On Divine grace

[Guest guest]

Hello Diego and all advaitins,

The distinction between awareness and consciousness

comes out most clearly in the negative than in the

positive i.e. unawareness and unconsciousnes. If we

are unconscious we cannot be aware of or aware that

something is the case. However we could be conscious

and be aware or unaware. Thus consciousness is a term

of greater extension than awareness. This is reflected

in usage. Consciousness tends to be generalised and

awareness related to sense modalities. In the Advaita

Asrama translations by Sw.Gambhirananda et al the

Absolute is referred to as Pure Consciousness. Bearing

the upadhi of mind this Consciousness becomes the

Witness or individual consciousness. They are

fundamentally the same, Atman and Brahman. It is this

inseperability which the term non-duality refers to and

not the non-duality of subject and object as Benjamin

maintains in his acolyte of Bishop Berkeley mode. That

position is itself questionable but it has not, I

think, much to do with Advaita so it may be safely left

until Benjamin resolves that riddle.

 

Meanwhile, grace to recieve grace. That puts me in

mind of the discussions in the Provincal Letters of

Pascal about the Jansenist controversy on grace whether

it be proximate, sufficent, sufficent but proximate and

not requiring proximity because sufficent, in short,

casuistry. In the Vedic world the very fact that we

are incarnate is in itself a grace which the Gods envy.

The impetus to conversion great or little is mediated

by the Master, our prayers and the prayers of others,

accumulated merit perhaps but who would have the

temerity to claim that. May I offer the speculation

that we may be granted grace on good deeds as yet

undone. Perhaps only the great ones, the Avatars can

do this. "in this way indeed a man having a teacher

acquires knowledge in this world. For him the delay is

for that long only, as long as that he does not become

freed. Then he becomes merged in Existence."

(Chandogya Upanishad VI.14.2)

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> Hello Diego and all advaitins,

> The distinction between awareness and consciousness

 

Namaste,

 

Grace is good karma, consciousness everyone has, awareness is for

those that have a developed vijnanamayakosa......IMO....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada,

 

I just wanted to share these observations.I may kindly be

corrected if I am wrong for a better understanding of awareness

and Consciousness.

 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 ombhurbhuva wrote :

>Hello Diego and all advaitins,

>The distinction between awareness and consciousness

>comes out most clearly in the negative than in the

>positive i.e. unawareness and unconsciousnes. If we

>are unconscious we cannot be aware of or aware that

>something is the case.

 

***

How can any sentient being be unconscious, I mean without a

consciousness? Awareness is a property of Consciousness alone.When

Pure Consciousness gets reflected in the antahkarana, It becomes

the antahkarana visishta chaitanya jnanam ( eg, as in neeli

ghatam 'blue pot) which is known as jiva for convenience because

of the upadhi.In that case , Pure Consciousness is the kutastha

chaitanyam.It is the upahita chaitanyam ( eg,as in the air in the

ear ). In both the cases ,It is Consciousness alone that has the

property of Awareness.In fact,by karya karana sambandham

(cause-effect elation), It is Awareness Itself.

****

However we could be conscious

>and be aware or unaware.

 

***

If we are CONSCIOUS , I mean abiding in IT all the time or for

sometime at least,that would be Absolute BLISS!!!

****

 

Thus consciousness is a term

>of greater extension than awareness. This is reflected

>in usage. Consciousness tends to be generalised and

>awareness related to sense modalities.

 

****

This is the non-advathic understanding of the words.When the

chaitanya is withdrawn from vishaya,then your awareness of

vishaya,ie, vishaya jnanam, becomes missing.That is there is no

spread of consciousness over the vishaya and hence it is not

known.You may kindly recollect the other types of

pamathru,pramana,and ? jnanam -i forgot the name.

****

 

In the Advaita

>Asrama translations by Sw.Gambhirananda et al the

>Absolute is referred to as Pure Consciousness. Bearing

>the upadhi of mind this Consciousness becomes the

>Witness or individual consciousness. They are

>fundamentally the same, Atman and Brahman.

 

***

The only difference is :

 

the individual consciousness , I mean the JIVA, is a secondary

reflection of Isvara who is the first reflection in Prakruthi as

MAYA.

Jiva is controlled by Prakruthi while Iswara controls it.

****

 

 

It is this

>inseperability which the term non-duality refers to and

>not the non-duality of subject and object as Benjamin

>maintains in his acolyte of Bishop Berkeley mode. That

>position is itself questionable but it has not, I

>think, much to do with Advaita so it may be safely left

>until Benjamin resolves that riddle.

 

***

Oh,yes,sir!

 

The drama unfolds when Chit which is Sat and Ananda

reflects in the Suddha Sattva Prakruthi and that reflection -

Isvara -

according to our karma dances in the body - which is avidya - with

pain and pleasure as JIva

which is nothing but Himself,Isvara.

 

Isvara and Jivas are one and the same like the sun and its

reflections in ripples of water. It is the same sun reflecting in

the ripples.Many ripples but only one sun.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi refers to this reflection in the ripple as the

first thought which is the cause of all other thoughts.It is

capable of differentiated awareness since it conditioned by the

mind but not pure awareness.This differentiated awreness of that

'thath' and this 'idam' is language 'namam'.That takes us into

linguistics,which is not the topic.

 

***

 

 

 

May the Peace of Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada be with you.

 

Yours in Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada's Grace,

 

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

 

>Meanwhile, grace to recieve grace. That puts me in

>mind of the discussions in the Provincal Letters of

>Pascal about the Jansenist controversy on grace whether

>it be proximate, sufficent, sufficent but proximate and

>not requiring proximity because sufficent, in short,

>casuistry. In the Vedic world the very fact that we

>are incarnate is in itself a grace which the Gods envy.

>The impetus to conversion great or little is mediated

>by the Master, our prayers and the prayers of others,

>accumulated merit perhaps but who would have the

>temerity to claim that. May I offer the speculation

>that we may be granted grace on good deeds as yet

>undone. Perhaps only the great ones, the Avatars can

>do this. "in this way indeed a man having a teacher

>acquires knowledge in this world. For him the delay is

>for that long only, as long as that he does not become

>freed. Then he becomes merged in Existence."

>(Chandogya Upanishad VI.14.2)

>

>Best Wishes, Michael.

>

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>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

>

>

>

 

_

Click below to experience Sooraj Barjatya's latest offering

'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik Roshan,

Abhishek Bachchan & Kareena Kapoor http://www.mpkdh.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

<bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Namaste,

 

Consciousness is everywhere, it is the ultimate illusion, however

Awareness is a purified Buddhi.......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

Though I respect your statement, "Consciousness is everywhere, it is

the ultimate illusion, however Awarenes is purified Buddhi...,' I

disagree with your observation. One-liner is a great way to convey

our insights but it is not an ideal communication medium for the

following reasons: (1) those who read the one-liner may not be

familiar with the terms that appear(2) the compressed message may not

convey the meaning that poster is intended and consequently, one-

liner has high potential to inject confusion and misleading

information. (3) Due to time and language constraints the

construction of one-liner may not convey the meaning intended by the

poster.

 

In Advaitic Terminology, Brahman is synonimous with the consciousness

and Brahman is eternal and all pervading. Your one-liner implies

that Brahman is the ultimate illusion but I haven't come across

anywhere in Shankara's advaita philosophy or in the scriptures in

support of what you have stated. Please clarify or modify if it was

a typo. Otherwise, provide a source for your statement and provide

some further explanations.

 

As you are aware that this forum is to facilitate members to exchange

their insights and enhance their understanding. As responsible

members we don't want to provide misleading information through

compressed messages. I know that you don't like long postings and we

do need some balance for making sure that we state is correctly

understood. As human beings we do make mistakes at every step in our

life and life itself is a learning process for our spiritual growth!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

>

> Namaste,

>

> Consciousness is everywhere, it is the ultimate illusion, however

> Awareness is a purified Buddhi.......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> Though I respect your statement, "Consciousness is everywhere, it

is

> the ultimate illusion, however Awarenes is purified Buddhi...,' I

> disagree with your observation. One-liner is a great way to convey

 

Namaste R,

 

Saguna Brahman is the ultimate illusion,there can only be

Nirguna....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

> Consciousness is everywhere, it is the ultimate illusion, however

> Awareness is a purified Buddhi.......ONS....Tony.

 

On the contrary, Consciousness is brahman. It is also called Cit (in sanskrit)

or Intelligence.

 

"Being conscious" or "Being intelligent" is an illusion, where as Consciousness

or Intelligence is the

Reality - according to advaita, of course.

 

Btw, Illusion does not mean unreality.

[Guest guest]

My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada,

>

>Namaste,

>

 

 

I read your cryptic reply with the greatest respect but I am

simply stunned to read it.I think being yourself so learned must

have put the words at the wrong places because of fatigue or

mosquito bites (of maya) - here they are too many nowadays!You

might have meant "ultimate reality"!

 

If Consciousness - Chit in Sat -Chit - Ananda - is illusion , how

can it be the base ( adhishtanam ) of all this creation?

Consciousness which Exists eternally as absolute Bliss is the only

reality.This universe is an illusion,isn't it?

 

Buddhi is antahkaranam - manas,buddhi,ahankaram,chiththam - and as

such it is jadam , if I am correct.How can jadam be aware of

something?It is not possible logically.The eye is not the seer; it

is only the instrumrnt of seeing.So also, the buddhi(

antahkaranam).It is COnsciousness that sees but through

anyonyadhyasam -mutual superimposition - it appears that it thinks

and decides.

 

If I am wrong , I may kindly be corrected.

 

Please do not deny yourSelf which is Chit that existed before you

were born and exists through your life and beyond beyond

time,space and matter which are an illusion.

 

May the bliss of Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada be with you,sir!

 

Yours in Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada's love,

 

Chilukuri Bhuvanswar

 

 

 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 Tony O'Clery wrote :

>advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> > My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada,

>

>Namaste,

>

>Consciousness is everywhere, it is the ultimate illusion,

>however

>Awareness is a purified Buddhi.......ONS....Tony.

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>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

>

>

>

 

_

Click below to experience Sooraj Barjatya's latest offering

'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik Roshan,

Abhishek Bachchan & Kareena Kapoor http://www.mpkdh.com

[Guest guest]

> Please do not deny yourSelf which is Chit that existed before you

> were born and exists through your life and beyond beyond

> time,space and matter which are an illusion.

 

Only a "knower" can utter such statements.

>This universe is an illusion,isn't it?

>

> If I am wrong , I may kindly be corrected.

 

Since you express doubt, I take it that you're not a knower.

 

In that case it is better to keep an open mind on all issues -

because the mind is a double edged sword. It can point to the truth

but it can lead you astray too. And the latter is the more prevalent

case.

 

A friendly suggestion for all those who seek the truth : do not give

into absolutism - don't say : "this is so" or "that is the truth".

You simply do not know. An open mind who isn't locked on pre-

conceptions is a better receptor of the truth, which is beyond all

conception.

[Guest guest]

May God give us power!!!!

Namaste,

 

I simply believe nothing is ILLUSION!!!!!

 

Whatever we have,May be

space,time,universe,chit,conciousness,unconciousness,

dream,i,you or whatever is not an illusion. They all

are just a part of our life...and when i talk of life

i actually talk of the one life of atman(soul).I

believe what we r living now is life of our body,which

is a subset of life of our atman. I also believe that

there is always some reason behind all the things

which happen like our birth,death,destiny,rebirth, or

whatever.

I will wait for others view.

 

 

amit kumar

 

We all are object of class derived from same base class.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

 

 

 

A friendly suggestion for all those who seek the truth : do not give

into absolutism - don't say : "this is so" or "that is the truth".

You simply do not know. An open mind who isn't locked on pre-

conceptions is a better receptor of the truth, which is beyond all

conception.

 

 

 

 

KKT: Very well said.

 

I'd like to add something:

 

An assertion without experience

to back up is merely conceptual.

 

The << not-knowing >> state should

be the mind of the seeker of truth.

It is always amazed at the ever

newness of the << what is >>

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Namaste Amit

>I simply believe nothing is ILLUSION!!!!!

>

>Whatever we have,May be space,time,universe,chit,

>conciousness,unconciousness,dream,i,you or whatever

>is not an illusion. They all are just a part of our

>life...and when i talk of life i actually talk of the

>one life of atman(soul).I believe what we r living now

>is life of our body,which is a subset of life of our

>atman. I also believe that there is always some reason

>behind all the things which happen like our birth,death,

>destiny,rebirth, or whatever.

 

 

Well said.

 

My understanding: If you truly see everything as God or Brahman or

Consciousness, then it is not illusion. Otherwise it is. This

requires seeing everything as One, notwithstanding apparent

multiplicity and Jivahood. It also requires seeing purpose in life,

as you say, and this purpose is simply the path of all sentient

beings towards Moksha (liberation). The alternative is materialism,

atheism, death, and an eternal nightmare (until the truth dawns as it

inevitably will to even the most confirmed atheist).

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Amitji,

 

">I simply believe nothing is ILLUSION!!!!!"

 

Isnt this the power of maya?

 

If everything is Real, then what are we trying to achieve? What is moksha? From

what do we need moksha? What is viveka then? Why do we need viveka?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "nagarjunasiddhartha"

<nagarjunasiddhartha> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> > Consciousness is everywhere, it is the ultimate illusion, however

> > Awareness is a purified Buddhi.......ONS....Tony.

>

> On the contrary, Consciousness is brahman. It is also called Cit

(in sanskrit) or Intelligence.

 

Namaste,

 

Sat-Cit-Ananda is Saguna Brahman therefore unreal, and never

happened.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

Seeing the world as God is still illusion, seeing at all is

illusion.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

<bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada,

> >

> >Namaste,

> >

>

>

> I read your cryptic reply with the greatest respect but I am

> simply stunned to read it.I think being yourself so learned must

> have put the words at the wrong places because of fatigue or

> mosquito bites (of maya) - here they are too many nowadays!You

> might have meant "ultimate reality"!

>

> If Consciousness - Chit in Sat -Chit - Ananda - is illusion , how

> can it be the base ( adhishtanam ) of all this creation?

 

Namaste.

 

There never was a creation, no base, no sat-cit-ananda. If there were

you would observe it in sleep, sushupti, nidra, samadhi

etc....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

namaste,

> Sat-Cit-Ananda is Saguna Brahman therefore unreal, and never

> happened.......ONS...Tony.

 

sat-cit-Ananda is not saguNa brahman(or Ishwara to be more precise).

saguNa brahman is an illusion(mithya) and cannot be sat or being.

saguNa brahman is also the macroscopic cidAbhAsa(reflection of the

cit) and cannot be cit itself. And saguNa brahman is an enjoyer of

Ananda(not Ananda itself).

 

Siddharth

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "nagarjunasiddhartha"

<nagarjunasiddhartha> wrote:

> namaste,

>

> > Sat-Cit-Ananda is Saguna Brahman therefore unreal, and never

> > happened.......ONS...Tony.

>

> sat-cit-Ananda is not saguNa brahman(or Ishwara to be more

precise).

> saguNa brahman is an illusion(mithya) and cannot be sat or being.

> saguNa brahman is also the macroscopic cidAbhAsa(reflection of the

> cit) and cannot be cit itself. And saguNa brahman is an enjoyer of

> Ananda(not Ananda itself).

>

> Siddharth

 

Namaste,

 

Ananada is illusion, it is experienced, you answer your own response

when you say 'enjoyer'. There is no Saguna Brahman for there is only

Nirguna. Sat-Cit-Ananada is not Nirguna........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

> Ananada is illusion, it is experienced, you answer your own

response

> when you say 'enjoyer'. There is no Saguna Brahman for there is

only

> Nirguna. Sat-Cit-Ananada is not Nirguna........ONS...Tony.

 

Ananda is not an illusion. "Experiencing Ananda" is an illusion.

There is a difference between the two positions.

 

Siddharth

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Siddharth and Sri Tony:

 

I am sure that we all agree that 'Truth' can be settled on the basis

of opinions. What Sri Tony writes in this list is only just his

opinion based on his belief. Inspite of many opinions about

the 'Truth,' it will be always be the same. When there are many

opinions about the unknown Truth, we need to judge such opinions on

the basis of reliability of their sources. This may explain why the

Vedic system (which includes the Shankara's advaita philosophy)for

finding the Truth is through enquiry using a reliable source such as

the 'Scriptures' and a Guru with lots of credentials. The opinions

expressed in the scriptures do not confirm with Sri Tony's opinion

and I hope that he makes a note of this. At the same time that we

respect his opinion even though that doesn't agree with the wisdom

expressed by the sages and saints of the Upanishads.

 

Vedantic position with respect ot Sat-Chit-Anand:

Brahman is attributeless and Sat-Chit-Anand is not an attribute but

it is a statement of the nature of Ultimate reality. Atman-Brahman,

The Absolute, the basis of all that exists and by knowing which

everything else is known is described as Sat (etternal existence),

Chit (eternal consciousness) and Anand (eternal bliss). These are not

qualities or characteristics but its essential nature; and they are,

in the ultimate analysis, not different from one another.

Source: A Dictionary of Advaita Vedanta,by Swami Harshananda

 

As I have requested before, Sri Tony should provide a source for his

statement (which he has repeated many more times during the past

several months). This forum is established to help the members to

correct incorrect and misinformed opinions so that members can

enhance their understanding of Vedanta.

 

Sri Siddarth should note the the truth of Isvara as observed by Swami

Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam: "The truth is that

Isvara is consciousness, Brahman, conditioned by

maya — maya-avacchinna-caitanya. Maya is the upadhi for Brahman. At

this point, one may ask as to what is the difference between Isvara,

which is Brahman conditioned by maya-upadhi, and Brahman? Maya does

not exist apart from Brahman. It depends upon it entirely. Being

mithya, maya's reality is Brahman, so, maya is also Isvara. And Isvara

is nothing but Brahman."

 

In conclusion, I request members to be more humble while expressing

their opinions and let us not give the impression that our opinion is

the Truth. Sri Nanda in a recent post has correctly observed the same.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "nagarjunasiddhartha"

<nagarjunasiddhartha> wrote:

> namaste,

>

> > Sat-Cit-Ananda is Saguna Brahman therefore unreal, and never

> > happened.......ONS...Tony.

>

> sat-cit-Ananda is not saguNa brahman(or Ishwara to be more

precise).

> saguNa brahman is an illusion(mithya) and cannot be sat or being.

> saguNa brahman is also the macroscopic cidAbhAsa(reflection of the

> cit) and cannot be cit itself. And saguNa brahman is an enjoyer of

> Ananda(not Ananda itself).

>

> Siddharth

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Siddharth and Sri Tony:

>

> I am sure that we all agree that 'Truth' can be settled on the

basis

> of opinions

 

Namaste. IMO.

 

Of course it is all my opinion, but I did quote somewhere.

 

My authority that I quoted on here and on harsha was Sri Ramana

Maharshi. I forget the page but I will find it, I believe there are

several. One must take into account translations and the level of

awareness and belief of the recipients of Sankara etc.

 

I still can only say that Cit-Sat-Ananda are attributes, and

descriptions and refer only to the Self as Saguna Brahman. That

sounds very logical to me. One has only to go to the Rig to see how

it is mused there..The Upanishads are written at different levels

thats why they seemingly contradict each other......ONS.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Sri Siddharth and Sri Tony:

> >

> > I am sure that we all agree that 'Truth' can be settled on the

> basis

> > of opinions

>

> Namaste. IMO.

>

> Of course it is all my opinion, but I did quote somewhere.

>

> My authority that I quoted on here and on harsha was Sri Ramana

> Maharshi. I forget the page but I will find it, I believe there are

> several. One must take into account translations and the level of

> awareness and belief of the recipients of Sankara etc.

>

> I still can only say that Cit-Sat-Ananda are attributes, and

> descriptions and refer only to the Self as Saguna Brahman. That

> sounds very logical to me. One has only to go to the Rig to see how

> it is mused there..The Upanishads are written at different levels

> thats why they seemingly contradict each other......ONS.....Tony.

 

P9, Chapter One, 'Be as you are', sat-cit-ananda are referred to as

combined attributes..There are better references that I'll dig

up......Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Sorry for the typo in the first sentence. I wanted to say that Truth

can never be settled on the basis of opinions. It is an experience.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Siddharth and Sri Tony:

>

> I am sure that we all agree that 'Truth' can be settled on the

> basis of opinions.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

You can have your opinion but please note that what you say doesn't

agree with the Vedantic framework of Shankara. The same terms Sat,

Chit and Anand can be interpreted differrently in various contexts.

Logical consistency depends on the framework of logic. For example,

in mathematics, we can't apply finite algebra (logical framework

for analyzing finite numbers) for analyzing infinite numbers.

Logically what you see may be valid in Dwaita and not in Advaita. In

Advaita, subject is the object and there is no separate object. Only

objects can have attributes and the subject is necessarily subject

free. As advaitins, we believe that Brahman is Nirguna Brahman

without any attributes. Let me repeat, according to Advaita Vedanta

that Sat-Chit-Ananda is not an attribute but it is an experience! I

also guarantee that any authentic reference on Ramana will not state

that Sat-Chit-Ananda in the context of Brahminic experience as an

attribute.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> > Namaste. IMO.

> >

> > Of course it is all my opinion, but I did quote somewhere.

> >

> > My authority that I quoted on here and on harsha was Sri Ramana

> > Maharshi. I forget the page but I will find it, I believe there

are

> > several. One must take into account translations and the level of

> > awareness and belief of the recipients of Sankara etc.

> >

> > I still can only say that Cit-Sat-Ananda are attributes, and

> > descriptions and refer only to the Self as Saguna Brahman. That

> > sounds very logical to me. One has only to go to the Rig to see

how

> > it is mused there..The Upanishads are written at different levels

> > thats why they seemingly contradict each other......ONS.....Tony.

>

> P9, Chapter One, 'Be as you are', sat-cit-ananda are referred to as

> combined attributes..There are better references that I'll dig

> up......Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> You can have your opinion but please note that what you say doesn't

> agree with the Vedantic framework of Shankara. The same terms Sat,

> Chit and Anand can be interpreted differrently in various contexts.

> Logical consistency depends on the framework of logic. For example,

> in mathematics, we can't apply finite algebra (logical framework

> for analyzing finite numbers) for analyzing infinite numbers.

> Logically what you see may be valid in Dwaita and not in Advaita.

wrote:

 

Namaste,IMO,

 

Sorry guys you will have to let go of your final ideas and rituals.

Nirguna is indescrible no experience, attributes nothing. How can

you expect Jivanmuktas and Sages to describe the ultimate when it is

beyond their memory? It is beyond the mind. Sages talk at a level

people can grasp even intellectually. As Nisargadatta said only the

equivalent of one person in the population of Mumbai can even

understand advaita intellectually even, never mind realisation.

 

My logic is that if you can attach a positive description to Brahman

then it can only be Saguna, for Nirguna can only be described in the

negative as the name means. Nir Guna. Nir Vana etc.

 

I realise it is hard for especially people into some devotion and

ritual to accept this but IMO that is it. And just because sages and

upanishads cannot describe the indescribable doesn't make it

something they forgot....If I am the only one saying this perhaps I

have made a break through.hahahahahahhaah........ONS.....Tony.