That's an over-simplified reading of the text. It's easier understood if you come from Eckhart's Christian perspective.It does not happen that way. the world cannot be renounced. Can one live without air, water or food?
That's an over-simplified reading of the text. It's easier understood if you come from Eckhart's Christian perspective.It does not happen that way. the world cannot be renounced. Can one live without air, water or food?
That's an over-simplified reading of the text. It's easier understood if you come from Eckhart's Christian perspective.
Why indeed.Why would I go by Eckhart's perspective when I have my Hindu and Buddhist traditions?
Hindu scriptures are very miserly about words. A whole upanishad may contain just 18 verses. As you know, Brahma Sutras can carry meaning which can fill up 100 pages in a book in just one small aphoristic sentence. We keep the kernel and discard the shell.Why indeed.
I'm not asking you to do that, simply pointing out that you have not accounted for perspective when critiquing the text – so the comment is invalid.![]()