Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Thank you, Sadaji, I should have made clear in my post that the " note: " after Alston's translation of verses 4 & 5 is mine, not his. And that verse chII:3 which follows is Swami Jagadananda's... Just in case my linking of these verses is incorrect. Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > 07 April 2009 12:17 > advaitin > Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry > > > Peter - I am amazed at the clarity of your expression. Thanks > for the post and My saaShTaaga praNAms. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: > > > ..... > .. these are just a few tentative thoughts, for what they are worth. > > > > > --- > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Dear Peterji, I too am amazed - nay spell-bound! I see a great scholar in you. You are too good a tight-rope walker too! At the moment, I am little busy with other things. I may come back with a couple of posers later. Hope you won't mind, although this topic has already frayed a lot of our nerves. Till then, best regards and best wishes. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Dear Nairji, > > You ask what is the nature of that 'perception of the world' which follows > when ignorance of our true nature has been removed along with its effect, > namely, the mis-perception of the world as non-brahman. Devotees regularly > asked Sri Ramana Maharshi that question in the form of " Does the jnani still > see the world? " and he replied that the ajnani cannot understand the jnani, > first remove the ignorance of your real nature then see if the question is > still relevant. So what chance do I have, as a mere student, to give a > sensible answer to this? > > I feel I appreciate your underlying question though, namely - if the nature > of the jnani (or jnana) is none other than Brahman and if Brahman is one > without a second then how can there be an 'other' to be perceived or a 'who' > separate from the 'other' to do the perceiving? Pure consciousness, or > Awareness, (which is non other than Knowledge/Jnana) is never an object of > perception. > > I don't know if you would agree with this - perhaps another way of asking > the question is as follows, 'can empirical experience and Knowledge of > Brahman co-exist?' In Upadesha Sahasri, Sri Sankaracarya appears to suggest > it does as a result of prarabdha karma ............ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
