What is Limitlessness (ananda)? How am I THAT?

what-is-limitlessness-ananda-vedanta-advaita
What is limitlessness?

Neema Majmudar, a brilliant Vedanta exponent, elucidates how one's nature is Limitless right now.

For context how how this applies to you, below gives further elucidation how one can never negate self; the conscious-subject. “I” can't go out of existence. Inquiry begins:

If we look into names/forms (nāma-rūpa) including time and space, we can keep reducing them to mere thought/concept level.

However even thought can be reduced.

For instance, is there concept of time when not concerned of time? Is there time amidst deep meditation or throughout immersive hobby/sport? No. Sense of ongoing progression disappears. But remains what? The conscious-subject.

In this way, we observe conscious-subject can't be reduced further. I can't reduce myself. Even if I did, then who would be left to validate the absence of self, the conscious-subject?

That is to say, Conscious “I” never goes out of existence. If we analyze our life, we find I was never NOT available. Even if there as no experience of anything, “I” was still present illuminating the experience of nothing-in-particular.

What about deep sleep? I am NOT available there!

If you asked above question, you've contradicted yourself.

How can “I” ask about an experience to which it wasn't available to? Impossible.

“I” always asks about an event to which the “I” was a witness to.

Point is you're asking about “deep sleep” because “I” is also available then. It's true that mind is not available, which is why we have nothing to say about deep sleep, except a generic label “deep sleep”. Then we try to define it vaguely as: nothing, void, darkness, blackness, non-existence, absence, bliss, happiness, freedom, rest.

The point is – to describe deep sleep with any of  those definitions, it's only possible if “I” was present throughout deep sleep.

In short: It's impossible to negate one's awareness/consciousness. Else who'd be left to say “I negated myself”. Who would be observing the glories dissolution of the conscious-subject going out of existence?

Even if one says God, then how does one know that “God was observing”? That implies “I was available to observe God observing”.

Meaning the entire universe of objects, ultimately is reduced to conscious-subject, self. And conscious-subject can't be further reduced.

Therefore the conscious-subject is Limitlessness because it is not bound by LIMITED thoughts, forms, nor time-space.

 

3 Comments

  1. dunn on October 25, 2019 at 1:39 pm

    Everything about us may have become subject instead of object because there’s no awareness to look at ourselves as an object, but we are unconscious in deep sleep, so how do we conclude the unconscious-object (our body/mind/etc.) is conscious-subject?

    Our body is there but how do we then conclude that something other than our subconscious is there? Why assume there’s an observer of nothing after we awaken and question ourselves about our oblivion? We *are* just inventing a story since we know nothing about it.

    Nothingness is called bliss when “nothing, void, darkness, blackness, non-existence, absence, bliss, happiness, freedom, rest” are all lumped together. Does ‘bliss’ simply mean obliteration? I would think of bliss to be more along the lines of a pleasant experience, not freedom from experiencing.

    • mm Andre V on October 28, 2019 at 2:27 pm

      Tonight, we say “I’m going to sleep”. When we say that, do we mean “I want to dream”, OR “I want to be free of all experience”? Kindly answer this before I can answer the q. At this point we won’t define anything. So just a simple ordinary answer will do.

  2. James on November 11, 2019 at 3:36 pm

    How would you fit psychosomatic disorder into all of this? There has been research showing certain medical symptoms experienced can be caused by factors the patient is unaware of. For example, a psychogenic asthma attack is experienced but the childhood event of eg. drowning or childbirth is not. If you asked the person having the attack whether they were conscious of that childhood event, they would say no. But when it is processed (through therapy or otherwise) only then does it become conscious. The subject is not a witness to the cause, and yet we know it exists because when it is later removed the condition disappears. So there appears to be levels of consciousness, from highly conscious through to complete unawareness where the “I” is not involved. Or we could alternatively say that consciousness is limited, otherwise we would not be affected by things we are not conscious of in that moment.

Leave a Comment