A
I think the reason even the expression “Being,” is not used is because it also expresses duality, as in “being and non-being.” Ultimately, this Brahman cannot be expressed in any ideas or words because it is beyond all polarities. That is why the metaphors are only pointers or a “jumping off point,” into Brahman gyana. When this point arises where language and ideas are abandoned (they are mutable and are of the mind) it’s pretty safe to say that the Buddhist idea of Sunya and the Hindu idea of Purna are equivalent.
A
Does advaita talk about inner light? That is the most important part. If someone has inner light, he has everything. The presence of light is the tell sign of true divinity. I wonder why it's not talked about it by most. It's the practical and anything else are labels terms or optional. They are just ideas and theories. Knowledge never leads someone there except genuine heart or karmic life. No science nor theology leads there, neither intellectualisation of inner light. This is the crucial element and most often it's not seem to be found. So everyone copy books and repeat the same stories and labels of Tao.
A
SAT CHIT ANANTA
A
A
No comments:
Post a Comment