[Chorus]
We are rounds playing squares
Embracing limitation
For serves our aspirations
And after liberation
Individual yet remain
Satcitananda … always a person
[Spoken 1]
Is it logical that once freed from the limitations of our present bodily senses and mind we cease to have any sense of I? Or is it possible that we can only play these limited person roles because we are fundamentally personal at a deeper level? For myself, I find the notion of the personal soul persuasive. Of course, you must satisfy yourself as to which explanations resonate for you.
[Repeat Chorus]
[Spoken 2]
A person is a feeler of feelings, thinker of thoughts, desirer of desires. OK, in this world, through the medium of these bodies and minds, personal traits are expressed in limited ways, but is it reasonable to argue that in the liberated state these things MUST be absent altogether? If that’s the case then liberation means rather less than more.
[Repeat Chorus]
[Spoken 3]
Perhaps the limited roles we play in this world simply facilitate focused expression and exploration of particular types of relational enjoyment? That being the case, just as a professional actor retiring from the stage goes home to family and friends … continues to be a person … so likewise the liberated soul remains personal.
