We really shouldn't be talking about this at all

[egodust]

Jonathan Bricklin wrote:
>  The less said about Nirguna Brahman the
> better, I suppose.  Indeed, as Deutsch says:  "whatever is expressed is
> ultimately non-Brahman, is ultimately untrue."  But "I" (stages 1-4
> inclusive) believe it is untrue because, like infinity--the one concept it
> may most resemble--Nirguna Brahman is to *full* to comprehend not too
> empty.

Concur.

>   "At rest" sounds like a nice starting/stopping place (depending on
> whether you are counting forward or backward) but "at rest" cannot exist
> unless "in motion" exists as well.  You cannot make sense of one without
> the other.

Concur.

>  I'm all for an ultimate "at rest" peace as the most
> transcendent value imaginable, but as you approach it (coming at it from
> the direction of  1 and 2, you are, as you have presented it, forming a
> concept of nothingness, which, as Parmenides tried so hard to alert his
> fellow Greeks (alas, to little avail), is the source of all fear and
> anxiety.
>

Yes, and although it might represent the ultimate transcendental state of
consciousness, does it effectively represent the import or esseence of the
shudda chit or chidakasa of the satchidananda?  Thus, I can't agree with
Ramesh's intimation that nirguna brahman is comprehensively That (not that
this implies any indictment on his excellent teachings).  I always regarded
pure consciousness to be congruent with yet beyond the wholistic blend of
nirguna/saguna brahman, which may be referred to as parabrahman.  And, as
you suggested in the title of this thread, we *can't* be discussing this,
even though we are!...(both and neither, equally).  Nevertheless, these are
all arbitrary and expendible ideas...whose sole function is to get us to
laugh our way out of the ego-Mind jail.

Namaste.


_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust