In the (very long) thread of Q. 479 ‘What should I read?’, Ramesam asked the question: Who do we (the posters) mean when we use the words ‘I’ and ‘you’?
He suggested that ‘I’ could mean Atman/Brahman, if used from the ‘as if’ pAramArthika viewpoint; it could mean the reflected Consciousness (chidAbhAsa); or it could mean the usually understood ‘named person’.
I suggest that it can ONLY mean the usually understood, named person. When ‘I’ speak to ‘you’ or when I write the word ‘I’ in a post, I cannot be Atman/Brahman. The pAramArthika Atman/Brahman is non-dual. It is neither actor nor enjoyer. It does no do anything. It does not speak and it does not write. When I write and use the word ‘I’, if I mean Brahman, I need to add additional words to make this obvious.
The chidAbhAsa concept is a metaphor to explain how it can be that I am really Atman/Brahman and yet appear to be a conscious, embodied, independent entity. It relates the appearance to the reality. But I am not a metaphor.
Similarly, when I address ‘you’, I am speaking/writing to the named individual ‘you’. I would scarcely have the temerity to write to Brahman (and what would be the point?)! And, again, it would not be meaningful to address a metaphor.
If anyone is NOT using the same criteria when they post, could they please do so henceforth! 😉
Communication is only meaningful when an (apparently) independent entity A speaks or writes etc. to another (apparently) independent entity B. B doesn’t know in advance what A is going to say or write. All is empirically familiar and obvious. There is no need to complicate things unnecessarily. Occam’s razor reigns supreme!