Christianity and me

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

First let me say I feel no threat from Christianity. There are some that may consider a full assault is occurring - that Christianity is on the rise and they are 'taking no prisoners' . This in fact could be true, yet on a personal level my faith (śraddhā&#185 is niśṭhā or firm.

As I have mentioned on past posts more of my attention gravitates to looking for the sameness in the world verses the differences. We have so much diversity, so much assortment, dissimilarity, distinction, diversification, variance, variegation & variousness that the senses feast on daily, that this underlying unity and sameness is lost in the noise. For me, this sameness is of great import and cannot be overlooked in one's sādhana.

Many say diversity is the spice of life - yes, but for me, there are too many spices as of late! The desire for samasta¹ (whole) and pūrṇatā is much more appealing ( to me), hence the reason for this post.

That said, I find sanātana Dharma much more robust (then Christanity) - a fountain of knowledge that knows no end. A level of offerings for each level of awareness or consciousness. This is the beauty of this darśna ( lit. sight, yet infers philosophy - the love of wisdom).

Note again, my intent is not to find anyone right or wrong, but to perhaps enjoy where one point of view may just harmoniously intersect with another.

So there are some things I find 'sameness' in, when comparing and contrasting this ārṣa dharma ( dharma derived from the ṛṣi-s , seer's of Truth, sat) and Christianity. Let me share a few with you.

• Original sin - a fall from the state of purity , I see as avidya.
  Christianity may say we've fallen from grace via sin, Vedānta would say ignorance.
• Jesus on the cross. This is a sacrifice, yajña. Yet what is occurring? Jesus is saying I am not my body. He is giving up the physical for the spiritual. This symbol is that the material is transitory, the spirit is not. This is yajña.

In yajña, the 'offerings' into the fire that are carried by agni to the Divine. We are offering to the devatā , yet at the same time it is things we too are 'giving up' to a higher level of existence ( devatā).

This also occurs in meditation - it too is yajña. When one transcends, all of relative field of life is given up. One now is in the purity of Being ( some call samādhi). The total relative world has been let go, given up. It is this 'giving up' that is the message - we are not the body which comes a goes.

• Jesus said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days. People look for brick and mortar. Yet he arose from the dead. The rebuilding was of the transansitory body to show the Spirit, ātman is indestructible. This is a basic premise that is repeated again and again in the Upaniṣad-s and we find Kṛṣṇa reviewing this in Bhāgavad gītā (Chapter 2).
• I and my Father are One, said Jesus. This is the cornerstone of advaitan ( not two) view of the world. Yet people ( other then sanātana dharma ) find this blasphemous.

For a person on the path (adhvan) this is the full unfoldment of Being, ones full potential comes to rest in jīvanmukta ( liberated while still in the body). This is recognizing the Divinity of the individual - that this ātman is none other then Brahman.
This Brahman is sattā Itself. Pure Being. This Pure Being is devoid of any religion. Yet when it is applied to religion it then becomes 'God' and has a multitude of names.
So is Brahman with or without religion? This tends to be always an point of discussion ( and for some contention). More on this if there is interest.

• In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it sings the truth. Śvetaketu is taught by his father Uddalaka Āruṇi in the 6th chapter ( 6.8.7)
  he says, That sat , so subtle, is the Self of everything in all the worlds. That is the real, That is ātma. Thou art That (tat tvam asi), O' Śvetaketu.
  Lets compare this to a parable from Jesus:
• Jesus explains¹, 'If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of that sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'The Kingdom is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you will come to know yourselves, then all will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves then you will dwell in poverty, and it is you who will be that poverty.'

There are multiple examples we can discuss. Note I am-not inferring that one is better then the other, but there are common themes. These common themes are profound and of great value.

I am not concerned with nor am I even suggesting the notion of various Ministries 'pushing' their views and beliefs on others - I have no desire to address or debate this, as I think these actions are an unhealthy practice.

So where is the sticking point? ( this has been reviewed again and again on HDF). The pain-point of this Christianity as I see it is the following:

• Jesus says, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me¹' . The suggestion that Jesus is the only way has proven to be a point of contention for many, for a long time.

One has to ask… is that what he really is saying , that he has an 'exclusive' to one's mokṣa ? Or Is there something here that is deeper , more significant that we have passed up?

praṇām
words

• niśṭhā निष्ठा - firmness , steadiness , devotion
• śraddhā श्रद्धा- to have faith or faithfulness , have belief or confidence , believe , be true or trustful ; this should not
• be confused with śrāddha श्राद्ध ; śrāddha is not a funeral ceremony (antyeṣṭi) but a supplement to such a ceremony
• sameness = sama सम- same , equal , similar , like , equivalent , like to or identical or homogeneous with
• samasta समस्त- a whole , the aggregate of all the parts
• pūrṇatā पूर्णता- fullness; based on pūrṇa पूर्ण abundant, fulfilled , finished , accomplished
• ārṣa आर्ष- relating or belonging to i.e. derived from ṛṣi-s (seers)
• John 14: 6, New American Standard Bible (1995 addition)
• Jesus Explained : The Gospel of Judas, also known as the Gospel of St. Thomas

[saidevo]

Namaste Yajvan.

It is really important that people of all religions--especially the missionary Christians and the jihAdi Muslims--should look for similarities (rather than 'sameness') in the teachings of different faiths.

For that to happen, however, the Christian and Muslim clergy should first believe that their scriptures indeed recognize the existence of other faiths and also teach peaceful co-existence with them. Unfortunately, there is very little initiative here either from the considered opinions of the clergy or the collective opinion of the commons. This IMO is the main reason for the aggression of these two religions. Ironically, the people of these two faiths quote their own scriptures when they say that theirs is the only true religion, and that they are ordained to convert or kill those who are unfaithful to their religion and God.

Kanchi Paramacharya says:
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

"That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity."

Rig Veda says that the Truth is one and the wise call it by different names, and the Hindu tradition recognizes that there are many paths to the knowledge of God the Self, and gives everyone freedom to seek his/her way.

I agree with you on the 'similarities' of the parallel teachings you have mentioned, rather than on their 'sameness.' There are, IMHO, essential differences.

Original sin

Although this teaching is claimed to have originated from Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21, there are passages in the Old Testament that are similar: such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Psalm 51:5 says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Psalm 58:3 says: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

What the first quote means, IMO, is that the very act of marital consummate relationship--termed concupiscence in the words of Augustine of Hippo--is sin and anyone born out of it inherits the seed of original sin. This is because concupiscence was the first sin that Adam and Eve committed.

This quote perhaps is the reason for the strong orthodox Christian teaching that sex and exploring one's sexuality are sins. Needless to say that this teaching is hideous and it is not surprising that it is followed more in breach than compliance in the Christian world in this age of Kali Yuga!

In Hinduism, sex or sexuality is not wicked; nor is it a sin. We have given it the highest place in the united existence of Shiva-Shakti. In the Hindu story of Creation, Brahma realizes after creating his ManAsa Putras that humanity needs to be polarized for controlled and effective procreation, so he creates Satarupa, creates the first Manu Svyambhuva by himself uniting with her and starts the chain of human procreation. Thus, in one sense, the 'original sin' came from God himself, perhaps as a sacrifice which curtailed/curtained the life of Brahma to 1,000 divine years and let him bequeath his title to the next god in line.

Amidst all the strife and sin in this Kali Yuga, if humanity was free from the 'original sin' and had the ability to create 'manasa putras and putris', what a havoc it would have created!

And then, sin ('pApam') is intimately connected with karma, which in turn is connected with reincarnation. The concepts of karma and reincarnation are alien to orthodox Christianity, although many Christians believe and we do find the seeds of these concepts in some of the quotes in the Bible.

For example, the first quote above might be interpreted to mean that the very incident of a soul taking bodily shape in a womb is due to the past karma, and this is the 'original sin' intended! The second quote also speaks of the past karma that 'estranges' them on birth. And then there is the famous teaching, "As you sow, so you reap" (Galatians VI).

I don't think that Jesus or the Bible is explicit about karma and reincarnation. If the 'original sin' is 'avidhya' then the only way open in Christianity is the grace of God rather than conscious human 'sAdhana' for a soul to get its 'avidya' dispelled.

With only one life to go for a human soul in Christianity, a soul either goes to Heaven or Hell on death of the physical body. In Augustine's teaching--which is popular and is the mainstay of orthodox Christianity--an infant that gets baptized in the Christian faith goes to Heaven despite the original sin, all others to hell.

As against this, in Hinduism, the heaven is not something far away to be reached after death, but is here in our own Self, and can be reached now if 'avidya' is removed. Hell is not a place of eternal burning and destruction of the soul but is only our own making in the illusory worlds reached by our own minds. And 'avidya' is not overcome in one life but then even when we partially get past its influence, we can 'peep into' the Heaven, though only momentarily. Besides, we experience the hell of our own making daily in this very life in physical form, when we meet with misfortunes.

Jesus on the cross

This is a sacrifice, a yajna as you say. The Christian belief that Jesus died on the Cross to redeem mankind is similar to the Hindu belief that the guru takes on himself the karma of his 'shiShya' (disciple) and that yogis who are 'jIvan muktas' take the sufferings of some of their devotees on their physique (RamaNa's and Ramakrishna's cancer).

It is interesting to note the transformation demonstrated in the 'Seven sayings' uttered at the time of crucifixion:

1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

Being a Self-Realized yogi, Jesus has his first concern for the people who did to him what they did; so he prays to his Father to forgive them. Why pray to Father, when he was himself the Son of God who can forgive on his own (specially when the missionaries are fond of equvating him with Sri Krishna)? Maybe because the people around him refused to believe his divinity and considered him only as a mortal human being. By invoking the mercy of the Father, the divine Son teaches that forgiveness is among the first of the human virtues that can elivate a man to the status of God.

2. Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

Crucified between two thieves, Jesus says this to one of them who supports his innocence and asks Jesus to remember him in heaven. The word 'paradise' is said to be used only here in the entire Gospels (Wiki). And the Christian world is left guessing as to what station was meant by that word--the the Lost Paradise of the Garden of Eden or the abode of the blessed dead.

3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27).

Said to his mother and to a disciple, Jesus with these words discharges his responsibility towards his mother at the time of his death and gives up his last attachment.

When his mother died, RamaNa Maharshi ensured that her soul did not escape to subtler outer worlds but remain confined in the cave of her heart by pressing his hand over the dying woman's heart. And then he built a temple over her 'samAdhi', installed a Shivalingam and named it MAtrubhUteshvarar.

The Church has also taken cue from this saying and given place for worship of Mother in the otherwise strictly male traditions of Christianity.

4. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).

At a physical level, this is the bewildered, desolate cry of a dying man. Even an accomplished yogi is confused as a human being at the time of his death, for such is the play of Maya. Thus Swami Yukteshvar lamented his disciple Yogananda not being near him at the time of his death. He later 'resurrected' to his disciple in full, divine, physical form temporarily. In the same way, Jesus perhaps momentarily felt that all his efforts and teachings would not be remembered after his death, and that God had forsaken him to the pangs of loneliness.

5. I thirst (John 19:28).

Of course Jesus felt thirsty and was offered sour wine to drink, but the word 'thirst' has to be interrupted spiritually. Christian scholarship, however, is interpreting only the physical ramifications of the word, scientifically and medically analyzing what it means to be crucified and examining the Shroud of Turin for the marks of agony.

6. It is finished (John 19:30).

Since his thirst is quenched, his physical suffering has come down; his mission of avatara is also over.

7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).

This 'spirit' in this line is explained variously to mean that Jesus surrendered his 'self', his 'soul', his 'life' and so on.

Usually, Hindu yogis on death inform the people around them that they would only physically disappear but continue to remain with them as part of the one animating principle that pervades everywhere, thus clearly striking a note of Advaita.

Other Similarities

I agree with you on the other similarities, though I don't consider the words "I and my Father are One" as true Advaita because it omits the common man and other living beings. We have had long discussions on this subject here in HDF, when Nirotu started a thread on this subject.

As to the contentious saying "I am the way, and the truth..." I have my own thinking which I shall post later.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté saidevo,

Thank you for a well-reasoned post. I can offer a few ideas to some of your questions, but I think we have reviewed the ideas at length in other posts as you have alluded to, so no need to bark up the same tree twice, yes?

Yet I would say one thing regarding Jesus' verbiage on the cross - he continued to teach to the very end.
Also - when asked, 'did Jesus suffer' , my teacher said anyone that realizes 'I and my father are one' does not suffer.

You mention

"I and my Father are One" as true Advaita because it omits the common man and other living beings

I do not see your rationale in this. Are you of the opinion that the words should have been:

• 'we are one' or perhaps ;
• there is 'not two' ;
• I am All
• I am Reality ( this I think would be the most abstact)

I only mention this because I see the Unity Jesus is alluding to in the quote I offered above:

Jesus explains, 'If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of that sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'The Kingdom is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you will come to know yourselves, then all will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves then you will dwell in poverty, and it is you who will be that poverty.'

I also offer you this last POV - IMHO the people that recorded these conversations, were ( most likely) not at the advanced levels of the enlightened. Many words were most likely not comprehended to the fullest yet they put them down to the best of their abilites.

So there are many advanced topics that were offered ( me thinks) that flew over their heads. For me I am looking for the diamands wherein others perhaps viewed pebbles.

praṇām

[saidevo]

Namaste Yajvan.

Thank you for your explanation and reiteration of your opinion of the Advaitic message in the teachings of Jesus. Although this thread is about Christianity and you, since you have invited discussions, I am responding to some of your points with my own doubts. I hope you don't mind discussing them in this thread.

I fully agree with you on the explicit Advaita preached in the lines about the Kingdom and knowing one's true self in the quote from the Gospel of Judas (or Thomas), but unfortunately, this apocryphal Gospel is not among the canonical Gospels of Christianity.

You know that the cannonized Gospels are to Christianity (of most sects) what the Vedas are to Hindus, and that anything that contradicts them is rejected in orthodox Christianity. The official position of the Vatican is also that while the Church does not seek to hide the gnostic Gospels it does not recognize them too.

What does Jesus say about 'the Kingdom (of God)' in the New Testament? Some quotes:

John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Hebrews 12:28-29
Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire.

Matthew 25:1
Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

Matthew 20:1
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.

Romans 14:17
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 6:33
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

**********

My rationale and contention about the declaration of Jesus, "I and my Father are One" are based on these points (without referring to the Gnostic gospels that are not canonical). Either in these lines or others that are considered to have the purport of Advaita:

• IMO, had Jesus said to the effect, "I, you, my Father and everything else in this world are one", his message would have had the depth of Advaita. Anyway, I understand the situation: the Western society was not like the Hindu society, people disputed the divinity of Jesus himself, so had he spoken about the divinity of man, the results would have been disastrous.

• Jesus merely stresses his own divinity with God his Father, and do not seem to extend it to an ordinary man, any man--friend or foe.

• If man is not spoken explicitly as inherently divine, where is the question of extending it to the birds and beasts?

• Such statment(s) are a far cry from the MahAvAkyAs of the Upanishads, such as tat tvam asi ("That thou art"), prajnAnam brahma ("Intelligence is Brahman") and sarvam khalvidam brahma ("All this is verily Brahman").

Although Christianity is considered by many to have been founded on the principles of Buddhism, its God is only a personal God who sits in his heaven, ruling over and judging the souls, which are his subjects.

[atanu]

hariḥ oṁ

~~~~~~

Jesus explains¹, 'If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of that sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'The Kingdom is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you will come to know yourselves, then all will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves then you will dwell in poverty, and it is you who will be that poverty.'

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

I agree that the God is universal and thus a true scripture cannot teach diversely different God. So, there will be many commonalities and there are indeed, as you have shown so nicely.

However, the above (----See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of that sky will precede you.----) appeared so much like Upanishad to me that I thought I should ask you for the reference. On checking below, I saw it was probably from The Gospel of Judas -- a Gnostic scripture, which is out of main stream Christian understanding. Also, the Gnostics themselves say that the other disciples of Christ did not possess the Knowledge.

This is not to contradict but only to point out. That we see nothing equivalent of analysis of three states of existence, namely waking, dreaming, sleeping, which is the mainstay of most Upanishads, indicates to me that the Gnostics say correctly.

I may be wrong, but I am yet to see analysis of the three states of existence in Bible.

Note: For me, the statement: "Be thy perfect as the Father in Heaven is", is sufficient to prove that Jesus was not teaching something contradictory to the teachings of Vedas. Perfection to the limit of God is possible.

Regards

Om

[srivijaya]

The problem with Christianity today is it's lack of a means for union with God. It's adoption by the Roman Empire was a political act which made it universal throughout the Empire but put it firmly under control of the newly created 'official' Church.

Gnostics and such were problematic, as they operated on a personal basis and had no need for such rigid structures. The modern religion is a compromise, with much original material erased.

The Church places itself between a person and God. Only through the Church can you get God's grace and so on. God is a supreme being who sometimes gets angry and smashes things up but is also loving. Is "pure good" but evil came into the world etc. etc.

It's lowest-denominator dualistic stuff to control the masses which usually succeeds, as we also see in other religions.

Namaste

[reflections]

Namste Yajvan ji,
Very refreshing thread. I agree with many things you suggested. However, I would for once like to see such efforts from a Christian or a Muslim Scholar.
Along with Hinduism, Judaism, Budhhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. supports the idea of universal salvation. However, Islam(Except some Sufis) and Christianity have mostly supported 'Only Right Faith' exclusive notions.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté reflections,

Namste Yajvan ji,
Very refreshing thread. I agree with many things you suggested. However, I would for once like to see such efforts from a Christian or a Muslim Scholar.
Along with Hinduism, Judaism, Budhhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. supports the idea of universal salvation. However, Islam(Except some Sufis) and Christianity have mostly supported 'Only Right Faith' exclusive notions.

I too would like to see the efforts from others. Perhaps it is out there and we're not seeing it? I do not know.

praṇām

[saidevo]

I too would like to see the efforts from others. Perhaps it is out there and we're not seeing it? I do not know.

Here is a book that reasonably explains the points of convergence and difference between Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity. Being a Western Hindu elevated to the status of an AcharyA, the author is in an ideal position to present his findings that are, IMO, very reasonable and perhaps very accurate too:

Cosmic Game: A comparative study between Hinduism & Christianity
by Pandit Sri Ram Ramanuja Achari
http://srimatham.com/srimatham/cosmi...cosmicgame.pdf (331 KB)

[vcindiana]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

First let me say I feel no threat from Christianity. So where is the sticking point? ( this has been reviewed again and again on HDF). The pain-point of this Christianity as I see it is the following:

• Jesus says, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me¹' . The suggestion that Jesus is the only way has proven to be a point of contention for many, for a long time.

One has to ask… is that what he really is saying , that he has an 'exclusive' to one's mokṣa ? Or Is there something here that is deeper , more significant that we have passed up?

Even though I do not agree with the religious Christianity’s arrogant warning “Turn or Burn”, I do find John 14:6 where JC says I am the way and the truth and the life compelling in my own way.
Christians insist only those who accept JC as the son of God can claim salvation. But it is better to understand in what context these words were spoken. Immediately after this bold statement, Philip (a disciple) asked JC Lord Show us the Father, we will be satisfied. This shows Philip too found JC’s words confusing. JC answered “Have I been with you all the time, Philip and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say Show us the Father? Do you not believe I am in the Father and the father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his work. Believe me that I am the Father and the father is in me; but if you do not then believe me because of the works themselves” (John 14: 8-11). JC is not claiming divinity himself but the presence of God within him. His life and words reflected the values of God; he is not primarily concerned with what people believed about him. He realized some would not believe God was present in him. He hoped they would recognize God in his works his WAYS. It is the way of Jesus, not the Jesus as the way that is explained here. Jesus way was the life that is gentle, humble, open, and compassionate and more than anything else that is Love, not just Love , it is unconditional. Once I stop idolizing JC then I see what he represented and his the only commandment about Love. ( Matthew 22:36-40 )

If we substitute the word Love for JC in his statement I am the way..then it becomes compelling that LOVE (God) is the way and the truth and the life.

Love... VC