Sat-Cit-Ananda and Ramana

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

This is another subject I have thought about for some time. I feel

the term Sat-Cit-Ananda is a term for Saguna not Nirguna.

 

Ramana in 'Be as you are', D Godman refers to them as not being

separate attributes but unified. This interprets in my mind that by

default he is saying it is an attribute or Saguna.p9.

 

Further on he says 'with the help of Sat-Cit-Ananda', p98. This also

indicates Saguna for Nirguna by description does nothing, and cannot

help!

 

Unless my interpretation is wrong, Ramana seems to be agreeing with

the position I am suggesting ie. Saguna....not the ultimate.

 

I feel people have a problem handling this for it is hard to imagine

nothing. Also due to previous religious training and samskaras there

are devotional feelings, and scriptural ideas, about a concept 'God'

Brahman.

 

Whereas Nirguna or Nirvana is impossible to imagine, and is

inexplicable by definition.

 

Jesus talked about the way to the Father through me. Here he was

talking as the Sakti or Son. Realisation has to be by way of Saguna

in the first instant and at that instant Moksha is

achieved....IMO....ONS.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

on 1/16/03 9:36 AM, saktidasa <saktidasa at saktidasa

wrote:

 

<snip>

> Whereas Nirguna or Nirvana is impossible to imagine, and is

> inexplicable by definition.

>

> Jesus talked about the way to the Father through me. Here he was

> talking as the Sakti or Son. Realisation has to be by way of Saguna

> in the first instant and at that instant Moksha is

> achieved....IMO....ONS.....Tony.

 

 

Yikes! My concepts are grinding to a halt! What do I do?

 

Sat-shit-banana

 

sorry...such a mood!

 

Shawn