Guest guest Posted July 11, 2000 Report Share Posted July 11, 2000 jody <jodyr advaitin <advaitin > Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:04 PM Re: Avadhuta Gita >advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> >wrote: [...] >> 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. How is it that blissfulness is not a quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2000 Report Share Posted July 13, 2000 Song of the ever-free Avadhuta Gita Chapter 4 Verse 18 Know that I am free from everything, and again, not free from anything. I have no maya (illusion) nor its multiple forms. How can I say that I shall have to practise daily obligatory religious disciplines? I am by nature blissful and free. Commentary: The first two lines seem contradictory. What the 'seer' is trying to convey is that not only is the real Self free from everything it is far removed from the very idea of being free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2000 Report Share Posted July 13, 2000 advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> wrote: > Song of the ever-free > Avadhuta Gita > > Chapter 4 Verse 18 > > Know that I am free from everything, > and again, not free from anything. > I have no maya (illusion) nor its multiple forms. > How can I say that I shall have to practise > daily obligatory religious disciplines? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > > Commentary: > The first two lines seem contradictory. > What the 'seer' is trying to convey is that not > only is the real Self free from everything it is > far removed from the very idea of being free. Well Jay, I have to disagree with your commentary again. The meaning of these first two lines, imo, is that the Self is ever free, even while Its existence is involved in all the Universe. Therefore it can be said to not be free from anything (in the universe of name and form) even while it is ever free *from* the entire realm of name and form in general. Nowhere in this passage is the idea of the "idea of being free" introduced, but I would agree that the Self is beyond all ideas, including ideas of freedom. --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.