message to my friends

[f. maiello]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
>
> >..... The idea of "no identification with the
> > body"
> > obviously entails a mental factor, and not a physical one (viz. that the
> > body is still acting, yet so long as the individual is not identifying
> > himself with his active body, mukthi prevails).
>
> I differ here. It is not a mental factor that accounts for not identifying
> with the body, but it is mano-nASa. In this situation, it is the Atman
> (not the mind) that does not identify itself with the body, and there is
> no more individual, and no more mind. The Atman does not need any
> instrument to not identify with the body, as it simply abides in its own
> nature.
>

In the context of what you're saying, of course I agree.  But what
I was refering to was with respect to the strategy employed by the
sadhaka, that the aspect of actionlessness can only be in terms of
mental renunciation and not physical.  On the other hand, the
jivanmuktha, by virtue of being absorbed into brahman, is never
bound by upadhis despite the fact that the saguna aspect is still
operable within the totality of Its Being.  One should bear in
mind that this is merely strategy, and not at all an attempt at
establishing any philosophical verity--which defies elucidation,
since it's impossible to speak or even think of truth or brahman.


> > However, this isn't
> > what
> > you implied above, pitting actionlessness against desireless action
> > (viz.
> > that actionlessness is a higher reality, beyond nishkama karma).  This
> > carries the same implication that nirguna brahman is "superior" to
> > saguna
> > brahman, whereas the fact remains that both are purely brahman itself.
>
> Again we get to the crux of the issue. "nirguNa" brahman is superior to
> "saguNa" brahman only inasmuch as language falls short of the true nature
> of consciousness. It is not that "nirguNa" brahman is one thing and
> "saguNa" another. In my understanding, there is no point in saying "both
> are purely brahman." Such a statement makes nirguNa-tva itself into a
> guNa, which is obviously not the case. The truth of the matter is that
> there is only one brahman, which is beyond guNas, but which seems to be
> saguNa to the limited intellect.

Again, speaking only strategy here...  I think it's a major obstacle to
conceive that the world is utterly an illusion.  The stipulation has
been
made (especially by Bhagavan RM--and often; as well as [arguably]
established
by Adi Sankara's triune advaitic formula) that the world is only an
illusion
in the special sense if/when it is regarded as real *apart from*
brahman;
otherwise it is brahman itself.

namaste