Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: > > --- In > Hello Sai, > > One definition of Brahman is that which exists in all > three periods of time, past, present and future. > > Comparing this definition with one's own experience, > is one way to see very directly the truth of > the statement, You are That (That being Brahman, > the Self), > > The method for doing this is called in Sanskrit, > drik/drisha viveka, or in English, > seer/seen differentiation. > > In this process one notices that one always *is*, > as opposed, all of that which comes > and goes experientially. Everything comes and goes > including thoughts, bodily sensations, > etc., but 'I' do not come and go. > > That's a very quick explanation of seer/seen > differentiation, but it is interesting to do it, > and see the truth of it. > > It brings home very directly the truth that I am that > Brahman, which exists unchanging in past, present and future. > I do not change, while every thing else does. > > Durga Namaste,D,IMHO, Has it ever occurred to you that this is opinion being repeated by opinion, as we all do? A full bucket doesn't understand a full pond, or a pond a lake, or a lake the sea or the sea the ocean. For they are already full and cannot take anymore in without losing some. If Brahaman is constant and creation is an 'appearance' that can only be avidya or untruth. For there can never be appearance without mind and that is dualistic. For the appearance is a projection and therefore a guna a mode a modification on Brahaman ie Saguna and not the ultimate truth..............NirGuna.........ONS... --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: GuruRatings , " simon " <sweetseasons@n...> wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > > > Here it becomes clearer, as to what is meant, by > > > stating the non-exsistence of the world, in the > > > 'three periods of time' > > > > snip > > > " Brahman is the only Reality. He is the only living > > > Truth. The Liberated Sage or Jivanmukta beholds Brahman > > > only everywhere. There is no world for ... 'HIM' ... in > > > the three periods of time. But the ignorant man sees only > > > the five elements and the forms. The world of names and > > > forms only is real for him. He denies Brahman altogether " > > > > > > > Hello Sai, > > > > One definition of Brahman is that which exists in all > > three periods of time, past, present and future. > > > > Comparing this definition with one's own experience, > > is one way to see very directly the truth of > > the statement, You are That (That being Brahman, > > the Self), > > > > The method for doing this is called in Sanskrit, > > drik/drisha viveka, or in English, > > seer/seen differentiation. > > > > In this process one notices that one always *is*, > > as opposed, all of that which comes > > and goes experientially. Everything comes and goes > > including thoughts, bodily sensations, > > etc., but 'I' do not come and go. > > > > That's a very quick explanation of seer/seen > > differentiation, but it is interesting to do it, > > and see the truth of it. > > > > It brings home very directly the truth that I am that > > Brahman, which exists unchanging in past, present and future. > > I do not change, while every thing else does. > > > Sai: I hear you Durga ... thanks for your sharing. > > I also find your last line, particularly relevant to what's > > been debated here recently. Just as, " I do not change.. " > > neither does Nirguna Brahman, by the 'creation' > > - manifestation of itself. This is difficult ... perhaps > > even impossible? for the finite mind to > > grasp - comprehend; but ever ... 'it' remains > > unaffected. > > Regards > > sai Namaste, There is no real creation, appearance, manifestation of the concept NirGuna Brahman as it has no 'Gunas'. The appearance is associated with the concept of Saguna Brahman. NirGuna is not affected for it didn't happen...Although the last line, you mention, is useful in processing Neti Neti......ONS...Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:GuruRatings , "simon" <sweetseasons@n...> wrote:>> SNIP There is no real creation, appearance, manifestation of the concept NirGuna Brahman as it has no 'Gunas'. The appearance is associated with the concept of Saguna Brahman. NirGuna is not affected for it didn't happen...Although the last line, you mention, is useful in processing Neti Neti......ONS...Tony. So, you say that there are two Brahmans - Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. Is that like the GOOD Brahman and the BETTER Brahman? I kinda always feel that Brahman is one. Please expound upon the "two Brahman" concept. Thanks. Not Really Bring words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 advaitajnana , Not Really <itneverreallyhappened> wrote: > > > > Tony OClery <aoclery> wrote: --- In GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> > wrote: > > GuruRatings , " simon " <sweetseasons@n...> > wrote: > > > > > > SNIP > > > There is no real creation, appearance, manifestation of the concept > NirGuna Brahman as it has no 'Gunas'. The appearance is associated > with the concept of Saguna Brahman. NirGuna is not affected for it > didn't happen...Although the last line, you mention, is useful in > processing Neti Neti......ONS...Tony. > > > So, you say that there are two Brahmans - Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. Is that like the GOOD Brahman and the BETTER Brahman? > > > I kinda always feel that Brahman is one. > > Please expound upon the " two Brahman " concept. > > Thanks. > > Not Really Namaste, Brahman is only one NirGuna. The other Saguna is only as real as the world it is also an illusion that didn't happen. It is just a concept to explain consciousness behind 'creation', or Brahman associated with creation is called Saguna or with attributes...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.