The dvaita/advaita debate revisited!

[egodust]

Ken Stewart wrote:
>
> And I'm sure his reply will be:
>
> " The states you talk about are only a small part of the glorious being of the
> Supreme Personality of Godhead.
>
> To merge into Brahman is to lose the opportunity of becoming something far
> more and far better - the eternal servant, devotee, and lover of the Lord,
> Narayana. "
>
> etc. etc.
>
> ------------------
>

And the reply would be:

"This is a comparative judgement.  The reality of Brahman, which is pure
existence beyond conception; the awareness of Brahman, which is pure
consciousness beyond conception; and the experience of Brahman, which is
pure bliss beyond imagination, was, is and always will be the Substratum
Self which, although manifesting in myriad forms/events/qualities, is yet
their sole source and foundation.  Being sugar verses being separate from
and therefore able to taste it, is an apparent duality *yet resolved in
sahaja samadhi.*  (Ramakrishna was secretly an advaitin, and reserved the
higher teching--and rightly so--for those ripe for it::for those sufficient
in bhakti.)

Namaste.


























>

>From  Fri Jun 28 01:49:06 1996
Message-Id: <FRI.28.JUN.1996.014906.GMT.>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:49:06 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: The dvaita/advaita debate revisited!
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960627121030.11358A-100000 at pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Hello,

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:18:55 -0700, Giri <gmadras at ENGR.UCDAVIS.EDU> wrote:

>        Regarding 'one has been both', is it ever possible to be partially
>realized ? Either you are or you are not. Can one say 'I partially realize
>that the fire is hot.' ? If the ignorance has been destroyed, then where is
>the distinction to say 'I am a bhakta, not a jnani' ?

To be more precise, Ramakrishna is said to have first followed the path of
bhakti to divine realization.   Then he followed various other paths, and
ascertained that they led to the same end.   More specifics on how this could
work can probably be found in his writings and/or those of his disciples.

>        Ramakrishna did say that 'One who attains nirvikalpa samadhi dies
>in 21 days.' This has been rejected by some including Ramana.

You left out all the following comments and context.

He said that and then said that some come down from this state because "God
retains in them the 'ego of Knowledge' or the 'ego of Devotion' so that they
may teach men.... After attaining samadhi some souls of their own accord keep
the 'ego of Knowledge'.  But that ego does not create any attachment.  It is
like a line drawn on the water. ".

Thus those we know as the great teachers and yogis can only be those who did
come down from this state before 21 days.  :-)

I have heard this 21 days mentioned elsewhere, unfortunately I haven't been
able to find the reference ( I think it may even have been in a Vajrayana
text).


Cheers,

Ken                         <*>
kstuart at mail.telis.org