Fwd: Atman alone exists and is real.

[Guest guest]

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

 

 

Peter,

 

You are basing your whole argument on a redundancy, and or a false

premise.

 

Even Ramana says that Ajativada is the whole truth........That

creation never happened. Saguna concept can only be entertained with

creation or projection, even in pralaya potentiality is still

apprehended creation. Even the appearance never happened as mind

didn't happen.

 

Thus: Only NirGuna is the Truth and the Self that Sankara and Ramana

talk of is Big Siva or Saguna concept. How can you name Nir Guna

because by naming it you limit and attribute to it description.

 

Very simply Siva/Self is Saguna Brahman, and when one realises Saguna

one simultaneously realises NirGuna and that nothing ever happened.

 

Ramana and Sankara knew that the realisation was simultaneous so

didn't feel it necessary to try and explain this to the minds

present, I presume. They knew that realisation was only ONE.

 

If one follows Bhakti one can become Sakti but if one keeps a feeling

of lover and loved it will prevent realisation, until the pralaya at

best and at worst one would be a dweller in the Brahmaloka

consciousness...........for some time..pralaya or mahapralay it

doesn't matter...........Cheers Tony.

 

 

, " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> Here are some responses to your earlier claims based on my

understanding of

> Ramana's teaching and advaita.. Given your most recent comments I

suspect

> you have no real interest in this. However, other members may wish

to read

> and offer corrections or comments.

>

> You appear to be saying that the Self is not the Absolute Brahman

(nirguna)

> but only refers to Isvara (saguna, the manifested brahman)

which " never

> happened " . If we accept your statement we must assume the Self

(Atman) also

> never happened. According to you this is Ramana's teaching.

Please share

> with us where Ramana makes such statements about the Self or

indicates this

> to be the case - please provide references.

>

> You also wrote we need your version of Para Advaita because Sankara

only

> went as far as " the Self " . The implication here is that there is

somewhere

> further to go beyond the Self and this is something you have some

inkling

> of.

>

> This is not supported by Sankara himself who affirms the teaching

of the

> Vedas, namely that there is nothing higher than the Self, for if

there were

> then the self would be an merely an effect of something else rather

than

> being the true nature (the Self) of All. He writes:

>

> " ..if the Self were a modification (and so an effect) of something

else,

> then, because the Veda mentions no other being higher than it, all

effects,

> beginning with ether, would be without a Self, as the Self would

itself be

> an effect. And this would amount to the doctrine of the Void. But

denial of

> the Self is impossible, from the very fact its being one's

> Self. " (Sankaracharya --Brahma Sutra Bhasya:II.iii.7)

>

> This is in line with Ramana's teaching that the Self is " One

without a

> second " - " The Self, (here) declared to be Consciousness, is alone

real,

> without a second. " (see Forty Verses on Reality v:12 and 13)

>

> There cannot be two Ones without a second, or two things which

are " alone

> real without a second " . In other words as the One Reality there

is nothing

> other than the Self, Atman. As Ramana states:

>

> " Atman alone exists and is real. The threefold reality of world,

individual

> soul, and God is, like the illusory appearance of silver in the

mother of

> pearl, an imaginary creation in the Atman. They appear and disappear

> simultaneously. The Self alone is the world, the 'I' and God. All

that

> exists is but the manifestation of the Supreme. " From " Who Am I? "

(essay

> version in " Words of Grace " page 7)

>

> Please note, saguna brahman - referred to as " God " in the above

passage -

> appears and disappears within the Atman (the Self) not the other

way around.

> This is because the Self and the unborn Brahman (nirguna) are not

two.

>

> What might another great and realised soul such as Kanchi Maha-

Swamigal,

> (1884 - 1994), the head of the Kunchi Matt, have to say on this

matter? His

> Holiness writes:

>

> " There is no such thing as the union of JIvatma [individual self]

and

> Paramatma [supreme Self]. A union occurs only when there is more

than one.

> Only when there are two any question of relationship between the

two arises.

> In truth the JIvatma and Paramatma are not two distinct entities.

Atma is

> one and one only. It is itself by itself; other than itself there is

> nothing. The Self being the Self as such is what it is. That is

called by

> the name 'nirguna-brahman'. " (from ADVAITA-SADHANA - Kanchi Maha-

Swamigal's

> Discourses. my brackets inserted.)

>

> Please note HH's last sentence above. Kanchi Maha-Swamigal, Sankara

and

> Ramana all state the same truth about the Self. It is the only

reality and

> it is the formless, attributeless Brahman. This is the central

teaching of

> Advaita.

>

> " That one Shining One is hidden in all beings, is all pervasive and

the

> innermost Atman of all. It is the overseer of all actions, the

indweller in

> all beings, the Witness, Pure Consciousness, that which is all that

is left

> (when avidyA is removed), and is beyond all qualities. "

(Svetasvatara

> Upanishad - 1:6)

>

> Sankara like Ramana maintains that Brahman is first cognised as God

(Iswara,

> the manifested one, saguna brahman). Later it is realised as

nirguna

> brahman, devoid of external upadhis/adjuncts (qualities). For

example,

> Ramana states:

>

> " The Saguna merges into the nirguna in the long run. The saguna

purifies the

> mind and takes one to the final goal. " (Talks: 621) This is the

real value

> of devotion to God or devotion to the Guru.

>

> Sankara similarly states in his commentary on the Kathopanishad:

>

> " The Absolute is first known as Being when apprehended through the

> (provisional) notion of Being set up by it's external adjuncts, and

is

> afterwards known as (pure) Being in its capacity as the Self, void

of

> external adjuncts. " (Kathopanishad Bhasya, II.iii. 12-13)

>

> Once again we see Sankara referring to the Self as nirguna (void of

external

> adjuncts). Sri Muruganar shows this is also the teaching of Ramana:

>

> " Consciousness is not a quality [guna] of the Self because the Self

is free

> from qualities [nirguna]. " (Guru Vachaka Govai, v1038 Sri

Muruganar. my

> brackets.)

>

> Here are some further passages from Sankara and Sri Muruganar's

Guru Vachaka

> Govai.

>

> " ...the existence of the Absolute is evident because it is the Self

of all.

> Everyone is aware of the existence of his own Self. No one

thinks 'I am

> not'. If experience of one's own Self were not evident, everyone

would have

> the feeling 'I do not exist' And the Self (atman) is the Absolute

> (brahman). " (Sankaracharya --Brahma Sutra Bhasya:I.i.1)

>

> " The Self abides motionless because of its all pervasive

fullness. " (Guru

> Vachaka Govai, v94 Sri Muruganar.)

>

> " The real Brahman is nirguna and without motion. " (GVG v151)

>

> Regards,

>

> Peter

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---