[Advaita-l] 'aham Brahmasmi' in Bhagavatam

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

> This is not correct. If you say Nirguna Brahma and Saguna Brahma are
> one the same I say Nirguna Brahma and a stone are one and same.

Then you would be right.

> Nirguna Brahma is there in stone also because the stone is.  Adi
> Sankara never said Saguna Brahma with his divine qualities is true but
> the Universe is a illusion.
>

More misunderstanding has been caused by calling maya "illusion" than any 
other mistake in the annals of translation.  It would be more accurate to 
say it is "delusion."  In other words the problem is not one of existence 
but truth.

> The qualities of Saguna Brahma also are false like the qualities of
> men.  It is  a dream with Saguna Brahma as King and Jeevas as
> subjects. In the dream King can command subjects but after the dream
> ends where is the King?

And where in the world of dream is the dreamer who could ask where is the 
king?

> After Moksha Jeeva is not there. Saguna Brahma
> is not there also.  We can say also both Jeeva and King have become
> Nirguna Brahma. From Paramartha Nirguna Brahma only exists.  He is
> higher than Saguna Brahma.

>From the paramarthic standpoint only Brahman exists.  The qualification 
nirguna or saguna only make sense from a vyavaharic standpoint.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>