PDA

View Full Version : What is the holy spirit?



vedic_kings
14 December 2006, 12:31 AM
Hi guys:)

I have been trying to understand the holy spirit, more so from a yogic view.

I have done a little research, and what I have been getting is that the holy sprit is the Kundalini.

Could you guy explain what the holy spirit is from a Christian view as well as a yogic view.

Thanks!

satay
15 December 2006, 06:13 PM
namaste,
I do not know the yogic view on 'holy spirit', however, I would be most interested to learn about your research. Why don't you share some of it with us here?

From the christian perspective what I understand is that holy spirit is the 'spirit' part of God and directly responsible for turning the 'word' of god into 'human' form by impregnating the married wife of a peasant i.e. Mary the mother of Jesus.

I am not aware of any such entity that sastras talk about that goes around impegrating women, especially, the ones that are already married, however, my knowledge in this field is very limited.

atanu
17 December 2006, 04:22 AM
namaste,
I do not know the yogic view on 'holy spirit', however, I would be most interested to learn about your research. Why don't you share some of it with us here?

From the christian perspective what I understand is that holy spirit is the 'spirit' part of God and directly responsible for turning the 'word' of god into 'human' form by impregnating the married wife of a peasant i.e. Mary the mother of Jesus.

I am not aware of any such entity that sastras talk about that goes around impegrating women, especially, the ones that are already married, however, my knowledge in this field is very limited.


Namaste Satay Bhai,

Actually all impregnation is done by the holy spirit only. I do not know how sperm/ova/milk production is eternal and unlimited. And I do not think that any scientist would ever know. Rig Veda says that two white products are divine and unlimited.

One who realises this does not create offsprings born of flesh. Mandukya says, one who knows padas of AUM, in his family only Brahma Jnani takes birth.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
17 December 2006, 04:26 AM
Hi guys:)

I have been trying to understand the holy spirit, more so from a yogic view.

I have done a little research, and what I have been getting is that the holy sprit is the Kundalini.

Could you guy explain what the holy spirit is from a Christian view as well as a yogic view.

Thanks!



Atma is holy spirit and that is Eko and Sarva.

nirotu
17 December 2006, 06:41 AM
Actually all impregnation is done by the holy spirit only. I do not know how sperm/ova/milk production is eternal and unlimited. And I do not think that any scientist would ever know. Rig Veda says that two white products are divine and unlimited.

One who realises this does not create offsprings born of flesh. Mandukya says, one who knows padas of AUM, in his family only Brahma Jnani takes birth.

Atma is holy spirit and that is Eko and Sarva.

Well said, Atanu. I could not agree more.

In Biblical writing, the “Holy Spirit” and “Word” were used to designate the character of the intelligent cosmic force (God). The materializing power of this force is the vibratory sound of “Word”. The “Spirit” implies an intelligent, invisible conscious force. The word “Holy” is used to refer this “Spirit” because it is manifestation of God and is creating this universe according to the perfect design of God.

Similarly, Hindu scriptures designate “Holy Spirit” as the vibratory sound “Aum” signifying its role in God’s creative plan.

A : akara – creative power
U: ukara – preserving power
M: makara – power of dissolution. (Pramahansa Yogananda)

In Gita, Lord affirms: “among words, I am one syllable Aum” (X 25), “Of all manifestations, I am the beginning, middle and the end”(X 32), I, the unchanging and everlasting, sustain and permeate the universe with but one fragment of my being”(X 42).

It is also affirmed in the Bible as the origin of “all things”, “Without Him was not anything made that was made.” Therefore, the “word” was with God and the “word” was God – the “SPIRIT” of His own one being.

Atanu, you make up for quite an “antidote” for much of un-intelligent babbling that goes on here!

Blessings,

satay
17 December 2006, 08:57 AM
Namaste Satay Bhai,

Actually all impregnation is done by the holy spirit only. I do not know how sperm/ova/milk production is eternal and unlimited. And I do not think that any scientist would ever know. Rig Veda says that two white products are divine and unlimited.

One who realises this does not create offsprings born of flesh. Mandukya says, one who knows padas of AUM, in his family only Brahma Jnani takes birth.


Om Namah Shivayya

namaste,
Thanks Bhai. I didn't know about this as I said my knowledge in this field is very limited.

satay
17 December 2006, 09:01 AM
[FONT=Verdana]Atanu, you make up for quite an “antidote” for much of un-intelligent babbling that goes on here!

Blessings,

namaste,
Are you referring to the un-intelligent babbling and nonsense of salesmen missionaries of the peasant religions?

Yes, we allow that here on this forum to a certain degree in an effort to try to learn about them.

Because the peasants are trying to destroy the hindu culture by hook and crook we have to learn their un-intelligent ways also to a certain degree since they can not comprehend the 'intelligence' as evident by their act of murdering their own guru.

atanu
20 December 2006, 06:30 AM
Well said, Atanu. I could not agree more.

------

Similarly, Hindu scriptures designate “Holy Spirit” as the vibratory sound “Aum” signifying its role in God’s creative plan.

A : akara – creative power
U: ukara – preserving power
M: makara – power of dissolution. (Pramahansa Yogananda)

-------

Blessings,

However, Vedanta considers Atma to be EKO and Sarva. The personal Lord, Jiva, Jagat all are from Atma. Since Mandukya also says that this Aum is ALL, what is there and what is beyond. What is time and what is beyond.

It is futile to say that personal Lord is devoid of a Self or that there are two selves.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
20 December 2006, 06:45 AM
-----

Atanu, you make up for quite an “antidote” for much of un-intelligent babbling that goes on here!

Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

First, please do not be dis-heartened. All who participate here are surely very close to God.

Second, if someone, even in a very small way, desires that others should agree to and follow him, he should be prepared for a little brash talk. Try participating in a HK forum -- they even allow guest entry so that the admins themselves come in as guest and abuse those who refuse to toe their line.

Third, this is the ascent. One learns to accept the world as it is and slowly becomes tranquil. Dear Nirotu, it is positive only. There is nothing apart from the Auspicious one.


Om Namah Shivayya

satay
20 December 2006, 11:42 AM
Try participating in a HK forum --

namaste,
What is HK forum?

jaggin
20 December 2006, 02:09 PM
spirit because God is a spirit. Holy to distinguish from our spirits which are unholy and because only God is good.

That is if you are referring only to the holy spirit and not the Holy Spirit which is another name for the Paraclete.

nirotu
20 December 2006, 06:08 PM
......please do not be dis-heartened.

......this is the ascent.

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for the encouraging note. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that the mix that you demonstrate – a tremendous passion for a viewpoint but with a certain amount of balance, is quite laudable. I appreciate that. Let us not forget, all of this is helping each other grow and not pull each other down.

I look forward to your response to my post under “Is Jesus a confirmed Advaitin?”

Blessings,

saidevo
21 December 2006, 01:53 AM
The Holy Spirit in Christianity



Atanu, you make up for quite an “antidote” for much of un-intelligent babbling that goes on here!


Let us see who is "babbling" here--a Hindu or a Christian or a misguided seeker?

Even though Nirotu says that the term Holy Spirit denotes the 'Word' of Bible which is really the intelligent cosmic force of God, different sects of Christianity have different interpretations of the Bible (both NT and OT), and the Holy Spirit.

It is generally agreed among the different sects that the Holy Spirit (formerly called the Holy Ghost) is part of the Christian Trinity: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Father is God, Son is Jesus and the Holy Spirit is what descended on him as a dove at the time of his baptism and what he gave his disciples for spreading Christianity. Some of the sects personify the Holy Spirit while some do not.

The flaw in the Christian perspective is that this Holy Spirit is selective in its 'coming'. It 'comes' to pastors and other church authorities rather easily. Beyond them, it 'comes' only to true Christians, not all Christians. And it never 'comes' to a non-Christian!

What does this Holy Spirit do? Well, it grants its benefactor some spiritual fruits and gifts. What are they? The Fruits of the Spirit are 12 in number: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity. The Gifts of the Spirit are seven in number: 1. Spirit of Wisdom; 2. Spirit of Understanding; 3. Spirit of Counsel; 4. Spirit of Strength; 5. Spirit of Knowledge; 6. Spirit of Godliness; 7. Spirit of Holy Fear.

Now, these Fruits and Gifts are envisaged to be poured out on the believer at baptism, but only a true Christian can employ the Gifts. How are the Gifts employed? Well, they make a believer an apostle (sent one, missionary--there you are!), a pastor, a teacher of the Word of God, a leader and adminstrator, etc. They also confer powers such as 'a knack for seeing needs and extending mercy', evangelise, speak many tongues or even an unlearned tongue, hear God speak, exorcise evil spirits out of the possessed (remember the movie 'The Exorcist'?), a strong and personal connection to God, prophesy, visions, see angels and demons at work, and discern spiritual, physical and mental conditions.

Where does the church come in this picture? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit...Thus the Church's mission is not an addition to that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but is its sacrament: in her whole being and in all her members, the Church is sent to announce, bear witness, make present, and spread the mystery of the communion of the Holy Trinity...Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church's sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body."

An ingenious way to make the Church the ultimate spiritual authority, reducing Christianity to Churchianity.

The RC Church also spells out these symbols for the Holy Spirit: water, anointing, fire, cloud and light, the seal, the hand, the finger, and the dove.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit)

All this is fine, but does this concept come anywhere near the lofty concept of Atman and Brahman in Sanatana Dharma as ekam and sarvam?

Can't an ordinary Christian, who does not believe in dogmas and the authority of the church but has faith in God, get the Holy Spirit descend on him? If the Holy Spirit is so discriminative, can it be Holy or even a Spirit and qualify to be on par with the universal term Atma? Can the Father as the Originator of this Holy Spirit be so partial? If he is so, can he be God? At least Science recognizes that mankind as a whole is one, physiologically, whether a Holy Spirit or a Demonic Spirit rules him. Is Science not more altruistic than Christianity?

The Holy Spirit in Sanatana Dharma

As with Christianity, different sects of Hinduism have different views of the Holy Spirit, but then with no clash in the concept. It may be a personal god such as Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Shakti or even a Godman or Guru who is considered as the Holy Spirit. Or it may be the impersonal Atma. But both these perceptions state that all are part of Brahman, the one God, who is both immanent and transcendent.

Nobody is doomed. Even the worst sinner, an atheist or a non-Hindu has the Holy Spirit residing in him. He only needs to know and realize it in one of the three paths or a combination of them, as suits him: Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga.

A religion that says that a man can attain salvation only through another man and not by his own efforts hardly qualifies for the name religion. It is at the most a cult or a restricted faith.

Compare and contrast this to a true religion, a Dharma, that provides for individual and personal freedom in spiritual progress, even to those who deny that such a path is necessary, chalk out a bottom-up path for the progress and recognize that every atom that makes everything--both animate and inanimate--in this universe is ruled by the Holy Spirit (both as the Be-ness as well as a Being of God), so man should strike a balance and harmony with nature to make his own living meaningful and spiritual.

Can any amount of interpolations or extrapolations make a religion on par with Sanatana Dharma? I can understand a non-Hindu to grow beyond his religion and seek spiritually greener pastures, but it beats my imagination that a discerning Hindu can find better spiritual prospects in the glitter of papal garments or the interior of a church or the gilt-edged pages of a concocted scripture, rather than in the saffron robes of a true ascetic or the sanctum of a Hindu temple or the plain speech of God-revealed, universal scriptures, and worse, try to extrapolate the timeworn concepts of a Semitic religion, which even its Pope as the most spiritually accomplished authority would not acknowledge. I write these words with a feeling of concern and despondency rather than derision.

satay
21 December 2006, 09:04 AM
spirit because God is a spirit. Holy to distinguish from our spirits which are unholy and because only God is good.


namaste jaggin,

If God is the father of us and created us how can our spirits be unholy?

That is to ask, "How can something unholy come out of that which is inherently Holy?"

or are you saying that when God created us we were holy but then something made our spirits unholy, something that is more powerful than God?

:headscratch:

nirotu
21 December 2006, 07:22 PM
Even though Nirotu says that the term Holy Spirit denotes the 'Word' of Bible which is really the intelligent cosmic force of God, different sects of Christianity have different interpretations of the Bible (both NT and OT), and the Holy Spirit.


Dear Saidevo:


While you have so elegantly presented differing views within Christian and Hindu faiths regarding the interpretation of “Holy Spirit”, I do believe, they all are in agreement on the fundamental truth and that is “the Holy Spirit is not a vague, ethereal shadow, nor an impersonal force. In Scripture, the Holy Spirit has intellect, emotions, and will, and can be grieved. While some describe it as a Force, that is usually how we experience the Spirit and know of the Spirit's presence, but that is not what the Spirit is. As God, the Spirit is cause, and that cause has effect.



In Christianity, He is a person equal in every way with God the Father and God the Son. He is considered to be the third member of the Godhead. And all the divine attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.


The flaw in the Christian perspective is that this Holy Spirit is selective in its 'coming'. It 'comes' to pastors and other church authorities rather easily. Beyond them, it 'comes' only to true Christians, not all Christians. And it never 'comes' to a non-Christian!

Your characterizing selectiveness of Holy-Spirit is not true. These ideologies sprung from various interpretations held by different churches. The Holy Spirit also performs same function among Christians and non-Christians alike. He convicts people's hearts of God's truth concerning how sinful we are -- needing God's forgiveness. The Holy Spirit tugs on our hearts and minds, asking us to repent and turn to God for forgiveness and to Grace to complete the journey. These characteristics can easily be grasped through scriptures.




All this is fine, but does this concept come anywhere near the lofty concept of Atman and Brahman in Sanatana Dharma as ekam and sarvam?

In fact, the unity in community through trinity is the motto for Christians. You might have seen a US penny that has inscription “E pluribus unum” that refers to “out of many one”. This goal of being one with the Father is not new to Christian faith. To be one is also the Goal in every religion, Monism as well as monotheism. We all know we live in an age of Aquarious.


A religion that says that a man can attain salvation only through another man and not by his own efforts hardly qualifies for the name religion. It is at the most a cult or a restricted faith.

Christianity is not a religion by any stretch of imagination. It is a relationship – right relationship with God through Christ consciousness.


Can't an ordinary Christian, who does not believe in dogmas and the authority of the church but has faith in God, get the Holy Spirit descend on him? If the Holy Spirit is so discriminative, can it be Holy or even a Spirit and qualify to be on par with the universal term Atma? Can the Father as the Originator of this Holy Spirit be so partial? If he is so, can he be God?

Can any amount of interpolations or extrapolations make a religion on par with Sanatana Dharma? I can understand a non-Hindu to grow beyond his religion and seek spiritually greener pastures, but it beats my imagination that a discerning Hindu can find better spiritual prospects in the glitter of papal garments or the interior of a church, rather than in the saffron robes of a true ascetic or the sanctum of a Hindu temple, and worse, try to extrapolate the timeworn concepts of a Semitic religion, which even its Pope as the most spiritually accomplished authority would not acknowledge. I write these words with a feeling of concern and despondency rather than derision.

Your characterizing selectiveness of Holy-Spirit is not true. You seem to see truth only where you want to see. If you take time and read all my posts, no where have I been guilty of making such statement. In fact, the simplicity and universality of “first-step” has been the theme of my topic that has nothing to do with any external institution. It is direct surrender to grace (Holy Spirit). Therefore, once again for a millionth time, I am not proselytizing. I am interested in one thing that is to grow and evolve spiritually through the spiritual journey while still in this mortal body.


Perhaps, we can keep our focus a little higher and make it more growth oriented. Since we are spending our time and energy, we might as well benefit from it. Let us make this exchange in the spirit of having a true Sat-Sang.



I write these words with a feeling of concern and despondency rather than derision.

With all due respect, let me reiterate what I said to Atanu; it is for all of us to take a deep breath and try and keep this exchange from being “reactionary” but, keep it more growth oriented. After all, we are not interested in labeling each other but liberating from labeling. My reference to my comment is strictly contextual and was not intended to label any one that way.


Blessings,

Znanna
21 December 2006, 07:43 PM
Um, to me the Holy Spirit is that which makes me inclined to get my head to the ground.

YMMV



ZN

satay
21 December 2006, 10:10 PM
In Scripture, the Holy Spirit has intellect, emotions, and will, and can be grieved.


namaste,

How can Holy Spirit that has 'emotions' and 'will' be considered GOD or having the same attributes of GOD? If GOD has will and desires then this GOD first needs to meditate to calm his mind so that his mind does not desire anything!
Otherwise he is no better than a mere human.



In Christianity, He is a person equal in every way with God the Father and God the Son. He is considered to be the third member of the Godhead. And all the divine attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.


yet, christians do not comprehend the 'one out of many' and 'many out of one' taught by dharma. sigh.



Your characterizing selectiveness of Holy-Spirit is not true. These ideologies sprung from various interpretations held by different churches. The Holy Spirit also performs same function among Christians and non-Christians alike. He convicts people's hearts of God's truth concerning how sinful we are -- needing God's forgiveness. The Holy Spirit tugs on our hearts and minds, asking us to repent and turn to God for forgiveness and to Grace to complete the journey. These characteristics can easily be grasped through scriptures.




This business of asking for forgiveness is foolishness on God's part. Why doesn't he stop making new souls so that holy spirit doesn't have to go around fixing anyone's heart. This God seems to be an idiotic kind where he keeps making souls all the while creating more and more work for holy spirit.
Clearly, all of these members of the christian god head can benefit from a class on meditation. All this unnecessary nonsense due to the 'will' of god! amazing...



Christianity is not a religion by any stretch of imagination. It is a relationship – right relationship with God through Christ consciousness.




so are other religions.



Perhaps, we can keep our focus a little higher and make it more growth oriented. Since we are spending our time and energy, we might as well benefit from it. Let us make this exchange in the spirit of having a true Sat-Sang.




This seems to be the new trick of missionaries, learning some words of the other religion they are trying to destroy. Do you really know what 'satsang' is?



With all due respect, let me reiterate what I said to Atanu; it is for all of us to take a deep breath and try and keep this exchange from being “reactionary” but, keep it more growth oriented. After all, we are not interested in labeling each other but liberating from labeling. My reference to my comment is strictly contextual and was not intended to label any one that way.


Blessings,
[/quote]

With all due respect, since the first time I met you on the hindunet, I haven't seen any growth. I see the same person repeating the same things. But we can keep trying...I guess...

saidevo
22 December 2006, 02:52 AM
Namaste Nirotu,



Therefore, once again for a millionth time, I am not proselytizing. I am interested in one thing that is to grow and evolve spiritually through the spiritual journey while still in this mortal body.


I am NOT accusing you of proselytizing at all, for the simple reason that the extrapolations you are trying to make out of sectarian Christian concepts are such that no missionary would dare to accept or spread them for fear of being stamped a heretic! And I know you would be wary of expressing such Hinduism-based ideas for Christian concepts in any Christian forums you may be member of.

You haven't indicated your religion in your public profile, but because of your arduous support for Christianity and Jesus Christ we take you to be a Christian. You display an in depth knowledge about Hinduism, so we take it that your have switched your religion from Hinduism to Christianity for whatever reasons. And you haven't refuted these perceptions about your religion.

Your spiritual ambitions are laudable. It is only the extrapolation which is contrary to the published official dogma and theology of Christianity that comes in for criticism. I feel you are in the wrong religion which allows you no leeway for your lofty thoughts or practices without deviating from the dictum of a true Christian. And, if you say to hell with the true Christian, I would just be a liberated Christian, why be a Christian at all?



In Scripture, the Holy Spirit has intellect, emotions, and will, and can be grieved. While some describe it as a Force, that is usually how we experience the Spirit and know of the Spirit's presence, but that is not what the Spirit is. As God, the Spirit is cause, and that cause has effect.


1. As Satay has said above, a Holy Spirit cannot have emotions at all. If it is said to possess them, then Christianity has got it all wrong. The only emotion--and it cannot be called an emotion because the feeling arises directly from the heart and has the highest vibration--that God has is LOVE. Here again, the correct Hindu perspective is that God does not HAVE Love but He IS love. God as you know in Hinduism, is Truth, Knowledge, Bliss, Love and Justice and this is the loftiest concept of God.

An angry God who will punish a Christian sinner if he does not repent and correct his ways under the counsel of a church authority, or a revengeful God who will punish a non-Christian with eternal Hell is an emotional God, who is not more than an angel or a Deva, possibly with asuric propensities, so how can this emotional God be a Universal God? Thus, the fault is not with God but with the narrow outlook of the Christian scriptures.

2. If the Holy Spirit is the (first) cause of God and has effect on those it descends on, why is it selective in its 'coming'? Will a church authority admit that this is true of the Holy Spirit and declare that any human being or any Christian, even if he has no faith in the Church, is capable getting the Holy Spirit and be guided by it personally, just as Jesus was guided, his disciples were guided and the church authories are guided now? If they won't, then their concept of God and His Spirit are all wrong, for the simple reason God does not create only Christians nor does He want everyone to be a Christian to get His grace.



These ideologies sprung from various interpretations held by different churches. The Holy Spirit also performs same function among Christians and non-Christians alike...These characteristics can easily be grasped through scriptures.


I am not as sure, because I have not read the Christian scriptures in depth. Can you show an instance, a verse, a saying from Christ, that the Holy Spirit performs its functions impartially with any man irrespective of his religion? If so, why did Jesus call the followers of other religions dogs? (I read to this effect somewhere, I don't remember where, and I am not sure if this is true.)



In fact, the unity in community through trinity is the motto for Christians. You might have seen a US penny that has inscription “E pluribus unum” that refers to “out of many one”. This goal of being one with the Father is not new to Christian faith. To be one is also the Goal in every religion, Monism as well as monotheism. We all know we live in an age of Aquarious.


1. The Latin phrase you have mentioned was the motto of the US Government until 1956, when it was superceded by "In God We Trust", though it is still found on US currencies. The idea of the motto was to integrate the 13 independent colonies into one united country. The American society is pluralistic in nature and the idea was to impose the one feeling that everyone is an American.

It is a motto meant to evoke patriotism alright, but notice the words carefully: "Out of many, one" (e = out of, from; pluribus= many; unum = one). Is it the same phrase as "unity in diversity" attributed of Bharat and Hinduism? Certainly not. Because, the second phrase recognizes diversity and preserves it calling at the same time for unity and harmony with the feeling that everyone is an Indian first. What is the real meaning of the phrase "out of many, one"? Does it not imply making many into one, destroying the individual characteristics of the many? In the wake of the recent mischief done by the US government for Hinduism in the children's textbooks, in California, it is not surprising that the motto smacks of missionary zeal.

2. I hope in this Age of Aquarius that portends major changes, that either Christianity comes out of its Churchianity notions as you would like it to, or perish, along with Islam, as Francois Gautier forsees for Islam.

3. You say, "the unity in community through trinity is the motto for Christians." The Christians motto of unity in community is not same as the Hindu motto vasudeva kutumbakam (the world is a family). Would a true Christian or an evangelist say it, recognizing the word community as the community of many religions and trinity as also the three major religions of world? My Christian friends in India do say and mean it, because of their Hindu culural origins. But I don't think the Christian community as a whole would say it. If it does sincerely, that all missionary activies would wither away.



Perhaps, we can keep our focus a little higher and make it more growth oriented. Since we are spending our time and energy, we might as well benefit from it. Let us make this exchange in the spirit of having a true Sat-Sang.


All said and done, I do not really understand your purpose in extrapolating the Christian concepts. It is obvious that your perceptions of Christianity are not the official Christian perceptions, so no Hindu can see eye to eye with you. Since you admit repeatedly that your purpose is not spreading the word of Jesus, and since you can never hope Christianity to grow up to your expectations, the only viable spiritual alternative for you is to get out of the rut.

Agnideva
22 December 2006, 11:21 AM
Is the Holy Spirit in Christianity like a person or is it all-pervasive? In other words, is the Holy Spirit limited by time and space?

atanu
22 December 2006, 12:07 PM
Namaste Nirotu,



I am NOT accusing you of proselytizing at all, for the simple reason that the extrapolations you are trying to make out of sectarian Christian concepts are such that no missionary would dare to accept or spread them for fear of being stamped a heretic! And I know you would be wary of expressing such Hinduism-based ideas for Christian concepts in any Christian forums you may be member of.

----------

All said and done, I do not really understand your purpose in extrapolating the Christian concepts. It is obvious that your perceptions of Christianity are not the official Christian perceptions, so no Hindu can see eye to eye with you. Since you admit repeatedly that your purpose is not spreading the word of Jesus, and since you can never hope Christianity to grow up to your expectations, the only viable spiritual alternative for you is to get out of the rut.


Saidevo ji has has possibly identified a genuine issue. Would you like to throw some light Nirotu ji? Not that I have anything against such boundary spanning, in fact I personally feel that God would encourage boundary spanning.

atanu
22 December 2006, 12:22 PM
Dear Saidevo:


------
In Christianity, He is a person equal in every way with God the Father and God the Son. He is considered to be the third member of the Godhead. And all the divine attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.


------

Blessings,

It would then seem that these three have independent existence???????????????

Someone else must then be the independent ONE.

nirotu
22 December 2006, 03:37 PM
I am NOT accusing you of proselytizing at all, for the simple reason that the extrapolations you are trying to make out of sectarian Christian concepts are such that no missionary would dare to accept or spread them for fear of being stamped a heretic! And I know you would be wary of expressing such Hinduism-based ideas for Christian concepts in any Christian forums you may be member of.
Dear Saidevo:
With all due respect, perhaps, you have not read my posts clearly. There is no extrapolation here! My quoting of Jesus fits well with the point I am making. To a person who has not understood His sayings may find it offensive but, nonetheless, they make my point. It is pure coincidence that most of what I say has been the sayings of Jesus.

You haven't indicated your religion in your public profile, but because of your arduous support for Christianity and Jesus Christ we take you to be a Christian. You display an in depth knowledge about Hinduism, so we take it that your have switched your religion from Hinduism to Christianity for whatever reasons. And you haven't refuted these perceptions about your religion.
I am saddened to note that you are so hung up on what platform I stand on. What does it matter what label we wear if a message makes all the more sense than the allegiance? We need to get above labeling people based on their religious persuasion. If that happens, what reason do you hold to believe in anything what one says simply because he is not coming from a platform of your liking? Our allegiance should be based on our sincere desire to seek the truth and not on our emotional attachment to cultural traditions, which forms so called religions. Greatest gift of Ramanuja to the mankind is to rise above this kind of labeling (Namarupa).


Your spiritual ambitions are laudable. It is only the extrapolation which is contrary to the published official dogma and theology of Christianity that comes in for criticism. I feel you are in the wrong religion which allows you no leeway for your lofty thoughts or practices without deviating from the dictum of a true Christian. And, if you say to hell with the true Christian, I would just be a liberated Christian, why be a Christian at all?

All said and done, I do not really understand your purpose in extrapolating the Christian concepts. It is obvious that your perceptions of Christianity are not the official Christian perceptions, so no Hindu can see eye to eye with you. Since you admit repeatedly that your purpose is not spreading the word of Jesus, and since you can never hope Christianity to grow up to your expectations, the only viable spiritual alternative for you is to get out of the rut.

Well friends, once again you have not grasped the essence of my previous e-mails in which I have addressed all these, so called, allegations being made. For the sake of clarity I will once again reemphasize that I am not extrapolating in order to fit a viewpoint into different religions. Instead, I merely, very simplistically quote examples from wherever possible which support essential point I am trying to make. As Ramakrishna Pramahansa often said, “A truly thirsty man will drink a drop of water no matter where it comes from.” He will not question its source or debate about it but rather his act of drinking will quench his thirst.

I may be perceived as heretic from one side and non-sensical on the other. Consider these as my personal views and do not hold up to any institutional doctrinal standards. I would also urge that I admit that we have good thing going in these exchanges (when seen in right light!) but it will be productive only if we keep our focus on the essence and do not get distracted in labels and details.

I have repeated this on several times now. If I see once again that if it is not being understood, I will have no recourse left but “regretfully” withdraw from this forum. I say “regretfully” because I am convinced that such an exchange if kept at a higher level can be a tremendous aid in our own spiritual journey. In summary, let us all look to a coming year as another chance to continue with meaningful exchanges.

Blessings,

jaggin
22 December 2006, 05:03 PM
Is the Holy Spirit in Christianity like a person or is it all-pervasive? In other words, is the Holy Spirit limited by time and space?

God has intelligence and is able to interact with those of His creation that have intelligence. To me that makes Him a person according to the second definition of the word. The first definition of the word is that of a living human being and only Jesus fulfills that criteria. God is all pervasive but His intelligence is not dissolute.

The Paraclete (often referred to as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost) is God in control of those who invite him to take control. In Christianity this is usually done by asking Jesus to be Lord and Savior.

To answer an earlier question: The spirit of God is available to everyone. The example of this is Abraham who was not Islamic, Christian or Jewish.

jaggin
22 December 2006, 05:10 PM
namaste jaggin,

If God is the father of us and created us how can our spirits be unholy?

That is to ask, "How can something unholy come out of that which is inherently Holy?"

or are you saying that when God created us we were holy but then something made our spirits unholy, something that is more powerful than God?

:headscratch:

It would be no fun to answer your question and I wouldn't learn anything.

Sooooo! What does Hinduism say is the origen of all things and evil?

saidevo
22 December 2006, 09:38 PM
Namaste Nirotu.



We need to get above labeling people based on their religious persuasion. ... Our allegiance should be based on our sincere desire to seek the truth and not on our emotional attachment to cultural traditions, which forms so called religions.


1. Alright. Hereafter, don't put words into the mouth of Jesus or his apostles with your personal opinions. Try to talk in a multi-religious, Theosophical way, giving the credit where it is due. When you need to quote or extrapolate, be realistic, comparative and indicate actual references in the Christian scriptures, so it can be verified and vetted.

For example, when you talk about the Holy Spirit, don't try to hide the shortcomings of its official Christian version, and express only your interpretation and opinion of it. This is chiefly what I call extrapolation. Remember, Hindus like me are not much familiar with Christian scriptures though we know about their shortcomings, contradictions and prejudices. So, when you say that the Holy Spirit of Christianity is nothing short of its true meaning or that Jesus said that it 'comes' to everyone (you are yet to quote where he said it) irrespective of his religion, I might take your words for granted and mistake Christians for the shortcomings and belligerence of Christianity!

It is tedious and a waste of time for me to search the Net and try to vet the Christian truths you state so profusely. And if you hide an official version of a truth and give a false, rosy picture about it, it is felt here as an enticement, and that makes you suspicious of proselytizing.

Whenever you express what you feel is a spiritual truth, say that it so in Christianity, this is what Jesus said, this is how it is in Hinduism or in any other religion you are comparing--and, maybe, this is as it should be.

After all, Christianity, though it is the largest religion today, has been around only for a couple of thousand years. There were many rich religious and cultural traditios (grouped as the ancient wisdom in Theosophy) before Christianity, and Sanatana Dharma has been around since time immemorial. And Christianity, as everyone knows well and truly, is only a haphazard hodgepodge of other faiths and traditions. Even Christmas is not from its own tradition. Its rituals have been proved to be based on paganism that it seeks to destroy. Its theology is based on Judaism and Buddhism. And on top of everything, its prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is fading into mythology!

Compare this to the Hindu Dharma, where we have complete freedom. Notice and learn from the discussions in this forum about how Hindus freely discuss gods, concepts and traditions, sparing nothing, taking only the Vedas and Upanishads as the most authentic scriptures of Hinduism. Unfortunately, your Bible does not even remotely qualify for comparison with Vedas, so don't try to compare them.



It is pure coincidence that most of what I say has been the sayings of Jesus.


Be wary, though. Jesus is increasingly becoming a mythological figure, whereas you are a real, living human being.



What does it matter what label we wear if a message makes all the more sense than the allegiance? We need to get above labeling people based on their religious persuasion.


Don't underestimate the gift of religion. Religion is a legacy of previous births and karma, though a soul is free to switch it. A soul that spiritually outgrows the teachings of a religion might adopt another religion in its journey to salvation. Every human being is born into a religion. Even avatars are not exceptions.

The motto of Theosophy is "There is No Religion Higher than Truth." But Theosophy does not negate religion. It is aware of, and appreciates that the Truth can be sought only through a religion.

You might quote Karl Marx and say that religion is an opium, but where is his communism today? And opium and caffeine are the most consumed substances in today's world!

A rocket cannot sour into the lofty skies without a platform. A software cannot roam the world in cyberspace without the platform of an operating system. And this world, you and I are nothing without labels, form or name.



As Ramakrishna Pramahansa often said, “A truly thirsty man will drink a drop of water no matter where it comes from.” He will not question its source or debate about it but rather his act of drinking will quench his thirst.


Ramakrishna was a God-intoxicated soul, whereas you and I are mere mortals. We are thirsty and want to drink water from whichever source it comes from, so long it is not contended that my source is the most genuine, others are like hell and that water should issue only through my source.

Weigh this quote against what Swami Vivekananda said: that if one Hindu is converted by the missionaries it does not just mean a loss of one member of Hiduism but an increase in the number of the enemies of Hinduism.

Would you pit Swami Vivekananda against his Guru and say that the disciple was less self-realized than the Guru?



I may be perceived as heretic from one side and non-sensical on the other.


No, we Hindus would never do it. Though you may need to be wary of your Christian brethren and the church authorities and perhaps be thankful that these are not the days of Inquisition.



I have repeated this on several times now. If I see once again that if it is not being understood, I will have no recourse left but “regretfully” withdraw from this forum. I say “regretfully” because I am convinced that such an exchange if kept at a higher level can be a tremendous aid in our own spiritual journey. In summary, let us all look to a coming year as another chance to continue with meaningful exchanges.


No no, we don't want you to withdraw from this forum. For any meaningful exchanges, we only need you to quote the true colors of your Christian truths and concepts and recognize their shortcomings when you compare them for possible correspondences in Sanatana Dharma.

satay
22 December 2006, 11:56 PM
namaste,


It is pure coincidence that most of what I say has been the sayings of Jesus.

Come now nirotuji, this is not fair. Do you really think that we idol worshipper hindus are so stupid to believe this.

One only need to go to the hindunet to read your posts where you declared that 'bible is an inerrant word of god' for you in your first few posts in the thread titled 'Concept of GOD in Hinduism'. When I requested you to drop your bible and challenged a discussion on concept of God without the chains of dogma you politely declined by saying that as a christian you could not do that because if you did that you would be considered a heretic by your brethern.

And now you say this...amazing really...

You set a high standard by requesting that all of us should not be emotionally addicted to our culture and traditions, yet you show your addiction to jesus and bible in every post of yours when you quote and when you claim that jesus was a born jnani. How about setting an example by dropping your addictions first?

And like saidevo, I request that you continue to share your opinions with us even if you think that you are not really a true christian as per christian dogma.

satay
23 December 2006, 12:05 AM
Sooooo! What does Hinduism say is the origen of all things and evil?

namaste jaggin,
Are you saying that you can not answer my questions about holy spirit and god etc. from the christian perspective? I do not understand why christianity needs hinduism's help here to provide answers to their dogma.

You may post your questions re what does hinduism say about origin etc. in another forum on HDF but my questions to you were based on your previous post where you gave the christian perspective of holy spirit so let's focus on that perspective.

Your profile shows that you are almost the double in age to me. In india a person of your age is considered a wise man without a question by the younger men. So keeping with that tradition, you have my utmost respect and I assume that you are atleast two times smarter and two times more intelligent than me.

So I will ask my questions again...
If God is the father of us and created us how can our spirits be unholy?

That is to ask, "How can something unholy come out of that which is inherently Holy?"

or are you saying that when God created us we were holy but then something made our spirits unholy, something that is more powerful than God?

Hint: Answers to these questions should have nothing to do with what hinduism says or doesn't say.

Agnideva
23 December 2006, 11:53 AM
Namaste Jaggin,


God has intelligence and is able to interact with those of His creation that have intelligence. To me that makes Him a person according to the second definition of the word. The first definition of the word is that of a living human being and only Jesus fulfills that criteria. God is all pervasive but His intelligence is not dissolute.
If you argue that God is a person, how can you argue that He is all-pervasive? Or are you speaking of a panentheistic God? I thought Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) does not agree with panentheism. And if you say God is all-pervasive, doesn’t that also mean that God is within us and within everything?

To answer an earlier question: The spirit of God is available to everyone. The example of this is Abraham who was not Islamic, Christian or Jewish. So does that mean one need not practice any of these faiths to find God?

Regards,
A.

atanu
23 December 2006, 04:04 PM
God has intelligence and is able to interact with those of His creation that have intelligence. ----.

Interesting. How you came by this piece of knowledge? It seems that He is not able to interact in certain cases?

Eh?

nirotu
23 December 2006, 09:51 PM
For example, when you talk about the Holy Spirit, don't try to hide the shortcomings of its official Christian version, and express only your interpretation and opinion of it. This is chiefly what I call extrapolation. Remember, Hindus like me are not much familiar with Christian scriptures though we know about their shortcomings, contradictions and prejudices. So, when you say that the Holy Spirit of Christianity is nothing short of its true meaning or that Jesus said that it 'comes' to everyone (you are yet to quote where he said it) irrespective of his religion, I might take your words for granted and mistake Christians for the shortcomings and belligerence of Christianity!


Dear Saidevo:
Why do you compare with an official Christian version? Which official version you want to compare with, as there are many offices and denominations? Instead, compare with the scripture as it says in the Bible.

I will admit one thing and agree with you regarding my lack of clarification of my views. I shall be mindful of that. Let me, for now, clarify issues you raise with “holy Spirit”. Understanding the OT terms “Holy Spirit” and “the Spirit of God (or the LORD)” and the theology associated with them depends on grasping the significance of the fact that, in about 40% of its occurrences, the Hebrew word “spirit” (ruakh) basically means “wind or breath,” not “spirit.” The NT word (pneuma) is also used in this way on occasion. And when these Hebrew and Greek words mean “spirit,” the reference is often to the human “spirit.” (Bible.Org)

Furthermore, certain passages draw out the correspondence between the Spirit of God and the human spirit, and the importance of God’s work through this correspondence (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:10-12). The Spirit of God is the person of God that vivifies the spirit of people to God (Ezek 37; Rom 8:16).

While it is true that the Holy Spirit did all of these things for both Old and New Testament believers, so in this sense the Holy Spirit not only indwells NT believers, but also did something similar in the lives of OT believers. However, the Bible never says it is “ONLY” accessible to Believers. While it is perceived to give an impression that it is “only” to those who believe, perhaps, when one digs deeper, it may reveal other functions among all, not necessarily restricted to believers.

People somehow take it to mean it for believers “ONLY”, when infact, there is no mention of “Only” in the Bible. Also, one should not extrapolate its meaning to infer Holy-Spirit will not come to un-believers either. On the contrary, I like to believe that “the spirit of God referred to in the Bible alludes to His energy (Isa 40:13; Zech 4:6).” Accordingly, it is recognized that “the divine origin of the Spirit” is implied by the term “His (the Lord’s) spirit of holiness.” Yet this does not mean that the Holy Spirit was regarded as a hypostasis distinct from the divine presence. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit is a mode of the one and only God’s self-expression in word and action. This I notice right in the beginning of the Bible in Genesis (1.2), “. . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” He has equally participated in the creative process. Therefore, for a Christian, since God is formless “Spirit”, which is Holy and representing the Absolute Truth, worshipping Him in spirit and truth as a reasonable belief is not incorrect. Because, implicit in all this, the term “Holy-Spirit” is synonymous with God in its very essence. Therefore, for Christians, the revelatory knowledge of God the Father, God the Son and The Holy-Spirit as being one in essence and nature but revealed in three distinct persons has been the foundation of their faith.

I hope this is helpful in understanding the knowledge of the “Holy-Spirit” from a Christian perspective.

Blessings

nirotu
23 December 2006, 09:55 PM
Ramakrishna was a God-intoxicated soul, whereas you and I are mere mortals. We are thirsty and want to drink water from whichever source it comes from, so long it is not contended that my source is the most genuine, others are like hell and that water should issue only through my source.
I agree with you on this and wish it were true. Saidevo, yes we are not Ramakrishna Paramahansa but we are striving to achieve that state through this journey.


Weigh this quote against what Swami Vivekananda said: that if one Hindu is converted by the missionaries it does not just mean a loss of one member of Hiduism but an increase in the number of the enemies of Hinduism.

Would you pit Swami Vivekananda against his Guru and say that the disciple was less self-realized than the Guru?

This has no bearing on the point I made earlier. You are going in a tangent here. While I do agree with you on what Vivekananda says here, notice, however, the careful choice of his words. He may be against Christianity as brought forth by so-called Christians, and rightfully so, but he is not against the teachings of Christ. While it may be true that the actions of some Christians are repulsive and against the truth preached by Christ, that in and of itself does not negate Christ and His Truth.

Perhaps, I should interest you further in to Vivekananda’s mind. If you ever get a chance, please read “Vivekananda Sahitya Sarvaswam (Complete works of Swamy Vivekananda), a comprehensive and detailed book that runs into seven volumes, comprising his works spanning a period of 9 years, commencing with the All Religious Convention held in Chicago, USA in 1893. Perhaps, that will illuminate his intense intimacy with Christ.

Here are some excerpts:

“It seems that almost all the folks in the world know the symbol of a man nailed to the cross, symbol of the savior of the world.” (Vol 1, P.73)

“Christ was selfless, still he was crucified. It is true. But His selflessness is the driving force to a great achievement, that millions of human lives were blessed with contentment and fulfillment.” (Vol 1, P.134)

“While adoring Christ, I will adore him the way He likes best. I like to express my obeisance to him not by enjoying feast on His birthday, but by prayer and fasting” (Vol IV, P.330)

“When Christ touches, man’s soul transforms thoroughly. He gets metamorphosed like Christ Himself. His whole life turns spiritual. From all the pores of his body spiritual power will emanate.” (Vol IV, P.331)

“Jesus- the incarnation of God on earth, who does not forget His divine strength and power. He can help us. There is no flaw in Him. He is absolute.” (Vol VI, P.318)

“Even if all the books and Apostles depart, this word of God (Verse) alone would sustain mankind. This purity of heart can invoke the vision of God. This is the subject of universal faith.” (Vol VI, P.424). Here, Swamy Vivekananda was referring to (Matthew 5:8,”Happy are the pure in heart, they will see God”

. and I can go on, but you get the message.

Dear Saidevo, while I do agree that the Churches and various denominations have all, to some extent, perverted the Gospel to make it more “seeker friendly”, it has pushed away many who truly believe in the truth provided in the Bible. While, I may appear to you as extrapolating, I find the viewpoint I portray to be the truth (at least to me), albeit different than most churches like to preach. Having said that, let me also confess, I may not know the ultimate truth in every thing either. There is “intended meaning” and “implied meaning” and these have grossly departed from each other over the years due to mis-interpretations. It is somewhat like “class systems” in Hinduism that has been grossly mis-interpreted and mis-used over the years due to our own ignorance, when the intended meaning in the scripture was altogether different.

If you consider that the knowledge is purest at the source, our discussion should be related to the source that is scriptural truth and not institutional version of that truth. There are times, one might find agreement, which is well and good but holding institutional version to be the gold-standard to compare with what I say, is unfair!

Blessings,

saidevo
24 December 2006, 01:05 AM
Namaste nirotu,

Thank you for your clarifications. I need some time to think over and digest the points in your reply. Since you want to be above the label of a religion, I still do not understand why you need to hang on to the lapels of Jesus. What exactly is your aim in your seeking the Truth via the Christian scriptures? Is it any one or more of the following or is it something else?

1. That the scripture of Christianity are as perfect and complete as those of Sanatana Dharma. That Jesus Christ, being an avatar of God, is the equivalent of Vishnu in the Hindu Trinity as the son or first manifestion of Brahman the One God.

2. That scriptural Christianity is compatible with Sanatana Dharma, which means that Christianity, being younger in age, is a subset of Hinduism and is derived from it.

3. That the scriptures of Christianity are more elaborate and thus complementary to those of Hinduism. They contain what Hinduism misses for the ultimate salvation of a human being.

4. That your aim is more personal in nature: having left Hinduism and chosen Christianity as your path, you need to seek solace in the arms of the Christian scriptures, so you would rather believe that they are in no way different or less complete than the Hindu scriptures, in order to compensate for your nostalgia. When many discerning Christians in the West are fed up with their faith and seek spiritual pastures elsewhere, especially in Hinduism, or have a dual religious and spiritual membership, your strong adherence, personal preference and conviction to scriptural Christianity is rather surprising. Your 'discoveries' and analyses of Christian scriptures are best apprised among your own Christian brethren, which could minimize the exodus from Christianity.

In the thread "Christianity is Simpler", I have posted Sri Yukteswar's explanation of the story of Adam and Eve (post #15). You might find it helpful.

Sanatana Dharma, as you are well aware, provides the paths of Karma, Bhakti and Yoga for a seeker, but exhorts him as he progresses, to raise above all deeds, names, forms, rituals and even the knowledge of its scriptures and seek only the Self for the ultimate liberation. Personally, I don't think the Semitic religions will ever mellow or mature to allow their followers this kind of personal, spiritual freedom.

satay
25 December 2006, 12:33 AM
namaste nirotu,
Here are some more of Vivek's sayings that I find interesting:

I hate this world, this dream, this horrible nightmare, with its churches and chicaneries, its books and blackguardisms, its fair faces and false hearts, its howling righteousness on the surface and utter hollowness beneath, and, above all, its sanctified shopkeeping

No authority can save us, no beliefs. If there is a God, all can find Him. No one needs to be told it is warm; all can discover it for themselves. So it should be with God. He should be a fact in the consciousness of every person.

Out of purity and silence comes the word of power.

Pray all the time, read all the scriptures in the world, and worship all the gods there are …[but] unless you realize the Self (atman), there is no freedom.

The essence of Vedanta is that there is but one Being and that every soul is that Being in full, not a part of that Being.

The essential thing in religion is making the heart pure; the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, but only the pure in heart can see the King. While we think of the world, it is only the world for us; but let us come to it with the feeling that the world is God, and we shall have God.

There is one thing to be remembered: that the assertion—I am God—cannot be made with regard to the sense-world.

You are all Gods!

Also of interest is the following link http://www.vedanta.com/christ.html

As a matter of fact, you will only find hindu scholars praising jesus baba and no where I have read any scholar putting him down. The reason for this is our scripture (Rig veda):

AA NO BHADRAH
KRATAVO YANTU VISHWATAH

Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.

Having said that though, most of us still fail to see what jesus baba has to offer that is so special and that has not been offered by the hindu sages.



If you consider that the knowledge is purest at the source, our discussion should be related to the source that is scriptural truth and not institutional version of that truth.


Knowledge maybe purest at the source but first of all what is that source? In this case, you are saying it is scripture so accepting that for a moment, how is 'your' version or the understanding of scripture better than the insitutional version?

The fact of the matter is that you can not 'get' the knowledge from a scripture on your own...this is why help of a realized guru is needed.



There are times, one might find agreement, which is well and good but holding institutional version to be the gold-standard to compare with what I say, is unfair!

Blessings,

Is it fair to say that your version of understanding of scripture is the Gold standard? How so?

nirotu
25 December 2006, 01:47 PM
Dear Satay:
Let me take this opportunity to wish you and others a very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy and a prosperous New Year.

I read your post on Vivekananda. Yes, he does seem to agree with Christ, although, disagrees with Christians and their attitude. I agree with him. Looking further in to the link you provided gives us yet another perspective that he holds: http://www.vedanta.com/christ.html

And I quote:

But there is something behind it, something we want to imitate. To tell a lie, you have to imitate a truth, and that truth is a fact. You cannot imitate that which never existed. You cannot imitate that which you never perceived. But there must have been a nucleus, a tremendous power that came down, a marvelous manifestation of spiritual power--and of that we are speaking. It stands there.
Therefore, we are not afraid of all the criticisms of the scholars. If I, as an Oriental, have to worship Jesus of Nazareth, there is only one way left to me, that is, to worship him as God and nothing else. Have we no right to worship him in that way, do you mean to say? If we bring him down to our own level and simply pay him a little respect as a great man, why should we worship at all?


Yet, in the same post he says and I quote:


Let us, therefore, find God not only in Jesus of Nazareth, but in all the great Ones that have preceded him, in all that came after him, and all that are yet to come. Our worship is unbounded and free. They are all manifestations of the same Infinite God. They are all pure and unselfish; they struggled and gave up their lives for us, poor human beings. They each and all suffer vicarious atonement for every one of us, and also for all that are to come hereafter.

It makes one wonder about what I quoted earlier that treats Jesus Chrsit as the absolute from his own writings! While, I am no authority in Vivekananda’s philosophy, for me it is quite puzzling to see two different approaches. I am sure there is a rational explanation.

The fact of the matter is that you can not 'get' the knowledge from a scripture on your own...this is why help of a realized guru is needed.

I beg to differ. While Guru may be helpful in guiding, he is not necessary in ones evolution. Unless the seeker energetically pursues, Guru is also helpless in leading that person. I believe, for a soul to evolve there is no need of a guru. Next time, when you take a walk in your garden notice a beautiful rose blooming and ask yourself this; did that rose need a guru to bloom? No. All it needed was the grace of God to bloom and in response all it had to do was to enjoy the nutrients provided in nature to nurture. Similarly, our soul can bloom or evolve without a Guru. All it needs is the grace of God!


Is it fair to say that your version of understanding of scripture is the Gold standard? How so?

No! nowhere have I claimed to know everything! Let me highlight what I said to Saidevo.


Dear Saidevo, while I do agree that the Churches and various denominations have all, to some extent, perverted the Gospel to make it more “seeker friendly”, it has pushed away many who truly believe in the truth provided in the Bible. While, I may appear to you as extrapolating, I find the viewpoint I portray to be the truth (at least to me), albeit different than most churches like to preach. Having said that, let me also confess, I may not know the ultimate truth in every thing either. There is “intended meaning” and “implied meaning” and these have grossly departed from each other over the years due to mis-interpretations. It is somewhat like “class systems” in Hinduism that has been grossly mis-interpreted and mis-used over the years due to our own ignorance, when the intended meaning in the scripture was altogether different.

All I am saying is that even institutional version may have been corrupt due to tradition of misrepresentation and may not adhere to the truth in scriptures. Thus, when I quote a verse, it is primarily from either Greek or its nearest equivalent in English (KJV) source. Rather than put my own spin to a verse, I like it best leaving at its meaning as it speaks to me. As I said earlier, you may not take my word, as I may not have all the answers either!!

Blessings,

nirotu
25 December 2006, 04:15 PM
Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your note. Appreciate your asking. I will respond as I have some other work that came along.

Let me wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.

Blessings,

satay
25 December 2006, 10:38 PM
namaste nirotu,
Thank you for the wishes. A very merry christmas to you and your family also. And a great, happy new year full of peace.

replying to your post in a couple of days...

saidevo
26 December 2006, 07:46 AM
Namaste nirotu,


Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your note. Appreciate your asking. I will respond as I have some other work that came along.

Let me wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.
Blessings,

I am glad that you have not mistaken my words about a personal reason. I look forward to a mutally rewarding discussion from you.

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, 2007 CE. May Christ bless you with prosperity in the year that is very near.

satay
27 December 2006, 02:32 PM
namaste Nirotu,




I read your post on Vivekananda. Yes, he does seem to agree with Christ, although, disagrees with Christians and their attitude. I agree with him. Looking further in to the link you provided gives us yet another perspective that he holds: http://www.vedanta.com/christ.html

It makes one wonder about what I quoted earlier that treats Jesus Chrsit as the absolute from his own writings! While, I am no authority in Vivekananda’s philosophy, for me it is quite puzzling to see two different approaches. I am sure there is a rational explanation.


I am not an expert on anything either, however, suffice it to say that Narendranath Datta aka vivekanada probably customized his message and philosophy depending on the audience he was addressing at the time. This, as you know, is a common practice among all sages, dare I say, including jesus of Nazareth.

With respect to Jesus, as I said earlier, no hindu sage that I know of has rejected jesus. Most Hindus as you know have no trouble accepting him as a great and even a realized sage.







The fact of the matter is that you can not 'get' the knowledge from a scripture on your own...this is why help of a realized guru is needed.



I beg to differ. While Guru may be helpful in guiding, he is not necessary in ones evolution.



I see what you are saying, however, as you can imagine, I do not agree with your viewpoint. In my opinion, Guru is an absolute necessity. This is similar to the concept of a ‘spiritual father’ in the Christian realm.


Unless the seeker energetically pursues, Guru is also helpless in leading that person.


Agreed, however, a great guru creates situations for the seeker that are customized for that seeker and light a spark of enthusiasm.



I believe, for a soul to evolve there is no need of a guru.


I do not agree with this. Perhaps the term Guru is confusing. When we speak of Guru, most often people think of Hindu sages in saffron clothes with shaved heads. Though that may be a physical representation of a Guru, A guru does not necessarily have to be a human being. In fact, a guru could be the scripture itself!



Next time, when you take a walk in your garden notice a beautiful rose blooming and ask yourself this; did that rose need a guru to bloom? No.
All it needed was the grace of God to bloom and in response all it had to do was to enjoy the nutrients provided in nature to nurture. Similarly, our soul can bloom or evolve without a Guru. All it needs is the grace of God!


I understand your point about grace; however, I think you maybe contradicting yourself. Are you implying that once grace of God is there, the seeker does not have to pursue energetically? On the other hand, are you saying that once grace of God has been received that the seeker pursues energetically automatically without anyone’s help?

Perhaps it would help if I gave you a little background of my comment on the necessity of a Guru.

In case of a flower, yes, it may not need human intervention but in our case? Since the moment a human child is born, he or she is dependent on other humans for his or her survival. Have you noticed this extreme dependency for our survival?

No other animal’s child is so much dependent. What is a child without his or her parents and society? A newborn human child will surely die almost immediately if there is no one to take care of him.

We need a human mother to nurture us she is our first guru!

Just as other humans are needed to nurture the body of a human child so are other humans needed to nurture the soul of the child. Consequently, only humans are the ones that invented ‘religions’ (topic for another thread).
Granted the grace of God has to be there but a Guru is needed to guide the seeker.

In addition, in the absence of a human guru as saidevo has said earlier, God himself acts as a Guru. Surely, if we open our hearts we cannot neglect the grace of Shiva and his kind nature. He himself acts as the Guru since he is the Jagad Guru!

Moreover, who is Jesus of Nazareth to you if not a Guru? Who are the saints or apostles in the Christian realm if not your gurus?

If all you need is grace of God to bloom what purpose is of Jesus to you? Why do you need a mediator between yourself and God? Why do you hang your faith on him? You do because you know that even though grace of God is there for you, you can not by yourself get salvation and thus need a guide and that guide in your case is Jesus.

If you do not need a guru then you should not depend on Jesus for your (spiritual) blossoming.

A guru’s role is to show us the true meaning of the scripture as well as to transcend us to a higher level of consciousness where we rise above the scripture, and where the study of scripture does not remain an intellectual exercise but becomes an actual realization of Sat i.e. Truth.

Outside of our spiritual pursuits, don’t we all also have Gurus in other areas of our lives? In business, often we learn from a superior, in that case he or she becomes our Guru.




All I am saying is that even institutional version may have been corrupt due to tradition of misrepresentation and may not adhere to the truth in scriptures.


Agreed. In fact, I just read a piece on the great Christian reformer Martin Luther (1483-1586). I am sure you are familiar with his works. The reason why I brought his name up is support your point that yes, the institutional version and practices could be corrupt and in fact, could be against the teachings of scripture but at the same time there are those that stand up and argue to present the true meaning of scripture…as you are trying to do.

yajvan
29 December 2006, 11:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

namaste Nirotu,
Perhaps the term Guru is confusing. When we speak of Guru, most often people think of Hindu sages in saffron clothes with shaved heads. Though that may be a physical representation of a Guru, A guru does not necessarily have to be a human being. In fact, a guru could be the scripture itself!

Namaste,

Guru - gu darkness or night + ru or removal there of.... the guru is the dispeller of darkness. Some use 'gr' and this is to invoke praise.
some even suggeest 'gu' to be remover of darkness + 'ru' bestower of light.
In the Panini sutras - gu samvarane and ru himsane ( consealment then its annulment)

Lets take a look at 4 or 5 guru's:
1. Chetah-guru
Some say "the guru is within you" - this is absolutely true. This is called the Chetah-guru. S/he is the indwelling form of Parama-atma Or Supreme Atman . Many attribute this to the SELF/Atman - in the Gita, Keshava is the Great Guru ( Guru-deva) and the Parama-atma or Brahman (Absolute) that visited this earth and taught Arjuna the great science of the SELF.
Chetah comes from "cit" to perceive , observe, know" and is one of the 3 ultimate realities of Vedanta, Sat-Cit-Ananda.
2. Diksha guru
The Diksha guru is one God Realized being who can deliver initiation to the sisya ( student) or Sadhu ( seeker). Diksha's word construction is "da" or to give + "ksi" or to destroy . Obviously , to destroy ignorance of not knowing SELF. The verb base is "diks" "to consecrate , coming from "daks" or to grow or increase.
3. Rtvic guru
This guru is subordinate to the Diksha guru - and the person can initiate on behalf of the Diksha Guru ( kinda like a TM teacher).
4. Siksha guru
Siksha or "instruction" guru, teaches various categories of knowledge:
A. Para-vidya or higher/greater understanding - the Ved, the difference between self and SELF, between matter and spirit; A Maharshi and a Brahmarishi fall into this class, as highly evolved Pundits and gurus.
B. Apara-vidya or "inferior" knowledge that serves the purpose of understanding/working and action on material things (some call this mundane knowledge) to accomplish actions, or to shape ones desires into material gain. Some call the difference of these two Para vida vs. Apara vidya - as the difference of focus on Sat or truth and Asat or non-truth.
5. Guru-devata (Jyotish orientation)
The Guru-devata found in the Graha's ( graha means that which binds, we know them as The planets). This Graha (as guru) is ones birth chart. The "natural" guru devata is known as Jupiter and is called guru.
This graha in ones chart is the source of knowledge and inspiration for the native. You can see this Guru-devata by looking for the Planet with the 3rd highest degree advancement in a sign. This Graha is then looked at in different chart division's and signs. As this graha transits different houses ( rasi's) during different periods (dasa's) in ones life, the individual will be introduced to various guru's in ones life [ this has been my experience].
This is also driven by a dasa period called the Drig dasa - as one skilled looking at a chart ( a trained Jyotisha) can outline The most probable time one will be introduced to various gurus.
6. Gururbrahmaa gururvishnurgururdevo maheshwarah;
Guruh saakshaat param brahma tasmai shree gurave namah.
Guru is the creator (Brahma); Guru is the preserver (Vishnu); Guru is the destroyer (Maheshvara); Guru is verily the Supreme Absolute. To that Guru we prostrate.




Pranams,
Shataayu Bhavah...May you live 100 years.

nirotu
29 December 2006, 10:22 PM
Since you want to be above the label of a religion, I still do not understand why you need to hang on to the lapels of Jesus. What exactly is your aim in your seeking the Truth via the Christian scriptures? Is it any one or more of the following or is it something else?

1. That the scripture of Christianity are as perfect and complete as those of Sanatana Dharma. That Jesus Christ, being an avatar of God, is the equivalent of Vishnu in the Hindu Trinity as the son or first manifestion of Brahman the One God.

2. That scriptural Christianity is compatible with Sanatana Dharma, which means that Christianity, being younger in age, is a subset of Hinduism and is derived from it.

3. That the scriptures of Christianity are more elaborate and thus complementary to those of Hinduism. They contain what Hinduism misses for the ultimate salvation of a human being.

4. That your aim is more personal in nature: having left Hinduism and chosen Christianity as your path, you need to seek solace in the arms of the Christian scriptures, so you would rather believe that they are in no way different or less complete than the Hindu scriptures, in order to compensate for your nostalgia. When many discerning Christians in the West are fed up with their faith and seek spiritual pastures elsewhere, especially in Hinduism, or have a dual religious and spiritual membership, your strong adherence, personal preference and conviction to scriptural Christianity is rather surprising. Your 'discoveries' and analyses of Christian scriptures are best apprised among your own Christian brethren, which could minimize the exodus from Christianity.

My dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your note. You have raised rather probing questions. As I sat down thinking how to respond, suddenly I felt I knew the answer as my reason was riding the horse!

Rather than answer each allegation, I find it more appropriate to summarize what I feel about all these. I hope my response is in general and not against any one person.

The issues or the problems here are not so much of my adhering to this or that religion as much as one’s not being able to transcend the lapels of institutionalized religion! Because, if you are able to do so, you will see clearly, I am addressing fundamental spiritual truth that is universal and has an appeal from people of all walks of faith. So, from time to time, I tend to do what you might call “boundary spanning” by quoting different scriptures. However, if you look back to all of my postings, I have quoted from various scriptures at all times to make a point. I have always maintained that it is coincidence that you find me quoting Jesus excessively. But remember, the nature of points we have been discussing - “the initial step of journey”, “trusting grace”, “surrender to grace”, “child like faith” are best embodied in the sayings of Jesus Christ. It is my personal opinion that Jesus’ insight is expressive of a timeless spiritual fact. Many times, I find Church or institutional teachings are quite different and at times contradictory, because what the theologians say of it are afterthoughts and interpretations. Therefore, my message seems more dominated with Jesus’ sayings because His quotes are best metaphors for my point that transcends confines of Churches and creeds.

Having said that, however, my goal is and will remain in the way of evolving in one’s spiritual journey. In my journey I find the message of Christ more appealing, clear and pointed in the right direction for me (may be it is a call of the soul in my case).

I have great respect and reverence for sages and Gurus because of their high aspirations, noble goal and efforts that are sincere. I find the need to remind myself and others to get out of such a mindset and approach the whole quest with a “childlike” innocence. It is not the label to a religion but the truth of the bond with the father, as in the case of a child, is important. When we look this way, we rise above labeling. It is for that reason, all my posts were directed to such universal topics to help our personal and collective spiritual journey and growth. There is lot more to discuss where theists can collectively participate towards the common goal regardless of religious bias.

Finally, I like to end by reiterating a note that I made earlier from Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, “ a truly thirsty seeker will drink a drop of water no matter where its source is from”. While you may have been concerned with the nature of the source, I have been enjoying and quenching my thirst regardless of religious label. Therefore, how about at the turn of the New Year we try and convert this exchange with that of “a drop of water”, which surely along with helping spiritual growth also help with our spiritual thirst.

Dear Saidevo, I hope in my response you will find answers you are looking for. Also, I hope this is not taken to mean any personal attack on anyone. If so, it is unintentional and I am deeply sorry.

Blessings,

jaggin
03 January 2007, 06:47 AM
It would then seem that these three have independent existence???????????????

Someone else must then be the independent ONE.

Although there are groups of Christians who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be central to Christianity, I am not one of them.

Even those who hold to this doctrine don't believe there are independent gods but hold to some strange belief that somehow three persons can be only one God. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their view is totally illogical or that Biblical Scripture runs contrary to what they say.

What is clear from the Bible is that there are two figures of persons: the Father and Son but the reality is that there is only one Spirit - Ephesians 4:4. The Paraclete (Holy Spirit) is added as an afterthought because God always acts in a personal way and no less so as the Paraclete.

If you think about reincarnation it might help. If you were a man in one life a woman in another and a dwarf in another it would appear that you were three persons but spiritually you would have only one personal identity.

atanu
05 January 2007, 09:53 AM
----The Paraclete (Holy Spirit) is added as an afterthought because God always acts in a personal way and no less so as the Paraclete.

If you think about reincarnation it might help. If you were a man in one life a woman in another and a dwarf in another it would appear that you were three persons but spiritually you would have only one personal identity.


Thanks Jaggin,

I would also say that ---- Paraclete remains paraclete while acting personally as God and the Universe.

Om Jeshua Om Shivaayya

jaggin
14 May 2007, 12:21 PM
Thanks Jaggin,

I would also say that ---- Paraclete remains paraclete while acting personally as God and the Universe.

Om Jeshua Om Shivaayya

Exactly. I had to explain that to my wife because not understanding the omnipresence of God wondered who was running the Universe while God was in Jesus. I am not sure that she had any concept of God living in any believer who allowed Him to be Lord.

I prefer the term Paraclete because Holy Spirit is the essential nature of the Father and Jesus as well.