Aham Brahmasmi ???

[Guest guest]

ya - Aham Brahmasmi. The statement, Aham Brahmasmi is to

> redirect our focus from body-mind-intellect (object) to Atman

> (Subject). The answer to the question, " Who am I/ " depends on how

> the " I " is identified. The True (Real) 'I' is Brahman and the unreal

> (illusionary) 'i' is Ahamkar (Ego). The real 'I' is eternal, changeless

> and it is self-existent (means that it doesn't require external support

> for its existence. " The unreal 'i' is transient, ever-changing and it

> is illusory (doesn't really exist!).

>

> The distinction between real and unreal is beautifully explained in

> Bhagavad Gita verse # 16:

>

> Naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate satah;

> Ubhayorapi drishto'ntastwanayos tattwadarshibhih.

>

> The unreal has no being; there is no non-being of the Real; the truth

> about both has been seen by the knowers of the Truth

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Namaste,Ramji,

 

'Being' is mind and mind is unreal. Anything that can be positively

described is mind, and part of Saguna concept. That is why I use Nir

Guna a lot for it doesn't decribe it negates/neti neti. Negates all

the hare's horns, and anything else that the mind produces.

Advaita isn't about all being one in illusion, that is just a step.

A-Dvaita is that there is no way of describing any duality therefore

no Saguna concept,or Devas, Avatar or whatever ultimately.

Even when the sages talk of sat-cit- ananda they are not talking of

Nir Guna for the description is positive a quality as Ramana would

say. Before this creation, and as we know pralayas and mahapralayas

make many endless creations, there was Saguna Brahaman with all

subsumed into itself in potentiality but there was still 'mind' there

to enable the new creation. Nir Guna can only be beyond all this

indicating it never happened at all. ..Tony.