>
>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.

--- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, "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.

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

--- 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,
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.

--- 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

--- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, colette@b... wrote:
> --- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, "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.

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.

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

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.'

Meaningots 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


..






---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In advaitin (AT) egroups (DOT) com, 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.