Qutstioning Sadhana etc

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Chittaranjan Naik "

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Rajesh-ji,

>

> advaitin , Rajesh Ramachander

> <rrajeshchander@> wrote:

>

> > Pardon my interjection sir.

> >

> > You state that " Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not

> > describe Brahman, but Brahman is Pure Knowledge

> > in which all forms are eternally present as forms

> > that He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is

> > that Brahman is Nirguna, and Nirguna Brahman is

> > purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience. "

> >

> > Not so sir, I see a tinge of duality in the statement

> > above. Name and forms exist only in and as a result of Maya.

>

> Name and form exist eternally. I have already quoted the Acharya

many

> times on this matter. According to Advaita Vedanta, a word is

eternal.

> And the above statement is the conclusion that was arrived at

after

> logical deliberation on various topics including ontology,

vivartavada,

 

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?

Admittedly in deep sleep mind still exists but not in full Samadhi--

Samadhi that is NirviKalpa completely, with no ties to the world.

 

So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance for as

long as the body survives.

 

To me, using my own logic; If the world disappears on full Samadhi

and when the Mukta drops the body it cannot have existed in the

first place. For if it did, that would entail dualism or potential

dualism in Nirguna Brahman. Also as I posted recently on the

Creation Hymn in the Rig--perhaps He doesn't know! For if Brahman

didn't know and the world existed, even as an illusion, it would

compromise Brahman. For something would exist without the knowledge

of Brahman, which is impossible and contradictory to NirGuna. So

when the Rig says perhaps He doesn't know, it means not knowing

ignorance, or anything. For there is not anything to know. There is

nothing that is eternal ultimately for that implies a condition of

some kind of time. That is why to me Ajativada is the only logical

conclusion, and that the other ideas are of Bhakti. Not that there

is anything wrong with Pure Bhakti but one shouldn't be attached to

one's favourite spiritual or religious ideas. For it never

happened.....ONS...Tony.