Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste Shri Ragavendra Kalyanji, It was somewhat presumptuous of me to assume that Sri Ramana Maharshi's explanations of Shankara's Advaita could be a common ground for us to resolve the issue of adhyasa, but evidently it is not so. Now, after reading your replies, I feel it is necessary to examine the basic foundations on which we are conducting our discussions. I would therefore like to approach this problem from a new direction. THE AIM OF THE DISCUSSION The purpose of our discussion is to determine which of the following two positions reflects the correct interpretation of Advaita: Position 1: Brahman is Nirguna. The world appearance is unreal. Position 2: Maya is one with Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna as well as Saguna in as much as the same Brahman is spoken of in both cases. Maya has vikshepa shakti. What the vikshepa shakti shows is Brahman itself and thus Saguna Brahman is the same Brahman shown forth. Superimposition arises only in the context of the concealment of Brahman due to avidya. THE PLACE OF LOGIC IN MIMAMSA Logic is an aid to understanding the Shrutis. The logic (or nyaya) is one of the vedangas or arms of the Vedas. Mimamsa is the darshana that employs nyaya in its philosophical system to understand the truth of the Shrutis. Thus the assertions of the Shrutis are not to be left as mere kerygmatic statements, but are to be reconciled with the help of logic. If we don't agree on this, then I feel it would be better to agree to disagree with each other now before we get deeper into a futile discussion. THE MEANINGS OF KEY TERMS We have to mean something meaningful when we engage in a discussion. It would therefore be in order to examine what we mean when we employ the terms "unreal" and "appearance" in so far as we mean something when we say that a thing is unreal or an appearance. This, you will agree, is central to our discussion. Let me begin by suggesting the use-cases of these words. The word "unreal" has the following connotations: 1) A thing is unreal if the thing has no meaning like the "son of a barren woman" or a "square circle". 2) A thing is unreal if the thing is not instantiated in the locus of the thing in which it is denied, like the horns of a hare. 3) A thing is unreal if it is a mere appearance of the thing, like water in a mirage. 4) A thing is unreal if it is not genuine like an unreal currency note. The word "appearance" has the following connotations: 1) Appearance, as in a thing making an appearance when it appears to us from concealment, like a crocodile appearing on the surface of water, or an actor appearing on the stage. 2) Appearance as in a thing taking on the appearance of another thing like a snake in a rope. I think there is no harm if some of the cases are superfluous. But if you feel I've left out some meaningful cases, please feel free to add them. APPLICATION TO THE PROBLEM I think we both agree that Brahman cannot be described by words. Therefore, directing this discussion to the seen world, I would request you to: 1) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the world is "unreal". 2) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the world is "world appearance". With regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Shri Ragavendra Kalyanji, > > > THE MEANINGS OF KEY TERMS > > We have to mean something meaningful when we engage in a discussion. > It would therefore be in order to examine what we mean when we employ > the terms "unreal" and "appearance" in so far as we mean something > when we say that a thing is unreal or an appearance. This, you will > agree, is central to our discussion. Let me begin by suggesting the > use-cases of these words. > > The word "unreal" has the following connotations: > > 1) A thing is unreal if the thing has no meaning like the "son > of a barren woman" or a "square circle". > > 2) A thing is unreal if the thing is not instantiated in the > locus of the thing in which it is denied, like the horns of > a hare. > > 3) A thing is unreal if it is a mere appearance of the thing, > like water in a mirage. > > 4) A thing is unreal if it is not genuine like an unreal > currency note. > > > The word "appearance" has the following connotations: > > 1) Appearance, as in a thing making an appearance when it > appears to us from concealment, like a crocodile appearing > on the surface of water, or an actor appearing on the stage. > > 2) Appearance as in a thing taking on the appearance of another > thing like a snake in a rope. > > > I think there is no harm if some of the cases are superfluous. But > Chittaranjan Namaste, Chittaranjanji Please include a third case for the connotations of 'appearance': 3. Appearance as an image by 'reflection', as for example in a mirror or in water. PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > Namaste, Chittaranjanji > > Please include a third case for the connotations of 'appearance': > > 3. Appearance as an image by 'reflection', as for example in a > mirror or in water. > > PraNAms to all advaitins > profvk Yes Sir, I think that is an important case. Pratibimbavada! Pranams, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste SrI Chittaranjan-ji, > THE AIM OF THE DISCUSSION > > The purpose of our discussion is to determine which of the following > two positions reflects the correct interpretation of Advaita: > > Position 1: > > Brahman is Nirguna. The world appearance is unreal. > > Position 2: > > Maya is one with Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna as well as Saguna in as > much as the same Brahman is spoken of in both cases. Maya has > vikshepa shakti. What the vikshepa shakti shows is Brahman itself and > thus Saguna Brahman is the same Brahman shown forth. Superimposition > arises only in the context of the concealment of Brahman due to > avidya. I have no problem in accepting position 1. I do accept position 2 also with some modifications. Infact, I dont consider the two positions as mutually contradictory. They can be quite easily reconciled. The problem comes when mAyA is given the same reality as brahman. I think this is the issue where you may disagree with me. > THE PLACE OF LOGIC IN MIMAMSA > > Logic is an aid to understanding the Shrutis. The logic (or nyaya) is > one of the vedangas or arms of the Vedas. Mimamsa is the darshana > that employs nyaya in its philosophical system to understand the > truth of the Shrutis. Thus the assertions of the Shrutis are not to > be left as mere kerygmatic statements, but are to be reconciled with > the help of logic. If we don't agree on this, then I feel it would be > better to agree to disagree with each other now before we get deeper > into a futile discussion. If by nyAya you mean just logic, then we may not have much to disagree here. The problem would come if you use the nyAya school of philosophy. > > THE MEANINGS OF KEY TERMS > > We have to mean something meaningful when we engage in a discussion. > It would therefore be in order to examine what we mean when we employ > the terms "unreal" and "appearance" in so far as we mean something > when we say that a thing is unreal or an appearance. While I dont disagree with you, I suggest that a perceived thing can be sublated by a sublating experience/knowledge and can thus be known to be unreal. It may seem real during perception. I did not understand your point 4 though. > APPLICATION TO THE PROBLEM > > I think we both agree that Brahman cannot be described by words. > Therefore, directing this discussion to the seen world, I would > request you to: > > 1) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the > world is "unreal". The world (in all its aspects) can be sublated at a later point of time and is thus unreal. > 2) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the > world is "world appearance". By world appearance, I mean "the way the world appears/seems to be". I see a chair here, a table there, etc. Regards Raghavendra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji and Kalyanji, - "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik > > THE AIM OF THE DISCUSSION > > The purpose of our discussion is to determine which of the following > two positions reflects the correct interpretation of Advaita: > > Position 1: > > Brahman is Nirguna. The world appearance is unreal. > > Position 2: > > Maya is one with Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna as well as Saguna in as > much as the same Brahman is spoken of in both cases. Maya has > vikshepa shakti. What the vikshepa shakti shows is Brahman itself and > thus Saguna Brahman is the same Brahman shown forth. Superimposition > arises only in the context of the concealment of Brahman due to > avidya. ----------- Sorry to intrude. I know this is a highly technical discussion. Position 3: Brahman is nirguNa. SaguNa Brahman is the same nirguNa Brahman with limiting adjuncts used for prescribing meditation. The 'world' is not unreal. It IS Brahman. The world appearance is Unreal in the absolute sense. mAya is the illusionary world of plurality, which is nothing but name (nAma) and form (rUpa). Ignorance (avidya) is of the nature of natural, beginingless superimposition (adhyAsa). It is the failure to discriminate the Self from the Non-Self. Just my 2 cents, from a book ofcourse ! Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 namaskaar, what i have read in these posts is-- THE AIM OF THE DISCUSSION > > The purpose of our discussion is to determine which of the following > two positions reflects the correct interpretation of Advaita: > > Position 1: > > Brahman is Nirguna. The world appearance is unreal. > > Position 2: > > Maya is one with Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna as well as Saguna in as > much as the same Brahman is spoken of in both cases. Maya has > vikshepa shakti. What the vikshepa shakti shows is Brahman itself and > thus Saguna Brahman is the same Brahman shown forth. Superimposition > arises only in the context of the concealment of Brahman due to > avidya. ----------- Sorry to intrude. I know this is a highly technical discussion. Position 3: Brahman is nirguNa. SaguNa Brahman is the same nirguNa Brahman with limiting adjuncts used for prescribing meditation. The 'world' is not unreal. It IS Brahman. The world appearance is Unreal in the absolute sense. mAya is the illusionary world of plurality, which is nothing but name (nAma) and form (rUpa). Ignorance (avidya) is of the nature of natural, beginingless superimposition (adhyAsa). It is the failure to discriminate the Self from the Non- Self. i think the best way to describe advaita comes from this shloka of avadhuta gita-- Neither formless nor with form, described by the Vedas as "Not this, not this," free from separation and unity, the true Self reigns supreme. and i think that the above shloka also gives the real meaning of neti- neti in context of saguna and nirguna. sorry for interrupting. with regards, gautam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Namaste: This is a good time for us to read and contemplate on the message imprinted on the Mahavakyas. We (the blind) determine to describe the elephant that we haven't seen and that explains why the discussions continue without any conclusion. The Mahavakyas states the following: "I am Brahman" (Aham Brahmasmi). This states the identity of the inmost consciousness of the individual with that of the supreme Divine. "The Self is Brahman" (Ayam Atma Brahman). This states that our own Self is the true Divinity which resides simultaneously within our heart and within the hearts of all beings of the universe. "That thou art" (Tat tvam asi). The me in you is the you in me! "Intelligence is Brahman" (Prajnanam Brahman). Our inmost intelligence is the supreme intelligence to recognzie our existence. The sages of the Upanishads recognize that more explanation will not lead us `vidya' and on the contrary it has high potential to bring more `avidya!' The ongoing discussions seem to suggest adding more vakyas such as - world is Brahman for greater understanding of Sathya (Truth). I believe that this is the right time for us to take a deep breath and contemplate on the followingthought: Can we achieve 'Self- realization' with more vakyas or with more sadhana? Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Namaste: More sadhana could significantly abbreviate the mailings, and beginners like me won't have access to as much information. I vote for keeping up the vakyas without diminishing--or perhaps even increasing--sadhana ;-) Bob Ram Chandran wrote: > Namaste: > >> > Can we achieve 'Self- > realization' with more vakyas or with more sadhana? > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > > > 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 > > > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Namaste Shri Raghavendraji, Thank you for your reply. I am not sure how long I can continue this discussion with all the year-end rush, but I'll try to keep it going as far as possible. The thrall of Maya! :-) advaitin, "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429> wrote: > Namaste SrI Chittaranjan-ji, > Infact, I dont consider the two positions as mutually > contradictory. They can be quite easily reconciled. I think so too, Raghavendraji. > The problem comes when mAyA is given the same reality as > brahman. I think this is the issue where you may disagree > with me. True. I consider Maya as Brahman itself. He is Her existence, She is His Shakti. > If by nyAya you mean just logic, then we may not have much to > disagree here. The problem would come if you use the nyAya > school of philosophy. I mean logic. > While I dont disagree with you, I suggest that a perceived > thing can be sublated by a sublating experience/knowledge and > can thus be known to be unreal. It may seem real during > perception. This doesn't fit any of the cases I've listed. We may therefore add a fifth use-case: "An object is unreal when its perception is sublated by another perception like the objects in a dream". To analyse this further, the form seen in the dream is not denied i.e., we do not deny that a form was seen. The form has to remain as the locus of denial for the denial to be possible; what we deny is the reality that was ascribed to that form. The form of a bird seen in the dream state (the wings, beak, etc) is not negated, but the bird as a real thing is negated because it is unreal when compared to the reality of a bird with wings, beak, etc., seen in the waking state. The forms of both have the same likeness, but the reality of the two are not the same. Therefore it is not the form that is denied, but the existence subsisting in the form that is denied. > I did not understand your point 4 though. I meant "counterfeit currency note" when I said "unreal currency note". It is not a REAL note because it is not GENUILELY a note. That is the case in point 4. > > Therefore, directing this discussion to the seen world, I would > > request you to: > > > > 1) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the > > world is "unreal". > > The world (in all its aspects) can be sublated at a later point of > time and is thus unreal. Could you please specify the real world (having the likeness of this world) that is the ground for the negation of this world? Which is that real world with respect to which "this world" is unreal because it is not like that real world? Please remember that it has to have the likeness of "this world". > > 2) Please specify the case applicable when you say that the > > world is "world appearance". > By world appearance, I mean "the way the world appears/seems to > be". I see a chair here, a table there, etc. You say that by world appearance you mean the way that the world appears/seems to be. The world appears/seems to be real. If it is that way, then the world appearance is real. (I would say that this is use-case 1 of the word "appearance"). With regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Hari OM! Dear Ones, Ramchandran Wrote: >Can we achieve 'Self-realization' with more vakyas or with more >sadhana? We can achieve "Self-realization" only by HIS grace, but for that more and more Sadhana and study of the scriptures under a Satguru is required for most of us. Unless & otherwise we take birth as Spiritual Prodigies. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > Namaste: > > This is a good time for us to read and contemplate on the message > imprinted on the Mahavakyas. We (the blind) determine to describe > the elephant that we haven't seen and that explains why the > discussions continue without any conclusion. The Mahavakyas states > the following: > > "I am Brahman" (Aham Brahmasmi). This states the identity of the > inmost consciousness of the individual with that of the supreme > Divine. > > "The Self is Brahman" (Ayam Atma Brahman). This states that our own > Self is the true Divinity which resides simultaneously within our > heart and within the hearts of all beings of the universe. > > "That thou art" (Tat tvam asi). The me in you is the you in me! > > "Intelligence is Brahman" (Prajnanam Brahman). Our inmost > intelligence is the supreme intelligence to recognzie our existence. > > The sages of the Upanishads recognize that more explanation will not > lead us `vidya' and on the contrary it has high potential to bring > more `avidya!' > > The ongoing discussions seem to suggest adding more vakyas such as - > world is Brahman for greater understanding of Sathya (Truth). I > believe that this is the right time for us to take a deep breath and > contemplate on the followingthought: Can we achieve 'Self- > realization' with more vakyas or with more sadhana? > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Namaste SrI Chittaranjan-ji, I regret the long delay in my posting. I am quite busy with many things right now. Found some time to post and so doing it. Please bear with the inconvenience. > True. I consider Maya as Brahman itself. He is Her existence, She >is > His Shakti. What is the "His" you are talking of? Ishwara or nirguNa Atman...? Please clarify. > > If by nyAya you mean just logic, then we may not have much to > > disagree here. The problem would come if you use the nyAya > > school of philosophy. > > I mean logic. Not much problem then. > This doesn't fit any of the cases I've listed. We may therefore add a > fifth use-case: "An object is unreal when its perception is sublated > by another perception like the objects in a dream". > > To analyse this further, the form seen in the dream is not denied > i.e., we do not deny that a form was seen. The form has to remain >as > the locus of denial for the denial to be possible; what we deny is > the reality that was ascribed to that form. The form of a bird seen > in the dream state (the wings, beak, etc) is not negated, but the > bird as a real thing is negated because it is unreal when compared to > the reality of a bird with wings, beak, etc., seen in the waking > state. The forms of both have the same likeness, but the reality of > the two are not the same. Therefore it is not the form that is > denied, but the existence subsisting in the form that is denied. Right. But it is a different matter with the world. Here, the world is denied "in all its aspects". I have been saying this for quite sometime now. > Could you please specify the real world (having the likeness of this > world) that is the ground for the negation of this world? Which is > that real world with respect to which "this world" is unreal because > it is not like that real world? Please remember that it has to have > the likeness of "this world". I am sorry but I dont see what difference it makes whether or not such a world exists. You are seeing this world now and no body is denying that you are seeing the world or that there is an object infront of you etc. etc. But the case is quite different when once you realize the Atman and know that the true reality is Atman alone. By the way, did you notice that the word "reality" by itself hardly makes any sense? I am not sure if I answered your point. But that is because I dont see how this point is relevant here. Please clarify if you think otherwise. > You say that by world appearance you mean the way that the world > appears/seems to be. The world appears/seems to be real. If it is > that way, then the world appearance is real. (I would say that this > is use-case 1 of the word "appearance"). Let me ask this again - "By the way, did you notice that the word "reality" by itself hardly makes any sense?" Regards Raghavendra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Namaste Kalyan-ji, advaitin, "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429> wrote: > I regret the long delay in my posting. I am quite busy with many > things right now. Found some time to post and so doing it. Please > bear with the inconvenience. No problems Raghavendraji. I am also tied up with many year-end activities and it's okay with me if we move along this discussion at a slow pace. > > I consider Maya as Brahman itself. He is Her existence, > > She is His Shakti. > > What is the "His" you are talking of? Ishwara or nirguNa Atman...? > Please clarify. Maya is one with Brahman. When Maya is latent, Brahman is called Nirguna Brahman and when Maya is active the same Brahman is called Ishwara. > > This doesn't fit any of the cases I've listed. We may > > therefore add a fifth use-case: "An object is unreal when > > its perception is sublated by another perception like the > > objects in a dream". > > > > To analyse this further, the form seen in the dream is not > > denied i.e., we do not deny that a form was seen. The form > > has to remain as the locus of denial for the denial to be > > possible; what we deny is the reality that was ascribed to > > that form. The form of a bird seen in the dream state (the > > wings, beak, etc) is not negated, but the bird as a real > > thing is negated because it is unreal when compared to > > the reality of a bird with wings, beak, etc., seen in the > > waking state. The forms of both have the same likeness, but > > the reality of the two are not the same. Therefore it is not > > the form that is denied, but the existence subsisting in the > > form that is denied. > > Right. But it is a different matter with the world. Here, the > world is denied "in all its aspects". I have been saying this > for quite sometime now. I know that you have been saying this repeatedly. But the meaning of "unreal" that makes this "a different matter" is the point of contention between us in interpreting Advaita as expostulated in Adi Shankara's Brahman Sutra Bhashya. Therefore the nature of this denial "in all its aspects" is to be further investigated. When you say that "it is a different matter with the world" and that "the world is denied 'in all its aspects'", the denial (of reality) still has a meaning and this meaning is what is to be uncovered so that the understanding of the Shruti is a meaningful understanding. Denial belongs to the judgment of intellect and we express this judgment through language. This expression must mean something, and this meaning is to be sought out and made perspicuous so that the Shruti is perspicuously understood. The world "in all its aspects" is not a void. It is the locus of our denial. It forces us to direct our attention to it for making the denial. The predication of reality or unreality to it is dependent on a character in it that corresponds to the meaning of reality and unreality that is conferred by language. One cannot separate the poles of the opposites when these opposing poles themselves are brought forth by meanings as being parasitic on each other. Thus, the meaning of the denial of the world in all its aspects is parasitic upon the meaning of the affirmation of the world in all its aspects. > > Could you please specify the real world (having the likeness > > of this world) that is the ground for the negation of this > > world? Which is that real world with respect to which "this > > world" is unreal because it is not like that real world? > > Please remember that it has to have the likeness of "this > > world". > > I am sorry but I dont see what difference it makes whether or > not such a world exists. "Such a world" is the basis of the denial in so far as it has the capacity of a certain meaningful character that is denied when the world which presents itself to us is denied. What I am trying to point out is that "such a world" is already embedded within the judgmental meanings which we use to deny the world by predicating unreality to it. If the world "in all its aspects" is denied, such a denial is made based on a certain character (or lack of it) in the world "in all its aspects". Therefore the presence of that character in the locus is its reality and the absence of that character in the locus is its unreality. This character is what is to be determined before we can ascertain the meaningfulness of the judgment of unreality to the world. > You are seeing this world now and no body is denying that you > are seeing the world or that there is an object infront of you > etc. etc. Yes, the locus of denial is what is seen. Otherwise there is no scope for denial. > But the case is quite different when once you realize the > Atman and know that the true reality is Atman alone. Both of us understand that the true reality is Atman alone. What we differ about is something different. You understand that this reality of Atman excludes the world, and I understand that it includes the world. When you say that it excludes the world, it is mere a repetition of your position. If it is proferred as an argument, it amounts to begging the question. > By the way, did you notice that the word "reality" by itself > hardly makes any sense? I am not sure if I answered your point. By denition, all words make sense. Otherwise they wouldn't be words. But it is not my intention to be merely argumentative. I think you are trying to point out something important by saying that the word "reality" in itself hardly makes any sense. I agree that when you go to the source of words, all meanings lose their sense of grounded reality because you see that the world is nothing but the meanings conferred by words. This entire universe is nothing but nama- roopa. But if you carefully reconcile the Bhashya on the various sutras, I believe you will see that nama-roopa derives its meanings by the power that is in its Source, and that the meanings pointed to by words are the same material as the Source, i.e., that the effect pointed to by words is nothing but the cause itself. The effect seen apart from the cause is unreal, but the effect is the cause itself. > But that is because I dont see how this point is relevant here. > Please clarify if you think otherwise. This point is relevant here because it is the same use-case as the denial of the objects of a dream which denial is made on the basis of the reality of objects in the waking state. Thus the denial of the world in its entirity is made on the basis of the reality of the entire world. The presentation of the world as the locus of denial is not denied. Nobody can say that there was never a presentation of the world. The judgment of unreality to this presentation is made based on a certain privation in the presentation that makes it unfit to be called real. It is made on the basis of that meaning of "reality" of which there is a privation or lack thereof in the presentation. > > You say that by world appearance you mean the way that the > > world appears/seems to be. The world appears/seems to be real. > > If it is that way, then the world appearance is real. (I > > would say that this is use-case 1 of the word "appearance"). > > Let me ask this again - "By the way, did you notice that the > word "reality" by itself hardly makes any sense?" Words cannot reach Brahman, the substantive. Words express the effects that are non-different from, and pre-existent in, the cause itself. The world "reality" is not meaningless. It is "sat" which is the essential nature of Brahman. If that "sat" is seen in the world, the world is real. If that "sat" is not seen in the world, the world is unreal. There is the capacity of Maya to reveal and conceal Reality. When it reveals, its result is Grace. When it conceals, its result is samsara. When the "sat" of Brahman is not seen, the world "becomes" a superimposition and is to be negated to reach the substratum. In this context, Nirguna Brahman is what is to be "reached" and Saguna Brahman is called the lower Brahman in so far as Brahman has not been "grasped" and the world is still an adjunct. But once the pure substratum of Nirguna Brahman is "known", the world is no more a superimposition; the world is then nothing but Brahman itself and is real. That is the point of my entire argument. With regards, Chittaranjan 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.