Logos and Aum

[The Sum of Awe]

What is the fundamental difference between the Greek "Logos" and the common interpretation of Om?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What is the fundamental difference between the Greek "Logos" and the common interpretation of Om?

If your asking about the Hindu OM, My interpretation of OM is that it closely associated with Pranavah, or is also called Pranavah in many texts, we could translate Pranavah as "Life". Om is also Sat which can be translated as truth, existence and order, Om is also "Tat", or "that" which Just is or "that" which is the observed by the observer, OM is said to be the most highest name of Brahman, OM also represents the TriMurti of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, OM is said to be the sound of the Universe itself, OM is the foundation of Hinduism.

Now, what does "Logos", mean?

 

[John Doe]

What is the common interpretation of Om ? And common to whom ?

 

[crossfire]

Could Om refer to interconnective resonance (related to holism,) as contrasted with specification (related to reductionism) of Logos? Is this even a valid question?

 

[John Doe]

Could Om refer to interconnective resonance (related to holism,) as contrasted with specification (related to reductionism) of Logos? Is this even a valid question?

Well, it's a question. That is to say, it ends with "?"

As for interconnective resonance, I get that in my lungs and vocal chords when I make the sound "om". Making that sound is a trigger for subtle physiological changes and a focused noetic act, which subvert habitual thinking (ongoing identity confirmation rituals).

A meaning ? That's just more thinking.

 

[Windwalker]

If your asking about the Hindu OM, My interpretation of OM is that it closely associated with Pranavah, or is also called Pranavah in many texts, we could translate Pranavah as "Life". Om is also Sat which can be translated as truth, existence and order, Om is also "Tat", or "that" which Just is or "that" which is the observed by the observer, OM is said to be the most highest name of Brahman, OM also represents the TriMurti of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, OM is said to be the sound of the Universe itself, OM is the foundation of Hinduism.

Now, what does "Logos", mean?

Logos is the manifesting agent of the Godhead; that which reveals the unknowable, Emptiness, in express form. The energy that radiates the formless into form. To quote from the Gospel of John,

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This very one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."​

That sound of the universe itself, OM, is the same as Logos. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." The Logos is the energy of creation, manifesting the Infinite and timeless into the finite.

It's odd actually how traditional Christianity reduces the Logos to a "person", rather than as the energetic condition of all manifest being, which is what these passages teach. Then to take it to the condition of avatar, "And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Windwalker;3677166]Logos is the manifesting agent of the Godhead; that which reveals the unknowable, Emptiness, in express form. The energy that radiates the formless into form. To quote from the Gospel of John,

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This very one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."​

Namaste,

Thanks for the explanation, I somewhat understand what Logos represents now.

That sound of the universe itself, OM, is the same as Logos. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." The Logos is the energy of creation, manifesting the Infinite and timeless into the finite.

Now for the difference:

A) Strictly using Johns Gospel as you have provided.

1) OM does not have a beginning or end.
2) OM is not separate from nor did it come from one or many of our Devtas (e.g Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma).
3) OM is not a word uttered to manifest existence.
4) OM is not limited to have one meaning to one person.
5) Pranava or Life was not in OM, OM is Pranava.
6) OM is not limited to being the Pranava (life) of men only, but all living and breathing creatures and is the essence in non living material as well.

B) From your comment: And the difference.

1) OM being considered the sound of the Universe is not the only explanation of OM, that is only one aspect which has some similarity with the Logos but the more deeper meaning of OM cannot be left out of the equation.

2) I think you quote scripture when you say "He is the radiance of Gods Glory...", but the difference there is that OM is the radiance, GOD and Glory rolled into one, the Radiance and Glory of OM is also the Atman of a individual, and the the Atman in living beings and is the power that is in non living material.

3) OM is not only the exact representation of of the "Being", but is said to be the "Being" itself, sustaining all things by itself.

So there are a few differences that i could think of in regards to the concept of OM and the (limited) explanation of Logos.

It's odd actually how traditional Christianity reduces the Logos to a "person", rather than as the energetic condition of all manifest being, which is what these passages teach. Then to take it to the condition of avatar, "And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".

I suppose it is the traditional Christianity which came up with the idea of a Logos in the first place, so to say that those who originated the idea did not have a proper meaning or changed/reduced their own original idea is not correct in my opinion.

Oh, and in Hinduism Avatars are considered sacred.

Anyways these are some of the differences i could muster up, maybe others can contribute.

 

[crossfire]

Logos is the manifesting agent of the Godhead; that which reveals the unknowable, Emptiness, in express form. The energy that radiates the formless into form. To quote from the Gospel of John,

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This very one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."​

That sound of the universe itself, OM, is the same as Logos. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." The Logos is the energy of creation, manifesting the Infinite and timeless into the finite.

It's odd actually how traditional Christianity reduces the Logos to a "person", rather than as the energetic condition of all manifest being, which is what these passages teach. Then to take it to the condition of avatar, "And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".

This view of Logos as the bringer of formlessness into form is very much like the Taoist Taiji, the supreme polarity, which emerges from Wuji. The manner which Taiji works is by vibrating (Om connection) to produce yang, and being still to create yin.

Taoist Cosmology - An Overview Of Taoist Cosmology

 

[Poeticus]

snip

Now for the difference:

A) Strictly using Johns Gospel as you have provided.

1) OM does not have a beginning or end.
2) OM is not separate from nor did it come from one or many of our Devtas (e.g Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma).
3) OM is not a word uttered to manifest existence.
4) OM is not limited to have one meaning to one person.
5) Pranava or Life was not in OM, OM is Pranava.
6) OM is not limited to being the Pranava (life) of men only, but all living and breathing creatures and is the essence in non living material as well.

B) From your comment: And the difference.

1) OM being considered the sound of the Universe is not the only explanation of OM, that is only one aspect which has some similarity with the Logos but the more deeper meaning of OM cannot be left out of the equation.

2) I think you quote scripture when you say "He is the radiance of Gods Glory...", but the difference there is that OM is the radiance, GOD and Glory rolled into one, the Radiance and Glory of OM is also the Atman of a individual, and the the Atman in living beings and is the power that is in non living material.

3) OM is not only the exact representation of of the "Being", but is said to be the "Being" itself, sustaining all things by itself.

So there are a few differences that i could think of in regards to the concept of OM and the (limited) explanation of Logos.

snip

Oh, and in Hinduism Avatars are considered sacred.

Anyways these are some of the differences i could muster up, maybe others can contribute.

Namaste, Satya:

Thank you for offering such a detailed and
highly informative post. You were constructively
able to separate the two in said question and
definitively analyze how the two are not the
same and why they can't be.

And, I would like to bring to the forefront -
something which you already may be fully
aware of - that the very first "Sound" of the
Shri Rg-Veda is Aum/OM (which is followed
by a revelation from Shri Agni, as per the
astika concept of apaurusheya, which
every school of the Hindu conglomeration
abides by). This very "Sound" is the first
revelation of the Shri Gods. As you said your-
self, it has no beginning. "It" is Ishvar,
Bhagwan, Shri Vishve-Devah, all "rolled into
One", and rightly so, as per astika orientation.​

 

[Windwalker]

Namaste,

Thanks for the explanation, I somewhat understand what Logos represents now.

I appreciate your more detailed explanation below which is helpful to my understanding. A more detailed explanation of Logos will show it parallels very closely to your explanation of what you see as a difference. In my understanding of Logos, which I'll go deeper with now, these are not differences at all, but show they are very much the same metaphysical understanding of the Divine.

Now for the difference:

A) Strictly using Johns Gospel as you have provided.

1) OM does not have a beginning or end.

Neither does Logos. John 1:1 when it says In the beginning WAS the Logos, is saying at the beginning of creation, the Logos already was, in existence, eternally "with" God, and AS God. Not a thing created, but creativity itself eternally issuing forth from God. And that issuing forth is God. The Logos is the Agent of manifestation, the Manifestor. It is God Himself expressing Himself.

2) OM is not separate from nor did it come from one or many of our Devtas (e.g Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma).

Correct. Neither is the Logos. It is not a thing, not an object that had a beginning.

3) OM is not a word uttered to manifest existence.

Neither is the Logos. The Logos is manifestation itself. "The heavens declare the glory of God." "The invisible things of Him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal Godhead" Ro. 1:20. This is saying that not only the gross material world is the manifestation of God, the Logos, but the gross and subtle domains are all being manifested, day to day, moment to moment through the Logos. OM. And all can be clearly seen and known through that radiance, even the invisible things, the subtle and the causal itself.

4) OM is not limited to have one meaning to one person.

Neither is Logos. But sadly, many who do not see or understand the subtle and causal of the world, those are are strict dualists reduce an understanding of God, or the Logos, as an object. They think in anthropomorphic, subject/object dualities. Whereas when they hear "I am the beginning and the end", they think in linear terms, of time on a straight line. This is not entirely true. That beginning and ending, is fully existent in every moment, and in every person.

Think of it it like a Mobious Strip, which loops back on itself. Imagine us walking along its surface with the illusion of direction. Now point to the beginning and the end of this strip. That beginning and end is at every finite point, infinitely. "In Him we live and move and have our being".

5) Pranava or Life was not in OM, OM is Pranava.

Exactly. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

6) OM is not limited to being the Pranava (life) of men only, but all living and breathing creatures and is the essence in non living material as well.

Again, this is the same. Everything manifest God. Everything, radiates God.

B) From your comment: And the difference.

1) OM being considered the sound of the Universe is not the only explanation of OM, that is only one aspect which has some similarity with the Logos but the more deeper meaning of OM cannot be left out of the equation.

Ditto with Logos, as you are seeing now.

2) I think you quote scripture when you say "He is the radiance of Gods Glory...", but the difference there is that OM is the radiance, GOD and Glory rolled into one, the Radiance and Glory of OM is also the Atman of a individual, and the the Atman in living beings and is the power that is in non living material.

It is a difficulty of language and interpretation. It also says he is the "express image of God". The Logos in fact is the radiance, God and Glory rolled into one. It is perfectly identical to what you express here.

3) OM is not only the exact representation of of the "Being", but is said to be the "Being" itself, sustaining all things by itself.

Logos is exactly this. "All things are upheld by the power of his word". These things convey that very meaning.

So there are a few differences that i could think of in regards to the concept of OM and the (limited) explanation of Logos.

I'm hoping my further explanation of Logos helps here. Certainly yours has for me as well in seeing this is exactly my understanding of Logos.

I suppose it is the traditional Christianity which came up with the idea of a Logos in the first place, so to say that those who originated the idea did not have a proper meaning or changed/reduced their own original idea is not correct in my opinion.

I would say that those who spoke of this had a profound mystical insight, but that later theologian who lack personal experience of God on this level tried to wrap their minds around these expressions of that insight and reduced it to a less than full view of things. That's typical of what happens.

Oh, and in Hinduism Avatars are considered sacred.

Yes. And in effect, doesn't Jesus in the explanation above, being a human manifestation of the eternal OM, or Logos, sound like the equivalent of the Hindu Avatar? In effect, isn't he seen the same way by Christians as Hindus see their Avatars?

 

[Windwalker]

This view of Logos as the bringer of formlessness into form is very much like the Taoist Taiji, the supreme polarity, which emerges from Wuji. The manner which Taiji works is by vibrating (Om connection) to produce yang, and being still to create yin.

Taoist Cosmology - An Overview Of Taoist Cosmology

Isn't this so surprising that humans the world over in mystical insight all see the same thing? What does my signature line below say about the single bright moon?

What's that saying, "Theologians may quarrel, but mystics the world over speak the same language."

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Windwalker;3677541]I appreciate your more detailed explanation below which is helpful to my understanding. A more detailed explanation of Logos will show it parallels very closely to your explanation of what you see as a difference. In my understanding of Logos, which I'll go deeper with now, these are not differences at all, but show they are very much the same metaphysical understanding of the Divine.

Namaste,

Thanks for that, and yes a more detailed description your concept of Logos would help me in understanding the concept.

Neither does Logos. John 1:1 when it says In the beginning WAS the Logos, is saying at the beginning of creation, the Logos already was, in existence, eternally "with" God, and AS God. Not a thing created, but creativity itself eternally issuing forth from God. And that issuing forth is God. The Logos is the Agent of manifestation, the Manifestor. It is God Himself expressing Himself.

Ok, was it also in the previous creation and will it be in the next, all of which is believed about the OM. Because the OM is said to be eternal and un-beginning, so is this existence, as all this is OM.

Correct. Neither is the Logos. It is not a thing, not an object that had a beginning.

Ok, does the Logos have a symbol that physically represents it in Christianity, like we have the symbol of the OM.

Neither is the Logos. The Logos is manifestation itself. "The heavens declare the glory of God." "The invisible things of Him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal Godhead" Ro. 1:20. This is saying that not only the gross material world is the manifestation of God, the Logos, but the gross and subtle domains are all being manifested, day to day, moment to moment through the Logos. OM. And all can be clearly seen and known through that radiance, even the invisible things, the subtle and the causal itself.

Ok, that is a fair interpretation of the Christian scriptures, So this is also the similar view of some Hindus, who say everything is Brahman. Sounds like the Logos is seen as everything as well. Meaning there is no distinction between the Human/Animal/Plant/Mineral and Logos.

Neither is Logos. But sadly, many who do not see or understand the subtle and causal of the world, those are are strict dualists reduce an understanding of God, or the Logos, as an object. They think in anthropomorphic, subject/object dualities. Whereas when they hear "I am the beginning and the end", they think in linear terms, of time on a straight line. This is not entirely true. That beginning and ending, is fully existent in every moment, and in every person.

I think that is one major difference in Hinduism, is that if one person views the supreme OM as a subject/object manner, it is not in violation of the understanding of OM, OM itself is what a individual perceives it to be and is the individual itself. The "anthropomorphic" view is OK with Hinduism and is quite in accordance with the Concept of OM.

Exactly. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

That is nice, i think with OM its never referred to itself as being anything, OM itself does not speak to anyone, it is the act of speaking, the sound and the ears that receive it, it is the thought and the thinker, maybe because Om is not a walking speaking GOD.

This quote i think is what Jesus says, and now im thinking that you mean Jesus when you say Logos, How do you know that the Logos is Jesus?
And when you say that Logos always existed, has no beginning, is not a person or an object, im assuming you don't believe in the historical Jesus.

Therefore do you believe in salvation, Heaven, Hell, Angels ect ect, and the Christian Concept of GOD in general, am i correct in assuming that you are using the concepts from Christianity to find similarities with the Hindu concepts, and then trying to reinvent your Christian view of the Divine, Im am just trying to understand why you keep quoting Christian Scriptures but seem to have Hindu views on what they mean, no offence mate.

Again, this is the same. Everything manifest God. Everything, radiates God.

With OM it is not GOD, actually the concept of OM as being everything in existence including us, time, space ect ect, does not require any GOD or a controlling and creating agent. No one in Hinduism Worships OM, OM is not a Devata in our texts, OM does not incarnate nor is there a Avatar of OM itself.

It is a difficulty of language and interpretation. It also says he is the "express image of God". The Logos in fact is the radiance, God and Glory rolled into one. It is perfectly identical to what you express here.

Ah, seems that the Language and the interpretation of the Bible find it difficult to express the OM in its full glory, which in the language of the Bible people would be what your terming Logos, from what you say seems there has been some confusion on their side.

Logos is exactly this. "All things are upheld by the power of his word". These things convey that very meaning.

Well reading it literally i see a distinction between "all things", "Power", "his" and "Word", you may be right that the traditional theologians could have not understood the complete concept of the OM, which they termed "Logos". Luckily the Hindus have kept the original idea going.

I'm hoping my further explanation of Logos helps here. Certainly yours has for me as well in seeing this is exactly my understanding of Logos.

Well yes, your understanding of Logos, seems to stem from the idea and concept of the Hindu OM, So obviously i guess this is why you see a similarity. With me who sees the differences i think keeps the original idea of Logos which if you would agree is the same as the OM is actually preserving the complete idea for those who may think that the Logos is limited only to be Jesus or being called Logos, Would you agree that the Logos is actually the OM understood incompletely.

I would say that those who spoke of this had a profound mystical insight, but that later theologian who lack personal experience of God on this level tried to wrap their minds around these expressions of that insight and reduced it to a less than full view of things. That's typical of what happens.

Yes i see from your explanation of Logos, which is actually a vary limited understanding of OM by the Christians, i can sort of understand why you which to advise them of the sameness.

Yes. And in effect, doesn't Jesus in the explanation above, being a human manifestation of the eternal OM, or Logos, sound like the equivalent of the Hindu Avatar? In effect, isn't he seen the same way by Christians as Hindus see their Avatars?

But Om does not have any Human manifestation, nor is there Avatars of Om, and the only Avarats of Vishnu does not include any Avatar named Jesus, it would be more likely to say that from your explanation above there actually cant be a Avatar of Jesus nor a Jesus even existing as told in the stories in the Bible, you your self say Logos is Jesus, and is the same as OM, that then diminishing a actual Jesus as a Avatar existing, Because OM is not just one person its all, in fact I can also say that we all are the Avatar of OM, and Jesus is just another cell in the Body of OM. To say that the Logos is the same as OM and then to say Jesus is the Logos to me means that any idea not corresponding to the Idea of OM need to be removed from the idea of a Jesus. would you agree.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Namaste, Satya:

Thank you for offering such a detailed and
highly informative post. You were constructively
able to separate the two in said question and
definitively analyze how the two are not the
same and why they can't be.

And, I would like to bring to the forefront -
something which you already may be fully
aware of - that the very first "Sound" of the
Shri Rg-Veda is Aum/OM (which is followed
by a revelation from Shri Agni, as per the
astika concept of apaurusheya, which
every school of the Hindu conglomeration
abides by). This very "Sound" is the first
revelation of the Shri Gods. As you said your-
self, it has no beginning. "It" is Ishvar,
Bhagwan, Shri Vishve-Devah, all "rolled into
One", and rightly so, as per astika orientation.​

Dhanyavad Mitra Ji,

As you would see from my convo with my friend Windwalker there seems to be some misunderstanding in the Bible about the OM.

 

[Windwalker]

Namaste,

Thanks for that, and yes a more detailed description your concept of Logos would help me in understanding the concept.

This is an excellent discussion with you, and I deeply appreciate it as I am always process thoughts, and hold in great esteem Hindu insights.

Ok, was it also in the previous creation and will it be in the next, all of which is believed about the OM. Because the OM is said to be eternal and un-beginning, so is this existence, as all this is OM.

In my understanding, yes. Though this is not expressly stated in John. John's purpose in saying, "In the beginning was..." was to draw readers back to the familiar opening line of the book of Genesis, "In the beginning...", which was to speak of the origins of this universe. In my view, I find the view of multiverses compelling, and in line with my view of the eternity of the divine, ever-creating. Christian doctrine does not explicitly explore this, however.

Ok, does the Logos have a symbol that physically represents it in Christianity, like we have the symbol of the OM.

In a sense, but not with the same degree of saturation into culture and religion. But it's not really about "Logos", as much as Jesus (which I'll explain more in a minute), which would be the Alpha and Omega symbol in Greek layered on top of each other. I personally like the OM symbol better.

Ok, that is a fair interpretation of the Christian scriptures, So this is also the similar view of some Hindus, who say everything is Brahman. Sounds like the Logos is seen as everything as well. Meaning there is no distinction between the Human/Animal/Plant/Mineral and Logos.

I see it this way. Many other do as well, though I know most are probably challenged to understand it this way, as they think in strictly dualistic terms. More on this shortly as well.

I think that is one major difference in Hinduism, is that if one person views the supreme OM as a subject/object manner, it is not in violation of the understanding of OM, OM itself is what a individual perceives it to be and is the individual itself. The "anthropomorphic" view is OK with Hinduism and is quite in accordance with the Concept of OM.

You raise an incredibly important point here, and I agree with you. In nondual terms, yes it is valid and proper to understand God in a subject/object relationship. I certainly do, as it serves a role and purpose in how I perceive as a human. But to insist, as many do, that that perception and mode of relating to ourselves and to God is the only way, fails to embrace a fuller reality. But, I also see that that reality may be what is right for that time for them, as it was for me in how I relate on my own path.

I personally believe that what is taught in the Bible, is in fact an expression of the various modes of how we relate to God, and that in many regards much of what is communicated is accommodating those frames of reference. I will use certain familiar symbols to communicate truths that encompass those, as well as more beyond them. It's not the literalness that contains the Truth, but that Truth embraces all relative truths.

I may be getting off track here...

That is nice, i think with OM its never referred to itself as being anything, OM itself does not speak to anyone, it is the act of speaking, the sound and the ears that receive it, it is the thought and the thinker, maybe because Om is not a walking speaking GOD.

This get's tricky. I don't view the Logos as communicating specific "revelation" in the sense of thoughts and ideas. And I would agree with what you say above. God "speaks" as it were, by an attuning, an alignment of our mind and spirit with that Truth itself, which is not a propositional truth. So yes, Logos too is not a walking speaking God.

However, in us, in that Spirit, we can be that Logos in the flesh, an incarnation that speaks from our unique self, as that Manifestation. How I see Jesus, is the realization of that in the individual. What we can be in ourselves as we realize our Nature, our true Self, to use the Hindu term, or our Christ consciousness, to use the Christian term.

This quote i think is what Jesus says, and now im thinking that you mean Jesus when you say Logos, How do you know that the Logos is Jesus?
And when you say that Logos always existed, has no beginning, is not a person or an object, im assuming you don't believe in the historical Jesus.

Here's where it can get complicated to explain. I may need to do this over several posts in discussion with you. First, how do I know the Logos is Jesus? John 1:14, "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us". But what does this really mean? What does the "Son of God" mean? I believe all of are the Son of God, as Jesus was, but it is a matter of fully realizing and living that in Awareness in our bodies and minds. We are in this way, the Incarnation of Logos. I am as much the Son of God, the Logos in flesh, as Jesus was, as I am in fact that in myself. When I am in my ego mind, of course I am not attuned to that, and live as "me" in the flesh. But even so, this is still God in the flesh. I am eternal. My flesh is not. So "the Logos became flesh", is an expression of the Awakened soul in fully and complete illumination with the divine, as the divine in the body.

Therefore do you believe in salvation, Heaven, Hell, Angels ect ect, and the Christian Concept of GOD in general, am i correct in assuming that you are using the concepts from Christianity to find similarities with the Hindu concepts, and then trying to reinvent your Christian view of the Divine, Im am just trying to understand why you keep quoting Christian Scriptures but seem to have Hindu views on what they mean, no offence mate.

Actually, these are understandings I have come to on my own over the years, prior to familiarity with Hindu teachings. And you are helping expose more through your insights it is helping me with my own. And for this I'm grateful. I quote Christian scriptures, because it is the "native language" of my religious past. Admittedly, I'm in the minority, but certainly not alone. I read Christian mystics of the past, hundreds of years ago, and find they see and say the same things, as well as what I hear in all mystic lines in all religions. It's really a matter of how the symbols are used, and who is using them.


I'm out of time here, but would like to complete my response later.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Windwalker;3678310]This is an excellent discussion with you, and I deeply appreciate it as I am always process thoughts, and hold in great esteem Hindu insights.

Dhanyavad friend, And yes this is getting to be a vary interesting discussion, i apologize beforehand if some things i say or ask sound like a debate, which none of which i say in this discussion is.

Now that i understand your position of the Sameness of Logos and OM, i shall drop the word Logos and keep OM, as having OM and logos both being mentioned in separate languages will go against the idea of the sameness of them, and may confuse the reader about the complete spectrum of OM.

In my understanding, yes. Though this is not expressly stated in John. John's purpose in saying, "In the beginning was..." was to draw readers back to the familiar opening line of the book of Genesis, "In the beginning...", which was to speak of the origins of this universe. In my view, I find the view of multiverses compelling, and in line with my view of the eternity of the divine, ever-creating. Christian doctrine does not explicitly explore this, however.

Ok, so clearly those Christians who believe in just one creation emanating from OM ("or having a beginning and end), are in error, and do not understand the complete spectrum of the OM, when you say Christian doctrine does not explore the cyclic or even the multiverse theories that to me really enforces your idea that the traditional christian theologians reduced the open architecture of the OM to some limited understanding of Jesus and Logos.

In a sense, but not with the same degree of saturation into culture and religion. But it's not really about "Logos", as much as Jesus (which I'll explain more in a minute), which would be the Alpha and Omega symbol in Greek layered on top of each other. I personally like the OM symbol better.

But Jesus being the Same as OM should really be represented as the OM symbol, why would Christianity not recognize this?
Quite surprising to know that the "Word" which is OM in all Christian scriptures is not even correctly represented.

I see it this way. Many other do as well, though I know most are probably challenged to understand it this way, as they think in strictly dualistic terms. More on this shortly as well.

Again, nothing wrong being a duelist in Hinduism, it is every Individuals right to decide their own perspective of the Universe.

You raise an incredibly important point here, and I agree with you. In nondual terms, yes it is valid and proper to understand God in a subject/object relationship. I certainly do, as it serves a role and purpose in how I perceive as a human. But to insist, as many do, that that perception and mode of relating to ourselves and to God is the only way, fails to embrace a fuller reality. But, I also see that that reality may be what is right for that time for them, as it was for me in how I relate on my own path.

I personally believe that what is taught in the Bible, is in fact an expression of the various modes of how we relate to God, and that in many regards much of what is communicated is accommodating those frames of reference. I will use certain familiar symbols to communicate truths that encompass those, as well as more beyond them. It's not the literalness that contains the Truth, but that Truth embraces all relative truths.

I may be getting off track here...

That is a noble thought. I agree (as long as it is in the Dharmah of Ahimsa).

This get's tricky. I don't view the Logos as communicating specific "revelation" in the sense of thoughts and ideas. And I would agree with what you say above. God "speaks" as it were, by an attuning, an alignment of our mind and spirit with that Truth itself, which is not a propositional truth. So yes, Logos too is not a walking speaking God.

However, in us, in that Spirit, we can be that Logos in the flesh, an incarnation that speaks from our unique self, as that Manifestation. How I see Jesus, is the realization of that in the individual. What we can be in ourselves as we realize our Nature, our true Self, to use the Hindu term, or our Christ consciousness, to use the Christian term.

Good thought, but then the "Christ Consciousness", would actually be the OM Consciousness positing only the Hindu term as a valid interpretation as the Logos or Jesus Christ is not a complete vision of the OM.

Here's where it can get complicated to explain. I may need to do this over several posts in discussion with you. First, how do I know the Logos is Jesus? John 1:14, "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us". But what does this really mean? What does the "Son of God" mean? I believe all of are the Son of God, as Jesus was, but it is a matter of fully realizing and living that in Awareness in our bodies and minds. We are in this way, the Incarnation of Logos. I am as much the Son of God, the Logos in flesh, as Jesus was, as I am in fact that in myself. When I am in my ego mind, of course I am not attuned to that, and live as "me" in the flesh. But even so, this is still God in the flesh. I am eternal. My flesh is not. So "the Logos became flesh", is an expression of the Awakened soul in fully and complete illumination with the divine, as the divine in the body.

Well no need to explain this in many posts, that is probably not our discussion topic, but this explanation is sufficient.

quoting Christian scriptures is not a good idea, as the scriptures (as i gather from your previous comments) are incomplete of their understanding of OM, in your comment replace Jesus and Logos with OM, and your sameness will automatically be valid, that is the absolute realization of OM.

Actually, these are understandings I have come to on my own over the years, prior to familiarity with Hindu teachings. And you are helping expose more through your insights it is helping me with my own. And for this I'm grateful. I quote Christian scriptures, because it is the "native language" of my religious past. Admittedly, I'm in the minority, but certainly not alone. I read Christian mystics of the past, hundreds of years ago, and find they see and say the same things, as well as what I hear in all mystic lines in all religions. It's really a matter of how the symbols are used, and who is using them.

By coming to this understanding by your own "self", you are one step closer to actually removing the incomplete ideas of your religious past, by adopting OM in every instance when you see or read Logos, you will understand why many Hindus do not agree to the Jesus idea.

I'm out of time here, but would like to complete my response later.

Take your time friend.

 

[Windwalker]

Dhanyavad friend, And yes this is getting to be a vary interesting discussion, i apologize beforehand if some things i say or ask sound like a debate, which none of which i say in this discussion is.

Thank you for saying so. The same hold true for me as well.

I'm just going to pick up from this point in response and may go back to other points raised earlier if they hold relevance to where we are at at this point in our unfolding discussion.

Now that i understand your position of the Sameness of Logos and OM, i shall drop the word Logos and keep OM, as having OM and logos both being mentioned in separate languages will go against the idea of the sameness of them, and may confuse the reader about the complete spectrum of OM.

This is an interesting line of discussion which I'm excited to explore, which is the use of separate languages and the idea of sameness. Does dropping other terms in favor of another single term the best approach? I'm not so sure. I'll examine that in a moment.

Ok, so clearly those Christians who believe in just one creation emanating from OM ("or having a beginning and end), are in error, and do not understand the complete spectrum of the OM, when you say Christian doctrine does not explore the cyclic or even the multiverse theories that to me really enforces your idea that the traditional christian theologians reduced the open architecture of the OM to some limited understanding of Jesus and Logos.

Can any of us truly have a full understanding of OM, or Logos? We are able to penetrate into that Mystery beyond mind, and even realize the absolute nature of it within our being. But the fullness of that in how the mind understands that is ever-expanding. Bear with me a moment. When one enters into, or rather exposes the Absolute in themselves and rests within it, they experience Freedom. There is nothing freer than Freedom itself. However, the fullness of this Freedom is realized in the lived life, which is constantly evolving. As the mind becomes more aware of things in the world, as new information comes along, the Freedom finds fuller expression with that. So as the mind, through our sciences and other modes of research and knowing grows and expands our understanding of the world, so the fullness of the Freedom moves into greater modes of knowing.

All this to say, that even if someone is operating at a limited mental perspective, understanding the reality of the universe in terms of what appears to the mind factored by linguistic structures, cultural influences, scientific knowledge, etc., they are still able to experience that Freedom at any level of understanding. We all take that experience of God and translate in into our mental understanding using all of these limited structures. But those structures can expand and change as the overall shift in consciousness of the individual, and later the culture change. Basically, what I am trying to describe is that "understandings", way to talk about these things, are like 2-dimensional tree-like structures upon which we hang the ornaments of Spirit in order to attempt to speak about them and relate to them with the current ordinary mind.

Those structures can and do change in order to accommodate these shifts in consciousness as we adapt this higher Awareness into our systems of thought.

Now with that groundwork laid, on to the important part about language.

But Jesus being the Same as OM should really be represented as the OM symbol, why would Christianity not recognize this?
Quite surprising to know that the "Word" which is OM in all Christian scriptures is not even correctly represented.

Symbols are developed to represent the same things, ultimately, but they are shaped and molded by the culture engaging and surrounding each societies stories, their mythologies, in order to take the minds of the individuals within them and draw them upward to themselves, and the realization of what they point to in themselves and the world. In other words, they have to have meaning regionally. It really is irrelevant if that symbol, for instance was a circle with a dot for culture A, or a triangle with a star for culture B if what they are ultimately accessing is the same thing. And that same thing ultimately is found to transcend any and all symbols, any and all ways of talking about them. The object, the symbol, is not that ultimate Truth, and when that Truth is realized, all symbols are enfolded within it, and the individual now longer looks to the symbol, but becomes a symbol themselves, so to speak.

So if prior to this, culture A drops their symbol for another cultures symbol, it is very likely to not function for them. It has to have legs internally to that culture. It has to have roots that run deep into tradition and language. It has to be part of the shared cultural psyche, in order to have influence upon the individuals participating within them.

What I see being necessary, tying this together a little now, is not replacing symbols, but expanding the consciousness of the individuals and the culture to unfold the symbols they already have to a higher and fuller awareness of what they point to in the human experience. As that shift occurs, then how one approaches their culture's symbols will take a radical shift in depth.

What I see is this. It's not that Hindu symbols are necessarily "better" or "correct" (which all perceptions are relative and so "correct" is itself relative), but that the depth of understanding is perhaps more well matured than in the West. Of course, not to idealize things that somehow all people in the East actually operate at that level, but I do believe there is a wealth of teachings which are more readily received by those who are ready. Whereas in the West, the religious tradition has tended to lose sight of these deeper, contemplative truths in favor of an organizational body.

So if you simply lay the OM symbol on top of mentality that is not prepared to receive it, or taking any of the Christian symbols for that matter and saying what I am about them, it is like Jesus wisely said, "putting new wine into old wine skins," where they will burst. The consciousness needs to shift, and the way for that to happen is for its current symbols to become brighter and more illuminated to them through a higher understanding. Those who teach the symbols, need themselves to enter into them, and come to know their Self in order to see them, as opposed to just carrying them around as a sign, as a cultural referent as opposed to a symbol of transformation. If the symbol is not functioning as a symbol, then it will still fail. Simply replacing the symbol will not change the fundamental problem which is not understanding what symbols are.

I hope I didn't bog this down too much in technical detail, which I have a tendency to do sometimes as I flesh out my thoughts on these things. If so, I'm sure I can re-approach this to make it far simpler now that I've typed this all out here.

Good thought, but then the "Christ Consciousness", would actually be the OM Consciousness positing only the Hindu term as a valid interpretation as the Logos or Jesus Christ is not a complete vision of the OM.

I actually believe that Logos can in fact embrace that vision. Very much so. That the common understanding of it is very literal and limited is a problem with the underlying culture, not the symbol itself.

For clarity, I see Logos as not the same as Jesus per se. Jesus was a man. But to say the Logos became flesh, is not inappropriate if someone sees Jesus the man as the full and open channel of the Divine in himself. When Jesus the man says "I and my Father are One," he is not speaking as a separate eternal Truth, but the One. He says, "He that sees me, sees the Father," is to say there is perfect Unity. We can say this as well, if it is realized in ourselves and lived out through our own eyes.

But back to the cultural mentality, the West, very few in the West have this understanding. It is not that it isn't there in the teachings, which in fact it is. But the cultural mind, it's linguist structures created out of this, reinforce a blindness to this. It simply is unable to see it. And thus, it would also be unable to see what the Hindu insights offer as well. You see my point here?

continued....

 

[Windwalker]

quoting Christian scriptures is not a good idea, as the scriptures (as i gather from your previous comments) are incomplete of their understanding of OM, in your comment replace Jesus and Logos with OM, and your sameness will automatically be valid, that is the absolute realization of OM.

Again, I don't believe they are incomplete (as far as incomplete goes in any symbolic representation anywhere goes). There are plenty who did, and do get it, and when you read what they say, and read what those in the East say, they parallel, such as you see and hear me saying here with you. But this is not common. And what factors must shift for that to become more common seems to be the thrust of this current part of our unfolding discussion.

As for "sameness", the symbols will not be the same, but the realization beyond the symbols will be. Again, the symbols must be relevant culturally in order to function, but the underlying culture must be open to symbols. This is what I see as the key factor of difference here. We have become less open to the meaning of symbols. We have become engrossed in literalism and rationality as the only modes of knowing Truth, and thus amputate ourselves from it.

I wish to put this thought here for consideration. Sameness is not what is called for, but rather a Unity that embraces necessary and essential difference. There is a radical difference between unity and uniformity. It is not by making thing the same, or blending and mixing symbols that Unity occurs, but by transcending the symbols into the realization of them in the individual, who is then able to see through the eyes of Unity Consciousness and embrace all diversity as expressions of the same Self.

By coming to this understanding by your own "self", you are one step closer to actually removing the incomplete ideas of your religious past, by adopting OM in every instance when you see or read Logos, you will understand why many Hindus do not agree to the Jesus idea.

Well indeed yes, I have and am removing incomplete ideas. They are instead of being ejected, they are transformed into more relevant illuminations. I see it as important to listen to, and dialog with others about their own experiences and approaches to their symbols, to hear how they touch the face of God through them. Through this, we all stand at the peak of the mountain and gaze at that single bright moon, setting down all the tools we brought with us to help ascend it.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's odd actually how traditional Christianity reduces the Logos to a "person", rather than as the energetic condition of all manifest being, which is what these passages teach. Then to take it to the condition of avatar, "And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".

My guess is that it was what the society of the time could relate to. What was written in the gospels was directed at the common people. Philosophers would understand the deeper meaning, especially those with a Hellenic background in philosophy.

Aum = logos? Yeah, works for me. However, when was the "beginning"? Perhaps there never was a beginning and aum/logos simply reflects the ongoing energy of moment to moment creation, incarnation just being one the myriad effects of this energy. I know this sounds kind of trippy.

 

[Windwalker]

My guess is that it was what the society of the time could relate to. What was written in the gospels was directed at the common people. Philosophers would understand the deeper meaning, especially those with a Hellenic background in philosophy.

I believe a lot of it is spoken in ways which take familiar referents and layers a deeper meaning on top of them, but how that is taken is always through the filters of the hearer. But even so, some light trickles through, and where the ground is fertile, so to speak, it takes root and grows into a fully blossoming truth. But many people keep looking at the seeds and trying to get to the plant within them by dissecting it with a scalpel. This is bound to yield no plant at all. And it won't begin to expose the potentials hidden within the kernel.

Another way to look at it too, is that there are those who were later interpreters who became mythologized by history as "authorities". But in reality, they were still on their path like you or I are. We're all at different places in how we speak of what we have grown into, but others want easy answers and will latch onto others words as telling them the truth. Even if they learned at the very feet of an Enlightened soul, do you think they understood yet, without themselves being at the level?

I like my analogy of attempting to dissect the seed to find the truth of the plant, rather than letting grow into a unique living truth from that seed, which is the only way to realize that potential into form. Truth, with a capital T, is not a static thing out there to discover. It is a living, unfolding reality from within. And like every plant, each form expresses Truth within its unique self.

Aum = logos? Yeah, works for me. However, when was the "beginning"? Perhaps there never was a beginning and aum/logos simply reflects the ongoing energy of moment to moment creation, incarnation just being one the myriad effects of this energy. I know this sounds kind of trippy.

You may have missed my analogy to the Mobious Strip. It is not a circle, but rather a seamless loop, and as we progress upon its surface we artificially impose a linear reality with beginnings and endings. But in reality there is no beginning or end point, but rather an infinitive intersection of infinite points with infinity. The Beginning and End, exists at all points and none. It is always now, at every point. There is therefore no eternity beginning when we die. This is eternity.

 

[Poeticus]

Dhanyavad Mitra Ji,

As you would see from my convo with my friend Windwalker there seems to be some misunderstanding in the Bible about the OM.

Greetings, Satya:

Nothing to worry about too much, I hope. There will
always be either coincidental or superficial similarities
between various systems of thought or belief. But, your
initial post did a wonderful job in providing the basic
groundwork as to why the two are not the same and
why and how they can never be the same. These latter
attempts seem rather forced - forced in the projection
to establish a common ground. This is a persistent
trademark of radical syncretism/universalism cloaked
under the belief that it is "progressive" or "mystical".
​