"It was only possible to define or comprehend something when there was duality. A person can see, taste, or smell something that is separate and apart from him- or herself. But when “the whole [brahman] has become a person’s very self [atman], then who is there for him to see and by what means? Who is there for me to think of and by what means?”14 It was impossible to perceive the perceiver within oneself. So you could only say neti . . . neti (“not this”). The sage affirmed the existence of the atman while at the same time denying that it bore any similarity to anything known by the senses.
Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Recently a Russian Orientalist, Mr Sergei Alexeyev, has described Jesus as a Hindu Sannyasin.The publication of this book will help Chris...
-
“As the sun, revealer of all objects to the seer, is not harmed by the sinful eye, nor by the impurities of the objects it gazes on, so th...
-
Truth is eternal. The so-called revelations of Truth that come in different religions are actually a re-emphasis of an ever existing doctr...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.