In English
One individual who was always talking of once went into a village. He went near a house and asked for alms. The lady of the house came and told this individual, the scholar who was asking for alms, “What is the point in my giving you uncooked rice? Why don’t you go and have a bath and come back? I can then give you cooked food which you can eat.” This , who was well versed only in dialectics, in talking and in describing in words, said, “,” which means the mere utterance of the name is equivalent to having a bath. He said that he did not have to go and have a bath. The lady of the house then replied, “,” which means that just the thought of and repeating that name is equivalent to having taken food always. So she asked him to please go away. If in truth the utterance of the name is equivalent to having his bath, why should that be not also equivalent to his having food? Thus, to depend only on these words to be argumentative with these words and to understand only the word-meaning of what is, may lead you into very difficult situations. The proper thing to do is at the beginning to accept a , that is a Form with some attributes, and so on, and through practice and through , gradually get over the situation and reach and attain the adwaitic experience. For the , that is one with attributes, and for , that is one with a Form, there is always a predetermined place. So, at first, in that predetermined place and at that fixed time you will have to take to it and derive the pleasure and benefit.