Guest guest Posted November 11, 2000 Report Share Posted November 11, 2000 > >Hi all... I was thinking that the conch sybolized the call of the absolute... Blessings, jen _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2000 Report Share Posted November 11, 2000 advaitin , "jennifer macdonald" <jetanoir@h...> wrote: > > > > >Hi all... > > I was thinking that the conch sybolized the call of the absolute... > > Blessings, jen Hey Jen. The call of the Absolute. I believe that according to Advaita, the Absolute makes no calls. That is, there is only the One, without a second, and therefore there is nobody for the Absolute to call. To put it another way, from the "regard" of the Absolute, there is only the Absolute. It doesn't "see" anything other than Its undifferentiated Self. Now, the Atman resides in that secret chamber of the heart, and deep within, your heart may be calling, telling you that the Atman lies there. So by all means hear the call and dive deep into your own heart. There you will find yourself as the One, and realize that you were never anything else to begin with. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2000 Report Share Posted November 12, 2000 advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > advaitin , "jennifer macdonald" <jetanoir@h...> > wrote: > > > > > > > >Hi all... > > > > I was thinking that the conch sybolized the call of the absolute... > > > > Blessings, jen > > Hey Jen. > > The call of the Absolute. I believe that according to Advaita, > the Absolute makes no calls. That is, there is only the One, without > a second, and therefore there is nobody for the Absolute to call. ? > > To put it another way, from the "regard" of the Absolute, there is > only the Absolute. It doesn't "see" anything other than Its > undifferentiated Self. > > Now, the Atman resides in that secret chamber of the heart, and > deep within, your heart may be calling, telling you that the Atman > lies there. Isn't Atman, the Brahman EVERYTHING. The call & the caller & the one called. Absolute Is the relative. IMO Colette So by all means hear the call and dive deep into your > own heart. There you will find yourself as the One, and realize > that you were never anything else to begin with. > > --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2000 Report Share Posted November 12, 2000 advaitin , colette@b... wrote: [snip] > Isn't Atman, the Brahman EVERYTHING. > The call & the caller & the one called. > Absolute Is the relative. > > IMO > > Colette Yes. But the Absolute *is* the relative *as* the Absolute, and not in relation to the relative. A caller and a being called require this relation, which from the regard of the Absolute doesn't exist. However, within the realm of the relative there are relations, and the Atman is realized by the jiva from within the relative. This is why we refer to Atman as such and not as the Absolute, which it actually is. To take it back to the original context, the Absolute doesn't makes calls. One might imagine that It does, but that is personalizing the Absolute, which then makes It God. There is nothing wrong at all with this approach, but it's not Advaita. Often though, calls are "heard." I don't mean to deny the reality of these calls, just to point out other possible sources for them. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2000 Report Share Posted November 12, 2000 advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > advaitin , colette@b... wrote: > > [snip] > > > Isn't Atman, the Brahman EVERYTHING. > > The call & the caller & the one called. > > Absolute Is the relative. > > > > IMO > > > > Colette > > Yes. But the Absolute *is* the relative *as* the Absolute, I say it a bit different. Absolute Is (I Am) Everything (relative) Aham Brahmasmi > and not in relation to the relative. Absolute is not in reltion As the relative? A caller and a being > called require this relation, which from the regard of the > Absolute doesn't exist. What does exist? > > However, within the realm of the relative there are relations, > and the Atman is realized by the jiva from within the relative. > This is why we refer to Atman as such and not as the Absolute, > which it actually is. I just like to point out there is a realtionship between absolute becoming realtive (Impersonal personalities). > > To take it back to the original context, the Absolute doesn't > makes calls. ? One might imagine that It does, but that is > personalizing the Absolute, which then makes It God. My Guru explains that God is Impersonal & that God is also personal. There > is nothing wrong at all with this approach, but it's not Advaita. No? > > Often though, calls are "heard." I don't mean to deny the reality > of these calls, just to point out other possible sources for them. I guess I just like to think of It All as Being the same One. > > --jody. Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2000 Report Share Posted November 12, 2000 advaitin , colette@b... wrote: > advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: [snip] > > and not in relation to the relative. > > Absolute is not in reltion As the relative? There are no relations as far as the Absolute is concerned. If there were, it wouldn't be absolute. The Absolute *is* the relative, but is not in relationship with the relative. Any relationship is made up by the mind. > A caller and a being > > called require this relation, which from the regard of the > > Absolute doesn't exist. > > What does exist? Good question. If we believe there is a calling, then we pretty much have to accept that there is a caller, and some person (or other form of being) being called out to. In the context of this discussion, these things can be said to exist. However, from the perspective of the Absolute, only the Absolute exists. These "things" we are discussing do not exist from that regard. Hence my stating that the Absolute doesn't make calls. > > However, within the realm of the relative there are relations, > > and the Atman is realized by the jiva from within the relative. > > This is why we refer to Atman as such and not as the Absolute, > > which it actually is. > > I just like to point out there is a realtionship between absolute > becoming realtive (Impersonal personalities). For you. My view is that the Absolute doesn't *ever* become relative. *We* as personalities are relative, and we as the Self are Absolute. Simultaneously perhaps, but one doesn't "become" the other, imo. > > To take it back to the original context, the Absolute doesn't > > makes calls. > > ? Maybe I should have said the Absolute doesn't *make* calls? > > One might imagine that It does, but that is > > personalizing the Absolute, which then makes It God. > > > My Guru explains that God is Impersonal & that God is also personal. So does mine. However, a God we pray to and the Absolute are two different things, imo. The God we pray to, or Ishvara, exists in the context of the relative. > > There > > is nothing wrong at all with this approach, but it's not Advaita. > > No? Not in my opinion, and I don't believe it would be Shankara's opinion either. May the excellent pundits among us correct me if I'm wrong. I would appreciate it greatly. > > Often though, calls are "heard." I don't mean to deny the reality > > of these calls, just to point out other possible sources for them. > > I guess I just like to think of It All as Being the same One. A quaint way of looking at it. However, if Being *is* One, then we must discard all differentiation. The caller and callee disappear all together as they don't even exist within the oneness. The One is only the One, *never* two. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Good post Jody. Nice to interact. I still see it a little differently. I see there is relation between absolute & relative. This is why we have lila. I I also see absolute is alone all one (as you say,) yet that is why it differentiates to play as relative in relationship with It Self for the joy of the many facets of It Self. advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > advaitin , colette@b... wrote: > > advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > and not in relation to the relative. > > > > Absolute is not in relation As the relative? > > There are no relations as far as the Absolute is concerned. > If there were, it wouldn't be absolute. The Absolute *is* the > relative, but is not in relationship with the relative. Any > relationship is made up by the mind. Is there no Cosmic Mind? My view is that the Absolute doesn't *ever* become > relative. *We* as personalities are relative, and we as the > Self are Absolute. Simultaneously perhaps, but one doesn't > "become" the other, imo. The absolute is not the source of relativity & pervades every speck of the relative? Where do you think personalities come from? Well I would see it that the personal is the projective creation of the absolute. It IS ALL the Self. You can only See Your Self. > > > > To take it back to the original context, the Absolute doesn't > > > makes calls. > > > > ? > > Maybe I should have said the Absolute doesn't *make* calls? Maybe it doesn't make house calls;-) > > > > One might imagine that It does, but that is > > > personalizing the Absolute, which then makes It God. The Vedas are not personal? Shiva? Lakshmi? Now I didn't say they were not essentially impersonal;-) > > > > > > My Guru explains that God is Impersonal & that God is also personal. > > So does mine. However, a God we pray to and the Absolute are > two different things, imo. This is where I consider that you are being dualistic. I see there is only One consciousness. It plays as many. The God we pray to, or Ishvara, exists > in the context of the relative. > > > I guess I just like to think of It All as Being the same One. > > A quaint way of looking at it. However, if Being *is* One, then > we must discard all differentiation. The caller and callee disappear > all together as they don't even exist within the oneness. The One > is only the One, *never* two. It seems to me it's you who is differentiating calling relative not God. Yes it's paradox. To me it is the personality which would see the relative as not the absolute playing. Consciousness is an ocean in motion. Same ocean. All consciousness. Is absolute conscious? > > --jody. Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 colette wrote: > There are no relations as far as the Absolute is concerned. > If there were, it wouldn't be absolute. The Absolute *is* the > relative, but is not in relationship with the relative. Any > relationship is made up by the mind. Is there no Cosmic Mind? My view is that the Absolute doesn't *ever* become > relative. *We* as personalities are relative, and we as the > Self are Absolute. Simultaneously perhaps, but one doesn't > "become" the other, imo. The absolute is not the source of relativity & pervades every speck of the relative? Where do you think personalities come from? Well I would see it that the personal is the projective creation of the absolute. It IS ALL the Self. You can only See Your Self. --\ --------------------------- from the Advaitin's perspective :: "Dhrg Drishya Vivekam" gives the following explanation for the above discussion on the Absolute and the Relative. ' Shaktidwayamhi Maayaayaa vikshepaavritiruupiNi Vikshepashaktirlingaadi Brahmaandaantam jagat srijet.' Meaning: Two powers, undoubtedly,are predicated of MAYA,viz,those of projecting and veiling.The projecting power creates everything from the subtle body to the gross Universe 'Tathaa sargabrhmaNoscha bhedamaavrutya tishtathi ya shaktir tadvashaat Brahma vikrutatvena bhaasate.' Meaning::Similarly,Brahman,through the influence of the power that conceals the distinction between It and the phenominal universe,appears endowed with the attributes of change. ' BrahmaNyavasthithaa Maya vikshepaavriti ruupiNi Aavrutya akhandataam tasmin jagadjeevau prakalpayet.' Meaning: Maya which has the double aspect of projection and concealment is in Brahman.It limits the indivisible nature of Brahman and makes It (Brahman ) appear as the world and the embodied being. Gaudapaadachaarya in his Mandukya Kaarika says thus: ' Dharmaa ya iti jaayante jayante te na tatwatahaa Janma maayopamam teshaam saa cha Maaya na vidhyate. ' Meaning: The Jeevatmans that are said to exist, do not, in reality exist at all. Their creation is attributed to ' Maya ' and that ' Maya ' too does not exist ! Shankaracharya states thus: ' Ghatakugjaadikam sarvam mrittikaamaatramevacha Tadvad Brahma jagad sarvam iti Vedaanta dimdimahaa.' Meaning:Pots etc are in essence nothing but the mud in which they have been shaped. So too, the entire world of phenominal objects is nothing but the Supreme Truth, so roars Vedanta. 'Brahma satyam jaganmithyaa Jeevo Brahmaiva naa parahaa Anenavaidhyam sachaastramiti vedanta dimdimahaa ' Meaning: Brahman is Truth, the world of objects and beings is false,and the egocentric sense of seperativeness ( Jeeva ) is itself nothing other than Brahman.That by which this truth is known is the truest science,science of sciences,thus roars Vedanta. Again Gaudapada says: 'Manodrusyamidam dwaitam yat kimchitsacharaacharam Manaso hyamaneebhaave Dwaitam naivopalabhyate'. Meaning: This duality consisting of the mobile and the immobile is essentially cognised by the Mind. When the Mind becomes the Non-Mind , this Duality becomes indeed non existent. Further he says: 'Akalpakam ajam gyaanam gyeyaabhinnam prachakshate Brahmagyeyam ajam nityam ajenaajam vibhudyate'. Meaning:Unimaginable, Unborn,Knowledge , nonseparable from the Knowable, This Unborn Everlasting Brahman is to be known. The Unborn is verily revealed by the Unborn ! Hari Om ! Swaminarayan .. Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 advaitin , colette@b... wrote: > Good post Jody. Nice to interact. > > I still see it a little differently. I see there is relation > between absolute & relative. This is why we have lila. I The lila exists in the context of Maya. While it is included in the context of the Absolute, the Absolute doesn't *do* the lila. Maya does the lila. > I also see absolute is alone all one (as you say,) yet that is why > it differentiates to play as relative in relationship with It Self > for the joy of the many facets of It Self. That's your *idea* of it. It's a nice one to have, but just an idea (a projection of thought) upon the Absolute. Two powers, undoubtedly,are predicated of MAYA, viz,those of projecting and veiling. The projecting power creates everything from the subtle body to the gross Universe Similarly, Brahman, through the influence of the power that conceals the distinction between It and the phenominal universe, **appears** endowed with the attributes of change. This duality consisting of the mobile and the immobile is essentially cognised by the Mind. When the Mind becomes the Non-Mind, this Duality becomes indeed non existent. [snip] > > There are no relations as far as the Absolute is concerned. > > If there were, it wouldn't be absolute. The Absolute *is* the > > relative, but is not in relationship with the relative. Any > > relationship is made up by the mind. > > Is there no Cosmic Mind? Perhaps there is, but it is not the mind *of* the Absolute. > > My view is that the Absolute doesn't *ever* become > > relative. *We* as personalities are relative, and we as the > > Self are Absolute. Simultaneously perhaps, but one doesn't > > "become" the other, imo. > > The absolute is not the source of relativity & pervades every > speck of the relative? Where do you think personalities come > from? An all pervading Absolute is not the source of anything directly. That's Maya's job. Maya which has the double aspect of projection and concealment is in Brahman. It limits the indivisible nature of Brahman and makes It (Brahman ) appear as the world and the embodied being. > Well I would see it that the personal is the projective creation of > the absolute. It IS ALL the Self. You can only See Your Self. Another quaint idea. When you are unfortunate enough to be robbed in the street, was it you that robbed yourself? Did the Self just rob you? > > > > To take it back to the original context, the Absolute doesn't > > > > makes calls. > > > > > > ? > > > > Maybe I should have said the Absolute doesn't *make* calls? > > Maybe it doesn't make house calls;-) > > > > > > > One might imagine that It does, but that is > > > > personalizing the Absolute, which then makes It God. > > The Vedas are not personal? Shiva? Lakshmi? Now I didn't > say they were not essentially impersonal;-) The Vedas exist in Maya. They are not absolute. > > > My Guru explains that God is Impersonal & that God is also > > > personal. > > > > So does mine. However, a God we pray to and the Absolute are > > two different things, imo. > > This is where I consider that you are being dualistic. I see there is > only One consciousness. It plays as many. Again, a quaint and tidy idea. However, one cannot be two. Your "playing as many" is Maya. The Jeevatmans that are said to exist, do not, in reality exist at all. Their creation is attributed to 'Maya' and that 'Maya' too does not exist ! > > The God we pray to, or Ishvara, exists > > in the context of the relative. > > > > > I guess I just like to think of It All as Being the same One. > > > > A quaint way of looking at it. However, if Being *is* One, then > > we must discard all differentiation. The caller and callee > > disappear all together as they don't even exist within the > > oneness. The One is only the One, *never* two. > > It seems to me it's you who is differentiating calling relative not > God. Yes it's paradox. I'm not saying the relative isn't God (or of the "body" of God), I'm saying the relative isn't the Absolute. Mahamaya is my Mother and my Lover. I worship Her everyday. However, She is not the Absolute. She is the eternal companion of the Absolute perhaps, but the Absolute doesn't play back. The Absolute, as represented by Shiva lying prone under Kali, is in eternal nirvakalpa samadhi. He just lies there as Ma dances up a storm, having a real heyday with the universe. They represent Brahman and Maya as Shiva and Shakti. However, one is not the other. Together they make the One whole that is cosmic reality, but you cannot ascribe the condition of one to the other. > To me it is the personality which would see the relative as not the > absolute playing. Consciousness is an ocean in motion. Same ocean. > All consciousness. It makes a pretty picture. I've found that it precisely these kinds of pretty pictures that obscure the actual experiential truth of the Unborn Knowledge that is Brahman. > Is absolute conscious? It is pure consciousness Itself, and It only perceives Itself. --jody. Thanks to Sri Swaminarayan for the references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.