Concept of personal God and Advaita

[Stephanie Stean]

Hello Ashish:

The use of the words is often necessary to communicate ideas.  When the
words are used, it's due to the unavailability of other methods of
communication (especially via e-mail).
And since we are all at different levels of understanding and learning, that
further complicates matter.  We use different language of description, but
we all are talking about the same idea.

>The seer and the seen are one so "who is it that sees and who is it
> that is seen (all being Brahman)" is proclaimed by one of the Upanishads. I
> believe this is pointed out in Drk-Drshya Viveka. So there cannot be such a
> thing as experience nor an experiencer in the finality of things.
>

The definition of experience I used, makes me uncomfortable as well because
of using the word "personally."   But knowledge of a state of non experience
(to use your terms) has to be communicated ,and often speaking in terms of
experience or personal participation is the only way to communicate it.

As you asked earlier for a description of my experiences, and I could not
give you one.  But that you asked in the first place, tells me that you see
verbal and written communication as a form of sharing knowledge, no matter
how limiting it is.

Thanks very much.
Steph


> I am sure Rama would answer your questions but one thing that did strike me
> was your sentence above, esp. the part I have pointed out. To experience
> something means to be in a state of non-experience, then get into a state
> of experiencing whatever it is we are talking about here, and then revert
> to the older state of non-experience, or some other state. This is not, at
> least in my understanding of Advaita, a correct interpretation of this
> system. > ashish