Moving on

[Guest guest]

And Tony wrote...

>

> Namaste, I won't take a risk on my own opinion here is Ramana's.

>

> Q. You seem to be an exponent of ajata doctrine of advaita vedanta?

>

> Ramana. "I do not teach only the ajata (creation never happened at

> all it is just in the mind of the ajnani), doctrine. I approve of

> all schools.

> The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the

> capacity of the hearer.

>

> The ajata doctrine says, 'Nothing exists except the one reality.

> There is no birth, no death, no projection or drawing in, no

> seekers, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists".

 

 

> So only Nirguna exists Saguna and anything else only exist in the

> mind of the non realised person.........ONS...Tony.

>

 

And this is not an opinion?

And Nirguna "exists?"

Thanks for a good laugh, Tony!!!

 

ONS.......Joyce

[Guest guest]

 

Tony OClery

, "Tg" <Leteegee@c...> wrote:

>

> , "glee_be" <glee@c...> wrote:

> >

> > , "Al Larus"

<erilarend>

>Namaste, I won't take a risk on my own opinion here is Ramana's.

>Q. You seem to be an exponent of ajata doctrine of advaita vedanta?

> Ramana. "I do not teach only the ajata (creation never happened at

>all it is just in the mind of the ajnani), doctrine. I approve of

>all schools.

>The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the

>capacity of the hearer.

>The ajata doctrine says, 'Nothing exists except the one reality.

>There is no birth, no death, no projection or drawing in, no

>seekers, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists".

>So only Nirguna exists Saguna and anything else only exist in the

>mind of the non realised person.........ONS...Tony.

 

 

I do not disagree and understand your words Tony.

And I will not split hairs asking if only the ajnani can see what is

created.

A large number of analogies are written, some very good but none exact.

 

To me it is obvious that the emphasis on the difference between Nirguna and

Saguna

is used to 'remove ignorance' ( I am sure better words can be used ).

Then (after this) the statement is obsolete.

 

I look at these words, they are one and the same to me.

And I do not intend to make a silly shortcut saying there is no ignorance.

Still repeated use of 'sea not waves' could in many circumstances

be understood as continuation of difference by the reader.

 

Not at all intended by the writer.

 

Then if I follow the particular statement above:

There is not anything else. There is no somewhere else.

 

Only Nirguna exists.

Has Nirguna got even a single attribute?

Has Nirguna got a state?

 

Does the word 'exists' have a meaning without a first instance ( of

creation ).

Of course not, but it certainly does after : )

 

 

Alan