=Windwalker;3682367]I am saying that the embodiment of what Logos signifies has be reduced to a caricature of what it originally conveyed, which is very much the same thing that OM conveys, as I have heard you express.
Ok, as i cant be sure that the
original idea of Logos has been reduced or altered in anyway, all i have is your interpretation of what it may have been, I shall respect your view.
What is the word you use for moon in your native language? Is it different than the English word "moon"? Is the moon a different moon because of this difference in words used?
What is expressed is either saying the same thing, or something entirely different. May I ask you, in your experience does every single person within Hinduism have the exact same understanding of OM? ...?
Well obviously its a different language and we will have a difference there in linguistic terms. If i say that the name for the moon in my language is "PurvaPaksha", how would you establish my statement as true or false?
As for the understanding of OM for Hindus there may be and probably is a vast difference, which is the essence of OM itself, OM is also the One in different forms, and that is owed to the non historical origins of OM.
OM is not recorded as a Historical Word of a God, and that to me is a big difference between the OM and Logos theories.
No Hindu has to relate to the OM in one particular way, No Hindu can claim OM as the word of a God in a certain text, This is where the Difference is between the OM and Logos, where right now the Logos has a Historical text attached to it, those who are the Christian people can claim the Logos to mean just Jesus or their idea of a GOD, Many can site the same Bible texts as you have and say something vary different from what your line of interpretation is and these people can also reject the OM as being not even similar to Logos, and may not respect any idea of the OM , While in contrast many Hindus can respect and even incorporate the Logos idea, Hindus can post many texts where the OM idea is quite in accordance to your interpretation of the Logos.
The different ideas are no problem in Hinduism, Hinduism respects different Philosophies, But do that vast majority of Christians agree to to the Idea that the Logos is the same as OM?
Do the people in power of Christianity see my Idea of OM as legitimate and can respect it?
Well, I'm not a man of tradition. ....
Yes, ill agree that all traditional ideas have some truths, and i respect their ideas and claims of truth. taking into context the discussion of OM and Logos, i think the difference is that the OM is not a
religious idea at all, OM to Hindus is tradition and Dharmah, but it also has a meaning to Bhuddists, Jains maybe Sikhs as well, which could be different to the Hindu idea.
From our discussion to me it seems that the Logos had the openness of OM, but lost it later, but again i cant be sure that this sameness with OM was originally there in the Logos.
I am a man of tradition, i build on my tradition, I take pride in my tradition, i don't expect you to do the same, but can you respect it?
And please don't get me wrong in this convo, i genuinely respect your ideas. To me the difference is that in order to get the inclusiveness into Logos one has to take the idea out of the traditional Christian doctrinal view incorporate and to some extent appropriate the ideas of Hinduism and in this context the OM and represent the Logos in a new light, but yet still claiming that this idea is originally present in the Logos yet unrecognized by the vast majority of Christians.
I personally have a hard time believing that "Om is fully understood by Hindus". That's like saying God is fully understood. Logos is not fully understood by Christians, and that comes as no surprise as anything the mind can wrap itself around is by definition, not God.
Sorry, my bad, it is meant to be "OM as it is fully understood by Hindus is not exclusive". sorry for the confusion. here i mean the individual.
Well agree that the OM is not fully understood my majority Hindus, they all have a individual concept of the OM.
But how can there be any sameness then, when both the ideas are probably not fully understood by either party?
And why must someone loose the Christian understanding? Why not flesh it out so it shines more light, than allowing it to remain in kindergarten? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Isn't that asking Christians to convert to Hinduism and jettison anything Christian because it's taught in such fundamentalist terms?
Then the same could be said about Hinduism, but with Hinduism it will be the other way around, why would you leave University to enter Kindergarten? is there not already Christians asking Hindus to turn Christian and then jettison anything Hindu and label it fundamental or backward traditions?
But i know what your trying to say, and what im trying to say is that in order to have sameness we have to loose one or other differences, which in general i would agree there are similarities, but in particulars there are differences.
Other than it is part of another tradition and speaks to those people of that tradition. Which is a whopping huge reason to preserve it. But what I see needs to be done, is for its deeper understanding to more fully emerge from its prison of literalist thought.
Same for the Hindu tradition, we need to preserve it and foster it, but in doing so we must acknowledge that these ideas of inclusiveness are the original ideas of great Hindu Rishis.
To have the OM and Logos together, we must preserve the differences within and between them.
Aside from the fact that it is the term used by Christianity.. ....
Ah, then there are differences, there is not sameness of Language, symbols, religion, traditions and cultures, yet as you first tried to establish that the Logos is the same as OM, Why now posit any difference at all?
Is it because my post is the notion of removing your
traditional and cultural background to make us all the Same?
Not all shoes fit the same feet, but they are still shoes, and they are still feet, and with these shoes and feet of various sizes and shapes, we all move towards our destinations.
An apple is a fruit just like a banana, but are they the same?
My destination is realization of my self, why does it have to be your final destination as well?
Appropriated? No. That the light and insight of that understanding from Hinduism opens the light to a Christian in their own traditions, then wonderful! That Light was always there! To me, that's the beauty of sharing mystical awareness, and not merely arguing over symbols. It's in there, that Unity is found, not in trying to fit one cultures symbols with another. It's not a mash-up. It's not syncreticism. It's not some universalism. I can't stress that enough, and yet that what this is heard as.
That Light exists in all traditions. ....
Well the more the reason we need to actually preserve the
differences and not try to establish that one concept is the same as another.
Ultimately, it is neither your perspective nor mine. I most certainly do not say my perspective is "the" perspective to hold, as for one thing I don't believe that myself about my own perspectives!
I've learned all too well how that these perspectives of mine interfere with the seeing of Truth. Any ideas I hold as true, that I cling to, that I try to support my thinking with in order to hold truth in my mind, is exactly what must be gotten rid of in order to let Light fill my mind with Itself.
So at the peak as well all gaze at the Single Bright Moon, it is best described as aperspectival. Lacking any held idea, or language, or symbol. This is what I mean by Unitive Consciousness. .....
I like your ideas, friend.
I think that a truth is true for me and your truth is true to you, mine is not the same as yours, and yours if different to mine, if i can respect you view of your particular truth and you can respect mine and if we can both do that, then aren't we both already seeing the truth.
I think this is the power of our differences, there is no such thing as "everything is the same", i don't believe in that line of thinking.
I am not speaking of universalism when I speak of Unity, which is beyond universal symbols.
Unity with diversity or without, because when i speak in Dvaita (duality) or differences i mean unity with diversity.
