Guest guest Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns@> wrote: > Namaste,V-ji Only the bottom half of the page is my post. I referred to the Rig Veda and its question that perhaps 'God' doesn't know anything about creation to illuminate my point about Saguna, Nirguna and Ajativada. I believe the Rig phrase can be translated as NirGuna doesn't know anything for there isn't anything to know. Admittedly we 'see' something and on realisation we see it all has one unified field of Saguna Brahman. However according to the Sages and logic it all disappears when the body is dropped, for a Mukta that is. That means it cannot have existed in the first place for even potentiality in Brahman is impossibly potentially dualistic. 'It never happened at all, not even Saguna or the illusion'....I think you will find this is the ultimate teaching of Gaudapada and his expostion on the Mandukya Upanishad..........ONS...Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: advaitin , " Chittaranjan Naik " <chittaranjan_naik@> wrote: > > Namaste Shri Tony-ji, > > My understanding of Advaita sees things a bit differently..... > > > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > Namaste CN-Ji,IMHO, > > > > A form or a word is only as eternal as you are, as a Jiva! > > If one is in complete Sahaja Samadhi, where is the world > > or the word? > > The world and the word is not different from Sahaja Samadhi. > > > > Admittedly in deep sleep mind still exists but not in > > full Samadhi-- > > In what manner does the mind exist in deep sleep? > > > > Samadhi that is NirviKalpa completely, with no ties to > > the world. > > When there is difference between Nirvikalpa and Savikalpa, it is not > Advaita. It is Yoga. When there is no difference between Nirvikalpa > and Savikalpa, it is the Sahaja Samadhi of Advaita. > > > > So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance > > for as long as the body survives. > > There is no divide of Reality and Appearance for a mukta. There is > only Knowledge. He who has a body to shed is not a mukta. It is only > the ajnani who thinks that the mukta's soul is housed in a body. The > mukta is Eternity, the alpha and omega, He who was, is, and will > be. 'Why do you limit Ramana to this six-feet?' asked Ramana once. > > > > To me, using my own logic; If the world disappears on full > > Samadhi and when the Mukta drops the body > > The world doesn't 'disappear' for a mukta, and the mukta has no body > to drop. Disappearing entails a movement, whereas jnana is the vision > that movement is not different than Knowing. > > > > it cannot have existed in the first place. For if it did, > > that would entail dualism or potential dualism in Nirguna > > Brahman. > > It is not Existence that entails dualism, but two existences that > entail dualism. There are no two in Brahman; the world is Brahman. > > > > That is why to me Ajativada is the only logical > > conclusion, and that the other ideas are of Bhakti. > > Ajativada is a logical conclusion, and vivartavada is not other than > ajativada. It is ajativada explained to show that it doesn't exclude > the world in non-duality. > > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > Namaste,C-Ji, IMHO only, 1. There is only NirGuna Brahman and that isn't! 2. There is an appearance of the world and that isn't. 3. We in fact are not different from Brahman, and we aren't. Even one existence or appearance of existence is unreal and dualistic for it posits a mind to project the appearance which is in fact an error. The only reason we can perceive a world that doesn't really exist and has never happened is just because we are not different from Brahman...............ONS...Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 advaitin , " Chittaranjan Naik " <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > > Namaste Shri Tony-ji, > > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Namaste,C-Ji, IMHO only, > > > > 1. There is only NirGuna Brahman and that isn't! > > Isn't that nihilism? > > > > 2. There is an appearance of the world and that isn't. > > The appearance is - because it is appearing. > > > > 3. We in fact are not different from Brahman, and we aren't. > > Agreed. > > > > Even one existence or appearance of existence is unreal > > and dualistic > > Not agreed. The apple is one even though it is red. > > > > for it posits a mind to project the appearance > > which is in fact an error. > > The mind is the Magic of Non-duality waving without motion. When the > Magic is not seen through, the no-motion is lost sight of. That is > the error. > > > > The only reason we can perceive a world that doesn't really > > exist and has never happened is just because we are not > > different from Brahman...............ONS...Tony. > > The son of a barren woman can never be perceived. The world is > perceived. The son of a barren woman is never presented even by Maya. > The world is presented by Maya. What is it in the nature of Brahman > that makes one impossible and the other possible? It is called Ritam, > the meaning that exists in Brahman. It is because of this that there > is a sutra in the Brahma Sutra which says: > > " Objects are not non-existent, for they are perceived. " (BS.II.11.28) > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > Namaste, Ajativada indicates that even the illusion or appearance didn't happen and that we have always been Brahman. That isn't Nihilism for Brahman is in fact inexplicable by a mind. I know it is hard to dispute our own eyes, but I still fall back on the position I take on Samadhi and the dead Mukta. That even the appearance is found never to have happened. For if the world disappears on full samadhi and when a Mukta drops the body, it can never have existed in the first place.....So the world is not perceived at all, an illusion appears to be perceived but in fact isn't. Maya or the power of Maya never ever happened. Nothing exists in NirGuna Brahman, only in Saguna and as Brahman cannot be divided even in concepts, it never could have happened. That is why the phrase 'son of a barren woman' is used for it explains and impossibility a never happening. The only way to describe why it seem to have happened is that we are Brahman, are not different from Brahman, and that is the only reason we seem to perceive a creation or appearance that never happened..........And that is inexplicable as is NirGuna..To give it any validity is not really possible..ONS..Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: Namaste,V-ji Only the bottom half of the page is my post. I referred to the Rig Veda and its question that perhaps 'God' doesn't know anything about creation to illuminate my point about Saguna, Nirguna and Ajativada. I believe the Rig phrase can be translated as NirGuna doesn't know anything for there isn't anything to know. Admittedly we 'see' something and on realisation we see it all has one unified field of Saguna Brahman. However according to the Sages and logic it all disappears when the body is dropped, for a Mukta that is. That means it cannot have existed in the first place for even potentiality in Brahman is impossibly potentially dualistic. 'It never happened at all, not even Saguna or the illusion'....I think you will find this is the ultimate teaching of Gaudapada and his expostion on the Mandukya Upanishad..........ONS...Tony. 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.