Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 advaitin , " mahadevadvaita " <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > > Namaste, > > > > Yes I agree it is all within the power of Maya, illusory or not. Sat- > > Cit-Atman is Saguna by definition. > > There exists a Nirguna Brahman is also a statement by a conscious > entity about an invisible attributeless, infinity. So frankly, your > statement does not make sense to me. Unless you exist and unless you > are conscious, you cannot declare anything about this incomprehensible > entity called Nirguna Brahman, which according to you is not even sat- > chit-ananda. You continuously repeat the non-existense of Saguna or > maya or universe or Sat-chit-ananda when you yourself use the sat- chit > of that infinity to make this declaration. > > > > > However if one is on the sadhana of Self Enquiry it is Neti Neti. So > > I do negate the existence aspect of creation. Perhaps you can > > explain to me where it all goes to on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or > > bodiless Moksha..?...No snake, no rope........ONS..> > I am not aware of this bodiless moksha but as far as I know, if > Krishna, Christ, Ramana Maharishi, Acharya Shankar were realized, they > did not disappear from this world - nor did the world disappear for > them. > Namaste, I have often repeated that NirGuna isn't! How can it know or exist? I fall back on the last line of the Creation Hymn in the Rig, 'perhaps it does not know?'...Knowing being Avidya or Maya. Yes all these Muktas, Ramana etc, dropped the body, and where did the world go then? That is the question! Bodiless Moksha is either Moksha at death or when a Mukta drops the body. There being no ego already of course. Yes I am using all 'this' to explain 'this', that is true, but only if you accept that it all happened which I don't. It is not logical for a person in Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi to not be aware of the creation, if it exists. For that is dualistic therefore it cannot exist and didn't ever happen. That is my simplistic deduction, unfettered by belief systems to the contrary.....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > advaitin , " mahadevadvaita " > <mahadevadvaita@> wrote: > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Yes I agree it is all within the power of Maya, illusory or not. > Sat- > > > Cit-Atman is Saguna by definition. > > > > There exists a Nirguna Brahman is also a statement by a conscious > > entity about an invisible attributeless, infinity. So frankly, > your > > statement does not make sense to me. Unless you exist and unless > you > > are conscious, you cannot declare anything about this > incomprehensible > > entity called Nirguna Brahman, which according to you is not even > sat- > > chit-ananda. You continuously repeat the non-existense of Saguna > or > > maya or universe or Sat-chit-ananda when you yourself use the sat- > chit > > of that infinity to make this declaration. > > > > > > > > However if one is on the sadhana of Self Enquiry it is Neti > Neti. So > > > I do negate the existence aspect of creation. Perhaps you can > > > explain to me where it all goes to on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi > or > > > bodiless Moksha..?...No snake, no rope........ONS..> > > > I am not aware of this bodiless moksha but as far as I know, if > > Krishna, Christ, Ramana Maharishi, Acharya Shankar were realized, > they > > did not disappear from this world - nor did the world disappear > for > > them. > > > Namaste, > > I have often repeated that NirGuna isn't! How can it know or exist? > I fall back on the last line of the Creation Hymn in the > Rig, 'perhaps it does not know?'...Knowing being Avidya or Maya. > Yes all these Muktas, Ramana etc, dropped the body, and where did > the world go then? That is the question! Bodiless Moksha is either > Moksha at death or when a Mukta drops the body. There being no ego > already of course. > > Yes I am using all 'this' to explain 'this', that is true, but only > if you accept that it all happened which I don't. > > It is not logical for a person in Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi to not > be aware of the creation, if it exists. For that is dualistic > therefore it cannot exist and didn't ever happen. That is my > simplistic deduction, unfettered by belief systems to the > contrary.....ONS...Tony. > Life isn't logical Tony. And therefore your logic, my logic or anybody else's logic doesn't mean a thing..... Not Really 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.