The Sacred

The Sacred

Nancy: Combining some of your queries. When Nisargadatta (or Ramana) says Self (with a capital S), he means the same as the Absolute, Brahman, God, or any other name for the infinite and eternal formless Reality. Being without limited form of its own, it is said to be ubiquitous, omnipresent. As such, it permeates, saturates all that has apparent form (such as human bodies). That is why the teachers say “you are That,” or “God and you are in no way separate,” etc. So, N. is saying (first) that the Self cannot “exist” without there being some thing which recognizes, acknowledges, “knows” that it does indeed have reality. This is where you come in: operating “through” you—as you—It has the potential to recognize its Self. When you wake up to the fact that your “true nature” is the Absolute, It (as “you”) is now self-aware (Self-aware). Thus, N. says, “The Self cannot experience its knowingness [Self/self-awareness] without the help of the body.” Secondly, this is only comprehended when you finally get the point that there are no two things. The Absolute is not a separate entity, in any way apart from the body (which you think of as “you”). It appears to you that the Absolute is “invisible,” and you are visible. But the Absolute is the essence, the “true nature” of every visible speck of matter (and every invisible atom which composes that matter) that it is possible for you to see.

The Vedas say, “not two; not one.” There are not two things—separate entities—“me” and “It,” regardless of the fact that this may seem to be what’s apparent (in its visible form) to you. And: there is not one thing, in the sense that anything is an isolated, independent object; every “thing” is, at its common denominator, That. And even That is not a “thing,” an entity, being entirely without any form of its own.

Next. That is why N. says “I Amness [another name for Self (Absolute)] has no authority of its own.” It is not some bearded old man, throwing down thunderbolts. It is you, and every thing that you think of as not-you. Whatever It does, it does as its myriad manifestations; therefore it is not something apart, wielding “authority.” It need have no authority, because there is not one thing that could ever be in opposition to it, since it is already all (so-called) things. Last. Any “image” is a representation of some “thing,” such as any (so-called) thing that is reflected in a mirror. The Absolute is not a thing (separate entity), therefore—as you surmise—any image of it (such as Jehovah, Krishna, etc.) must be false. As you suggested, there could not be an image of that which is without any form. The word idol translates in Latin as “an image, or form”; its dictionary meaning is: “a representation of a god, used as an object in religious worship.” To “idolize” anything is to “miss the mark.”

Krishnamurti said that if you put a stone on the mantelpiece, and put flowers and a candle in front of it, before long people will be bowing to it. Since the Absolute is (“in”) all things, no object is any more sacred or holy than any other.