Guest guest Posted June 11, 1999 Report Share Posted June 11, 1999 The following explanation from Sadanandji is superb. >"satyam JNaanam anantam Brhamham which is same as sat chit ananda is >Brahman. The equation is from Shruthis. Trikaala abhaaditam satyam that >which remains the same in three periods of time alone is the truth. Real is >defined. Please note that I did not say or imply any way that "unreal means >changing" - In fact I gave a clear example for what is unreal - that which >has no locus at any time - ex. vandyaa putraH is typical example. man's horn >is another example. The world - jagat that which undergoes continuos >changes is neither real nor unreal - Hence Mithya is the word brought in to >define that chaning things since they exist but there is changing part - >naama and ruupa - The existence part is the real base for it and changing >part is only the mithya part. Once this is clear then the rest of the >arguments are straight forward. -- <snip> Sadanandji-- Even though he may have developed this theme in the past may I request him to develop these ideas further (specially):- (1) Sat Chit Ananda or Asti Bhati Priya are considered to be the nearest we can come to understanding Brahman. "Sat maybe equated to Asti" Kindly develop this relationship. (2) Shankracharya's explanation that the world is neither real nor unreal is excellent. If we now change this to say that the world is a mixture of real and unreal what technical difference do you see in this approach? Are there any merits or demerits in this? jay May I request Sadanadji to develop this idea further as his superb explanations are very valuable. 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.