Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: I and My Father are One

  1. #11
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste.

    Let us check the English-translated verses of the Bible to see if the expression "one and the same" occurs anywhere and then try to compare the meaning given to them with the Advaitic meaning sought to be read here in the expression "I and my Father are one".

    Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/ (target expression underlined):

    Genesis 41:25
    New International Version
    Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, "The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do.

    King James Version
    And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

    Genesis 41:26
    New International Version
    The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream.

    King James Version
    The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.

    Numbers 15:29
    New International Version
    One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

    King James Version
    Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

    Romans 9:10
    New International Version
    Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.

    King James Version
    And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
    Let us notice that the King James Version uses only the word 'one' instead of the expression "one and the same" in all the above quotes. Let us also note that all the quotes refer to 'wordly' (as against 'spiritual') affairs.

    Now, this is interesting:

    1 Corinthians 12:11
    New International Version
    All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

    King James Version
    12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
    Let us notice that the KJV uses the word "selfsame" for this last quote, which refers to the 'Spirit'. Webster's New World Dictionary gives the meaning of this word as: 'exactly the same; identical; (the) very same'.

    Now, this is the translation of various editions of the famous quote "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30:

    Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
    10:30 egw kai o pathr en esmen

    Latin Vulgate
    10:30 ego et Pater unum sumus

    Bible in Basic English
    10:30 I and my Father are one.

    King James Version
    10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

    American Standard Version
    New International Version
    World English Bible
    Young's Literal Translation

    10:30 I and the Father are one.
    Let us note that the KJV does not use the word "selfsame" to qualify the word "one", and therefore the meaning is 'wordly and dvaitic'--'one in purpose', as Satay has stated.

    The Greek word that means 'same' is transliterated as idios; the Greek expression for 'identical' in transliteration is taftosimos, entelos o idios. In Latin, the equivalent expression for 'same/identical' is idem eadem idem. Obviously, we find none of these words in the Greek and Latin versions of the supposedly Advaitic quote of Jesus given above.

    In the immediately preceding verse, Jesus speaks of himself and his Father only in Dvaita:

    10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (A note to this verse says: "Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all.")

    The Jews Jesus spoke to consider his claim to be God blasphemous and prepare to assault him with stones for such claim "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (10:33)." To this Jesus replies, "...because I said, I am the Son of God? (10:36)."

    10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
    10:38 that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

    Curiously, Jesus has only contradicting statements in the Bible about whether he is one with God, son of God or neither. Some quotes:

    Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/jesus_God.html
    Yes, Jesus is God.

    John 1:14
    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

    John 8:58
    Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    John 10:30-31
    I and my Father are one.

    John 14:9
    He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

    No, Jesus is not God.

    Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
    And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

    Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
    My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    John 14:28
    My Father is greater than I.

    John 20:17
    I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    The head of Christ is God.

    1 Corinthians 15:28
    And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    1 Timothy 2:5
    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
    To me, what ensues such contradictions can only be among one or more of the following:

    • If Jesus existed and was Son of God, he spoke whatever he said about him only in Dvaita, for the Jewish commons and nobles of his day were not in a position to understand Advaita.

    • If Jesus existed and was steeped in Advaita, he would have exhorted unequivocally, as do the Rishis of our Upanishads, that every man and woman was God at their core and that God is immanent as the substratum in every atom of the universe, teeming with his lifeforce. For a teacher believed to have been trained in India, there would have been no need to dilute or mince words, specially when he speaks about himself.

    • Jesus did not exist historically. The Gospel writers came up with their own, different versions of the mythical Jesus, hence the contradictions.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste ZN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Znanna View Post
    While there are references to "temple" in the Biblical scripture and derivative debate relative to whether the "body of Christ" is physical or virtual or whatever, I'd say my extrapolation was JMO (as usual). To me, the heart of Christianity is lost on most self-averring Christians, whatever.
    As for me, I am prepared to read between or into the lines of the Bible, if the Church would acknowledge it to be based on the timelessly ancient scriptures of Sanatana Dharma (as Sarabhanga endeavours to show) and the wisdom of the other ancient religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Znanna View Post
    As more of a shamanistic sort, I'm accustomed to entering and leaving body/s through many means. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with any orthodoxy
    Everyone of us leave our body in deep sleep. The more spiritual like you may do it at will. If the 'door' Jeus refers to is the 'door' of entry into other 'states of existence', fine. Because some people say the doctrine of karma is found in the Bible, I tried to find an instance of it in the 'door'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Znanna View Post
    Remember, I'm a chaos mage, no evangelical!
    Your 'chaos' is controlled within the framework of Advaita. I understand that you can never be 'evangelical', thank you.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste Yajvan.

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    This , the recorder is steeped ( most likely?) in duality. Could he really write/appreciate/comprehend advitīa message if handed to him? If he did then he could perhaps frame the sentence in such a way that would avoid any mis-understandings.
    I think you may be right in your conclusion. The recorder here is John the Apostle, who was among the closest to Jesus, and yet, he was 'steeped in duality'. But then in any of our Hindu teachings of Advaita, has a guru said, "I and my Father are one" with the implications "What about you?", "That does not, however, include you", etc.

  4. #14

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    Many Bible commentators/annotators do not read the Advaitic meaning in the declaration of Jesus 'I and my Father are one', as can be vefiried from many Bible Websites. It is in fact pointed out that "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV) is translated as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose."; and that Jesus "uses the concept of 'being one' in other places, and from them one can see that 'one purpose' is what is meant." (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...owpage&pid=102)
    Dear Saidevo:

    Trying to provide an interpretation from “Unitarian Church” followers website only serves your purpose. By the way, how is the very thing you have accused me of doing (partial quoting or misquoting) different from your response here? Trying to use Unitarian Universalist to interpret Jesus is like asking Srla Prabhupada to interpret Sage Shankara. You should also have picked a verse from “Jehovah Witness” to validate Unitarians!

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    "I and my Father are one", John 10:30. This line that Jesus says in context, is highlighted as the chief message of Jesus. Is there any other message he gave to the Christian world, and what meanings do they lend to?
    I think these and other statements of Jesus identifying Himself with the divine may refer back to John 7:26, “. . .Have the authorities (rulers) really concluded that he is the Christ?” (KJV) When you follow along from there you will find subsequent chapters deals with his identity and also the unbelief of Jewish Pharisees.

    Read along chapter 8, where a woman caught in adultery was brought before him. John 8:5, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” (KJV)

    Pharisees were of the opinion that none other than God only can forgive others sins. Thus, they thought Jesus would also go along with Moses. The major problem they had with Jesus was his declaration that he had the right to forgive sins. However, this episode of woman caught in adultery clearly points to the fact that Jesus really is Messiah with the right to forgive sins.

    His statement is followed by another question from the audience, “who are you?” Now if you look into chapter 4 of John’s Gospel, you see that he goes on to talk about just what he has been claiming.

    Chapter 4: A Samaritan woman at the well: Jesus asks for water to be drawn to quench his physical need (thirst). The conversation leads into transformation.

    John 4:25, “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” (KJV)
    John 4:26,”Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (KJV)

    Is he considered a liar in saying the above?
    If so, he could very well have saved his own neck by extending lies further and by recanting everything in front of Pharisees and Pontius Pilate.

    Is he considered a lunatic?
    Well, if so, he would not have challenged authorities on scriptural grounds. Even the highest Pharisee, Nicodemus, had to admit and give in.

    Is he then considered, the Lord?
    Well, I did not see any other choice left for me?

    It does not matter to me how you want to interpret the above statement of Jesus, but to me, it is a clear declaration of who he really is. When Jesus told the Jews that "I am", He could back it up beyond their wildest dreams. But they didn't know that (or willfully did not want to know); they thought he was just a man, and in that case he was committing blasphemy and deserved to die. In doing so, they all suffered more in their ignorance than Jesus suffered on the Cross.

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    Unlike Jesus, the Rishis have boldly declared for the whole mankind--not just for the Hindu faithfuls--the great sayings such as 'aham brahma asmi' (I am Brahman), 'tat tvam asi' (That thou art), 'prajnAnam brahman' (you are Brahman in consciousness).
    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    It will be helpful if someone could point out that Jesus unambiguously exhorts his followers that they, he and God are one and the same, in the Bible.
    This is where I do beg to differ with your assessment. This, very statement, has caused a great theological divide, which for centuries has separated those seeking to love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.The claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions.

    No living being can claim the identity of the Divine. The fallacy in Advaitic statement begs this question: How can you claim to be an object of your vision?

    Blessings,

  5. #15

    Re: I and My Father are One

    My extra key stroke duplicated the previous post... sorry
    Last edited by nirotu; 18 July 2008 at 03:51 PM. Reason: Duplicate !!!!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    NY State
    Age
    66
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    99

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste,

    The topic, here, parallels debate from Christians themselves ... another board where I am longtime member which is populated predominantly by "conservative Christians" has been debating off and on this topic for years. In fact, there's a similar thread running there right now.

    There is a study of the Bible, where the numeration of the words used supposedly gives an internal consistency to usage, which is not occluded by numerous translations over the years. (Perhaps our brother Arjuna could provide a reference for this?) I've not seen a comprehensive analysis based on it, however, beyond popular "prophetic" analysis such as "The Bible Code." It would seem to me that parsing the text, if one had extra time on their hands, using such a methodology might at least show consistency (or lack of same) in the commonly referenced phrases in John etc.

    My own take on it, is that the Christ is not "a" person but Spirit which resides in all. Thus, the phrase "through me" takes on a more process-oriented rather than idolatrous mode of interpretation. Not to be smarmily new-agey or anything, but the notion that the Christ resides in all, and only needs acceptance and surrender, is the way I see it.

    That said, to me, the notion of defining Godz seems to be ironically perverse.


    Love,
    ZN
    /One in Many, Many in One
    yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
    shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .

    It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste Nirotu.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    No living being can claim the identity of the Divine. The fallacy in Advaitic statement begs this question: How can you claim to be an object of your vision?
    1. Advaita is not about any living being claiming the identity of the Divine. It is rather about the Divinity 'claiming' its identity with all beings, living and the so-called non-living. The 'non-living' have already submitted to that 'claim', so are in harmony with the Divine. Only the 'living' are vacillating, since most of them identify their selves with the ego, mind and body.

    As Bhagavan Das explains in his book The Science of Peace, the Self-aham in every point of space and time dynamically negates the This-etat, resulting in the cycle of creation and destruction of the universe. The negation is for the Self to claim its identity with the This, the Not-Self, which is the universe. The Self always wins and asserts It-Self in silence, dissolving the Not-Self into It-Self.

    2. Self in Advaita is not an 'object of vision'. It is the be-all and end-all of all endeavours. We 'claim' our Self everytime we have deep sleep, though the awareness does not linger. All 'sAdhana' is for the continued retention of the awareness of the Self and keep the ego in subordination to it, even as we go about our daily life.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    Trying to provide an interpretation from "Unitarian Church" followers website only serves your purpose. By the way, how is the very thing you have accused me of doing (partial quoting or misquoting) different from your response here? Trying to use Unitarian Universalist to interpret Jesus is like asking Srla Prabhupada to interpret Sage Shankara. You should also have picked a verse from "Jehovah Witness" to validate Unitarians!
    As a Hindu, I am not conversant with the sects, divisions, trends and debates of Christianity, except for some popular ones. I neither find the time nor have the necessity to go into them. Does any Christian sect claim that Jesus and the Bible teach Advaita?

    Incidentally, I have not quoted partially or misquoted some verses in John, but only indicated a different interpretation of some.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    It does not matter to me how you want to interpret the above statement of Jesus, but to me, it is a clear declaration of who he really is.
    It was you, Nirotu, who claimed that Jesus taught Advaita; and now you talk about the 'fallacy' in Advaita!

    Whether he is historical, mythical or fictional, it is not my intention to deny divinity to Jesus. Like most Hindus, I view Jesus primarily as a 'guru'; and guru is divine in Hinduism. In the teaching 'I and my Father are one", I view Jesus to be an avatara of God, the 'Word' in 'Flesh', a Son to the Father, as he himself admits in John 10:36.

    This is pure Dvaita with no trace of Advaita here or possibly elsewhere in the Bible. Bible does not teach Advaita, in my opinion, for the simple reason, it differentiates between God, His Son, the people, the animals and birds and the inanimate.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    The claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions.
    The man of Abrahamic tradition desires a place in God's House. The Vaishnava desires a place in God's Body as a cell with individuality. The Advaitic Saiva desires to submit and seek his entire identity with God. Whether God created or projected or is dreaming up this universe, it is not only that there can be nothing apart from Him, but also that He is everything--not just in everything. For the Jivas, I think, it is only a question of seeking to be at Home, in the Body or remain in Self and be both.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    NY State
    Age
    66
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    99

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste,

    I've asked and received permission from RJC (the author of the comments below) to crosspost them here from the other board I mentioned above. He speaks to Satay's OP better than I ever could. His view represents one predominantly mainstream Christian POV. The other POVs I would describe as being trinitarianism and unitarianism.

    There are two points of discussion here between us in the ongoing bigger thread theme that seeks to provide biblical proof that Jesus is God. Obviously the thread concept is to prove a relationship such as trinity although not including the holy spirit as part of this discussion in the OP.

    I joined in the discussion to relate the function of the Christ as evidence reflecting that Jesus was placed for a specific purpose on this earth by the force of God to accomplish restoration of what was lost in Eden. Jesus as a faithful sinless man could accomplish manifesting God’s righteousness in the provision to allow mankind a way to approach God and subsequently accomplish an everlasting salvation. The point is self-evident to those of some perception. If Christ was to act as a mediator between man and God than he certainly is not the God to whom he presents the request for mercy.

    Now following my initial presentation in post 65, Kris asked my response to a typical trinity argument in that I had said "He was raised by God not by his own power." My next post, amply clarified the temple was indeed those ones that were considered a “house or temple built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone.” Next were verses specifically stating Jesus was raised up by God. That of course is a simply enough presentation to establish the simply truth. However, because some people are confused in their minds as to the nature of Jesus before, during and after his earthly sojourn the verses become something unnecessarily complex, convoluted in their minds.

    So then two points of trinitarian confusion come to the forefront. The erroneous idea the a dead person can raise himself from the dead. Secondly in the John verse that Jesus as God is a physical body in his temple of his physical body, which is the nonsensical argument going on here. How convoluted is that, as it makes no sense.

    Scripture repeatedly states God raised up Jesus. So any misconception as to how Jesus was raised to life is without question. No where does the bible state that Jesus was the God that was raising himself up. Only through mental manipulation inspired by past Babylonian philosophy are such erroneous precepts conceived.

    Jesus presented the concept that the temple was his disciples and thereafter in prophetic comment allowed the world to know he would cause to be raised up, this temple, that he had begun building. If the Jews were to destroy the temple by his death, his faithfulness and loyalty to his God would warrant the firm re-establishment of that temple including himself as the foundation cornerstone for his “God to inhabit by spirit.”

    Obviously his disciple did not understand the prophetic fulfillment of his word until later times following his death. It is my belief that they did not fully understand the matter until the first key of the kingdom was used on the day of Pentecost following Christ’s death
    Quote:
    John 14:26 But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.
    So, thereafter, these anointed understood the covenant for a kingdom and their authority to function as the source of God’s now established true form of worship.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bookworm
    I'm glad that in Post 84 you acknowledge that, upon my further consideration, I now properly have read with understanding your statement of belief regarding the nature of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Unfortunately, the position you take is not in accord with the meaning of "resurrection" as it is used in the Bible; therefore, you do not meet the requirements specified in Romans 10:9, 10, which is a very dangerous position to remain in! I urgently suggest you carefully reconsider your position, and correct it, for to be mistaken here on this point means to forfeit all.

    Quote:
    Romans 10:9-10 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.
    Now who is it that is saying God raised Jesus from the dead as Lord? That is my public declaration here while all the time you deny that God raised up Jesus and contend Jesus raised himself. I would think your threats of condemnation in which you point a finger really reflex that the rest of the fingers on that hand point toward yourself.

    Now, bookworm, you want to divert to a resurrection of a discussion on resurrection in which you believe you have understanding. To resurrect these matters requires our mental perception that we are resurrecting a matter of judgment and thereafter may find a need to raise up a conclusion. Do you understand my play on the words. If you do not then it would be a perfunctory, non-productive exercise. Study the Greek words in this verse.
    Quote:
    1 Corinthians 15:13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised up.

    1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do YOU not know that YOU people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU? 17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] YOU people are.

    1 Corinthians 6:14 But God both raised up the Lord and will raise us up out of [death] through his power.

    1 Peter 3:18 Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.

    Ephesians 1:22-23 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.
    __________________
    _________
    The wicked is a ransom for the righteous one; and the one dealing treacherously takes the place of the upright ones. - Proverbs 21:18

    ZN
    yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
    shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .

    It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

    In the beginning, yama was with yamI, and the yamau was yahvI.

    All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made.

    In her was life; and the life was the light of men.

    And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    That was the AtmA, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

    He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

    He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become nArAyaNAs, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of nArA (yahvI).

    And vAk was made flesh, and dwelt among us (yeSu), and we beheld his yajña as yahva, the only begotten of yahvI, full of shiva and satI.

    And of his bRMhaNam have all we received, and namaH shivAya (grace for grace).

    No man hath seen nara at any time, the only begotten nArAyaNa, which is in the bosom of yahvI, he hath declared him.

    Namaste All,


    The following citations from Arthur Osborne's "Be Still, It Is The Wind That Sings"

    "Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect"

    The above coupled with "Only God is Good" (St. Mark, X,18) suggests to me that by denying the possibility of attaining the perfection that is pure Good (Shiva), Christ's purblind followers have degraded their religion.

    Christ surely enjoins attainment of perfection. The Being, the Spirit, is One; therefore you cannot be other because there is no other; therefore if you realize your true Self, you realize your identity with One, the Father, and are perfect.

    Some Christian teachers who became perfect and taught so were nearly excommunicated. Eckhart said "Thou shalt lose thy thy-ness and dissolve in his his-ness; then shall be his mine, so utterly one mine that thou in him shalt know eternalwise his is-ness, free from becoming, his nameless nothingness.

    The protestant mystic Boehme said " God has become that which I am and has made me that which He is." Tauler said "When through all manner of exercises the outer man has been converted into the inward man, then the Godhead nakedly descends into the depths of pure soul, so that the Spirit becomes one with Him."

    Most Christians, I feel are steeped in materialism and fail to comprehend the all pervading spirit, very similar as most Vaishnava's who forget the ultimate meaning of Vishnu as all pervading and ascribe Him a localized four armed body. In my opinion, Shri Sarabhanga's post says it all.

    Om
    Last edited by atanu; 20 July 2008 at 12:06 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: I and My Father are One

    Namaste Nirotu,

    Nirotu, please note that no advaitin desires to become one with Ishwara (which is an impossible task) but desires to know the Self, since it is a scriptural injunction as the highest Good. The self only will come to realise/know Ishwara, so one must know the self ultimately, wherein the seer and the knower exist. Moreover, Advaita vada never says that the Self-Brahman is the object of vision. OTOH, following Vedanta, it teaches that the Self is the vision of the vision and mind of the mind.


    Om
    Last edited by atanu; 20 July 2008 at 01:50 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •