Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Dhanyavad from the depths of my Atman, I have always respected you view (Darshan) mate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logos and Aum
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Dhanyavad from the depths of my Atman, I have always respected you view (Darshan) mate.
Good, I'm glad we're on the same page. To disagree with someone who comes from a country that produced Heath Ledger, Sam Worthington, Chris, Luke and Liam Hemsworth, Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman would shake the very foundations of my world.
At the outset I have to say I absolutely love this discussion with you. It is so refreshing to hear your thoughts for me to process, and to be able to speak of my own with someone whose mind is clear. So to my response.
This is true you can't know this. I simply didn't wish to bog down the discussion with all the technical aspects of this, such as the use of Logos in the neo-platonic traditions, how it was used by Philo of Alexandria to express these things, how John appropriated it for us to communicate to his respective audience in order to bridge understandings between cultures, how the Greek syntactical use suggests eternality, and oneness of nature of Logos and Theos, etc. How this image of Jesus is also found in the various Wisdom texts that didn't make it into the canonization of the approved Bible, etc. So yes, you'll have to take my word for it.
On the personal side, in contemplating my own mystical experiences with this understand, naturally opened and resonated with your deeper explanations of OM in this thread. But I'll grant you very much of what you are saying in the rest of this post which I'll address now.
That's easy. By listening to what you were describing using those words.
Then I'd know you meant the same thing.I'll grant this that the openness of OM understood by Hindus is an improvement over the traditional Christian understanding that took inclusiveness, and made it exclusive. The took the Christ, and made it owned by the Church. Something I wholly reject, and am in agreement with you about the openness and inclusiveness of it. But as a small technical aside, the point of using Logos in John was to speak of its non-historical origins. Logos exists eternal as the manifesting agent of God. That's prehistory on every level, which was his point in stating it the way he did.
I keep coming back to this, as the only thing historical about Logos is the incarnation. The incarnation is historical. The man Jesus was historical, or set in history. The Logos is not. I believe the problem with many people's understanding of what is conveyed in John 1:14, "and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us", is that of the "dual nature".
It's a theological thing, which BTW, is the same issue dealt with in Buddhism about the Buddha! This is where they deal with it with the three-body doctrine in Buddhism; the Trikaya. You have the Nirmāṇakāya, which is the fleshly body born in space and time; the Sambhogakāya, the subtle body of limitless form, and the Dharmakāya which is the limitless, eternal Truth. It's the same issue with dealing with the nature of Jesus. The Logos is his Dharmakāya; his resurrection is the Sambhogakāya, and his earthy flesh the man named Jesus, was his Nirmāṇakāya. Christians just have different terms for these same things, the hypostatic union and such.
You see the nature of these questions and how various traditions deal with them in similar fashion? It's not the Logos was flesh, only. It's Jesus, like the Buddha, has three bodies, so to speak. Just was we all do.
Does this help?
And though I would enthusiastically embrace this, which I do, I still believe it comes down to HOW someone internalizes the meaning of it. Not to chew on nails here, but I have seen plenty of dismissal of any Christian view by Hindus, including this very thread where the rhetoric again Christian symbolism gets down right offense. Just look a few posts before this one on the last couple pages.
I believe, if someone has a view of OM as you do, would be of the same heart as I am. The difference again is the person and how well they embody the meaning of both of these ways of speaking of the Divine. I view exclusive anything, as at a very immature stage of knowing.
Does this quote from a few posts ago sound respectful to you? "You are completely free to be infatuated with some inauspicious, mleccha corpse on a stick who condemns people who don't worship him to hell." My brother, I would love to believe what you say is true, and I would embrace it with my whole heart were it so. But what do you say to this for me then?
I honestly don't know what to say to this.
Oh boy! All I can say is some do. Certainly. Is there enough of these in positions of influence to make a difference to the whole? I can only hope that one day things improve. I actually believe they are in some regards. If they don't, then they will become increasingly irrelevant to what the world needs.
(continued....)
Oh most certainly! The only thing I have an issue with with anyone in religion is that they don't understanding the Heart, and replace religion as the all important end in itself. In the Christian tradition it says it well when it says, "By their fruit you shall know them", not by how observant they are to their traditions. Being observant can be helpful for many, and I fully respect and support that. But when "being right" replaces love, then the whole thing is failing and not serving its purpose. Agreed?
I think what really needs to happen is to get beyond beliefs, and get into knowing God. If anyone truly drinks of that well, is filled with that Light, then it can embrace another in their respective languages and customs in a truly transcendent, and primary way. We divide each other by focusing on our differences. God doesn't divide us. The God we create does.
Again, not sameness. But unity. Unity requires diversity, not sameness. Uniformity is sameness. Uniformity is not Unity.
Well....
In my view, and I'm sure you'll agree, Hinduism certainly puts the deeper teachings in the foreground more than the baby pablum presented behind the pulpits of most Christian churches. But I also quite certain that many, if not a very large number of Hindus themselves interpret these these teachings in very rudimentary, literal, or magical terms. People are people, regardless of which tradition they're in. But to the credit of Christianity, there are in fact these deeper truths in there as well. You just have to work a little hard to get past the many playgrounds lining the streets to get to the Universities. Yes, and I find it disgusting. Arrogant and ignorant in the extreme. Anything but loving and knowing from the Heart.
Have I ever said sameness? I have not. Unity is not sameness.
I'd like to believe they were the teaching of Jesus as well. He was all about breaking down these religious barriers that divide, not throwing them up. Christianity was originally where "There is neither Gentile nor Jew, but all are One in Christ", which then itself became an exclusive religion itself. Honestly, is Christianity Christian? You tell me?
But like respective understandings of God, realize that we are in the end, ultimately speaking not of two different things. If we are, then we aren't speaking about God, but our beliefs as God.
I so very love what the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said in the 14th Century, "I pray God make me free of God so I may know God in His unconditional being". Ideas of God are useful, but when views AS God, divide the heart from others, and from God as well.
Out of time, but I'll leave it at this. Again, thank you for this discussion. It means a great deal to me.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
=Windwalker;3682705]At the outset I have to say I absolutely love this discussion with you. It is so refreshing to hear your thoughts for me to process, and to be able to speak of my own with someone whose mind is clear. So to my response.
..,etc. So yes, you'll have to take my word for it.
I would not say my mind is clear, but ill take your word for it..
That's easy. By listening to what you were describing using those words.
Ah, well lets try that shall we, here is the description in Mantra form.
It has many faces on all sides, like a fair maidens complexion, it influences the mother of all, it is seen by the individual but only incompletely, its essence is eternal, PurvaPaksha is like the Mind.
Now, am i talking about the the word "Moon", as understood by you?
I like technicalities, So technically the understanding of OM is not a improvement among Hindus but its a original idea, OM has not improved at all, it does not require to be improvement for any Hindu at least.
And i keep emphasizing the difference of the non historical aspect of the OM.
Not too familiar with Buddhism, and this helps me to understand your interpretation of the Logos, so ill take your word for it.
As you know, I don't speak for all Hindus, but apart from one post i see the Hindus are as respectful as their Dharmah advises.
Again, the "HOW', bit is in itself a process which one individual does, individually we all have a vary vast and different view of both the Logos and OM, and that individual multitude of understanding is the difference between the OM and Logos. To say well they are the same is a violation towards the individuals approach.
And that violation in Hinduism is Hinsa, and we as Hindus practice Ahimsa (non violence) i cant equate the 2 as same, similar yet distinct and different is my approach, because Ahimsa is OM.
Thanks, but my approach to the OM is probably different to your approach to OM. but i know what you mean friend.
Just like in Christianity there are those who as you say may have reduced the concept of Logos to the exclusive idea, the same way there are people in Hinduism who may feel offended by the views of those Same Christians.
The Christianity that i know and have experienced, the Christianity that many Asians, Africans, natives ect have been exposed to for the past few centuries, the Christianity that purged the world of the pagans, the Christianity that is spreading in the third world right now, causes your interpretation of the Christian idea to be viewed as just a ploy or somewhat alien to the more popular majority and historical Christianity.
Now i know you do not practice such things and actually condemn those who do and did, but as i said i cant speak for all Hindus here.
And i apologize on behalf.
Lets hope at least the average Christian can respect our view, but until that happens, the differences in my view actually preserve me.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Agreed. and thanks
Agree we should go beyond beliefs, and actually reach for realization. But i disagree about focusing on differences leads to division, and also disagree that there actually is a GOD, but that is another discussion.
Ahh, Unity requires more then one side to proclaim unity, plus you did not advise if the unity is with or without diversity?
Well....
In my view the University for Christianity will be Hinduism..
And fortunately for Hinduism the Church control mentality does not exists in its culture, temples are vary much a public place and has no control over the Hindus the way the Churches do over Christians.
Sorry in post 6 where you said "OM is the same as Logos". so my reply based in that context.
Well this comments begs me to ask you, is Hinduism a religion with barriers in your view?
And as for Christianity being Christian, really after this convo, i don't know what it is.
But that's the difference, When i speak of OM, im not speaking of any GOD, now to equate the Logos with God, makes the OM and Logos even more vastly different then what we originally stated with.
I may have to rethink my entire perception of your view of Logos now that God has been thrown into the mix.
Again, this is going to get more complicated with God as the Logos.
Yes i have to do some work and get paid now as well....
we shall talk soon. Take care
But did you not say in post 7, "Pranava or Life was not in OM, OM is Pranava. 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." If OM was/is in the world in this way, then doesn't this make it historical as well? Isn't this incarnational? Isn't OM then both eternal and historical? Isn't this what John expressed metaphorically by saying, "He was in the world, the world was made by him, and the world knew him not"?
I will grant for arguments sake that how it is portrayed, because he is trying to focus on Jesus the person, and it is speaking in dualistic terms for the sake of communication, people who wish to stop there in their minds will limit Jesus to the literal interpretation of these words, rather than allowing them to unfold into the nondual, which I believe they are intended as, they rather are then used to reinforce strict dualisim, and also blocks potential. How we frame an idea in our minds places limits on potentials. I do not believe John 1 was intended to define what Logos is, but as a starting point to unfold the meaning into a higher, mystical realization into the nondual, which of course is able to speak dualistically without contradiction.
Actually, this is a complaint I have against Christians in their doctrinal infatuations. They believe everyone must believe the same way, think the same way, understand the same way, in order to be "saved" or on the true path. They quote "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", meaning a uniformity in belief. Whereas I believe this denies the individual unfolding of Truth which transcends any and all beliefs. They view Truth, as an object outside themselves, some propositional reality to conform their thinking to and then self-congratulate on being "in the Truth". Nothing could be further from the reality of it. Again, it's the Unity of the Heart, not the uniformity of the head that is expressed best by "one faith". And isn't this the essence of Santana Dharma, which allows for the individual approach?
Yes, that negative reaction based on history is what I see quite a lot in attempts to have discussions with quite of number of Hindus, to the point it blinds the person doing it to actually listen to another and rather judge them prejudiciously, like distrusting all blacks out of hand or something. I fully get the reasons behind it, but it's unfortunate when someone who does not reflect that in themselves gets the backlash of that simply by way of perceived identity with them.
Oh boy, I opened a can of worms with that one. As with anything I'm saying, trust me a little I'm not thinking in strictly dualistic, theistic terms. My use of God is really more Godhead, Brahman, rather than a specific deity form. The expression "God beyond God", metaphorically expresses this. That which cannot be defined. "God" when spoken dualitistically creates an impression of a object one can look to and call God. In nonduality that's not an issue really, as I call it the Face we put upon the Infinite. It is the Face of the Ultimate, but it is both is and is not what the Ultimate IS. It is a 2nd person perspective of the Absolute. And as such, being we are dualitist in nature as well as humans, that 2nd person perspective of the Absolute is an experienced reality of our existence. But then there is the 1st person perspective where there is no God. It is your Identity.
Now as you say we can go on here in another discussion, which I'd enjoy with you, but I hope what I said above takes what I'm saying and brings them a tad bit out of the traditional radical theistic understandings or portraits of what God means when I use that word.
I thought I had. With diversity, or without as well. Even if two people believe the same things conceptually, that doesn't mean there is a unity of the heart. People get that wrong all the time. Unity is like marriage, where two individuals, fully themselves as unique individuals, fully realized in themselves, embrace the other other and make their uniqueness part of the other. Such is God, IMO.
In my view the University for Christianity will be Hinduism..
Yes, it would help them to listen. It might make them hear their own mystics who have been saying the same things all along to them.Perhaps this is so, but that other Hindus wish other Hindus to conform to their understandings does exist the same way it does in Christianity. I've seen that demonstrated many times here on these forums. It surprised me at first, but its understandable as the rule-role conformist stage exists in all religions.
The full context was, "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." I was referring at the point to that aspect of OM, which is the same as Logos. Does the teaching of Logos and OM in their respective traditions follow identical and parallel lines in all respects, no. But they can be understood that way by breaking out of dualistic frameworks, as I discussed earlier.
Yes. But don't get me wrong, I do greatly admire it more than you realize. I'll save discussing this at this point.
Then I've done my job well.
I don't think we're off in our thoughts, just don't get hung up on my use of the word God too much.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Good, I'm glad we're on the same page. To disagree with someone who comes from a country that produced Heath Ledger, Sam Worthington, Chris, Luke and Liam Hemsworth, Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman would shake the very foundations of my world.
Wow, i didn't know they were Indian-Fijian-Australians...
I saw Location: Australia. I want to move to Perth, myself, and get away from this cold and snow. And everything and everyone since Perth is so remote.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
That is not exactly what i mean by historical, Let me try to clarify, The Pranava (OM) cant be historical in the sense it does not start with a historical record (text) where there is a beginning and a end. In other words i cant provide you with a text that says even if in a metaphorical sense that "OM made the world, and the world was in OM and OM was in the world but the world does not know the OM", or even "In the beginning was OM, and OM was God" ect, there may be some texts which have a poetical rendition of OM as Pranava or even Vak in third and second person, but the Idea of OM is not bound to one text, one incarnation one point in the beginning of History or any part of the History as we know it, or one Historical person or One revealed texts ect, It is continues with no beginning and is unending. OM is not something that i have to interpret to understand from a persons metaphorical statement in a book.
Yes this is one major difference in the Hindu thinking, here what you state is that the starting point for your interpretation is Duality, and then need to remove duality to get a non dual outlook, as dualism blocks and limits potentials of attaining a non dual state.
The Hindu starting point is the Nondual evolving into the dual state, so there is no need to remove duality to see non duality but more to preserve the duality but recognize the oneness behind all.
Yes one could say that, And this individual approach means that there are differences in ideology, Philosophy, Culture, Tradition ect ect, and the integral Unity is achieved through actual preservation of this Individuality, which is Sva-Dharmah.
Yes i agree fully, and hope you can put that incident in the past, and not hold anything against all Hindus.
Ok agree, im not in the mood to go into that discussion.
To me Unity with diversity is the only way of attaining true unity, to me Unity where there is no diversity is not real unity, marriage is somewhat contractual these days, so i would equate it more to be like mutual respect rather then marriage.
I actually think this has to do a lot with influences with Abrahamic religions and a somewhat protective attitude due to long (almost 1000 yrs in the case of Indian Hindus) period of invasions and colonization which caused a lot of civilization decay. But the Temples have stayed the same in regards to control and i would say actually have lost a lot of spiritual influence among Hindus in general.
Again in general those two statements about the OM and Logos can been interpreted by anyone in any sense. That seems like a similarity in only one aspect of the OM and i do agree. But then similarities are abundant in the world in general, what makes a idea or concept special is the particulars and the differences associated with it.
Your proof of Logos being the same is scriptural interpretation, while mine just is, what if i never said the OM is the sound of the Universe, would you have seen any sameness?
Ok maybe another time, one more question what religion does not have boundaries in your opinion?
Ok shall try.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
I saw Location: Australia. I want to move to Perth, myself, and get away from this cold and snow. And everything and everyone since Perth is so remote.
You know Perth is like a 3.5HR flight away from Sydney, and Fiji generally is 4HR, so i go to the Gold Coast instead.
In Hinduism there is a concept of the General-Universal (sAmAnya) and the Particulars (vishesha). All religions differ in terms of the particulars. There is no point equating the particulars from around different religions. But the General - the Universal, pervading all realms an all time periods is said to be non dual.
In this context, to start with, AUM/OM is surely a particular of the Veda/Vedanta. It cannot be found in any other scripture. But AUM/OM touches the General. It has the power to hold one by hand and effect a meeting with the General.
I hope that a translation of Mandukya Upanishad that explains AUM/OM in 12 verses may fit here.
Enjoy.
In this context, to start with, AUM/OM is surely a particular of the Veda/Vedanta. It cannot be found in any other scripture. But AUM/OM touches the General. It has the power to hold one by hand and effect a meeting with the General.
I hope that a translation of Mandukya Upanishad that explains AUM/OM in 12 verses may fit here.
Enjoy.
I'm enjoying and getting a lot out of this discussion about OM. I wish to address the recent points raised in the last couple points, but for the moment I wish to divert a little into my personal history to shed some light on this unfolding conversation, and how it creates the context for this. It all begins for me with experience, and the rest is simply finding words to express what is itself beyond words, be those poetic or theological. I think you will see where I am coming from a little better by speaking of this. This is certainly no exercise in trying to define reality in ideas.
When I was a young person I was not religious person, not raised in a religious home given religious instructions or teachings, with little to no participation with religious institutions through friends or community. In my later teen years, in the midst of a deep existential crisis I had two spontaneous state experiences a matter of a few days apart. These forever changed who I was and set the course of my life ever since.
The first occurred where I had fallen into a fitful sleep where I became consciously aware of this nightmare as it was unfolding where I was facing my own death. The experience had moved from a dream into a conscious awareness of my being slipping into a blackness of death. I tried to 'snap out of it', so to speak but it continued to the point where you know beyond any doubt you were at the moment of death. Fear seized me, and I cried out in terror to not die.
At that moment time ceased. White light was all there was. Peace. Knowledge. Love. Power. Grace. Compassion. Mind. Singleness. Infinity. There was infinite Mind which 'looked down' upon me (these are very loose descriptions) with Absolute Knowledge, Absolute Love, knowing "me" as it were my whole life. My whole life passed before my eyes, looking back as it were at 'me' as a child, through the years of my life in a glance, and this knowledge imparted to my mind that the entire time, That which now held me in timeless space in that embrace of Love, has always been there intimately "with me" the entire time, in all moments of my life. And then as my mind turned back as it were, I heard a single word in my mind and it was my name. It is impossible to describe this with words, but I was looking into the face of the infinite, which was only but a small sliver of an infinity beyond it. But yet within that small sliver was absolute infinity itself. And then I was abruptly awake again, as it were, back on the bed. And I cried. Rivers of tears washed out my soul, cleansing away the debris I carried with me.
Stunned and in great desire to understand this, I sought out religious teachers over the next few days sharing this experience with them looking for understanding. Neither of the two I spoke with had anything to say, and I think they thought I was nuts, or something. But then as I was leaving the last one, feeling confused that there was no help from them and not knowing what to do with this, without any warning, as I was walking outside, suddenly the entire universe opened itself to my entire being. Suddenly for the first time as it were, I saw true colors. The sky was blue, the purest most real color blue, the grass was green, true green. Everything radiated Light, Energy, Love, LIFE. Everything was Life, every molecule of air, everything thing that fell into my sight was alive with energy radiating from everything. The suddenly a great rush of this energy welled up from the deep inside of me and started gushing out from the most unfathomable deep within, unstoppable Love rushing out in an exchange, a circle from within to everything without, and everything without to within. There was Absolute Peace, Love, Life, radiant Joy. There was no longer any darkness within my mind or body, as there was no place for it. I saw people walk by me and their bodies shone this Light, but yet as I looked into their eyes I could see them lost inside themselves in a world of their own thoughts, unaware of that Peace that was them, separated from it by themselves in their own worlds that couldn't see it.
Everything that followed over the next decades of my life has been in pursuit to know that within again, and to grow in myself into that which is the Eternal. I learned the teachings of the religion of my own culture, and found it to be a step backwards for a time as it were, to kindergarten so to speak. But that simplistic storybook version of the Divine, though it has its place for some was quickly outgrown. In that exposure, I dug deep into the Logos as I found in many regards it expressed that Wellspring that springs forth from everything, to everything, and from everything. And so in this discussion of OM, I too am finding expression of this in that, perhaps even moreso actually, which I'll explain later.
And I'll need to add here, is that after many, many years of trying to understand this with the mind, some few years back now I began for my first time meditation practice, which much to my delight was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. I now expose these cornerstone experiences of my early life every day in meditation, which is then carried forward into my lived experience knowing that Peace, that Wellspring from which all that is arises and returns. So this is more than trying to prove some theological point to me. I have no vested interest in theological points, but simply desire ways to understand and express this.
I'll return to the earlier points raised now that I've laid this out. I realize the risk in exposing myself like this. And no, I have no mental illnesses, if anyone is wondering.
This is very stable and grounded and centered in me.
Last edited:
Is there nowhere in any Hindu texts where it speaks of OM in order for that to be something you have in mind, or can talk about? Where does it as an idea come from in other words? And then if it does, how is that different than it appearing using in the Gospel of John? I don't see how the fact it is used in John means that Logos is historical, anymore that OM being used in Hindu texts makes it historical.
Again, to reiterate Logos has no beginning and no end. Logos is eternal, without beginning and end. John does not say Logos had a beginning. John says in the beginning of this creation, of our world, the Logos was pre-existent. Logos is uncreated. That's what the text says. That's what the use of Logos meant when John chose to use it to convey the eternal nature of Jesus. In fact, Logos was not originally a Christian term used in this regard. Based on our discussion it appears to me Logos was used to describe OM as you use it.
And is the Logos bound to one person in history? No. That Light which shines in the darkness, as John puts it, shines in all men, and all creation. And this is how I see it fitting well with what you have described as OM. In my experience I shared to provide some context to this discussion, it was no idea or concept taught to me responsible for see the nature of what IS, that reality of the world that radiated out of every person, out of every molecule of air, out of blade of grass, out all that is. That's Logos. That's OM as well, isn't it?
"Let your light so shine before men that they may see it and glorify God". In this context, those words are much, much more than poetry. They are factual, letting Logos radiate from us as the Divine in us. Isn't this too OM?
Actually for me personally, my starting point has always been that experience of nonduality that began this whole trying to understand it in dualistic terms. I just didn't know those terms. I did not know what to call it! But in this context, assume the author of John was starting from a place of mystical nondual realization. How would he attempt to communicate that truth to those who had only dualistic understanding of reality? He would use words, but rather open-ended terms, metaphorically, symbolically, archetypally, in order to draw one into higher consciousness which can see and experience both the dualistic in nonduality, emptiness in form. And that is exactly what Logos speaks to. Making the unknowable, seen and known in the world of subject/object dualities, while it itself is both and neither.
We have to be careful in our discussion over terms as well to not confuse what we're saying. When I speak of nonduality, I am not conflating that with monism. Monism is not-duality, not nonduality. Nonduality is not emptiness of form, but emptiness in form, and form in emptiness, and neither. The One and the Many. From the One to the Many, from the Many to the One. In my approach it is really more a contemplative tantric approach where you do not escape the dual, but through the dual you expose the One. And from the One, you know the many. Nonduality is the embrace of both and the recognition that this is the true nature of reality.
I will not do what is an injustice when done to others or to myself. I simply recognize that regardless of religion, some people are operating out of their egos, and this is the result.
Are you simply agreeing with what I'm saying? But as far as marriage goes, I'm speaking in the true sense of the word where "the two become one". What that means to me is two, or more, fully self-realized individuals coming together preserving their unique distinctiveness, and creating a "we" that is unique new "one" which is neither individual, and both. A marriage of souls, is not a dissolution of identities, but rather a creation together of a 3rd. The intersubjective we, becomes a part of the individual subjective of the participants in that 'we space'. That's marriage. That's Unity. That is being of one mind, not a single belief, but many held in Unity Consciousness. We operate beyond ourselves, with ourselves.
I know, and I get that and respect that. And in this regard to temples not be controlled by some central authority, I think Hinduism functions truer to the spirit of the religion, than Christianity. Hierarchies tend to suck the life out of religions.
Isn't your understanding of OM also an interpretation? I see it expressing the same thing in how you are expressing it. As I said, I've had an understanding of Logos based upon my research into the word, its contexts, and its usage that expressed my personal experience I shared in the last post before this one. As you described OM, it too fits that experience quite well, fuller even in the way you spoke of it. So, if you had used OM to describe something different to me, then I would not see it being the same. But since you did, then it's obvious to me we are speaking of the same thing. Aren't we?
I'll be happy to speak about that with you in this thread, but to address the latter question, having some manner of uniformity is necessary in order for a religion as some form of organized system to function for people. It can't be an utter free for all. What my problem is with it though, and this too comes to my personal experience, is that the people who tend to appoint themselves as the guardians of these truths, can inhibit those who are more spiritually developed than themselves. They view them as "in error", and take it upon themselves to weed out the heretics, so to speak. This can be good in some regards, but it is also blind to what is a potential good that takes what they understand and deepens it, not deviates it. So in the thrust for uniformity, the unique illuminations that open to the individuals become inhibited, held back, or distorted. It's like wearing a shoe that fit when you were 11, and trying to make it still work the same for you when you are 18, or you're feet can become all twisted up in them and you can't walk as well as you should.
To me the best system is one where all levels are represented and allowed, not simply the lower common denominators, which diminishes itself as a whole, which describes the Christian religion as an institution in no small part. It doesn't judge from the Heart, it judges from their interpretations of truth based how they think. And that is a human tendency.
Last edited:
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Actually there could be some texts (my mistake), I think it could trace it as far back as the Yajur Veda Samhita, and if it appears in any Smriti it only is appearing in as if the concept is already established by Shruti, but even in the Shruti the idea is used to portray a well established belief. And if it actually appears in Shruti, then it is considered as apurushay, meaning having no human or supernatural author. So my apologies, when i say Historical im using the Hindu view, meaning that the Bible is Smriti or historical.
Ok, and i can respect that view, and it seems that John was actually describing OM when he says Logos, would you agree?
Are you saying that your view of the Logos is what the texts says, or what John Says?
Yes i would agree that is OM as you describe there, no argument.
To some it could be, but in context of OM, let me rephrase and you will get my POV.
]"THIS light shines ON ALL AND ALL CAN see it and glorify THEIR SELFS".
This is more fitting about the OM for me, but Im talking in particulars and details here.
Again, ill take you word on this.
Ok, again i respect your view, at least i know that your familiar with Tantra as well as Buddhism, would you say these have been helpful to you in forming your personal understanding of the Logos?
Well yes, sorry if i was not clear before. Why i said about marriage is taking marriage in the more popular and widely used manner or more the way it has become in reality, where a certificate and legal process are required to make 2 become one or so to speak, but seems you are speaking about a more traditional marriage system.
And Traditionally in Hinduism marriage is like the coming together of Shiva and Shakti, Vishnu and Lakshami, Brahma and saraswati meaning those that compliment each other and are naturally not exclusive to each other in all respects are best "Made for each other", where the 3rd result in the combination of both does not superseding but actually worshiping the first 2.
Talking in context of the Logos and OM, i suggested Mutual respect.
Yes that is true to some extent, but i have not researched the OM on its own, or delved deep into its Philosophy, not rely on any texts to interpret what someone says 5000 yeas ago to get my understanding, OM to me is not the same as OM to any one else in this world, there are no groups in Hinduism who interpret text in the way i do, nor any other individual, I am distinct and different, and to me That is OM. My first introduction to the sound OM was in the prayer of the gayatri Mantra when i was a young boy, No one explained to me what it means, so from then on it is whatever i make it and to me that is what the wounder full thing about the OM, its what i want it to be.
Is that what the Logos is to you, but again its for you not for me.
If i were interpreting from any texts then we could say that this is my interpretation of the OM as described in so and so book, OM is my own from the beginning of my life not my interpretation of what someone metaphorically says in some book.
Religion as a organized system can never last, the opposite is Hinduism itself, the attitude of "free for all", is Hinduism and to me this is the Idea and the concept of the OM as well, OM and Hinduism is "free for all" and it has lasted as such for longer then any well organized religion.
I think having a free religion is better then having a organized religion.
Last edited:
What I have been trying to say is that the author of John did not invent or introduce Logos as a concept, but took an already understood term which others used to describe this aspect of the Divine in order to take his readers' understanding of this and tie it to Jesus. The whole thing is taking an extant understanding and expanding upon it, focusing the known concept into verse 14, 'and the Logos became flesh'.
Was it Philo of Alexandria before John who was the first to use the term in this way to describe what is expressed in OM? Who really knows. It certainly was John though who took it and wove it into the Jesus story however. So in the same way, someone historically had to be the fist to speak of this aspect of knowledge of the divine and term it OM. Someone had to be the originator of the word. Or rather, someone had to experience that and then name it, or express it in order for it to become an idea, a theology, a concept, a term, a symbol, etc. OM itself however, what that word points to, as well as the term Logos is not conceptual in itself.
Again, I do not believe these things put the idea of the divine in our heads, but rather are ways to express the intuition and the experience of the divine itself in words are heads can then, after the fact, think about them and express them linguistically.
From what I'm hearing, what John was touching on in using Logos is what OM is expressing as well. I think John was using Logos in the way it was being used elsewhere prior to him in order to use it as a starting point to communicate further into the person of Jesus. So yes, the text expresses Logos well in the first several versus, though it is not intended to teach what Logos is. It is intended to take Logos and teach who Jesus was.
I'm going to very loosely paraphrase in my words taking what is being communicated in the original texts the first few versus of John 1 to demonstrate this,
"Before the beginning of our worlds, the eternal formless and unknowable shone forth the infinite in manifesting radiance, bound to the eternal One as itself in expression. This Logos, this Reason, this Idea, the Manifestor is the eternal one and no other making known itself. All that came to be, all the becomes, comes into being through this expressing One. Nothing that was, is, or will be, comes any other way. The Light that expresses the divine, shines in all that is, making the One known to all. Yet though it is in the world being made through it, those who are blind do not see it."
~John 1:1-5
~John 1:1-5
Yes, and that is in John as I just paraphrased as well. But it is true that not everyone, few in fact, see that and recognize that in themselves or in others. And as far as saying "glorify your Father which is in heaven", this is simply a dualistic expression which takes God an makes it an archetype of their true Self. To know God is to know your Self. To know your Self, is to know God. So when you glorify God, you are glorify God in you, as you.
I believe it was Hafiz who said, "To say I am God is the humblest thing a man can say".
Last edited:
A salient question. Again, the reason I shared my personal experiences with you is to understand they are the starting point for me for all subsequent ways or modes to express what that is to me. I've always had the fuller picture to begin with, just lacking words. What the challenge has been is to takes others traditional teachings of these expressions, which the context coming from largely a lack of direct experience in themselves, somewhat limits how that word is communicated through them to others. Therefore it attaches their limited knowledge with it.
In Christianity, particularly its more anemic bodies in Protestantism, these things are reduced to formulas and data, rather than resonant symbolic expressions. They are doctrinal, rather than poetic. The understandings do not glisten with subjective meaning and inspiration, but rather are static objects one acknowledges and goes on their way telling themselves all is well.
In short, it was what I brought into it from my experiences, and presently unfolding experience as well, that opens that understanding much more deeply. As I learn about tantra, as I learn about OM, as I learn about Hinduism, as I learn about Buddhism, it takes what I've always known from the beginning and allows it a greater range of expression. And hearing these things fleshed out in other disciplines such as in Trantric traditions, it gives vocabulary to what I've seen all along in this. I've always read Jesus' words as something far, far beyond what it has become reduced to in more modern expressions of Christian tradition. They are actually nondual, they are tantric. They do align with the Vedas, etc. which creates quite the stir by Hindu traditionalists as I've become more than familiar with now these days.
Has Hinduism or Buddhism influenced my thinking? I would say it has helped take what I've always known and given it fuller expression, which I can then see existing in the Christian tradition as well. It's always been there too. As I've pointed out, you can go back over the centuries, and the mystics are all saying the same things, be they Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. If you don't start with the concept to approach God, but you start with God (how you know I'm using the term), then all of these words we use are jewels reflecting and refracting that divine Light than shines into them all. You know the divine, and you see the divine in all. If all you know is the spectrum of colors refracted through the glass, then the colors that fall into another culture confuse the mind, assuming they are not from the same Source.
Yes, Shiva and Shakti. :yes: That's the mystical union. We complement, each other. Now what you and I are agreeing on here becomes very interesting as that 3rd, this relationship we are speaking of is not a static form, some binary system of balance, but a relationship in a dynamic ternary system, responsible for creation. It is the interaction of the two which creates and third, which creates a tension, which creates and emergence of a fourth, and so on. I won't expand on this now, but just put that out there. This by the way, is how I could also see that Logos in relation to emptiness, Shiva and Shakti, it manifests into form. All things were created through Him, really could be better understood as through that relationship. Yes?
Then you and I begin in the similar way. I knew what this was before any words were given it.
As for the Gayatri Mantra, doesn't that itself sound like my paraphrase of John 1 above, when you distill it down to its essence? I love the Gaytri Mantra, BTW.
It is many things to me, and not limited to that expression, but what it expresses finds itself in many forms, and all forms. It is all forms, and no form itself, meaning not identified or limited and defined in one form alone. Though, can be fully known in that form, or any form.
I am a huge advocate of not having God defined to us.
I am thinking I am in agreement with you.
Last edited:
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
I think i understand, I will try to summaries, it seems that the Logos=Jesus Christ idea is actually Johns Idea of establishing the divinity of Jesus, while having the open idea of Logos and reducing it to the incarnation of Just one being and then the entire association of Logos with a person called Jesus actually became the idea that the Logos is Jesus yet a so called son of some God who then is the Logos as well.
And as you have said regularly that the traditional Christianity or the one that is practiced by majority and of old has actually reduced the Logos and the openness to a idea/concept ect ect which actually institutionalizes and gives one set of theologians the power over all interpretations of the Bible texts which they sort of use to brain wash the everyday Christian by telling them that:
There is a Heaven if you believe in Jesus.
There is Hell if you don't.
Jesus was a actual historical person.
There are such things as Angels, Demons and a Devil ect ect
There is One thing called a God
That everything was created and nothing existed before.
The universe is 6000 years old
The world was made in 7 days
That Jesus is the way to salvation.
The Universe has a beginning.
That there is a judgement day and everything will end.
That the Logos is actually Jesus as a person and not a much more profound idea/concept ect ect
Logos means the word of God
God is three, Father Son and Spirit
The Son is Jesus
The word in the beginning was God
That Jesus is like a Avatar of Logos/God but Krishna is not.
That there is Only one Divine, and our Souls are born sinners.
That Jesus took birth from a Virgin.
That only through Jesus can one get to heaven or even God
And all the other claims of truth are false and Christianity is the only saving Grace and is true. ect ect
The Church is the main authority
There are no living saints
Images of GOD are prohibited
Believing in more then one God is Prohibited
Logos is one GOD not the Divine in many forms.
All of the above is a established belief in the everyday, popular or what i would call common to all Christians of the different sects, as personally not having studied any Christian texts i am sure from personal experience and observation that most of the above statement will include the general beliefs of lay or even well read Christians.
And this has been mainstream Christianity according to the Churches and people in Authority.
But as the open idea of Logos also encompass our inner selfs similar to the Hindu Atman, meaning that we are Logos in fact we are Jesus and also God, and in your interpretation of what John says and your idea/concept ect of Logos itself is to you the same expression to the Idea/concept ect that I express about the OM and what it means to me. The only differences you see are more in linguistic terms, and different approach to the same idea, all other differences are our dual minds not recognizing the non dual nature of reality.
Am i on the right track now?
As for the second post.
I do understand your POV, it is you personal experience that lead you to finding the inner and deeper meanings in the Christian texts, and its good to see that you do somewhat acknowledge that the Dharmic Philosophy helps and does not hinder your progress to self realization, I do hope you realize that traditionally there is a different destination to every individual in the Dharmic fold, Moksha for some, Krishna and Vishnu to some, Shiva-Shakti and Yog as well and re-Birth for others also complete knowledge to others and much much more, so please continue in your quest.
The only thing i am concerned about is your enthusiasm to equate the Dharmic traditions with the Abrahamic ones, even if the Abrahamic one is your own interpretation of the said religion, your good intention can be used against the Dharmic traditions, Not by you or anyone with your similar peacefull nature but by those that hold power and have held the power and are looking for converts and to undermine, reduce and in some instances to completely destroy the old and more vast Dharmic idea/concepts, somewhat similar to what has already happened to the Logos in Christianity could happen to the OM of the Hindus.
That is one major reason that i wish to keep my OM (Self) distinct and to preserve my individuality and to further the concept of OM which in fact may be in accordance with the traditional idea/concept and has no conflict with the old Dharmic view of the OM. So in general i can respect and agree to Your particular idea of Logos, which is in accordance of my particular idea of OM.
Yes. As I've said before that someone who sees a higher, or more mystical understanding and speaks of it will generally only be understood by those who hold a similar perspective gained through experience and then "get" what is being intimated by the words. Otherwise, the more concrete-literal mind takes the words and creates a picture they can understand and things like the Logos becomes an exclusive thing to Jesus removed from us. Which is utterly ironic inasmuch as the core message of the Gospel is to open us up to a reconciliation of ourselves with the divine, not take the Christ and move it positionally next to GOD up in the heavens with us down here pleading to the sky above to these deity figures to save us. The point of the message and symbol of Jesus is to take what is seen as unknowable and wholly transcendent and make it accessible and fully immanent within us. But as I've said, others take the symbols and then make them outside ourselves, yet again, because they cannot transcend their own mode of thinking.
I'm going to expand on this a little more now in our fruitful conversation.
A good number of points of what you cite above is not reflective of the majority of Christians, but the current growing number of fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who think in terms like this since the early 1900's. Just to be fair and clear about this regarding what we call mainstream Christian thought. That insidious creature of fundamentalism is what is this narcissistic, religious entity that trod right over the Spirit in their desire to make points for themselves in their imagined heaven that awaits them for doing good works. (I have a strong distaste for them, if you cannot tell
). I'll break out a few of these points above to help clarify:
- There is a Heaven if you believe in Jesus.
- There is Hell if you don't.
Historically this is true in a way of thinking that is reflective of an ethnocentric mode of thought. This is not reflective of religion, but of that mentality which is a stage of development in all people who see others as outside and in darkness who do not share their circle. It doesn't matter what religion or tribe or group that is for exclusivity to exist. What can be said fairly accurately here is that the majority of Christians are at that stage of thinking. But a growing number don't interpret these things in strict terms of you're going to hell, literally, for not joining the ranks of their group. Fundamentalists of course believe everyone, even other Christians who don't think like them are going to hell.
- Jesus was a actual historical person.
- The Universe has a beginning.
Even science teaches this. But to be specific, this universe, the cosmos, had a beginning in the Big Bang. If you mean the Universe in the Absolute sense that includes not just the material reality of our cosmos, but the inner and subtle domains, as well as whatever happened/is happening, before and beyond the Big Bang, then I would say typical Christian thought is pretty much limited to this cosmos. - The universe is 6000 years old
- The world was made in 7 days
However, that said, a good 45% of the mainstream still have a hard time accepting evolution as responsible for the origin of our species. They believe in an old earth, but still see our origins in purely mythological terms, being magically created out of dust like clay action figures in God's garden and then animated into who we are today. But this too is reflective of the challenge of changing ones mode of orientation to thought, from magic and mythical, to rational and pluralistic. It's not the religious beliefs themselves responsible for this, but the mentality that makes the religious beliefs become this.
As for the rest of these point, likewise we would have to qualify exactly who, how many, and in what manner these things are either believed or rejected. I don't think it's fair or accurate to blanket statement apply these universally to all Christian thought. We can speak more of this later.
I'm going to respond to the rest later, so you can hold off your response until I complete my response to the second part of this shortly.
I think we are still struggling with this idea of "sameness". I don't see this as equating the two, but realizing they are distinctive paths of their own. My only point has been that at the peak, from a certain altitude of perspective they are realized as ultimately the same. In fact, as one respected Buddhist Rinpoche observed in like manner, that both atheism and theism are the same, and I agree with this. In practice however, there is clearly a distinction between them to this respective highest truth. So Abrahamic religions are not the same as the Dharmic religions. I believe there is value in each respective path, and people glean value by being open to the different paths, but we cannot, nor should not mash them together as being the same. They are not.
I don't believe in diluting symbols, but I do believe in advancing the consciousness of those who use them to not fixate on them to the point of not seeing the same Spirit at work in other symbols, where all they can see is how they look different, and not get at the essence that permeates them all. As I said before, when one realizes that essence in themselves, the symbols no longer function as symbols and fall away. At which point, the atheist and the theist are the same. We honor and respect the symbols of our traditions, but at that point, we see they are in fact all the same in what they point to. But not before that while they still function as symbols.
But then to your underlying point I believe you are getting at, that in the minds of Christians who conventionally understand Logos as distinctly and uniquely the person of Jesus, symbolically, it does not function the way OM does in how you embrace it. I will concede this. And as such, either they are able to liberate the Logos from this mere doctrinal formula, and allow it to be what I believe it actually does say (and other scholars as well, not just me), or it does not serve symbolically to them the same way OM does to the Hindu, according to how you represent it.
For me personally, it appears to function the same way. And in fact, another concession here, I wish I had talked with a Hindu following my experiences those years ago. I think I would have saved a lot of having to unravel the Christian teachings to get to what I believe their mystical heart is. That is certainly not represented well in the mainstream, and that to me is its biggest failing. The mainstream is better represented, not in your bullet point lists of doctrinal views, but in that the whole affair is largely externalized to them and not functioning around its mystical core.
There are certainly jewels there as well, for those with eyes that can see. But it does take an altitude shift for them to shine out, otherwise they are understood in rather less than illuminating ways, external rules and whatnot. But really, is it different for things like those spoken of in the Upanishads? Do people really 'get' those either without a shift in altitude?
And this is what I am talking about. There is an illumination that allows us to see one another, as we are in that Light at the peak. Or at least, we come clearer into view as we are more illuminated in its Light.
Again, I am deeply appreciative of this dialog with you. I have much respect for your views, and feel I have much I can learn from them and a great desire for that.
:namaste