Continuing on from last week. We've seen how the Omnipresence is linked to Omniscience in such a way as to show how this presence is conscious, and due to that fact 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, the mental construct which a given person believes is the Universe, comes into being. (here we do not refer to Cosmos - but to Universe. See addendum on both words). 

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 its experience in the Universe it sees as its own.

Yet we will confine these documents to speaking only of Mankind, and via that we may see how these things apply to all other species and Geni.

Tied irrevocably to Ones' belief system about the nature of the Universe, is the survival of that beings' conception of selfhood (we use Selfhood here in the sense of that which a man sees in his minds eye as himself)

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.

Few are they that know themselves beyond that which is attributable to, or caused and defined by the exterior Universe.

This means that in relation to omniscience, the belief a person has about him or herself - as being this or that - or as being defined by any attributes at any given moment is the very thing which limits the understanding of the true nature of the  Consciousness; which not only exists and manifests as the entire Cosmos, but also peers through that very persons senses into its' very Self!. (The Self which exists as the entire manifest Cosmos).

The reason why this is so, is due to the fact that any definition in the infinity of the omnipresence must be localized, (defined) else it cannot appear. Of course with definition comes division and hence the darkness of separation. However that Self which peers through the senses is never separated in reality, and nor is the Self which looks at inner definitions of Self ever set apart from itself.

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 the species. We say the species also because a person sees he/she is defined not only by race but also by Genus. Saying to he/her self. "I am Human".

Attributes of ability, of color, of feeling, of wellness, of "I-ness", of selfhood, of person, of sexuality, of gender, of nationality, of lovingness and lovability, of age, of name, of family, of strength, of hair type and skin tone and millions upon millions of other ways in which a person refers to he/herself either mentally or according to exterior attributes etc. all immediately upon mention to ones-self separate us - Define us as existing in separation from the Consciousness.

Have we not depicted a self within the Consciousness, which previous to depiction was the empty infinite background and also the seer of that which is seen in the minds eye? Literally, did not the mind itself come into being at the very same moment that depiction occurred?

At the point of depiction or ascription of selfhood, or of the depiction or ascription of attributes to any other thing as existing of course we have localized as a seer of the Universe in which that depiction is seen to exist. and along with that there is also the depiction of Self. (this is not to say the True Self, but to use a yogic term "The Not-Self") So we again lose our connection with the Consciousness in its pure formlessness.

Yet to remain in The Absolute we cannot refer to a self as being in anything, or as being in samadhi because in The Absolute there is no definition whatever, because it is infinite. In truth there is no Self existing in The Absolute which has any type of form that is definable from the whole because that would contradict the nature of Omnipresence. The Self therefore if it has form, must be the Cosmos - or alternately as Vasista 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 all amounts to the same thing!

Accepting this truth then, brings about the realization of the impossibility of the existence of a separate individual self; rather it comes home to One that the very definition One has of Ones-self is nothing more than a further aspect of the Omnipresent Prescience, while the Awareness that ascribes attributes to the self depicted in mind as "I" is transcendent of both that self and the manifest Universe.

However to live as if ever-abiding in the Absolute Consciousness One would go about as if unhinged, "as an Avadhut".

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.

Download Lesson