[Advaita-l] 'aham Brahmasmi' in Bhagavatam

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

The question asked will Saguna Brahma continue his Leela activities
after Moksha. The answer is no.


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh