Aurobindo, Brahman and ParaBrahman etc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

To me Aurobindo needs interpretation, perhaps only hls closest

devotees are capable of doing same. His work 'Integral Yoga' seems

to explain what he was all about. I feel what we are talking about

is Aurobindo's vocabulary and method of description.

Whether one ascends or the Divine descends is all about

interpretation. What does it matter if it is up or down if the end

result is the same. Ultimately there is no up or down anyway, no

separation of planes, only One. Aurobindo seems to refer to Krishna

as another term for the Universal Mind. However we have to mind our

apples and our oranges, relatives and absolutes. Just another path

that is all.

 

People talk of beyond Brahman, and this is perfectly understandable.

For those that have a Samadhi/Savikalpa with Saguna, and even

perhaps even temporary Nirvikalpas, are in Union with Brahman as

Saguna, there is still the last stage to go. Perhaps it is

description again, for some would say that a JivanMukta is in union

with Brahman completely. However if one is referring to the body of

a Mukta it is obviously in union with Saguna. On dropping the body

all disappears as never having happened only NirGuna

Brahman.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony-ji wrote,

 

People talk of beyond Brahman, and this is perfectly understandable.

For those that have a Samadhi/Savikalpa with Saguna, and even

perhaps even temporary Nirvikalpas, are in Union with Brahman as

Saguna, there is still the last stage to go. Perhaps it is

description again, for some would say that a JivanMukta is in union

with Brahman completely. However if one is referring to the body of

a Mukta it is obviously in union with Saguna. On dropping the body

all disappears as never having happened only NirGuna

Brahman.....ONS...Tony.

 

Namaste,

 

Could it be that some teachers use the term Brahman to refer to Saguna

Brahman, and Parabrahman to refer to Nirguna Brahman? Is this what you

are saying Tony?

 

Nathan

[Guest guest]

Nathan Port <eport924 wrote: Tony-ji wrote,

 

People talk of beyond Brahman, and this is perfectly understandable.

For those that have a Samadhi/Savikalpa with Saguna, and even

perhaps even temporary Nirvikalpas, are in Union with Brahman as

Saguna, there is still the last stage to go. Perhaps it is

description again, for some would say that a JivanMukta is in union

with Brahman completely. However if one is referring to the body of

a Mukta it is obviously in union with Saguna. On dropping the body

all disappears as never having happened only NirGuna

Brahman.....ONS...Tony.

 

Namaste,

 

Could it be that some teachers use the term Brahman to refer to Saguna

Brahman, and Parabrahman to refer to Nirguna Brahman? Is this what you

are saying Tony?

 

Nathan

 

From

Sankarraman

 

The destruction of the mind consists of two aspects, of the form and the

formless, the former referring to the latent dispositions of the mind and the

latter the Being-Awareness-Bliss that remains after the destruction of the form

aspect of the mind. The destruction of this formless, arupa aspect of the mind,

alone constitutes the final dissolution, the knowledge that one is Brahman,

being merely the product of the ego. It is in this context that Nisargdatta

Maharaj speaks of the Para-Brahman. The Advaita texts relating to practice as

against the theoretical texts, speak of the need to abandon the attachment even

to non-duality. There is a verse in, 'Guruvachaka Kovai', to the effect that

after the destruction of duality, there is no experience answering to

non-duality, which if there were should, surely, be a pointer to the fact of

the ego still hiding behind the high-falutin concept of Brahman. The religious

masters on account of the fact that most of the people

are attached too much to words, change the terminologies so as to disabuse the

minds of the individuals of the wrong notion of reality gathered by virtue of

the mere reading of Advaitic treatises. Advaita is not a belief system to be

ensconsed in words, and to be interpreted therefrom as an intellectual,

logical, conclusion. Nairji's naive assumption that the realization of

Nisargdatta should be in conformity with the Prasthanathathraya is not correct.

The enlightened one is not bound by scriptures. To test the enlightenment of

one which is highly subjective, and consists in the awareness of the Self that

is immediate, through scriptural pramanas, is putting the cart before the

horse. It is only the Advaitin who comes first, and not the Advaitha, which is

only verbal. Does not the Upanishad say that even the veda becomes the aveda in

deep sleep? The respondent says that the concept of faith used in Western

philosophy, is very inadequate, and is a form of

objectification. Is not judging the realization through the conclusion of the

scriptures, not very much objective? One has to abandon sastra-vasana to come

upon truth. All the scriptures, advaita included, cannot reveal truth, which is

one's inmost essence. Advaita as a conclusion, through logical way of thinking,

is not the Advaitha that is the Sphurana. How dare we judge the realization of

enlightened beings like Nisargdatta. If we push aside all the great masters

like Aurobindo as not having understood advaita, then we have to conclude that

what Jiddu Krishnamurthy says, alone constitutes truth, because K does not

indulge in repetition of the scriptures, either the Eastern or Western, because

according to K any conclusion is a denial of truth. Each personage is unique.

Advaitha does not end with the traditional teachers. There are great advaitins

like Poonjaji and Balsekar who use a different terminology, whose wisdom cannot

be assayed by the scriptural

conclusions.

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Gifts at Shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT SHRI NISARGATTA MAHARAJ OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT

MATTER IS ENLIGHTENED UNLESS YOU JUDGE THEIR WORDS AND APPLY SOME FRAME

OF REFERENCE? HERE, IN THIS FORUM, THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IS ADVAITA.

WE DON'T DRIFT AIMLESSLY IN A NO-MAN'S LAND.

 

MADATHIL NAIR

________________

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>How dare we judge the realization of enlightened beings like

Nisargdatta. .....Advaitha does not end with the traditional teachers.

There are great advaitins like Poonjaji and Balsekar who use a

different terminology, whose wisdom cannot be assayed by the

scriptural

> conclusions.