Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 5:39 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon wrote: > Here I have to differ, but only slightly ..... If Brahman includes > "thoughts" as you say and I concur to that too, all I am saying is > that Brahman is not "thoughts", or totally (or otherwise) defined by > it or anything tangible. I agree with this, just as I would agree if you said that the ocean is not fish. But when you say "ocean," you imply everything that's in the ocean: fish, seaweed, sunken ships, etc. Hence the mahavakya, "All this is That" > > Please note that these are not experiential inputs, so i ain't no guru > yet! Me neither! -- Rick Archer SearchSummit 1108 South B Street Fairfield, IA 52556 Phone: 641-472-9336 Fax: 815-572-5842 Skype: Rick_Archer http://searchsummit.com rick 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.