To Be or not to Be--sat-cit- ananda

[Guest guest]

William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1)

>

> To be, or not to be: that is the question:

> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

> And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

> No more; and by a sleep to say we end

> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation

> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

> To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

> Must give us pause: there's the respect

> That makes calamity of so long life;

> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

> The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,

> The insolence of office and the spurns

> That patient merit of the unworthy takes,

> When he himself might his quietus make

> With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,

> To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

> But that the dread of something after death,

> The undiscover'd country from whose bourn

> No traveller returns, puzzles the will

> And makes us rather bear those ills we have

> Than fly to others that we know not of?

> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

> And thus the native hue of resolution

> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

> And enterprises of great pith and moment

> With this regard their currents turn awry,

> And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!

> The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons

> Be all my sins remember'd.

>

> Sankara said that the rope appears to be a snake, or Brahman appears

> to be the world. However it all falls down when there is no snake in

> the first place.........Tony.

>

Namaste,

 

That should have read no rope in the first place of course, but it

doesn't matter the message is the same. People like the Sankara

Advaitins cling to the concept of sat-cit- ananda in Brahman for they

are afraid of the after death state as so is hamlet........Tony.

[Guest guest]

This question is

 

Who does not speak, or speak

of nothing, rope or snake

to let us know

that Ouroboros let's go

 

 

 

Alan

[Guest guest]

, " erilarend " <alan wrote:

>

>

>

>

> This question is

>

> Who does not speak, or speak

> of nothing, rope or snake

> to let us know

> that Ouroboros let's go

>

>

>

> Alan

Namaste,

 

Yes Quetzalcoatl is sometimes depicted as an ourobos, or own tail

devourer. My point is that there is no rope in the first place, and

that talking of ropes and snakes is delusion commenting on illusion.

The question I have in my mind is that as Sat-Cit-Ananada are

qualities according to Ramana then they must only represent the Saguna

Concept. Anything that can be described positively can only be that.

As universes are interminable the Brahman of the Pralayas is also

Saguna for it contains potentiality. NirGuna by definition can only be

beyond any qualities, pralayas, manifestations or potentiality.

This is where I part company with the A-Dvaita of Sankara as taught.

Although I believe he like Jesus also taught the ultimate concepts in

secret, not in his commentaries.........Tony.

[Guest guest]

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> , " erilarend " <alan@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > This question is

> >

> > Who does not speak, or speak

> > of nothing, rope or snake

> > to let us know

> > that Ouroboros let's go

> >

> >

> >

> > Alan

> Namaste,

>

> Yes Quetzalcoatl is sometimes depicted as an ourobos, or own tail

> devourer. My point is that there is no rope in the first place, and

> that talking of ropes and snakes is delusion commenting on illusion.

> The question I have in my mind is that as Sat-Cit-Ananada are

> qualities according to Ramana then they must only represent the Saguna

> Concept. Anything that can be described positively can only be that.

> As universes are interminable the Brahman of the Pralayas is also

> Saguna for it contains potentiality. NirGuna by definition can only be

> beyond any qualities, pralayas, manifestations or potentiality.

> This is where I part company with the A-Dvaita of Sankara as taught.

> Although I believe he like Jesus also taught the ultimate concepts in

> secret, not in his commentaries.........Tony.

>

Namaste All,

 

To add to the above I have added a new level of concept hahah. Dvaita,

Visishtadvaita, Advaita and lastly ParaAdvaita which is another

description for Ajativada but probably more understandable to some...Tony.

[Guest guest]

To go beyond all the words to the reality is the goal.

 

The only way to be there is to be there.

 

 

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

> To add to the above I have added a new level of concept hahah. Dvaita,

> Visishtadvaita, Advaita and lastly ParaAdvaita which is another

> description for Ajativada but probably more understandable to

some...Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I was thinking in the line of Ouroboros as one described Vikipedia: "self-consuming transitory nature of a mere "worldly existence

How many really know the means and ends related to one's own existence( As described on the top http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm :)

So when it comes to having assumtions on the clinging of others as related to Saguna/ Nirguna,observe the magic in the difference.

When a few words spoken is from the surface (conciousness).When it is included.

 

Alan