I and My Father are One

[atanu]

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.

Namaste All,

Actually Advaita Vedanta does not hold even the notion of two independent powers that a notion of dead resurrecting the dead will be entertained at all. These arguments are based on confusion that Jesus the body was the Christ. To say "He was raised by God not by his own power", is IMO, a natural common error that tends to ascribe independent power to a physical body. It is a very subtle point. Though the esteemed poster above is saying the correct thing yet he is saying it with an inverse logic, assuming that flesh can have any power of its own. In fact, Shri Nirotu's arguments, I find of this nature.

These arguers do not comprehend that God is pure knowledge and one who knows this becomes That; as the Vedic saying "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman".

Many Indian sages have amply made clear to the devotees that the body they see is not the Guru. Thus, a confusion as to 'the dead raising up the dead' does not arise. There is only one consciousness. The forms and names are many. Some forms are destined to be Narayana forms, yet Narayana is not the form. Narayana para. Shri Krishna saying "Submit to me, I will grant Jnana" and Jesus saying "I am the way" are equivalent and same, IMO...

Om

[atanu]

Namaste All,

The Vedic dictum "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" and "Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect" both teach the finality.

A frog in a well imagines the well to be the limit of the Universe. Similarly, egos are limited to their sensual experiences of waking, dreaming, and sleeping and do not even wish to grant the truth of possibility of yogis transcending the states to Turya. Such egos will naturally be indignant when someone appears to teach "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman", imagining that another Brahman is created. No. Brahman is EKO. The knower of Brahman becomes the EKO, though for the onlooker (like me and Nirotu) the Guru is just another body.

This is the source of much confusion and vehemence of the likes of Shri Nirotu (and most dvaitins), who imagine that they follow Christ (or Krishna) in toto, yet actually are not able to surrender to the teaching ""Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect". These high priests do not wish to acknowledge that true Jnanis are of superior experience and are truly EKO. They do not wish to surrender to the teaching of saints who have been graced by the Turya. Who is opposing the surrender? An Advaitin or a Nirotu? They also mistakenly surmise that it is not possible for a Jnani to exercise Godly powers. Actually, a Jnani -- a perfect being, a knower of Brahman --has no independent power to exercise any independent Godly powers -- since Brahman is the only reality. From time beginning lessly, Ishwara exercises all powers and it is not going to change now or ever.

An Advaitin, knowing this, does not aspire to become another Ishwara but aims to know the immortal and fearless Self, which is a highest valid goal as taught in the Upanishads.

Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

It was you, Nirotu, who claimed that Jesus taught Advaita; and now you talk about the 'fallacy' in Advaita!

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.

Dear Saidevo:

I guess we have different understanding of Advaita, then.

While the emphasis of Sage Shankara has been on the “Jnana”, the absolute “knowledge”, I view devotion and surrender to God is more essential. Because, it is only through that does one attain a complete knowledge. Ultimately, man is to be freed by the abundance of God’s grace and compassion in that he pours wisdom and prudence. You will agree with me that Grace has been there for all eternity and waiting for a yearning invocation from man. I do believe all Vedantins affirm that belief.

My Father, the Cosmic Consciousness, who emanated the Christ Consciousness and manifested in me – that is why Jesus could say, I and My Father are one. Just as the distinction between Jesus and the Father is only a part of the whole experience (Dvaita), his unity with the Father – a unity due not to Jesus’ mission or purpose on earth, but in the last analysis based on being - “I and My Father are one” (Advaita), completes that experience. It is all because, it has roots beyond human condition.

The entire mission of Jesus was centered on one single purpose – that is to unite us with the Father in Love. When that occurs, the absolute is felt as a boundless spirit, pervading the whole Universe and flooding the soul of man. Such a unity is “advaita” with none like it! As Radhakrishnan puts is, “Because, to have one’s heart and mind absorbed in love seems to invert the mystery of the Universe.” Also, as S. S Raghavachar puts it so aptly, ”Greater the love of man to God, the greater is the space for God’s self-imparting grace.” The last word in the journey of God is “Arul”, “compassion and grace”. (Raghavachar –On Saiva-siddhanta, VA and Dvaita. Ed. Donald Bishop 1975).

For that reason, I would not characterize Jesus as “confirmed Advaitin”, because, in Him you will find both Dvaita and Advaita, which enable every one to progress spiritually. The Advaita and Dvaita Vedanta are both off-shoots of Veda, and the philosophers had only the benefit to mankind in mind when they wrote it, therefore, I find both Advaita and Dvaita are successive stages of realization. In my view, this is true to Jesus as well as to Ramana Maharishi. Therefore, it grieves me just as much to think Jesus did not know Advaita as it would be to think Ramana did not know Dvaita.


Any way, thanks for an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:

I guess we have different understanding of Advaita, then.

While the emphasis of Sage Shankara has been on the “Jnana”, the absolute “knowledge”, I view devotion and surrender to God is more essential. -

Dear Nirotu,

See, you prove what we are saying. You somehow miss the point that there can be many levels of enlightenment for Jivas. You show a great intransigence in the matter by imposing your requirement on others. You have assumed that Advaita restricts one from bhakti marga, whereas,Advaita Guru, Shankara was a great bhakta himself. You think that you alone know about true bhakti and true intent and true marga (which by the way is Jesus alone for you). You also fail to come down from your high teacher position and accept that some teachers have attained a state were there is no avidya and thus 'No Second'.

You can read a discussion wherein an English priest tried to convert Shri Ramana -- implying all the time that Shri Ramana required saving.

Leave these decisions to God please. Atanu deciding what is suitable for 'Nirotu or others' is not surrender.

Om

[jaggin]

namaste,

If possible, it would be nice to continue discussion (from the 'Why' thread) of this famous verse from the bible.



I read the previous verses than 10.30 and some verses proceeding this as well.

It seems to me that Jesus is not actually saying "he and father are one" in the sense that rsi says "Aham Brahamasmi".

It seems that jesus means to say that 'he' and the 'father' are 'one' in 'purpose' i.e. their 'purpose' is one. And what is that purpose? Read verses starting from about 10.20 John.

I and My Father are one perhaps in the Dharmic context but that's not how John means it, at least that's my understanding.

I read verses before and after but found nothing to support your view. I think you will have to be more explicit about what you think the context is saying.

[jaggin]

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".



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:



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:



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:



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.

Jesus can no more be one and the same with the Father than Jesus could be one and the same with Yahweh speaking out of the burning bush. Although God is the same, His manifestation is different. To say the Jesus is one and the same with the Father would be to ascribe to the Father a physical body which He does not have.

I do not find any contradictions. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh including verses that you have already mentioned.

As for those who mention the one in purpose concept it is out of context with these verses. Obviously God in the flesh must be one in purpose with God the Father since they are one person.

[saidevo]

Namaste Jaggin.

It was not intention to deny divinity to Jesus, only that he was in Advaitic unity with his Father. I have already expressed it as below:

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.

Now, after coming across the Website relating to the Atwell's book 'Caesar's Messiah', and the discussions in the forum there, I tend to think that what he says about Jesus and the Gospels might perhaps be the nearest to the truth.

What I take exception is the extrapolation that Jesus or the Bible knew about and talks Advaita, on par with what the Hindu Upanishads say.

[rcscwc]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

Whom are you kidding, Mr. Void Essence??
In the beginning was Prajapati, with Him was His Word, the word was AUM.

I have seen this and its variants in Upanishads, Brahmanas etc. Nowhere have seen yahva.

Stop deluding yourself.

[chandu_69]

Actually the Issue is much simpler.Jesus acknowledges Father is above Him whatever that means.( Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.)



The principle of Salvation in christianity rules out any ambiguity of Advaitan thought.

Doctrine of Salvation in christianity:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The road to salvation is Jesus..no confusion there.

[atanu]

I have seen this and its variants in Upanishads, Brahmanas etc. Nowhere have seen yahva.

Stop deluding yourself.

Why do we parade our ignorance again and again? Not Shri Sarabhanga but many Hindu sages and philosophers have noted yahva in Veda. There is a post, which you can search for and below, I give the Sanskrit meaning of yahva, which is indeed a word for Mahat/Indra/Agni/Soma in the Vedas.

1(mwd)yahvamf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).

2(cap)yahvaf. {I3} youngest, newest, always young or fresh (of Agni = {ya3viSTha}, of the waters etc.). f. {I} pl. flowing water.--------------------------
yahvI also is from the Vedas.

Jews/Christians/Muslims worship yahva, which is continually moving and also the most HIGH El Elion.

Om Namah Shivaya