Vijay Sadananda Pai (email@example.com) writes:
> Paramatma only has sat and chit, and Brahman only has sat.
What kind of gobbledygook is this? If you are speaking from a
Vedantic perspective, please tell me what exactly you mean by
'sat' and 'chit', and where/how you make a distinction between
the terms 'paramaatma' and 'brahman'. I would prefer references
to the Upanishads.
> One of the
> great impersonalists converted by Chaitanya in Benares said that brahmananda
> (the pleasure of realizing Brahman) was like the dirty water in the hoofprint
> of a cow compared to the the nectarean ocean of bhakti.
Can you please explain the difference between 'brahmaanandam' and the
'nectarean ocean of bhakti'? After all, the culmination of bhakti
and bhakti-yoga is 'brahmaanandam'. How can brahmaanandam be less
valuable than bhakti? Why does a statement by some obscure yogi
from Benares carry any weight?