What is ‘I’?

What is ‘I’? The ‘I’ disappears in deep sleep, so what is the use of being attached to it? It is illusory.

• ·         ‘I’ is ignorance.
• ·         ‘I’ is illusion. 
•           'I' is mere mirage 
•           'I' is falsehood
• ·         ‘I’ is duality
• ·         ‘I’ is universe.
• ·         ‘I’ is waking.
• ·         ‘I’ is dream.
• ·         ‘I’ is mind
•            'I' is man and world together. 
•            'I' is an object.
•            'I' is for,time and space together
•            'I' is not a subject. 

There is really no ‘I’. It dies in deep sleep. But the notion of its unreality will gradually grasped by the receptive seekers. Individuality is illusory.

One is ignorant of the fact that the ‘I’ is present mind. Mind is present in the form of universe. The one that comes and goes as waking dream and has no permanent existence, is only a mirage after all. 

Soul or consciousness , the innermost self  is that which knows everything, that which witnesses. Formless soul or   consciousness  alone remains after one gets rid of the ignorance  by identification with the soul or consciousness, the innermost self. soul or consciousness is the  witness and also the consciousness is the witnessed . soul or consciousness  is in its  formless non-dual true nature is ultimate truth or Brahman. 

There must be a perceiver which knows that all these are illusions. The experience of the diversity is on a substratum--mind. Imaginations are possible only in duality. Even when one say he exists he is he exists as a person in duality.

That, which becomes conscious of the experience of diversity, is the seer/witness, the Atman, the Knower.  No one has ever seen the Atman, for it is never an object. Hence logic, inference, cannot be applied to it, because intellect, logic is for objective world and waking experience only, the state where one infers effects from causes. The greatest mistake is considering the duality as reality, to confuse the object with the subject. There is no proof that the seer is confined to waking /dream. It is universal.

If the knower also had been changing along with the changes, how could it ever have known of the changes? It is only that which is known which is changing, otherwise it could not have been known. Those who say the self is also changing are uttering words without meaning. How could one know whether anything is changing unless there were something which itself did not change and could thus note the changes?

One knows of no changes in the Atman; one knows only the changes in what is perceived by the Atman. When one realize the nature of Atman the true self, he knows the Real can never change, hence never die. Death is only in the region of the "seen/duality."

That of which one is aware and which is nearer to him is the Formless Witness. Yet no statement can be made about it. All words will concern ideas about it, i.e. seen [waking/dream]-never the Formless Witness.

Without the individual self one could never think. Through such thinking he is able to prove the existence of Atman, for the individual is finally identical with the Atman.