| 105.
|
The word ‘person’ is used in this book
in its misunderstood sense.
It derives from the Latin word ‘persona’, which was
the megaphone-mask worn by actors in the theatre to make themselves
heard by the audience. It refers to all of those roles and attitudes
with which the mind identifies (see 110 ) – we think we
are a mother or father, brother, teacher etc; we believe we are
lazy, clever and funny etc. All of these characteristics make
up ‘who we think we are’ but in fact we are none
of those things. These are all attributes of body or mind, whereas
we are the essential ‘I’ that is mistakenly identified
with these. Nevertheless, it is a commonly accepted term in everyday
life so will continue to be used as such in this book.
|
106.
|
In reality 'we' are already brahman,
simply because brahman is all there is but 'we' think
that we are separate 'persons'.
|
107.
|
Subsequent to enlightenment, that
'person' is known not to exist as a separate entity at
all; it is known that 'I am That (i.e. brahman)'.
|
108.
|
Consequently, statements such as
'there is no person to become enlightened' are willfully
ignoring the context in which these terms are used. At
the level of empirical reality, which is all that the
seeker initially knows, there is most definitively a
person to become enlightened.
|
109.
|
That which is most essentially ‘me’,
who I refer to as ‘I’ without any qualification,
is not a person; it is the Atman, which is also brahman.
This is the fact revealed by enlightenment. Until such
realization, the belief in a separate entity/person remains
and need not cause any problem (linguistically, that
is!) (Post-realization, there is obviously no problem
in using the word since there is no longer any confusion.) |
|
