PDA

View Full Version : Is Jesus a confirmed Advaitin?



nirotu
10 November 2006, 05:54 PM
Is Jesus a confirmed “Advitin”?

Upon reading the Bible one cannot help but notice that Jesus constantly spoke about “My Father”, “I and My Father”, which exemplify the fact that He was not Advaitin at all. In the manifest creation of the pure Advaita, Pure Dvaita Jesus Christ did not advocate or represent either of these as a whole truth. Therefore, statement that Jesus Christ represents Adviata is falsity.

Technically speaking He showed oneness in Father, upon which Advaitins seem to always hang their hat on by using statement like “I and my Father are one”, which does not truly represent the essential nature of Jesus Christ. As can be seen from the statement “I and My Father are one” the plurality “are” is used to represent more than one being. Such distinctness was always maintained by Jesus while addressing the Father.

Advita is only a perspective and cannot represent the whole truth. For example, it negates the idea of God out of us, when in fact; God is the infinite spirit who is both in us and out of us. If God were not in us there would be no sense of need; if God were not out of us, there would be no sense of worship. Their denial of “God out of us” has forced them to interpret worship to be inferior to meditation. The fact is, no where in the scripture will you find God favoring one over the other as a form of sacrifice. God does not prohibit from either form of sacrifice – worship or meditation.

In the manifest creation of the matter, Jesus was, therefore, purest form of higher-self state. In that He came pure, He lived pure and He returned pure. Only in Jesus Christ will you see Him embody Advita and Dvaita. In His teaching you will see the entire spectrum of spiritual practices needed by man to complete his spiritual journey in the cycle of creation. Jesus, with all His knowledge of divinity showed us prayer as a mode of worship. He Himself worshipped the Father in communing with the Father, with Him as the subject and the Father as the object of prayer. Advaitins have a very stark view on this and they have, as a result, a stark path to follow.

Blessings,

satay
10 November 2006, 07:11 PM
alright, you convinced me. Where do i sign to become a 'christian'?

</end of sarcasm>

sarabhanga
10 November 2006, 08:10 PM
When Jesus says ‘I am’ ...

ego eimi ho on (I am that Being I am) = ahaM brahma asmi (I am [that] Brahman I am)

ahaM brahmAsmi = I am ‘I am Brahman’ = I am ‘I am Being’ = I am ‘I be’ = I am ‘I exist’ = I am ‘I am’ = I truly AM!

I am the every essence of ‘I am’ = I am Existence, itself = I am (I am) Brahman.

nirotu
14 November 2006, 08:48 PM
When Jesus says ‘I am’ ...





ego eimi ho on (I am that Being I am) = ahaM brahma asmi (I am [that] Brahman I am)


ahaM brahmAsmi = I am ‘I am Brahman’ = I am ‘I am Being’ = I am ‘I be’ = I am ‘I exist’ = I am ‘I am’ = I truly AM!



I am the every essence of ‘I am’ = I am Existence, itself = I am (I am) Brahman.
Dear Sarabhanga:

Your points are well taken. Why does Jesus repeatedly refer to “I am”? I would like to think that He was qualified enough to make such self-declaration because the consciousness in Him was truly “Christ consciousness” which is one with the “Cosmic Consciousness” of the Father. I do believe that Jesus is the prime example of the one who has not even an iota of “Prarabhda karma” because of His all-pervading “Christ Consciousness”, which always shines as “I am”.

Therefore, when Jesus refers to “I am the healer”, “I am the bread of life”, “I am the door”, “I am. . . “ etc, I believe, He spoke not of the “I” of the ego-consciousness (for an ordinary person it is identified with body-ego consciousness) but divine consciousness. Moreover, the “I am“ proclaimed by Jesus is not confined by the physical or temporal scale and, more importantly, is not bound by any fate after death as in humans.

While it can be said that many sages have attained divine consciousness, such a transformation has occurred in them only at their “Samadhi”. But in Jesus, the Christ was indwelling in His nature right from the beginning. Therefore, Jesus could proclaim, because of His ever transcendence state, “I say unto thee, arise and be healed” and not “Be healed by God’s power.”

Coming back to our original discussion..

While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman). This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed. Because, Advaita has become Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey. Therefore, Advaita and Dvaita co-exist which is what Jesus portrayed and also demonstrated the significance by praying so much. It is only in “Jesus the Christ” will you find a potent combination of the two existing as one awareness in Christ consciousness. Because of that nature He is the outstanding role model for human journey.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
17 November 2006, 04:07 AM
Their denial of “God out of us” has forced them to interpret worship to be inferior to meditation. The fact is, no where in the scripture will you find God favoring one over the other as a form of sacrifice. God does not prohibit from either form of sacrifice – worship or meditation.[/FONT]


I guess your idea on meditation is incorrect. Meditation is fixing one's mind unceasingly on God with immense love.(snehapUrvam anudhyAnam) Worship is certainly inferior because mind cannot focus on God as much it does during meditation. External worship involves senses, which have to be finally overcome. Since God is beyond the senses, worship must ultimately give way to meditation to reveal things beyond senses. Deep Meditation is a form of worship where body is not involved, but only the mind/intellect complex operates.

Worship purifies the mind and body, making it more fit for meditation. Both are very essential for all serious God seekers.They go hand in hand. Worship cannot still the mind - only in the depth of meditation with senses fully withdrawn can you attain the focussed concentration which reveals God. Meditation is not unique to Advaita or Jnana Yoga - they are essential to Karma yoga, bhakti yoga and prapannas. There is no vedanta without samAdhi - it is just bookish otherwise. samAdhi is the highest worship possible.

Worship is be holy, see holy, hear holy, smell holy, read holy, think holy and feel holy
Meditation is to think holy and be holy. Worship restricted only to the mind is called meditation. Mind(Atman strictly) is the only organ capable of seeing God, and senses have no final role. And all worship must end in meditation - true meditation is moksha.

Lower Bhakti Yoga involves mainly external worship with some or no meditation.
Lower Karma Yoga is 75%-25%
Higher Karma Yoga is 50%-50% ( or 25-75)
Jnana Yoga is 0-100
Higher Bhakti Yoga is 0-100

Hinduism spans all these. Christianity does not.

satay
17 November 2006, 10:04 AM
Dear Sarabhanga:

I do believe that Jesus is the prime example of the one who has not even an iota of “Prarabhda karma” because of His all-pervading “Christ Consciousness”, which always shines as “I am”.


We can 'believe' a lot of things but without any facts any belief is an emotional addiction.

Hindus fail to see what jesus has to offer that the sages of the east don't.

Sudarshan
17 November 2006, 10:35 AM
While it can be said that many sages have attained divine consciousness, such a transformation has occurred in them only at their “Samadhi”. But in Jesus, the Christ was indwelling in His nature right from the beginning.


You are incorrect. There is atleast one Hindu saint I know who was "karuvile thiru" (enlightened in the womb). He is the Alvar saint Nammazhvar. He is called Satakopan because he defeated the Satam. Satam is the "air" that traps you in bhagavAn's mAyA during birth but it did not touch him. (Satakopan means one who was angry with Satam). Nammazhvar was in Samadhi since birth, even in waking state. There are bound to be many other Satakopan's....Jesus is nothing unique.

Sudarshan
17 November 2006, 11:42 AM
Upon reading the Bible one cannot help but notice that Jesus constantly spoke about “My Father”, “I and My Father”, which exemplify the fact that He was not Advaitin at all. In the manifest creation of the pure Advaita, Pure Dvaita Jesus Christ did not advocate or represent either of these as a whole truth. Therefore, statement that Jesus Christ represents Adviata is falsity.


Indeed, "I" and "father" are different. Jesus cant be advaitin because he differentiated between himself and his father. Jesus cant be God because he did not say that - he said that he was the way to God. If he is not God, then he is a soul. That means, one among many infinite souls. ( and liberated)



Technically speaking He showed oneness in Father, upon which Advaitins seem to always hang their hat on by using statement like “I and my Father are one”, which does not truly represent the essential nature of Jesus Christ. As can be seen from the statement “I and My Father are one” the plurality “are” is used to represent more than one being. Such distinctness was always maintained by Jesus while addressing the Father.


Jesus appears to be a Vishistadvaitin because he said "I and my Father are one", where "I" is one with father, but still a difference persists to recognize the father.



Advita is only a perspective and cannot represent the whole truth. For example, it negates the idea of God out of us, when in fact; God is the infinite spirit who is both in us and out of us. If God were not in us there would be no sense of need; if God were not out of us, there would be no sense of worship. Their denial of “God out of us” has forced them to interpret worship to be inferior to meditation. The fact is, no where in the scripture will you find God favoring one over the other as a form of sacrifice. God does not prohibit from either form of sacrifice – worship or meditation.

In the manifest creation of the matter, Jesus was, therefore, purest form of higher-self state. In that He came pure, He lived pure and He returned pure. Only in Jesus Christ will you see Him embody Advita and Dvaita. In His teaching you will see the entire spectrum of spiritual practices needed by man to complete his spiritual journey in the cycle of creation. Jesus, with all His knowledge of divinity showed us prayer as a mode of worship. He Himself worshipped the Father in communing with the Father, with Him as the subject and the Father as the object of prayer. Advaitins have a very stark view on this and they have, as a result, a stark path to follow.

Blessings,

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Agree with you. Jesus was a blessed soul who incarnated to teach the message of his father Krishna. But let me repeat - Jesus was only one of the many blessed saints to have graced the world. And his teachings represent one face of the truth. No teacher ever taught the full truth ( otherwise all of us would not be fighting ) - because truth cannot be taught, but must be known by experience.

saidevo
17 November 2006, 10:07 PM
Meditation is fixing one's mind unceasingly on God with immense love.(snehapUrvam anudhyAnam) Worship is certainly inferior because mind cannot focus on God as much it does during meditation. External worship involves senses, which have to be finally overcome. Since God is beyond the senses, worship must ultimately give way to meditation to reveal things beyond senses. Deep Meditation is a form of worship where body is not involved, but only the mind/intellect complex operates.


My idea is that there are no such clear distinctions of quality between meditation and worship.

Meditation is essentially the dying of the mind and the intellect (ahamkara). Only the buddhi remains as the ultimate tool of Self Realization and then merges with the Self in samadhi. To kill/still the mind, it should be given only a single thread of action (usually it is multi-threaded), which is why the recommendation of a form (rupa) or a name (nama) or a sound (mantra) in the initial stages of meditation. Once the concentration on singular thinking is achieved, the next stage automatically sets in, where the mind gives up even this singular thought and dies, as bliss (ananda) sets in. The status of bliss might just be monentary or a little longer (savikalpa samadhi). In a jnani, the status is eternal even when he is leading a normal life (nirvikalpa samadhi). The point is that it takes a very long time and constant, rigorous practice even to get into a moment of bliss with meditation.

Now consider bhakti that is the prevalent mental activity in worship. Here also the mind is fixed on a form or name or sound initially. But the most wonderful thing about bhakti is that it is far easier to practice (which is why it is specially recommended for this Kali Yuga) and brings in bliss almost instantly once the bhakti gets intense! The sudden ringing of the priest's hand-bell in a temple, the pitch in his voice as he recites a mantra, the form of the murti, the jyoti of the lamp burning steadily beside it, the divine smell of incence and camphor -- anything can jolt the mind of a bhakta and kill/still it, albeit momentarily, resulting in a flood of bliss that externally manifests as tears in the bhakta's eyes welling up and flowing, the voice becoming choked and husky, every tiny hair in the body stirred and errect (romAnjanam) and a feeling of peace and love.

The same sensations of bliss and peace are received in a bhajan, while reading a spiritual book or listening to an upanyAsam (a spiritual talk).

Bhakti is in no way inferior to meditation, which is the reason Sri Adi Sankara sang several songs on our Gods and Goddesses, Ramana Maharshi used to accept vibuti and kunkuma prasadams from temples with utmost reverence and Sri Ramakrishna is revered as one of the most influential of the Hindu saints. And his disciple Sri Vivekananda combined all the three paths into a Raja Yoga.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead advocated vehemently by the ISKCON and other bhakti movements as the Ultimate Truth or goal of liberation is not contradictory to advaita. Here we seek a saguna brahman instead of a nirguna brahman. They might talk about paramAtma and jivAtma but since Sri Krishna is essentially the be-all and end-all of the universe, these two atmic forms are essentially the same.

Therefore, it seems to me that the three paths or the different philosophies are there to suit the different temperaments of souls in differing levels of spiritual progress towards the Ultimate Reality. There is no point in worrying about one being superior or inferior to the other. The only point is to choose one or more of them as may best suit a seeker.

When you have a spiritual cocktail, why restrict yourself to a single rasa (juice)?

Sudarshan
18 November 2006, 03:56 AM
My idea is that there are no such clear distinctions of quality between meditation and worship.


Yes, medtation is a form of worship where there is direct communion with the divine. But we cannot bring in emotional sentiments and say that the joy experienced in bhajan is the same as the one experienced in yogic samAdhi - in such case one might equate samsAra and moksha. Thus, there is distinction of quality between meditation and external worship of any kind. Ones spiritual journey begins with more religeous fervor than the inner meditation, but gradually progresses into one of identification of inner self with God in deep meditation. There will be tears of joy and ecstacy in the early stages due to outporing love, but these are gradually replaced with inner bliss and love. Deep meditation is the climax of such bliss and love, and qualitatively supercedes all other forms of worship. Of course, one should tread many small steps before reaching this point.

nirotu
18 November 2006, 12:41 PM
I guess your idea on meditation is incorrect. Meditation is fixing one's mind unceasingly on God with immense love.(snehapUrvam anudhyAnam) Worship is certainly inferior because mind cannot focus on God as much it does during meditation. External worship involves senses, which have to be finally overcome. Since God is beyond the senses, worship must ultimately give way to meditation to reveal things beyond senses. Deep Meditation is a form of worship where body is not involved, but only the mind/intellect complex operates.
Dear Sudarshan:
Well, with all due respect, I am of the opinion that a true worship is the submission of all our senses to God. Here again, I am not talking about ritual worship either! In the biblical teaching a true worship of the living God is what ultimately binds the various inclinations of the heart and gives them focus. That focus is needed for meditation. Therefore, calling it inferior reflects only an “advaitin” perspective and not the truth.

Englishman William Temple put it this way: “ True worship is the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. And all this gathered up in adoration is the greatest of human expressions of which we are capable.”


Worship purifies the mind and body, making it more fit for meditation. Both are very essential for all serious God seekers.They go hand in hand. Worship cannot still the mind - only in the depth of meditation with senses fully withdrawn can you attain the focussed concentration which reveals God. Meditation is not unique to Advaita or Jnana Yoga - they are essential to Karma yoga, bhakti yoga and prapannas. There is no vedanta without samAdhi - it is just bookish otherwise. samAdhi is the highest worship possible.Well said, Susarshan.


Lower Karma Yoga is 75%-25%
Higher Karma Yoga is 50%-50% ( or 25-75)
Jnana Yoga is 0-100
Higher Bhakti Yoga is 0-100
An interesting grading system!


Jesus was a blessed soul who incarnated to teach the message of his father Krishna. But let me repeat - Jesus was only one of the many blessed saints to have graced the world.
I look at it differently, Sudarshan. With all due respect to your understanding of Saints, in your description of spirituality among saints, I feel that the very nature of Jesus Christ has been misunderstood. There are many Saints, Alvars who attained such a status at the end of their journey and had the explicit realization of God in them. It cannot be denied that they all had to strive to reach that point. In doing so, they also were able to enlighten us about God. In light of these Saints, look at Jesus Christ. He did not come to show us God but came as God to save us. There was a change in human consciousness on a massive scale that no Saints could achieve.


And his teachings represent one face of the truth. No teacher ever taught the full truth ( otherwise all of us would not be fighting ) - because truth cannot be taught, but must be known by experience.
I am reminded of Aristotle who was right when he opined that “all philosophy begins with wonder; but the journey, may I suggest, can only progress through truth.”
Jesus said it succinctly—“everything earthly will pass away”—but His truth will abide forever. His words require more and probe deeper than the metaphor. His words beckon us to ask ourselves again and again: when truth is a person, the person of Jesus Christ, how then must my world be different? Therefore, when Jesus says, "I tell you the truth…" and you can know it is truth because he asserted, "I am the truth." And to me, that truth is exclusive!

Blessings,

nirotu
18 November 2006, 01:26 PM
Dear Sudarshan:

The main reason for my discussing with you and others on this forum is the fact that the topic is very “spiritual” and does not pitch one versus the other. I try to stay away from those topics, which tend to pitch one religion versus the other as much as possible. Of course, there are times I have had to respond that gave an impression that I am promoting one over the other and in the midst of a context it was so. Unfortunately, here again Satay has locked a nice thread about grace and journey of a spiritual man.

I will take a leave and not participate for now. I thank you for your insightful thoughts.


You must note that most Hindu traditions include both forms, each supplementing the other. There is no way anyone will call the other inferior, as most of Hindu's worship is typically external in nature. Calling worship of God as inferior amounts to belittling my own beliefs. But we also take the quest into the inner self also seriously, and you can see that daily prayers always include pranayama and dhyana. How can an idol worshipping pagan like me ridicule any worship? Hindus hold that external forms of worship are always succeeded by intensive meditation. In that sense, it is held lower.


I get very conflicting thoughts from you. On one hand you claim they (worship and meditation) go hand in hand and on the other hand, you seem to cling to its inferiority to meditation. Here is a quote from you..


Possibly you should try to limit yourself into understanding what Advaitins do instead of what they believe. They happen to lay more importance on meditation than ritualistic worship. The same is true for Srivaishnavism too where worship is certainly inferior to meditation.http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=434&page=28

Agreed! My comments were only based on conversation with some of your christian friends who always claim that they are automatically holy by virtue of some beliefs. When told that muslims are required to worship five times a day, the average christian bluntly says it is not necessary for him because the holy spirit takes care of such things. Although I am very much with you when it comes to this matter, I see that there is plenty of scope for misunderstanding in such religions.

Sudarshan, let it not deter you from your core belief. Yes, there are all kinds in Christianity. You have to be careful and not take everything they as scriptural truth. Many bend the scripture to suite to their agenda and conviction.

Blessings,

satay
18 November 2006, 02:26 PM
Unfortunately, here again Satay has locked a nice thread about grace and journey of a spiritual man. [/SIZE][/FONT]


namaste,
All members are supposed to follow the forum rules but unfortunately this simple request is overlooked repeatedly.

I closed the other thread since most of the posts had nothing to do with the OP. If you want to continue your discussion on grace etc. please open a new thread dedicated to that topic.

thanks,

Sudarshan
18 November 2006, 03:37 PM
I get very conflicting thoughts from you. On one hand you claim they (worship and meditation) go hand in hand and on the other hand, you seem to cling to its inferiority to meditation. Here is a quote from you..


I have not contradicted myself anywhere. To get the idea, you must know the typical religeous life followed by Srivaishnavites of the past.

The early morning begins with abigamana, which is an early morning prayer asking for the blessings of God.
It is followed by the performance of Sandhya vandanam, which strictly involves many prayers, pranayama and gayatri meditation.
This is followed by the day's work in which some money maybe earned for livelihood.
Then you prepare for an elaborate prayer called ijya, after which lunch is taken after offering food to God.( usually they eat only once)
This is followed by the midday Sandya worship.
The afternoon is spent in reading the scripture, learning, reciting the Gita, Ramayana etc, and called the svadhyaya.
The evenings are spent in temples discussing religeous topics and praying to God.
This is followed by the evening Sandya vandanam.
At night, the practice is Yoga - can be of many forms ranging from Kundalini Yoga to Ashtanga Yoga.


A typical Srivaishnavite's daily life includes a mixture of worship and yoga. As he grows older, he gets spiritually awakened by the practice of Yoga and slowly all forms of worship cease, except samAdhi. I have used the term inferior only to point out that more advanced Yogis need only meditation, and not because it must be avoided. Anyone who does only meditation without concentrating on the devotional worship will find that he cannot practice any meditation. Unless ones mind is purified by great devotion towards God, meditation will appear to be a burden instead of being a source of bliss - that is why both are needed.


At some point in history, people stopped adopting the rigid God driven life, and began to move away from their yogic practices into external forms of worship, and today not many people are eager to pursue it. In the modern world, this has got mixed up with materialism and only 1% of people will possibly care to lead the life as ordained by the tradition. During the time of Sri Ramanuja, the standards of religion had degenerated due to the influence of foreign invasions and he had to restructure religion inorder to preserve it, and from then on the tradition has taken on the color of Bhakti movement in place of its earlier mystic flavour. But all early Srivaishnavas were true Vaishnava Yogis.

As you can see, I would not be happy with dilution of traditional values, and I sometimes talk closer to Advaita because only advaitins have preserved the tradition of Yoga, while it is virtually extinct in all Vaishnava traditions. Though it is not necessary for everyone, I still believe that spiritual path must be a combination of Yoga and worship. The Yogic culture is free from much dogma and will end all fight and bitterness between people. You can see the proof yourself - I am not of a sectarian type( much less sectarian than average Vaishnavites) because of my specfic religeous interests.

Srivaishnavas do not follow Bhakti Yoga in this age and follow only prapatti, or the way of complete surrender. As I have pointed out complete surrender of one's ego and pride is not easy, and human ego will always assert. Any one who reads my posts know I have a bit of ego and a tendency to pick up fights,( I have been banned once on this forum:) ) which is because of immaturity due the absence of the practice of proper Yoga that gives mental tranquility. That is why proper meditation is necessary where you will find a lot of peace that also manifests outside as a humble ego. The absence of mental stability makes you proud and haughty. Those in physical or mental strain cannot properly practice religion - that is where medtitation can help a lot.

It has also been explicitly stated by Sri Ramanuja that God is apratyaxa ( not visible) to those following the way of surrender until death, and the prapanna is not supposed to request God to reveal himself. Anyone who desires to have a vision of God must follow the way of Bhakti Yoga instead of prapatti. But Bhakti Yoga is considered to be tough and demanding and only the most desperate God seekers( those who are driven to tears in separation from God) can have the determination to follow it. However, it is guaranteed that true surrender always leads to liberation.

There are four kinds of surrender recognized.

Ukti Nishta: The qualified aspirant receives a mantra from the Guru and surrenders to Bhagavan.

Suva Nishta: This is Self surrender by pure souls without outside help from Guru or Acharya. These are for highly evolved souls. Bhakti/Jnana yogis can adopt this if they find that they are unable to continue further ( for eg , a disease or calamity).

Acharya Nishta: Here Surrender is obtained through Acharya who worships Bhagavan by chanting Mantra on behalf of the aspirant. Ideally, the Acharya must be enlightened or a true devotee himself for this approach to guarantee moksha.

BhAgavata Nishta: Tried and true devotees of Bhagavan can introduce the aspirant to Bhagavan and implore Saranagata Raksa (surrender protection) on behalf of the aspirant. The efficacy is subject to the purity of these devotees.

You can adopt one of these ways, and try to lead an as sinless life as possible, along with meditation on the diksha mantra, and following the teachings of the guru, and above all being focussed on God all the time.



Sudarshan, let it not deter you from your core belief. Yes, there are all kinds in Christianity. You have to be careful and not take everything they as

scriptural truth. Many bend the scripture to suite to their agenda and conviction.


Good judgement- I am all on your side!

Sudarshan
18 November 2006, 04:13 PM
I look at it differently, Sudarshan. With all due respect to your understanding of Saints, in your description of spirituality among saints, I feel that the very nature of Jesus Christ has been misunderstood. There are many Saints, Alvars who attained such a status at the end of their journey and had the explicit realization of God in them. It cannot be denied that they all had to strive to reach that point. In doing so, they also were able to enlighten us about God. In light of these Saints, look at Jesus Christ. He did not come to show us God but came as God to save us. There was a change in human consciousness on a massive scale that no Saints could achieve.


Though I much respect your views and your dedication to Jesus, I believe this view of yours has been the cause of most conflicts between us in the past. Just like you believe Jesus Christ was a born sage even without any effort, many Hindus believe in the same way. I dont even have an iota of doubt that both Nammazhvar and Ramanuja were born enlightened and did not need any effort to know God. They are both considered avataras of vishvaksena and Ananta. Similarly, advaitins consider Adi Shankara to be an incarnation of Shiva. Madhvas consider Madhva to be an incarnation of Hanuman.

If you reject Hindu claims, what would be a good reason to accept your claims for Jesus? We can all talk big, but where is the proof? I have always conceded to you Jesus was a great sage like other Hindu sages. But you want to show Jesus was superior. I have no idea why.

If you want me to consider Jesus was God - I am sorry, I dont believe that. There was no avatara after Krishna, and I dont believe other sages are Gods.

satay
18 November 2006, 07:36 PM
[ There are many Saints, Alvars who attained such a status at the end of their journey and had the explicit realization of God in them. It cannot be denied that they all had to strive to reach that point. In doing so, they also were able to enlighten us about God. In light of these Saints, look at Jesus Christ. He did not come to show us God but came as God to save us. There was a change in human consciousness on a massive scale that no Saints could achieve.

namaste,
You seem to you think that by keep repeating yourself that what you 'feel' somehow transforms into 'truth' for others. That is not so!

Jesus is no different than Gautama, Nanak, lao tzu and the thousands of other sages of the east. In fact, we know about these sages more than we know about jesus.

Your claims that jesus was born a jnani are all false since not even christians scholars can comment on jesus' whearabouts when he was a young man. Though if one is keen enough one can find his name (isa) registered as a student in a buddhist monastery in ladhak (present day in Nepal)!

In your need to prove jesus somehow superior to other sages, you keep demeaning hindu sages and saints all the while providing no proof of your 'feelings' and 'beliefs'. Just because you feel that jesus is your personal preference that doesn't mean that other sages and saints like him were not equally as good or even better. Your repition of false claims doesn't make it the truth. Please provide proof of Jesus' missing years first so that we can determine for ourselves if he was jnani.

Sudarshan
19 November 2006, 02:11 AM
In your need to prove jesus somehow superior to other sages, you keep demeaning hindu sages and saints all the while providing no proof of your 'feelings' and 'beliefs'.

That is purely to promote the idea that Jesus 'died' for the sins of man, and nobody else did it.

If Jesus was really crucified, then Christianity in a nutshell is as follows:




God created a rat(Adam).
He asked that rat to fly. (obey him after giving freewill)
That rat could not fly, and was locked up in a cage along with another rat.
These rats produced other rats and all remained lockedup.
Oneday God got 'merciful', and cut off his hand for the sake of the rats.(Jesus)
He wanted the rats to believe that he hurt himself for their sake to win their freedom.



Is this a metaphor or a possible reality? Nirotu apparently wants us to believe this is a literal fact!!

Sudarshan
19 November 2006, 03:52 AM
Well, with all due respect, I am of the opinion that a true worship is the submission of all our senses to God. Here again, I am not talking about ritual worship either! In the biblical teaching a true worship of the living God is what ultimately binds the various inclinations of the heart and gives them focus. That focus is needed for meditation.


We hold true worship is the submission of mind to God.

Submission of the senses(pratyAhAra) is a great thing if you can do it, but you can never do it without having a great control on the body and the mind. How long can you do it? You must be aware that for an ordinary person even sitting in a prayer for 30 minutes will cause discomfort or pain which will shift your attention to the body instead of God. Have you noticed that you need to "stretch" after doing some sitting? In such a case how can you ever continuosly submit your senses or mind to God? Practical God realization calls for practical solutions.

Christianity may suggest the submission of senses to God but gives no practical means to achieve it. Only Eastern religions address the practicality of this. Yogic exercises and postures strengthen and steady your body so that you can endure long hours of worship. Pranayama is there for breath regulation and retention that is highly valuable for purification of both body and mind. Those who have gained a mastery thus concentrate on focussing their senses and mind to God fully through medtation. Without a practical means submission of senses to God is just a tall talk. Dont think there is even a bit of difference in the fundamentals of religions regarding this - but theory and practice must be compliant. The will to submit senses needs a method to accomplish it.

There is nothing wrong with ritualistic or statue worship condemned by Christianity. These are also highly useful for many people to get an inner purity. The same effect is obtained in many ways as in bhajans, nama kirtans, listening to stories of God etc. The overall idea is to be able to love God beyond anything else. This cannot happen unless ones mind is purified to some extent and until the material dross diminishes. Hence the need for all forms of worship and nothing is truly inferior if you take practical utility.




Therefore, calling it inferior reflects only an “advaitin” perspective and not the truth.


Therefore, calling idol worship inferior or evil reflects only a “christian” perspective and not the truth.

nirotu
20 November 2006, 09:38 PM
Your claims that jesus was born a jnani are all false since not even christians scholars can comment on jesus' whearabouts when he was a young man.

Please provide proof of Jesus' missing years first so that we can determine for ourselves if he was jnani.

Dear Satay and Sudarshan:

Before you enjoy a sip from your celebratory drink, you might want to take a closer look at these verses from the Bible.

Matthew 2:23,”And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”(KJV)

It says Jesus “dwelt” in a city called Nazareth and that is exactly what it means. His formative years were spent in Nazareth. [dwelt, dwelling – place of permanent residency – Random House Dictionary]

Luke 2:52,”And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”(KJV) and

Luke 2:40,” And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.”(KJV).

These two verses (40,52) clearly show what happened to him during those formative years in the place where He dwelt. The key to understand here is that the physical Jesus had to grow in wisdom and in stature (V52). When Jesus was born, His physical mind did not know all things. He had to be taught to talk, walk, eat and so forth. His physical mind grew in awareness of who He was. He had the witness in His spirit, but His physical mind had to take it by faith – the same way that we do when we believe who we are in the spirit realm. This is because; within the one person of Jesus Christ there are two natures, one human, one divine.

He has lived the human life from the beginnings of physical, intellectual, and spiritual selfhood up through infancy, childhood, youth, and adulthood an even to the human experience of death. He not only passed through these usual and familiar human periods of intellectual and spiritual advancement, but he also fully experienced those higher and more advanced phases of human and divine reconciliation which so few mortals ever attain.


He lived this life in the flesh by the same mercy ministry that you all may live your lives on earth; and as he lived his mortal life in his day and as he was, so did He thereby set the example for all of us thus to live our lives in our day and as we are.

Exactly what his daily itinerary had been does not bear much significance compared to His adult ministry. Perhaps, it was His ministry after Baptism is what needed to be told. In fact, the following verse from John clearly summarizes the necessity of focusing what is relevant to mankind. That is why many things were omitted for reason as summarized by Apostle John.

John 20:30,”And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:”(KJV)

John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”(KJV)

Of course there are scholars who did investigate to piece together His early life based on historical narratives and the records left in Jerusalem. Perhaps, this might be of interest to you. Take a closure look at this link. http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper123.html (http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper123.html)



Though if one is keen enough one can find his name (isa) registered as a student in a Buddhist monastery in ladhak (present day in Nepal)!
If He ever lived in India or Nepal, it is hard believe that Jesus Christ, being a great personality as he is, would have remained silent. Besides, common sense will tell you if it were so, the nature and scope of His message would have been entirely different.

Such frivolous concoctions to prove the Bible must be wrong is a popular level held by many people who have barely glanced at the Bible. It stems from those who are determined to misrepresent scriptural truth. In light of what I have said above, it would be wise to stay away from such literature and concentrate on scripture and the true meaning it portrays.


In your need to prove jesus somehow superior to other sages, you keep demeaning hindu sages and saints all the while providing no proof of your 'feelings' and 'beliefs'.

As I have shown above, it is not my feelings but the truth. Just when have I denigrated swami or gurus or saints? Is there anything wrong in saying Buddha spent 14 years under the tree searching for truth? Is there anything wrong in the statement Ramana spent 7 years of solitude to understand the truth? Is there anything wrong in the statement that Jesus did not spend time like this instead He spent with the people? You may have strong feelings about your gurus but the truth of the matter is, these are historical facts that no one can deny. So, please do not accuse me of denigrating saints.

Blessings,

satay
21 November 2006, 02:56 PM
Namaste nirotu,



Dear Satay and Sudarshan:

Before you enjoy a sip from your celebratory drink, you might want to take a closer look at these verses from the Bible.


We are just trying to have a logical conversation. There is no need to get annoyed.



Matthew 2:23,”And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”(KJV)

It says Jesus “dwelt” in a city called Nazareth and that is exactly what it means. His formative years were spent in Nazareth. [dwelt, dwelling – place of permanent residency – Random House Dictionary]


And? I don’t see how this proves anything. He could have ‘dwelt’ in the city as a boy and in fact, isn’t that the truth? Doesn’t bible only follows his life up to when he was 12 years old. In fact, there is no mention of his ‘life’ or ‘dwelling’ anywhere till the age of 30.




Luke 2:52,”And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”(KJV) and

Luke 2:40,” And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.”(KJV).

These two verses (40,52) clearly show what happened to him during those formative years in the place where He dwelt.


By ‘formative years’ you mean when he was a child. What about from year 13 to 30? Since a lot Christians sell the bible truth as if it’s a historic document…where is the history of your guru from age 13 to 30? Where was he dwelling? Please provide proof so that we can all see it as clearly as you see it.



The key to understand here is that the physical Jesus had to grow in wisdom and in stature (V52). When Jesus was born, His physical mind did not know all things. He had to be taught to talk, walk, eat and so forth. His physical mind grew in awareness of who He was. He had the witness in His spirit, but His physical mind had to take it by faith – the same way that we do when we believe who we are in the spirit realm. This is because; within the one person of Jesus Christ there are two natures, one human, one divine.

He has lived the human life from the beginnings of physical, intellectual, and spiritual selfhood up through infancy, childhood, youth, and adulthood an even to the human experience of death. He not only passed through these usual and familiar human periods of intellectual and spiritual advancement, but he also fully experienced those higher and more advanced phases of human and divine reconciliation which so few mortals ever attain.


So we both agree that there is nothing special about ‘jesus’ All of us have two natures; one human, one divine. There is nothing special here. All gurus, all men, all women all of humanity has two natures…one human, one divine.

The key here is that we ‘all’ need to understand our ‘true’ nature. Our true nature is ‘divine’ and I am prepared to accept that jesus baba discovered his true nature either with the help and guidance of Buddhist or hindu gurus or by himself.



He lived this life in the flesh by the same mercy ministry that you all may live your lives on earth; and as he lived his mortal life in his day and as he was, so did He thereby set the example for all of us thus to live our lives in our day and as we are.


And we hindus hope and expect that ‘all’ Christians live their lives like jesus baba taught. Are you living your mortal life like him?




Exactly what his daily itinerary had been does not bear much significance compared to His adult ministry. Perhaps, it was His ministry after Baptism is what needed to be told. In fact, the following verse from John clearly summarizes the necessity of focusing what is relevant to mankind. That is why many things were omitted for reason as summarized by Apostle John.


To the contrary, I think that it is common sense to find out exactly how he dis-covered his true nature. It is very important to know where and how he learned about this during his years from 13 to 30. Who was his teacher? Which temple he went to? So that it can be verified as an historical fact.

Please provide the names of people that he was associated with during these years so that we can verify for ourselves the ‘historicity’



John 20:30,”And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:”(KJV)

John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”(KJV)



I disagree with John. He is providing a lame excuse when he says, “I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

Do you really buy that? Unreal!



Of course there are scholars who did investigate to piece together His early life based on historical narratives and the records left in Jerusalem. Perhaps, this might be of interest to you. Take a closure look at this link. http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper123.html



I did take a closer look at the publisher and found this
http://www.freeurantia.org/masterpage.htm

Please take a closer look at the above link.

Is there a credible publisher that gives count of jesus life from 12 to 30, specifically, noting his ‘dwelling’ and ‘teachers’ that we can take a look at?
If you know of one, please provide the link or their contact information so that I can order their books/papers etc. for a closer inspection



If He ever lived in India or Nepal, it is hard believe that Jesus Christ, being a great personality as he is, would have remained silent. Besides, common sense will tell you if it were so, the nature and scope of His message would have been entirely different.


May be it is ‘hard’ to believe for a Christian like yourself but any hindu child knows that the message he receives from a guru is ‘customized’ for his own capacity. A good guru will not just give the same message without first understanding the comprehension of his students. E.g. a teacher of nuclear physics will use a different style and methods to teach his undergrads than he would to teach his grad class.

Common sense tells me that his underlying message was ‘learnt’ from the east but was customized for the peasants. Just like any grad student sees that the teacher has supplied a simplified lecture to the undergrad class similarly, any eastern child can see that jesus’ message was customized for the capacity of his disciples.
This is nothing new, all gurus do that. You should know…you were a hindu once…wasn’t?



Such frivolous concoctions to prove the Bible must be wrong is a popular level held by many people who have barely glanced at the Bible. It stems from those who are determined to misrepresent scriptural truth. In light of what I have said above, it would be wise to stay away from such literature and concentrate on scripture and the true meaning it portrays.


To the contrary, when missionaries come to rape the cultures of other nations…it is the duty of every man of that nation to ‘question’ the scripture. When a missionary says, ‘this is the only truth’ be prepared to then defend that position.

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen…so to speak.

You may want to take a closer look at these websites. I know Christians have a ‘defence’ for this but still worth a look for you on a personal basis, if you haven’t come across it already…
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
http://smithbrad.nventure.com/unknownJC.htm



As I have shown above, it is not my feelings but the truth.


Please provide the evidence so that we hindus can check it out for ourselves.



Is there anything wrong in saying Buddha spent 14 years under the tree searching for truth? Is there anything wrong in the statement Ramana spent 7 years of solitude to understand the truth?


No, absolutely NOT!

In fact, you are reinforcing the point I was trying to make in my previous post that it is due to the fact that we ‘do’ know about these gurus and the facts are there even for Christians like yourselves to verify.



Is there anything wrong in the statement that Jesus did not spend time like this instead He spent with the people?


Yes, there absolutely is something wrong. We don’t know where was jesus from 12 to 30 years of age. Who were his contacts, his gurus, his teachers, which temples he visited, where he studied etc. etc.



You may have strong feelings about your gurus but the truth of the matter is, these are historical facts that no one can deny. So, please do not accuse me of denigrating saints.


Yes, I know the historical facts about of the hindu gurus Gautama sidhartaha, nanak, ramana…where are the historical facts about jesus, your guru?

Nirotu, please don’t get annoyed, I am just trying to understand what it takes for a person to believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

Personally, I would be interested in reading your personal testimony. I am curious, what does it take a child born in a hindu family to get convinced that Christianity is the ‘only’ true religion.

atanu
22 November 2006, 01:53 AM
Is Jesus a confirmed “Advitin”?

-------
Advita is only a perspective and cannot represent the whole truth. For example, it negates the idea of God out of us, ------

Some advertisers know and play. Some however, do not know that they are just doing a job and thus are not playful. they lose creativity.

Advaita does does not admit of an inside and an outside, what to talk of God in us and God out of us?


I have requested you to first meditate on the sayings then comment. Loose comments are unbecoming.

Advaita is the ever true beneath the universe of Pragnya and Vak, which are supported by it. Mahavakyas are indicative but the experience in silence of mind is the truth. To teach Advaita Gurus assume Maya sharir and use vak, which in themselves are products and not the root -- which is Advaita.

Blessings

nirotu
24 November 2006, 04:22 PM
I disagree with John. He is providing a lame excuse when he says, “I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”
Refer to the context. Read the verses appearing before this. The verse was written when He was a child. They return Nazareth after the death of Herod. Thus, dwelling refers to the time onwards after that. In support of this, read Luke 4:16,”And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Two things are clear for me, 1- Jesus came from where He had been brought up (Nazareth), 2- Its His custom to enter synagogue. He developed the custom by practicing from His childhood.

While I am not able to provide you details of His whereabouts, how it does affect the Gospel is not clear to me. Besides, people with counter claims of Jesus being somewhere else, bear the burden of proof.


There have been many skeptics like you, have raised similar doubts. Despite the evidence, those which I alluded to prove the point, for a skeptic, the safest bet is to not believe in anything. All I can do is lay down scriptures and their purported meaning. How can I make you believe anything if you are determined not to believe anything? On the other hand, if you are sincere in your doubts and diligently seek to find answers regarding Jesus, you will find the answers. Rest is in the hands of the Spirit of God to woo you, if you truly allow that.

Somehow, the impression I get is that I am demeaning your Saints and Gurus, which is not true. In every thread of mine the goal has been to discuss the spirituality. To that end I have quoted your Sages, Saints as well as Jesus Christ. Do not mistake my words to proselytizing because my quotes of Jesus Christ happened to support the truth of the point I am trying to make. I quoted Jesus more than any other simply because it is coincidental that turning to grace, full surrender, and childlike faith is not just advocated but also demonstrated by Jesus. Having said that, it does not in any way negate the truth preached by Saints and Sages.

Basically, I was hoping for spiritual growth and not religious propriety. Religious fraternization is not my agenda at all. Unfortunately, while my topics are as such, unintentionally they have been shunted to, and at times dragged into, unrelated area.



Blessings,

nirotu
24 November 2006, 04:31 PM
Advaita does does not admit of an inside and an outside, what to talk of God in us and God out of us?

Dear Atanu:
Well, here is my point of debate. Can a being live exclusively either as Advaitin or Dvaitin? Also, if you as a living being (Atanu) can experience determinate (Saguna) and indeterminate (Nirguna) Brahman from your state of existence then your differentiated reality that experiences two ways is not the ultimate or the highest reality. Reality has to be undifferentiated to be exclusive and ultimate. While, these sides may dissolve at the moment you reach that height, but we have not reached there yet!!!!!

Therefore, the moment of creation (you are bodily separated from the Brahman), your Adviata has manifested as Dvaita. I hope this point is clear to you. Otherwise, why would Brahman, who is enjoying you would keep you separated? Doesn’t that make creation meaningless? Having said that, in it’s journey Dvaita’s need to be wanting to become Adviata is also clear. Thus, co-existence of both is essential for man’s evolution in spirit.

Basically, taking your point, let me pose my response as a question. IN the manifest creation, can a created being experience both Saguna and Nirguna attributes of realities at the same time? More importantly, is it possible in the creation for a being to live out an existence of Nirguna state always (exclusively) while being subjected to the forces of Saguna realities all the time?


Blessings,

atanu
25 November 2006, 08:40 AM
Dear Atanu:
------Reality has to be undifferentiated to be exclusive and ultimate. While, these sides may dissolve at the moment you reach that height, but we have not reached there yet!!!!!


Dear Nirotu,

If you know the reality as undifferentiated that is all. You have accepted it. Unreality cannot ever become the reality.



Therefore, the moment of creation (you are bodily separated from the Brahman), your Adviata has manifested as Dvaita. ----


To whom Advaita manifests as dvaita. Does it manifest so to the undifferentiated reality or to an apparent part of that?




-------is it possible in the creation for a being to live out an existence of Nirguna state always (exclusively) while being subjected to the forces of Saguna realities all the time?


Blessings,



That is besides the point. The point is to know the real as real and unreal as unreal. And Advaita clearly begins with the premise that discrimination between transitory and eternal is the starting point for the mind for it to join with the source. Grasping the unreality as reality will never allow this, since the mind (ahamkara) has a natural tendency to pine for the unreal.


Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
26 November 2006, 12:25 PM
Rev.21:6 - And he (Jesus) said unto me, It is done, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of living water of life freely.

Rev.22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come, And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Amrita?


Namaste,
ZN

beevee
26 November 2006, 06:20 PM
I would like to thank one and all for their personal opinion which is very valuable, although not always
agreeable to one and all. But whether or not we agree with the opinion of others we should accept the
verdict of 'shastra'.
Shastra is 'apaurusheya' or beyond the faults of humans, such as having a limited perception, a propensity to cheat others, a tendency to fall into illusion and the basic fallacy of making mistakes. Shastra is perfect. It is only up to us to accomodate its dictums.
Therefore, in regards to meditation, worship, gyan, samadhi, bhakti, etc. I would like to quote from the Uttara Khand 42 and 161 of the Padma Purana, wherein it is stated in Sanskrit:

sakRd uccAritaM yena harir ItyakSaradvayam baddhaH parikarastena mokSAya gamanaM prati
dyyAyan kRte yajan yajNais tretAyAm dvApare'rcayan yad Apnoti tad Apnoti kalau saNkritya keSavam

Or in English we can say the same thing as :

One who vibrates the two syllables Ha Ree without offense attains liberation from repeated birth and death. He never again has to walk the path of material bondage. What was realized in 'Satya Yuga' by meditation, in 'Treta Yuga' by sacrifice, and in 'Dwarpara Yuga' by worship, may be realized in 'Kali Yuga' by 'Krishna Kirtan'.

And to give a second Shastric evidence to bind my proof more, I use the 12th Canto of the Srimad Bhagavat Purana, 3rd chapter, verse 52, wherein it is said in both lanuages here:

kRte yad dhyAyato viSnum tretAyAm yajato makkaiH dvApare paricaryAyAm kalau tad dhari kIrtanAt

What was attained by meditation in the 'Satya Yuga', by sacrifice in 'Treta Yuga' , and by Deity worship in 'Dwarpara Yuga' is attained in the 'Kali Yuga' by 'Hari Kirtan'.

nirotu
02 December 2006, 03:32 PM
If you know the reality as undifferentiated that is all.
Dear Atanu:
That’s not all by a long shot!! Knowing it theoretically and living it practically are two entirely different things. You seem to live in a state of undifferentiated reality. Explain to me simply this.


First, if you are in an undifferentiated reality, why do you respond to differentiated label – Atanu (namarupa)?


Second,living in that state, wouldn’t you find the perception of rope as a rope just as vicious as the perception rope as a snake? Practical living is impossible in the "real" (you may call apparent) world all the while believing you are in a transcended reality.


To whom Advaita manifests as dvaita. Does it manifest so to the undifferentiated reality or to an apparent part of that?

But I do live in a universe that cannot be dismissed as a mere illusion or unreal. The universe is a manifestation of what is contained subtly in the nature of God. If this world were not differentiated or not real, it could not be superimposed on another.


That is besides the point. The point is to know the real as real and unreal as unreal. And Advaita clearly begins with the premise that discrimination between transitory and eternal is the starting point for the mind for it to join with the source. Grasping the unreality as reality will never allow this, since the mind (ahamkara) has a natural tendency to pine for the unreal.

What method do you ascribe to determine real as real and unreal as unreal? At best we use either our knowledge or experience.

Firstly, if all knowledge is real, how does it happen that our knowledge sometimes does not correspond to reality? Crookedness of a stick placed in water is as real to the eye as its straightness to the touch. To our senses the reality (straightness) has become unreal (crookedness). Besides, knowledge does require knower and the known.

Secondly, the significance of what we perceive in our experiences is based in our observation as they relate to ourselves, which is only partial. Therefore, all our initial impressions of an experience may not wholly reveal the true significance of that occurrence. Therefore, if experience is only apparent then how do you make any distinction between true/false perceptions?

It appears to me De Javu again! Once again we find ourselves in the same old discussion. From an ultimate, very purist and existential standpoint what you say is true, but I am still coming from a very practical vantage point of creation. I do believe that in the manifested creation, duality has come into being. Bypassing or ignoring this aspect of duality (by conveniently calling it a Maya) seems little too esoteric or theoretical.

God is neither redundant or simply playing His Lila nor does He play dice to determine our fate. For Him to breathe creation in to existence would not be redundant act. He created each one with a purpose and that purpose one can grasp from scripture, which is to realize his own divinity. This entails a journey, a very practical one, from point A (call it a lower self) to point B (call it a higher self). The journey by its very nature is practical and one cannot theorize this away.

In many ways I disagree with you and other Advaitin friends. In the ultimate sense you may be right but one needs to be very careful of the mind using clever arguments and logic to bypass God’s divine purpose. Recognizing that purpose and fulfilling it is far more meaningful and significant than merely denying it or wishing it away.

The day you tell me you have no need to care for your material body, that day may be one can at least talk about reaching that height. As long as you are in material body you cannot bypass that which is in front of you. That is the baseline or the starting point and denying that is very naïve. It reminds me of a careless maid who sweeps dust under the rug. While it may look pretty on the outside, the dirt is still hidden under the rug not vanished. One cannot over come by simply hiding it. Are you like the careless maid?

I may sound very repetitive. The nature of journey is such a foundation that any meaningful spiritual discussion has to rest on it. It forms the baseline. No spiritual discussion is valid unless it springs from this foundation.

Blessings,

satay
02 December 2006, 07:14 PM
namaste,
As usual of a missionary when asked questions, you have avoided most of my post.



While I am not able to provide you details of His whereabouts, [FONT=Verdana]how it does affect the Gospel is not clear to me. Besides, people with counter claims of Jesus being somewhere else, bear the burden of proof.



I agree since you claim bible is the only truth then that's what I am asking you to do i.e. please provide proof. The burden of proof as you say is on you!
Please provide an authentic scholar's research that shows where Jesus was from 13 to 32 years of age so that we can see the 'truth' for ourselves instead of you keep repeating.



There have been many skeptics like you, have raised similar doubts.


It is every man's duty to question the nonsense when someone comes and tells them that they are the only ones with the key to the 'truth'. If I am on a journey to find the truth and someone like you comes along and tells me that the map I carry is taking me to the wrong place and that you only hold the correct map then common sense tells me that I should question it and ask for proof.



Despite the evidence, those which I alluded to prove the point, for a skeptic, the safest bet is to not believe in anything.


Just because you can't provide any logical evidence for the nonsense you believe in doesn't mean that "I" don't believe in anything or I should not believe in anything.



All I can do is lay down scriptures and their purported meaning. How can I make you believe anything if you are determined not to believe anything? On the other hand, if you are sincere in your doubts and diligently seek to find answers regarding Jesus, you will find the answers. Rest is in the hands of the Spirit of God to woo you, if you truly allow that.


This is normal missionary nonsense when asked for proof, all missionaries say this.



Somehow, the impression I get is that I am demeaning your Saints and Gurus, which is not true. In every thread of mine the goal has been to discuss the spirituality. To that end I have quoted your Sages, Saints as well as Jesus Christ. Do not mistake my words to proselytizing because my quotes of Jesus Christ happened to support the truth of the point I am trying to make. I quoted Jesus more than any other simply because it is coincidental that turning to grace, full surrender, and childlike faith is not just advocated but also demonstrated by Jesus. Having said that, it does not in any way negate the truth preached by Saints and Sages.


Here for the 1000th time, hindus couldn't care less of what jesus has to say. He borrowed everything from the saints of the east and customized it for the peasants.



Basically, I was hoping for spiritual growth and not religious propriety. Religious fraternization is not my agenda at all. Unfortunately, while my topics are as such, unintentionally they have been shunted to, and at times dragged into, unrelated area.


Not sure what you are talking about...spiritual growth like religion is a personal matter. The threads I closed were because there was no 'growth' happening let alone spiritual growth because the same things kept repeating on those threads. If you have anything new to say or have proofs for your claims then please by all mean, start new threads.

nirotu
04 December 2006, 10:38 PM
As usual of a missionary when asked questions, you have avoided most of my post. I agree since you claim bible is the only truth then that's what I am asking you to do i.e. please provide proof. Please provide an authentic scholar's research that shows where Jesus was from 13 to 32 years of age so that we can see the 'truth' for ourselves instead of you keep repeating.

Dear Satay:
What I provided you is strict Biblical quotes and I do not dare give you imaginary arguments to prove my point. For you, everything I say is a missionary tale. Therefore, I am not interested in amusing you any other way. Frankly, it does not bother me a bit if you believe it or not. Scriptures that I quote are my evidences. Obviously, you have made up your mind. You have the right to disbelieve because a determined will can ignore the best of evidence.

Frankly, I am not interested in indulging in such debates. I can also argue with you and ask you to prove everything you say with historical evidences. That is not why I am here. We can endlessly argue trying to prove each other meaningless. Do you consider that to have any spiritual significance?

If I am on a journey to find the truth and someone like you comes along and tells me that the map I carry is taking me to the wrong place and that you only hold the correct map then common sense tells me that I should question it and ask for proof.
Except that the person who came along and gave me the map is God through the scripture. If I were to believe the truth in the scripture, and I do, I dare not challenge that but simply be obedient to the scripture.


Here for the 1000th time, hindus couldn't care less of what jesus has to say. He borrowed everything from the saints of the east and customized it for the peasants.
I would understand on a personal level if you cared less. Making such a sweeping statement that Hindus couldn’t care less shows utter arrogance. It cannot be too far from fanatism. A religious fanatic who is fixated on persons like “Jesus”, “Buddha” or “Krishna” will always look for ways to discredit the figure while losing an excellent opportunity to know and learn some good moral values taught by them. Perhaps, one can learn lessons from Gandhi, Vivekananda and other alike who shaped their lives around what these figures had to say.

On a personal note, if you do not so much care for what Christianity has to say, why did you invite me to the forum (through pm) asking me to give Christian perspective? You are sadly mistaken if you think I am here to agree to every view, although I am not hesitant to cite scriptures from all religions if it has spiritual significance. There are many similarities between the two when scriptures are properly interpreted from both sides.

You keep repeating that Hindus don’t believe in my non-sense. If you want to guard your allegiance to your faith, perhaps you should not waste bandwidth on such matters by inviting me to give my view and then make such sweeping statements. Then perhaps, you should un-invite me just like you invited me. But, please, do not sneak in to a discussion with your patronizing non-sense about “missing years of Jesus were spent in India and borrowed everything from the saints of the east and customized it for the peasants”.

Blessings,

satay
05 December 2006, 12:10 PM
Namaste nirotu,




What I provided you is strict Biblical quotes and I do not dare give you imaginary arguments to prove my point.

Yes, and I thank you for that, however, since hindus in general and I in particular do not believe in the bible, biblical quotes are of no use. I asked for evidence from scholars that we can examine ourselves. Biblical quotes are a matter of faith and only work between parties that have faith in them to begin with.



Scriptures that I quote are my evidences.

And that’s fine by me, however, the scriptures that you quote are irrelevant to me.

Please quote from sources that do not posit bible as the final truth to prove that bible is the truth!



Obviously, you have made up your mind. You have the right to disbelieve because a determined will can ignore the best of evidence.


So far, you have only provided bible quotes as evidence to prove that bible is the truth.


I can also argue with you and ask you to prove everything you say with historical evidences.


You may argue and ask me for historical evidences of hindu scriptures when I come and preach you Hinduism. So far, I have not preached you Hinduism and I do not intend to do so.



That is not why I am here. We can endlessly argue trying to prove each other meaningless. Do you consider that to have any spiritual significance?


I am not trying to prove you meaningless, I am asking for verification of the truth presented by you.



Except that the person who came along and gave me the map is God through the scripture. If I were to believe the truth in the scripture, and I do, I dare not challenge that but simply be obedient to the scripture.

And, so the case for all religions. All religions believe that GOD directly or indirectly gave their scriptures to them. How is your claim any different?


I would understand on a personal level if you cared less.

To the contrary, I do care at a personal level and so this is why I am asking these questions to you and this is why I invited you here on these forums and this why I stay married to a Christian wife and this is why I have many Christian friends.



Making such a sweeping statement that Hindus couldn’t care less shows utter arrogance.

It is not as arrogant as a missionary making the statements that no one in this universe has been born a janani like jesus baba who according to you was the only born janani. That to me is not only showing arrogance but also showing total disrespect for any sages, saints or buddhas that achieve Samadhi before jesus and is a despicable shameful behaviour, however, this type of behaviour seems to be the norm amongst missionaries.



It cannot be too far from fanatism. A religious fanatic who is fixated on persons like “Jesus”, “Buddha” or “Krishna” will always look for ways to discredit the figure while losing an excellent opportunity to know and learn some good moral values taught by them. Perhaps, one can learn lessons from Gandhi, Vivekananda and other alike who shaped their lives around what these figures had to say.


Your lumping of ‘krishna’ with ‘persons’ in one sentence shows your ignorance of Hinduism, however, I am not surprised.

Gandhi advocated living the ‘sermon on the mount’, are you living it?



On a personal note, if you do not so much care for what Christianity has to say, why did you invite me to the forum (through pm) asking me to give Christian perspective?


I already answered this above.



You keep repeating that Hindus don’t believe in my non-sense. If you want to guard your allegiance to your faith, perhaps you should not waste bandwidth on such matters by inviting me to give my view and then make such sweeping statements.


With respect to bandwidth, the bandwidth on these forums is free to use as I have already paid for it.

As far as ‘guarding my allegiance to my faith’, if I wanted to simply do that why would I have invited you to this forum? To the contrary, and as I have said before in another post, I want to find out what turns a man born in a hindu family to Christianity.



But, please, do not sneak in to a discussion with your patronizing non-sense about “missing years of Jesus were spent in India and borrowed everything from the saints of the east and customized it for the peasants”.

I fail to see how asking for evidence of the nonsense presented by you is patronizing. Yes, I know you believe in it but as I asked before, for those that already hold the map to get to the truth how do you prove that your map is the only correct one since you haven’t reached the truth yourself?

How do you even begin to engage in this activity of telling others that your map is the only correct one and when questioned, you reply with ‘because my maps says so’? Unless, you believe that the other maps are not given by GOD himself…that to me is utter arrogance.

saidevo
05 December 2006, 10:30 PM
You are incorrect. There is atleast one Hindu saint I know who was "karuvile thiru" (enlightened in the womb). He is the Alvar saint Nammazhvar. He is called Satakopan because he defeated the Satam. Satam is the "air" that traps you in bhagavAn's mAyA during birth but it did not touch him. (Satakopan means one who was angry with Satam). Nammazhvar was in Samadhi since birth, even in waking state. There are bound to be many other Satakopan's....Jesus is nothing unique.

1. Even though there were external indications of Jesus being a divine child, he was born only as an ordinary child. Only after he was baptized did the Spirit of God come upon him and he found himself to be a son of God.

Compare this to Sri Krishna who exhibited his divinity right from the day or his birth. It's funny that some westerners and our own sages like Paramahansa Yogananda compare Jesus to Krishna and Christ Consciousness to Krishna Consciousness. Jesus may be an avatar of God, but there the comparison with Sri Krishna ends.

2. Among Hindu saints, Tirugnana Sambandhar was one who was divine right from the beginning. He was fed the milk of Jnana by Uma Devi Herself!

saidevo
06 December 2006, 11:35 AM
Since Jesus Christ is the central figure of this thread, and considering that his teachings in the Gospels are being extrapolated to show that they have the depth and loftiness of the chief Hindu philosophies of Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita, it becomes necessary for us to know, in accordance with our Hindu traditions, about the sanctity of the name, date and place of birth and the pedigree of the prophet of Christianity, namely Jesus Christ.

I have therefore compiled an extract titled Jesus of History from the book Jesus Christ, An Artifice for Agression by the great patriot and crusader for Truth, Sita Ram Goel. Since the material is long, though enlightening, I have kept it in a separate thread, which can be accessed here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=704

Znanna
06 December 2006, 07:13 PM
Pedigree?

Not for nothing, but that's a term I've heard most associated with show animals.

What do *you* mean by "pedigree"?

And, from what I understand of Christianity (and mind, my point of view has been called "evil" and "satanist" by some very devout self-avowed Christians), Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ is/are the Christian version of the One and the Many (which are the same, or different depending on one's point of view, or not, hehe) which is a conundrum which science, religion and philosophy in general cannot express. The rational mind just doesn't like this, in my opinion, so artifices which then draw away from rather than towards "truth" become propogated, and like viruses multiply. Like the monkey, we play with concepts which can never describe the beingness of IT.

What does it matter if Jesus the man was born high or low, man or woman? The Christ is not gender specific or even expressed or contained in *a* form. To me, being "born again in Christ" is an expression of being AT ONE (a-toning) with what simply IS, and is best described as LOVE.


YMMV


Namaste :)

ZN

saidevo
06 December 2006, 10:11 PM
Pedigree?
Not for nothing, but that's a term I've heard most associated with show animals.

What do *you* mean by "pedigree"?


Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus defines the term 'pedigree' as:
1 a list of ancestors; record of ancestry; family tree
2 descent; lineage; ancestry
3 a recorded or known line of descent, esp. of a purebred animal

The phrase 'of noble pedigree' is commonly used in classical English. It was never my intention to use the phrase in the third of the above meanings.



... Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ is/are the Christian version of the One and the Many (which are the same, or different depending on one's point of view, or not, hehe) which is a conundrum which science, religion and philosophy in general cannot express.


Christianity, like the other western religions, is a historical religion taught by a prophet. Therefore, its prophet needs to be a historical figure. If he is a mythical figure, the whole edifice crumbles. The Christian missioneries in India take advantage of the Hindu indifference and tolerance and spread false propaganda about Jesus being the Be-all and the Do-all God at the top of even the Hindu Trinity. Even in a place like Mylapore (a Hindu forte in Chennai), a couple of years back a Christian family suddenly called on me at home and started blabbering that they belonged to Jehovah International, that Jehovah was the One God who taught meditation to Shiva and Vishnu and that Jesus Christ was his avatar in human form! This kind of falsity (or arrogance if you prefer) diminished my regard for Christianity in general and Jesus in particular further.

As Swami Sivananda says, Christianity is a watered-down version of the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism, customized to suit the spiritual needs of the peasants of Europe who lived when it originated there. Now that Christians have grown in material stature far ahead of the rest of the world, and can't find anything deep in their own religion, they want to extrapolate it, trying to give its theology and philosophy the depth and loftiness of the Hindu darshanas--all this not for their own spiritual advancement, but to lure more and more Hindus into their fold and convert them. Recently, I read that in the US, when a Hindu was elected to an administrative post (a mayor I think), the defeated American told him to know Jesus and come into his fold. Not surprising, with a president like Bush considering himself a twice-born Christian with a religious agenda for his nation.



What does it matter if Jesus the man was born high or low, man or woman? The Christ is not gender specific or even expressed or contained in *a* form. To me, being "born again in Christ" is an expression of being AT ONE (a-toning) with what simply IS, and is best described as LOVE.


It does matter because Jesus is the prophet (supposed to have been) born in human form, while Christ is the Brahman. The main Christian message is that a certain Jesus of Nazareth came to be taught by God the Father and became His Messenger, His Son and finally God Himself. Hindus would have appreciated it had it ended there. But the crux of the message is that this new God Jesus says that there is no other God than him, that the world should fold up into him, that any other Gods are false and evil, that those who worship them will go to hell. How can the discerning Christians or the more spiritually advanced Hindus tolerate such arrogance and falsity, even if Jesus had taught that way?

If what Jesus taught was Advaita, did he see or say that every atom in this universe is replete with the living spirit of the One God? Jesus did not go beyond saying that He and God are one (but people are different), so people should come to him to go to God.

If what Jesus taught was Dvaita or a form of some other Hindu darshana, he should have recognized the existence of other faiths, Gods and paths and proclaimed, like the great and noble Vedas, that "let knowledge come to us from every source" or "the Truth is one, people call it by many names."

Whatever way the Christians try to extropolate Christianity, it remains and can't be more than what it has been all along: shallow and primitive.

satay
07 December 2006, 10:42 AM
Whatever way the Christians try to extropolate Christianity, it remains and can't be more than what it has been all along: shallow and primitive.

So far, on this forum we have not able to get good explanation of any important points of christianity, specifically, the threads that are open on HDF are:

- Is Christian GOD logical? - we have proven that a common man is more logical than Christian GOD.

- Is soul eternal? - we have proven that soul is not eternal according to christianity and so therefore, can not be in hell or heaven state for eternity, contrary to the claims of many missionaries.

- Is Jesus historic figure or a myth - no evidence of his whereabouts have been presented, his teachers, his associates that could be verified. This leaves us to belive that jesus of nazareth even if he existed, we do not know much about him to take his claims seriously.

Christianity is focused on bhakti and grace and these concepts are not new to hinduism, in fact, I would say that christianity stole these concepts from the east.

mumbaiXjones
07 December 2006, 02:51 PM
Pedigree?

Not for nothing, but that's a term I've heard most associated with show animals.

What do *you* mean by "pedigree"?

And, from what I understand of Christianity (and mind, my point of view has been called "evil" and "satanist" by some very devout self-avowed Christians), Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ is/are the Christian version of the One and the Many (which are the same, or different depending on one's point of view, or not, hehe) which is a conundrum which science, religion and philosophy in general cannot express. The rational mind just doesn't like this, in my opinion, so artifices which then draw away from rather than towards "truth" become propogated, and like viruses multiply. Like the monkey, we play with concepts which can never describe the beingness of IT.

What does it matter if Jesus the man was born high or low, man or woman? The Christ is not gender specific or even expressed or contained in *a* form. To me, being "born again in Christ" is an expression of being AT ONE (a-toning) with what simply IS, and is best described as LOVE.


YMMV


Namaste :)

ZN

Namaskar all,

I am sorry people are doing that, Znanna...it isn't right. I am a Christian---albeit an unorthodox one---but I have NEVER told anyone anything of the sort, EVER. I just don't believe in doing so. Jesus tells us, "judge not lest you be judged," and in Matthew 7: 1-2, He says, "Don't condemn others, and God won't condemn you. God will be as hard on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them." I think that these verses are self-explanitory in their meaning, and I don't see the point of judging/condemning others for their beliefs. The truth is, only God knows what happens to us when we die. He is the ultimate judge, and to "take over" for him by telling others that they're demonic/satanic/going to Hell is to commit a terrible sin.

OM Shanti,
Mumbai

Znanna
07 December 2006, 08:55 PM
saidevo responded:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Znanna
Pedigree?
Not for nothing, but that's a term I've heard most associated with show animals.

What do *you* mean by "pedigree"?

Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus defines the term 'pedigree' as:
1 a list of ancestors; record of ancestry; family tree
2 descent; lineage; ancestry
3 a recorded or known line of descent, esp. of a purebred animal

The phrase 'of noble pedigree' is commonly used in classical English. It was never my intention to use the phrase in the third of the above meanings.


And, what did *you* mean, in the context?

I ask, because I am curious about the notion of parampara. I am entirely unorthodox; my limited understanding is that this is of import, and my impression was that you used pedigree in this sense. Is this correct?

Is direct experience of Godz okay, or is intermediation of a determinate source a necessity?



Namaste,
ZN
/just asking

saidevo
08 December 2006, 12:23 AM
Namaste Znanna,



And, what did *you* mean, in the context?

I ask, because I am curious about the notion of parampara. I am entirely unorthodox; my limited understanding is that this is of import, and my impression was that you used pedigree in this sense. Is this correct?

Is direct experience of Godz okay, or is intermediation of a determinate source a necessity?


1. Why, I definitely used the word 'pedigree' to mean genealogy and parentage, in the first two senses, as given by Webster. When we Hindus talk about Sri Rama, an avatar of Maha Vishnu, we trace his pedigree to the Raghu Vamsam. Since Jesus is an avatar of God in human form, his genealogy becomes important.

But the funny thing here is that while Jesus is supposed to have been born out of immaculate conception, as Will Durant comments, "The virgin birth is not mentioned by Paul or John, and Matthew and Luke trace Jesus back to David through Joseph by conflicting genealogies; apparently the belief in the virgin birth rose later than in the Davidic descent."

Hindus also say that we shouldn't inquire the rishi mUlam and nadhi mUlam (the origin of rishis and rivers). We know for instance that Maharishi Valmiki was a bandit who later performed tapas to such an extent that he became indifferent to his body and let it be covered by anthills (of white ants) up to the neck so that only his eyes could be active! (Hence the name Valmiki).

2. Direct and personal experience of God is the ultimate thing that matters in spirituality. Equally important is the liberty to choose one's path. So when I am told that Jesus or Allah is the only God and the other Gods are false, that I should come to His fold to attain liberation or else I would rot in Eternal Hell, that worshipping God in a form or name is a sin and other such rancorous rant, I retaliate and ask for proof for personal verification. If Jesus is the Son of God, then he is not God (because Christianity does not know about Advaita). So, even as a Christian, why should I go to Jesus, when I can as well go to God directly? Since Jesus is promoted as an intermediary between me and my God, I ask for a determinate source.

I should make it clear that I am not opposed to Christianity or their beliefs and teachings if it coexists with other faiths and does not interfere with personal spiritual liberty. But when it seeks to destroy our religion, tradtions, culture and nation, we Hindus have a duty to expose the falsity of its claims and educate our own brethren.

satay
08 December 2006, 01:01 AM
But the funny thing here is that while Jesus is supposed to have been born out of immaculate conception, as Will Durant comments, "The virgin birth is not mentioned by Paul or John, and Matthew and Luke trace Jesus back to David through Joseph by conflicting genealogies; apparently the belief in the virgin birth rose later than in the Davidic descent."


When asked about virgin birth, most christians will say, "it is a mystery" and are unable to explain the who, why what etc. of this virgin birth myth.

Virgin birth doesn't make sense. Why would the 'holy spirit' go around impregnating a married woman?




2. Direct and personal experience of God is the ultimate thing that matters in spirituality. Equally important is the liberty to choose one's path.

Both completely rejected by orthodox christianity. Man is in fallen state of sin due to adam's disobedience. Man is helpless fool and must rely on God's grace that only works through his son Jesus.

The whole business seems to be between Adam and GOD. GOD's first son Adam is disobedient, starts this circle of sin for whole humanity. GOD condemns whole humanity to earth where 'man shall sweat through his brow' and then GOD creates yet another son this time from 'the word' or logos and sends him to earth to 'save' the whole humanity to show how graceful he is.

What exactly is your or my fault or connection to GOD? None according to christianity. The whole business is between adam and GOD.



If Jesus is the Son of God, then he is not God (because Christianity does not know about Advaita). So, even as a Christian, why should I go to Jesus, when I can as well go to God directly? Since Jesus is promoted as an intermediary between me and my God, I ask for a determinate source.


Again, most christians will say this is mystery. Some only believe in GOD, some belive in jesus, some believe that jesus is GOD, some believe worshipping to mary is a valid way to 'please' jesus and thus GOD so they focus on mary's idols etc.

Basically, GOD sacrificed his second son (jesus) to show his own grace after condeming all humanity to earth due to his first son's disobedience.

Christian GOD went through quite a bit of trouble to show his own grace. Wouldn't you say? There are simpler ways that this could have been done!



I should make it clear that I am not opposed to Christianity or their beliefs and teachings if it coexists with other faiths and does not interfere with personal spiritual liberty. But when it seeks to destroy our religion, tradtions, culture and nation, we Hindus have a duty to expose the falsity of its claims and educate our own brethren.

ditto.

Znanna
09 December 2006, 05:20 PM
Namaste,

saidevo, thank you for explaining so well.

I agree that Christianity attempts to convert, using any means necessary, and that this is to be guarded against. Ironically, it is this pattern, through the ages, which has resulted in the amalgam of myth with frequently inconsistent thematic structure which has become the fabric of modern day Christianism, resulting in more versions of "christianity" than most other religions, combined.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html has a nice, concise summary of the migration (mutilation?) of the religion, IMO.



ZN

atanu
11 December 2006, 11:09 AM
Dear Atanu:
That’s not all by a long shot!! Knowing it theoretically and living it practically are two entirely different things. You seem to live in a state of undifferentiated reality. Explain to me simply this.


First, if you are in an undifferentiated reality, why do you respond to differentiated label – Atanu (namarupa)?


------
Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

I must say that I have not read your full reply, since I am pre-occupied and also since I do not think that anything new might be there?


In respect of above query, you should know the analogy: a person who knows the mirage to be a mirage still sees the mirage but is not fooled by it.

For me conscious effort to keep up the enquiry "Who Am I?", helps. That is all.


Note: If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God. Since Mandukya Upanishad states precisely that the only proof of Him is in identity.


Best Wishes.

nirotu
17 December 2006, 08:21 AM
I must say that I have not read your full reply, since I am pre-occupied and also since I do not think that anything new might be there?

For many, there is absolutely nothing new to ponder over in our exchange. However, you do make some interesting points, which are worth responding.


If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God.

I am bit taken by this statement of yours. If, what you say is true, then according to you, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa did not know God! Being a Bengali, you probably know Ramakrishna Paramahansa more than most of us. There are documented proofs by people that people who sat with him in his presence felt the touch of grace of God. It is well known of his encounter with Totapuri, a pure Advaitin. You know the rest of the story. Ramakrishna Paramahansa, a mystic, although, had the highest regard for Advaita in general, that was not the path he was seeking because he did not find the answer. While realities of Avdaita hold true in the ultimate sense, you seem to paint it with very heavy strokes.

However, equally true, if not more, is the truth of direct mystical contact with God. There is a beauty in direct mystical knowingness that does not come by merely theorizing. Even though, all mystical experience is mediated through, and made intelligible via the categories of symbolism, the essence remains the same regardless of religion and that is to be one with God. Such an experience of contact with the divine has been known to exist with sages like Ramakrishna where Advaita did not play any role.

For Jesus that was a given in His divine nature, as He authoritatively proclaimed, “ I and my Father are one”. Thus, the nature of “Advita” was already in existence with Him. However, in the manifest creation, the Adviata did become Dvaita as He so proclaims, “I know my Father.” Or “ I do as my Father tells me” showing the distinctness between the two. As I said earlier, while Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman). Because, Advaita has become Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey.


a person who knows the mirage to be a mirage still sees the mirage but is not fooled by it.

In the case of mirage, one is not fooled by it only because one’s senses confirm it as an illusion. If one transcends all these sense verification of thoughts (as Advaitins would like to believe), how can one differentiate real from mirage? Your point only proves that in logical knowledge, which you have chosen, there is always duality, the distinction between the knowledge of the thing and it’s being. This comes only by Dvaitan experience.

Therefore, you like me, perhaps have to embark on this journey with singular awareness of unity (Advita) and duality (Dvaita), which I might add, is the whole point of God’s ”Lila”, the very purpose of His creation.

Blessings,

atanu
23 December 2006, 01:18 PM
-----
In the case of mirage, one is not fooled by it only because one’s senses confirm it as an illusion. If one transcends all these sense verification of thoughts (as Advaitins would like to believe), how can one differentiate real from mirage? Your point only proves that in logical knowledge, which you have chosen, there is always duality, the distinction between the knowledge of the thing and it’s being. This comes only by Dvaitan experience.

Therefore, you like me, perhaps have to embark on this journey with singular awareness of unity (Advita) and duality (Dvaita), which I might add, is the whole point of God’s ”Lila”, the very purpose of His creation.

Blessings,

So, do you mean to say that advaita means being senseless? In that case a man senseless under drug or under chloroform would be the topper.

It is you who amaze dear Nirotu.

The Self (Advaita) knows everything through its own Pragnya. Knowing Self does not mean that one vanquishes Pragnya to exile.

Om

atanu
23 December 2006, 01:25 PM
---
Therefore, you like me, perhaps have to embark on this journey with singular awareness of unity (Advita) and duality (Dvaita), which I might add, is the whole point of God’s ”Lila”, the very purpose of His creation.

Blessings,

Again, Advaita encompasses Dvaita and has no conflict with it. Dvaita is in Advaita only and not vice versa.

Greatest Advaitins ask us to keep Guru out of Advaita in the beginning but then they teach Guru is not the body. Guru is all pervading Without knowing the all pervasive eternal guru one should continue in Dvaita. But Arjuna provided some excellent answers to similar questions. So I just paste his reply.

///Questioner: Ah, the usual climb to the tree top. Who is talking about an enlightened sage and what would he be doing on a forum like this? We are talking about those who are not and what they are supposed to act and think to become a sage.///

Arjuna: The proper method is to speak the Truth first. ------

///Questioner: If you think and act as if you are a sage now in some respects, you will possibly never get there.///

Arjuna: HERE&NOW the Consciousness in present and “accessible”. There is nowhere to “get”. If one has a idea of “getting there”, he never succeeds. Atman is not a destination, but the Self.

I could not do better.


Let us offer worship...Ka: "To what deity may we sacrifice?" The name originated in a dialogue between Indra and Praja_pati. The latter asked the former, "Having given you my might, then whom am I?" Indra replied, "If you ask 'who (ka) am I?' that be you."



Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
24 December 2006, 03:19 AM
---

Therefore, you like me, perhaps have to embark on this journey with singular awareness of unity (Advita) and duality (Dvaita), which I might add, is the whole point of God’s ”Lila”, the very purpose of His creation.

Blessings,

Bulls. How do you know the purpose? Are you God or has God told you. Do you think that advaitins do not worship god in dvaita mode that you have to state cliches repeatedly?

First reform yourself please. Do not ask to surrender to God and then try to reform others as if others have to surrender to you? Or, try forever to understand the Lila and by-pass the one who knows. There is no leela, if you do not cognize it.

The difference in your approach from others in this site is that you alone strive to be a reformer. Others state their view or suggest if asked for.

Best Wishes.

atanu
24 December 2006, 11:25 PM
Dear Nirotu,

Merry Christmas to all,

On this special day, I write this, which should be the last on this subject from me (this ego).

Two key teachings of Jesus that are stupendous but impossible to practice, when the ego is kicking, are: Love thy neighbour and Love your enemies. Devout Christians like George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples supporting my view. The majority (I would say except 1 in a million) would fail on the above two requirements and it is very natural. It is not that such people are not here. A misguided lot, in the name of Hinduism, tries to foment unrest here as well (but at the outset I would say that they exist in my troubled consciousness and nowhere else).

Jesus Christ wanted his teachings to be practical and they are, except the above two. How can you love the one, who apparently is butchering you? Graham Greene said: Hatred is the failure of the imagination. Do you realize this fully?

It is only through Vedantic knowledge that one can make “Love your enemies” a reality.

The day realization dawns that the true I is Shiva – embodiment of love and peace, on which, as bubble, the ego I exists and assumes doership, the application becomes easier. Then the knowledge dawns (you would say grace dawns) that whatever is seen is seen by the ego seer as evil, the real I does no evil and sees none. Whatever is created is created by the ego I using the power (Shakti-Durga) inherent in the peace (Shiva) but assuming, under ignorance, that the so-called evil is apart from it and as if it (the beast) has no role in it.

The consciousness of the absolute Shiva is all. How you see the manifestation of this consciousness (which is you) is dependent on the perspective of the seer I. The day the seer in you becomes that peace itself, you will not create disharmony in you (and in the environment). Vivekananda had said: One meditating Yogi does thousand times more good than a rampant ego based reformer. Hatred, which is impossible to overcome without knowing the real I, foments more trouble; adding to ever spiraling karma and volatile strife filled environment.

Jesus would one day lead you to this silent knowledge -- silent, since words would always fail to kindle this comprehension. It is pertinent here to cite E. M. Forster who moaned “poor, little talkative Christianity”.


True Jesus is the end of theology. The Jesus most know is just a shadow. The reality that Jesus is is the following:

Svet. Up,

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatriH
na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalaH .
tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM
praGYaa cha tasmaat.h prasR^itaa puraaNii .. 18

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Shiva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.


At present I see Him always in repose with half closed eyes, beside me, as protector and guide. But I do not see myself correctly. I still see myself as the body. How can one see one’s own mind? It is impossibility. But the mind has now come to be graced and it knows that I and this shantam Shiva are not different. Since who sees the shantam Shiva?

There is no other.

This has to happen for all since the Upanishad says so. Vedanta also puts the complete onus on self to elevate itself to SELF, since there is no other.

Om Christ
Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
25 December 2006, 12:44 PM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you too!

Upon reading it carefully I could not help but notice that there is a conditioned labeling going on here. Just because, I come from another viewpoint (Christian viewpoint), I am considered a reformer! On my part, I have been very open and liberal with a desire to expound on from both Hindu and Christian scriptures. How can it be any different when only point I am trying to make is the “Total Surrender”? How can there be any attempt to reform when the message is of total surrender?

Let us be ware of conscious or unconscious labeling and take what is being given with an open mind.

As you have desired, let us make this our last exchange on this post for the year. Let us part with pleasant thoughts and perhaps connect with each other in the future with a new topic that reflects more of spiritual path than anything else.

I appreciate your insightful thoughts and look forward to chatting with you in the coming year.

I wish you good health, happiness and also, nothing but the best in your search for the truth.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
06 January 2007, 05:40 AM
As I have shown above, it is not my feelings but the truth. Just when have I denigrated swami or gurus or saints? Is there anything wrong in saying Buddha spent 14 years under the tree searching for truth? Is there anything wrong in the statement Ramana spent 7 years of solitude to understand the truth? Is there anything wrong in the statement that Jesus did not spend time like this instead He spent with the people? You may have strong feelings about your gurus but the truth of the matter is, these are historical facts that no one can deny. So, please do not accuse me of denigrating saints

Questions:

1. Did Jesus lift a mountain with his little finger as a boy?
2. Did Jesus show his vishvarupa to anyone?
3. Did Jesus take anybody to the supreme abode while on earth? ( Arjuna and Krishna in Santanagopalam)

These are the kinds of actions that differentiate between God and a soul. A jnAnin cannot become God and only true avatArAs can display such abilities.

Bhaktas who know that their source is the Lord do get phenomenal abilities unlike people who think their strength lies in their arms and brains. Like Hanuman, who could do whatever imaginable due to his realization that his very existance and energy belong to Sri Rama.

Please show us proof that Jesus was a true avatar( magic/trick/miracles is not sufficient). Even Vedanta Desika is referred to as the incarnation of Lord Venkateshwara by overzealous vaishnavites, but I dont believe it. Proof is needed to believe in claims. Proving oneself to be God requires one to be more than a yogi - only the Lord can show that the entire universe is contained in him, no one else.

Sudarshan
07 January 2007, 02:06 PM
You keep repeating that Hindus don’t believe in my non-sense. If you want to guard your allegiance to your faith, perhaps you should not waste bandwidth on such matters by inviting me to give my view and then make such sweeping statements. Then perhaps, you should un-invite me just like you invited me. But, please, do not sneak in to a discussion with your patronizing non-sense about “missing years of Jesus were spent in India and borrowed everything from the saints of the east and customized it for the peasants”.

Blessings,

The point is only this: - You cannot expc a single Hindu to accept your views of Jesus being a born jnani and rest of the saints working "hard" to be there. Where is the proof, sir?

If you think a self testimony is enough, there are lots of Hindu babas who claim themselves to be "Jesus like" and there is no way to verify. Miracles or even aSTa mahA siddhis are not proof of one being paramAtma. Why would ay Hindu believe in a historical Jesus claims when many such swamis are seen in flesh and blood? Most people claiming to be God or even a jnani are likely to be fakes. True jnanins are rarely ever known to the world. An avatara is ever rarer.

Consequently, your posts simply shove Jesus on Hindus, which is attempted proselytizing. You would need to provide some solid defence of your biblical absurdities like original sin before anyone will really take your attempts of "reconciliation" seriously. When I pointed out to you that original sin might be Karma, you apparently scoffed at it.

You mentioned that you were not bothered with philosophy and ignored almost every point I brought up earlier. Your words always stopped with grace, surrender, child like faith...if you think we accepted then what else is there to discuss? An inter religeous discussion has no value without philosophical exchange. For practical journey, one might simply shut down the computer and start praying, as that should be the end of practical journey. The fact that you are discussing implies that you expect discussions to be more on theoretical lines rather than practice, as practice is closely related theory. A Hindu saint who has left his home and spends 20 years under a tree solely dedicated to God and attains enlightenment will most likely be called a fool/lunatic by most christians and muslims. Why? "But Jesus has done everything for me, why do all that and undergo all that difficulty?" That is why we call it the peasant religion.

That is why theory is bound to practice. No practical journey can be discussed without discussing the foundations of the religion.

Sudarshan
08 January 2007, 04:00 AM
I am bit taken by this statement of yours. If, what you say is true, then according to you, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa did not know God! Being a Bengali, you probably know Ramakrishna Paramahansa more than most of us. There are documented proofs by people that people who sat with him in his presence felt the touch of grace of God. It is well known of his encounter with Totapuri, a pure Advaitin. You know the rest of the story. Ramakrishna Paramahansa, a mystic, although, had the highest regard for Advaita in general, that was not the path he was seeking because he did not find the answer. While realities of Avdaita hold true in the ultimate sense, you seem to paint it with very heavy strokes

Yes, the comment "If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God." does take me by surprise too. Some people are just theoreticians always searching for the elusive plane, which they never attain.( and even according to their own theory attaining there ones identity ceases and no one can make a claim that I realized advaita or God without shattering the foundations of the doctrine)

God is the all pervading indweller and what would prevent one from percieving God in whatever form they wish? This is a thing that happens by pure grace and love, and it is surprising Hindus with so much of purANic and vedic authority to how God reveals himself to his devotees choose to make statements like the above.

This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature.( mundaka 2.3)



Dont search for the unprovable elusive high ground. Bhagavan is there in flesh and blood in every atom in the universe, and if you manage to catch a glimpse of him even with your senses or otherwise, he will do everything for you to reach the most exalted position. Try to obtain the vision of this supremely effulgent ruler of this universe, without trying the logically impossible things. This is very easy to those have immense devotion towards the Lord, and should you suceeed, rest assured that you will attain to the highest reality whatever it maybe.

Even simple theory tells us that bondage is the result of the five koshas which are products of Karma. When the lower three, ie, Annamaya, prANamaya and manomaya are purified to a great extent, one will invariiably begin to experience the presence of God in day to day life. Without even obtaining this stage where God is experienced from time to time ( which means you are still in thick bond of karma) how can one afford to theorize the matter and talk about some reality beyond all koshas? It is just idle talk!

atanu
08 January 2007, 08:17 AM
---

This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature.( mundaka 2.3)

----

Hello, Welcome and Namaste,

Here we go again.

1. Please read the next verse of Mundka also.

2. Do you know why Indra was created by the Pregenitor? To apply discrimination. He is the discrimination in the mind. He kills Bheda. He separates Heaven from Earth and keeps them separated.

3. Since the Self is Advaita and since the Self has to be known. How will one remain a second and still know the Self? That will destroy His Advita definition.

4. It seems to be as per one's sweet will but a time will come when nothing but the Self will suffice.


Regards. If you want to fight then I will join you a week later. Till then masticate on points 2 and 3. It really is simple.


Om Om OM

Sudarshan
08 January 2007, 11:46 AM
Hello, Welcome and Namaste,

Here we go again.

1. Please read the next verse of Mundka also.

2. Do you know why Indra was created by the Pregenitor? To apply discrimination. He is the discrimination in the mind. He kills Bheda. He separates Heaven from Earth and keeps them separated.

3. Since the Self is Advaita and since the Self has to be known. How will one remain a second and still know the Self? That will destroy His Advita definition.

4. It seems to be as per one's sweet will but a time will come when nothing but the Self will suffice.


Regards. If you want to fight then I will join you a week later. Till then masticate on points 2 and 3. It really is simple.


Om Om OM

Namaste Atanu,

Even assuming your advaita to be correct, please consider this in the words of Shankara himself.

In brief:

Brahman is non dual, and one without a second. When associated with adjunct of mAyA, he is called ISvara, the ruler of the vyavahArika prapanca. Isvara becomes manifold jIvas and jaDa, and within the body of ISvara, multiple jIvAs exist, each bounded by five koSas.

jIva is liberated by breaking asunder the five veils( by any process), whereupon it comes under the direct influence of mAyA.( sAttvik mAyA). The jIva is virtually lost at this point, and transcends mAyA through the grace of ISvara. If at the time of death, the five veils are cleared, but still under the influence of sAttvik mAyA, you call that krama mukti where the jIva persist until mahApraLaya. Those who go beyond in very life are called jIvanmuktas.

This is a rough sketch of the advaitic notion. While VAs do not admit that there is a difference between ISvara and Brahman( of any sorts), or that there is any notion of going beyond the plane of ISvara .

That does not mean, advaita goes anyway beyond VA's notions because the final stage in the journey has no place for 'effort'. ISvara's grace and vision are all are needed to go to farthest point, no matter what your philosophy is. Something you have completely missed in all our conversations. Dont miss out wonderful divine experiences in life by searching for abstract incomprehensible versions of Godhead. Even if you can scratch the surface of Godhead, your journey will be well on course. Most of us still live in such ignorance that God has given even no proof of his existance. (apart from words of others). A certain level of purity in actions and mind will bring this supreme being right to your door in search of you.

atanu
08 January 2007, 04:44 PM
Namaste Atanu,

----.

No doubt you are correct. But on account of the following point only (and I emphasize 'only' since BG also says so) one has to keep praying to Ishwara to reveal the truth. The point is:

ö c:t:ØT:üø m:ny:nt:ð s: Aatm:a s: ev:jW:ðy:H

And since Atma is Advaita, it is impossible to be another and know it -- that would destroy the Advaita. Another point. I assure you that it is not abstract and dry, since the Self itself is the joy. All joy that we have are mistakenly transferred to external objects. That is ignorance and source of pain only.

I have great regard for Gurus Ramanuja and Madhava, since I am sure that God worked through them. Without travelling through pure Dvaita and VA paths one cannot expect anything. At the same time you cannot assume that Advaitin does not taste Dvaita and VA.

And knowing the Self is not dry for another reason. It is not that one will be in Turiya only. Before knowing the Self, the world is external. After knowing the Self, the world becomes part of oneself. See the difference? The world does not go away. Only, the pains associated with the otherness go. And the Self is BLISS.

You are correct that I do not go by what Shankaracharya said or did not say. It is all my intuition, dropped down unto me, as if, during meditation. You are correct that I have not read Shankara, since I dislike theory and mental acrobatics.

But I surely have tasted something. What gives me pleasure may not be pleasure for another but I understand that the vice versa also may be true and so I genuinely respect all paths as paths charted by God -- as is mentioned in Shiv Mahima Stotra.

Regards

Sudarshan
09 January 2007, 01:34 AM
You did not understand what I say.

To the classical Karma Yogi and Jnana Yogi, most of the work in done by the yogi. He becomes the ruler of his own mansion and controls his enemies. Again, the yogi will usually miss out dealing with God in various modes. It may happen that you may not find God for many incarnations. Without experiencing the personal aspect of God the motivation to succeed in yoga dries up rather quickly.

To those who follow the path of pure love, all obstacles are removed by God. He becomes your friend, interacts with you on a daily basis, and will gradually lead you to whatever you aspire for. It is much easier to get the glimpse of this personal aspect of God than the Self, which fills you with adequate motivation and unshakeable faith needed to attain the final goal.

Jnana Yoga is a dry path no matter what your explanations are. You may not even get a bit of glimpse of God in this path for many incarnations. A person who has obtained God through Bhakti and niSkAma karma for a friend to an extent that he has become your personal guide is an ideal condition to pursue Jnana Yoga - others will find the going very tough.

atanu
09 January 2007, 06:55 AM
You did not understand what I say.

-----Jnana Yoga is a dry path no matter what your explanations are. ---tough.

Sorry. I do not agree. There is no cut and dried path called Jnana yoga. All gurus say that Bhakti is mother of Jnana.

Jnana does not come alone or does not come without bhakti.

Om

Sudarshan
09 January 2007, 07:31 AM
Haha, what would bhakti translate to in your beliefs? ( to oneself?;) ) . Or some other non existant(illusory) entities? ;)

atanu
09 January 2007, 10:45 AM
Haha, what would bhakti translate to in your beliefs? ( to oneself?;) ) . Or some other non existant(illusory) entities? ;)


Obviously. Some have no discrimination. They judge knowledge from the perspective "I am this" and so become sarcastic. Please do not compare ideas of different states . I thought that you might have improved.

Talk about the logic as shown below and do not compare extraneous things.




c:t:&#216;T:&#252;&#248; m:ny:nt:&#240; s: Aatm:a s: ev:jW:&#240;y:H

Since Atma is Advaita, it is impossible to know it and be another at the same time -- that would destroy the Advaita.



Simple. No theory required to understand this.

Om Namah Shivayya

satay
09 January 2007, 05:15 PM
Admin Note:

Atanu, Sudarshan,

Gentlemen, what's the link to jesus or OP of your recent posts on this thread?

Am I missing something? :headscratch:

If not, please take this discussion to the appropriate forum and thread.

Thanks,

jaggin
13 February 2007, 09:02 AM
Is Jesus a confirmed “Advitin”?

Upon reading the Bible one cannot help but notice that Jesus constantly spoke about “My Father”, “I and My Father”, which exemplify the fact that He was not Advaitin at all. In the manifest creation of the pure Advaita, Pure Dvaita Jesus Christ did not advocate or represent either of these as a whole truth. Therefore, statement that Jesus Christ represents Adviata is falsity.

Technically speaking He showed oneness in Father, upon which Advaitins seem to always hang their hat on by using statement like “I and my Father are one”, which does not truly represent the essential nature of Jesus Christ. As can be seen from the statement “I and My Father are one” the plurality “are” is used to represent more than one being. Such distinctness was always maintained by Jesus while addressing the Father.

Advita is only a perspective and cannot represent the whole truth. For example, it negates the idea of God out of us, when in fact; God is the infinite spirit who is both in us and out of us. If God were not in us there would be no sense of need; if God were not out of us, there would be no sense of worship. Their denial of “God out of us” has forced them to interpret worship to be inferior to meditation. The fact is, no where in the scripture will you find God favoring one over the other as a form of sacrifice. God does not prohibit from either form of sacrifice – worship or meditation.

In the manifest creation of the matter, Jesus was, therefore, purest form of higher-self state. In that He came pure, He lived pure and He returned pure. Only in Jesus Christ will you see Him embody Advita and Dvaita. In His teaching you will see the entire spectrum of spiritual practices needed by man to complete his spiritual journey in the cycle of creation. Jesus, with all His knowledge of divinity showed us prayer as a mode of worship. He Himself worshipped the Father in communing with the Father, with Him as the subject and the Father as the object of prayer. Advaitins have a very stark view on this and they have, as a result, a stark path to follow.

Blessings,



This argument is common among Christians who don't believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. There is a confusion that results from believing that a multiple voice absolutely guarantees multiple persons. When Jesus says that He is one with the Father it is because He is. That oneness is not superceded by multiple voices. The dichotomy is not that of essential nature but of manifest function. God functioning in a human body has a distintion from God functioning outside of the body. In the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) that same spirit of God functions in the body of believers who have given Him permission to do so. What will you say then? - that God is operating as millions of persons and therefore is a multitude. The oneness of God's spirit remains through all the persons.

Although God is all pervasive that doesn't mean that He is functional within for all people. I don't doubt that God has some influence over people without their knowledge but it is usually the submitted who allow God to function in a greater capacity.

Who are these people? Meditation on God is worship. Meditation on who will win a sporting event is not worship.