Guest guest Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Dear Peter ,  I wish to put on record that I entirely agree with your well written and sound critiques of Tony's confrontational one sided approach. I trust he will have more consideration and respect for the rest of us who include Devotion as an integral part of Sri Bhagavan's great teaching.  All regards and every best wish,  Alan --- On Sat, 24/1/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: Peter <not_2 " Atman alone exists and is real. " Saturday, 24 January, 2009, 11:15 PM 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. " (Sankarachary a --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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Alan Jacobs wrote: > > Dear Peter , > > I wish to put on record that I entirely agree with your well written > and sound critiques of Tony's confrontational one sided approach. I > trust he will have more consideration and respect for the rest of us > who include Devotion as an integral part of Sri Bhagavan's great teaching. > > All regards and every best wish, > > Alan > i agree wholeheartedly... hahahaha actually, it has been years since i delete mr. o'cleary posts wherever i see them, without wasting any time opening or reading them. experience showed that they are worthless, ignorant and repetitive intellectual presentations of classic, well known advaita teachings, without a trace of originality and actual, direct experience. this is made evident by his total lack of respect or humility... so why bother? respectfully, yosy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 , Yosy Flug <yosyflug wrote: > > Alan Jacobs wrote: > > > > Dear Peter , > > > > I wish to put on record that I entirely agree with your well written > > and sound critiques of Tony's confrontational one sided approach. I > > trust he will have more consideration and respect for the rest of us > > who include Devotion as an integral part of Sri Bhagavan's great teaching. > > > > All regards and every best wish, > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > i agree wholeheartedly... > > hahahaha actually, it has been years since i delete mr. o'cleary > posts wherever i see them, without wasting any time opening > or reading them. experience showed that they are worthless, > ignorant and repetitive intellectual presentations of classic, well > known advaita teachings, without a trace of originality and actual, > direct experience. this is made evident by his total lack of respect > or humility... so why bother? > > respectfully, > yosy > Yosy, you show no respect....however you may be inclined to *think* so... But then that's my opinion, and you, of course, never read my posts, as well. Namaste. A word you might do well to learn the meaning of. ~Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Tony writes: >> Peter, You are basing your whole argument on a redundancy, and or a false premise.<< Dear Tony, On the contrary. I am putting the view that Sri Ramana, Sankara, other realised souls and Advaita in general teach that the Self (Atman) alone is real and non other than the unborn formless Brahman (nirguna). This is based on what Sri Ramana and other sages *actually* said and taught. I have supplied references to the relevant parts of his/their teaching and actual quotes from their teachings which support that view. For example, 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. " ( " Who Am I? " - essay version in " Words of Grace " page 7) You are putting the view that Sri Ramana et al taught that the Self refers *only* to Saguna brahman, an illusion which didn't happen because nothing ever happens (ajatavada). You maintain this view in spite of the fact this is not what they are recorded to have taught and in fact they state something quite different. You have yet to provide a single reference or quote from Ramana or Sankara to support this claim. Tony, the view you are putting forward of saguna, nirguna and ajatavada (which means nothing whatsoever is born) is unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. The whole thrust of Ramana's teaching and Advaita in general is that we already are what we seek. The Self, Atman - identical with the formless and unborn Brahman devoid of qualities and adjuncts - is our true nature, our natural state. As Ramana says: " Reality is our true nature. " (Talks: 401) It is the only thing that is real. Hence Ramana, Sankara and other great sages teach us that Realisation is not something to be got anew. All that is required is the removal of ignorance. (See Talks:63). This is where the doctrine of ajatavada is directly relevant to our spiritual practice. One can only sublate (remove, destroy) that which has no underlying reality in itself, that which 'never really happened'. That which *appears* to come into being (is born), lasts for a while, then disappears (dies) has no underlying reality in itself which is why it can be transcended. 'THAT' which always 'IS' is never born for that which is born, or comes into being, must at one time have not existed. That which alone is Real, which is neither born nor dies can never be sublated or destroyed. This is the other side of the theory of ajatavada (nothing whatsoever is born). Hence Ramana states: " The goal cannot be anything apart from the Self nor can it be something to be gained afresh. If that were so, such goal cannot be abiding and permanent. What appears anew will also disappear. The goal must be eternal and within. Find it within yourself. " (Talks: 476) " Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. . . . Moreover, what is acquired will also be lost in due course. They can never be permanent. The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. " (Talks: 503) Regards, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Dear Peter, Thank you for your consistent and clear explanations of Bhagavan's teachings. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha On Behalf Of Peter Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:01 AM RE: Re: " Atman alone exists and is real. " Tony writes: >> Peter, You are basing your whole argument on a redundancy, and or a false premise.<< Dear Tony, On the contrary. I am putting the view that Sri Ramana, Sankara, other realised souls and Advaita in general teach that the Self (Atman) alone is real and non other than the unborn formless Brahman (nirguna). This is based on what Sri Ramana and other sages *actually* said and taught. I have supplied references to the relevant parts of his/their teaching and actual quotes from their teachings which support that view. For example, 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. " ( " Who Am I? " - essay version in " Words of Grace " page 7) You are putting the view that Sri Ramana et al taught that the Self refers *only* to Saguna brahman, an illusion which didn't happen because nothing ever happens (ajatavada). You maintain this view in spite of the fact this is not what they are recorded to have taught and in fact they state something quite different. You have yet to provide a single reference or quote from Ramana or Sankara to support this claim. Tony, the view you are putting forward of saguna, nirguna and ajatavada (which means nothing whatsoever is born) is unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. The whole thrust of Ramana's teaching and Advaita in general is that we already are what we seek. The Self, Atman - identical with the formless and unborn Brahman devoid of qualities and adjuncts - is our true nature, our natural state. As Ramana says: " Reality is our true nature. " (Talks: 401) It is the only thing that is real. Hence Ramana, Sankara and other great sages teach us that Realisation is not something to be got anew. All that is required is the removal of ignorance. (See Talks:63). This is where the doctrine of ajatavada is directly relevant to our spiritual practice. One can only sublate (remove, destroy) that which has no underlying reality in itself, that which 'never really happened'. That which *appears* to come into being (is born), lasts for a while, then disappears (dies) has no underlying reality in itself which is why it can be transcended. 'THAT' which always 'IS' is never born for that which is born, or comes into being, must at one time have not existed. That which alone is Real, which is neither born nor dies can never be sublated or destroyed. This is the other side of the theory of ajatavada (nothing whatsoever is born). Hence Ramana states: " The goal cannot be anything apart from the Self nor can it be something to be gained afresh. If that were so, such goal cannot be abiding and permanent. What appears anew will also disappear. The goal must be eternal and within. Find it within yourself. " (Talks: 476) " Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. . . . Moreover, what is acquired will also be lost in due course. They can never be permanent. The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. " (Talks: 503) Regards, Peter --- is supported by . New articles are added there on a continuous basis. Please register at . You will be kept updated and get the new articles which are posted on the site very nicely formatted in your e-mail. Friends, after registering at , if you wish to contribute your writing to the site, please let me know. Your articles should be original, well written, using subtitles, and be carefully proofread and polished. For a list of topics considered, please go to and take a look at the site. Thanks. Namaste and love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Tony writes: > > >> Peter, You are basing your whole argument on a redundancy, and or a false > premise.<< > > Dear Tony, > > On the contrary. I am putting the view that Sri Ramana, Sankara, other > realised souls and Advaita in general teach that the Self (Atman) alone is > real and non other than the unborn formless Brahman (nirguna). This is > based on what Sri Ramana and other sages *actually* said and taught. I have > supplied references to the relevant parts of his/their teaching and actual > quotes from their teachings which support that view. For example, 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. " > ( " Who Am I? " - essay version in " Words of Grace " page 7) > > You are putting the view that Sri Ramana et al taught that the Self refers > *only* to Saguna brahman, an illusion which didn't happen because nothing > ever happens (ajatavada). You maintain this view in spite of the fact this > is not what they are recorded to have taught and in fact they state > something quite different. You have yet to provide a single reference or > quote from Ramana or Sankara to support this claim. > > Tony, the view you are putting forward of saguna, nirguna and ajatavada > (which means nothing whatsoever is born) is unnecessarily complicated and > convoluted. > > The whole thrust of Ramana's teaching and Advaita in general is that we > already are what we seek. The Self, Atman - identical with the formless and > unborn Brahman devoid of qualities and adjuncts - is our true nature, our > natural state. As Ramana says: > > " Reality is our true nature. " (Talks: 401) > > It is the only thing that is real. Hence Ramana, Sankara and other great > sages teach us that Realisation is not something to be got anew. All that is > required is the removal of ignorance. (See Talks:63). > > This is where the doctrine of ajatavada is directly relevant to our > spiritual practice. One can only sublate (remove, destroy) that which has no > underlying reality in itself, that which 'never really happened'. That which > *appears* to come into being (is born), lasts for a while, then disappears > (dies) has no underlying reality in itself which is why it can be > transcended. > > 'THAT' which always 'IS' is never born for that which is born, or comes into > being, must at one time have not existed. That which alone is Real, which is > neither born nor dies can never be sublated or destroyed. This is the other > side of the theory of ajatavada (nothing whatsoever is born). Hence Ramana > states: > > " The goal cannot be anything apart from the Self nor can it be > something to be gained afresh. If that were so, such goal cannot > be abiding and permanent. What appears anew will also disappear. > The goal must be eternal and within. Find it within yourself. " > (Talks: 476) > > " Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere > Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the > sight, all are the self only. . . . Moreover, what is acquired > will also be lost in due course. They can never be permanent. > The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. " > (Talks: 503) > > Regards, > Peter > Namaste, Peter I think I explained myself quite simply as the truth is very simple. Ramana and Sankara didn't converse much on ajativada as nobody would understand them and reject all else they had said. I don't know about Sankara as they don't know when he was born even there is up to a 1000 year difference---so repeating what he said is also problematic---as he didn't speak English either. Ramana is a different case and he constantly referred to the 'Self' as being Siva etc. Also as it being 'BEING' that is your clue...for NirGuna by description cannot be BEING... Obvioulsy you have not grasped what Ajativada means, and that all else is Mind and therefore unreal including Saguna Concept. I think we should finish our discussion here as it is going nowhere. This will give you time to absorb what I have said, moksha is irrelevant to sankara and ramana's teaching really it is your own whatever that matters....... The problem is reliance on so called scripture--this can be also problematic, as they are only a guide. Most people have a fear of what I am sayingt as they cannot entertain that they are themselves NirGuna and the idea seems annihilation which the ego cannot stand. So this is why you are so strong on refuting what I am saying. As Nisargadatta said only 1 person in Mumbai can understand non- dualism intellectually never mind realise it. About 150K or more in the entire world and out of those only a handful achieve realisation. Non Dualism and NirGuna are the same thing...Ramana taught realisation as 'The Self' or Saguna..and I have pointed out that the realisation of NirGuna is simultaneous anyway...as that is the truth. Hence ajativada or my coin Para-Advaita not to be confused with the paradvaita of the saivites.......Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 , " Harsha " wrote: > > Dear Peter, > > Thank you for your consistent and clear explanations of Bhagavan's > teachings. > > Namaste and love to all > > Yours in Bhagavan > Harsha Namaste Harsha, Clear and consistent but yet unfinished explanations...I'm sorry...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Dear Tony, In both your emails to me and to Alan you have simply repeated the same old unsupported claims. Please be good enough to offer us something of substance from Ramana's teaching or from Advaita in general rather than the usual it's so 'because you (Tony) say so'. You write: >> NirGuna by description cannot be BEING...<< Nir-guna means to be without attributes (without gunas). Only something that truly exists (whose Being is Real) can be without something else. A non-existent thing simply doesn't exist and can therefore neither possess attributes nor be without them. Brahman is the only Reality, all else is appearance. Hence in Advaita Brahman is referred to as Absolute Existence - SAT - the only REALITY. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: For the unreal, there is never any being. For the real, there is never non-being. The ultimate truth of both of these is Seen by the knowers of the truth. (II:16) Sankara's commentary on this verse explains that Atman alone IS (SAT) - it alone is Being, all else is appearance, nama-rupa (name and form), which comes and goes without any real nature of its own. In his Upadesa Sahasri (ch.2), Sankara makes it clear he is referring to Brahman without attributes (nirguna) when he asserts that Atman and Brahman, for which " there is never non-being " , are one. 6, I am Brahman, of the nature of Pure Consciousness, without qualities, free from Ignorance, free from the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Living in all beings like ether. I am the witness free from all their defects. 7, Ever free and different from names, forms and actions, I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting of Pure Consciousness and always without a second. And, as given before, Kanchi Maha-Swamigal states: " 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) You also write: >>> Most people have a fear of what I am sayingt as they cannot entertain that they are themselves NirGuna and the idea seems annihilation which the ego cannot stand. So this is why you are so strong on refuting what I am saying. Tony, where you cannot supply any real substance to your claims you often resort to attributing negative personal characterics to the people who challenge your views. Please don't lower the level of debate with these tactics. They add nothing at all to the validity of your ideas. For you to say " they [people] are themselves Nirguna " is the very view I am putting and with which you want to disagree - namely that our real nature, Atman (the Self) is non other than Brahman devoid of qaulities and attributes and for ever 'unborn'. You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Regards, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Peter wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > In both your emails to me and to Alan you have simply repeated the > same old > unsupported claims. Please be good enough to offer us something of > substance > from Ramana's teaching or from Advaita in general rather than the > usual it's > so 'because you (Tony) say so'. > > You write: > > >> NirGuna by description cannot be BEING...<< > > Nir-guna means to be without attributes (without gunas). > Only something that truly exists (whose Being is Real) can be without > something else. > A non-existent thing simply doesn't exist and can therefore neither > possess > attributes nor be without them. > > Brahman is the only Reality, all else is appearance. Hence in Advaita > Brahman is referred to as Absolute Existence - SAT - the only REALITY. > > As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: > > For the unreal, there is never any being. > For the real, there is never non-being. > The ultimate truth of both of these is > Seen by the knowers of the truth. (II:16) > > Sankara's commentary on this verse explains that Atman alone IS (SAT) - it > alone is Being, all else is appearance, nama-rupa (name and form), which > comes and goes without any real nature of its own. > > In his Upadesa Sahasri (ch.2), Sankara makes it clear he is referring to > Brahman without attributes (nirguna) when he asserts that Atman and > Brahman, > for which " there is never non-being " , are one. > > 6, I am Brahman, of the nature of Pure Consciousness, > without qualities, free from Ignorance, free from > the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. > Living in all beings like ether. I am the witness > free from all their defects. > > 7, Ever free and different from names, forms and actions, > I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting of > Pure Consciousness and always without a second. > > And, as given before, Kanchi Maha-Swamigal states: > > " 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) > > You also write: > > >>> Most people have a fear of what I am sayingt as they cannot entertain > that they are themselves NirGuna and the idea seems annihilation which the > ego cannot stand. > So this is why you are so strong on refuting what I am saying. > > Tony, where you cannot supply any real substance to your claims you often > resort to attributing negative personal characterics to the people who > challenge your views. Please don't lower the level of debate with these > tactics. They add nothing at all to the validity of your ideas. > > For you to say " they [people] are themselves Nirguna " is the very view > I am > putting and with which you want to disagree - namely that our real nature, > Atman (the Self) is non other than Brahman devoid of qaulities and > attributes and for ever 'unborn'. You seem to be arguing against yourself > here. > > Regards, > Peter > thank you, peter. yosy ps. " dogs are barking, caravan keeps going " (bedouin saying) in other words, as you quote, " the true always is, the untrue never has existence " (the bhagvadgita) jai ramana! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > In both your emails to me and to Alan you have simply repeated the same old > unsupported claims. Please be good enough to offer us something of substance > from Ramana's teaching or from Advaita in general rather than the usual it's > so 'because you (Tony) say so'. > > You write: > > >> NirGuna by description cannot be BEING...<< > > Nir-guna means to be without attributes (without gunas). > Only something that truly exists (whose Being is Real) can be without > something else. > A non-existent thing simply doesn't exist and can therefore neither possess > attributes nor be without them. > > Brahman is the only Reality, all else is appearance. Hence in Advaita > Brahman is referred to as Absolute Existence - SAT - the only REALITY. Namaste, Sat cit ananada is Saguna as they are attributes or qualities as Ramana calls them. I can't prove Nir Guna as by description it cannot be proved, for a mind is req'd for that.. I can just say that whatever has been said by Ramana and Sankara leaves the logical and only conclusion. Reality is Being so is Saguna. It is very logical if creation is appearance and brahman then brahman must have some duality and mind and this cannot be so. Non Duality, Ahimsa, Silence all mean the same thing no duality, no movement and no sound at all.........no projection. I realise that you cannot grasp what I am saying for whatever reason so there is no point in continuing. I posted something on solomon and sheba perhaps we could talk about that....................If it gets through....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Dear Tony, Several times in the past, various moderators have put you on moderation on this list and have even removed you. I have always allowed you to come back as you seem to somehow have an affinity for the sangha. I know you have your own group and so possibly that is the place you should be giving your teaching. On the advice of several good people and in agreement with them, you are again being placed on moderation. This time permanently. I respect you for who you are and understand that this is no one's fault. Ideally, I would like for you to show respect for the nature of the Sangha and Bhagavan's devotees. But it is possible that you are not able to exercise self-control with regards to that. I fully accept that. Best wishes on your path Tony. I appreciate all that you have offered and hope that you will focus more on posting to other lists so they can also benefit from your wisdom as well. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha On Behalf Of Tony OClery Monday, January 26, 2009 8:45 PM Re: " Atman alone exists and is real. " I realise that you cannot grasp what I am saying for whatever reason so there is no point in continuing. 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.