egodust at DIGITAL.NET
Fri Aug 29 19:54:07 CDT 1997
Chelluri Nageswar wrote:
> Assuming you are all familiar with the Nirvanashatkam explaining
> Atma Tatvam. Nobody can give an answer to the question What is Atma
> 'cause it is beyond human faculties. Most teachers try to explain by
> the method of negating.. This is Not... This is Not. Eventually they
> run out of things to negate and start all over again.
> Nirvanashatkam uses this methodology. One thing I have difficulty
> understanding in this method is that it negates Buddhi, Ahamkara,
> Anandam, Krodham etc. etc. Each verse ends
> "chidananda rupa sivoham sivoham"
> Is chidananda an attribute? Can anybody comment.
>From the vyavaharika (relative) perspective, it seems when attempting
the best interpretation of the [real] parabrahman sthiti, the closest
one can get to describing it is through satchidananda, which is really
stipulated/asserted via the double negative: viz. not non-being, not
non-consciousness, not non-bliss. Being yet an attribute, it defies
positive assertion, like any other concept. This is extremely subtle
and if one catches the drift of this dynamic: ie how virtually *all*
concepts (vritti-s) require complete integration into the Whole of
the Absolute, the source of sathya must be delivered like a current
dissolving the fallacy of the *separative* jiva--which exists nowhere
in space-time except as a dream-dance of maya.
"There are no answers
there are no questions."
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list