Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Nairji, Shyamji, Bhaskaranji and others contributing to this thread, Pranams I am a bit confused about the term " the Lord " that you use. Is it equivalent to Brahman? Or Ishvara? Or Krishna? And in what sense? The language you use is dualistic, as is the nature of language. But is it more than just linguistics? Thank you for clarifying. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote: > > hare krishna, namaskarams > > --- On Wed, 20/5/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > > {I may read a thousand books, listen to scores of great teachers, aspire for an unquenchable thirst for liberation. But, whether I become a good mumukShu and attain my goal is still in the hands of the Lord, chariot and charioteer notwithstanding. This may sound like absolute fatalism. But, isn't it the truth?In that sense, isn't the intelligent surrender envisioned above real liberation? The surrender is also not mine; it is the Lord's! Isn't it real Advaita where the Lord alone remains? The thirst is the Lord; the glass of water and the quenching of the thirst too is the Lord. In fact, there is no duality anywhere in this world of the Lord, which is the Lord through and through. That is *an understanding as well as an experience* to be lived.]absolutely correct.one has to wait for the lord's grace for that liberation.the final stage of all the endeavor is just wait with the faith that oneness is felt by yourself.baskaran. > > the oneness is realised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with India Travel http://in.travel./ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Namaste Sitara-ji. I thought we all knew all these things here. Anyway, since you have asked, let me try to find out if I know. 1. To me, Lord is what reveals before me day in and day out. 2. That Lord is Brahman misunderstood as there is a seeing of what is revealed as an objectification (duality). 3. The " I " in the above statements stands for the entity currently communicating with you and thinks (has a wrong notion) that it sees a revealing. 4. When that wrong notion vanishes, the I + Revealed is ONE (Brahman). 5. Ishwara then vanishes. He is jobless because there is no more any revealing as objectificaton taking place. 6. It is about the cessation of the revealing as objectification that we were quibbling here a couple of months ago, which I don't want to see resume. 7. Unconditinal surrender to the Lord is the means to realize one's ONENESS. Best regards. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote: > > I am a bit confused about the term " the Lord " that you use. Is it equivalent to Brahman? Or Ishvara? Or Krishna? And in what sense? > > The language you use is dualistic, as is the nature of language. But is it more than just linguistics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Nairji, Pranams yes, we all know this. Thank you anyway for replying. I got confused because of the dualism in language. To say > 7. Unconditional surrender to the Lord is the means to realize one's ONENESS. sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. But I understand what you mean to say. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sitara-ji. > > I thought we all knew all these things here. > > Anyway, since you have asked, let me try to find out if I know. > > 1. To me, Lord is what reveals before me day in and day out. > 2. That Lord is Brahman misunderstood as there is a seeing of what is revealed as an objectification (duality). > 3. The " I " in the above statements stands for the entity currently communicating with you and thinks (has a wrong notion) that it sees a revealing. > 4. When that wrong notion vanishes, the I + Revealed is ONE (Brahman). > 5. Ishwara then vanishes. He is jobless because there is no more any revealing as objectificaton taking place. > 6. It is about the cessation of the revealing as objectification that we were quibbling here a couple of months ago, which I don't want to see resume. > 7. Unconditinal surrender to the Lord is the means to realize one's ONENESS. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > _________________ > > advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17@> wrote: > > > > > I am a bit confused about the term " the Lord " that you use. Is it equivalent to Brahman? Or Ishvara? Or Krishna? And in what sense? > > > > The language you use is dualistic, as is the nature of language. But is it more than just linguistics? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Namaste Sitara-ji. I can possbly see why you see a contradiction. Perhaps, it is the duality of surrenderer and surrenderee that is bothering you against the ONENESS I am trying to conclude. May I say that, like the triad of knower, knowing and known fusing into ONENESS upon the dawn of Knowledge, the three S's mentioned above also ultimately end up in ONENESS. Isn't that what happened with all the great devotees like Meera et al? Hope this is your understanding too. Best regards. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote: > To say > 7. Unconditional surrender to the Lord is the means to realize one's ONENESS. > sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. But I understand what you mean to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Yes, Nairji, this is my understanding too and you are right with quote:it is the duality of surrenderer and surrenderee that is bothering you against the ONENESS Pranams und thank you again. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sitara-ji. > > I can possbly see why you see a contradiction. Perhaps, it is the duality of surrenderer and surrenderee that is bothering you against the ONENESS I am trying to conclude. > > May I say that, like the triad of knower, knowing and known fusing into ONENESS upon the dawn of Knowledge, the three S's mentioned above also ultimately end up in ONENESS. Isn't that what happened with all the great devotees like Meera et al? Hope this is your understanding too. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > __________________ > > advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17@> wrote: > > To say > 7. Unconditional surrender to the Lord is the means to realize one's ONENESS. > > sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. But I understand what you mean to say. > 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.