ajay0
Well-Known Member
You are contradicting yourself. In the first sentence, you are saying that "Enlightenment is just the understanding..." and then in the next sentence you say that no one is getting enlightened. If no one is getting enlightened, then who is gaining this (new) understanding that the ego/false self is a delusion?
As explained earlier, the dissolution of the false self reveals Brahman or non-conceptual Awareness which is the true ‘I’ or Self. The false self is the ‘I’-thought we identify with and which encompasses the mind-body complex and its secondary associations.
When the false is seen as false, it drops off on its own. The true ‘I’ realises the falseness of the conceptual
superimposition put upon it by false identifications.
As Sailor Bob Adamson stated, “That sense of presence is expressing through you right now. But to label it, I have got to say ‘I am’. ‘I am ‘ is the knowing that there is that sense of presence there. That ‘I am’ thought is taken to be the real. It is taken to be the thing or the essence or the person or the entity that I am. I have added onto the ‘I am ‘ the events, experiences, and conditioning and formed the mental picture: ‘I’m Bob’ , ‘I’m so and so years of age’, ‘I have done this’, ‘I have done that’. All this is only a mental image, with seeming substance and independent nature. Everything is referred to that mental image then, because there is the belief that it is something substantial. "
This is where your logic fails and I have pointed it out multiple times. In your model, someone is getting enlightened or is gaining some new understanding of the false self. Who is this entity? It is not the false self and it is not Brahman .
It is Brahman or Self, as I have pointed out earlier.
Here are previous pointers in earlier posts put again for reference...
'Brahman is one, but the multiple false selves are many. The dissolution of the false selves reveal Brahman.'
'Through this disidentification with false identities, the mental-emotional patterns of thought and emotion they generate incessantly comes to an end . The cessation of mental activity reveals the Self within.'
'With the dissolution of the false self , the true 'I' is revealed with accompanying bliss.'
Brahman or nonconceptual awareness is beyond conceptual frameworks, hence all attempts to perceive it using the intellect is bound to end in failure, without the aid of meditation. There are many who have spent their whole lives doggedly trying to perceive the truth through the intellect from youth to old age, without getting anywhere.
And meditation or yoga is but the cessation of mental activity, which reveals the non-conceptual Self or Awareness.
This is the great paradox and irony of truth.
And as explained before, if there are only false selves and Brahman, no such "unveiling" is possible. Your unveiling logic only works if you have a third entity - different from the false self and either different or different/non-different from Brahman. Only then can you say that this knowledge/truth, etc., is unveiled to this third entity. And this third entity contradicts advaita. .
When a mask is removed in front of the mirror , the true physical face is seen. Would there need to be a third face somewhere else !
Similarly when the false self or false ‘I’ is removed, the true 'I' or true self is seen, and this is why it is indicated in Vedanta as Self with a capital 'S'.
If you say there is no such third entity, then there is no one who finds enlightenment and therefore, there is no such thing as enlightenment. This contradicts advaita too. Check Shankara's moksha-sadhanopadesha-vidhya in the opening verse of his Upadesha Sahasri.
Enlightenment is the dissolution of the false self to reveal the true Self, as removal of the mask reveals the true face in the mirror. This is all there is to it.
Three entities is what would contradict advaita. As the dissolution of the false self would reveal two entities , which is contradictory to advaita, which means 'no two'.
Check Shankara's moksha-sadhanopadesha-vidhya in the opening verse of his Upadesha Sahasri.
Shankara states nowhere in this verse that there are three entities. He only prescribes a set of teachings for aspirants after liberation in this verse.
In fact he states later thus...
" That name and form originally unmanifested took the name and form of the ether as they were
manifested from that Self. This element called the ether thus arose out of the supreme Self, like the dirt called foam coming out of transparent water. Foam is neither water nor absolutely different from it. For it is never seen apart from water. But water is clear, and different from the foam which is of the nature of dirt. Similarly the supreme Self which is pure and transparent is different from name and form, which stand for foam, These-corresponding to the foam-having originally been unmanifested, took the name and form of the ether as they were manifested.
Always Pure Consciousness I am one without a second, all and all-pervading like the ether before the
creation of air and other elements.
All beings are by nature pure Consciousness. Itself. It is due to Ignorance that they apppear to be
different from It. Their (apparent) difference from It is removed by the teaching 'Thou art Existence '.
Ever free and different from names, forms and actions I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting
of pure Consciousness and always without a second.
There is only one level (the relative) and Jewelry is both jewelry and gold at the same time..
There is indeed a difference between the states where jewelry is undifferentiated pure gold, and where it is later moulded into different designs and forms, and later melted back into undifferentiated pure gold.
Similarly at the absolute level, everything is pure consciousness. At the relative level, names and forms emerge from this unitary consciousness , and create their false psychological sense of multiple selves due to identification with the mind-body complex.