Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Namaste Peter, I think it is a poor show that my posts have been slowed down before appearing if at all...in our discussion...That is a slow down of debate which indicates something. Anywy this is may final word on the the subject with you. Nisargadatta said only 1 person in Mumbai can understand non dualism even intellectually never mind realise it..Only a 60K or more on the planet can understand it...never mind realise..I feel what is holding many back is the fear of no mind or annhilation, and I think this is where you are at.......sorry for that but in the end other people's writings mean nothing at all.........Tony. Namaste, The concept of Ajativasa is very simple. Ramana said that creation never happened. I believe that includes the appearance as that can only be a projection of mind. If there is appearance or mind then that is SaGuna, or an attribute. Therefore NirGuna Brahman can only be non-dual...no mind,no appearance, no being no Gunas....... advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > > Namaste, > > The concept of Ajativasa is very simple. Ramana said that creation > never happened. > > I believe that includes the appearance as that can only be a > projection of mind. > > If there is appearance or mind then that is SaGuna, or an attribute. > > Therefore NirGuna Brahman can only be non-dual...no mind,no > appearance, no being no Gunas.......> > > > > > > > > > > > advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > , " 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 --- > > > 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.