Guest guest Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Namaste! This discussion between Sri Tony and Sri Ram is good in my opinion. I believe this is how we make progress. I will present a few opinions of my own. (Others such as Sri Siddharth also made intelligent comments, but for simplicity I will restrict myself to these two Prabhujis.) But first let me say that I QUITE AGREE with Sri Ram's new emphasis. It is quite appropriate for him to tell us that we are allowed our opinions on this list PROVIDED we back them up with quotations from Astika Scriptures and Shastras (commentaries). That is a totally reasonable request for a list devoted to Advaita. It is not that our opinions are necessarily wrong if there is no scriptural corroboration, it is just that this list is devoted to a certain spiritual tradition, and so there are some rules. From now on, I will endeavor to back my comments up with quotations, especially since it is more fun and interesting that way, and I also I learn more myself. Please remember one thing though. Just as Advaitins and Dvaitins can interpret the same scriptures differently, so also can there be differences of opinions among Advaitins. So while we play the game of quoting scripture and shastra, let us not get dogmatic with others. The Truth is beyond any words, and it is indeed true, as Sri Tony said, that the very scriptures can seem to contradict each other because when they address different levels of consciousness. That is why the Brahma Sutras were written, as Sadanandaji informed us. Now here are a few quotations from today's discussion between Sri Tony and Sri Ram: Sri Tony: >Saguna Brahman is the ultimate illusion, there can only be >Nirguna....ONS...Tony. >Seeing the world as God is still illusion, seeing at >all is illusion.......ONS...Tony. >I still can only say that Cit-Sat-Ananda are attributes, and >descriptions and refer only to the Self as Saguna Brahman Sri Ram said: >Vedantic position with respect ot Sat-Chit-Anand: >Brahman is attributeless and Sat-Chit-Anand is not an attribute >but it is a statement of the nature of Ultimate reality. > ... >These are not qualities or characteristics but its essential >nature; > ... >Source: A Dictionary of Advaita Vedanta, by Swami Harshananda >You can have your opinion but please note that what you say >doesn't agree with the Vedantic framework of Shankara. The same >terms Sat, Chit and Anand can be interpreted differently in >various contexts. > ... >Logically what you see may be valid in Dwaita and not in Advaita. >In Advaita, subject is the object and there is no separate object. >Only objects can have attributes I think you are both right, if interpreted properly. I will present one famous and fundamental quote from the Brihadaranyaka, where sage Yajnavalkya is talking to his beloved wife Maitreyi about nonduality: " For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known-through what, my dear, should one know the Knower? " Brihadaranyaka, II, 4, 14 Verily, this is the essence of Advaita! (Sorry, but I am so impressed with these magnificent words of sage Yajnavalkya that I am reverting to dignified Old English, our version of Sanskrit!) I think that it is in this sense that Sri Tony means that at the Advaita (nondual) level, one cannot speak of seeing or perceiving anything, whether this be objects, attributes, concepts or indeed anything that can be spoken of. If Saguna Brahman be Brahman with attributes, then this too disappears at the Nirguna level, which is why we have the Saguna/Nirguna distinction in the first place. Indeed, one cannot even speak of 'seeing', as Sri Tony says, although this of course does not mean that we go blind! Quite the contrary. But this is just what Sri Ram is saying! He points out that, according to Swami Harshananda, Sat-Chit-Ananda are not attributes but direct realization. Advaita is all about direct realization of the essential nature of Brahman. There is no contradiction between our two venerable list members. Sri Tony was merely saying that IF Sat-Chit-Ananda were in some way perceived as attributes, then we would be at a dualistic and erroneous level. The very use of these words can make it SEEM as though they are attributes. All words are dangerous in this respect, since grammar tends to associate words with objects and their attributes, which we know do not exist. This is confirmed when Sri Ram says that only objects have attributes, and no objects exist at the nondual level. From a grammatical point of view, Sat-Chit-Ananda are technically attributes, and hence the habitual mind is in danger of perceiving them in that way. From the Advaita point of view, and in relation to Brahman, this is invalid. But we are forced by language to describe Brahman with apparent attributes if we are to speak at all. By the way, on a more humorous note, this Swami Harshananda is not the Harsha that Sri Ram recently chided for quoting on this list from that notorious adversary of Advaita, Sri Ramana Maharshi. (Just a joke!!!) Finally, if the moderators and list members would be so indulgent as to allow me to quote very briefly from a very famous Mahayana prayer called the Heart Sutra: " Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita [Perfect Wisdom]. Since there is no obscuration of mind, there is no fear. They transcend falsity and attain complete nirvana. " The venerable list members may decide for themselves whether this sounds like the words of blessed sage Yajnavalkya quoted above. At any rate, I believe that a brief glancing reference to related traditions, in the context of a fully Advaitin discussion, is the kind of restrained nod to other traditions that the venerable moderators are prepared to tolerate on this list! If not, then please inform me! Hari Om to all! Benjamin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Namaste dear Sri Benjamin Prabhuji: I truly admire your excellent posting summarizing the conversation on the subject matter - Sat-Chit-Anand - the essence of Brahamanic experience. I agree with almost everything what you have said in the summarization of the conversation. I do believe that members can voice their opinions in most cases (insights) without searching for the sources. When the source is available, it can benefit other members who want to further explore. This post makes you the most qualified member of the list for assuming the leadership of the second list. I don't believe that you need help any moderators and you are likely to excel when you undertake your new venture, Once again thanks for your excellent observation, Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Namaste Sri Tony: This will be my final post on this topic underdiscussion. The sages and saints of the Upanishads have not described the Brahman; they only said that He is beyond all descriptions. Sat-Chit-Anand is also beyond description! Sat (Truth) is beyond description; Chit (mind, crude translation) is beyond description; and finally Anand - (bliss) is also beyond description. I am still wondering what is the logical inconsistenccy of saying that Brahman the undescribable is the culmination of Sat, Chit and Anand! As you rightly said that to experience the Brahman, one needs to get rid of all preconceived notions of Sat, Chit and Anand!! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran In advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > Sorry guys you will have to let go of your final ideas and rituals. > Nirguna is indescrible no experience, attributes nothing. How can > you expect Jivanmuktas and Sages to describe the ultimate when it is Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Namaste Sri Ram Chandran, I have a question regarding your paragraph here : >Swami > Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam: "The truth is that > Isvara is consciousness, Brahman, conditioned by > maya — maya-avacchinna-caitanya. Maya is the upadhi for Brahman. At > this point, one may ask as to what is the difference between Isvara, > which is Brahman conditioned by maya-upadhi, and Brahman? Maya does > not exist apart from Brahman. It depends upon it entirely. Being > mithya, maya's reality is Brahman, so, maya is also Isvara. And Isvara > is nothing but Brahman." This amounts to saying Brahman is Limiting Itself ? ( for whatever reason. Just wondering if its for creation of this world ). Please correct me if I am wrong. Is there anything further said on this topic by the Swamiji ? Thanks and Best Regards Guruprasad P.S. There is another Guruprasad in the Advaita L list who is not me!! ( absolute dual in this case :-) . ) I just mentioned this since I saw in one of your earlier posts that you had mentioned an article discussed by Guruprasad. I used to be G.Venkat here until a few months ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Namaste Sri Guruprasad: When we try to provide a summary part to illustrate a point using a reference, sometime it can create unnecessary confusion. Swami Dayananda's summary statement of Isvara is taken from an earlier list Gita Satsangh discussions on Chapter 7. You can get a correct understanding if you go back to the Archive and retrace the Chapter 7 discussions. Isvara is a complex subject matter and to get a full understanding, one needs to study chapters 7 to 12. According to Swami Dayananda, the Mahavakya 'Tat tvam Asi' chapters 1 to 6 of Gita describe Tvam; chapters 7 to 12 describe Tat and the remaining chapters equate the two! Let me provide Swamiji's complete commentary on Isvara, below which can throw further lights. Hopefully his complete explanation would resolve your question. Swamiji's Gita Homestudy Guide is a class and it is mostly the teaching of Advaita through Bhagavad Gita. It is available at Arshvavidya Gurukulam and the Website address is http://www.arshavidya.org/ "The truth is that Isvara is consciousness, Brahman, conditioned by maya — maya-avacchinna-caitanya. Maya is the upadhi for Brahman. At this point, one may ask as to what is the difference between Isvara, which is Brahman conditioned by maya-upadhi, and Brahman? Maya does not exist apart from Brahman. It depends upon it entirely. Being mithya, maya's reality is Brahman, so, maya is also Isvara. And Isvara is nothing but Brahman. The sruti points out and my own experience confirms that when I look at this world, I find any given thing is nothing but a name and a form. No matter what I analyse, I find it reduced to something else which is in turn reduced to something else. I cannot say categorically of anything that it exists of its own accord. Everything is reduced to its constituent reality. The constituent reality of the table is nothing but its substance, wood, which itself is reduced to particles and so on. Everything is reducible; so, we have a world whose reality is mithya; it exists but not independently. To create this mithya world, Isvara requires some material, a mithya cause. That is maya, the factor responsible for making that same limitless consciousness appear as all-knowing, sarvajna; all- powerful, sarva-saktiman, the author of this whole world, sarva-srsi- karta, and so on. The authorship, and so on, belong only to what is conditioned by maya, Brahman. That Brahman, consciousness, atma, with reference to maya becomes the author of the creation. Because he is sarvajna, he does not have doership. He knows himself. Omniscience, and so on, is with reference to maya-upadhi. With reference to himself he is satyam jnanam anantam brahma, pure consciousness. He is not ignorant of this fact. The material, because of which he is called Isvara, his maya-upadhi, becomes the material cause for the whole world. As a material cause, maya must undergo changes to become this variegated world and is therefore, as we have seen, parinami-upadana-karana, a material cause that undergoes modification. Maya changes to become space, air, fire, water, earth, plants, food, a physical body, etc. The whole world is maya. And maya is Isvara. Therefore, the world is Isvara who, in reality, is nothing but consciousness, Brahman. Brahman, however, does not undergo any change and is therefore, as we have seen, vivarta-upadana-karana, something that does not undergo any change, and yet makes all changes possible. From the standpoint of consciousness, Brahman is vivarta--upadana-karana. Whereas maya is parinami-upadana-karana. Thus Brahman is the material and also the efficient cause for this entire world because Isvara is nothing but Brahman." Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: There is a difference between the following two statements: Maya is due to Brahman but Brahman is detached from Maya and consequently the question of limiting doesn't arise. All our problems are due to attachment to the role that we play. When Brahman plays the role of Isvara, he is unaffected! Lord Krishna repeats this quite a few times in Gita Chapters. advaitin, "v_vedanti" <v_vedanti> wrote: > Namaste Sri Ram Chandran, > I have a question regarding your paragraph here : > > This amounts to saying Brahman is Limiting Itself ? ( for whatever > reason. Just wondering if its for creation of this world ). Please > correct me if I am wrong. Is there anything further said on this > topic by the Swamiji ? > > Thanks and Best Regards > Guruprasad > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada, > > > > > >Namaste, Who is the Knower that knows there was lack of knowledge but joy during sushupti? Surely, there must be a cognizer of this lack of knowledge to say " I remembered nothing and there is no knowledge of the world with all its forms and names and I slept well " There is a cognizer in the wakeful world who sensorily experiences the objects of the world;so also in the dream state to experience the dream world;and so also in the deep sleep state to experience lack of knowledge and joy. This experiencer must and should be the same for he remembers all these experiences as a single entity. We do not know him and our search is to know him.Please,watch the one who thinks but not the thought and you will be on the path I am talking about. This thinker is the BIG PROBLEM .It is this one that is according to the scripture beyond conceptions because conceptions come from It. You have taken a stand and see whether you can withstand it or understand it in logical terms first and overstand it for a position like mine. Please read the first few pages of a book called Vedantha Panchadasi by Sri Vidyaranya muni if you have time. MaY the bliss of Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada be with you! Yours in Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada's love, Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 Tony O'Clery wrote : >advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri" ><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote: > > My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara bhagavatpujyapada, > > > > > >Namaste, > > > > > > > > > I read your cryptic reply with the greatest respect but I am > > simply stunned to read it.I think being yourself so learned >must > > have put the words at the wrong places because of fatigue or > > mosquito bites (of maya) - here they are too many >nowadays!You > > might have meant "ultimate reality"! > > > > If Consciousness - Chit in Sat -Chit - Ananda - is illusion , >how > > can it be the base ( adhishtanam ) of all this creation? > >Namaste. > >There never was a creation, no base, no sat-cit-ananda. If there >were >you would observe it in sleep, sushupti, nidra, samadhi >etc....ONS...Tony. > > >------------------------ Sponsor > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of >nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: >http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: >advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > _ Click below to experience Sooraj Barjatya's latest offering 'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik Roshan, Abhishek Bachchan & Kareena Kapoor http://www.mpkdh.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 This experiencer must and should be the same for he remembers all these experiences as a single entity. We do not know him and our search is to know him.Please,watch the one who thinks but not the thought and you will be on the path I am talking about. This thinker is the BIG PROBLEM .It is this one that is according to the scripture beyond conceptions because conceptions come from It. > praNAm prabhuji > Hare Krishna > prabhuji, I am afraid we are missing the point here. Do you really mean *experiencer* / *thinker* / *cognizer* is shruti pratipAdita Atman. Could you pls. quote the relevant verses from (vEdAnta??)panchadaSi to substantiate your claims. Thanks in advance. >Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste Sri Guruprasad: A futher expansion the note that provided to enhance our understanding of why Swamiji's description of Isvara does not imply any limitation of Brahman. During Gita Satsangh, we discussed in greater detail (Gita Chapter 9 verses 4 and 5) on the same question raised by you. I recommend the excellent commentary of Swami Sachidananda (posted by Savithri Devaraj) and the URL is: advaitin/message/14986 Swamiji's description of yogamAya is beautiful: <"All beings are in Me, I am not in them". Sri krishNa showed this to yashoda devi in his childhood play. Yashoda actually saw the 14 worlds in krishNa's mouth, but soon the truth was lost on her due to her accustomed moha for krishNa. – "pashya me yogamishvaram" – Look at the power of yogamAya! The Lord, as paramArtha for the jnAni, appears as world to the ajnAnis. This is the power of yogamAya.> I recommend the entire discussion during the 2nd and 3rd weeks of October 2002 for everyone who wants more clarity. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Note: There is a difference between the following two statements: > Maya is due to Brahman but Brahman is detached from Maya and > consequently the question of limiting doesn't arise. All our problems > are due to attachment to the role that we play. When Brahman plays > the role of Isvara, he is unaffected! Lord Krishna repeats this quite > a few times in Gita Chapters. > > advaitin, "v_vedanti" <v_vedanti> wrote: > > Namaste Sri Ram Chandran, > > I have a question regarding your paragraph here : > > > > This amounts to saying Brahman is Limiting Itself ? ( for whatever > > reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: > > > > Of course it is all my opinion, but I did quote somewhere. > > > > My authority that I quoted on here and on harsha was Sri Ramana > > Maharshi. I forget the page but I will find it, I believe there are > > several. One must take into account translations and the level of > > awareness and belief of the recipients of Sankara etc. > > > > I still can only say that Cit-Sat-Ananda are attributes, and > > descriptions and refer only to the Self as Saguna Brahman. That > > sounds very logical to me. One has only to go to the Rig to see how > > it is mused there..The Upanishads are written at different levels > > thats why they seemingly contradict each other......ONS.....Tony. > > P9, Chapter One, 'Be as you are', sat-cit-ananda are referred to as > combined attributes..There are better references that I'll dig > up......Tony. Tony - Sat chit ananda are not attributes - attributes are qualities that defines an object and distinguishes an object from the other objects. They are measures that can be measured by the intellect thus form of pramaaNa - maa means to measure - and they are measured by the intellect using the input from senses - hence attributes belong to an object but not to subject. Brahman is not an object per sec and there is nothing other than Brahman for to measure Brahma in contrast to something else. SAT is the existence that is common factor for all objects of verses and it does not undergo any mutation when object A changes to object B. Hence it is immutable and scriptures states that it is the material cause for the universe itself. So Sat is Brahman not that Brahman has Sat. Someway Chit is Brahman - as scripture says 'praj~naanam Brahma'. Since Brahman is one without a second, sat is chit and chit is sat - since it is infinite or limitless it is ananda too. Just as H2O is not a quality of water - it is water. I do agree with Shree Ram Chandran that some of your one line statements do sound like declarative statements and one should watch out even if they are quotes, since they may be out of context and will be confusing for the audience. They are most likely to be misunderstood than understood - Since purpose of your communication to make other know exactly what you are trying to communicate, that very purpose is not served by those unexplained sometime erroneous statements. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji: Well said! It is truly Divine Grace that you are part of this list and it is again Divine Grace that propelled you to intervene and inject your insights at the right moment. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > Tony - Sat chit ananda are not attributes - attributes are qualities > that defines an object and distinguishes an object from the other > objects. They are measures that can be measured by the intellect thus > form of pramaaNa - maa means to measure - and they are measured by the > intellect using the input from senses - hence attributes belong to an > object but not to subject. Brahman is not an object per sec and there > is nothing other than Brahman for to measure Brahma in contrast to > something else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji! Your commentary really gets to the essence of it! >SAT is the existence that is common factor for all >objects of verses and it does not undergo any mutation >when object A changes to object B. Hence it is immutable >and scriptures states that it is the material cause for >the universe itself. So Sat is Brahman not that Brahman >has Sat. Someway Chit is Brahman - as scripture says >'praj~naanam Brahma'. Since Brahman is one without a second, >sat is chit and chit is sat - since it is infinite or >limitless it is ananda too. Just as H2O is not a quality of >water - it is water. Being (sat) and consciousness (chit) are ultimately IDENTICAL, and they are also identical with Brahman. They are simply THAT (or Tathata). In the analogy of the gold and the ornaments, where the gold is the same in all ornaments, the gold is none other than this sat-chit. I do believe that Moksha simply consists in realizing at a deep level the One Consciousness-Being that is the essence of all apparent multiplicity, and which is our own very essence. Somehow in Moksha our deluded consciousness drenched in multiplicity transforms (or rather reverts) back to its original nature as this One Supreme Consciousness that is the essence of all multiplicity and maya. Maya is NOT ultimately different from Brahman, as Swami Dayananda so clearly says. Only, when we are under its sway, we THINK the multiplicity is real in itself, and so we must give up these erroneous thoughts. With the disappearance of thought-generated multiplicity, there is no more any need for attributes, which are but the expression of that multiplicity. And the Sat-Chit is not ultimately different from the Bliss (Ananda), though this is not so clear to reflection and must be experienced. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you Sri Ram for the link to Swami Dayananda's website. I am always glad to discover a new voice in Advaita, provided that voice is clear, as is indeed the case with Swami Dayananda. Om! Benjamin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > > Being (sat) and consciousness (chit) are ultimately IDENTICAL, and > they are also identical with Brahman. They are simply THAT (or > Tathata). In the analogy of the gold and the ornaments, where the > gold is the same in all ornaments, the gold is none other than this > sat-chit. > > I do believe that Moksha simply consists in realizing at a deep level > the One Consciousness-Being that is the essence of all apparent > multiplicity, and which is our own very essence. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. Benjamin - In response to the recent storm in AdvaitaL created by our friend JayN and co. I started writing on the specific issues you have raised. I have written some 20 + pages and just started addressing the epistemological issues raised. When I read your post, I got the impression that somehow you got a peek at the notes I have prepared so far. If you promise to correct the Engish, I will send you what I have written so far, as I continute to finish the rest of my article. Needless to say what you wrote was absolutely correct from the point of my understanding. Hari OM! Sadananda > Om! > Benjamin > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Namaste Sri Tony: > > This will be my final post on this topic underdiscussion. The sages Namaste Sri Ram, Y. Keshava Menon, the Sanskrit and Sankar scholar says this; 'For Sankara, Sat-Cit-Ananda, are the qualities exhibited by the qualityless Brahman in the phenomenal world.' para. p. 105 'The mind of Adi Sankara'. Jaico publishing Delhi. 1976. This backs up my argument that we are discussing Saguna here for Nirguna, has no qualities to exhibit.........ONS....Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery> wrote: > > > > > > > Of course it is all my opinion, but I did quote somewhere. > > > > > > My authority that I quoted on here and on harsha was Sri Ramana > > > Maharshi. I forget the page but I will find it, I believe there ://sbc. Namaste Sadaji, My one liners just come out of my own head that's all.......ONS...Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste, Actually speaking sat, cit and Ananda are not considered as positive attributes of brahman. sat indicates that which cannot be sublated by any any knowledge. Cit indicates difference from the deep sleep state. Ananda indicates lack of misery. So the description in negative language is complete.(neti neti) Siddharth > Sorry guys you will have to let go of your final ideas and rituals. > Nirguna is indescrible no experience, attributes nothing. How can > you expect Jivanmuktas and Sages to describe the ultimate when it is > beyond their memory? It is beyond the mind. Sages talk at a level > people can grasp even intellectually. As Nisargadatta said only the > equivalent of one person in the population of Mumbai can even > understand advaita intellectually even, never mind realisation. > > My logic is that if you can attach a positive description to Brahman > then it can only be Saguna, for Nirguna can only be described in the > negative as the name means. Nir Guna. Nir Vana etc. > > I realise it is hard for especially people into some devotion and > ritual to accept this but IMO that is it. And just because sages and > upanishads cannot describe the indescribable doesn't make it > something they forgot....If I am the only one saying this perhaps I > have made a break through.hahahahahahhaah........ONS.....Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 At 07:51 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, nagarjunasiddhartha wrote: >Namaste, > >Actually speaking sat, cit and Ananda are not considered as positive >attributes of brahman. sat indicates that which cannot be sublated by >any any knowledge. Cit indicates difference from the deep sleep >state. Ananda indicates lack of misery. So the description in >negative language is complete.(neti neti) Another way I have heard sat, cit and ananda described in the Chinmaya Mission classes is "nonqualifying attributes." They don't serve to pick out qualities in Brahman. Rather they are to highlight the fact that Brahman is *not* qualified by their opposites, non-existence, ignorance, and suffering. --Greg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Namaste, > Being (sat) and consciousness (chit) are ultimately IDENTICAL, and > they are also identical with Brahman. They are simply THAT (or > Tathata). In the analogy of the gold and the ornaments, where the > gold is the same in all ornaments, the gold is none other than this > sat-chit. > And the Sat-Chit is not ultimately different from the Bliss (Ananda), > though this is not so clear to reflection and must be experienced. > Please correct me if I am wrong. I beg to differ from this view. Saying that sat=cit=Ananda=brahman is not what Sankara probably had in mind. These are probably thought of in the negative sense that I described in the previous post. sat = that which is not sublated by any knowledge, unlike this world which is sublated after the realization of brahman or the snake which is sublated by the knowledge of the rope. cit = that which probably indicates difference from the state of deep sleep (remember Indra and Prajapati in the Chandogya Upanishad) Ananda = lack of misery of any kind (experiencing pleasure is also a misery as pain comes inevitably with pleasure) Siddharth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
