Ananda and my answer.

[Guest guest]

>

> 1. Isn't this description 'unqualified' or 'nirguNa' another mental

> construct which also must be left behind (just like the description

> 'happiness' or 'Ananda')? "

>

> 2. Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa' is

> also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a truth

> where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

> description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which other

> people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

> alternative modes of enquiry?

>

> These questions weren't asked only to contradict what you had said,

> but rather to ask for more clarity about just what it is that you

> mean to say. So I would be interested to hear how you might answer

> them, if you could spare the time and trouble to explain.

>

> Ananda

 

Namaste Anandaji,

 

I have to be careful or I will be banished for blasphemy. Although it

would be in the company of Jesus, and Mansour, it wouldn't answer your

question.

With regard to Nir Guna I translate that as no gunas, nada! It is just

a word to describe what never happened at all. If it disappears it

could never have happened for Nir Guna would be dualistic and Saguna.

So nirguna is just my way of saying the manifestation didn't happen

even the illusion didn't happen. Even though I give some validity to

this apparent illusion whilst one is in it so to speak. It is mystery

and my only answer is we question it all for we are Brahman.

My debate point is the mind creates religions and rules and belief

systems. A teacher like Ramana end up becoming an ishtadevata and is

worshipped, so is Sankara or Jesus and they never came to teach this,

in fact the opposite.........Tony.