Guest guest Posted July 11, 2000 Report Share Posted July 11, 2000 Continuing with the Song of the Ever-free (Avadhuta Gita) Chapter 4 Verse 15 I do not have a form nor am I formless. I have no beginning, middle or end. Friend, how can I say I am strong or weak? I am by nature blissful and free. Commentary: All classifications of the divine; both with and without form; As; Creator, Preserver or destroyer. As all powerful or not. None of this classifications have anything to do with my true nature. Which is free from all classifications and hence blissful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2000 Report Share Posted July 11, 2000 advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> wrote: > Continuing with the Song of the Ever-free > (Avadhuta Gita) > > Chapter 4 Verse 15 > > I do not have a form nor am I formless. > I have no beginning, middle or end. > Friend, how can I say I am strong or weak? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > > Commentary: > All classifications of the divine; both with and without form; > As; Creator, Preserver or destroyer. > As all powerful or not. None of this classifications > have anything to do with my true nature. > Which is free from all classifications and hence blissful. Jay, I'm not sure if it was Dattatreya's intent to connect the bliss of the Self with Its lack of any qualities. The nature of the Self is blissful *and* It is beyond all classifications. That is, while the Self has no qualities and is blissful, the Self is not blissful *because* it has no qualities. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2000 Report Share Posted July 11, 2000 Hi jody and Jay, It is said that Brahman, in its nature is Nirguna, without attributes. Even though Brahman's nature cannot be represented in thought or depicted in images, from the human viewpoint it is given attributes anyway. That's where Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) come in. These three are said to be "non-qualifying attributes" of Brahman. "Non-qualifying"? This is because it's not being said that Brahman REALLY IS these things. Instead, it is to emphasize that Brahman IS NOT the OPPOSITES - that is, Sat is mentioned to emphasize that there is no voidness or nihilism there. Chit is mentioned to emphasize that there is no ignorance there. Ananda is mentioned to emphasize that there is no suffering or unhappiness there. And then there are the poetic and ecstatic evocations of this, like in the exlamations of the Avadhut Gita, such as the ones you have been discussing, like "Friend, how can I say I am strong or weak? I am by nature blissful and free." Love and OM, --Greg At 06:49 PM 7/11/00 -0000, jody wrote: >advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> >wrote: >> Continuing with the Song of the Ever-free >> (Avadhuta Gita) >> >> Chapter 4 Verse 15 >> >> I do not have a form nor am I formless. >> I have no beginning, middle or end. >> Friend, how can I say I am strong or weak? >> I am by nature blissful and free. >> >> >> Commentary: >> All classifications of the divine; both with and without form; >> As; Creator, Preserver or destroyer. >> As all powerful or not. None of this classifications >> have anything to do with my true nature. >> Which is free from all classifications and hence blissful. > >Jay, I'm not sure if it was Dattatreya's intent to connect >the bliss of the Self with Its lack of any qualities. > >The nature of the Self is blissful *and* It is beyond all >classifications. That is, while the Self has no qualities >and is blissful, the Self is not blissful *because* it has >no qualities. > >--jody. > > > >------ >Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue. >http://click./1/6137/6/_/489436/_/963342247/ >------ > >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other contact, Email to <advaitins > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2000 Report Share Posted July 11, 2000 advaitin , "Parisi & Watson" <niche@a...> wrote: [snip] > How is it that blissfulness is not a quality? It appears that Gregji has already dealt with this question in the post previous to yours, and I'm quite sure I cannot improve upon his exposition. However, I agree that the word blissful denotes a quality that could be seen as qualifying the Self. I would therefore amend my post thus: The nature of the Self is that of bliss *and* It is beyond all classifications. That is, while the Self has no qualities and is bliss, the Self is not bliss *because* it has no qualities (which is what I feel Jay alludes to with the statement "hence it is blissful.") --jody. 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.