A few thoughts...

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

A few thoughts...

 

Ajatavada is the theory (vada) that everything is unborn (aja) - i.e. the highest truth is that all manifestation, though it appears to come into being as individual entities, is really the One unborn and changeless Brahman. As Gaudapada - famous for the assertion of ajatavada - states in his Mandukya Karika 3.2:

 

"Therefore I will tell that which is not

pitiable, which is without birth and uniform.

[so that one understands]: nothing is born,

even while things are born all around." [3.2]

 

It is the denial of the difference between cause (a creator) and effect (the world) and is the assertion that what appears as the variety of independent beings which are born and die is in fact all along the unborn Self, Brahman.

 

Sri Ramana has stated the two paths to Realisation - namely Self-inquiry and Surrender. We may sense how Surrender to the Higher Power is fully in accord with Ramana's views on ajatavada in his second mangalam of Forty Verses on Realit. Sri Ramana puts it as follows:

 

"Men of pure minds who intensely fear death surrender

themselves unto the Lord of all, the Blissfull One,

the indwelling Self, who has no death nor birth.

By that (surrender) their ego, along with their attachments,

becomes extinguished. How can they, who (thus) have won abode

in Immortality, have any thought of death?"

(Lakshmana Sarma's translation)

David Godman sheds some valuable light on Ajatavada as found in Sri Ramana's teachings:

"1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's experience that nothing ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence. 260

"This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by saying that because the real nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self.

"The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by persistently misinterpreting the senseimpressions it receives. Sri Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self. "

("Be As You Are: the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi", p259, by David Godman)

Best wishes,

Peter

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> A few thoughts...

>

> Ajatavada is the theory (vada) that everything is unborn (aja) -

i.e. the

> highest truth is that all manifestation, though it appears to come

into

> being as individual entities, is really the One unborn and

changeless

> Brahman. As Gaudapada - famous for the assertion of ajatavada -

states in

> his Mandukya Karika 3.2:

>

> " Therefore I will tell that which is not

> pitiable, which is without birth and uniform.

> [so that one understands]: nothing is born,

> even while things are born all around. " [3.2]

>

> It is the denial of the difference between cause (a creator) and

effect (the

> world) and is the assertion that what appears as the variety of

independent

> beings which are born and die is in fact all along the unborn Self,

Brahman.

>

>

> Sri Ramana has stated the two paths to Realisation - namely Self-

inquiry and

> Surrender. We may sense how Surrender to the Higher Power is fully

in

> accord with Ramana's views on ajatavada in his second mangalam of

Forty

> Verses on Realit. Sri Ramana puts it as follows:

>

> " Men of pure minds who intensely fear death surrender

> themselves unto the Lord of all, the Blissfull One,

> the indwelling Self, who has no death nor birth.

> By that (surrender) their ego, along with their attachments,

> becomes extinguished. How can they, who (thus) have won abode

> in Immortality, have any thought of death? "

> (Lakshmana Sarma's translation)

>

> David Godman sheds some valuable light on Ajatavada as found in Sri

Ramana's

> teachings:

>

> " 1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient

Hindu

> doctrine which states that the creation of the world never happened

at all.

> It is a complete denial of all causality in the physical world. Sri

Ramana

> endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's experience that

nothing

> ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone

exists as

> the sole unchanging reality. It is a corollary of this theory that

time,

> space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation

theories,

> exist only in the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the

Self

> reveals their non-existence. 260

>

> " This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of

the

> creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his

own

> experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the world

is real,

> not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an

uncaused

> appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by saying that because

the real

> nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the

beingness of

> the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say,

the world

> is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only

because the

> real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self.

>

> " The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary

nature and

> source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an

illusory

> world of separate interacting objects by persistently

misinterpreting the

> senseimpressions it receives. Sri Ramana pointed out that this view

of the

> world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a

creation of

> the mind on the reality of the Self. He summarised the difference

between

> the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is

unreal

> if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects

and real

> when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self. "

>

> ( " Be As You Are: the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi " , p259, by

David

> Godman)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

Namaste Peter,

 

That is a very good piece, however it doesn't reveal the full truth

of Ramana's statements. For Ramana talked mostly of the 'Self' or

Siva.Sakti.but that is talking of the concept of SaGuna Brahman which

in itself is unreal and never happened. David Godman doesn't venture

far beyond the Bhakta either and he really doesn't go much further

than that.

Anything that can make one feel, or feel good is unreal. Even the

appearance never happened, which of course nullifies the concept of

Saguna as how could there be two forms of Brahman.

 

Logically Einstein says there is no time, time itself is an illusion,

it is relative..So how could things be forming and changing if there

is no time? I know Sankara goes as far as 'the appearance' but this

may be due to his audience---same thing for Ramana. Sankara mostly

stopped at Advaita which is essentially Saguna/Self so did Ramana.

Because the concept of Ajativada or ParaAdvaita assaulted people's

minds and denied their senses.

 

Even the Advaitins are attached to their ideas. I was actually banned

from writing on the Advaitin group, for a while, as I said that

the 'Brahman' of Pralaya was the Saguna concept not the NirGuna

concept. Why did I say that? Because NirGuna cannot contain

potentiality and future karmas that's why--so pralaya is part of

illusion. If you add it all up there is no way it could have

happened.............

 

Ramana talked to the minds in front of him, and to talk of para-

advaita would destroy some of the people's minds, as they are needy

of devotion to something.

 

I use Bhajans and mantras as well, but mainly to remind me.

 

2...How did we get like this?

 

Well even the savage in the jungle has the witch doctor or shaman to

manipulate him. How did that happen? Well there is no need for

animals to rise up to be human, even if some do.

 

It is not about ascents it is about descents. Millions of years ago

if you read the Bible-Genesis or the Bhagavata Purana, they talk of

descents...Bhagavata talks of perhaps three different descents. The

first descent failed as the astrals in human form, were using the

contrasts in meditation to 'realise' themselves...so another group

descended from the astral plane around the orion and sirius systems.

This group mated defences and ate of the land...However some millions

of years before these contrived rescue descents, there had been other

descents that had mixed up animals and beings in all shapes and sizes

other than hominid....Some of the newer descents retained the ability

to move between planes at will. So here we have the example of moving

out of the body,,,,and the beginnings of worshipping so

called 'Divine Beings' or Devas..the germinating seeds of religion so

to speak...These are narrated in many scriptures, Bible, Koran,

Puranas, Ramayana etc---it is a good as an explanation as any. And if

you believe it or not---it shows anything is possible within the

illusion...nothing is impossible as it ultimately never happend even

if one gives it some temporary validity for arguments sake....

 

Hanuman was one of the most famous...mixture types and the dasa

avataras refer to the idea as well....

 

AS UG Krishnamurthi said we are just squatters in the body....Cheers

Tony.

[Guest guest]

 

 

January 22, 2009The Upside of IrritationThings That Annoy Us

There are many stories of spiritual masters embracing the presence of an annoying student in their community. There is even one story that documents a teacher paying an irritating person to live among his students. From an everyday perspective, this is difficult to comprehend. We generally work hard to avoid people and things that we find annoying so they don’t bother us. From a deeper spiritual perspective, however, irritation can be an important teacher and indicator that we are making progress on our path. Being able to remain centered and awake even when we feel uncomfortable is much more impressive than doing so in an environment where everything is to our liking. No matter how good we are at controlling our circumstances, there will always be factors and people that we cannot control. How we respond to these experiences to a great degree determines the quality of our lives. The goal of spiritual development is not to learn to control our environment—which is more of an ego-driven desire

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Tony OClery

Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:09 PM

Re: A few thoughts...

 

 

, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:>> Dear All,> > A few thoughts...> > Ajatavada is the theory (vada) that everything is unborn (aja) - i.e. the> highest truth is that all manifestation, though it appears to come into> being as individual entities, is really the One unborn and changeless> Brahman. As Gaudapada - famous for the assertion of ajatavada - states in> his Mandukya Karika 3.2:> > "Therefore I will tell that which is not> pitiable, which is without birth and uniform.> [so that one understands]: nothing is born,> even while things are born all around." [3.2]> > It is the denial of the difference between cause (a creator) and effect (the> world) and is the assertion that what appears as the variety of independent> beings which are born and die is in fact all along the unborn Self, Brahman.> > > Sri Ramana has stated the two paths to Realisation - namely Self-inquiry and> Surrender. We may sense how Surrender to the Higher Power is fully in> accord with Ramana's views on ajatavada in his second mangalam of Forty> Verses on Realit. Sri Ramana puts it as follows:> > "Men of pure minds who intensely fear death surrender> themselves unto the Lord of all, the Blissfull One,> the indwelling Self, who has no death nor birth.> By that (surrender) their ego, along with their attachments,> becomes extinguished. How can they, who (thus) have won abode> in Immortality, have any thought of death?" > (Lakshmana Sarma's translation)> > David Godman sheds some valuable light on Ajatavada as found in Sri Ramana's> teachings:> > "1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient Hindu> doctrine which states that the creation of the world never happened at all.> It is a complete denial of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana> endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's experience that nothing> ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone exists as> the sole unchanging reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time,> space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation theories,> exist only in the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the Self> reveals their non-existence. 260 > > "This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the> creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his own> experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the world is real,> not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an uncaused> appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by saying that because the real> nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the beingness of> the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world> is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the> real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self. > > "The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary nature and> source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an illusory> world of separate interacting objects by persistently misinterpreting the> senseimpressions it receives. Sri Ramana pointed out that this view of the> world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a creation of> the mind on the reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between> the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal> if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real> when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self. "> > ("Be As You Are: the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi", p259, by David> Godman)> > Best wishes,> > PeterNamaste Peter,That is a very good piece, however it doesn't reveal the full truth of Ramana's statements. For Ramana talked mostly of the 'Self' or Siva.Sakti.but that is talking of the concept of SaGuna Brahman which in itself is unreal and never happened. David Godman doesn't venture far beyond the Bhakta either and he really doesn't go much further than that. Anything that can make one feel, or feel good is unreal. Even the appearance never happened, which of course nullifies the concept of Saguna as how could there be two forms of Brahman.Logically Einstein says there is no time, time itself is an illusion, it is relative..So how could things be forming and changing if there is no time? I know Sankara goes as far as 'the appearance' but this may be due to his audience---same thing for Ramana. Sankara mostly stopped at Advaita which is essentially Saguna/Self so did Ramana. Because the concept of Ajativada or ParaAdvaita assaulted people's minds and denied their senses.Even the Advaitins are attached to their ideas. I was actually banned from writing on the Advaitin group, for a while, as I said that the 'Brahman' of Pralaya was the Saguna concept not the NirGuna concept. Why did I say that? Because NirGuna cannot contain potentiality and future karmas that's why--so pralaya is part of illusion. If you add it all up there is no way it could have happened.............Ramana talked to the minds in front of him, and to talk of para-advaita would destroy some of the people's minds, as they are needy of devotion to something.I use Bhajans and mantras as well, but mainly to remind me. 2...How did we get like this? Well even the savage in the jungle has the witch doctor or shaman to manipulate him. How did that happen? Well there is no need for animals to rise up to be human, even if some do.It is not about ascents it is about descents. Millions of years ago if you read the Bible-Genesis or the Bhagavata Purana, they talk of descents...Bhagavata talks of perhaps three different descents. The first descent failed as the astrals in human form, were using the contrasts in meditation to 'realise' themselves...so another group descended from the astral plane around the orion and sirius systems.This group mated defences and ate of the land...However some millions of years before these contrived rescue descents, there had been other descents that had mixed up animals and beings in all shapes and sizes other than hominid....Some of the newer descents retained the ability to move between planes at will. So here we have the example of moving out of the body,,,,and the beginnings of worshipping so called 'Divine Beings' or Devas..the germinating seeds of religion so to speak...These are narrated in many scriptures, Bible, Koran, Puranas, Ramayana etc---it is a good as an explanation as any. And if you believe it or not---it shows anything is possible within the illusion...nothing is impossible as it ultimately never happend even if one gives it some temporary validity for arguments sake....Hanuman was one of the most famous...mixture types and the dasa avataras refer to the idea as well....AS UG Krishnamurthi said we are just squatters in the body....Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Peter,

 

Thanks for posting that fascinating discourse on Ajatvada. Its a true

elaboration on the statement " nothing ever happened " .

 

Tony, I couldn't grasp why you felt the above discourse was incomplete

in any way. The Ajathavada seems to imply that every activity or form -

past or future is an illusion. Everything is the 'self'. I'd call the

self the 'nirgun brahman'.

 

I also don't 'get' the reference to ascents and descents. It seems like

we may be putting to fine a point on things here.

 

Rgds

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

, " Satish Vijayan "

<satishvijayan wrote:

>

> Peter,

>

> Thanks for posting that fascinating discourse on Ajatvada. Its a

true

> elaboration on the statement " nothing ever happened " .

>

> Tony, I couldn't grasp why you felt the above discourse was

incomplete

> in any way. The Ajathavada seems to imply that every activity or

form -

> past or future is an illusion. Everything is the 'self'. I'd call

the

> self the 'nirgun brahman'.

>

> I also don't 'get' the reference to ascents and descents. It seems

like

> we may be putting to fine a point on things here.

>

> Rgds

> , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

 

Namaste,Satish,

 

The Self cannot be NirGuna as that is a contradiction in terms, as

Self indicates Being and NirGuna by definition indicates Non-Being.

 

Pointing out illusion and confusion is hardly a fine point for

without knowing one is stuck in illusion and delusion.....

 

The reason I quoted-sort of, the scriptures with ascents descents is

that is my explanation for our condition and the need to worship

concept..........The astrals who could move between planes were

worshipped by those that were stuck in material. This is how the

worship of inter-dimensionals, spirits, devas came about..it was only

a short leap to creat a master spirit or 'God' that was ruling from

his heaven.......Does the gorilla need God? No! then why do we?

Does a child need devas and 'God' No! then instead of teaching the

child our rubbish we should learn from the childs, innocence,

surrender and living in the now..

'Suffer little children and come to me'.Jesus....Ramana avers to

being like a child in many of his gems, indicating that realisation

is like being a child.......Also because of the depopulation of the

planet circa 10K BC we have the genetic constructs and moulding of

all living mixtures and humans into what we call 'human' today with

all the attendent karmas and animal samskaras and attributes...

 

This is my explanation within illusion, where anything is possible,

as thought is unlimited, for our condition: And I'm attempting to

show how the reason for spiritual teaching, to explain this, has been

usurped into religions and philosophies, which in the main are

egotistical rubbish, manipulative and binding....In fact anything

other than what the child knows is essentially crap........Cheers Tony

[Guest guest]

To my limited knowledge Nirguna is not non-being but beyond being.

Nirguna is not colorless, but all colors and beyond colors. Able to

take on any color at will. Hence the existence (within Maya) of this

universe. Perhaps the concept you're talking about is akin to the

Buddhist Shunyam?

 

Being child-like to me, doesn't mean being ignorant. It means not

caring for superficial norms. The child of Arunachala wasn't

ignorant. As long as we have an Ego we need God. Once the Ego is

eradicated and the 'self' is realized, the need vanishes and only God

exists.

 

Rgds

 

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

>

> , " Satish Vijayan "

> <satishvijayan@> wrote:

> >

[Guest guest]

, " Satish Vijayan "

<satishvijayan wrote:

>

> To my limited knowledge Nirguna is not non-being but beyond being.

> Nirguna is not colorless, but all colors and beyond colors. Able to

> take on any color at will. Hence the existence (within Maya) of

this

> universe. Perhaps the concept you're talking about is akin to the

> Buddhist Shunyam?

>

> Being child-like to me, doesn't mean being ignorant. It means not

> caring for superficial norms. The child of Arunachala wasn't

> ignorant. As long as we have an Ego we need God. Once the Ego is

> eradicated and the 'self' is realized, the need vanishes and only

God

> exists.

>

> Rgds

>

> , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> >

> > , " Satish Vijayan "

> > <satishvijayan@> wrote:

> > >

 

Namaste,

 

I think you should study the meaning of Nir=No Gunas=attributes or

qualities. Your description again is Saguna for NirGuna cannot have

any potentiality by description.

 

The ego created the false concept of 'God'. I am not a Buddhist and I

am not talking about sunyata.

 

What you are trying to do is rationalise your beliefs, that you are

so comfortable with..You are floating in the ocean trying to stir a

pot of water..................You are a good foil as you are a

perfect example of programming and belief systems.........Tony

[Guest guest]

I always believed this is not something that can be understood through

study. I too can transliterate nirguna into 'no attributes'. I just

don't believe its an accurate representation. How do you explain the

universe with Nirgun (per your transliteration)? Its like trying to

seperate white from milk. You cannot seperate the manifest from the

unmanifest.

 

That was nice simile. Personally I am not 'comfortable' with anything.

Like you, I too am in the process of Saadhana. So why is the Nirgun

Brahm not God?

 

Rgds

 

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

>

 

> Namaste,

>

> I think you should study the meaning of Nir=No Gunas=attributes or

> qualities. Your description again is Saguna for NirGuna cannot have

> any potentiality by description.

>

> The ego created the false concept of 'God'. I am not a Buddhist and I

> am not talking about sunyata.

>

> What you are trying to do is rationalise your beliefs, that you are

> so comfortable with..You are floating in the ocean trying to stir a

> pot of water..................You are a good foil as you are a

> perfect example of programming and belief systems.........>

[Guest guest]

, " Satish Vijayan "

<satishvijayan wrote:

>

> I always believed this is not something that can be understood

through

> study. I too can transliterate nirguna into 'no attributes'. I just

> don't believe its an accurate representation. How do you explain

the

> universe with Nirgun (per your transliteration)? Its like trying to

> seperate white from milk. You cannot seperate the manifest from the

> unmanifest.

>

> That was nice simile. Personally I am not 'comfortable' with

anything.

> Like you, I too am in the process of Saadhana. So why is the Nirgun

> Brahm not God?

>

> Rgds

>

> , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> >

>

> > Namaste,

> >

> > I think you should study the meaning of Nir=No Gunas=attributes

or

> > qualities. Your description again is Saguna for NirGuna cannot

have

> > any potentiality by description.

> >

> > The ego created the false concept of 'God'. I am not a Buddhist

and I

> > am not talking about sunyata.

> >

> > What you are trying to do is rationalise your beliefs, that you

are

> > so comfortable with..You are floating in the ocean trying to stir

a

> > pot of water..................You are a good foil as you are a

> > perfect example of programming and belief systems.........> >

>

Namaste,

 

Because NirGuna is just that indescribable in all but the

negative. 'God' is a creation of the ego....a fantasm of attributes

and so called love etc etc........Like a giant invisible human.

 

The whole premise of your argument rests on your statement that you

can't separate white from milk...that may be so but in this case milk

and white are delusions and never ever happened. There is no manifest

to be separated from the manifest it is all in the mind only...Tony

[Guest guest]

Tony,

 

I think I may have implied this earlier.

 

As long as we have a form, and identify ourselves with that form, there

is a need for God. Since we are human form, the God must be

Anthropomorphic. Personally, I am more focussed on the process of

Saadhana, then trying to describe the ultimate truth.

 

Intellectualization was never my suite. The process of Saadhana is one

of refinement, dropping off grosser aspects of our ego. At this point,

Whether pralaya Brahman is Saguna or Nirguna is not relevant. Love is

finer than lust. Bliss is finer than cavilling about my annual income.

Therefore God exists, till we have an ego that reacts to our

environment. Its the same God which has created the Maya around us.

 

I don't disagree with your definition of Nirgun Brahman. I just don't

understand its relevance to Saadhana. When I am equally indifferent to

winning the lottery or losing a limb, it may be relevant to me. Yes all

of us are playing within Maya. It seems like the way out (or in) is a

step-by-step process.

 

Good discussion. btw, do delete trailing messages that are not

absolutely relevant to the posting. Also, I loved the translation of

the Rig Vedic prose.

 

Rgds

 

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

> Because NirGuna is just that indescribable in all but the

> negative. 'God' is a creation of the ego....a fantasm of attributes

> and so called love etc etc........Like a giant invisible human.

>

> The whole premise of your argument rests on your statement that you

> can't separate white from milk...that may be so but in this case milk

> and white are delusions and never ever happened. There is no manifest

> to be separated from the manifest it is all in the mind only...>

[Guest guest]

, " Satish Vijayan "

<satishvijayan wrote:

>

> Tony,

>

> I think I may have implied this earlier.

>

> As long as we have a form, and identify ourselves with that form,

there

> is a need for God. Since we are human form, the God must be

> Anthropomorphic. Personally, I am more focussed on the process of

> Saadhana, then trying to describe the ultimate truth.

>

> Intellectualization was never my suite. The process of Saadhana is

one

> of refinement, dropping off grosser aspects of our ego. At this

point,

> Whether pralaya Brahman is Saguna or Nirguna is not relevant. Love

is

> finer than lust. Bliss is finer than cavilling about my annual

income.

> Therefore God exists, till we have an ego that reacts to our

> environment. Its the same God which has created the Maya around us.

>

> I don't disagree with your definition of Nirgun Brahman. I just

don't

> understand its relevance to Saadhana. When I am equally indifferent

to

> winning the lottery or losing a limb, it may be relevant to me. Yes

all

> of us are playing within Maya. It seems like the way out (or in) is

a

> step-by-step process.

>

> Good discussion. btw, do delete trailing messages that are not

> absolutely relevant to the posting. Also, I loved the translation

of

> the Rig Vedic prose.

>

> Rgds

>

> , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> > Because NirGuna is just that indescribable in all but the

> > negative. 'God' is a creation of the ego....a fantasm of

attributes

> > and so called love etc etc........Like a giant invisible human.

> >

> > The whole premise of your argument rests on your statement that

you

> > can't separate white from milk...that may be so but in this case

milk

> > and white are delusions and never ever happened. There is no

manifest

> > to be separated from the manifest it is all in the mind

only...> >

>

Namaste,

 

There is the crux of the problem of diversion and superstition. 'God'

concept is not necessary at all. It is the false premise that all the

edifices of mind and matter are built upon.

 

Apparently apes are evolving at a faster rate then humans,

scientifically; So in several millions of years when they pass a

certain threshold.......should we teach them superstition about 'God'.

Will that help them realise who they really are? I don't think so, it

is better to teach Ahimsa for all comes from that.

For if and when they realise the Saguna/Sakti then spontaneously and

at the same time they will realise NirGuna. This without the need

for 'God'just Ahimsa which encompasses all Love and Compassion.

 

God and religion is actually a painful diversion from Moksha and

people have to live many lives to divest themselves of this

superstition to get back to where they were as a child.....Cheers

Tony.

 

I probably upset some people's minds on here, but it helps break down

the edifices of superstition and delusion. I call it 'Confrontational

Yoga'....