namaste smt.HappyHindu.
Many thanks for the enlightening points in your posts #584 and #599. This is the first time I came across terms like 'absolute brahman, nirguNa brahman and conditioned brahman', in that order. Please clarify these points about them:
01. Is this the order from the top? 'absolute, nirguNa, conditioned' brahman?
02. Is 'saguNa brahman' the same as the 'conditioned brahman'? Where does the praNava/shabda/nAda brahman fit in this hieararchy?
03. So, the flow as you say is: the yogi experiences absolute bliss and peace when he is merged with the 'conditioned brahman'; this is lost and all awareness blanks out as he progresses to the next stage 'nirguNa brahman'; and finally, his soul merges with 'absolute brahman', becomes omniscient and gets endowed with all powers except the power of creation.
Would this mean that a jIvan-mukta in nirvikalpa samAdhi at all times, like BhagavAn RamaNa maharShi for example, was merged only with the 'conditioned brahman' during his lifetime?
Would this also mean that the Buddhist concept of shUnyata on nirvANa is only the middle stage and that the Buddhist yogi is still to attain the state of 'absolute brahman' to become omniscient?
04. Puranas speak of VishvAmitra maharShi creating a svarga--heavens/universe, for the king Trishanku. How was this possible when even the most accomplished soul in liberation is not endowed with the powers of creation?
05. You said eminently in post #599:
IMO this point is also misused because some link this to caste. IMO every soul's intrinsic desire is moksham whether it is consciously aware of that or not. And IMO every soul is endowed with the ability to merge into brahman.
I totally agree with you that mokSha--liberation, is the legacy of every soul, which has an intrinsic desire towards it, although the soul itself may not know it until after many cycles of reincarnation.
In the light of this assertion, what do you think about shrI Sangom's statement in post #600, wherein he perceives a link between karma and caste?
Thank you once again, for your clarifications.
Many thanks for the enlightening points in your posts #584 and #599. This is the first time I came across terms like 'absolute brahman, nirguNa brahman and conditioned brahman', in that order. Please clarify these points about them:
01. Is this the order from the top? 'absolute, nirguNa, conditioned' brahman?
02. Is 'saguNa brahman' the same as the 'conditioned brahman'? Where does the praNava/shabda/nAda brahman fit in this hieararchy?
03. So, the flow as you say is: the yogi experiences absolute bliss and peace when he is merged with the 'conditioned brahman'; this is lost and all awareness blanks out as he progresses to the next stage 'nirguNa brahman'; and finally, his soul merges with 'absolute brahman', becomes omniscient and gets endowed with all powers except the power of creation.
Would this mean that a jIvan-mukta in nirvikalpa samAdhi at all times, like BhagavAn RamaNa maharShi for example, was merged only with the 'conditioned brahman' during his lifetime?
Would this also mean that the Buddhist concept of shUnyata on nirvANa is only the middle stage and that the Buddhist yogi is still to attain the state of 'absolute brahman' to become omniscient?
04. Puranas speak of VishvAmitra maharShi creating a svarga--heavens/universe, for the king Trishanku. How was this possible when even the most accomplished soul in liberation is not endowed with the powers of creation?
05. You said eminently in post #599:
IMO this point is also misused because some link this to caste. IMO every soul's intrinsic desire is moksham whether it is consciously aware of that or not. And IMO every soul is endowed with the ability to merge into brahman.
I totally agree with you that mokSha--liberation, is the legacy of every soul, which has an intrinsic desire towards it, although the soul itself may not know it until after many cycles of reincarnation.
In the light of this assertion, what do you think about shrI Sangom's statement in post #600, wherein he perceives a link between karma and caste?
Thank you once again, for your clarifications.