egodust 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