--- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote:
> --- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, 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