphabet? Just as Number contains all numbers.

Thus this Conscious Self, This GOD; being as it is One, cannot but be a unitary

Omnipresence in which even infinity itself is resident (laid out) as is Void (Absolute

Space) and Time.

In short there is really no mission or calling to which those involved in this yoga

subscribe, except that just as more of the knowledge or omniscience of the

Conscious Absolute is manifested in Time by the evolvement of the Universe, so it is

that the Yoga evolves; evolving with and as the Sanatan Dharma itself. It could

therefore be called The Living Dharma also.

vi


12/216

Forward

If bindu chooses to express yet again

- "That" - Which cannot be expressed

Is it bindu who chose?

Not I , is the Message

Not I is the Creed

Not I Is the Way

Not I’ is the Goal!

If bindu is asked why; indeed bindu, why? This is going to be the wise reply

Not I, my Lord, Not I!

The Gist of the Ananta yoga, as he chooses to call the Unknowable - is:

The question of knowing is answered in the realization, that it is not "i" that

knows any or all modes of being, manifestation, or consciousness; it is rather

The Conscious Absolute which alone, knows! God is the knower.

In the Bhagavad-Gita Sri-Krishna says:

“Know Me as the knower of the Field in all the Fields, Oh Bharata.”

What more to say? What more to write? The preface is the Invitation to you to know

for yourself - The Not I – The Unknowable!

Narinder Bhandari

Chandigarh (India)

26 Jan 2006

vii


13/216

Invocation

The Lord of Time Who will know The I-Am?

I who have thrown the Cosmos into infinity;

Like a scattered bag of marbles;

Into the playground of Myself.

One knows Me on the wings of the breath

of a God who has lived forever;

Yet to Me that forever is but a moment;

And the God flings out existence on those wings.

It seems the in-breath lasts no time at all

before the out-breath begins yet again;

In mere moments eternity has passed;

While the Universe dies and is born on My breath.

Endless ages unfold endlessly

But I Am before and after them all.

To Me eternity is a mere speck;

While light blasts out of Me!

1


14/216

Yet moments, hours, days and years

Follow one-on-another infinitely;

Seeming to last as long as it takes;

But they are nothing in Me.

You see, you feel, you experience Time

Looking ahead, looking behind;

Who understands Me, before;

Beginning to know Time’s unfolding?

An infinitesimally short –

halt of the clock , hidden in Now, I Am;

Can you not see that those moving -

though they move eternally, to Me do not come.

Eons pass, these to Me, are not

Neither do they exist, because I Am beyond;

All that seems to exist, though existing eternally

cannot surpass my duration for I Am Forever, and beyond.

2


15/216

Yet I have not been, nor shall I

For I was never not, to begin.

Yet events seem to unfold and you are lost again;

Looking forward, looking back.

Sitting in the ashram meditating on me;

Lying on your bed contemplating me;

Watching your breath, and Mind.

Beginning and ending that practice.

Time is passing, you think –

Measuring the moments by Time.

Looking back, looking forward!

You do not know - eternity to Me, is over.

Before it begun, before it was -

Longer than eternity, more than a moment;

Impossibly longer than Time;

Though you do not know a single breath.

3


16/216

Each breath comes swiftly, followed by another

Each moment disappears whence it came;

Who knows these short specks?

Perhaps each is an eternity to Me?

Before a moment in Me passes -

The Universe becomes and dies;

Though one would think Time has passed;

Time no matter how long, to Me is nothing.

Moments seem therefore, to extend;

Time seems to be, yet it isn’t!

Yet you are lost in Me, lost in Time!

Come, look at a moment; Who am I?

What is that thing you call Time?

That in which moments unfold.

In which things are, then are no more;

What is that to Me? Nothing, it was not.

4


17/216

Before it was, I was, who else could see this?

How could an unfolding be known – except by one beyond?

You watch Time become; yet you think it passes;

How can that be, when always there is you?

The riddle is; who is this You?

What passes when moments go; who watches?

Always in the Now, beyond Time;

Watching it unfold, lost in Time!

Thinking something must occur

When you realize Me, as if I am in Time.

It cannot, because I am beyond those moments;

Requiring but an infinitesimal halt to the Clock.

A mere glimpse, a tiny breach in Time’s fabric!

An aberration of Mind; suspended cognition;

Recognition of extended infinity

- Being - expanded omni-presently.

5


18/216

Omniscient ParamAtma10 meditating as Time;

Knowing any duration of Time is lost.

Lost in infinity, meditate forever;

Or realize “The I Am” beyond Time!

Watch the moments unfold, know them eternally

Know that each breath lasts an Eon;

Though each seems no time at all;

Seeming this way, because you are eternal!

Each second, an unfurled eternity!

Each being a God in decay!

And the very Cosmos, Time’s Being;

Is no more, nor ever was!

But who will know Me -

Knowing beginning in the unknown?

Yet I Am before Time -

After - there is only Me!

10

The ParamAtma is Absolute Atman (also wrongly translated to mean Super-soul, Over-soul or Supreme Soulthese terms refer to the Parapusha, not the ParamAtma) in Vedanta the ParamAtma is one of the aspects of

Brahman. (Bhagavata Purana 1.2.11) it is not an intermediary.

6


19/216

It is I, who am the knower of the moments.

I, who am the knower of the knowing;

I, before a second’s tick;

Beyond, though My heart beats for years.

Living, though I never was -

Countless beings live and die in Me.

They, measuring life by moments;

Do not understand.

Who can see that Sadhana11

is over at the end of a moment?

Who can know that Time began again, on the in-breath?

It seems a moment, no matter how long, has duration;

To Me it is so little that it is non-existent

Therefore know that a moment –

No matter how small or great –

Is really eternal, containing the Cosmos;

Supported by the total, in that moment.

11 Sadhana is the Sanskrit term meaning spiritual exercise. In Hinduism the goal of sadhana is to attain Moksha;

(freedom form re-birth while still living.)

7


20/216

Who will know that I am The Omnipresent One?

Who sees I am The Eternal One?

Existing beyond, before and in between;

I Am the One Conscious of the Cosmos.

Knowing all, who will know what I am?

None, but The Omnipresent One;

Omniscient ParamAtma, Time’s Lord!

I! This – I Am!

There flashing, a great light!

A true consciousness!

A bright bindu12 rides on the brow of god!

A seeming spark, yet infinite.

The enlightened Lord of Himself 13

Birthing being; light pours forth into nothingness;

Sitting in himself, there The Great Siva-Lingam14 shines;

Unimaginable rays shoot forth.

12 Bindu: Used in this context represents the "third eye," or the "mind's eye," which sees things that the physicaleyes cannot see. The dot that is ‘Bindu’ signifies the silence into which the sound of Aum (or Om) leads and outof which existence manifests.13

The Self Himself - The I Am.14 The Siva-Lingam is seen by Saivites as the symbol of the God Siva. It is worshiped as the point of energy,

point of creation, and point of enlightenment.

8


21/216

Like a struck gong, a mighty star throbs!

Four rays begin as one, as if a great eye opens.

There seems a solar eclipse;

But the great shining eye engulfs it!

There stands Great Siva! There is Atman’s form! 15

Yet beyond there is a light!

It is as if struck in the pitch-black of a nowhere;

Yet the light rays do not move, there is simply an extension.

The center is still; the arms of the rays are seen.

There is a dark-bindu16, light leaking from around the edges.

The light, holy beyond explaining

The source of Time, the source of light!

No more than this, is there to know.

To the end I have come!

Who will know Me in Myself?

15 Atman’s form: The Para-Purusha or Supreme Being. Not to be confused with the ParamAtma.16

Dark-Bindu: The implication that the bindu exists; not its’ actual realization.

9


22/216

Noticing Truth

Let us go back to the beginning, before the Universe began, or alternately before the

world was created, before the Cosmos arose.

There was no thing such as the Cosmos existing; everywhere was non-existence.

Emptiness -- infinity was unknown, space was omnipresent; there could be no

measure of either Time or distance - "Relativity was not".

Yet there exists a very deep secret about how the existent or Transcendental God

acts to create; it consists in the fact that He\She\it does not act at all.

The sheer power of stillness.... causes the manifestation of Iccha-Sakti17 (the Power-

of-Will), which vibrates as the primordial unstruck Pranavam18; then the moola-

maya19 appears "AS" that manifestation of His potency. (as a RESULT of His “NOT”

MOVING HIS WILL). This potency is the potential-to-be which appears as the

diversity known as His Own Consciousness (we call it TIME). It is Maya, Samsara,

knowledge and ignorance. Then there comes the whole of the cosmic display.

But to return to the WILL; in Himself, God, shines forth as Cosmos simply by

existing, never by actually acting. We could think of it like the power in a massive

hydro-electric dam - pent-up unreleased, this is due to the tapas20 which shines

forth as the heat which burns in stars. Due to existing in Himself, The Cosmos

arises by degrees of manifestation beginning in what we refer to as astral realms or

17 Icchaa-Sakti: Literally the power-of-Will-in itself; not to be confused with The English phrase: Will-power18 Pranaavam: Is the name for the sacred A-U-M. Not to be confused with Om.19

Moola-Maya: The delusion of something existing separately from him “AS” existence.20 Tapas: (tápas) in Sanskrit means "heat". In this context it is used in the sense that intenseness of potency builds

while he remains still; hence the Cosmos “IS” that potency which comes forth as the potential-to-be.

10


23/216

Lokas; from this it can be seen that all realms are but aspects, modes or layers of

His consciousness or being. These exist as His Soul which thus remains in

meditation in the Astral while the dream of life is had. Thus, we refer to Vishnu 21.

Whether then by a God, or by "The ONE GOD" (if there be such a "GOD"); or by the

so-called “Big-Bang” or some arcane-as-yet unknown law of physics, the Cosmos

appeared in that infinite nothingness; Impossibly, That Cosmos appeared in The

Omnipresent Infinity" .

Being of the nature of omnipresence (seeing that there exists nothing but Cosmos)

whether Cosmos came into being in a moment or over unimaginable time spans;

that Cosmos fills Infinite Omnipresence utterly.

Time then arrived; whether that first moment of Time was so small as to be

unknowable or extended for eternity is irrelevant because upon Time's advent, all

Times arrived. (Every Time possible was there) because a moment requires many

moments among which to appear; else nothing could be, exist or have duration.

Hence the Cosmos is infinite; or perhaps it may be realized that the single moment

is Infinite?

So then that force of appearance which we know as Time, smacks of awareness

because there can be no appearance (no recognition of a requisite) of many, for the

21 Vishnu: Known as the Preserver, He is most famously identified with His avatars, or incarnations of God, most

especially Krishna and Rama. Additionally, another important name for Vishnu is Narayana. Some, who followAdvaita philosophy, believe that deities such as Vishnu or Siva are various forms of one ultimate higher power("Brahman"), which higher reality has no specific form, name, face or features. This idea is encapsulated in theterm "Nirguna Brahman" ("featureless reality"). The Vaishnava sect (worshippers of Vishnu) however believethat God can transcend all personal characteristics yet can also have personal characteristics for the grace of the

human devotee. Personal characteristics are considered an aid for the devotee to focus on God. The Vaishnavasect also believe that it is not necessarily wrong to view a form of God as long as it is recognized that God is notlimited to a particular form. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu)

11


24/216

appearance of one. Hence the question arises as to who is aware?

That Cosmos then was either Conscious itself previous to the existence of any one -

being who became sentient, or there is “A Conscious Absolute ONE” which has

always been; and hence existed previous to Cosmos. If the Cosmos is Maya or mere

potential-to-be as stated above and a single moment is infinite; then we must admit

of uncountable numbers of universes; we must admit to non-existence as truth.

Either way both I and it are one!

As a matter of course just after the appearance of Cosmos, a sentient being

appeared, else to the previously existing Conscious One … the Cosmos did not

appear to come into being due to the fact of there being no possibility of comparison

in terms of time having passed. Time had not passed in that case. Hence neither by

doctrine nor by philosophy or scientific fact could it be known to exist.

Cognition then, whether by self-awareness or instinctual interaction as in the case

of beings such as single celled organisms, has a requisite of the past else perception

no matter how rudimentary would be impossible rendering any action, even such

actions as instinctively seeking food or reproduction would not begin. Because the

psycho-chemical motivations of all sentient beings are triggered by reactions

whether or not they are conscious reactions or decisions.

12


25/216

Who is God Anyway?

Many books have been written; many religions have risen only to fall. In the world

today there are at least 22 major religions, all claiming a direct line to, or path that

leads to God, or their version of heaven. Who is God anyway?

Each religion gives a different name to God, and prescribes different paths,

behaviors, ceremonies, traditions and modes or worship; which more often than

not, end up contradicting each other.

Here in the interests of talking about the nature of God and of truth as one-and-

the-same thing, there will be an attempt made to find, define and show a path to

the realization of the Spiritual Consciousness; that according to almost all religions

dwells within each and every one of us.

Almost all religions, teachers, swami’s, gurus, and priests agree that we must

surrender to God. We are advised to give up some aspect of our willfulness and

selfishness. To this end there are countless books written on all sorts of modes of

consciousness and philosophies to which the human being is asked to subscribe if

he or she is going to find lasting peace-of-mind and perhaps union with, or at least

earn a place in the eyes of God. As it is with our fellows, we seek his

acknowledgment also. Yet if “The Great One” acknowledged other than Himself he

would not be omnipresent due to there being another in His very Being; Seeking is

thus absurd!

A lot of us go on inner journeys, or travel to the Himalayas hoping to find lasting

peace-of-mind in the words of a supernatural guide, or at the feet of a guru or so-

13


26/216

called realized master; but how few of us ever do? How can we ever tell that the one

who is sprouting the so-called truth is actually self-realized or has our best

interests at heart? Much less, gauge whether or not what is being said is actually

true.

Some of us may find a certain truth in the master’s words or from a passage in a

book; or a-sometime-peace in prayer or meditation, which soon fades when we

return to the hectic modern world in which we live. Here by ancient yoga, we will

seek to find out why we lose our peace so easily and perhaps become established in

it permanently.

The old books extol that we should seek The Self within. Since time-out-of-mind

countless gurus and swamis have traveled (and still travel) the world telling

everyone they meet, to find out who it is that looks at our thoughts. They ask us to

withhold our judgments momentarily; to catch a glimpse of The Self who dwells in

the infinite beyond the mind.

The mighty Upanishads from the Vedic Tradition speak almost incessantly of the

marvel that dwells within each and every one of us. Here in this book it is hoped

that the Spirit of the Upanishadic Tradition can be rekindled in everyone that reads

it.

As a beginning, the following poem has the potential to momentarily open our eyes

as to who The Self is, as well as who He was before He appeared as the Cosmos.

14


27/216

Who is The Conscious One?

In the absence of Hearing -

In the absence of Seeing -

In the absence of Tasting -

In the absence of Sensation -

In the absence of Scent -

In the absence of Thought -

The Self Resides in Himself.22

On the other hand;

In the comparison of sound to soundlessness, the idea – the concept that “I” exist

appears.

In the comparison of the seen to the unseen, the idea – the concept that “I” exist

appears.

In the comparison of what is tasted to the tasteless, the idea – the concept that “I”

exist appears.

In the comparison of sensation to sensationlessness, the idea – the concept that “I”

exist appears.

In the comparison of Scent to the odorless, the idea – the concept that “I” exist

appears.

In the comparison of emptiness to fullness - cognition appears composed of all

these.

22

The Self Resides in Himself: The verse does not mean to say that in death there is no possibility of sensation. Nor does it mean to say that The Self is unconscious and devoid of knowership. What is meant is that when the

realization comes, conscious awareness is no longer a matter of comparison as is normally the case.

15


28/216

The beginning of comprehension - The beginning of apperception23 - The Beginning

of I-ness - arises from the speck-like particle of the beginning of the comparison of

emptiness, to what is not.

When the thinker tries to think of the infinite; when attempts are made to quantify

infinity - a comparison must be made between a preconception as to the nature of

the infinite and that which is other than infinite. We will compare an idea of the

infinite in terms of fullness or massiveness to what is empty or small. But this is

where what is other, must merge with the infinite if we are going to understand it.

Hence that which is thought to be the Void (or empty-mind as it is called in the

Buddhist traditions) is not the infinite, but is merely the absence of what was. It

can never be “What IS”.24 Surely, the comparison is made by someone or

something?

This is not to say that the Buddhist doctrine is in error, whereby it states that there

can be no “Absolute Self”; but it does give us the clue that the translation of the

word: “Shunya”25 (traditionally interpreted to mean VOID) must be flawed. Just as

references to the “Absolute Consciousness” are also flawed because the Absolute is

Conscious of the Consciousness. It is not the other way around as the phrase “The

Absolute Consciousness” would have us believe. Instead, it should read “The

Conscious Absolute”.

How it it so? Well consciousNESS is not Conscious just as water is not wetNESS …

23 Apperception: The process whereby perceived qualities of an object are related to, or compared to, or with

experience. i.e. without a past the possibility of consciousness as an individual is impossible. Hence, in the beginning or apperception the i-ness arises.24 What Is: This does not refer to the New-Age Concept of “The IS”. The “IS” as referred to by the New-Age

movement is a reference to what exists “AT” the moment… While here we refer to that out of which what seemsto exist comes; or seems to arise but does not.25

Shunya The literal translation is Void

16


29/216

wetNESS could be oil or paint or milk.. In the same way ConsciousNESS is not

conscious; rather “The Unknowable Absolute Self is CONSCIOUS”.

The books are translated to say that the consciousness is self-conscious (it shines

forth as itself – it shines forth as the Cosmos – it is self-shining and self-

illuminating) it is said that God is the ConsciousNESS but that is incorrect because

consciousness without comparatives is NOT and cannot be said to be Conscious.

However the Conscious Self does shine forth “AS” the Cosmos” “AS” the

ParamAtma. And yes, it is God Himself.

No. The translation should read “The Conscious Absolute” which is a totally

different concept altogether because it is open-ended and as such is infinitely

transcendent.

After all the Bhagavad Gita says that Sri-Krishna (who is said to be the Supreme

Self) is, in His final nature Self-transcendent. I.e. His consciousness is of a

transcendental nature.

The Conscious Absolute, The Para-Brahman, "The Infinite One" - is not absence, is

not void; it does not exist in comparison; else its existence is dependent upon

another existence, if that were the case it would therefore be neither Infinite - nor

One and Omnipresent - as comparison connotes duality of consciousness. But the

purpose of the duality is inherent in the infinitely transcendent.

Does this mean each and every sentient being is schizophrenic? No, it means the

nature of being is of the nature of Consciousness. It means that the Nature of the

“Consciousness” is duality itself.

17


30/216

A quote from Verse 9, Chapter One of the Avadhuta Gita of Sri Dattatreya

Explains:

The mind indeed is of the form of space.

The mind indeed is omnifaced.

The mind is the past.

The mind is all.

But in reality there is no mind.

End Quote. 26

The Mind is of the form of space:

The Mind cannot be found or proved to exist in the absence of thought;

Thought appears in the mental space and hence the Mind is of the form of

space.

The Mind is omnifaced:

What appears to exist can only be mind or consciousness, because nothing

can appear, or be found to exist by anyone or by any means in this world if

the mind does not exist. It would seem then, that the mind is also conscious

of itself; i.e. self-conscious, but that is not so, because there is awareness in

the absence of that which appears as Mind or thought. (That which appears

is “Mind” – that which “Is Already” and does not appear since it already exists

is therefore not Mind. The Buddhist doctrine has been translated in such a

way as to say it “IS MIND”, it is therefore mistranslated.)

26

Dattatreya: Although Dattatreya was at first a "Lord of Yoga" exhibiting distinctly Tantric traits, he wasadapted and assimilated into the more devotional cults; while still worshipped by millions of Hindus, he is

approached more as a benevolent God than as a teacher of the highest essence of Indian thought

18


31/216

The Mind is the past:

All that can be known to exist or perceived is the past; just as starlight seen

in the night-sky may be coming from a long dead star, so might what is

perceived no longer exists by the time it is perceived in the mind “As the

Mind”. There is a time-lapse. Thus what is perceived is over. But what is “IN”

the absolute now that is conscious of that past which is appearing as the

present? – Being that The Mind is also the past?

The Mind is all:

The phenomenal universe - including all Time and Space – The Cosmos.

In reality:

In the highest realization of the Spirit, there is no Mind - either empty or

otherwise. The mind cannot be found in the absence of thought, so it cannot

be the mind, the ego, or the individual Jiva (individual Soul) that is conscious

beyond itself. Vis: The Mind cannot enlighten or transcend itself.

When the first speck of the beginning of the description of anything occurs to The

Conscious Absolute; - when the first speck of the beginning of comparison - arises

In The Absolute; some form of selfhood is implied as pre-existing what arose, else

who or what could begin the comparison? This implied-self is thought to be the Jiva

or Soul to which we refer when we speak of “i” – “me” and “MINE”. But who is doing

the referring?

The Buddhist doctrine states emphatically in many places that “nothing has arisen

or arises; not ever”…. So are we to think that the speck spoken of in the previous

19


32/216

paragraph as having arisen - has not arisen at all? If that were so then any thought

or discussion about it having arisen is a useless exercise, because its’ having arisen

is illusion. Does this mean that “The I” is also an illusion? - Since the speck has not

arisen “The implied I” could not have arisen either. Or is the Conscious-Absolute-

Self predicated upon its own ConsciousNESS as the “awareness” of the speck,

yielding the implication that “A SELF” pre-existed the consciousness of the speck?

If this is so, then if the cosmos itself were taken to be a speck (due to its singular

nature) it could not have arisen either – This must mean “The Self” must exist prior

to, during and after the Cosmos; and as such pre-dates Time itself and will remain

after the Cosmos collapses back into nothingness. Hence the Self is beyond

consciousness and cannot be thought, imagined or described to another. But He

can realize Himself in Himself as Himself… He can achieve Self-realization, but the

Jeeva27 cannot as they have not arisen and do not exist at all.

However “The Self” referred to in the last paragraph implied as existing prior to

consciousness -- prior to existence; “IS” just that; an implied SELF ; just as the

existence of the Jiva is implied and predicated upon awareness, so is the conception

or idea that An Absolute Self exists , also predicated upon The Conscious Absolute.

However the difference between the Jiva and The Absolute Self lies in the fact that

the Self “CAN” refer to Jiva “AS” Himself without losing His identity; w hile the Jiva

“Cannot” refer to the Absolute Self AS himself without losing his limited identity.

In the case of the implication that “A Non-arisen and Final Self” is pre-existing the

consciousness; implication itself could not be known or referred to, unless there

27 Jeeva: Plural of Jiva

20


33/216

was a previously existing conscious Self. Thus the Self exists prior to consciousness

and never arose at all but has always been. While whatever objective awareness

seems to arise; arises as the Consciousness.

This means - The Self, (whether it is an implied Self or not) has always existed. It

means that there is no such thing as the duality of the Conscious-Self and His

Consciousness ; because consciousness appears to arise but does not; it is merely a

case of the Self Being Conscious of Himself “AS” what seems to have arisen but has

not arisen at all. It means the Self is simply conscious “AS” The Cosmos which

never arose, but rather has existed since eternity because it never arose. We

conclude then that the Self-in-itself is indefinable due to the very nature of

existence itself, but none-the-less it exists. The only conclusion to be arrived at then

would be that The Self is The Conscious Absolute within which all exists. 28

28 All exists: here we refer to the certainty that everything that exists in a given time-frame is existing AS TIME

ITSELF due to the impossibility of literal separation either atomically and spiritually of any particle or beingfrom the whole. Yes we can speak can speak of particles as if they are separate… but in reality they are not and

cannot be. For example: The result of the attempt to separate the atom is nuclear fission

21


34/216

Meditating Upon the Self

During meditation it can be seen that due to the fact of awareness remaining in the

abeyance of the senses, a Conscious Absolute-Self is implied as existing beyond the

boundaries of existence; else how came Consciousness? In whom, and to whom, did

it, or could it arise?

Either the “Implied Conscious Absolute” (known as the ParamAtma) is God, or

ParamAtma is the Cosmos itself. Hence the implied Self is and can only be the

Cosmos itself. Of course this means that the Cosmos is the God-with-form or

ParamAtma, of which the Vedic tradition speaks so eloquently. While The Conscious

Absolute (erroneously called “The Absolute Consciousness”) is the Infinite Para-

Brahman29.

In The Absolute, if anything arose - no matter how great or how small - The Cosmos

must arise simultaneously with it - AS its’ existence. This means that existence

depends upon and arises from a mere speck - from “The Tejobindu” - from the

original point of conscious light - from the first photon ever born!

Having believed he arose previously - or believing he exists previous to what he is

now perceiving The Jiva, Soul, "i", "me" does not understand - that the source of his

being is - Nothing more than nothing compared to emptiness; and as such is truly

infinite.

Let us now go to the non-located realm of the supreme…

29 Parabrahman: (Sanskrit) "Supreme (or transcendent) God." A synonym for Nirguna Brahman, Absolute

Reality, beyond time, form and space. Same as Parasiva. See: Brahman, Parasiva

22


35/216

The Jiva, thinking he is real - thinking he exists - cannot exist without constant

comparison - he cannot remain in existence as any sort of seemingly separate or

limited anything - unless perception occurs - because if it did not, there would be

nothing to which comparison could be made. And hence he would not know he

exists.

So then, via meditation; via reason, via understanding let us come to the true

expression as to the nature of existence.

We can come to realize that the astral or spiritual world exists, through the means

of various techniques of meditation upon the chakra, the light of the mind, and the

attainment of the witness consciousness; yet even with the mastery of the senses,

emotion and the mind; or the complete ascension of the kundalini and the piecing

and purification of all the chakra, it is very difficult to realize that though the soul

does interact with the body it is NOT actually located in the body-itself! And is thus

not related to what is thought to be the individual.

HOW can such a thing be said!!!

Through many books there are scattered references to the lotus of one

thousand petals. In yoga texts and puranas, are countless accounts of what

was realized or experienced by meditators through-out all ages

By comparison, implication arises - and the mind is born! Seeming to exist in the

implied-self - who is (as previously shown) - Nothing more than nothing compared

to emptiness!

Suddenly there is the first speck-like appearance - of the beginning of the first

23


36/216

syllable of the first description - and the pseudo existence of Jiva seems validated.

(i.e. The familiar: “I think therefore I am” dictum.) Yet from the absence of thought

(no Thought) nothing is compared to emptiness and the Self is realized; He does not

arise from thought!

Now the question arises: Who makes the first comparison out of which the Cosmos

comes (and also out of which the Jiva arises)?

This question can only exist if there is a conscient30 Unknowable-Self in which the

Cosmos appears. Is this God? Is it ParamAtma? Yes, it must be!!

If what is written above is untrue, then the very consciousness itself does not exist

because above is written an accurate and true account of the process of the arising

of perception and cognition. (i.e. Consciousness itself).

"The Infinite One", The Para-Purusha31, The ParamAtma, The Para-Brahman exists

then, as the one who is conscious IN all who seem to be - i.e. all the various

individual Jeeva, "I", "ME'. "I -This Soul". This "I", "ME", "Soul", Jiva and the

Cosmos itself - is in this way appearing in The Self - In The Absolute - It is

appearing inside The Infinite One".

Now then the entire Cosmos, Having arisen from the Tejobindu32 is nothing more

than nothing compared to emptiness also - because the consciousness of it existing

30 Conscient: Con"scient\, a. [from the Latin. consciens, -entis,.] Translated to mean conscious… we use the

word conscient in the place of conscious because the word conscious has come to imply A Conscious Being (visan ego, or ID) whereas here we refer to the non-personal Absolute Self.31 Para-Purusha: The word purusha has been translated as man, but in the Sanskrit it also has a flavor of meaningleading to spirit of man or what we call the soul. Para: Higher or beyond. The sense in which it is used here is to

refer to the Higher Spirit or being. Para-Purusha is also often used to refer to the ParamAtma.32 Tejobindu: Tejo comes from the word tejash, which means brilliance; hence the Tejobindu is THE (meaning

1st) brilliant point of light. i.e. the first photon of light that came into existence.

24


37/216

lies in the comparison as described above.

Again, refer back to the fact that this work is not referring to the fact that anyone is

at any moment perceiving a different Cosmos; and also to the fact that it is the

same Self in all Jiva who is aware of what is appearing in the Absolute, but is (due

to comparison) being taken to be the individual mind, when nothing could be

further from the truth.

If you are nothing and he is nothing and that or this is also nothing - Then you are

nothing-like-nothing-compared-to-emptiness. (i.e. You are not the Consciousness

YOU ARE THE CONSCIOUS ONE). The mistake is that the conscious ONE is limited

in Himself, thus we tend to think we are the limited individual and will always be

limited to some degree because that very individuality is dependant upon limitation,

separation and selfishness.

This is the complete definition of the VOID but you are not it. Then you are nothing-

like-nothing-compared-to-emptiness. Hence here lies refutation of the Void because

“The Self” is nothing-like-nothing-compared-to-emptiness.

Of what sort - of which genus was the first? Such as that quickening of life, whether

a cell that was the One and only Cell of the one and only being or a complex of cells

(within which each individual cell reproduced, just as did the 1st) there was life

born in and “AS” the mirror of consciousness; The consciousness of the

"Omnipresent ONE" took on form as the Cosmos.

25


38/216

Genesis 1:27 (King James Version)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him;

male and female created He them.

In His Image Created He Him. - He Created Him in Himself.

The mistake is that the conscious ONE is limited in Himself, thus we tend to

think we are the limited individual and will always be limited to some degree

because that very individuality is dependant upon limitation, separation and

selfishness.

26


39/216

Such then by refraction, by attenuation, faster than the speed of light, from that 1st

seed of recognition, arose the cognation or awareness of the existence of light; light

became conscious! Cells split, mutated, became other; D.N.A became by refraction

of and in the consciousness and diverse life forms likewise; the depths of

consciousness (being rooted in the "CONSCIOUS ONE”) was as yet unknown to

them.

Time was born by the measure of the lifespan of each, such that the life-span of

each (to itself) appeared a long time; no matter how short each life, to each it is a

life-time. A moment, a day, a life of two minutes, a century and the life-times of

millions appearing to us as a week; to them is a millennia or more.

Here then each being's Life, (to that being) is lived in a universe governed by its' (a

given beings) idea of Time. After unimaginable Time-spans that original

manifestation became utterly complex such that being arose within all modes of

Time; there unimaginable numbers of universes arose also.

From “The One Consciousness” all begat their own. In each a conception of Time

arose; and within each of those conceptions arose greater diversity - greater

complexity. Within That First species by interaction and breeding, arose difference of

appearance, no other species had as yet arisen.

As the conception of Cosmos within the womb of Time progressed, different

probabilities fanned out; different pathways appeared; upon which diverse and

distorted versions of the first began the journey to selfhood.

27


40/216


41/216

1. I-ness or Ego is Super-imposed upon The Absolute Light. Notice the

silhouetted, almost shadow-like outline of a man; this is Atman.

2. Individual thoughts, existences etc. Come into being due to the

fragmentation; each with its’ own Atman or inherent Deity\Archetype. Each a

complete reflection of the first in the consciousness; there thus appears to be

many, many beings but there is not.

3. Different Time-Lines or parallel existences. Each shooting out in countless

directions. These are universes expanding and traveling at the speed of light.

4. The super-imposition of I-ness upon the infinite causes the fragmentation.

While in The Absolute there is only light in light.

5. The beginning of fragmentation.

29


42/216

Now then a slice of the Cosmic-pie as-it-were, contains or harbors innumerable

tendrils of effected cause, such that it is impossible to unravel it. Yet "The History of

Being" can be known by the name of "Omnipresence" by the predication of each

Being upon its’ individual conception of Time-Passing.

So then unnumbered Beings:

Time’s uncountable rays conceived in cosmic manifestation, existing at all

levels of experiential perception in Time and Consciousness;

are the Omnipresent Omniscience of The non-manifest Omnipotent

Consciousness of The One True Self.

Here then, that Cosmos is Self-Conscious-as-Itself-within-Itself.

Uncountable diverse Beings then arose and arise NOW! In the omnipresence as

what is called “That”, as the prescience34 of that Omnipresence. Yet “The Self IS and

Was” before the Cosmos appeared or became visible to perception; Before Time

appeared or appears in which a Being might “Be” to know that the Cosmos had

arisen in Infinity.

The Omnipotent One, whose Prescience exists as the Cosmos, in itself (in The Self

beyond being) cannot be spoken of as "It" nor can we speak of "It" as being "IN"

because seeing that it is infinite, it has no form to which we can refer to as "It" (as if

pointing it out); likewise nor can we refer to "IN" as the infinite is boundless by its'

very nature. Being boundless, being formless, neither Time nor Space, and therefore

existence in Cosmos, of the formless; is possible.

34 Prescience: In this paragraph, the word prescience is used in the sense of anticipation, readiness, expectation

and sheer presence.

30


43/216

This simply means that The Infinite Being cannot appear as a limited

Individual Being, because that Being35 already exists as the Cosmos-

Itself.

However being that the Conscious Infinite and the one who is conscious in and of

the individual are one-and-the-same Conscious Self, it is entirely possible that the

individual consciousness might aspire to merge with The One Consciousness and

Realize Identity with The Omnipresence 36 .

So then to come to an understanding of this Omnipresent Consciousness we should

envision an hierarchy of Beingness existing in a Consciousness that permeates all

Being everywhere; beginning with the simplest, the most rudimentary life-form,

manifesting through the awareness of countless individual beings within the genus

of that species; existing, interacting and knowing itself as, and through the

awareness of innumerable species also. We will hence embrace the Darwinian

theory of evolution.

If we were to sum the total of those lives together we would know the Nature of the

Omnipresent-Consciousness. Consider then, the countless trillions upon trillions of

beings such as virii or germs, unnumbered insects and then picture the sum of the

experience of all those at any given moment.

Think then, of all the incredible multiplicity of creatures which move upon the

earth. Think of the impossible numbers of fishes and sea creatures and the birds,

the plants, animals and last of all, all the races of Mankind, not to mention the

unknowable numbers of beings existing in, on and above dimensions of which we

35 That Being: Refers to the ParamAtma.36

Identity with the Omnipresence: Become Self-realized.

31


44/216

are unaware, then there will be an understanding of the Omnipresent

Consciousness. Yet there will not yet be the realization.

Sum all these under the heading of an Omnipresent Awareness or “A” knowing

of all things at all levels at all Times, which have been, which are, and which

shall be. This then is Omniscience. It is Consciousness which is aware of its'

own Omnipresence; It is the Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni-Prescience.

32


45/216

The Minds Survival

In the last chapter, we saw how Omnipresence is linked to Omniscience in such a

way as to show how this Presence is Conscious; in this way the Omnipresence

factually exists as both the known and the knowing which exists as the Cosmos.

Seeing then, that we have established this, it naturally follows that by the process

of conceptualization and crystallization of cognition, the mental construct, (which a

given person believes is the Universe) comes into being. (Here we do not refer to

Cosmos37 - but to Universe38). Along with this belief there must arise an idea of

selfhood, which is supported, by that belief. (i.e. a person interacts with the world in

which he finds himself in a way that reflects how he sees himself.)

Whether such a being is a man or a woman or any other creature, it is guaranteed

that this being to which we refer, will act as befits its nature. This is not to say

according to its physical appearance, but to say that this being will act according to

behavior patterns programmed into its D.N.A by previous experience in the Universe

it sees as its own. For example: A dog may begin to bite after he is abused. Yet we

will confine these documents to speaking only of Humankind, and via that we may

see how these things apply to all other species and genus within each species.

Tied irrevocably to ones' belief system about the nature of the Universe, is the

survival of that beings' conception of selfhood (the word “selfhood” is used in the

sense of that which in the minds-eye One sees as One’s self). This means the i-

ness39 known as the ego is predicated40 upon the CONTEXT 41 into which the ego is

37 We use the word Cosmos here to mean the sum of all Universes.38 Considering that each being has a different view or perspective, which would necessarilychange, said beings perception of the Original Universe; there can be said to be manyUniverses within the ONE Cosmos. For example an ant lives in a very different universe froma fish or a cat; and so forth.39

I-Ness: Throughout this work we will often refer to “The I-ness” when we are referring to the Self-Concept. 40 Predicated: In this sense we use the word predicate in the context of “to put forward” or “to aver” by

implication that an individual exists who is involved in the situation or Context.

33


46/216

projected by the Will. This yields his self-consciousness because the projection

created by the Will is projected onto the background of the True Self - By That Very

Self! Of course, the nature of the self-concept or I-ness known as the Ego is but one

conception as to the nature of reality when seen from a certain point of view. i.e.

Context.

This can be seen in the fact that human beings most often see themselves in the

minds eye as having attributes which include the objects and possessions in their

lives; along with the emotions they feel as a result of interaction with their world. In

short: A being defines himself in the context of his environment and feelings.

Thoughts arise after this definition such that incredibly, he then begins to think

that the definition of who he is “actually thinks”. But it is not so. For how can a

definition (or self-conception) think?

What has arisen as the One who seems to be thinking, is nothing more than a

reflection of the combination of the components of the definition.

Yet in he-himself someone refers to that effigy and says “I”.

Who is saying “I” in him? Who points at the Definition? Who is conscious of the

imagination? Who says MY? Who Says MINE? Who says “I” in him? Could it be the

definition referring to it’s-self? Of course not! It is preposterous to say that a mere

conceptual definition could be conscious of itself. Thus the Self must predate both

thought and Mind itself.

Why mind you ask? The conscious Self predates Mind because it can refer to the

mind even when the mind is empty in sentences such as MY MIND…. Mind then is

a concept also.. But when Mind is empty… when there are no thoughts, Mind

41 Context: The set of facts or circumstances that surround a person, situation or event

34


47/216

cannot be found to exist at all.

What then, or who - knows itself; beyond that which is attributable to, or caused

and defined by the exterior Universe and\or the context of beingness? 42 This very

question implies by reference to knowing or consciousness, that there is a Self who

is implied but not seen; whereas the ego or i-ness is deliberately projected onto the

background of The Self by The Self Itself.

This means that in relation to “The Omniscience”, the belief a person has about him

or herself - as being this or that - or as being defined by any attributes or any

combination of attributes, at any given moment; is the very thing which limits the

understanding of the true nature of the Conscious Self; which not only exists and

manifests as the entire Cosmos, but also peers through that very persons senses

into its' very Self!43.

The reason why this is so, is due to the fact that any definition must be localized in

the infinity of the Omnipresence, (defined) else it cannot appear. Of course with

definition comes division and hence the darkness of separation and

unenlightenment. However that Self which peers through the senses is never

separated in reality, and nor is the Self which looks at inner-definitions and

references to i-ness ever set apart from itself due to the fact that The Self is the One

referring to the I-ness “AS” itself in sentences which begin with the words “I Am”.

Yet the addiction to the definitions and attributes which the mind looks at saying

"ME" "I" is driven by fear of extinction, not only of the so-called person, but also of

42 Beingness; that which is projected as the self, (or predicated upon the background of The

Conscious Infinite Self) and presented as The Real Self when it is not. 43 Its’ Very Self: The ParamAtma: The Self, which exists as the entire Manifest Cosmos. We will refer to thisSelf as the Conscious Self or Conscious Absolute interchangeably through-out this work.

35


48/216


49/216

Self"45 So we again lose our connection with the Conscious Self in its pure

formlessness.

Yet to remain in The Absolute we cannot refer to “a self”

as being “IN” or defined “AS” anything.

45 The Not Self: Any self that can be referred to or defined as a separate entity could be called the not-self due to

the necessity of separation, if there is to be consciousness of existing as an conscient being.

37


50/216

Neither can we refer to a self as being in Samadhi46 because in The Absolute there

is no definition whatever, because it is infinite; yet it is Conscious prior to

Consciousness. (Consciousness being an event occurring in or to The Conscious ONE

or Conscious Absolute.) Yet the event of consciousness is not an event of being

conscious of difference; it is an event of the recognition of Consciousness existing as

ALL or existence. Hence there is in truth no Self existing in The Absolute which has

any type of form that is definable or separable; either physically or conceptually

from the whole, because that would contradict the nature of Omnipresence.

The Self therefore, if it has form, must be the Cosmos itself!

or alternately as Vasishtha47- says: The Cosmos is a Dream.

Either way it matters not at all, because the fact is, that whether Omnipresence

exists as the Cosmos or as the emptiness in which all has its existence, nothing

that exists or doesn't, can exist unless there is Omnipresence because it is either

Omnipresent Non-existence or Omnipresent Existence; which amounts to the same

thing!

46 Samadhi or Nirvana; Stasis of emotional aberration. It is a state of residence in the background of a preceding

mode of consciousness, but is not the state of realization or enlightenment. Samadhi will equate to deep sleepwhereby the ego is at rest in the darkness of its own ignorance. Lying in abeyance as-it-were.47 Vasishtha: The seventh mandala of the rig Veda is attributed to him. He composed many hymns in praise ofVaruna, the god of goodness. He is said to have been born from a pot (see Rig Veda 7:33) and supposed to have

begotten two sons. In the Mahabharata, Vasishtha is mentioned over a hundred times, and Shankara mentionshim as the first sage of Vedanta school in his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita. Sage to Rama. Of course thesedetails are metaphorical and will not be described here.

38


51/216

An imaginary depiction of The Self-in-Himself

Accepting this truth then, brings about the realization of the impossibility of the

existence of a separate individual self. It comes home to One that the very definition

One has of Ones-self is nothing more than a further aspect of the Omnipresent

Prescience48; while the Awareness that ascribes attributes to The Self depicted in

Mind as "I" is transcendent of that self, the Mind and the manifest Universe.

However to live as if ever-abiding in the Conscious Absolute, One would go about as

if unhinged, "as an Avadhut49". It is obvious therefore, that if we are serious about

realization it is totally futile to go on thinking that the "I" - "ME" defined by belief

and attribute etc. is The Real Self. And therefore also impossible to think that the

48 Prescience: The power to foresee the future. The future is of course The Self. It is said that he is the same inthe beginning and in the middle and in the end. Hence prescience.49

Avadhut: The word is often misunderstood to refer to a naked Sadhu or spiritual seeker who goes about naked.However an Avadhuta or naked one is he who is existing in a state of seeing The Self as Himself without

attributes.

39


52/216

Not-Self 50 is the one who will one day attain Self-realization. Seeking then, is a fool’s

errand. What is it that you are trying to find? Don't you know The Self alone exists?

50 Not-Self: The Not-Self is referred to as the Jiva.

40


53/216

Conscious Contemplation

From the previous Chapter it can be seen that we tend to inhabit the actions we

perform (we invest a projected "I"-ness in an action) and point at what is occurring -

at what is being done, and say such things as; "I" am running; "I" am eating; "I" am

jumping etc. This is all very well, but apparent separation from the “Conscious-

Absolute” (loss of identity with the Absolute “AS” Self) is not bought about simply by

saying "I" am doing etc. because that is merely identification with the body-as-self.

On the contrary; “Separation has already happened!” in the fact that it is bought

about by the habitual or deliberate visualizing of ones-self as: "I" am “a this" or "a

that"; for example it is always a pre-existing entity that is now golfing or eating etc.

e.g. "I" am eating and so forth.

But who is this "I" who mentions I Am?

First of all, to think of "I" is to separate from The Self because any "I" other than the

“I- Am” must be predicated UPON the “I - Am” by whatever designation of i-ness is

added after the words "I Am". This leads to the mistaken idea that both the “i-ness”

(the Jiva) and the Cosmos are predicated or superimposed upon The Absolute; as if

existence is a separate thing from the Conscious-Absolute; not unlike the paint on a

canvas or the ink on this page. For example there must first be the Consciousness

of I Am in order to add I to it; e.g. I am “I”.

However both superimposition and predication require the pre-existence of some

type of background upon which either may be projected or placed; some form of

intelligence is also required in order that the logical affirmation of either

superimposition or predication be carried out. Hence there is no alternate answer

but to say that it is the “I – Am” who is the background upon which existence is

41


54/216

made manifest “As the I am-ness or Consciousness OF the I-AM” by the Intelligence

of the exact same “I-AM”. If this is the case then there is no possibility of an exterior

or interior self or existence. “This I Am” is what is mentioned the Vedic literature as

Aham Brahmasmi “(I Am Brahman”)

Whether Or Not It Is Real Or Not!

The objection might arise that according to the previous Chapters, the Cosmos does

not exist; or that it is a delusion like a city in the sky, or the rope which is mistaken

for the snake in the twilight; yet there is the following.

1. If there is the identification with the body as-self, then the I-ness appears

as if it is “IN” the Universe.

2. If there is the identification with the Inner “I” or witness as-self, then the

Universe appears as if superimposed “UPON” the Absolute.

3. If there is no identification with the body or the i-ness as Self, the Universe

appears to be the pure-I-conscious or I – amness when it is not.

The Universe is merely the I-amness of the Jiva appearing “IN” The Cosmos; while

the existence of the “consciousness” implies another as is revealed in the fact that

the Cosmos “NOT” the Universe “IS” in fact the I-Amness of the Conscious

Absolute.51

An alternate way to look at the above may be:

If there is no reference to the body as-self and if there is no reference to the i-ness

as-self, does the Universe cease to exist - or is it actually appearing “IN” not “ON”

51 This reference to the difference between the Universe and the Cosmos will become apparent as you get further

into the book.

42


55/216

The Absolute? Being that there are uncountable numbers of Universes, the

Universes are “IN” and comprise the Cosmos, but the Cosmos is the actual I-

amness of the Conscious Absolute. This is known as ParamAtma.

To give an incontrovertible answer as to whether the universe is actually appearing

“IN” The Self; or is superimposed “UPON” the consciousness “OF” The Self. Or

whether the Universe is “The Actual-SELF Itself”; we must destroy the notion of

both inner and outer reality by getting an understanding of the fact that according

to quantum mechanics there simply is no such thing as inner and outer because

the Matter and Space in “ALL” Atoms is not disconnected in any way what-so-ever.

It is all “ONE MATTER and “ONE SPACE” where photons of light, (which are the

building blocks of matter) appear out of the sub-atomic emptiness as if by magic.

There thus can be no existence nor non-existence at all.!

The Astral Plane therefore is also this plane. However, because separation remains

in the fact that there is reference to the I-ness as-self in all cases, except in the case

of the ParamAtma; the Astral and so-called Physical realities are split by the

existence of the Jiva like a cloud floating in the clear-blue sky and all manner of

what seem to be “other” things appear to exist as reflections in the Conscious

Absolute of the distortion which is existing as the Jiva.

The Pratyabijnahyradayam States:

The Self Exists as if flashing – He shines forth as existence itself!

While the "I" referred to inside us – (the "I" at which our words point, when we say

to ourselves: "I") is an "I" that is superimposed, predicated and inferred by syntax as

existing inside us as-self; To speak of it; the Jiva is an "I" who is implied as pre-

43


56/216

existing the action as-it-were. Or alternately – exists as the one referred to in the

statement: “I” played golf today. It is this process of ascertation and ascription,

which is the cause of the definition of a self or doer, in The Infinite. There is then a

Time component in all references to I-ness; while the I-Am has not yet been

ascribed as having a Time component and is hence not yet confused by the

existence of Mind which arises as the I-ness, Jiva or impostor of the “I – Am.”

To put it simply: Confusion and bondage comes the moment that “YOU” entertain

the idea that "You-the-formless-Self" - are existing as an “I” who is doing this or

that, or affiliated with this or that religion or sect etc. regardless what form the “i-

ness” would take; either in the guise of some form of body or conceptual “i-as-self”;

even up to the Universal-Self (the Para-Purusha) ; when neither are The Self. How

could they be; since there is ONE who is unseen in us all and in all cases; who

refers, not only to the body as-self; but also to the concept-as-self existing as the i-

ness, no matter the size or potency of that referred-to-conceptual-self.

Therefore, the physical action, referred to as doer-ship is not the problem. The

problem is the reference to the "i-ness" as-self. Because doer-ship as jiva, as i-ness;

begins with the thought that “i am doing”; or the thought “i am not doing”; (i.e.

something has been added after the I-Am – the I Am pre-exists the doer) i cannot

therefore abstain from doing as long as any form of self-inference is mistaken for

The Self. Hence it must be The Real Self Who is either imagining or saying: “I AM”!

44


57/216

The Conception of Void or No-Mind-As-Self, existing by not existing amounts

to the i-concept, which of course is formless but conceptually defined-as-self;

hence this artists impression of void-as-self.

Previous to the appearance of the particular "i", "I"-the-Omnipresent appear as The

Cosmos in My “OWN” Awareness; as the support, and the ground; as the foundation

upon which the particular "i” is founded; for without the pre-existence of "I"-the-

Omnipresent, appearing as the Omnipresent Cosmos, a particular "i" could not

appear within it.

Does this mean that The Conscious Absolute first projects the Cosmos onto its own

consciousness via an act of supreme Will? And after that, does it then involve itself

by involution into the Cosmos, to be projected onto the I–amness as the i-ness to

then refer to the i-ness as itself in all minds everywhere? Or is the Cosmos and The

Conscious Absolute one-and-the-same-thing?

45


58/216

Standing on the threshold of existence and absorption, there appears a

God! Upon looking back countless lights can be seen. At first it appears

that they are countless beings coming home to Him, but no! While they

are in fact beings, this is only an illusion; they are projections of His

own Selfhood - of His own I-ness coming home to Him!

Each a Soul! Each a spark of Himself, having been projected out of His

own eyes long ago when He sought Himself; as they draw near there is a

great sound as of countless voices, singing glory to Him, and greetings

to the Great God of all the worlds! Yet the comparison between Jiva and

this (let us call it super-conception) actually makes it appear as if the

God has form!

Here the Marvelous Atman shines out! But wait! Look to the right of the

procession, look inside He Himself!

Blue Nothing but Blue! Blue the excellent Blue of purest awareness.

While Love shines, nay blasts out of those wonderful eyes!

46


59/216

There is no essential difference between the Cosmos and The Conscious Absolute,

else there could never be any "I" at all, nor could any Cosmos appear in any

awareness, which might exist without "I". The Cosmic manifestation in awareness is

therefore dependant upon "I" The Absolute Self, and any manifested particular "i" is

dependant upon the manifestation of Cosmos within Myself. Yet the apparent

difference (and it is only an apparent difference) is due to Time.

At this point we might begin to talk about the contemporary ideas and conceptions

as to the nature of reality including the “New Age” concept of what is called “the

Now” and the western interpretation of the Buddhist conception of mindfulness.

The NEW AGE concept of “Living in the NOW” has utterly nothing to do with

the sheer presence upon which existence appears AS that NOW.

Neither does the Buddhist concept of mindfulness have anything to do with

presence because there is no such thing as mind.

For example to address the erroneousness of New Age concept of “The Now” we can

understand that the star-light from a star we now see in the sky, may be light from

a long-dead star as it may have taken many light-years 52 to reach us; so also the

light perceived by the eye looking upon the world, left the observed moments ago.

Time passed, and then it was seen, known, perceived. There was a time lapse

between the light reflecting off the object, to the light reaching the eye, then the

visual cortex. How the observed object looked moments ago, may not be as it looks

at the moment that the visual cortex reports what is seen. A bomb may have

exploded. The same applies to all sensed and measurable phenomena, no matter

52

A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. How far is a light year? 10 trillion kilometers (or moreexactly, 9.5 x 1012 km). So it is quite possible that the star-light we are seeing from a given star might have left

that star a thousand light years ago.

47


60/216

what the nature of the instrument measuring it.

Hence nothing can be experienced of the “Absolute Now” by the senses, or any

combination of sensible or tactile perception. What is reported by the senses or

instrumentation then; can be seen to be the past and always will be. If we then

extrapolate this idea to its ultimate conclusion the world never came into being

because when it did it was already over. i.e. the perceivable up to and including all

of existence is over as it is the past.

But Ah!

The Conscious Absolute, resident in itself as pure potent Energy-of-Will (as ichha-

Sakti53), spontaneously appears in itself as the consciousness from which "i-ness is

formed" and because of that appearance of consciousness, "The Mind Comes into

being"; hence Mind can only be known to exist due to the appearance of that which

is thought; prior to this, previous to the thought, there was no designation; the I –

Am alone existed. Hence consciousness arises in the Conscious Absolute first; then

Mind comes. In this way the diverse Minds and perceptions of all beings, belong to

and arise due to the Self existing; hence that Self is omniscient as all the beings and

omnipresent as existence! While the concept of No-Mind as it is interpreted in the

west, is nothing more than the conception of the absence of thought appearing in

the mental conception of mind itself.

Never-the-less it is "I" The Formless Infinite intent on “The Absolute” that caused

the birth in all beings of the thought of "I-The Mind" or “My Mind”. So then seeking,

looking or conceptualizing is the cause of that which is referred to as "the not-self".

Whereas remaining in itself the Conscious Absolute partakes of its own absolute

53 Ichha-Sakti The inseparable innate Will Power of Parama-Śiva or God (substitute the name of your god here )

intent on manifestation.

48


61/216

stasis; such that the potential existing as the emptiness manifests as Time and all it

contains. (Each seeming separate thing being a part of - or a possible reality in The

Self) this is the nature of omnipotence.

From the previous pages about the Omnipresent Conscious Self it is obvious that

Omnipotence cannot be removed from any treatise which would seek to express the

hidden meaning of the Siva Sutra; so how to understand it?

Contemplation upon the Omnipresent; upon “the Cosmic “I". Upon the resident in

the “Conscious Absolute”. Upon “The Witness of Consciousness” as opposed to the

constant thought of an “i” in the Mind" or as The Mind or Soul is the way. Therefore

how can contemplation upon The Absolute be done, when to contemplate upon any

"I" requires the contemplator, and hence separation

Documents

Ananta Yoga Darshana Volume One