Unity of Saguna / Nirguna aspects [ was Light in meditation ]

[Guest guest]

At 02:25 PM 7/15/99 -0700, you wrote:

>"a c" <ac

>OK but how are Nirguna and Saguna one instead of

>two unless Saguna *is* Nirguna as Kashmir Shaivism

>says about Shiva and Shakti.

 

Saguna Brahman is and is not Nirguna Brahman. A jar made of clay is and is

not a jar. It can be looked at as a jar, but it is essentially clay. To

ask the question "Is it a jar, or is it clay?" would be nonsensical. The

fact remains, whether it is a jar or whether it is clay, it IS.

>good... I like this... "no being apart from

>Brahman" but I don't think that's what most people

>understand illusion to mean.

 

"Delusion" would have been a better word, IMO.

>What you say is

>illusion (ie. separate existence apart from

>Brahman) other people would define as realism.

 

Those other people are deluded. They are enmired in avidya (ignorance) of

the true nature of things.

>But given your definition I agree completely.

>Without Brahman there is nothing -- no Sirguna, no

>Maya -- nothing... and I like to define Brahman

>as Consciousness in which everything else appears

>as a mere modification of Consciousness itself.

 

"Consciousness" is a much-abused term. I much prefer the term "Awareness,"

myself. But that's just a mental preference.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

[Guest guest]

> Saguna Brahman is and is not Nirguna Brahman. A

jar made of clay is and is

> not a jar. It can be looked at as a jar, but it

is essentially clay. To

> ask the question "Is it a jar, or is it clay?"

would be nonsensical. The

> fact remains, whether it is a jar or whether it

is clay, it IS.

 

[snip...]

> "Consciousness" is a much-abused term. I much

prefer the term "Awareness,"

> myself. But that's just a mental preference.

 

So everything is awareness or a modification of

awareness as far as you're concerned? If the

substance of appearance is NOT awareness then what

is the substance of things as clay could be the

substance of the jar?

 

p.s.

my two thoughts for the day... "Truth knows

itself and is that knowing"

and " chance is just a dirty word for God " ...

 

like it? :-))

[Guest guest]

At 03:04 PM 7/15/99 -0700, you wrote:

>So everything is awareness or a modification of

>awareness as far as you're concerned?

 

I don't pay attention to the "modifications," if I can help it. Everything

is pure, luminous Awareness. There is nothing else. There is only Nirguna

Brahman. Its substrates are unimportant and may be illusory.

>If the

>substance of appearance is NOT awareness then what

>is the substance of things as clay could be the

>substance of the jar?

 

The idea of the jar is delusion... the clay is the Real. So is the idea of

the solidity of things... according to science, if all the empty space

(between the electron shells of atoms and their nucleii) in the human body

was eliminated, what would remain would be about the size of the head of a

pin.

 

Just drop all expectations and wander bravely into the unknown. What you

find will fill you with delight and bliss and awe and wonder.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

[Guest guest]

a c wrote:

>

> OK but how are Nirguna and Saguna one instead of

> two unless Saguna *is* Nirguna as Kashmir Shaivism

> says about Shiva and Shakti. I'm not sure how

> Advaita Vedanta actually differs unless Nirguna is

> NOT Saguna in which case you do have two instead

> of one.

>

 

no, they are considered one in truth, as the rope

is needed for the snake to appear. however, the

snake as a separate reality--apart from its host

rope--is mithya [a hare's horn].

 

Kashmir Shaivism is aligned with Advaita Vedanta

in this respect. However, it differs when it

speaks of an *eternally separate* jivatman with

an individual free will.

> I like to define Brahman

> as Consciousness in which everything else appears

> as a mere modification of Consciousness itself.

> Is that in agreement with Advaita Vedanta or not?

 

yes, as defined.

 

namaste