Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 advaitin, "nagarjunasiddhartha" <nagarjunasiddhartha> wrote: > Namaste, > > Actually speaking sat, cit and Ananda are not considered as positive > attributes of brahman. sat indicates that which cannot be sublated by Namaste, Still a description, let go, you won't turn into a Buddhist.....ONS..Tony. Note from List Moderators: We once again request you to show some compassion to the feelings of your fellow members of the list and stop posting one-liners. At the level of Ramana Maharishi or Nisaragadatta Maharaj, one-liners are quite effective because all of us take time to contemplate and understand. For all others such one-liners are less helpful because members want to understand the full context for such one-liners. Most of the list members want to enhance their knowledge by reading the list postings. One-liners do not provide the necessary clarity of expression and consequently bring confusion and frustration to a large section of membership. The curreent discussions strongly provide enough evidence why one-liners should be used sparingly but with great clarity. We know that you are a knowledgeable and responsible member of this list and we want to thank you in advance for your cooperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Hello All, And yet Sankara did not consider attributes of Brahaman to be pointless as will be seen from a reading of his commentary on Taittriya Upanisad II.ii.1 Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite. Comm. "The sentence satyam jnanam anantam brahma - Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite - is meant as a definition of Brahman. For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman which is the substantive. And from the fact that Brahman is the thing intended to be known, it follows that Brahman is the substantive. Since Brahman is sought to be presented as the chief object of knowledge - the knowable must be the substantive. And just because (Brahman and satya etc.) are related as the substantive and its attributes, the words beginning with satya must have the same case-ending, and they stand in apposition. Brahman being qualified by the three adjectives, satya etc is marked out from other nouns. Thus, indeed, does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others; as for instance, in common parlance, a particular lotus is known when it is described as blue, big and sweet-smelling." (trans.by Sw.Gambhirananda pub. Advaita Ashrama) Sankara easily deals with the objections to this but admits that in this case that the 'adjectives here bear a predominatingly defining sense and not a qualifying sense'. But that is not to say that the adjectival sense has no import in this case "Should even satya etc., have an adjectival sense, they do not certainly give up their meanings. If the words satya etc., be meaningless, they cannot logically distinguish their substantive. But if they are meaningful, as having the senses of truth etc., they can justifiably differentiate their substantive Brahman from other substantives that are possesed of opposite qualities." It is a complex argument but the interesting thing is that Sankara shows how 'Satyam jnanam anantam brahma' has an order within it or an infolding symmetry. It is like one of those unobjectionable axioms that lead to truths which are interesting and far from obvious. I think that the same analysis might be applied to Sat cit ananda brahma. Being and the true are conversible. Truth is a judgment and thus implies consciousness. Consciousness which is 'one without a second' has nothing to fear and nothing to want and is therefore blissfull. It might be said that there is an opening out from the initial sat/satya. In the latter part of the commentary on II.ii.1 which is no less that 18 pages long Sankara comes to the theme of analogy. Ana Funes mentioned this in relation to God-talk in her lucid post which had I thought a wise caution against comparing eastern and western philosophies. Neverthless it must be stated that Aristotle and the Scholastics and Ibn Arabi worked the idea of analogy thoroughly. Says Sankara: "The intention here is to make that very human being enter into the inmost Brahman through knowledge. But his intellect, that remains engaged in the particulars that simulate the outer objects, thinking them to be the Self, though they are non- Selves, cannot without the support of some distant object, be suddenly made contentless and engaged in the thoughts of the inmost, indwelling Self. Therefore, on the analogy of the moon on the bough, the text takes the help of a fiction that has an affinity with the identification of the Self and the physical body..." He has been speaking of the doctrine of the emanation of man from Brahman via space, air, fire, water etc. http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/analogy.htm is a note on this issue, Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Hello All, > And yet Sankara did not consider attributes of Brahaman Namaste, I haven't yet found sankara using the terms saguna and nirguna in his writings, Brahma Sutras etc. Perhaps this would have sounded too close to the Buddhist position Nirvana at that time. Look at the cafuffle on here about it. People jumping through mental hoops, all kind of mental gymnastics etc etc. For people don't want to talk about a Nirguna Brahman. No wonder Sankara didn't. Or did he? maybe someone has a reference to post. I don't remember a reference. other than what I have mentioned........ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste A good discussion with perceptive and thought-provoking contributions by all participants! Please remember, it is a subtle topic, as is all Advaita. And when the subtlety becomes rarified enough, the mind dissolves, which is probably the true purpose of these discussions! Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste Sri Ram Chandran I'll go through your posts with the Gita book to understand what you've said. Many thanks for your reply. Best Regards Guruprasad advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Namaste Sri Guruprasad: > > > A futher expansion the note that provided to enhance our > understanding of why Swamiji's description of Isvara does not imply > any limitation of Brahman. During Gita Satsangh, we discussed in > greater detail (Gita Chapter 9 verses 4 and 5) on the same question > raised by you. I recommend the excellent commentary of Swami > Sachidananda (posted by Savithri Devaraj) and the URL is: > advaitin/message/14986 > > Swamiji's description of yogamAya is beautiful: <"All beings are in > Me, I am not in them". Sri krishNa showed > this to yashoda devi in his childhood play. Yashoda actually saw the > 14 worlds in krishNa's mouth, but soon the truth was lost on her > due to her accustomed moha for krishNa. – "pashya me > yogamishvaram" – Look at the power of yogamAya! The Lord, as > paramArtha for the jnAni, appears as world to the ajnAnis. This is > the power of yogamAya.> > > I recommend the entire discussion during the 2nd and 3rd weeks of > October 2002 for everyone who wants more clarity. > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> > wrote: > > > Note: There is a difference between the following two statements: > > Maya is due to Brahman but Brahman is detached from Maya and > > consequently the question of limiting doesn't arise. All our > problems > > are due to attachment to the role that we play. When Brahman plays > > the role of Isvara, he is unaffected! Lord Krishna repeats this > quite > > a few times in Gita Chapters. > > > > advaitin, "v_vedanti" <v_vedanti> wrote: > > > Namaste Sri Ram Chandran, > > > I have a question regarding your paragraph here : > > > > > > This amounts to saying Brahman is Limiting Itself ? ( for > whatever > > > reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: > Namaste, > > I haven't yet found sankara using the terms saguna and nirguna in his > writings, Brahma Sutras etc. Perhaps this would have sounded too > close to the Buddhist position Nirvana at that time. Look at the > cafuffle on here about it. People jumping through mental hoops, all > kind of mental gymnastics etc etc. For people don't want to talk > about a Nirguna Brahman. Tony if you are interested to talk about NirguNa Brahman, the only way to talk about is just to be SILENT. Any further talk, you are already bringing the subject to saguNa. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: > Namaste, > > I haven't yet found sankara using the terms saguna and nirguna in his > writings, Brahma Sutras etc. Perhaps this would have sounded too > close to the Buddhist position Nirvana at that time. Look at the > cafuffle on here about it. People jumping through mental hoops, all > kind of mental gymnastics etc etc. For people don't want to talk > about a Nirguna Brahman. praNAm prabhuji Hare Krishna Following is what I replied when Jay prabhuji asked about para & apara brahman . Hope this would help to understand saguNa & nirguNa brahman according to shankara's perspective : //quote// Here, question may arise how could sri shankar being a hard core advaitin can to the view of saguNa brahman since in all his monumental works he clearly advocates the highest brahman or para brahman. It is clear that in shrutis, there is a mention that OmkAra which is both para (higher) & apara (lower) brahman. ( which Sri Jay prabhuji wants to discuss with me in detail!!). Here while answering to pUrvapakSha objection asking shankara whether there are two brahmans higher & lower, shankara clearly & bluntly says *YES* there are two since this is borne out by shruti itself. But shankara further clarifies that here higher prahman means where brahman is taught by means of words such as astUlam (not gross) without names & forms which are the result of avidya. & lower brahman is NOTHING BUT higher brahman qualified by some specific features for the purpose of upAsana or meditation. Aspirant (sAdhaka) who wants to meditate this highest reality treats this pure brahman as manOmaya ( made up of mind) prANamayi ( body with life-breath) etc. It is quite obvious from the above that saguNa brahman intended for meditation has been para brahman itself. & it is evident that brahman endowed with qualities is objective reality feasible for meditation to the aspirants who have mediocre intellects & who cannot rise to the level of the absolutely featureless parabrahman. We can conclude that shankara's concept of para brahman & apara brahman are the synonyms given to brahman according to various stages & thoght position of the aspirants. Sri Shankara calls the same reality as para brahman when it is made the subject of enquiry as reality & apara brahman when it is preferred in the shrutis as an objective reality for meditation. //unquote// Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.