Does science have all answers?

[Znanna]

Namaste,

TruthSeeker, you struck a chord with me with this comment...

If you talk to all Hindus, you will find that many oppose the ideas ofAdvaita, and some call it a cult too, some as poison, some as demonic etc. Advaitins are not usually bothered with this, and either dismissed as statements made in ignorance or as the will of God. The reason simply is that even though advaita holds the scripture as the highest authority, it had the guts to call it as secondary knowledge, while the primary and true knowledge is that of the Atman, untainted and direct. Definitely Christianity's philosophy is not the same as Advaita, as you beleive in an external God and consider yourself as a servant who has to implicitly obey this creator failing which he would be thrown into a fire pit. Thus grace has become such a prominent thing in Christianity. Advaita does not consider God as external to you, but every aspect of God is right withinyou, and you only have to know that. The grace concept is almost meaningless in Advaita, and it is like searching for fire when you have two flint stones in your hands. Just strike the stones, why are you searching it in something external to you? Christianity grace is mixed with fear and not pure love. The same thing has been said by Madusudhana Saraswati, who wrote in his Advaita Siddhi that Dualism leads to fear of God, and fear being a coloring of the mind cannot lead to liberation. God cannot be portrayed as a fearful entity at all - he is supposed to be all loving isn't it?

Now, I'm just a mleccha ... so I guess to some my observations are moot ...

But ...

While I only take instruction/initiation directly from Godz ... I also have had experience which indicates an external *Godz* which is distinct from the participation of OneNess ... in other words ... I have yet another level of ontological conflict which I'm attempting to resolve


(a subsection follow from a posting elsewhere when I was motivated to tell stories, hehe)

This is my experience of HEr as Mistress ... the "yes ma'am" deal ...
who appeared to me in this instance.

I mentioned before a fellow I call the alien vampire thingy. I think
this guy had some sort of alien walk-in living inside his body which
had nearly consumed him, and then sought to feed on others in an
empathetic manner. She instructed me to love and heal (free) him, as
ugly and frightening as it was to me (I eventually did).

I was afraid I would forever lose my ability to *see* through my third
eye when this fellow blocked all my chakras. It was one thing being
bound in the lower chakras, but this was different, to me. The
thought of being blind, well, it was a great fear. It was that way
that I found I could Call Her into me directly, through a point on the
back of my head to free myself. Amazing what can be done when one is
sufficiently motivated

After that, I was a bit heady (hehe) about my new found ability to
intentionally connect with Her. I found a balance in many new
patterns of energy Flow which were torrential compared with my
previous level of competency, as I had the benefit of communion with
Her intelligence and counterweight.

I was still feeding this alien thingy, and he instantly sensed there
was WAY more energy going on ... and sought to tap into its source. I
sought to limit his access.

That night, in my usual bedtime psychic/sexual contact with him, I
blocked him from all but Manipura.

SHe didn't like that one bit.

She came into me like the Niagara Falls, pounding me with a flood of
energy beyond ... WAY beyond ... my ability to channel. "YOU WILL NOT
RESTRICT THE FLOW." I was lying on the floor, I felt as if SHe had
her foot in my back like a dominatrix, pinning me. She just kept
pounding me from head to toe with more More MORE energy. This went on
for about 8 hours. Many times, I thought I couldn't take anymore, or
found a way to divert/channel/redirect ... more More MORE kept
coming. Some time after I begged for mercy (it seemed like a couple
hours more after the begging started), and after I had no choice but
to allow myself to be entirely overwhelmed by HEr Awesomeness, my
Mistress relented.

I spent the rest of the night with my forehead to the floor, and
still, now three years later begin each day with my head to the floor,
in a prayer of thanks.

Yeah, tis nearly 4 years later now, and I still feel the need to ground myself with extreme surrender to HEr... and ...

Sooo ... the message appeared to be that separation/restriction from the OneNess was verboten ... yet at the same time, this appeared to me to come from an external source. How does this fit into anything? I get direct revelation, okay, but at the same time, there are these manifestations which I cannot rationalize as being internally generated?

How can this be rationalized within a philosophical framework? I'm some kind of freak, eh?

(Yeah, I know I'm crazy, hahahaha)


Love,
ZN

PS I've tried hard over the years to get independent confirmation of my perceptions in an experimental setting (other persons perceiving the same as me or relating observations consistent with mine) ... and have, to an extent. But, it is difficult to differentiate between what may be relayed in telepathic trance and what is independent observation ... but I do try

[TruthSeeker]

Namaste ZN,

Now, I'm just a mleccha ... so I guess to some my observations are moot ...
But ...
While I only take instruction/initiation directly from Godz ... I also have had experience which indicates an external *Godz* which is distinct from the participation of OneNess ... in other words ... I have yet another level of ontological conflict which I'm attempting to resolve

Yes, external revelations are as valid as the internal ones, but all such revelations are still manifestations of the Self within. One could see God with bare eyes, hear with ears, commune in meditation and these have nothing to do with Advaita. These are all valid experiences for the experiencer. However, the ultimate experience, the summum bonum of life, cannot be different for different people. Truth is only one - many different contradictory experiences are just relative truths - that is what Advaita dictates. The only real truth is the one that does not change with respect to time or space. Whatever that changes in either space or in time, is a relative entity, and this kind of experience can have many degrees and varieties.

What is an unchanging experience? But we have never been familiar with anything unrelated to space and time - and how to know what it is, except through experience?

Yeah, tis nearly 4 years later now, and I still feel the need to ground myself with extreme surrender to HEr... and ...
Sooo ... the message appeared to be that separation/restriction from the OneNess was verboten ... yet at the same time, this appeared to me to come from an external source. How does this fit into anything? I get direct revelation, okay, but at the same time, there are these manifestations which I cannot rationalize as being internally generated?
How can this be rationalized within a philosophical framework? I'm some kind of freak, eh?

(Yeah, I know I'm crazy, hahahaha)

Perfectly valid, you are not crazy....

From what I understand, the one unchanging reality Brahman is of three fold nature Existance, Knowledge and Bliss. Different experiences and religions are those that seek to understand and experience Brahman with different proportions of importance for these aspects.

The classical neti neti Advaitins choose to understand the Existance aspect(Sat) of Brahman and seek to separate out Atman from Anatman.
They negate everything in a process of involution until the real Existance is found. Those Yogis who take to this path usually do not have many spiritual or emotional experiences of God, and usually dont acquire any great powers until they reach the summit. It is a safe path, but unsuitable for most.


The Raja Yogin, the Hata Yogin, those practising Tantra etc, follow the path of Knowledge( Chit) of Brahman. This path is usually dualsitic until a very high stage, and divinity is revealed in many gradual steps of awakening of consciousness. But such experience is only that of Maya. These Yogis also acquire phenomenal powers and they become omniscient. Once Maya is fully understood, it is transcended to culimate in the ultimate experience of Sat. This is a double edged path, and if you err in the process, it could cause a spiritual downfall or death.

The Ananda aspect of God is the one of pure grace and love, where realization is sought by submission to the higher power than by any devoted path like Raja Yoga or Jnana Yoga. In this path, one seeks to terminate the wheel of life and death by requesting the divine will to burn itself out in the freewill. The spiritual experiences for this kind of path is usually like visions but higher awakening( divine eye) is normally not attained until one is close to death. Total submission to the divine will is very difficult, and those who do it will find it the hard way - the higher power may subject you to a number of tests and may toy you at will to
test your level of total submission, and many protest and break out. Those liberated through this path through the love to the higher power, cling on to the love even in moksha for a long time, and perhaps even for eternity. This path will usually be dualistic or semi monistic, and such distinctions in moksha may be retained for a long time.

Whichever path you go through, the ultimate experience will be identical for the path of Sat and Chit. The path of Ananda may or may not culminate in the experience of Oneness, and is solely subject to the divine will. If "freewill" desires such separation it will remain a freewill bonded in love to the divine will. These are the infinite varieities in the manifestation of God. The path of Ananda is definitely easier to follow and is the teaching of most religions.

[nirotu]

Dear Truthseeker:

I think some Hindus here have chosen to attack you out of some personal agendas and I suggest you not to take these people seriously.

Thanks! I appreciate your regard for such exchanges. It makes me feel grateful.

Nevertheless, when bringing up the topic of Hinduism, you have to bring in avatars like Krishna and Rama, or some of the well known names like Shankara or Ramanuja, and not controversial names like Osho, which looks more like a mischief rather than a discussion.

Let me clarify to you my point. I was using an example of ego-ridden spirituality that only ended with the downfall. History is replete with evidences to these. In this context it is befitting to use examples of such people, although, there are many in Christianity as well. Sages you quoted were right with God and quite don’t fit the context. Use of Rajneesh in particular was unintentional.

. . . . Thus grace has become such a prominent thing in Christianity. Advaita does not consider God as external to you, but every aspect of God is right withinyou, and you only have to know that. The grace concept is almost meaningless in Advaita, and it is like searching for fire when you have two flint stones in your hands. Just strike the stones, why are you searching it in something external to you?

Christianity grace is mixed with fear and not pure love. The same thing has been said by Madusudhana Saraswati, who wrote in his Advaita Siddhi that Dualism leads to fear of God, and fear being a coloring of the mind cannot lead to liberation. God cannot be portrayed as a fearful entity at all - he is supposed to be all loving isn't it?

First of all, I am not implying external or internal. It is not ritualistic Bhakti. It is childlike innate recognition of the mother. Do not mistake my concept of grace with a ritual worship of some external agents. We are all starting with a fear-based mind. Nobody is born with the mind that is perfectly capable to discern at the beginning. The point I am making is simply this; with that as a starting point it would be a quantum leap to be at a point where so called knowledge becomes the tool. We are bridging that gap and that bridge is the “grace”.

People feel Christianity makes one “feel good” to follow because the prescription is fairly simple. On the contrary spiritual journey is not so easy. When a rich man asked Jesus, “what must I do to be saved?”. Jesus replied, “Thou shall not murder, not commit adultery,not steal, not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, love thy neighbor as thyself.” To which the man replied, I have done them all. Jesus said, “go then sell all your belongings, give them to poor and follow me”. The man went filled with sorrow as he did not want to part with what he had and follow Christ.(Mt 19:18-22).

If things were that easy 90% of populations would be living in an enlightened state. The fact that we are all struggling shows the arduous path, that took nearly 14 years for Buddha and countless years for many sages.

Thus your ideas of man being intrinsically sinful, and needing something exteral to him to redeem on that sin, is only a pheneomenal truth or a false claim. Natrually we consider your version as a subset or a wrong doctrine.

The notion of “sin” has a wrong connotation. Hinduism believes that man is essentially and morally good. The ignorance is primarily related not to sin but multiplicity and separate consciousness, which affects our conception of this universe. It’s much more a kind of metaphysical principle for which no one is morally responsible but, instead, man’s activity for his individual self “out of attachment” in this world is bad and “out of detachment” is good.

On the other hand, Christianity posits this in a man who is essentially good, at the same time has the freedom to choose to sin or not. We are naturally good but born with the capacity to “sin” (remain ignorant of “good”).

Both system of thoughts do not deny man is good but it is only in the way you play “sin” in the scheme of things.

Yes, the lowliest sinner has to purify himself by repenting, reforming himself completely before even surendering to God. "Oh Lord, remove all my sins while I go and take rest and sleep", would not be vedanta. Otherwise, one could reprent and go to sleep for 50 years and be free from sin. Rip vanwinkle would be guaranteed salvation had be repented prior to his sleep, because he never sinned?

I think you have lost the meaning of “repentance” in your talk. The very meaning of the word “repent” means turn away for from activities that made you a sinner in the first place. The person who is genuinely repentant will not indulge in that old path anymore. Such a person who has experienced forgiveness will only tend to do that which is good in the sight of God. He will never stop doing the “good” and in fact that is the only thing he would want to do.

There are also people in the world who have sought repentance yet fallen from the grace of God. That shows the weakness of that person to the temptation of the world. In all these matters God knows our heart whether it is sincere or not. He is looking for repentant heart and contrite spirit and not just an outward appearance of doing so.

If you are purified enough, divinity will automatically descend on you. If it happens to an apprently outward sinner, it is only the result of such purification achieved in a former birth, and not by chance. If God picks people by draw of lots, that leads to partiality. If one person is a thief and another a devoted person, and if the thief had a vision of God while the devotee died without that, isn't it obvious the thief was a purified soul in a former birth, and it was only by some prArabdha that he became a thief?

God does not pick and choose who gets to be saved. It is man’s choice to join God or not. God will not violate man’s “free-will” choice. The invitation is to all but it is upto man to decide. Thus, free-will becomes an essential part of man’s creation and makeup.

When Jesus was on the cross there were two other thieves one on each side. Man to the left said to Jesus, “if you are a messiah, why don’t you save yourself?” Obviously he did not have faith in Jesus or the works he had done. The person on right said, “You are the messiah! Please, remember me when you go to heaven”. Jesus answered him, “Today you will be in paradise with me”.(Luke 23:43). The man on right had genuine repentance. It is not the freedom from karmic baggage, but the genuine remorse and repentance that brings us closer to God.

I would say that Christianity address only the first point, repentance and stops there. There is no concept of Yoga in Christianity. Jesus himself was a Yogi but he preached it to very few people because most people are not yet ready. So the message is contained in the bible subtly, and is not open for others. (and you have not grasped yet!)

I disagree. Salvation is not automatic for anyone who seeks forgiveness and repents and stops there. The process of sanctification is just the beginning at the instant you feel forgiven. The man in his entire life goes through trials of ups and downs. In all these how he conducts himself is directly related to his final outcome. God wants to know even when you are tried, are you with me or not? Do you give up and thown in the towel when trials come or overcome these adversities with the assurance that you have from God? How you handle adversity is really dependent on faith you have in God.
Many did not follow Jesus because they did not understand him and his language, full of parables and metaphors. Jesus never changed his style in order to attract crowd. He felt His words were for those who diligently sought Him. He did not want to throw pearls at swines who were not ready.

I would say that Gnostic Christianity is in tune with vedanta - it is indeed a perfect Dharmic way. What is your view on it?

I am sorry I have not read it and therefore, cannot comment on that.

Major Definitions for Cult:

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers:
3. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
4. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Isn't Christianity one such?

The cult may be under an umbrella of religion, the definition of cult is the guru who is acting out of his ego with like minded people as followers. Such an ego will create cult of followers around him. Few misguided people with their own teaching misrepresent and make it fanatical and that becomes cult. A cult is when the leader acts out with ego which is not burnt out completely. True sages never created cult around them. We all agree that Christ was untainted by ego. That is why, true Christianity is not a cult.

Child like definition surrender is not a cult, but if the surrender insist on specific symbols, it is a cult. Child like surrender is not possible for most people, it is only possible for sages. Are you one? If not, would your Godthrown you into hell?

Ah! You missed the point. Childlike surrender is not what I compare with that of sages. A baby knows mother by instinct without any reservation of any kind. That instinctive recognition makes that baby cry out to the mother to grab her attention (trying to reach out to grace). All that baby needed to know was that mother is there. The baby only knows that mother will do the rest. The same way we cry out for the hand of grace that will lead us to do the rest.

Sages who surrendered had the gift of grace in them. It is only through that gift they were able to shift from muddled mind to the mind of focus. Their beginning cry to the Lord can be found in the famous hymnal:
Lord, lead me from darkness to light, from death to eternalty.

Blind faith is faith based on unverified claims. Rational faith is one based on verified claims. Blind Faith is the starting point of the journey, and it should culimate in Rational Faith. That is vedanta, for which Christianity is a starter kit. In Jnana, there is no "rational mind" because it is a concept beyond mind. Infact, the Jnana you are talking about is about blind faith (text book Jnana)

Well, I beg to differ. Nobody argues with your definition of blind faith. That is not what I am referring to. When Jesus talks about faith, He does not mean a mere mental belief, which evaporates at the slightest contact with contrary evidence. By faith, Jesus means absolute conviction.

A very good example can be found with a Roman Centurion who at the hearing of Jesus miracles approaches from distance asking Jesus just to say the “word” so that his servant who is suffering from terminal illness could be healed. When Jesus heard this He marveled at the faith of this centurion and uttered these words “ I have not seen such a faith in entire Israel”.(Mt 8:13). Centurion was convinced in his heart that the proof of his faith lied in the intuitive knowing of the soul. And of course, as the story goes, the servant was instantly healed at the very same moment!
Child’s instinctive understanding of the mother is sufficient for child. It did not need a rational mind! When you posit “jnana” ,you do bring the “doer” doing the thinking. I am just avoiding “I” ness all together

To truly surrender to God, you need to know who God is, who you are, and how you are related. Otherwise it is blind faith surrender. Dont take me wrong, but these are just facts, which would be grasped by all members of the Eastern traditions. Have you seen God? Have you verified the existance of God? If not, the beleif is blind faith regardless of however sagely one may be.

We are back in the same catch-22 predicament!
1. To surrender you must know God.
2. You cannot surrender as long as you have ego.
3. You cannot know God if you have ego.
Please, tell me how to break away from this trap!

At the expense of repeating myself over and over again, let me put it this way. The “surrender” is one thing that needs no knowledge as a starting point. It will lead you to all knowledge you are talking about. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for surrender that you have been talking about.

Once again, I remind you and myself that the whole process is truly simple and we are making more complex than it really is! All sages and saints who reached the state of enlightenment have all uttered, “AH!” it was so simple! Yet in its simplicity lies the hardness. Look how mind wants to continue to want knowledge more and more and see how the “I” is embedded throughout all this. For mind in its simplicity lies the hardness.

In Advaita, one can see Saguna Brahman in many ways and forms, and can be verified. But ultimate Godhead cannot be seen in any imaginable way. No human words exist for such experience. Even when jivanmuktas talk about God, they can talk only about this personal aspect of God. From the conciosuness of the absolute, no such talking is possible. That is why, even when Advaitins talk about God, they talk about love, surrender etc. True godhead cannot be described in words or in a book.

I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.

That Ravana is not the ego you are talking about(not nirotu). He is situated in the Trikuta Lanka, the city situated on the three peaked Hill - that is Ahamkara with its three guNas. It is not quite easy to reach there. You have to go to Dandaka forest, then Panchavati, kill the demons Khara and others, and force Ravana to snatch away your Sita. Then proceed towards Kishkinda, and made friendship with Sugriva and kill Vali. Then you have to search for Sita, then Hanuman has to jump over the ocean and find that Ravana. All this is not possibe by blindly beleiving in some things - by blindly believing that somebody has done all this for you in advance. If you understand all these technically, you will know that Rama is the Turiya consciousness, and he is born only in samAdhi.

So killing Ravana is possible only if you reach that high stage of samAdhi. All of Ramayana belongs to the plane of samAdhi, and nothing to do with devotion or external worship or beleifs. A few times, such Turiya samAdhi is lost, like when Indrajit fells down Rama, and in such cases you need the grace of Shiva ~ Hanuman, who will fetch you the herbs of immortality. Such grace is always present and experienced in Turiya samAdhi, who told you Hinduism does not teach grace?

But to avail of grace, you need to reach Kishkinda, where Hanuman is dwelling with Sugriva. What is Kishkinda? It is right within you, find it. I am not talking of the monkey Hanuman, but of the eternal grace called Hanuman, without whom no Yoga or devotion is ever possible. He does not come to you, but you need to go to him - go to Kishkinda. Then it is all his work. It is not possible to encounter Hanuman unless you are in the neighbourhood of Kishkinda and once you reach there he will do the job for you. These are all in Treta Yuga, which is Turiya samAdhi.

In Kali Yuga, that same Hanuman=grace of Shiva will be searching for those eligible ones, whom he can instruct about the mysteries of various Yugas. Hanuman is the guru ~ grace. He takes different roles in different Yugas. You need to be eligible, by being sincerely devoted to Lord Rama, one day this eternal grace will come to you in some form. A fundamental qualification would be to become purified at heart, a soul that constantly aches and thirsts for God.

Please, beware of the tendency to take these metaphors literally. Without getting into metaphorical and literal details of the epic Ramayana, I would like to repeat the metaphor I was using between forgetful mind (sita) and higher-self (Rama). The bridge between them is formed by grace (Hanuman). I was trying to emphasize that in all fear, in all her confusion and in all her misery when she saw grace and its message (ring) then alone was she pacified, which brought all the trust, faith and understanding.

Need I remind you that confusion of muddled mind was such that even Sita was doubting or refusing to recognize Hanuman. Hanuman had to prove who he was by showing the ring of Rama to convince of her of the message of grace. Once she knew Rama was going to be on His way, she regained all understanding, proving once for all, the pre-requisite or #1 role of grace’s hand in our spiritual journey.

Looking back, if Rama’s wife Sita needed to know and understand from this kind of help from grace, who are we mere mortals to think any other way?

Many people have reserructed after death, not just Jesus. Have you read "The autobiography of a Yogi" by Swami Yogananda? Who is Yukteshwar Giri?

If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.

BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.

For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.

Yes, until such total identity with Brahman is attained, one has to have a distinct identity. Krishna did not have one such, he was always the father - so Jesus was not as enlightened, ruling out avatarhood. When father and the son teach, whom will you listen to. I will take the father's words.

Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.

Nirotu, let us accept that God is so graceful, and his eternal grace Hanuman is available to anyone. There is no need for any specific saviour when this eternal (chiranjeevi) is there. Since it is only Time that separates us from God, let us move on, and not cling to any dogmas. I am sure you will find that some day through your Hanuman~Jesus, if not now, then tomorrow. We refuse that grace is selective like Christianity.

Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!


Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:


Let me put it this way. I am not saying you have underestimated grace, but surely you have overestimated the power of knowledge. You have placed “jnana” before “grace” without elaborating how you acquired the “jnana” to begin with.

You are coming from a pre-decided premise again and again.

Knowledge and grace are not two separate things. What you are implying by knowledge again and again is simply ignorance.
Grace is ever present as the seed of awareness everywhere including me and you. Knowledge is not in books or preachings. The books or preachings are assimilated by your very own awareness.

Vedanta puts a pointer to the seed of awareness that is grace and that is within, giving rise to awareness and every other thing.

All I know is that you know self by Jnana but you have “jnana” as a benevolent gift of providential God through His divine grace!

From a realistic point of view such a “jnana” goes hand in hand with ego. Moment you think you have “jnana”, the strength of “I” has already taken hold of you.

Your concept of Jnana is what we call ignorance. None can have Turiya -- the seed of consciousness. None can say that I possess Turiya. This seed is known only in identity. And this occurs with loss of "I".

You are coming from a misgiuded and pre-decided premise.

If Nirotu is distinct from Atanu, how do they arrive at that assertion? They had to have jnana to discern or realize the truth. Am I right? The question I have been asking and you have been evading is how can a muddled mind attain this knowledge or come to realize this truth? And so, that starting point, which is what I have been addressing.

Again I reiterate, I am not saying you have underestimated grace but surely, you have overestimated the power of knowledge. Other than that, we have no disagreement at all.

We are poles apart. I reiterate that what you call knowledge we call ignorance.

Grace is the seed of awareness and that seed of awareness has no sense of separate I. It is called shivoadvaitam -- without a second.

With a sense of personal I intact, one can only worship egoistically and then blindly try to preach and convert others. And such people cause strifes.

Yes, the forgetful ego-mind can never remember or attain knowledge and therefore, only thing it can do is to hold the hand of grace. Only grace can lead you to surrender is what Christianity teaches.

This is most disgusting to me. I do not care to hide my disgust.

Long before Christ (and eternally) it is known that Grace is all. We simply call that auspicious (Shivam). We do not need to be taught about that.

And grace is ever there. But still why thoughts in mind carry one away from that grace?

So we come back again to our original point. Just like a child who does not need to understand her mother but only have that instinctive recognition is exactly what muddled mind needs.



Blessings,

Whose instinctive recognition? Who has the instinct? The child did not create it. Without understanding the instincts (gunas) and transcending them there is no chance of surrender either. Blind follower of Instincts is muddled to say the least and all arsonists, rapists, war mongers are such instinctive personalities only.

To pay you back with your own coin, I would say: God would not have given us power of discrimination had He wanted us to cling to instincts.



You have avoided to answer several questions.

Only with your cognition apparatus you can know of external things, including an external imagined god, the prints on the book, and these discussions.

What is the cognition apparatus in you? Without knowing THAT (in stillness of mind) what chance you have of knowing the true nature of external things, including an imagined god? And if you do not know the self then what will you surrender to that external imagined god?

It is high time you realised that you are only worshipping an idea/an image of your mind, which is ego. And there is no problem in that, if you desist from preaching about Christ being the only way.

Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

Dear Truthseeker:

On the other hand, Christianity posits this in a man who is essentially good, at the same time has the freedom to choose to sin or not. We are naturally good but born with the capacity to “sin” (remain ignorant of “good”).

I simply do not understand why would god create such a situation where a man will rape/kill/plunder/ declare war/steal.

Your theory is for children.

I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.

Funny. You talk as if you have had advaita experience. What you know of this experience.

Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.

You are fooling yourself.

To know manifest Krishna one needs the unmanifest intelligence. Krishna himself has said that one who knows me as unborn mahesvara only knows. Krishna has declared "I am the Self". Infact, Jesus also said: I and my father in heaven are one. And "the kingdom of heaven is within".

When Krishna says: Submit to me, it is submission to the Self, since He has declared: I am the Self.


Today, those who try to convert others are doing so at the behest of their ego and nothing else. They have forgotten Christ.

Om Namah Shivayya

[Sudarshan]

If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.

BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.

For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.

Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.



Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!


Blessings,

'Historical evidence; for Resseruction - The accounts of various gospels.

When did the women visit the tomb?

MARK: At the rising of the sun.
JOHN: When it was yet dark.

Who were these women?

MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.
MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women.
JOHN: Mary Magdalene alone.

Was the tomb open or closed?

MATTHEW: Closed.
LUKE: Open

Who else was there?

MATTHEW: An angel.
MARK: A young man.
LUKE: Two men.
JOHN: Two angels.

Where were they?

MATTHEW: Outside the tomb.
MARK, LUKE & JOHN: Inside the tomb.

Were they standing or sitting?

LUKE: Standing.
MATTHEW, MARK & JOHN: Sitting.

Did Mary Magdalene see them?

MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE: Yes she did.
JOHN: No she didn't.

Who was frightened by the men/angels?

MATTHEW: The keepers.
MARK & LUKE: The women.

Did the women see Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes they did.
LUKE: No they didn't.

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen?

MARK: No they didn't.
LUKE: Yes they did.

Did Mary Magdalene recognise Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes she did.
JOHN: No she didn't.

How many disciples visited the tomb?

LUKE: Peter alone.
JOHN: Peter and one other.

Was Mary Magdalene permitted to touch Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes she was.
JOHN: No she wasn't.

Where did Jesus appear to his disciples?

MATTHEW: In Galilee.
LUKE: In Jerusalem.

Were they convinced of the resurrection?

MATTHEW: No. Some doubted.
JOHN: Yes. All were convinced.

The reserruction is certainly a hearsay......perhaps he was really crucified, if at all he existed.

[willie]

Here we have more of the one upsmanship and shows why religions have caused so many wars. Some where someone need to realize that brahman delivered devine messages to people all over the world and not to just one place.

If you don't make some effort to know more about brahman, you cannot pay someone to do it for you. The person must make the effort and I would imagine the brahman would bring that person along at what ever pace they could handle.

[sarabhanga]

While I do agree with you that God’s unconditional love towards humanity does indeed makes provision for removing obstacles, in terms of the end-point (salvation), what truly sets Christianity apart from Hinduism is in the differing beliefs in work or merit-based salvation as opposed to grace-based salvation.

The divine law of Ahimsa (unconditional love towards all beings) leads one to Ganesha (the Isha of Ganas or the “Lord of Beings”) who swiftly removes any obstacle to salvation. And whatever path is taken, the final salvation is entirely Shiva (i.e. “Grace”) based.

Truly, it is only ignorance that sets any Dharma apart from Sanatana Dharma.

[TruthSeeker]

Hi nirotu,

I am no0t going to answer most of your points as they have been answered with detailed examples from my side, which you have missed because Christianity does not have answers to very basic questions. and naturally cannot have solutions. Its goal is faith based grace which is the first step, of course. You have, as usual, skipped many questions that many have asked.

People feel Christianity makes one “feel good” to follow because the prescription is fairly simple. On the contrary spiritual journey is not so easy. When a rich man asked Jesus, “what must I do to be saved?”. Jesus replied, “Thou shall not murder, not commit adultery,not steal, not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, love thy neighbor as thyself.” To which the man replied, I have done them all. Jesus said, “go then sell all your belongings, give them to poor and follow me”. The man went filled with sorrow as he did not want to part with what he had and follow Christ.(Mt 19:18-22).

Exactly!! Christianity cannot lead to the goal because most Christians cant and wont follow teachings. Read history. They have to seek the ways of Dharma to get rid of avidya that prevents us from following the teachings. Jnana kAnda is so essential you know, without which the ignorance always stands in the way. Most cant get liberation through Christianity because you cant follow the sermon on the mount. To make it "feel good" its founders felt the need to play it safe to win numbers. Without the "concept of repentance and grace" Christianity would not be useful, and has nothing to offer for Hinduism. Hindus are also free to repent and seek the grace of God, but no man(or god) can bear the atrocities of others. You are responsible for your own sins committed in the past and present. Without this concept, there has been a lot of bloodshed associated with the history of Christianity.

When Jesus was on the cross there were two other thieves one on each side. Man to the left said to Jesus, “if you are a messiah, why don’t you save yourself?” Obviously he did not have faith in Jesus or the works he had done. The person on right said, “You are the messiah! Please, remember me when you go to heaven”. Jesus answered him, “Today you will be in paradise with me”.(Luke 23:43). The man on right had genuine repentance. It is not the freedom from karmic baggage, but the genuine remorse and repentance that brings us closer to God.

Unless this episode is a parable, it shows only the meanness of Jesus. On what basis were the two thieves selected for questioning, and one of them saved and the other condemned? Should not this opportunity be extended to every human being?

True remorse and repentance is possible only for the sins we are aware of. In our previous births, we have done a lot of atrocities for which we cannot repent, and these are part of the Karmic baggage. Even if you repent for your sins now, the Karmic seeds are still waiting to open. So you have to gain access to these. How will you do it? Repentance does not destroy the sin per se according to Hinduism. It attenuates the effect of Karma, but it cannot resolve it. If you were a mass murderer, no amount of repentance is going to matter until you have paid for these sins. One has to perform prayaschitta for certain sins, and for certain others there is no remedy that has been suggested. For eg, a murder in cold blood has no known escape without the fire of Jnana or pay for that crime..

God is a good judge above his mercy. A father cannot forgive one of his sons who murdered the other just because he asked for forgiveness. The punishment will always be given, in form of a Karmic debt. This goes with every desire of the mind and action of the body. The repentance thing is a mere political tool. You are always free to repent, but depending on your actions and the extent of repentance they may or may not protect you. God's law is the law of Karma. There is no exceptions made to anybody, not even to devas.

We are back in the same catch-22 predicament!
1. To surrender you must know God.
2. You cannot surrender as long as you have ego.
3. You cannot know God if you have ego.
Please, tell me how to break away from this trap!

There is only way to escape this trap - sacrifice, which even the divine Prajapati does.

The only way to liberation is sacrifice ( tyAga).

The highest form of this sacrifice is called Asvamedha Yaga in which the twenty one elements are sacrificed to God. The Asvamedha Yaga along with the Putra Kameshti Yaga, will lead to the birth of four sons, Rama, Bharata, Shatrughna and Laxmana, who will redeem from you.( these are the four states of the Atman) So every person has to sacrifice based on his capacity and knowledge. A man who has sacrificed his anger, lust, greed, jealosy, pride and delusion - becomes very dear to God and becomes an object of his grace. The grace thus generated remeeds a man. Jesus story is also about the symbolic blood sacrifice, the same thing done by Lord Parashurama, by the destruction of Kshatriyas and sacrificing their blood at Samantapanchaka( Kurukshetra). There is no catch 22 anywhere - learn to renounce everything to God, including the very "I" that you cling to. The rest will take care of itself. You are clinging onto 24 elements of nature that you will need to shed one by one, and knowledge about these are needed, so some form of Yoga will be absolutely necessary at some point. But dont worry about that right now, start from the basics. The five vows of complete non violence, truthfulness, situated constantly in the thought of God, non possesion and non stealing, mark the beginning of this great sacrifice. The grace of God could operate only after you have set things right yourself, while repenting and prayer can serve as guidelines in this process. Start with total non violence if you are a true mumukshu. There could be no grace unless one is established in the love of all. And no beleif in God could be neccessary for a person who is selfless and loving towards all, because he is serving God though creation. God and creation are non different, except from the perspective of avidya.

I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.

What do you know about Advaitin meditation? Do you even know how saintly these Acharyas are? Do you know of one monist who killed others in the name of God? Monism treats everything as the manifestation of God, and there is no divisiveness unlike your dogmas. What have your own gurus done after Jesus? Take me to one God realized soul other than Jesus now. All they have is just a set of beleifs, nothing more. The result is lack of practice of meditation - no use with mere theory. Religion must be based on verification of claims rather than blind assertion of beleifs.

Need I remind you that confusion of muddled mind was such that even Sita was doubting or refusing to recognize Hanuman. Hanuman had to prove who he was by showing the ring of Rama to convince of her of the message of grace. Once she knew Rama was going to be on His way, she regained all understanding, proving once for all, the pre-requisite or #1 role of grace’s hand in our spiritual journey.

Sita was doubting Hanuman? Arent you literally reading Ramayana? Sita is the Maya Shakti of Parabrahman, and how can the Shakti get confused? Certainly Sitaji confused you with her Maya and still active with that - beware of her!

Looking back, if Rama’s wife Sita needed to know and understand from this kind of help from grace, who are we mere mortals to think any other way?

Rama is verify you. You did not know that it is Vishnu everywhere? If you manage to reach the Treta Yuga through the practice of Yoga, and reach the state of Turiya you will no longer say "who are we mere mortals to think any other way?". Ramayana is indeed your would be story oneday,
infact the would be story of every soul.

In Kali Yuga you think that you are ordinary mortal.
In Dvapara Yuga, you find that you are directly guided by the Lord.( Arjuna-Krishna)
In Treta Yuga, you find that you are non different from Rama, and all you need to do is to kill Ravana and go back to Vaikunta.(Brahman)

These are all you only. Different stages of the same Yogi. Christianity's scope is limited to Kali Yuga. Dharma is about all the four Yugas. That is why it is a subset.

If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.
BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.
For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.

How one sided you are?!!

You expect me to beleive in the reserruction of Jesus, while you think another one is hearsay? I did not see either and dismiss them both. Jesus resserruction is a metaphor emphasising the importance of sacrifice I mentioned earlier. The flesh is perishable, but Atman is not! So sacrifice the perishable entities, and cling onto the Atman. Follow the way of Jesus and sacrifice yourself in the crux of Jnana.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.

Oh yeah, Advaitins were quite fooolish in allowing infiltration of Dharma in the past....but not as foolish as christians who believe their sins have been paid by another. Krishna never said he was a son of God nor ever said he was inferior to anything. Jesus mentioned so - so he was not as enlightened like him.

Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!

Your messages remain a dogma because you have not shown a bit of liberalism by attacking both Buddhist and the Advaitin as foolish. What is the use of your grace when it cant reach anyone? Your dogma cannot find worth in anything outside its own dogma.

Dogma is another name for ignorance.

[Znanna]

http://www.joshuah.org/Steps/Article...Oct_9_2003.pdf


Interesting analysis of duality and trinity, in my opinion.


Namaste,
ZN