Saguna merges in Nirguna in the long run.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

mean what it says literally, however I am also aware of the

manifested delusion and as Sankara supposedly once said' it is real

enough whilst one is in it'. So to me it is ok to have all the

beliefs in the manifested and subtle world as long as one doesn't

lose sight of the ultimate truth and only truth ever--Nir Guna

Brahman. I apologise for my presumption in assuming most would accept

this.........Tony.

 

Ramana Maharshi on bhakti

" Bhakti is not different from mukti. Bhakti is as being Self

(svarupa). One is always That. He realises it by the means he adopts.

What is bhakti? To think of God. That means only one thought prevails

to the exclusion of all other thoughts. That is of God which is the

Self or it is the self-surrender unto God; When He has taken you up,

nothing will assail you. The absence of thoughts is bhakti. It is

also mukti. "

 

" The Saguna merges in the Nirguna in the long run. The saguna

purifies the mind and takes one to the final goal. The afflicted one,

the seeker of knowledge and the seeker of gains are all dear to God. "

 

" To know God is to love God. Therefore the path of bhakti and of

jnana are same. "

 

" The thought of God is divine favour, is by nature prasad or arul. It

is by God's grace that you think of God. "

 

" Take the case of bhakti. I approach Isvara and pray to be absorbed

in Him. I then surrender myself in faith and by concentration. What

remains afterwards? In the place of the original 'I' perfect self-

surrender leaves a residium of God in which the 'I' is lost. This is

the highest form of parabhakti (supreme bhakti), prapti (surrender)

or the height of vairagya. "

 

Q: " How can an idol be animate? "

 

A: " Can you account for the animation of this body? Is the movement

of the image more mysterious than the movement of the body? "

 

- Sri Ramana Maharshi

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

mean what it says literally, however I am also aware of the

manifested delusion and as Sankara supposedly once said' it is real

enough whilst one is in it'. So to me it is ok to have all the

beliefs in the manifested and subtle world as long as one doesn't

lose sight of the ultimate truth and only truth ever--Nir Guna

Brahman. I apologise for my presumption in assuming most would accept

this.........Tony.

 

Ramana Maharshi on bhakti

" Bhakti is not different from mukti. Bhakti is as being Self

(svarupa). One is always That. He realises it by the means he adopts.

What is bhakti? To think of God. That means only one thought prevails

to the exclusion of all other thoughts. That is of God which is the

Self or it is the self-surrender unto God; When He has taken you up,

nothing will assail you. The absence of thoughts is bhakti. It is

also mukti. "

 

" The Saguna merges in the Nirguna in the long run. The saguna

purifies the mind and takes one to the final goal. The afflicted one,

the seeker of knowledge and the seeker of gains are all dear to God. "

 

" To know God is to love God. Therefore the path of bhakti and of

jnana are same. "

 

" The thought of God is divine favour, is by nature prasad or arul. It

is by God's grace that you think of God. "

 

" Take the case of bhakti. I approach Isvara and pray to be absorbed

in Him. I then surrender myself in faith and by concentration. What

remains afterwards? In the place of the original 'I' perfect self-

surrender leaves a residium of God in which the 'I' is lost. This is

the highest form of parabhakti (supreme bhakti), prapti (surrender)

or the height of vairagya. "

 

Q: " How can an idol be animate? "

 

A: " Can you account for the animation of this body? Is the movement

of the image more mysterious than the movement of the body? "

 

- Sri Ramana Maharshi

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

While I understand what you say when you write, " So to me it is ok to

have all the beliefs in the manifested and subtle world as long as

one doesn't lose sight of the ultimate truth and only truth ever--Nir

Guna Brahman. " In practice, I have come to understand that as long as

I hold to illusion, there will be the appearance of this

individual 'I' and not the stand as That.

 

I also understand that this attachment to the manifested world comes

from confusion about the source of happiness. As long as we think the

happiness comes from the manifested world, we will not give this up.

When the source of happiness is seen to be within, comes dispassion

(vairagya).

 

So the manifested and subtle world seem real. Where does this sense

or reality come from? Last night's dream, too seemed real. From where

does this sense of reality arise?

 

From your writings, you are deeply aware of ajata vada. Was the snake

(in the illusion of the rope, when seen as a snake) ever real?

 

Teachings about the manifested world are not intended to give more

reality to what is not real. Rather they are a part of the teaching

of the nature of Reality, where there is only That, and nothing to be

created, ever.

 

Keep writing. I see nothing of a 'blunt personality,' just another

seeker of the Truth.

 

Not two,

Richard

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

> mean what it says literally, however I am also aware of the

> manifested delusion and as Sankara supposedly once said' it is real

> enough whilst one is in it'. So to me it is ok to have all the

> beliefs in the manifested and subtle world as long as one doesn't

> lose sight of the ultimate truth and only truth ever--Nir Guna

> Brahman. I apologise for my presumption in assuming most would

accept

> this.........Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony,

 

You write (message #35713, Sat Apr 21):

 

" Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

mean what it says literally ... "

 

But is Advaita meant to be taken literally? The problem here is that

literal interpretations fail to question the confusion of crude and

inadequate meanings that we ascribe to words, based on the

inaccurate partiality and bluntness of our personalities. So doesn't

Advaita reasoning require a subtle interpretation that questions all

merely literal meanings, in search of an uncompromising truth beyond

all our bluntness of crude personality?

 

I do admire your commitment to an independent-minded reasoning, so

please do let me take that seriously, as you go on to say:

 

" ... to me it is ok to have all the beliefs in the manifested and

subtle world as long as one doesn't lose sight of the ultimate truth

and only truth ever--Nir Guna Brahman. "

 

I'm worried here by what seems to me a slavishly unreasoned

identification of truth itself with a merely literal description:

'nirguNa' or 'unqualified'. So this again raises the same two

questions that I asked you earlier (in message #35699 yesterday):

 

1. Isn't this description 'unqualified' or 'nirguNa' another mental

construct which also must be left behind (just like the description

'happiness' or 'Ananda')? "

 

2. Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa' is

also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a truth

where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which other

people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

alternative modes of enquiry?

 

These questions weren't asked only to contradict what you had said,

but rather to ask for more clarity about just what it is that you

mean to say. So I would be interested to hear how you might answer

them, if you could spare the time and trouble to explain.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Tony,

>

> You write (message #35713, Sat Apr 21):

>

> " Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

> mean what it says literally ... "

>

> But is Advaita meant to be taken literally? The problem here is that

> literal interpretations fail to question the confusion of crude and

> inadequate meanings that we ascribe to words, based on the

> inaccurate partiality and bluntness of our personalities. So doesn't

> Advaita reasoning require a subtle interpretation that questions all

> merely literal meanings, in search of an uncompromising truth beyond

> all our bluntness of crude personality?

>

> I do admire your commitment to an independent-minded reasoning, so

> please do let me take that seriously, as you go on to say:

>

> " ... to me it is ok to have all the beliefs in the manifested and

> subtle world as long as one doesn't lose sight of the ultimate truth

> and only truth ever--Nir Guna Brahman. "

>

> I'm worried here by what seems to me a slavishly unreasoned

> identification of truth itself with a merely literal description:

> 'nirguNa' or 'unqualified'. So this again raises the same two

> questions that I asked you earlier (in message #35699 yesterday):

>

> 1. Isn't this description 'unqualified' or 'nirguNa' another mental

> construct which also must be left behind (just like the description

> 'happiness' or 'Ananda')? "

>

> 2. Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa' is

> also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a truth

> where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

> description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which other

> people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

> alternative modes of enquiry?

>

> These questions weren't asked only to contradict what you had said,

> but rather to ask for more clarity about just what it is that you

> mean to say. So I would be interested to hear how you might answer

> them, if you could spare the time and trouble to explain.

>

> Ananda

 

Namaste Anandaji,

 

I have to be careful or I will be banished for blasphemy. Although it

would be in the company of Jesus, and Mansour, it wouldn't answer your

question.

With regard to Nir Guna I translate that as no gunas, nada! It is just

a word to describe what never happened at all. If it disappears it

could never have happened for Nir Guna would be dualistic and Saguna.

So nirguna is just my way of saying the manifestation didn't happen

even the illusion didn't happen. Even though I give some validity to

this apparent illusion whilst one is in it so to speak. It is mystery

and my only answer is we question it all for we are Brahman.

My debate point is the mind creates religions and rules and belief

systems. A teacher like Ramana end up becoming an ishtadevata and is

worshipped, so is Sankara or Jesus and they never came to teach this,

in fact the opposite.........Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

Namaste Tony,

 

You write (message #35713, Sat Apr 21):

 

" Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita to

mean what it says literally ... "

 

But is Advaita meant to be taken literally? The problem here is that

literal interpretations fail to question the confusion of crude and

inadequate meanings that we ascribe to words, based on the

inaccurate partiality and bluntness of our personalities. So doesn't

Advaita reasoning require a subtle interpretation that questions all

merely literal meanings, in search of an uncompromising truth beyond

all our bluntness of crude personality?

 

I do admire your commitment to an independent-minded reasoning, so

please do let me take that seriously, as you go on to say:

 

" ... to me it is ok to have all the beliefs in the manifested and

subtle world as long as one doesn't lose sight of the ultimate truth

and only truth ever--Nir Guna Brahman. "

 

I'm worried here by what seems to me a slavishly unreasoned

identification of truth itself with a merely literal description:

'nirguNa' or 'unqualified'. So this again raises the same two

questions that I asked you earlier (in message #35699 yesterday):

 

1. Isn't this description 'unqualified' or 'nirguNa' another mental

construct which also must be left behind (just like the description

'happiness' or 'Ananda')? "

 

2. Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa' is

also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a truth

where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which other

people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

alternative modes of enquiry?

 

These questions weren't asked only to contradict what you had said,

but rather to ask for more clarity about just what it is that you

mean to say. So I would be interested to hear how you might answer

them, if you could spare the time and trouble to explain.

 

Ananda

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

here you go again, tony!

 

Anandaji , in all his magnanimity , is taking all the time and

efforts to address each and every point of yours - instead of

reading carefully what he says and ponder over the logic ,

consistenct ofHIS statements , you are still clinging on to what you

THINK you know of Ramana's teachings ( or your half hearted

explanation of Ajativada) Rather , if i were you , i will apologize

to all the members here for your 'crude' (not just blunt - that is

too mild a word) statements on Adi SHANKLARA'S PHILOSOPHY JUST ON THE

EVE OF HIS JAYANTI !

 

YOU SAY AGAIN:

 

(A teacher like Ramana end up becoming an ishtadevata and is

worshipped, so is Sankara or Jesus and they never came to teach this,

in fact the opposite.........Tony.

 

YOU ARE AGAIN MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH ! NOBODY IS WORSHIPPING

SHANKARA AND rAMANA BUT WE ALL HONOR THE 'TRUTH' THEIR TEACHINGS

REPRESENT ! sIMILARLY , WHEN WE ALL ADMIRE aNANDAJI , WE ARE NOT

ADMIRING HIS PERSONALITY - WE ONLY ADMIRE THE WAY HE PRESENTS THE

TEACHINGS OF HIS REVERED GURU Sri Atmananda ....

 

It is not about being banished or blacklisted - believe me , i am a

persona non grata too - it is only because of Dennisji's new

moderation policy you and i and many others are able to express our

views freely and fearlessly! Do you want all of us to lose that

greedom and go back to the old ways of moderation?

 

it is never too late to say sorry , Tony - you will be better for

it !

 

Again, Saguna and nirguna are all concepts only .... Truth is not a

concept! he big picture , please .... don't be stuck like a 'bee' on

the neck of jar full of Honey ..... Dive deep and you will find an

ocean full of pearls

 

you are still o.k for the most part .......

 

love

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> advaitin , Ananda Wood <awood@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Tony,

> >

> > You write (message #35713, Sat Apr 21):

> >

> > " Please don't misunderstand my blunt personality. I take A-Dvaita

to

> > mean what it says literally ... "

> >

> > But is Advaita meant to be taken literally? The problem here is

that

> > literal interpretations fail to question the confusion of crude

and

> > inadequate meanings that we ascribe to words, based on the

> > inaccurate partiality and bluntness of our personalities. So

doesn't

> > Advaita reasoning require a subtle interpretation that questions

all

> > merely literal meanings, in search of an uncompromising truth

beyond

> > all our bluntness of crude personality?

> >

> > I do admire your commitment to an independent-minded reasoning,

so

> > please do let me take that seriously, as you go on to say:

> >

> > " ... to me it is ok to have all the beliefs in the manifested and

> > subtle world as long as one doesn't lose sight of the ultimate

truth

> > and only truth ever--Nir Guna Brahman. "

> >

> > I'm worried here by what seems to me a slavishly unreasoned

> > identification of truth itself with a merely literal description:

> > 'nirguNa' or 'unqualified'. So this again raises the same two

> > questions that I asked you earlier (in message #35699 yesterday):

> >

> > 1. Isn't this description 'unqualified' or 'nirguNa' another

mental

> > construct which also must be left behind (just like the

description

> > 'happiness' or 'Ananda')? "

> >

> > 2. Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa'

is

> > also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a

truth

> > where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

> > description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which

other

> > people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

> > alternative modes of enquiry?

> >

> > These questions weren't asked only to contradict what you had

said,

> > but rather to ask for more clarity about just what it is that you

> > mean to say. So I would be interested to hear how you might

answer

> > them, if you could spare the time and trouble to explain.

> >

> > Ananda

>

> Namaste Anandaji,

>

> I have to be careful or I will be banished for blasphemy. Although

it

> would be in the company of Jesus, and Mansour, it wouldn't answer

your

> question.

> With regard to Nir Guna I translate that as no gunas, nada! It is

just

> a word to describe what never happened at all. If it disappears it

> could never have happened for Nir Guna would be dualistic and

Saguna.

> So nirguna is just my way of saying the manifestation didn't happen

> even the illusion didn't happen. Even though I give some validity to

> this apparent illusion whilst one is in it so to speak. It is

mystery

> and my only answer is we question it all for we are Brahman.

> My debate point is the mind creates religions and rules and belief

> systems. A teacher like Ramana end up becoming an ishtadevata and is

> worshipped, so is Sankara or Jesus and they never came to teach

this,

> in fact the opposite.........Tony.

>