Advaita Vedanta - "all is one"

[cosmiccell]

In the 9th century, Adi Shankara (788-820), an incarnation of Shiva,
brought Buddhism to a sudden end after 1000 years, and re-established
the authority of the VEDA.




He replaced Buddhistic philosophy through a Vedic Monism called
Advaita Vedanta: A "Vedic" version of Buddhism.




He identified Nirvana with the impersonal, allpervadinig Brahma
energy. He said, there is only that impersonal Brahma-Oneness, all
forms of diversity are illusion, also the diversity of God and Soul.
Paramatma (the cosmic supreme soul) and Atma (the individual soul) are
the same, because both are nothing different from Brahman. Only under
illusion (Maya) one can believe, that one exists as Individual in a
Universe, created by God (Mayavada philosophy).




But in the inner circles and even in his written commentaries he
revealed secretly that he himself did not believe in the Mayavada
concept. In the introduction to his Gita-Bhasya (commentaries on the
Gita) he writes: narayana paro vyaktat. "God as person (narayana) is
beyond (paro) the unmanifested energy (avyaktat)."




One of the last statements of the 32years old Shankara became famous:
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate... "Simply
worship Govinda, simply worship Govinda, simply worship Govinda, you
intellectual fools (mudha-mate)! In the moment of death your grammar
and your puns will not help you."




Translation source: Armin Risi, "Der Multidimensionale Kosmos", Vol. 2
(German only).






Conclusion: Monism ("all is one") is a very high philosophical
concept, but at the same time it is only expressing 50% of the truth!
The other 50% are: God is _also_ separate from his creation. All at
the same time. And because God is separate, there can be love (love
flows only between individuals with a free will!) and there can be
_values_ and _respons-ibility_ to God. So, there IS a difference
between light and darkness, wrong and right, we DO have the choice and
God EXPECTS us to decide which path to follow.




So donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t be mislead by New Age philosophies like "Conversation with
God" etc. which state that "there is no right or wrong". The slogan
"everything's relative" is a contradiction in itself! For "everything"
is an "absolute" statement.






Take care,




Cosmiccell

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hello,

First of all, I would ask that you look over the
Guidelines for Participation on Asc2k at:

groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/files/guidelines.htm

We are a community of seekers sharing our paths,
experiences, and lessons. We are not here to preach
to one another, nor to save each other from ourselves.
You just joined yesterday - don't you think it would
be wise to chill out for a while and see what it is we
discuss before barging in and lecturing us? :-) Take
a look at the archived messages to get a feel for what
we're about. A big part of our modus operandi, and
what has made us thrive as a group, is respect.

As a member of the group, I disagree wholeheartedly
with your opinion, and I may address that at a later
time. However, as a moderator of the group, I take
exception to the tone you use. Preserving the
character and open atmosphere of our group is much
more important than being right or wrong on this
issue. Having an opinion is fine, but blasting it to
the group in an authoritative manner the way you are
without qualification or expectation for accompanying
dialogue is counterproductive, at least for the
collective purposes of the list as set forth in the
above mentioned guidelines.

I urge you to do you part to help this community by
reviewing the guidelines and accquainting yourself
with the relevant material. If you have a problem
with the Law of One philosophy *as articulated by Ra*
or other sources, be more specific! I do encourage
you to pursue this dialogue on a more relevant and
friendly basis, as it does lead us to interesting
philosophical areas. However, be advised that we have
no need for "revealed truth". :-)

Thanks,

Jeremy

co-moderator, asc2k

> So donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t be mislead by New Age philosophies like
> "Conversation with God" etc. which state that "there

> is no right or wrong". The slogan "everything's
> relative" is a contradiction in itself!
> For "everything" is an "absolute" statement.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

[Paul Kandrah]

Sigh.

I have to admit that I did not agree with this gentleman's assessment
in this particular thread as well, but I did not find anything
threatening by it. That our co-moderator did find something wrong
with it surprised me.

Our co-moderator's message: You are an outsider, and until you prove
otherwise you should remain an outsider. This, it seems to me,
breeds separation. This, it also seems to me, goes against the
general proposition of Oneness and healing the divide. In fact, it
is with this 'reaction' that a divide is being created.

There is a certain irony here, in that the very quotation that the
gentleman was questioning--namely that there is no right or wrong--
has been confirmed by our co-moderator's response--namely that there
IS a right or wrong, and that somehow the gentleman has found the
unfortunate chasm he did not know was there.

By coincidence, I have been reading a follow-up book of
Conversation's with God. In that book there are spelled out a few
fallacies about life, such as:

- Human beings are separate from each other.
- Some human beings are better than other human beings.
- It is appropriate for human beings to resolve differences by
hurting each other.

To this I would add the fallacy of authority.

These are rather trivial, but the "tone" of our co-moderator's
response seems to be at least partly aligned with some of these
fallacies. I may be wrong, heck, I may even be preaching, but I see
what is see. And to be silent in this regard is not seen as service
to the greater good.

Paul


--- Jeremy Weiland wrote:
> We are a community of seekers sharing our paths,
> experiences, and lessons. We are not here to preach
> to one another, nor to save each other from ourselves.
> You just joined yesterday - don't you think it would
> be wise to chill out for a while and see what it is we
> discuss before barging in and lecturing us? :-) Take
> a look at the archived messages to get a feel for what
> we're about. A big part of our modus operandi, and
> what has made us thrive as a group, is respect.
>
> As a member of the group, I disagree wholeheartedly
> with your opinion, and I may address that at a later
> time. However, as a moderator of the group, I take
> exception to the tone you use. Preserving the
> character and open atmosphere of our group is much
> more important than being right or wrong on this
> issue. Having an opinion is fine, but blasting it to
> the group in an authoritative manner the way you are
> without qualification or expectation for accompanying
> dialogue is counterproductive, at least for the
> collective purposes of the list as set forth in the
> above mentioned guidelines.
>
>
> > So donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t be mislead by New Age philosophies like
> > "Conversation with God" etc. which state that "there
> > is no right or wrong". The slogan "everything's
> > relative" is a contradiction in itself!
> > For "everything" is an "absolute" statement.

[Paul Kandrah]

There is a relevant quote that may be of assistance in gaining
clarity with regards to this. It was so obvious to me simply because
I read it yesterday. Since it is standard practice to quote Ra and
other channeled material when relevant, I trust I am not breaking the
rules.


"The difficulty is that many religious organizations form a closed
circle around their own members, thereby demonstrating the
limitations of their understanding. States and nations do the same.
As do cultural, ethnic, racial, and social groups of every kind, each
consciously or unconsciously creating a 'cordon sanitaire.'

"Such quarantine living does nothing to promote an experience of
humanity's oneness, and, indeed, produces a sense of the need for a
protective shield, segregating people according to their most narrow
views.

"With such a narrow outlook, not everything can be seen as it really
is. Because perspective is limited, so, then, is awareness.

"What you experience as the safety of your womb becomes the
birthplace of your righteousness.

"Yet raising your consciousness will lift you out of your womblike
segregation. Then you will discover that the quarantine was
unnecessary, that the cordon separated you from nothing but your Self.

"This will be the biggest surprise. This will be the largest
astonishment. You have merely been segregating yourself
from 'yourself.'

"When you break through the circle of your containment, you will
discover that everyone else is just like you.

"Not only everyONE else, but everyTHING else. Close examination will
reversal that you and the rocks and the trees and the planets and the
sun and the moon 'are all made of the same stuff.' Like beautiful
snowflakes, you all 'look' different, but you all have identical
substance.

"When you discover your Oneness, you will marvel at how you could
ever have imagined yourself to be separate from anyone or anything
else. You will see that when you have treated anyone or anything as
though it was 'not you,' you hurt no one but yourself."

~~~ Neale Donald Walsch, The New Revelations, pg. 188


> --- Jeremy Weiland wrote:
> > We are a community of seekers sharing our paths,
> > experiences, and lessons.

[Jeremy Weiland]

This is all I'm going to say to you, Paul.

> Our co-moderator's message: You are an outsider, and
> until you prove otherwise you should remain an
> outsider.

No, just don't come inside and expect everybody to
stop what they're doing just to listen to you tell
them how wrong they are.

> This, it seems to me, breeds separation.

If you come in and as your first act state that the
law of one is wrong, knowing the group studies the law
of one, you are not breeding separation?

I was simply asking him to be a little more respectful
of our group. I would like to ask you the same.

> This, it also seems to me, goes against the
> general proposition of Oneness and healing the
> divide. In fact, it is with this 'reaction' that a
> divide is being created.

Umm, your opinion Paul. I'm not here to heal any
divide, just to run the list. I certainly don't need
to hear your breathless opinions on my actions,
either.

> There is a certain irony here, in that the very
> quotation that the gentleman was questioning--namely

> that there is no right or wrong-- has been confirmed

> by our co-moderator's response--namely that there
> IS a right or wrong, and that somehow the gentleman
> has found the unfortunate chasm he did not know was
> there.

You are rich. Look, if you participate in a way
contrary to the guidelines, you may not participate.
Period. Not a matter of ultimate moral right or
wrong, just "Are you in accordance with the guidlines
or not?" Nobody's ever said you're going to hell if
you're not in our discussion group :-)

> These are rather trivial, but the "tone" of our
> co-moderator's response seems to be at least partly
> aligned with some of these fallacies.

Probably, but my concern as moderator is not spiritual
perfection, but simply running a list. People like
you make that hard enough without retaining any higher
aspirations.

> I may be wrong, heck, I may even be preaching, but I

> see what is see. And to be silent in this regard is

> not seen as service to the greater good.

Precisely what service are you rendering? Pointing
out what *you* think is "wrong"? This is just
ridiculous... you want to make this some big
moralistic tale.

Please be assured, all we ask is that you participate
if you're interested in the material, and not
participate if you're not interested. Arguments about
fundamentals are counterproductive to a group who has
decided to move forward from those principles.

If you have a problem with this, or don't like how the
moderation team does things, you are kindly asked to
leave. Frankly, this is a private group, and we have
complete discretion over whom we allow in the group
and whom we don't. I have no problem unsubscribing
members who refuse to contribute in a positive manner
that strengthens our community.

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

[cosmiccell]

> First of all, I would ask that you look over the


> Guidelines for Participation on Asc2k at:


>


> groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/files/guidelines.htm




*** Hi Jeremy, I didnÃà‚‚Â ´t intend to violate the guidelines, let alone to
hurt anybodyÃÃà‚‚‚ÃÂÂà ‚‚´s feelings. Sorry about that!




> We are a community of seekers sharing our paths,


> experiences, and lessons. We are not here to preach


> to one another, nor to save each other from ourselves.




*** I regret the preaching undertone! I feel an urge for philosophical
truth, therefore I love to provoke "hot discussions".




> You just joined yesterday - don't you think it would


> be wise to chill out for a while and see what it is we


> discuss before barging in and lecturing us? :-)




*** Of course, I first spent some hours in studying the ascension web
site and the postings back to #10,000, before I threw in my two
pennies. I also shared some brilliant statements from David (e.g.
about "the original wound") with others.





> As a member of the group, I disagree wholeheartedly


> with your opinion,




*** This sounds as if you expect the group to support your
disagreement! :)




> and I may address that at a later time.




*** The length of your rebuke indicates me that I raised an important
issue, thanks!




> Having an opinion is fine, but blasting it to


> the group in an authoritative manner the way you are


> without qualification or expectation for accompanying


> dialogue




*** Again: I am sorry for the manner, but I look forward to the
dialogue!




> I urge you to do you part to help this community by


> reviewing the guidelines and accquainting yourself


> with the relevant material.




*** As far as the "Law of the One" is concerned, IÃÂà ƒÂƒÃ‚‚‚ÂàƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´d like to know in
which sense you disagree so heavily. You made me curious!




If you have a problem


> with the Law of One philosophy *as articulated by Ra*


> or other sources, be more specific!




*** I am sorry for the misunderstanding right from the beginning. I
donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t have a problem with *Ra*, but I do have a problem with certain
statements of Neil Donald Walsh, especially with his claim of
channeling "God". I mentioned the "Conversations" as a popular example
of one-sided Monism, which turns out to be Nihilism in the ultimate
sense.




I do encourage


> you to pursue this dialogue on a more relevant and


> friendly basis, as it does lead us to interesting


> philosophical areas.




*** IÃÂà ƒÂƒÃ‚‚‚ÂàƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´ll try my best! :)






However, be advised that we have


> no need for "revealed truth". :-)




*** As a seeker of truth, I am open to any well-founded corrections of
my viewpoint!




Amicalement,


Cosmiccell

[Jeremy Weiland]

> > As a member of the group, I disagree
wholeheartedly
> > with your opinion,
> *** This sounds as if you expect the group to
> support your disagreement! :)

No, it means that in my response I was wearing the
"moderator" hat, not the "Jeremy, who would love to
engage this topic" hat.

I felt like I needed to make our principles here in
our group clear to a newcomer before continuing any
conversation on this matter.

> *** The length of your rebuke indicates me that I
> raised an important issue, thanks!

I wouldn't say it's an unimportant issue, but your
tone was what I was "rebuking", not necessarily the
ideas you articulated.

> *** As far as the "Law of the One" is concerned, IÃÂà ƒÂƒÃ‚‚‚ÂàƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´d
> like to know in which sense you disagree so heavily.

> You made me curious!

Well, you really sort of based your argument on the
words and wisdom of an individual with whom I am not
familiar. It's hard to bridge the gap from what you
meant to how that interfaces with my beliefs.

Basically, I tend to side with Ra's perspective that,
in an infinite universe, the only way to understand it
is as a unity. Infinity = unity.

> *** I am sorry for the misunderstanding right from
> the beginning. I donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t have a problem with *Ra*, but

> I do have a problem with certain statements of Neil
> Donald Walsh, especially with his claim of
> channeling "God".

Well, we're not a "Conversations" discussion group,
y'know. :-) Have you read any of the "Law of One"
series so I know if we have any common ground from
which to start?

> I mentioned the "Conversations" as a popular example

> of one-sided Monism, which turns out to be Nihilism
> in the ultimate sense.

Both Monism and Nihilism are, as David explained,
simply two "worldly" ways of looking at what is,
ultimately, and incomprehensible mystery. How you
define your identity in relation to that mystery is
the only difference between Monism, non-monism,
Nihilism, non-nihilism, etc.

I rather suspect that you simply do not "like" the
idea of Monism, which is cool - free will allows
people to look at the universe in whichever way they
want. In my view, a monistic perspective allows me to
integrate my myth into my reality, permitting
understanding on certain limited levels. A lot of it
is just feeling / intuition, too, because the
mysterious is hard to understand in a directly
intellectual manner.

Love and light,

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

[Jeremy Weiland]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=SxIuntNLAYNC8CZdboMFO1l54NolPstZdzS6n8 OI1ahLZunmpINbIxhFndgiUAGAtDNMo5MhsIdnYk07xThKvw), "cosmiccell" <minema@g...> wrote:
> In the 9th century, Adi Shankara (788-820), an incarnation of
> Shiva, brought Buddhism to a sudden end after 1000 years, and re-
> established the authority of the VEDA.

No offense intended, but this is an authority with which I'm
unfamiliar, and therefore I'm not likely to take his word for
anything.

> Conclusion: Monism ("all is one") is a very high philosophical
> concept, but at the same time it is only expressing 50% of the
> truth! The other 50% are: God is _also_ separate from his creation.
> All at the same time.

Well, it kinda depends upon from what perspective you are looking at
the question. For us, right now, "God" (whatever that term should be
defined as) is certainly, in the minds of most of us, separate from
us (especially in the sense of the active higher self's response to
conscious individual decisions and desires). In as far as that
identity is concerned (the identity myself as a finite body, it is a
complete way of looking at the picture.

However, one of the most powerful spiritual experiences one can have
is when this personal identity is somehow redefined. When you see
yourself, not as merely an individual, but an individual embodiment
of the creator, remarkable shifts in perspective can then occur. It
is then possible to see, for example, that maybe one's existence is
but an interation of an ultimate, unified pattern that has imprinted
itself throughout creation infinitely. You recognize self in others,
in nature, in consciousness.

You redefine yourself, and the universe changes to accomodate that
identity. It's nothing new.

Think of the Law of One as an assertion. "All is one". What are the
consequences of that philosophy with which you disagree?

> And because God is separate, there can be love (love flows only
> between individuals with a free will!)

Can you define what love is, because the connotation in which you're
using the word is confusing me. IMHO, love is a primal creative
force (2nd distortion). It exists (or rather, becomes perceived)
with free will, yes, but the concept of "individual" is not set in
stone, at least in my view.

> and there can be _values_ and _respons-ibility_ to God.

Even if you see God as separate, in what way would God understand the
necessarily more primitive values and responsibility of his creation,
let alone care about them? Values and responsibility seem like
constructs created by humans to pursue *their* affairs, not God's.

> So, there IS a difference between light and darkness, wrong and
> right, we DO have the choice and God EXPECTS us to decide which
> path to follow.

I agree there is a difference between the opposites, but that the
opposites are only perceptions defined by a certain vantagepoint
(such as the perspective of individuality). In so far as this
vantagepoint is not universal or constant, neither is the truth thus
percieved.

However, I don't understand why God has any reason to expect anything
of us. Does God have a need of some sort that I don't percieve?

> The slogan "everything's relative" is a contradiction in itself!
> For "everything" is an "absolute" statement.

Relative to the person stating the slogan. :-)

Love and light,

Jeremy