[melanie]

Here below i have some info describing some levels of understanding.
for anyone who would like to understand what i am writing about.
I am appearing on this and various other threads on this TOE forum.

Lets not forget that some of the ''words'' in the info below:
are some big ''words''but they are not 'jargon'

Much the same way, we see these ''high sounding'' words in
some scientific and mathematical pieces of conceptual info,
they too are not 'jargon'

If people want to label 'things' as 'jargon' then they are removing
themselves further and further from what they are trying to discover,
they are as good as chasing there own tails around and around,
they will not see truth, which is always THIS right NOW
as there is nothing else.

Here are the levels:

'Salient features of Advaita Vedanta

Three levels of truth

1: The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
2: The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,
3:The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.'

[melanie]

Some more info on the ''philosophy of oneness''

Understanding 'oneness' will lead us to an understanding of ''apparent evil ''

Please remember that ''words'' can only point to the indescribable,
they can never define what is already,
it is like the arrow points ''out there''
but the arrow can never point to itself.
So the 'word' HE is a concept used as a pointer to .. THIS- IS-ness -or- the NOW
HE or GOD does not mean some separate person or thing living in the sky.

It is written by Kabir a famous poet and mystic.

If I say, "He is One," it is a lie; if I say, "He is two," I am guilty of slander.
Kabir knows Him as He is, but cannot express Him.
The devotee who can stay in that place where the Invisible and the manifest are one,
Like a lamp in the doorway, illumines both what is within and what is without.
As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads which comprise it,
So Brahman is not different from the world, and the world is not different from Brahman.
0 Kabir, there is no difference between the world, the Creator, and Brahman; Brahman is in all and all is in Brahman.
The fire is one, whether it bums in a lamp or a torch; so Brahman is all, and in Him exist all souls, God, and the world.
Unity is the essence of the teachings of all the saints;
Laugh at Kabir if you do not become perfect by living in accord with this truth!

Kabir

[melanie]

It is because of the illusional i-dea of twoness or separateness
that the i-dea evil arises.
In reality there is only ONE
there is only one of us here so evil has no where to dwell
for why would one want evil? it wouldn't for even one thing cannot exist.
The 'apparent' 'us' are the ONE incarnate appearing AS the many



Chapter 1 from Ellam Ondre (All Is One)

0h good man! Is the statement that "All is one," good or evil? Think for yourself.
Just as the person will always be righteous who regards himself like others and others like himself,
how can any evil attach itself to him who knows himself to be others and the others to be himself?
Tell me if there is any better way for obtaining good than the knowledge of unity?
Certainly other methods cannot be as good as this one.
How can anyone love others more than when knowing them to be himself, to know them in unity-love as unity, for they are truly one.

[melanie]

Know that the world as a whole is your undecaying body and that you are the everlasting life of the whole world.
Tell me if there is any harm in doing so? Who fears to go the harmless way? Be courageous. The Vedas teach this very truth.
There is nothing but yourself. All good will be yours.
Yea, you become the good itself.
All that others gain from you will be good only.
Who will work evil to his own body and soul?
A remedy is applied if there is an abscess in the body.
Even if the remedy is painful, it is meant to do good only.
Such will be some of your actions;
they will also be for the good of the world.
For that reason, you will not be involved in differentiation.
I put it briefly: The knower of unity will act as one should.
In fact, the knowledge of unity makes him act. He cannot err.
In the world, he is God made visible. All is one.

Chapter 1 from Ellam Ondre (All Is One)

[mkirkpatrick]

If there is a root to evil then it lies within the illusion of being seperate from the whole.




regards michael.

[Polybius]

I think like a root of some plant, there stem many roots from it and so evil also has many roots to it. There isn't only one root but many that in whole make it the root of all evil, while the deepest of these roots (evils) would be closest to the whole (the root) collective root system, having a more profound affect on it.

The deeper roots would be friction. The friction between two things/two minds. This mismatch sometimes causes undesirable results, which affect us negatively, and we conceive this as evil.

And just curious, did you mean this root applies only to Human life or is it somehow more than human? Which i doubt since the only evil is human evil.

[leskey]

Melanie, I said "religious 'jargon,'" not religion is jargon. There is a big difference...

The dictionary defines "jargon" as "special words and phrases used by particular groups of people, especially in their work..." So, jargon IS jargon. I thought that perhaps you could revert to a concept I've read here (accredited to Einstein): you should be able to describe a concept in language that your grandmother can understand, or something to that effect.

All IS one and Ego IS a false self. We do agree on some points.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by leskey Melanie, I said "religious 'jargon,'" not religion is jargon. There is a big difference... The dictionary defines "jargon" as "special words and phrases used by particular groups of people, especially in their work..." So, jargon IS jargon. I thought that perhaps you could revert to a concept I've read here (accredited to Einstein): you should be able to describe a concept in language that your grandmother can understand, or something to that effect. All IS one and Ego IS a false self. We do agree on some points.

I was wondering why you referred to my post as - 'religious jargon' -you said '' is the 'religious jargon' necessary?

i hadn't even mentioned religion,

you were assuming my post as 'religious jargon'

meaning high sounding words, and yet that was not my intention

it was your judgement only, and that was my point,

it was discrimination

OK so generic language .. has no brand name .. it is all encompassing.

but to assume religion as 'special language' is ignorance





that was my point anyway that's what i was trying to explain

all be it very badly, since words will always fall short in describing the indescribable

it's not helpful to categorize religion and science

it hinders the understanding of 'oneness'

the fact that none of 'this' is really happening

and 'we' do not exist except as an 'appearance'

will still be difficult for

the rational logic mind to grasp

but it is a very basic and simple truth

no jargon necessary.

melanie

[melanie]

"We are all part of the One Spirit.
When you experience the true meaning of religion,
which is to know God,
you will realize that He is your Self,
and that He exists equally and impartially in all beings."

–Paramahansa Yogananda

[MJA]

Originally Posted by leskey There is "a rule that shall permit no exception" in design: "It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, Of all things physical and metaphysical, Of all things human and all things super-human, Of all true manifestations of the head, Of the heart, of the soul, That the life is recognizable in its expression, THAT FORM EVER FOLLOWS FUNCTION. This is the law." - Louis Sullivan Put another way "subjective" follows "objective." Or, physical existence is the aesthetic inventon of the meta-physical (The Truth).

Dear Leskey,

No exception?

David existed subjectively in Michelangelo's mind before he created the objective or statue of David. In this case objective follows subjective.
Whereas the objective of David is to subjectively create an impression on me. So then subjective follows objective.
I would suggest that function and form, or subjective and objective, are equally one and the same.



In either case, objectively or subjectively, David is a True Masterpiece!

=
MJA