I have been chanting the mantra of self-knowledge as enjoined by our teacher, Ramji, and find myself elaborating on it as I go along. This is how it came out today:
I am One, whole and complete, all knowing, un-concerned, objectless, ever present, all pervading, self-luminous, unlimited, actionless, non-dual awareness.
Ted: As Ramji says, there is scripture being written today!
Artaud: The words, ‘all knowing’ and ‘objectless’ crept into the mantra today. I was wondering if you see fault with that terminology and if so what your reasoning would be. As I look at it, I see that if awareness is objectless, then there would be nothing to pervade, but as Awareness knows only itself then it would be true, correct? But would that then make the adjective, ‘objectless’ redundant?
Ted: Impeccable understanding, Artaud. And who cares if it’s redundant? I mean if you want to get technical once you’ve stated that you are whole and complete, the entire litany of adjectives that follow are unnecessary.
But that doesn’t mean I would cut them out. I developed a similar mantra myself — illumined minds think alike, eh? :- ) — and it is more extensive than this one, so I’d say keep adding on as you feel so inspired.
That said, it is great that you are alert to the implications of these lakshanas, or pointers that indicate un-indicate-able attributeless, non-dual awareness.
In that vein, my only comment is to be clear — and your reasoning implies that you are — that awareness is self-aware, but not in the way that a subject is aware of an object. “Its” “awareness” is rooted in the fact that “it” is self-evident. In other words, it knows itself because it is itself. It doesn’t need a mind to know itself. Neither does it know itself as a discrete experience, or by any experience for that matter. Whether objects appear (but, as you indicate, are understood as having no independent objectivity, nature, or existence of their own) or do not appear, awareness always is.
With love and humility,
Much love and respect to you, Artaud.