Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Nisargadatta, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: Namaste Hur, That is exactly right on! I posed the question because on many lists it seemed to me that when referring to Brahman, many stopped at Sat Chit Ananada without indicating that this is Saguna and only an indication. Not the ultimate! As I understand it anyway. I didn't want to be correcting so I posed it as a question, for many people who have not been exposed to this philosophy, may stop at Saguna and not take the next intellectual step to Nirguna. Another has said that Ramana said that Saguna, Sat Chit Ananada is just a pointer. I would like that quote, I probably have it in my books somewhere. In the end as the same person pointed out, 'Who wants to know?'. Yes that is so but on discussion boards unless we got involved in some maya there would be no discussions. Om Namah Sivaya....Tony. Nisargadatta, "Hur " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > With the help of the "I am That" glossary, let me try to understand > your question by defining some of the terms and then you tell me if > this is what you are asking for. > > Nirguna: the Unconditioned, without attributes, (nir, without + guna, > attribute). > > Saguna: Manifested condition with the three 'gunas' -- sattva, rajas > and tamas. The Supreme Absolute conceived of as possessing qualities > like love, mercy etc., as distinguised from the Undifferentiated > Absolute of the Advaita Vedanta. > > Sad-chit: The transcendental condition of the universal > potentiality. > > Ananda: Bliss, happiness (a, to + nand, to rejoice) > > Sat-chit-ananda: Once I heard Eli-Jaxon Bear define this term > as "Consciousness of Being is Bliss," and since it's in a sentence > form, I like it. > > Without getting into the philosophical debate at this point, based on > the terms alone, the logical answer would be since sad-chit is a > manifested attribute in the true nature of (our) being, yes we are > talking about Saguna (manifested), not Nirguna (Unmanifested). > > I realize one can raise all sorts of questions from this conclusion > but we can leave that to another email. > > Best regards, > > Hur > Nisargadatta, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > Namaste All, > > > > This is a question that I have posed without any response all over > the > > place. > > > > Is it not that the I, I, can only be, sat chit ananda. Now as this > is > > an attribute, is it not that we are talking of Saguna not Nirguna > > Brahman. I would be interested in your opinions on this......Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.