Guest guest Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Please see my two comments below marked by ***. Love to all Harsha advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > > It is the assumption that nondual consciousness is a real and independent thing that makes us want to assure ourselves that everyone is talking about the *same* thing. ***Hi Greg, one could say that this is only your assumption. You further write: > It's very much like the physical objects you talk about not really existing externally. I agree on that. And for the same reason, other than in the most conventional sense, there is *no* object, especially nondual consciousness-that-is-objectless, which two people ever both grasp. No object is ever really and truly present such that two people, or one person, or two thoughts, or even one thought, really refer to it. How much less so grasped is that which, in advaita, is the nature of all? We cannot comprehend, that which in the vastest sense, comprehends us... > > Om! > > --Greg ***Greg, you conclude that, "We cannot comprehend, that which in the vastest sense, comprehends us..." Although what you state may be taken as a provisional truth or teaching at some level, the dichotomy postulated has absolutely no foundation in Advaita. Advaita is quite direct and states "Aham Brahmasmi! (I am Brahman)". The notion of comprehension or incomprehension is completely moot here. Advaita is crystal clear. Atman Is Brahman. The complete identity of Atman and Brahman is the very heart of Advaita. This testimony of the sages is based on direct knowledge. Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. What remains to be comprehend or not comprehend and by who? Love, Harsha ===== /join Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 At 02:41 AM 3/19/03 +0000, harshaimtm wrote: >Please see my two comments below marked by ***. > >Love to all >Harsha > >advaitin, Gregory Goode ><goode@D...> wrote: > >> > > It is the assumption that nondual >consciousness is a real and independent thing that >makes us want to assure ourselves that everyone is >talking about the *same* thing. > > >***Hi Greg, one could say that this is only your >assumption. It is not a thing - as Brahman, it is the sum and substance of all things. So any talking talks about it, yet it can never be separately pointed to. Brahman has no markers.... >***Greg, you conclude that, "We cannot comprehend, >that which in the vastest sense, comprehends us..." H: Although what you state may be taken as a provisional truth or teaching at some level, the dichotomy postulated has absolutely no foundation in Advaita. G: Sorry for the confusion. Yes, it sounds cockeyed, Advaitically unfounded, and very provisional! That's what comes from my trying to speak in Benjamin's terms! Have you read his messages? He is trying to comprehend the whole, as *Benjamin*. This can never happen. Indeed, he seesm to be seeking the experience of comprehending another person's consciousness from his own vantage point, or some combination or ascended viewpoint - which is what set this discussion in motion in first place. The knowingness and the identity of Atman and Brahman is already the case! Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Dear Greg and Benjamin, Yes, I have not followed the thread carefully so hope my comment was not off mark. Benjamin is right in that I am not a philosophical scholar (but still like to dabble a bit so I appreciate the indulgence!). I enjoyed much Sri Ramji's eloquent logic combining scriptural axioms with the self evident fact of individual existence to conclude that "I alone exist as Brahman!" Love to all Harsha Gregory Goode wrote: > > The knowingness and the identity of Atman and Brahman is already the case! > > Love, > > --Greg > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 At 10:37 AM 3/19/03 -0500, Harsha wrote: >Dear Greg and Benjamin, > >Yes, I have not followed the thread carefully so hope my comment was not >off mark. Benjamin is right in that I am not a philosophical scholar >(but still like to dabble a bit so I appreciate the indulgence!). > >I enjoyed much Sri Ramji's eloquent logic combining scriptural axioms >with the self evident fact of individual existence to conclude that "I >alone exist as Brahman!" Dear Harsha, :-) Yes, I too like Ramji's positive tone too. I think this tone and skill at moderation has made this one of the more well-mannered lists on the net. --Greg 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.