Both of you are making good points. We don't see any major difference between your ideas. I would just like to add something to the discussion about the point relating to the 'mistake of the intellect'. This mistake can be the contributing factor of those who are agnostics or atheists. I believe they have created a human set of values into which the Divine is supposed to fulfill before they will accept Its existence. However, the Divine is beyond these set of values. Hence, they fail to see the message. But I doubt if one can convince them otherwise.
I believe this issue is depicted in the story of the war between the good and bad angels. Similarly, the same message is made in the vedic story of the demigods and demons battling for the pot of amrita created by their churning of the ocean of milk. In the end, one can only say, "to each his own". --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter > <brontebaxter8@> wrote: > > > > Bill wrote: > > The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in >the > > beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden > > of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of > > knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the > >wheel of > > samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself > > with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to > > attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the > > pseudo-soul. > > > > Bronte writes: > > I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified > >with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it > >forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter > >all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. > > Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the > intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified > with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of man'. > > > Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add to > >the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your > >soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation. > > You don't disidentify with the soul you disidentify with avidya or the > individual illusion of identification of matter and circumstances, the > product of which is the me and I. Whenever you use the terms me and I > you draw a circle creating a boundary, that's not infinite, you are > that, *tat tvam asi* (Upanishads-That Thou Art). > > > > Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic creator, > >only a passive observer. You'll "watch" your "body/mind" or "meat > >robot" rather than BE your brilliant individuality. > > Yes and NO, it is the gunas the that are the true actors in creation > not the ego or I, as such when nature carries out the brilliance of > creation it stands next to none in creativity and beauty. > > You could call it being a passive observer but...there's only room for > ONE God in creation, sorry! :-( It all belongs to God, this is his > creation and we are all reflections of HIM, realizing that is true wisdom. >
