Guest guest Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Namaste Durga, > > > > > > I an hardly remember when Ramana didn't talk about the Self or > > Saguna...there was no point in talking NirGuna to his audiences...Tony. > > > > Sai: (?) > > > > What is the Self? > > > > What is Saguna Brahman? > > > Hi Sai, > > Here is the confusion. In traditional teachings > of Advaita/Vedanta the 'self' refers to the absolute > nondual reality. Other words used for the self, > are atma, brahman and there are many more as well, > including nirguna brahman (which word 'nirguna' > means without gunas or without attributes) > > Thus the absolute reality is 'prior' to the > world which world is composed of the 'gunas.' > The gunas are three satva, rajas, and tamas, > which indicate levels of subtle to gross material. > > Anyway, the guna story, what gunas are, how > they combine, is a long story. And it's an > old story. It was how the ancient rishis > explained the component parts of the world > what the material of the world was. It > was their kind of science. > > There is also a word saguna brahman, and this > refers to brahman (the absolute reality) with > attributes, IOW saguna brahman refers to the > 'world.' > > So Tony is saying that the words 'the self, atma, > brahman,' etc., refer to saguna brahman, and not > to the absolute reality, which is nirguna without > attributes. > > Therefore Sri Tonyji says that basically everything > Ramana spoke of referred to saguna brahman, because > Ramana used the words 'the self,' atma, brahman, etc., > and also used words which appear to be descriptive. > > In Vedanta we understand that Ramana was speaking of > the nondual reality, nirguna brahman, when using those > words. > > However, it's my understanding that Tonyji doesn't > accept this because sometimes atma/brahman/the self, > is spoken of with certain words which appear to > describe it and thus give it attributes, and Tonyji > is saying if it can be described, it therefore has > attributes, and it cannot be nondual. > > And what I am saying is what is nondual cannot be > described or seen as an object, because it isn't > an object, but never-the-less words can be used > as pointers in order to recognized that which > has no attributes in the dual sense of the word, > but which still is and can be spoken of using words. > > This is what the whole Upanisadic tradition is based > on, words used as pointers to the self, to that which > is absolutely nondual, which cannot be perceived as > an object, but yet can be known because what is nondual > is in the final recognition entirely self-evident > as the being of all that is. > > I believe that Tony would say that every single word > used to describe the absolute, words such as, timeless, > changeless, self-luminous, self-evident, without a stain, > unable to be cut, wet, divided, burned, etc., that all of > these point to saguna brahman, brahman with attributes, > IOW something objectifiable. > > I understand his objection, but I don't think he understands > what the words are actually pointing out. Let's say sometimes > a piece of cloth is wet. Well, that same piece of cloth might > become dry. The day might be sunny and hot, but the same > day could become cloudy and cold. I could experience hunger, > but I can also experience being full (from over-eating), etc. > These can be known as the pairs of opposites, and the world > is full of them. In fact the world is nothing but changing > phenomena, pairs of opposites, when viewed from a dualistic perspective. > > Words used to describe nirguna brahman have no opposite. > Nirguna is timeless, free from or outside of change. > Nirguna is stainless, can never become dirty, does > not need to be cleaned. Nirguna is partless. It cannot > be divided into parts. Every word used to describe > brahman has no opposite, because brahman always *is* > exactly the same. These words themselves point to > the nondual, to nirguna, to that which exists absolutely, > which is not subject to change or modification in any way. > > Tony seems to feel that if you can describe it with > words it can't be nirguna. Generally this would be > true, if one were trying to describe something which > can be objectified, or which is subject to negation > or change, or is one of a pair of opposites, but > this isn't the case with nirguna brahman. > > Words don't really describe brahman, because all words > do initially point to something in duality, words > being a product of duality, but words can be used as pointers. > Once nirguna brahman is recognized as the absolute > source of one's being, one then sees why certain words > are used, and why they are appropriate and accurate. > > No matter what I say on the subject to convince Tony that > what I am saying is actually what Ramana is saying and > what the Upanishads are saying, and that Ramana and > the Upanshads are pointing to nirguna brahman, > he doesn't accept that, So IMO, that's okay. What to do? > It's a good exercise for me to write about it anyway. > I'm fairly convinced that I will never change his mind. > > What Tony is saying does however, go against the entire basis > of theteaching tradition of Advaita/Vedanta which is thousands > of years old and through which thousands (most likely) > have gained liberation over the centuries. > > I apologize to you, Tony, for speaking of you in the > third person, which is something I don't like to do, > and which I find generally pretty offensive when I hear > someone else do it. Particularly when one person attributes > something to another person, which is really only the > other person's personal projection or opinion, but I think > what I've described is pretty much your viewpoint, no? > > What did I hear Obama say lately? He was describing a > conversation which (I believe Lyndon Johnson was having > with a senator). The senator said, " Everyone's entitled > to his own opinion. " And Johnson replied, " Yes, but > you aren't entitled to your own facts. " :-) > > Anyway, Om Shalom and all that and thanks for a spirited debate! > As Stephen Colbert would say, (when debating himself of course) > " You sir, are a formidable opponent. " :-) > Durga > Namaste Durga, Again Ramana talks about Siva/Self almost all of the time....He also mentions Ajativada as being the utmost truth.....it never happened at all....That means Saguna and all this manifestation is unreal...Even appearance is unreal for there needs to be a mind projecting the appearance.....So that didn't happen either.....Ramana doesn't talk about NirGuna....It seems to me that you and a lot of others mostly on and the like cannot accept the whole Truth and want to make NirGuna into some form of Saguna with nice qualities....I know it boggles the mind but there is or isn't only NirGuna everything else never did happen otherwise Brahman would be dual...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 advaitajnana , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote: > > Namaste Durga, > > > > > > > > I an hardly remember when Ramana didn't talk about the Self or > > > Saguna...there was no point in talking NirGuna to his audiences...Tony. > > > > > > Sai: (?) > > > > > > What is the Self? > > > > > > What is Saguna Brahman? > > > > > > Hi Sai, > > > > Here is the confusion. In traditional teachings > > of Advaita/Vedanta the 'self' refers to the absolute > > nondual reality. Other words used for the self, > > are atma, brahman and there are many more as well, > > including nirguna brahman (which word 'nirguna' > > means without gunas or without attributes) > > > > Thus the absolute reality is 'prior' to the > > world which world is composed of the 'gunas.' > > The gunas are three satva, rajas, and tamas, > > which indicate levels of subtle to gross material. > > > > Anyway, the guna story, what gunas are, how > > they combine, is a long story. And it's an > > old story. It was how the ancient rishis > > explained the component parts of the world > > what the material of the world was. It > > was their kind of science. > > > > There is also a word saguna brahman, and this > > refers to brahman (the absolute reality) with > > attributes, IOW saguna brahman refers to the > > 'world.' > > > > So Tony is saying that the words 'the self, atma, > > brahman,' etc., refer to saguna brahman, and not > > to the absolute reality, which is nirguna without > > attributes. > > > > Therefore Sri Tonyji says that basically everything > > Ramana spoke of referred to saguna brahman, because > > Ramana used the words 'the self,' atma, brahman, etc., > > and also used words which appear to be descriptive. > > > > In Vedanta we understand that Ramana was speaking of > > the nondual reality, nirguna brahman, when using those > > words. > > > > However, it's my understanding that Tonyji doesn't > > accept this because sometimes atma/brahman/the self, > > is spoken of with certain words which appear to > > describe it and thus give it attributes, and Tonyji > > is saying if it can be described, it therefore has > > attributes, and it cannot be nondual. > > > > And what I am saying is what is nondual cannot be > > described or seen as an object, because it isn't > > an object, but never-the-less words can be used > > as pointers in order to recognized that which > > has no attributes in the dual sense of the word, > > but which still is and can be spoken of using words. > > > > This is what the whole Upanisadic tradition is based > > on, words used as pointers to the self, to that which > > is absolutely nondual, which cannot be perceived as > > an object, but yet can be known because what is nondual > > is in the final recognition entirely self-evident > > as the being of all that is. > > > > I believe that Tony would say that every single word > > used to describe the absolute, words such as, timeless, > > changeless, self-luminous, self-evident, without a stain, > > unable to be cut, wet, divided, burned, etc., that all of > > these point to saguna brahman, brahman with attributes, > > IOW something objectifiable. > > > > I understand his objection, but I don't think he understands > > what the words are actually pointing out. Let's say sometimes > > a piece of cloth is wet. Well, that same piece of cloth might > > become dry. The day might be sunny and hot, but the same > > day could become cloudy and cold. I could experience hunger, > > but I can also experience being full (from over-eating), etc. > > These can be known as the pairs of opposites, and the world > > is full of them. In fact the world is nothing but changing > > phenomena, pairs of opposites, when viewed from a dualistic perspective. > > > > Words used to describe nirguna brahman have no opposite. > > Nirguna is timeless, free from or outside of change. > > Nirguna is stainless, can never become dirty, does > > not need to be cleaned. Nirguna is partless. It cannot > > be divided into parts. Every word used to describe > > brahman has no opposite, because brahman always *is* > > exactly the same. These words themselves point to > > the nondual, to nirguna, to that which exists absolutely, > > which is not subject to change or modification in any way. > > > > Tony seems to feel that if you can describe it with > > words it can't be nirguna. Generally this would be > > true, if one were trying to describe something which > > can be objectified, or which is subject to negation > > or change, or is one of a pair of opposites, but > > this isn't the case with nirguna brahman. > > > > Words don't really describe brahman, because all words > > do initially point to something in duality, words > > being a product of duality, but words can be used as pointers. > > Once nirguna brahman is recognized as the absolute > > source of one's being, one then sees why certain words > > are used, and why they are appropriate and accurate. > > > > No matter what I say on the subject to convince Tony that > > what I am saying is actually what Ramana is saying and > > what the Upanishads are saying, and that Ramana and > > the Upanshads are pointing to nirguna brahman, > > he doesn't accept that, So IMO, that's okay. What to do? > > It's a good exercise for me to write about it anyway. > > I'm fairly convinced that I will never change his mind. > > > > What Tony is saying does however, go against the entire basis > > of theteaching tradition of Advaita/Vedanta which is thousands > > of years old and through which thousands (most likely) > > have gained liberation over the centuries. > > > > I apologize to you, Tony, for speaking of you in the > > third person, which is something I don't like to do, > > and which I find generally pretty offensive when I hear > > someone else do it. Particularly when one person attributes > > something to another person, which is really only the > > other person's personal projection or opinion, but I think > > what I've described is pretty much your viewpoint, no? > > > > What did I hear Obama say lately? He was describing a > > conversation which (I believe Lyndon Johnson was having > > with a senator). The senator said, " Everyone's entitled > > to his own opinion. " And Johnson replied, " Yes, but > > you aren't entitled to your own facts. " :-) > > > > Anyway, Om Shalom and all that and thanks for a spirited debate! > > As Stephen Colbert would say, (when debating himself of course) > > " You sir, are a formidable opponent. " :-) > > Durga > > > Namaste Durga, > > Again Ramana talks about Siva/Self almost all of the time....He also mentions > Ajativada as being the utmost truth.....it never happened at all....That means > Saguna and all this manifestation is unreal...Even appearance is unreal for > there needs to be a mind projecting the appearance.....So that didn't happen > either.....Ramana doesn't talk about NirGuna....It seems to me that you and a > lot of others mostly on and the like cannot accept the whole > Truth and want to make NirGuna into some form of Saguna with nice qualities....I > know it boggles the mind but there is or isn't only NirGuna everything else > never did happen otherwise Brahman would be dual...> Hey Tony, > > I don't read on Harsha's list, so I don't know what they > say. I do read on the advaitin list, and I know they > don't agree with your viewpoint over there. > > I don't follow your logic above. I can say from the > POV of nirguna that the world never happened at all. > I don't disagree with that. So what? > > You say that Ramana talks about Siva/Self all the time. > Yeah? And so what? Siva/Self actually refers to nirguna > brahman (not to Lord Siva the diety) that's a different > use of the word. If you want to say Ajativada is the > utmost truth, I can accept that. I still say, so what? > > That doesn't mean that Ramana wasn't referring to > nirguna brahman. > > What I think is actually truly mind boggling is that > the whole world which appears to be very *real,* > once it is properly analyzed, is seen to have no reality of > its own. > > If you want to say it doesn't exist you can > say that. If you want to say, it appears > to exist, but when examined is seen to > be nirguna brahman alone appearing with 'as though' > qualities, (which makes it saguna) you can say that too. > > All that really exists absolutely is nirguna brahman. > The rest is just an as though appearance. Fine. So what? > > I guess you don't accept the 'mithya' understanding > of duality. Mithya is that which appears to be > dual, in which objects appear to have independent > existences (plural use of the word existence), > but when examined it can clearly be seen that objects > have no independent or separate existence of their own. > > What is really there? Nirguna brahman, appearing > as though saguna with attributes. > > The traditional definition of the mithya world of > experience (i.e. duality) is that it is neither > ultimately real, nor is it ultimately unreal (like > the horn of a rabbit), it has no being of its own, > and is not subject to be categorized as either > ultimately real or ultimately unreal. > > It is not ultimately unreal because it is available > to be experienced, which something, like the horn > of rabbit, that doesn't exist is not. It is not > ultimately real, because it keeps on changing, > and you can't really find anything solid > to the appearance once you start to examine it. > > However, what you can find is nirguna brahman, > the ground of being itself. Thus in reality there > is no saguna, only nirguna. > > I believe I've heard you say, " It's real while you > are in it. " That describes the mithya world of > experience very well. And that's true enough in a way. > > But the point actually is to see that it *isn't* real > while you are in it. It has a 'type' of reality, > a mithya reality, a changing reality, but not > an absolute reality, because what is absolute never > changes or modifies in any way. > > Thus only nirguna brahman fits that definition (of > being absolutely real.) If you want to say the world > never happened, fine. Then again, I say, so what? > > Durga > Namaste Durga, Yes I was banned for a while on the advaitin list for daring to say the the Brahman of pralaya was Saguna as it contained all the seeds of potentiality for a new creation so to speak...I am not locked into any rigid thinking as all thoughts are ultimately rubbish...It does not scare me to think of a NirGuna Brahman with no qualities and beyond all this....I don't need to attribute qualities as Ramana calls them to anything to feel comfortable...There is little siva...the god with the snakes and ash and the destroyer...There is also Siva or Consciousness The Self as Ramana uses the term...So there is big siva and little siva.... Yes there is only NirGuna for nothing ever happened...It came to me some years ago, after waking up in the morning...That the appearance itself needs a mind to project the image...so that is duality...and Brahman cannot be dual...so it never happened.....I only tied that to the idea of Ajativada when I remembered Ramana said something about it. Sometimes the Advaitins in Vedanta are only non dual to the Saguna level...for although Krishna talked of Ajata, Sankara didn't push it as he was competing with Buddhism at the time and it was too similar. So some Bhakti had to be retained otherwise there would be no religion or Maths or anything...If you study his guru and the upanishads you will see that Ajativada is there...Cheers Tony. 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.