Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Namaste, The Buddhist Nirvana/Annatta, and Advaita are the same Nirguna. IMO. Some aver that Sat-Chit-Ananda is the Self. This may be so but the Saguna Self. For anything that can be described is Saguna energy. Ananad requires energy therefor is Saguna. Nirguna is beyond Sat-Chit-Ananada. Any comments..........ONS.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Namaste. There is a basic error here. If Sat-Chit-Ananda is describable, then Nirguna is also describable as an absence of all we know as gunas (attributes). One has to appreciate attributes first to understand their absence. Sat-Chit-Ananda is realization that the erstwhile experiencer himself is Sat-Chit-Ananda and it is not an objective realization as all our routine realizations are. Our problem is that we are trying to describe it within our limitations to a mundane audience. It is actually the ineffable of Ken-Ji intuitively and subjectively understood in silence as verily nothing but silence. Why then raise semantic objections? Pranams. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Tony O'Clery <aoclery>" <aoclery> wrote: > Namaste, > > The Buddhist Nirvana/Annatta, and Advaita are the same Nirguna. IMO. > > Some aver that Sat-Chit-Ananda is the Self. This may be so but the > Saguna Self. For anything that can be described is Saguna energy. > Ananad requires energy therefor is Saguna. > > Nirguna is beyond Sat-Chit-Ananada. > > Any comments..........ONS.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste. > > There is a basic error here. > > If Sat-Chit-Ananda is describable, then Nirguna is also describable > as an absence of all we know as gunas (attributes). One has to > appreciate attributes first to understand their absence. > > Sat-Chit-Ananda is realization that the erstwhile experiencer himself > is Sat-Chit-Ananda and it is not an objective realization as all our > routine realizations are. Our problem is that we are trying to > describe it within our limitations to a mundane audience. It is > actually the ineffable of Ken-Ji intuitively and subjectively > understood in silence as verily nothing but silence. Why then raise > semantic objections? > > Pranams. > > Madathil Nair > > advaitin, "Tony O'Clery <aoclery>" > <aoclery> wrote: > > Namaste, > > > > The Buddhist Nirvana/Annatta, and Advaita are the same Nirguna. IMO. > > > > Some aver that Sat-Chit-Ananda is the Self. This may be so but the > > Saguna Self. For anything that can be described is Saguna energy. > > Ananad requires energy therefor is Saguna. > > > > Nirguna is beyond Sat-Chit-Ananada. > > > > Any comments..........ONS.....Tony. Namaste, IMO Sat-Chit-Ananada is Saguna Brahman. For these are verily attributes and require an enjoyer. Hence requiring energy or mind of some description therefore cannot be Nirguna. I feel the error is attributing these states to Nirguna as the home and owner of these states. I don't think that it is an error of misunderstanding of what an attribute is. For isn't it said that the last impediment to moksha can be ananda or bliss?...Brahman is Full but only the Saguna can be so not Nirguna. This is close to the Buddha's teaching, forgetting the trappings and samskaras of previous religious beliefs and only imagining that Brahman must have some identifiably human condition......ONS.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Namaste Sri Tony: I believe that 'Sat-Chit-Ananda' implies eternal happiness and peace without action and consequently doesn't require any energy! The implied happiness (or bliss or Ananda) is itself Nirguna (no attributes). The statement Sat-Chit-Anand is quite subtle because noone except Him knows what He is! Using the Vedantic conceptual framework, Buddha can be declared to be a self-realized jivamukta. At the same time, using the conceptual frame work of Buddhism, Buddha may be declared attained the state of 'Nirvana.' I believe it is safer for us to stop at this point and move on. If we continue to make our inference of equating these philosophies, we are likely to express more of our ignorance and lesser of wisdom! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Tony O'Clery <aoclery>" <aoclery> wrote: > > Namaste, > > IMO Sat-Chit-Ananada is Saguna Brahman. For these are verily > attributes and require an enjoyer. Hence requiring energy or mind of > some description therefore cannot be Nirguna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Namaste Tonyji, To add on briefly to what Ramji mentioned. The Consciousness (chit) which is both Eternal (Sat) & Spaceless (Ananda) is indeed Nirguna. By the very fact that it is Spaceless and Timeless indicate that it(Chit) has no attributes and all pervading. Attributes refer to nama rupa which has a beginning in time. Sat negates the non-eternal nature of nama rupa. Hence Satchitananda indeed refers to Nirguna Brahman. I believe this topic was adequately discussed by Jaishankarji and Sadanandaji in the list. Do also study Sadanandaji's discussion of the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, specifically the notes in BSB I-i-2-1A which deals with swarupa lakshana of Brahman. best regards, K Kathirasan > > Ram Chandran <rchandran [sMTP:rchandran] > Monday, January 13, 2003 6:44 AM > advaitin > Re: Ultimate Truth. > > Namaste Sri Tony: > > I believe that 'Sat-Chit-Ananda' implies eternal happiness and peace > without action and consequently doesn't require any energy! The > implied happiness (or bliss or Ananda) is itself Nirguna (no > attributes). The statement Sat-Chit-Anand is quite subtle because > noone except Him knows what He is! > > Using the Vedantic conceptual framework, Buddha can be declared to be > a self-realized jivamukta. At the same time, using the conceptual > frame work of Buddhism, Buddha may be declared attained the state > of 'Nirvana.' I believe it is safer for us to stop at this point and > move on. If we continue to make our inference of equating these > philosophies, we are likely to express more of our ignorance and > lesser of wisdom! > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > advaitin, "Tony O'Clery <aoclery>" > <aoclery> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > IMO Sat-Chit-Ananada is Saguna Brahman. For these are verily > > attributes and require an enjoyer. Hence requiring energy or mind > of > > some description therefore cannot be Nirguna. > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Namaste Tony-Ji. I would like to abide by Ram-Ji's advice. I notice Kathirasan-ji has also thrown light on the subject. Thanks for your thoughts. In the meanwhile, may I remain in Ananda without expending energy as It is me and, to be me, I don't have to 'work'. I am sure Sri Buddha will not disagree with me. I hope I have said all that can be said. Pranams. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste Tony-Ji. > > I would like to abide by Ram-Ji's advice. I notice Kathirasan-ji has > also thrown light on the subject. Thanks for your thoughts. > > In the meanwhile, may I remain in Ananda without expending energy as > It is me and, to be me, I don't have to 'work'. I am sure Sri Buddha > will not disagree with me. I hope I have said all that can be said. > > Pranams. > > Madathil Nair Namaste MN, Yes I can see it is a round about. I still don't feel that Nirguna is Sat-Chit-Ananda although this may be just a way of indicating the inexplicable. For Being-Consciousness-Bliss are in my mind anyway-- attributes. For coming into Being indicates Saguna. My feeling is that there is no way to describe Nirguna but in the negative. Nir Guna, Nir Vana, or perhaps even Neti Neti.......ONS....Tony. 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.