Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote: > > > But where is that bank account and who maintains it ? If there is no reincarnation, then what is Moksha ? If there is reincarnation, then how does it happen ? > thank you, > Shailendra > Great questions, so who was born? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Shailendra Bhatnagar [bhatnagar_shailendra] Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:21 PM advaitin Avidya, moksha etc Namaste, "There is my 'total bank account' of karma (saMchita karma), of which I brought into this life only those that can be exhausted (prArabdha karma) and, if in the process I make new ones (AgAmin karma), which cannot be exhausted in this life, these are deposited to my account. Until all vasanas get neutralized, I will continue taking births in one form or the other. " But where is that bank account and who maintains it ? If there is no reincarnation, then what is Moksha ? If there is reincarnation, then how does it happen ? thank you, Shailendra ************************** Those are all good questions. Many answers can be given. You may like some and you may not like others. Let us suppose hypothetically, that the correct answer is as follows: The bank account is in Switzerland and is maintained by Sri Dara Singh. You would then rightly ask where and what is Switzerland and who is Sri Dara Singh and where did he come from and how did he end up in Switzerland maintaining your bank account? Let us suppose now that the correct answer to that question is that Dara Singh came from the family of Mr. and Mrs. Chandagi Ram who moved to Switzerland when Dara Singh was young. Dara Singh got his MBA and became a loan officer and now maintains bank accounts, including yours. You would perhaps then ponder on the origins of Mr. and Mrs. Chandagi Ram and where they came from and what was there experience in banking that they raised such a fine son as Dara Singh to maintain your bank account. If we reflect carefully, we see that no matter how good and insightful our questions are and how good the answers given are, the questions cannot end. The questions posit a reality separate from the questioner and it is the questioner who is the source of the questions. But what is the source of the questioner? What is the reality of the questioner? Sri Ben-ji has now told us that the real question is not whether the world is real or not, but to enquire into the nature of the reality of the "I" that perceives the world as real or unreal, etc. That in a nutshell is the direction of Bhagavan Ramana's teachings. "Know That by which all else is known." Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 advaitin, "lordofthemystic" <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar > <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote: > > > > > > > But where is that bank account and who maintains it ? If there is > no reincarnation, then what is Moksha ? If there is reincarnation, > then how does it happen ? > > thank you, > > Shailendra > > > Great questions, so who was born? Namaste, One has to decide whether one is talking apples or oranges--relative or absolute. Sankara said it is real while we are in it. So if we give it some validity we can discuss it...Manifestation that is. The bank account of karma is in our own memory really. In as much as vibrations in the Universal Mind will only ever 'line up' with the original creator of them namely oneself. All lives are one but bodies relatively are separate. So comes the illusion of different allocation of karma, when in fact it is just an attraction of vibrations rather than a dispensing of karma. So when between lives the good energies dissipate the unrealised entity is drawn back to material manifestation or life dragging its appropriate karmas with it. There is no beginning to this but there is an end --Moksha. Find out who oneself really is and the whole edifice will collapse for what would be looking at what? In a Universal State? In other words one would find that there was no beginning because it never happened there is only ever Brahman----- Nirguna........ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 >Sankara said it is real while we are in it. So if we >give it some validity we can discuss it...Manifestation that is. So who is the we that is in it and when are we in it? It is the we, illusion. In reality there is only me, I AM. The Manifestation is a small puff of nothing in a dusty corner inside of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 advaitin, "lordofthemystic" <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > > >Sankara said it is real while we are in it. So if we > >give it some validity we can discuss it...Manifestation that is. > > So who is the we that is in it and when are we in it? It is the we, > illusion. In reality there is only me, I AM. The Manifestation is > a small puff of nothing in a dusty corner inside of me. in other words, the Manifestation is not? I am never created a Manifestation? if not, then Manifestation doesn't mean Manifestation. and wonder, love, and beauty are empty gimmicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Namaste Shailendra, you wrote: "At the end of my material life does it really matter whether I lived like Hitler or Mother Teresa" i beleive that this two persons had different end of life.... what was different? Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with the "world"....maybe she felt the Oneness and so felt deep love for others and lives.... and had no more ego-mind working.... Hitler had some problems with this harmony seem so....he didn't realize that there will be one day God appearing wearing another military uniforms than himself...... some people fight whole live long themself....and so fight others too.....this is called duality in themself.... and what they create is a "dual world"....which don't let them any quite moment of time....to meditate...and realize the unity with everyone and everything some people think that there is no importance of how one live.... or search for many excuses and theories.....to keep on living in a dual world Regards with love Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste Frankji. Very much delighted to see your involvement despite the harrowing back pain. Let me try to put it slightly differently. Please see within . > in other words, the Manifestation is not? [i am Manifestation. I am there.] > > 'I am' never created a Manifestation? [' ' around I am mine. If I am Manifestation, I don't have to create it. Thus, there is no creation in Manifestation.] > > if not, then Manifestation doesn't mean Manifestation. [Yes. In the normal subject-object sense of our usual understanding.] > > and wonder, love, and beauty are empty gimmicks. [No. I am wonder, I am love, I am beauty and I am the gimmicks.] [P.S.: When I am reading Frankji's words, I am his words; when I know I have read Frankji's words, I am the knowledge that I have read the words; when I see a separation between the read words and the reader me, I am the separation; when I am unjustifiably sad with that sense of separation, I am the sadness. Why? Because at the very point of each of these seemingly varied 'awarenesses', I am not aware of myself as a separate entity. When I am aware of that separate entity later, I am that awareness whether it is relative falsity or truth. Thus, I am everything. There isn't a micro-micro-second I am not there. If everything is thus me, there is only sameness. No difference and diversity at all. No diference between sadness and happiness, ugliness and beauty, pain and pleasure, agony and ecstasy.... Only I am there - the one and only one without scope for another - always - Love, Wonder and Beauty Absolute -Mother of All. Soundarya Lahari. Does it matter whether I am awake, asleep, dreaming, 'alive' or 'dead'!?] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste Frankji and Madathilji I'll attempt a simplistic solution. 'I Am' is the truth. Beyond that, any words we add, I think, write etc. are in the realm of speculation. Many namaskarams to all Sridhar advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Namaste Frankji. > > Very much delighted to see your involvement despite the harrowing > back pain. > > Let me try to put it slightly differently. Please see within . > > > in other words, the Manifestation is not? > > [i am Manifestation. I am there.] > > > > > 'I am' never created a Manifestation? > > [' ' around I am mine. If I am Manifestation, I don't have to create > it. Thus, there is no creation in Manifestation.] > > > > if not, then Manifestation doesn't mean Manifestation. > > [Yes. In the normal subject-object sense of our usual understanding.] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 --- lordofthemystic <lordofthemystic wrote: > So who is the we that is in it and when are we in it? It is the we, > illusion. In reality there is only me, I AM. The Manifestation is > a small puff of nothing in a dusty corner inside of me. > Blessed Self, If what is said is understood as a fact and not as a thought, any further discussion is meaningless as well. Illusion is never a problem - illusion becomes a delusion if it is taken as real. All saadhana is only to remove the notions of reality or delusion and that is the purpose of these discussions too. If I know, who am I or who we are - all problems are solved. No need for further discussions either. Otherwise we are putting cart before the horse. Problem is there only because the illusory problem is considered as a real problem - Illusory solution is required to solve the illusory problem - ontologically they have the same degree of reality. Hari OM! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust> wrote: > in other words, the Manifestation is not? > > I am never created a Manifestation? > > if not, then Manifestation doesn't mean Manifestation. > > and wonder, love, and beauty are empty gimmicks. I AM is All that there IS. Wonder, love and beauty are delusion in your illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with the "world"....maybe she > felt the Oneness and so felt deep love for others and lives.... > and had no more ego-mind working.... > Hitler had some problems with this harmony seem so....he didn't > realize that there will be one day God appearing wearing another > military uniforms than himself...... > > Marc Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with a sick and twisted World. Adolf Hitler did not. Which one is closer to the truth? Perhaps your perception could use some fine tuning. Maybe Mother Teresa was not in complete harmony with the World and her work was against what the World was doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste Lordofthemystic, you wrote: "Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with a sick and twisted World. Adolf Hitler did not. Which one is closer to the truth? Perhaps your perception could use some fine tuning. Maybe Mother Teresa was not in complete harmony with the World and her work was against what the World was doing." ....as far i know....nobody killed Mother Teresa for her great life ....as far i know...Hitler was killed (or killed himself...which is same)....because he was maybe very very far from any truth. with love Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste Lordofthemystic, you wrote: "Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with a sick and twisted World." ....every person perceive a more or less "sick" world.... and the perceived worlds are as "sick" as the mind perceiving... Regards with love Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Namaste Lordofthemystic, > > you wrote: > "Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with a sick and twisted > World. > Adolf Hitler did not. Which one is closer to the truth? > > Perhaps your perception could use some fine tuning. Maybe Mother > Teresa was not in complete harmony with the World and her work was > against what the World was doing." > > ...as far i know....nobody killed Mother Teresa for her great life > ...as far i know...Hitler was killed (or killed himself...which is > same)....because he was maybe very very far from any truth. > > with love > > Marc "As far i know". "Because he was 'MAYBE' very very far from any truth". An open mind is a blessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Namaste Lordofthemystic, > > you wrote: > "Mother Teresa lived in complete harmony with a sick and twisted > World." > > ...every person perceive a more or less "sick" world.... > and the perceived worlds are as "sick" as the mind perceiving... > > Regards > > with love > > Marc Perhaps it was you who wrote that Marc. I suggested another view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste lordofthemystic, ....the views are different....yes... lets hope for a good one... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 hariH OM! nair-ji, i concur *verbatim*! you said it definitively. this is what advaita is all about. even if one so much as *alludes* to illusion, as sri lordofthemystic did in his response to my post above, it is [by virtue of the allusion *itself*] yet another reality within the all pervasive parabrahmam. advaitins should always keep in mind the mahavakya, "all this, verily, is brahman." i also think sridhar-ji's idea that all we're really doing is speculating, should also be incorporated into one's overall view, since it allows for fluidity and prevents one from being entrapped by settling on any specific/narrow conceptualization. this is why i like to say that we're immersed in pure Mytery. it frees the mind from being pigeonholed and captured/obsessed. i also believe it's as close as we can get to embracing the "ultimate relative truth." :-)) this is why sri ramana favored mouna diksha (teaching through silence) as the most effective way of transmitting the essence of atmanishta. namaste, frank __________________ advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Namaste Frankji. > > Very much delighted to see your involvement despite the harrowing > back pain. > > Let me try to put it slightly differently. Please see within . > > > in other words, the Manifestation is not? > > [i am Manifestation. I am there.] > > > > > 'I am' never created a Manifestation? > > [' ' around I am mine. If I am Manifestation, I don't have to create > it. Thus, there is no creation in Manifestation.] > > > > if not, then Manifestation doesn't mean Manifestation. > > [Yes. In the normal subject-object sense of our usual understanding.] > > > > and wonder, love, and beauty are empty gimmicks. > > [No. I am wonder, I am love, I am beauty and I am the gimmicks.] > > [P.S.: When I am reading Frankji's words, I am his words; when I > know I have read Frankji's words, I am the knowledge that I have read > the words; when I see a separation between the read words and the > reader me, I am the separation; when I am unjustifiably sad with > that sense of separation, I am the sadness. Why? Because at the very > point of each of these seemingly varied 'awarenesses', I am not aware > of myself as a separate entity. When I am aware of that separate > entity later, I am that awareness whether it is relative falsity or > truth. Thus, I am everything. There isn't a micro-micro-second I am > not there. If everything is thus me, there is only sameness. No > difference and diversity at all. No diference between sadness and > happiness, ugliness and beauty, pain and pleasure, agony and > ecstasy.... Only I am there - the one and only one without scope for > another - always - Love, Wonder and Beauty Absolute -Mother of All. > Soundarya Lahari. Does it matter whether I am awake, asleep, > dreaming, 'alive' or 'dead'!?] > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "lordofthemystic" <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > > >Sankara said it is real while we are in it. So if we > >give it some validity we can discuss it...Manifestation that is. > > So who is the we that is in it and when are we in it? It is the we, > illusion. In reality there is only me, I AM. The Manifestation is > a small puff of nothing in a dusty corner inside of me. Namaste, 'I Am' is another stage/manifestation really. However on realising this one realises Nirguna also...Silence is Brahman---nothing happening.........ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Respected Sadanandaji, Namaskar ! So here is what I conclude from this email thread. There is no satisfactory answer because the question comes from Avidya. As children of Avidya, as beings in a plural world, we should read the scriptures, follow the scriptures and do our duty sincerely and without any attachment to actions or results. Nobody knows what is Moksha because Moksha is just another name. There is no seeker, no finder, no attainer, no knowledge, no teacher, no pupil, no avidya. Focus on the one infinite Brahman and you will experience sachidananda in proportion to your understanding because in this Nashvar sansaar, only Brahman is Sanatan and True. Do you concur ? thanks, Shailendra kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Blessed Self, If what is said is understood as a fact and not as a thought, any further discussion is meaningless as well. Illusion is never a problem - illusion becomes a delusion if it is taken as real. All saadhana is only to remove the notions of reality or delusion and that is the purpose of these discussions too. If I know, who am I or who we are - all problems are solved. No need for further discussions either. Otherwise we are putting cart before the horse. Problem is there only because the illusory problem is considered as a real problem - Illusory solution is required to solve the illusory problem - ontologically they have the same degree of reality. Hari OM! Sadananda Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Namaste Shailendera-Ji: This confusion is because we have not amputed the gland that secrets ignorance. moxasya na hi vaaso.asti na graamantarameva . adnyaana hR^idayagranthinaasho moxa iti smR^ita .. shivagiitaa 13\.32 .. Meaning - moxa is not going from one place to another (Mumbai to Delhi or to vaiku.nTha from The Earth) but the amputation of the glands that secrete ignorance. All the existing knowledge in veda, upaniShd ..... are just the signs from our ancestors to let us know whether we are on the correct path or not. Just like the street signs on the high-way. It is up to us to find out and confirm what we have understood is correct or not? The primary reason why Gita was told to arjuna was not that KR^iShNa wanted to give a "LECTURE" and/or show his brilliance but to dispel the sheath of ignorance. That is why all the paths of saadhanaa are described there in. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote: > Respected Sadanandaji, Namaskar ! So here is what I conclude from this email thread. There is no satisfactory answer because the question comes from Avidya. As children of Avidya, as beings in a plural world, we should read the scriptures, follow the scriptures and do our duty sincerely and without any attachment to actions or results. Nobody knows what is Moksha because Moksha is just another name. There is no seeker, no finder, no attainer, no knowledge, no teacher, no pupil, no avidya. Focus on the one infinite Brahman and you will experience sachidananda in proportion to your understanding because in this Nashvar sansaar, only Brahman is Sanatan and True. Do you concur ? > > thanks, > Shailendra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Shailendra - I hope my mail did not give these impressions. I am sorry I did study all the mails in the chain. --- Shailendra Bhatnagar <bhatnagar_shailendra wrote: > Respected Sadanandaji, Namaskar ! So here is what I conclude from this > email thread. There is no satisfactory answer because the question > comes from Avidya. I would put it this way. There are satisfactory questions and answers with in the realm of vyavahaara. Scriptures are not illogical. The truth lies beyond the logic. Cause-effect relations are valid and explainable within the creation. So-called avidya is avidya of the absolute. In the relative plane everything is valid. The problem comes when one keeps one leg in vyavahaara and tries to put one leg in paaramaarthika. There is confusion of mix of reference states. As children of Avidya, as beings in a plural world, > we should read the scriptures, follow the scriptures and do our duty > sincerely and without any attachment to actions or results. Yes this saadhana will help in the purification of the mind. Blessed are those whose minds are pure - for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. >Nobody > knows what is Moksha because Moksha is just another name. That is not true. Scripture is the pramaaNa for this -Scripture is within the realm of vyavahaara. Moksha is freedom from limitations and that is Brahman, which is infiniteness. One cannot become infinite. one has to recognize that one is already infinite. That is Moksha. Moksha is freedom from avidya. There is no > seeker, no finder, no attainer, no knowledge, no teacher, no pupil, no > avidya. I will be very careful in these statements. The above statements are valid from paaramaarthika and not from vyaavahaarika. In vyaavahaarika, father is different, mother is different, daughter is different, and your check is different from mine. There is no confusion here. I respect my parents and I respect my teacher. Understanding is the teacher, mother, me as a son of my parents are all in the realm of vyaavahaarika - one can play the game of life with the correct understanding. Garbage is garbage and food is food - no confusion, knowing very well they are all nothing but electrons, protons and neutrons. Will there be any confusion from understanding vs. from transactions? It is the same way. Focus on the one infinite Brahman and you will experience > sachidananda in proportion to your understanding because in this > Nashvar sansaar, only Brahman is Sanatan and True. Do you concur ? Focus on Brahman is not focus on something remote - it is understanding that everything is Brahman and I am that. If my finger goes into my eyes, do I persecute the figure since I pervade this figure and the eye. The same fingers sooth the eye. When I have realization everything is Braham and I am that - There is only outpouring of love divine. That is the true experience of 'aham brahmaasmi'. I hope I am clear. > > thanks, > Shailendra > > kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Blessed Self, > > If what is said is understood as a fact and not as a thought, any > further discussion is meaningless as well. > > Illusion is never a problem - illusion becomes a delusion if it is > taken > as real. All saadhana is only to remove the notions of reality or > delusion and that is the purpose of these discussions too. If I know, > who am I or who we are - all problems are solved. No need for further > discussions either. Otherwise we are putting cart before the horse. > > Problem is there only because the illusory problem is considered as a > real problem - Illusory solution is required to solve the illusory > problem - ontologically they have the same degree of reality. > > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > > > > > > Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. > > > > ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > > > advaitin, "lordofthemystic" > <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > > > > > >Sankara said it is real while we are in it. So if we > > >give it some validity we can discuss it...Manifestation that is. > > > > So who is the we that is in it and when are we in it? It is the > we, > > illusion. In reality there is only me, I AM. The Manifestation > is > > a small puff of nothing in a dusty corner inside of me. > > Namaste, > > 'I Am' is another stage/manifestation really. However on realising > this one realises Nirguna also...Silence is Brahman---nothing > happening.........ONS...Tony. I AM, nothing is happening. Another manifestation would be duality wouldn't it? Where and what is the other manifestations? I am not manifested, I AM. You cannot take your mental illness and call it a physically manifested thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 > I would put it this way. There are satisfactory questions and answers > with in the realm of vyavahaara. Scriptures are not illogical. The > truth lies beyond the logic. Cause-effect relations are valid and > explainable within the creation. So-called avidya is avidya of the > absolute. In the relative plane everything is valid. The problem comes > when one keeps one leg in vyavahaara and tries to put one leg in > paaramaarthika. There is confusion of mix of reference states. If the truth lies beyond the logic, there is no reason to seek it. Logical conclusion - I AM the Truth. What relative plane? Plane of what? Existence? Is there something real other than me? If I AM All, am I the cause of my own separation? Or, am I losing my MIND? > As children of Avidya, as beings in a plural world, > > we should read the scriptures, follow the scriptures and do our duty > > sincerely and without any attachment to actions or results. "Beings in a plural World", perhaps it is just the illusion of beings in a plural World in me. If I were to think I was actually an individual in a plural World, I would be experiencing some form of delusion wouldn't I? I would be a tiny, tiny thing, locked inside of an illusion in myself wouldn't I? "Follow the Scriptures"? Write better ones, maybe you can help yourself out of the madness. Knowledge is growing. Consciousness is rising. The books are stagnant. Exceed them! > There is no > > seeker, no finder, no attainer, no knowledge, no teacher, no pupil, no > > avidya. No mother, no Father, no birth, no teacher, no pupil. Ultimately, I AM. The plural World is a mirage that I observe. Its waters are death to those that drink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 advaitin, "lordofthemystic" <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > I AM, nothing is happening. Another manifestation would be duality > wouldn't it? Where and what is the other manifestations? I am not > manifested, I AM. You cannot take your mental illness and call it a > physically manifested thing. Namaste, I am/Saguna/Sakti is a form of manifestation really.........ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2004 Report Share Posted December 12, 2004 > Namaste, > > I am/Saguna/Sakti is a form of manifestation > really.........ONS..Tony. A form of manifestation in what? I AM, what attributes of mine are manifested in what? 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.