Why

[atanu]

Namaste Nirotu,

A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.

Om

Thanks to Sarabhanga that the potential trouble hidden above has been pointed out.

The sentence was not intended to indicate:

• That sage Vamadeva's realisation was partial.
• That as Vedic Mahavakya "I am Brahman" is partial
• That those who are fit to receive this upadesha as "Soham" meditation, or equivalent, received a partial upadesha.

The sentence, written in a bit of hurry, itself is partial. The sentence was intended to convey:

• Ramana possibly never uttered "I am That", because Ramana repeatedly taught that the Self-Brahman is beyond the reach of speech.
• Ramana possibly could not have uttered such a great sentence incompletely.

If unknowingly any one has been hurt, I apologise profusely.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

I have not been following this thread, and perhaps my own words were hasty, but the term "partial mahavakya" seemed quite inappropriate.

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

I have not been following this thread, and perhaps my own words were hasty, but the term "partial mahavakya" seemed quite inappropriate.

Namaste sarabhanga,

I understand and it has been clarified. Though one must also follow a thread completely before making a harsh judgement.

When we see the context of sage Vamadeva's "I became the moon, I became the sun ---", we realise the creative context of "I" in "I am Brahman". OTOH, realisation of the vedic mahavakyas taken together lead to "I am" and one who is a living experience of pure unlimited conciousness, has no agency or motivation to keep on uttering/muttering "I am That", just as a man called Rama has no need to chant "I am Rama" to remind himself.

Thus I said what I said, in the context of someone attributing certain utterances to Shri Ramana. I do believe that such faulty referencing, especially pertaining to upholders of sanatana dharma, must be verified.

This is my POV. YMMV. Let us proceed.

Om

[nirotu]

In conclusion, therefore, Christianity is a better and superior religion for the common people to practice, than the different sects of Hinduism.

Dear Saidevo:

With all due respect, I was hoping that your interaction with my posts would be likewise more constructive than the 'sad' assessment you've made of me. Instead of clarifying objections I have raised and explaining what the true interpretation of the Vedas in relation to two Vedantic expositions is, you have resorted to conclude that I am demeaning the entire religion by negating its truth with camouflaged statements like Christianity is superior! While I respect your views in many of our discussions immensely, sometimes I get this sick feeling that you perceive any sort of disagreement with you as an attack on the religion.

I say this because right from the start you seem to make certain assumptions that is completely contrary and unproductive to a fruitful discussion. The entire discussion here is hoisted upon an OP “why is there antagonism between the followers of Shiva and Vishnu?” I presented my understanding as to why it is so. Along those lines, I also expressed to you the ambiguity within Vedas the way I saw it. I have also clarified with a statement that perhaps it is in my understanding that may or may not be right. You must realize that for when someone expresses disagreement, it means precisely that they want to take what you say seriously as a student of scripture.

Trying to explain Advaita experience with an example of Jesus does not in anyway negate Sages and Jnanis experiences at all. You should feel happy to know that Jesus’ thinking likewise is also rooted in Dvaita/Advaita experience. To validate others, I have also added a statement preceding this to say, many sages who have realized this also have led a peaceful life.

Alright, Nirotu, with these points of yours, what are you driving at? Is it right to say that your points have the following implications?

Which I respectfully disagree…

The only thing is that if you agree on the above implications I have derived from your points, we can continue it here in HDF as a debate on the supremacy and shortcomings of the Hindu and Christian religions, instead of camouflaging our views and points.

I thank you for your efforts in putting together all points and deriving your conclusion, albeit, not exactly what I had hoped for. There was no intention here to discuss supremacy of one religion over the other, rather to discuss within SD how one can reconcile both “Dvaita and Advaita” with the views of Veda. To that end, the questions I raised were fairly straightforward and well known to many. Perhaps, it needs rephrasing:

Sage Shankara, places all his emphasis on “pure knowledge” devoid of any imperfections as the sole way leading to the experience of liberation. “He denies completely in the efforts placed in other modes. This knowledge is not just conceptual understanding of the self, which can give us only appearances, never reality. Thus by knowledge Shankara means an intuitive experience of identity of the soul with all existence requiring rigorous self-control, the observance of Yama and Niyama prescribed by Yoga and a mental detachment from all objects of experience. . . . . .
. . . .Sage Ramanuja thinks knowledge alone is not sufficient. What is needed is complete surrender (prapatti) and pure, unqualified devotion to God” [Indian Thought Ed: Donald Bishop, Section Metaphysics by G.N. Joshi, 1975]

The Vedas, on the other hand, do not show any favoritism but show a sudden transition from “karmakanda” to “Jnanakanda” without rejecting either mode, nonetheless, gives us the impression that “jnanakanda” seems to ridicule and reject “Karmakanda” as I referred to Lord Krishna’s saying in BG. Thus, if Vedas do not discriminate and Upanishad speaks either/or language (wrt Advaita and Dvaita), it is easy to mislead anyone into thinking Upanishad speaks in double voice!!

“Ramana Maharishi affirms both paths to be equally valid; The path of self-inquiry, that is the “true knowledge” of oneself obtained through the path of knowledge and the second is of surrendering oneself (ego) completely to God through the path of devotion [The Path of Sri Ramana Part 1: Sri Sadhu OM, Page 22]”.

In light of these, I hope you do not consider me wrong for presenting a balanced view that accepts both modes. I would welcome the correct interpretation in Upanishad that does justice to both Dvaita vada and Advaita vada without violating views upheld by Vedas. Furthermore, if Shankara was correct all along, it is not clear why Ramanuja and Madhwacharya spent significant portion of their life refuting Shankara?

With all due respect, if you want to stand by your assessment about me and my post, it seems we have little further to discuss, but perhaps we could leave these issues in peace without any hard feelings.

Blessings,

[nirotu]

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for your excellent explanation. Forgive me, I still have questions as to why is that you do not refer “atma” to “param-atma”? Why do you distinguish them in your language? If you want to think wave is nothing but a swelling of the ocean, why is that it requires its own identity (Wave as opposed to ocean)? In that instant of creation, do you see something finite that came from the infinite? Even though, it is momentary in its existence, it has unique identification just like each ataman when enters a soul has a unique identifier.

I do believe, great sages like Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa, Ramana Maharishi all have said the same thing: In his ultimate state Ramakrishna said, “I see my mother”. Mother Teresa said,” I am only an instrument (pen) in the hands of my Father.” Even though, they all have identified with the higher-self, they have displayed the union of two.

Refer to Sri Ramana: At the time of his uncle’s death, Ramana (a young lad) mimicked the corps of his uncle and stiffened. In that moment of imitating death, it flashed to him, “I am not that”. From that moment on, he always refers to “I –I” as opposed to “I”. Thus you can see union of two I’s in Ramana’s messages. I see, therefore, it is rhetorical question to ask,” if Ramana ever said that”.

Atanu, I accept everything you say but somehow, the creation is by-passed in your view. The one quality that differentiates “Atma” from “Param-atma” is manifestation. One (Param-atma) is the “unmanifest” with Potential energy and the other(atma) is “manifest” with creative energy. The reality is: it has occurred because of creation. It is like a tree and the seed. Seed can never become tree until it grows to its fullest. If “param-atma” is echoing everywhere, is there any need to refer to him as “atma” at all?

Blessings,

[saidevo]

Ramana Maharshi's Self-Realization

Arthur Osborne's Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge, published by Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, is one of the most authentic works on the biography of the Rishi. This book does not speak of Ramana 'mimicking the corpse of his uncle and stiffening' which made him realize 'I am not That'. Nor does it quote Bhagavan Ramana as saying 'I am That' as his last words--as Nirotu says.

Here is how Self-Realization came to Ramana:

"When Venkataraman (Ramana's family name) was twelve, Sundaram Ayyar died and the family was broken up. The children went to live with their paternal uncle, Subbier, who had a house1 in the nearby city of Madura." (p.3)

Ramana's Self-Realization that came to him as a flash flood is described in his own words and is well documented (pp.7-8). In that description, he says (underling by me):

"It was about six weeks before I left Madura for good that the great change in my life took place. It was quite sudden. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle’s house. I seldom had any sickness, and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it, and I did not try to account for it or to find out whether there was any reason for the fear. I just felt 'I am going to die' and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or my elders or friends; I felt that I had to solve the problem myself, there and then.

"The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: 'Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' And I at once dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out stiff as though rigor mortis had set in and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, so that neither the word 'I' nor any other word could be uttered. 'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body am I dead? Is the body 'I'? It is silent and inert but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of the 'I' within me, apart from it. So I am Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.'

"All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truth which I perceived directly, almost without thought-process. 'I' was something very real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with my body was centred on that 'I'. From that moment onwards the 'I' or Self focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death had vanished once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various notes of music, but the 'I' continued like the fundamental sruti note that underlies and blends with all the other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centred on 'I'. Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of my Self and was not consciously attracted to it. I felt no perceptible or direct interest in it, much less any inclination to dwell permanently in it."

Any other account of Ramana's Self-Realization that runs contrary to what he has himself documented above, is a travesty of truth.

Ramana Maharshi's Mahasamadhi

Here is a brief of what Ramana said on his 'last day' as documented by Arthur Osborne (ch.17).

Ramana's health started deteriorating since 1947 (he was born in 1879), but he refused to do anything about it, nor take a more nutritious diet. Ever since "a small nodule appeared below the elbow of his left arm" in the year 1949, operated upon and it returned, "there was an air of tragedy and inevitability
about the march of events."

• Sri Bhagavan submitted to surgery but refused the amputation of the affected part saying, "There is no cause for alarm. The body itself is a disease; let it have its natural end. Why mutilate it? Simple dressing of the part is enough."

• He also gave rise to hope by saying, "Everything will come right in due course."

• About this time he translated into Tamil verse a stanza from the Bhagavatam (Skanda XI, ch. 13, sloka 36), "Let the body, the result of fructifying karma, remain still or move about, live or die, the Sage who has realized the Self is not aware of it, just as one in a drunken stupor is not aware of his clothing."

• Some time later he expounded a verse from the Yoga Vasishtam: "The Jnani who has found himself as formless pure Awareness is unaffected though the body be cleft with a sword. Sugarcandy does not lose its sweetness though broken or crushed."

• Did Sri Bhagavan really suffer? He said to one devotee: "They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute suffering to him. What a pity!"

• And to one of the attendants he said, "Where is pain if there is no mind?" And yet he showed normal physical reactions and normal sensitivity to heat and cold,--for he had on an earlier occassion said to S.S.Cohen, "If the hand of the Jnani were cut with a knife there would be pain as with anyone else but because his mind is in bliss he does not feel the pain as acutely as others do."

• ... he said more than once to devotees, "I am only ill if you think I am; if you think I am well I shall be well."

• The arm was heavy and inflamed and the tumour growing. Occasionally he would admit "there is pain" but he would never say "I have pain."

• In Jan.1950 when there was no hope for recovery and asked about what further treatment should be given to him, he said: "Have I ever asked for any treatment? It is you who want this and that for me, so it is for you to agree about it among yourselves. If I were asked I should always say, as I have said from the beginning, that no treatment is necessary. Let things take their course."

• A group of devotees daily chanted prayers and devotional songs for his recovery. He was asked about their efficacy and replied, smiling, "It is certainly desirable to be engaged in good activities; let them continue."

• Speaking to the attendants and to T.N. Krishnaswami, doctor and devotee, he explained: "The body is like a bananaleaf on which all kinds of delicious food have been served. After we have eaten the food from it do we take the leaf and preserve it? Do we not throw it away now that it has served its purpose?"

• On another occasion he said to the attendants: "Who is to carry this load of a body even after it needs assistance in everything? Do you expect me to carry this load that it would take four men to carry?"

• And to some of the devotees: "Suppose you go to a firewood depot and buy a bundle of firewood and engage a coolie to carry it to your house. As you walk along with him he will be anxiously looking forward to his destination so that he can throw off his burden and get relief. In the same way the Jnani is anxious to throw off his mortal body." And then he corrected the explanation: "This exposition is all right as far as it goes, but strictly speaking even this is not quite accurate. The Jnani is not even anxious to shed his body; he is indifferent alike to the existence or non existence of the body, being almost unaware of it."

• Once, unasked, he defined Moksha (Liberation) to one of the attendants. "Do you know what Moksha is? Getting rid of non-existent misery and attaining the Bliss which is always there, that is Moksha."

• A devotee begged him to give but a single thought to the desirability of getting well, as this would have been enough, but he replied, almost scornfully, "Who could have such a thought!"

• And to others who asked him simply to will his recovery he said, "Who is there to will this?" The 'other', the individual that could oppose the course of destiny, no longer existed in him; it was the 'non-existent misery' that he had got rid of.

• Some of the devotees made it a plea for their own welfare. "What is to become of us without Bhagavan? We are too weak to look after ourselves; we depend on his Grace for everything." And he replied, "You attach too much importance to the body," clearly implying that the end of his body would not interrupt the Grace and guidance.

• In the same vein he said: "They say that I am dying but I am not going away. Where could I go? I am here."

• Mrs.Taleyarkhan, a Parsi devotee, besought him: "Bhagavan! Give this sickness to me instead. Let me bear it!" And he replied, "And who gave it to me?"

• On Thursday, April 13th (1950), a doctor brought Sri Bhagavan a palliative to relieve the congestion in the lungs but he refused it. "It is not necessary; everything will come right within two days." That night he bade his attendants go and sleep or meditate and leave him alone.

• On Friday the doctors and attendants knew it was the last day. In the morning he again bade them go and meditate. About noon, when liquid food was brought for him, he asked the time, punctual as ever, but then added, "But henceforth time doesn’t matter."

• Delicately expressing recognition of their long years of service, he said to the attendants, "The English have a word 'thanks' but we only say santosham (I am pleased)."

• At about sunset Sri Bhagavan told the attendants to sit him up. They knew already that every movement, every touch was painful, but he told them not to worry about that. He sat with one of the attendants supporting his head. A doctor began to give him oxygen but with a wave of his right hand he motioned him away. There were about a dozen persons in the small room, doctors and attendants.

• Unexpectedly, a group of devotees sitting on the veranda outside the hall began singing 'Arunachala-Siva' (Aksharanamanamalai). On hearing it, Sri Bhagavan’s eyes opened and shone. He gave a brief smile of indescribable tenderness. From the outer edges of his eyes tears of bliss rolled down. One more deep breath, and no more. There was no struggle, no spasm, no other sign of death: only that the next breath did not come. (The time he passed away was precisely 8:47 pm).

Putting words in Ramana's mouth as his 'last words', is not only cruel and a travesty of truth, but adds greatly to the doer's karma.

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for your excellent explanation. Forgive me, I still have questions as to why is that you do not refer “atma” to “param-atma”? -,

Just forget that atma and param atma are two. Which is trick played by your mind which sees many bodies/objects and thinks that discreteness is the truth. No. Continuum is always the truth.

Now about the trick. Param Atma simply means that Atma is Param.



Since Atma is the beginning, when there was no question of another, and from then on the sole Atma could not be cut into many pieces. Mind creates the discrete pieces from the continuum and enjoys and suffers.

Om

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Refer to Sri Ramana: At the time of his uncle’s death, Ramana (a young lad) mimicked the corps of his uncle and stiffened. In that moment of imitating death, it flashed to him, “I am not that”. From that moment on, he always refers to “I –I” as opposed to “I”. Thus you can see union of two I’s in Ramana’s messages. I see, therefore, it is rhetorical question to ask,” if Ramana ever said that”.

Nirotu,

Should I call you untruthful (using the softer option here) or just naive who does not understand anything or hell bent on proving some of your own faith?

I think the last one is correct.

If “param-atma” is echoing everywhere, is there any need to refer to him as “atma” at all?

Blessings,

As explained. There was one Atma. There is one Atma. There will be one Atma. That Atma only is Param among all categories of life and mind. But actually it is beyond such comparison.

And why do you want to hide that you are just inert by denying atma?

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

If “I am that” is taken (out of context) as “I am a particular that, which is distinguished from the whole”, then dvaitavAda is at work.

But vedAnta considers the upaniSadas as having only one purport (i.e. brahman), and the various mahAvAkyAni are pearls wisely selected from that corpus.

tat = tattvam = brahman

tattvamasi (“thou art that”) very easily becomes tattvamasmi (“I am that being”) and thus ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am [that] brahman”).

tat-tvam (“that [art] thou”) is a mahAvAkyam; and ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am brahman”), the mahAvAkyam of shRÑgeri maTha, openly declares “I am that”.

haMsa refers to the RSabha (vRSabha) or ashvinau, as the vehicle of brahmA; and haMsa indicates the Atman. The haMsau unites jIvAtman and paramAtman; and haMsa resolves into ahaMsa (“I am that”). And sa denotes the puruSa, with so’ham indicating “I that very person”.

I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered “I am that”?
As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.
You must give the full reference.

I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring “I am that!”
I certainly would be interested in knowing from where (the source) you have taken this information.

According to some of his followers’ later writings on Sri Ramana’s discourses, his teachings on true self can be summed up in the phrase “I am that I am”, which is NOT to be read, or understood, as “I am THAT”.

Shri Ramana never said “I am that”

He never uttered “I am That”, except when explaining “I am that I am” of The Bible.

It seems strange that the idea of rAmaNa RSi saying the particular words (translated as) “I am That”, could cause such surprise. And it still seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some omission.

Did the sage never say ahaMsa or so’ham?

And was “I am that” used in explanation of the “I am” sayings of Jesus, but not in explanation of the chAndogya’s tattvamasi or the bRhadAraNyaka’s ahaMbrahmAsmi?

What then did that Brahman know?

Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, “I am Brahman”. From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vamadeva saw and understood it, singing, “I was the moon, I was the sun”. Therefore now also, he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

And did shrI rAmaNa never sing the avadhUta gItA?

vedAntasArasarasvaM jñAnaM vijñAnameva ca |
ahamAtmA nirAkAraH sarvyApi svabhAvataH || 1.5 ||

The essence and the whole of vedAnta is this jñAna, this vijñAna:
aham AtmA ~ I am by nature the formless, all-pervasive Self.

yo vai sarvAtmako devo niSkalo gaganopamaH |
svabhAvanirmalaH shuddhaH sa evAhaM na saMshayaH || 1.6 ||

There is no doubt that I am that God who is the Self of all,
Pure, indivisible, like the sky, naturally stainless.

ahamekamidaM sarvaM vyomAtItaM nirantaram |
pashyAmi kathamAtmAnaM pratyakshaM vA tirohitam || 1.10 ||

ahaM ekam ~ I, the One only, am all this, beyond space and continuous.
How can I see the Self as visible or hidden?

tvamevamekaM hi kathaM na buddhyase samaM hi sarveSu vimRSTamavayam |
sadodito’si tvamakshanditaH prabho diva ca kathaM hi manyase || 1.11 ||

tvam evam ekaM ~ thus (likewise, assuredly) you are One.
Why then do you not understand that you are the unchangeable One, equally perceived in all?
O mighty One, how can you, who are ever-shining, unrestricted, think of day and night?

tattvamasyAdivAkyena svAtmA hi pratipAditaH |
neti neti shrutirbrUyAtanRtaM pAñcabhautkam || 1.25 ||

By tattvamasi (“That thou art”) your own Self is affirmed.
Of that which is untrue and composed of the five elements the shrUti says neti neti (“not this, not this”).

tattvaM tvaM na hi sandehaH kiM jAnAmi athavA punaH |
asaMvedyaM svasaMvedyamAtmAnaM manyase katham || 1.42 ||

tattvaM tvaM ~ you are verily the Truth.
There is no doubt about it ~ otherwise, what do I know?
Why do you consider the Self, which is perceptible to Itself, as imperceptible?

jAnAmi sarvathA sarvamahameko nirantaram |
nirAlambamashUnyaM ca shUnyaM vyomAdipañcakam || 1.46 ||

I know that all, in every way, is the one indivisible “I” ~ sarvam aham eko
That is self-sustained and full, while the five elements, beginning with ether, are empty.

vishuddho’sya sharIro’si na te cittaM parAtparam |
ahaM cAtmA paraM tattvamiti vaktuM na lajjase || 1.55 ||

You are pure, you are without a body, your mind is not higher than the highest.
You need not be ashamed to say ahaM AtmA paraM tattvam
I am the Self, the supreme Truth (i.e. “I am That”).

rAgAdidoSarahitaM tvahameva tattvaM
daivAdidoSarahitaM tvahameva tattvam |
saMsArashokarahitaM tvahameva tattvaM
jñAnAmRtaM samarasaM gaganopamo’ham || 3.19 ||

aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of such blemishes as attachment.
aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of such blemishes as destiny.
aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of the grief caused by transmigratory existence.
I am the nectar of Knowledge, homogeneous Existence, like the sky.

tvamahaM na hi hanta kadAcidapi kulajAtivicAramasatyamiti |
ahameva shivaH paramArtha iti abhivAdanamatra karomi katham || 6.22 ||

There are never any ‘you’ and ‘I’.
The discrimination of family and race is false.
aham eva shivaH ~ I am indeed the Absolute and the supreme Truth.
In that case, how can I make any salutation?

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:
-
Furthermore, if Shankara was correct all along, it is not clear why Ramanuja and Madhwacharya spent significant portion of their life refuting Shankara?

Namaste nirotu,

That Ramanuja and Madhwacharya were refuting Shankara, is an interpretation of those who understand none of these three teachers.

Ramanuja and Madhwacharya refuted the notions of those who misunderstood Shankara and not Shankara. A jiva with firm idea of discreteness as the truth and no knowledge of all pervasive atma can never be Brahman (This is Dvaita and this Advaita does not contradict). A Jiva who dwells in manifest Pragnya (but does not see the source of all pervasive Pragnya as himself) is a part of the all pervasive Pragnya (This is VA that Advaita does not contradict).

Shankara's teachings are understood/misunderstood from many levels of ripeness. Many followers of Dvaita/VA (who likewise understand Guru Vakya as per their level) claim that Shankara's teachings can take one to the dumb state of not knowing anything at best.

This is pure foolishness.

In that case Advaita Atma, Shiva is Dumb. Did Ramanuja and Madhwacharya ever say so? One can read the commentary of Madhavacharya on Mandukya and find that he agrees that Advaita Atma is Param Atma.

Shankara says that the ULTIMATE knowledge is the knowledge of the SELF, which exists eternally but can be experienced only in identity. Identity with a Saguna form cannot be infinite and complete.

The difference of emphasis on Nirguna/Saguna aspects, is based on the need and state of the devotees. And this also is only a difference of emphasis and not of content.


Om