This quiz is designed to motivate you to study the Gaudiya Vaishnava scriptures in specific, and the Sad Darshanas in general, which are necessary to understand Gaudiya philosophy properly.
0%
150
Related
5 Comments
Vic DiCara April 8, 2021
I have two questions, please.
1) Is Kundalini a valid part of shakta-tantra?
2) When sat-cit-ānanda is explained as “not inert and not truly troubled” it seems this accounts only for cit and ānanda. What is the meaning of sat? “not unreal”?
If this is the meaning, why are the words direct and not indirect. The English translations are indirect (maybe “negations” is the more correct word for it “NOT inert”, “NOT miserable”). The sanskrit words do not seem to be anācit-annirānand (or something, I am just guessing at actual Sanskrit).
1. Yes.
2. Brahman is nirguna, qualityless. Therefore, no words with direct meaning (mukhyartha) can be used to describe it because a word cannot describe something qualityless. Therefore, negationn is used to describe Brahman. Any positive statement will entail quality or action.
Vic DiCara April 14, 2021
I have a follow-up question, please!
Babaji writes, “Brahman is nirguna, qualityless. Therefore, no words with direct meaning (mukhyartha) can be used to describe it because a word cannot describe something qualityless. Therefore, negationn is used to describe Brahman. Any positive statement will entail quality or action.”
Sat-cit-ananda describes brahman, doesn’t it? These words are not negative. They are mukhyartha – aren’t they?
Sat-cit-ānanda is used not only in reference not to brahman, but also to ātmā and paramātmā – I think, right?
My confusion is: when the statement is clearly mukhyārtha (“ātmā is sat-cit-ānanda”) why is the explanation of the meaning NOT mukhyārtha? (“…it means ātmā is not unreal, not incognizant, and not miserable”)
Babaji April 14, 2021
Q: Sat-cit-ananda describes brahman, doesn’t it? These words are not negative. They are mukhyartha – aren’t they?
A: Truly speaking, according to Advaita Vedanta, here mukhyartha is not accepted. Rather, sat means that it is not asat, cit means that it is not acit, and ananda means it is not nrānanda.
Q: Sat-cit-ānanda is used not only in reference not to brahman, but also to ātmā and paramātmā – I think, right?
My confusion is: when the statement is clearly mukhyārtha (“ātmā is sat-cit-ānanda”) why is the explanation of the meaning NOT mukhyārtha? (“…it means ātmā is not unreal, not incognizant, and not miserable”)
A: Because sat would imply that Brahman has existence and this brings duality. The same is applicable to the other two words.
5 Comments
Comments are closed.