Guest guest Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: NonDualPhil , " lordofthemystic " <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> > wrote: > > > > > > Namaste, I asked you 'nirguna " BEING " what?' Your reply is just > > > above. You see, nirguna has its " BEING " in your consciousness. > > It > > > seems to be what others call the " absolute " . It is your delusion > > > that you cannot have. I AM > > > > Namaste, > > > > I have said that it cannot be described or understood in any way > but > > the negative. It is not what others call the Absolute that is the > > concept of Saguna Brahman. Absolute is an attribute therefore not > > Nirguna..............ONS....Tony. > > Namaste. Again, by telling me all the things that Nirguna is not, you > have told me what your perception of Nirguna is. What you are reverse > describing is a product of your consciousness. It is your own > delusion that you cannot have because you say so. So Mote It Be! > I AM --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: NonDualPhil , " lordofthemystic " <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> > wrote: > > > > NonDualPhil , " lordofthemystic " > > <lordofthemystic> wrote: > > > > > > NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > NonDualPhil (AT) (DOT) > > The question was not well > > > thought > > > > out. With no beginning and no > > > > > > end, > > > > > > > where would the middle be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately 'I Am' denotes 'Being' and therefore is > > unreal, > > > that > > > > > > is Saguna Brahman. There is no 'I Am' there is only > > > > > > Nirguna .....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > > > > > nirguna " BEING " what? > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Nir= Not, Gunas=Attributes....Inexplicable or understandable- - > no > > > > connection to mind or energy at all. Can only be described in > > the > > > > negative..........ONS...Tony. > > > > > > Namaste, I asked you 'nirguna " BEING " what?' Your reply is just > > > above. You see, nirguna has its " BEING " in your consciousness. > > It > > > seems to be what others call the " absolute " . It is your delusion > > > that you cannot have. I AM > > > > Namaste, > > > > I have said that it cannot be described or understood in any way > but > > the negative. It is not what others call the Absolute that is the > > concept of Saguna Brahman. Absolute is an attribute therefore not > > Nirguna..............ONS....Tony. > > Namaste. Again, by telling me all the things that Nirguna is not, you > have told me what your perception of Nirguna is. What you are reverse > describing is a product of your consciousness. It is your own > delusion that you cannot have because you say so. So Mote It Be! > I AM Namaste, I have no perception of Nir guna, except it has no gunas or modifications. It is impossible for any mind to even comprehend or have a perception of something that can only be realised. 'I Am' can be imagined because it is our very being in delusion, so we can imagine it somewhat;;;usually as Mahat or Sat-Cit-Ananada. This is a total illusion for it never ever happened at all. Saguna or with attributes is a concept that can be somewhat imagined Nirguna is not conceptual.......'I Am' is an illusion that never happened...............ONS...Tony]. --- End forwarded message --- 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.