Who is Here?
--
For the sake of behavior or convention, the words 'there' or 'here' are used as is required to convey the sense / idea in the question.
'there' and 'here' could be thought of either of as the noun, pronoun or the adjective according to the respective definition of them as in the Grammar of the English.
'Who' on the other hand is certainly a pronoun depending upon according to the definition of pronoun itself.
However 'here' and 'there' could also be thought of as the name of a place, and so a 'noun' in that sense.
Again, 'here' and 'there' could also be accepted adjective, because tell about the quality of a 'place', and we know that place, according to the definition, is noun.
This much so for about :
'here' and 'there'.
What about 'Who'? - the pronoun?
The author of this post is no doubt a person for all others, but for himself he is but pure consciousness only.
Being pure consciousness only, he is just unable to refer to himself as an object to be pointed out as something else from his own self.
For the readers however he is a person like themselves and all of them too are but pure consciousness only in their individual capacity.
'Who' referred to in the questions : 'Who is There?' or 'Who is here?'
is always a person - indeed always a person - either the first - as referred to as 'I' or as the second - as could be referred to / addressed to as 'You' and as 'he' as referred to only, and never could be addressed to.
What about this author who for myself is however pure consciousness only for me and though expressed through the word 'I' only?
This author who had in the presumed past the idea that
"all this, that is here is verily Atman / Brahman / Self only,"
In that presumed past, in that past, in the last 4-5 hours only felt an idea is nevertheless always thought, a verbal construct that arises and has a life momentary like a flash only, and then disappears too.
This reflected understanding is like this :
"all that is "here" is verily neither presumed Atman, Brahman nor the Self, but is "Nature" only.
The nature that is the observed and the observer as well, is the one "Who" is supposed to observe also."
Is not this categorization between the observer and the observed again a false way of thinking only?
Is this not also true that this "Nature" too is but always pure consciousness only, all alone, without a second to itself :
अद्वितीय एकमेव?
***
