Dvaita

[Guest guest]

Dvaita:

 

There is something greater than/ prior to/ beyond/ earler than/ closer

to us than the mind-body-intellect complex. This I believe. My question

is why is That in which we live, move, and have our being, why is That

not a God, Who is Other?

 

Where is the justification for the leap which assumes That to be we?

[Guest guest]

Richard,

 

why is That in which we live, move, and have our

being, why is That

not a God, Who is Other?

 

Richard, I don't claim any authority whatsoever in

giving an opinion about this. That said, Other is

whatever is NOT me, ego. Ego in the sense of " I am

this limited self, have this daily life, etc. " I'm not

deprecating ego in saying this. My personal belief is

that ego, that which can separate what it is from what

it is not, is absolutely necessary here at this level

of existence.

 

Whatever comes my way, whatever steps into my path,

for good or ill, and changes or usurps me and what I

want, or whatever steps into my path to give me what I

want, whatever comes across my path in direct

opposition to " me " , or in complete agreement with my

limited ego aims is " other " . That " other " , not me, is,

in a sense, god, in that it is not me, not what I am,

be it good or ill. As long as I " have " an ego, other

is there also...

 

Can I say what god really is? I can read all the

scriptures and still not know. What I can say is, at

this level " God is not me, I am not god " . In that

sense I move through life seeing all that is not me as

god, other...this is one guy's opinion only, ususal

disclaimer! But for " me " to exist there must be other.

For other to exist, there must be " me " .

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 5/5/08, Richard <richarkar wrote:

 

 

 

Dvaita:

 

There is something greater than/ prior to/ beyond/ earler than/ closer

to us than the mind-body-intellect complex. This I believe. My question

is why is That in which we live, move, and have our being, why is That

not a God, Who is Other?

 

Where is the justification for the leap which assumes That to be we?

 

 

Richard - praNAms.

 

According to advaita, there is only one not two. The material cause for the

universe is Brahman only - says Vedanta. Dvaitins do not for it but

both advaita and vishiShTaadvata accept the Vedic statement. Therefore whatever

you see, here, move etc is Brahman only but with different names and forms. If

I develop the vision of seeing the truth as it is and not get carried away by

the changing names and forms then I can see that God or the truth, the

changeless entity background of the changing world. Hence as Shyamji quoted -

mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthnaa - I pervade this entire universe

in an unmanifested form. All are in me. I am the support (the substantive) for

all - This. Hence this is not different from God. But to see that truth, the

changeless among the changing things, I have to develop the knack of seeing in

and through the changing things. Just as I have to see the water that supports

in and through the waves that

are rising continuously, gulping other waves and ultimately subsiding to give a

way to the new wave that is rising. To dive into the ocean, if I have to wait

for all the waves to subside, that will never happen. I have to learn how to

dive even when the ocean is turbulent at the surface with all the waves that are

rising.

Yoga prepares the mind to accomplish that.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

>Dvaita:

 

 

>There is something greater than/ prior to/ beyond/ earler than/ closer

>to us than the mind-body-intellect complex. This I believe. My question

>is why is That in which we live, move, and have our being, why is That

>not a God, Who is Other?

>

 

>Where is the justification for the leap which assumes That to be we?

 

Richard,

 

In order to ask that question, there was a leap which assumed the " we " is the

mind-body-intellect complex. If one realizes that " we " are not the

mind-body-intellect complex, but that i is external to us, and we are That in

which it arises, the question asked no longer applies - then there is no other.

 

Hari Om

 

Ed

 

 

advaitin

richarkar

Mon, 5 May 2008 04:07:34 +0000

Dvaita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.

http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Richard " <richarkar wrote:

 

> There is something greater than/ prior to/ beyond/ earler than/ closer

> to us than the mind-body-intellect complex. This I believe. My question

> is why is That in which we live, move, and have our being, why is That

> not a God, Who is Other?

> Where is the justification for the leap which assumes That to be we?

 

Hello Richard

 

Your answer is in the question.

If you truly believe that there is something closer to us than the

mind-body-intellect complex, my question is: What or Who could be

closer than our BMI? If we sit and investigate, the only thing

possible (and closer) is: that Awareness which is conscious of the

BMI, there cannot be anything closer. And that

Awareness/Consciousness/Being cannot see itself because it is the

irreductible subject, otherwise we will need another Ultimate

Awareness to see the first Awareness as object.

I call that Awareness " I " (capital), how would you call it?

How close is your feeling/thought/experience of God from that Awareness?

Isn't that feeling of God " within " that Awareness?

 

And we could do the same kind of " justifications " with that which is

greater/ prior to/earlier than, etc... the end result will be always

" I " ...

 

How could God be other then?

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote:

>

> " Richard " <richarkar@> wrote:

>

> > There is something greater than/ prior to/ beyond/ earler than/

closer

> > to us than the mind-body-intellect complex. This I believe.

>

> Hello Richard

>

> Your answer is in the question.

> If you truly believe that there is something closer to us than the

> mind-body-intellect complex, my question is: What or Who could be

> closer than our BMI? If we sit and investigate, the only thing

> possible (and closer) is: that Awareness which is conscious of the

> BMI, there cannot be anything closer.

 

Dear Sri Mouna, Dear Sri Richard,

 

It is Awareness (caitanya),our own TRUE NATURE(Atman/brahman),

which appears as the mind-body-intellect complex. Then where is the

question of nearness or farness? Who has to see whom?

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

" narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

 

> It is Awareness (caitanya),our own TRUE NATURE(Atman/brahman),

> which appears as the mind-body-intellect complex. Then where is the

> question of nearness or farness? Who has to see whom?

>

 

Dear Sri Sreenivasaji:

 

I completely agree and this is what I meant, the closest " something "

that we have to our TRUE NATURE is our TRUE NATURE ITSELF (maybe

figurative language?) because also everything is at no distance from

Awareness, since everything is pervaded by Awareness. One of the names

our TRUE NATURE takes at " our " relative level is " I " (capital i). And

every sentient being says " I " in one way or another. In our TRUE

NATURE there is " no place " for another, not even for a separate God.

It's only within our apparent nature that there is an Other, and also

place for a separate God that contains " me " , since He is all pervading

and I'm just a limited BMI.

 

Please correct me if wrong.

 

Regards,

Mouna