Logos and Aum

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Windwalker;3689086]
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.........

I should clarify that my perspective is viewed from the outside looking into the christian world, and in my POV these points are actually applicable to the complete Christian faith, obviously there are sect and sects within sects that may have different interpretations of these general beliefs, but the institutions ,Churches and theologians generally are focused on these aspects of Christianity as a whole this is my observation. Im not saying every individual person believes these point exactly, you have to understand that im on the outside and what i see from my perceptive is quite different to those on the inside and i respect that, nether are those who believe these things right neither are they wrong, it is their belief which to me should be respected, if it is respectful of my beliefs.

I am only trying to establish your perceptive on the entire Christian Doctrine, which i am sure now from our conversation is a vary different perspective, and you have already clearly rejected most of the beliefs that i mentioned, the rest of the clarifications is basically again your perspective on these issues, which i respect but i cant comment on their validity as I am only observing one particular belief from a more larger and organized belief system.

I already respect your personal belief about the OM, so i assumed we already are on the clear path regarding the OM, My perspective on the OM is similar to your perspective of the Logos.

I think now we are veering off topic and into more of the particulars about Christianity and its beliefs compared to your interpretations of it as a whole, and its my fault but only because i wanted your view which i can add to my overall view of the belief system, and thank you for that.

Second Post.

I think we are still struggling with this idea of "sameness".....
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.....
..... is it different for things like those spoken of in the Upanishads? Do people really 'get' those either without a shift in altitude?

What i think is happening in our conversation is again a representation of the difference in our Adhyatma philosophies, or my view is different to yours because of my existence as a individuality, but the underlying unity (Yoga) is shining through which i can see, and I am sure you can also, there is also differences in our Adhiyagna philosophies, where how I view the OM is as a need to view it as a underlying diversity of unity in conformity to my tradition, while you somewhat have a new view of the old Christian tradition, there is also i see a difference in our Adhidaiva Philosophy, where my perspective of the OM does also include the idea where there is no Brahman or a God or even the underlying consciousness of unity and all that OM represents is just Prakriti at work all in the duality of nature, where the Devas and Devis are the natural elements of existence, although i don't think that you believe in a creator GOD type theology, i think see your Darshan as being what i would call theistic in general.

And of course i could be dead wrong about your Philosophy, please don't take this as me trying to define who you are, its more me trying to define my own identity.

And of course, the other difference that i just mentioned about my perspective of the OM in my Adhidaiva view, which i shall clarify briefly, is that to me OM is the concept which includes a great principal of existence (Prakriti) which is non living and includes Kaal (time) which changes into Chitta, Mana and a Shareera (intellect, mind and body), which then by further conditioning of time generates our Atman (selfs) as we know it.
In this view i see the OM as ever changing, non eternal principal of existence, life is a combination of elements which are non living.
I base this perspective on the Sankhya Dharshan, which is part of my tradition.

Anyways, i hope we have a understanding.

 

[Storm]

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

The Greek concept of logos is the linear, rational thought that we need to understand the external world, inadequately translated in the Bible as "Word."

Mythos, meanwhile, is the symbolic, a-rational thought that allows us to navigate our internal worlds.

Both were understood to be necessary, and I say our world suffers greatly for the devaluation of mythos.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The Greek concept of logos is the linear, rational thought that we need to understand the external world, inadequately translated in the Bible as "Word."

Are you sure? Many Christians talk about "the Word" as Jesus.

 

[Storm]

Are you sure? Many Christians talk about "the Word" as Jesus.

Yes, I am.

Remember the passage "the Word was with God and the Word was God?" That's not a bad description of thought, yeah? I'm not sure at what point or why it was decided that Christ was the divine Logos incarnate, but it is kind of a neat idea.

But you asked about the Greek concept. I assumed you meant Hellenic, not early Christian.

 

[Aupmanyav]

but all are One in Christ",

Can't we be one without 'Christ'? Why not one in 'Shiva'? Or why not one without being in 'anything'?

 

[Windwalker]

Can't we be one without 'Christ'? Why not one in 'Shiva'? Or why not one without being in 'anything'?

Certainly. A rose by any other name. To be clear, the quote you made above is a part of a Biblical quote, not my words. The context in which I quoted this should make it clear. Here's the full quote:

"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?"
​

Does what I said in the full quote above sound in any way exclusive to any understanding? So I'm not sure what you are challenging.

 

[Orbit]

Yes, I am.

Remember the passage "the Word was with God and the Word was God?" That's not a bad description of thought, yeah? I'm not sure at what point or why it was decided that Christ was the divine Logos incarnate, but it is kind of a neat idea.

But you asked about the Greek concept. I assumed you meant Hellenic, not early Christian.

I would also be interested to know how the Logos came to be interpreted as meaning Christ. Paging @Windwalker

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does what I said in the full quote above sound in any way exclusive to any understanding? So I'm not sure what you are challenging.

No I am not challenging you and even before I posted I could understand your view. It is only that the name itself creates division.

 

[Windwalker]

No I am not challenging you and even before I posted I could understand your view. It is only that the name itself creates division.

I take it as a figure of speech that was in fact intent on breaking down those divisions. It's like saying we are all one under the sun. It's a way to move the mind beyond artificial distinctions to see that we are united together in a common reality. We are all united in Spirit, in Unity Consciousness for instance, rather be divided as this religious identification under this god or that teacher, or this tradition, or this border of this land. I do get your point however if understood historically how that this 'name' itself then became a division between this group and another.

It seems it is the nature of things that people who are not ready to break down the divisions will create or interpret these things for themselves that way along their path, taking what was said to point to Unity, and reducing it down to their own group identification. "We are all one in Christ", takes on the meaning of "Those who convert to our religion are all united under this flag we all swear fidelity to are all one together". That's a very, very different face to it. That's not about a true Unity, about oneness and diversity, but about uniformity and group cohesion.

What historically was intent on breaking down these divisions becomes itself a new division. "There is neither Greek nor Jew", becomes "There are Christians and everyone else not Christian". It becomes the exact same thing it was intent on breaking down. It becomes a contradiction to it. It's not unlike those who embrace Santana Dharma while rejecting those who don't toe the traditionalist lines calling them not true Hindus. "How dare anyone interpret these things in ways that threaten its identity as a religion", becomes the tone. It's sort of mutually exclusive to an inclusive reality. It's a self-contradiction. But it's what people do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Same happened in India. Sri Guru Nanak began with 'I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim', it ended up with being Sikhs. So the best thing is to remain what one is but to embrace unity.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What historically was intent on breaking down these divisions becomes itself a new division. "There is neither Greek nor Jew", becomes "There are Christians and everyone else not Christian". It becomes the exact same thing it was intent on breaking down. It becomes a contradiction to it. It's not unlike those who embrace Santana Dharma while rejecting those who don't toe the traditionalist lines calling them not true Hindus. "How dare anyone interpret these things in ways that threaten its identity as a religion", becomes the tone. It's sort of mutually exclusive to an inclusive reality. It's a self-contradiction. But it's what people do.

Namaste,

Can i please (Without going off topic) just ask a question, Firstly i agree with you that there are some Hindus who will say someone is "Not a true Hindu" but i just want to know why do you think that these kinds of people are "Traditionalist Hindus"?

Secondly from your above comment it seems to me that you posit historical Christianity (assuming to mean traditional) as something that tries to breakdown divisions which is misinterpreted by Christians, while at the same time saying that the "Traditional Hinduism" creates divisions because its the "Traditional Hindus" that will say things like, "How dare anyone interpret these things in ways that threaten its identity as a religion". Can you please advise which tradition in Hinduism or Sanatana Dharmah makes you think this way?

Lastly which line of traditional Hinduism advises that there is a division between Hindus and Non Hindus in your opinion.

I just find this comment a reoccurring idea in you previous comments, as from our previous conversation also i got the gist that Historical (traditional) Christianity is all encompassing but misinterpreted and misused, but you seem to always defend the Christian doctrine. But you seem to think that Historical (Traditional) Hinduism causes prejudice and a somewhat un-accepting mindset, i just seem to come away with this from your comments.

And i apologize for interrupting.

Namaste,

 

[Windwalker]

Namaste,

Can i please (Without going off topic) just ask a question, Firstly i agree with you that there are some Hindus who will say someone is "Not a true Hindu" but i just want to know why do you think that these kinds of people are "Traditionalist Hindus"?

I find in my experience that in religions traditionalists tend to demonize deviations from the norm. It's not that that doesn't make sense from their perspectives, since maintaining the standard and conforming to it is the emphasis. But when someone changes something, steps outside the norm, they become outcast, their ideas rejected, scorned, ridiculed, and the like.

Even though it has its value to preserve a particular lineage, often times the result is an alienation of those who need to deviate because the traditional ways have been outgrown (a natural occurrence). This can result in a crisis of faith for those who can't be shoehorned into a system that doesn't work for them, and can result in a diminishment of the religion as a whole as it implodes in the middle given enough stress. Spirituality becomes the victim.

Secondly from your above comment it seems to me that you posit historical Christianity (assuming to mean traditional) as something that tries to breakdown divisions which is misinterpreted by Christians, while at the same time saying that the "Traditional Hinduism" creates divisions because its the "Traditional Hindus" that will say things like, "How dare anyone interpret these things in ways that threaten its identity as a religion". Can you please advise which tradition in Hinduism or Sanatana Dharmah makes you think this way?

My comments about Christianity isn't what I would call "historical" or "traditional" Christianity. Those terms I would apply to the institutional religion that hands down from generation to generation the teachings and doctrines of forebearers. That would tend to be understood as the Roman Catholic Church in the West.

What I was referring to is the earliest writings of those who identified as Christian before there was an institutional church. They were completely about creating something new, breaking down the old barriers of the traditions which created these divisions and rejection of change, whose result was a diminishing of Spirit. The early Christian movement was anything but traditionalism. They were the exact opposite. They were radicals, what some today would call Syncretists. They were like the Hippies were to mainstream culture.

But as with anything new, it gets subsumed by the masses and created into a lineage itself, and traditions become formed and adhered to once again. And this is all good and fine and serves a need, but it is no longer radical, it is no longer a ground breaker because it doesn't need to be. It becomes the new norm. However, once change is in the wind again, once the world shifts and change is needed, the traditionalist motif is geared against change. It resists change. Change is not its nature. And the radical movement arises once again to break free, to reduce the new divisions that the new tradition has created, and the cycle begins once again. Rince and repeat.

This phenomenon is true in any and all cultures and religions. I certainly have and do see it in Christianity, and I encounter it in Hinduism as well, mainly through observation and interaction with those on this beautifully diverse site. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Hinduism, but have sadly encountered those who are just as closed down to other points of view as Christians are. So it's really irrespective of the religion itself. It's simply how individuals choose to adhere to a religious choice for themselves.

Lastly which line of traditional Hinduism advises that there is a division between Hindus and Non Hindus in your opinion.

I actually wouldn't know how to answer that. I'm not well-enough verses in the various lines to identify what I would see as more and less traditionalist in nature. I'm drawing off my own personal experience here with individuals and their approaches and response to others within their own blanket identification as Hindus (particularly those in the West).

I just find this comment a reoccurring idea in you previous comments, as from our previous conversation also i got the gist that Historical (traditional) Christianity is all encompassing but misinterpreted and misused, but you seem to always defend the Christian doctrine. But you seem to think that Historical (Traditional) Hinduism causes prejudice and a somewhat un-accepting mindset, i just seem to come away with this from your comments.

I hope I've clarified above what I was saying. To add another point to this, in my view what I see in Hinduism at its heart, at its core is just as inclusive as, if not more so what I see at the core and heart of the early Christian movement. But the nature of what seems to happen with those who hold tradition above the movement of Spirit, can and does arise and is prone to happen no matter what religion it is. I have to hear "past" the "This is not what we teach, this is not true to the religion" speech to what I hear with the heart in each respective religions core.

As I like to say, quoting the Zen poet as in my signature below, "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon". I had one person who is a traditionalist say in response one time, "I sometimes wonder if they aren't entirely separate mountains". And that is why I find that approach does not work ultimately. That is separation. Lineage is lineage. Spirit is Spirit. The two can work together, of course, but only when held by the heart with an opened hand.

And i apologize for interrupting.

Namaste,

No problem. As before, I highly value our discussions.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Windwalker, post: 4047740, "I find in my experience that in religions traditionalists tend to demonize deviations from the norm. It's not that that doesn't make sense from their perspectives, since maintaining the standard and conforming to it is the emphasis. But when someone changes something, steps outside the norm, they become outcast, their ideas rejected, scorned, ridiculed, and the like."

Ah, ok so it is not "Traditional Hinduism/Sanatana Dharmah', itself which is inherently pluralistic and multidimensional, but more Hindus who claim to be from a particular exclusive sampradaye who may feel threatened with new ideas are the cause of your experience. Now i know what you mean, and i agree that there can be some people who have a one sided view of the world.

My only disagreement is maybe with your experiences compared to my personal experience, I come from a "Traditional Hindu", family, My Purohita (Pundit) is also from a traditional Hindu background and we are Indians as well, And never have they "Demonized", anyone or any other tradition because it does not toe their line, so that is why i asked Why would you imagine a traditional Hindu to be a prejudice person, or Why a prejudice ignorant person may strike you as a Traditional Hindu.

"What I was referring to is the earliest writings of those who identified as Christian before there was an institutional church. They were completely about creating something new, breaking down the old barriers of the traditions which created these divisions and rejection of change, whose result was a diminishing of Spirit. The early Christian movement was anything but traditionalism. They were the exact opposite. They were radicals, what some today would call Syncretists. They were like the Hippies were to mainstream culture."

Well that is fine, and as i stated before your idea that the "Original, Early Christianity was all encompassing and inclusive, but obviously is being distorted by the institutionalization is agreeable with me, but my main point is that you even consider Hinduism and specifically the Traditional view of it as somewhat having the same problem, and all I'm asking is how do you make that judgement when we don't have the institution as in Christianity which can take power and distort the pluralism?

Traditional Hinduism is linked with Historical Hinduism, We are not bound by History but we still have a history and many sampraday have come and gone within this tradition in history. I guess what im trying to say is that "Traditional Hindus", are accepting, pluralistic and respectful to others and i take somewhat disagreement to you labeling the "bullies" as Traditional Hindus. As my Mother is no
Bully.

" But the nature of what seems to happen with those who hold tradition above the movement of Spirit, can and does arise and is prone to happen no matter what religion it is. I have to hear "past" the "This is not what we teach, this is not true to the religion" speech to what I hear with the heart in each respective religions core."

Yes i do agree, in any exclusive idea of tradition/sampradaya there is bound to be conflict between the progressive and the oppressive, but no so much in a tradition which is pluralistic and inclusive, here progress and tradition live side by side, we can agree to some things and disagree with others while still respecting different views.

**All Traditions, Histories, Religions, People are not the same, to suggest that the traditional needs to be superseded and replaced is to a Hindu considered Himsa (Harming), and traditionally we practice Ahimsa (non Harming), if there are Traditions, Histories, Religions, People who are harmful, them it is a Traditional Hindus Dharmah to protect and limit the harming done.

**This is my somewhat what my Mothers Traditional Hindu View would look like, is this in your opinion out-dated, corrupted or influenced by a Institution? She holds the Idea of Ahimsa as supreme, more supreme then any spirit, any god, any lineage, She is as a traditional Hindu as you can get.

So is this tradition, this kind of thinking progressive or not in your opinion.

All im saying, is that nothing is the same, if it all was the same, then everything has the same problems, and the same solution, which is not how things are in reality IMO.

Dhanyavad.

 

[Poeticus]

Dearest Satya,

For the love of the gods and all that is sacred, desist and disengage. I repeat, desist and disengage! Hahaha.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Dearest Satya,

For the love of the gods and all that is sacred, desist and disengage. I repeat, desist and disengage! Hahaha.

Namaste Homie

I'm not trying to make a specific point, or get our friend Windwalker on the back foot, nor am i trying to cause any trouble, I may disagree with his views but i enjoy this conversation. i don't care if Me & Windwalker are wrong or right or neither TBH.

Im kinda Cool in that way, aren't I...LOL

 

[Poeticus]

Im kinda Cool in that way, aren't I...LOL

Bro, you're totally cool! Keepin' it classy, yo!

 

[Windwalker]

Ah, ok so it is not "Traditional Hinduism/Sanatana Dharmah', itself which is inherently pluralistic and multidimensional, but more Hindus who claim to be from a particular exclusive sampradaye who may feel threatened with new ideas are the cause of your experience. Now i know what you mean, and i agree that there can be some people who have a one sided view of the world.

My only disagreement is maybe with your experiences compared to my personal experience, I come from a "Traditional Hindu", family, My Purohita (Pundit) is also from a traditional Hindu background and we are Indians as well, And never have they "Demonized", anyone or any other tradition because it does not toe their line, so that is why i asked Why would you imagine a traditional Hindu to be a prejudice person, or Why a prejudice ignorant person may strike you as a Traditional Hindu.

You do make good points I take to heart. I have to admit there is a personal distaste I have for those who sit in judgement of others using the guise of religious purity as a self-justification. You are hearing my own personal experience as a Westerner with the Christian religion in particular. I think when I have heard or seen that disappointingly similar attitude, it is probably with those from the West who have adopting Hinduism and brought this with them from the culture at large. I apologize if I have offended, as I do recognize the truth to what you say about those who value tradition, and would strive to preserve it, but never at the expense of judgement of another. That is highly admirable in my book, and true to the nature of a true religious experience. I would gladly embrace them.

Well that is fine, and as i stated before your idea that the "Original, Early Christianity was all encompassing and inclusive, but obviously is being distorted by the institutionalization is agreeable with me, but my main point is that you even consider Hinduism and specifically the Traditional view of it as somewhat having the same problem, and all I'm asking is how do you make that judgement when we don't have the institution as in Christianity which can take power and distort the pluralism?

Point taken. As I said above, I was both surprised and deeply disappointed when I encountered it with those espousing Hinduism. I was looking forward to exploring discussions, only to encounter shunning, criticism of other Hindus, etc, the same I have experienced in the Christian church.

I cannot tell you how looking forward I was to productive dialog, learning more about Hinduism, having the very sorts of conversations I have deeply been benefitted from with you personally, only to have the Hindu forum made "blue" while all the others are still green in order to shut down and reduce open discussions to exclude open thoughts from outsiders. It was the impetus behind it that was a real turn off to me, and smacked of the same exclusivity as Christianity was. Not that that's an issue now on the new forum as they are all "blue", I think. In other words, I think I have cast those in Hinduism doing this as being very much the same as those who do this in the Christian religion who wish to keep their beliefs pure at the expense of respecting others, even those within their own religion.

Traditional Hinduism is linked with Historical Hinduism, We are not bound by History but we still have a history and many sampraday have come and gone within this tradition in history. I guess what im trying to say is that "Traditional Hindus", are accepting, pluralistic and respectful to others and i take somewhat disagreement to you labeling the "bullies" as Traditional Hindus. As my Mother is no Bully.

Well, I should add that not all traditionalists within Christianity are bullies either. Certainly, I'm sure you mother is a kind and generous as can be. I certainly know many who are traditional Christians like this as well. Those who are just living the religion and practicing it are very different than the theologians. It may help you to understand that I actually have a degree in theology, so admittedly, I'm a little tainted by that religious experience. So much in the head, and so little in the heart. A simple faith is worth far more, than a head full of ideas about God.

Discussions like this help me to see past that one face of religion, to see the others, like your mother, like those I know are there as well.

I'll leave it at this, as I think the point has been made. By all means, challenge me any chance you get! I learn from others who have clear sight and a good heart.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Windwalker

Namaste,

....... I apologize if I have offended, as I do recognize the truth to what you say about those who value tradition, and would strive to preserve it, but never at the expense of judgement of another. That is highly admirable in my book, and true to the nature of a true religious experience. I would gladly embrace them.

No offence taken mate, i value your experiences and respect your judgement made on your experience, let not our discussion take the road of misunderstanding, my reply was only intended to understand your view. Which i am more clear on now regarding the Traditional/Non Traditional context.

......In other words, I think I have cast those in Hinduism doing this as being very much the same as those who do this in the Christian religion who wish to keep their beliefs pure at the expense of respecting others, even those within their own religion.

It is hard not to cast one persons view in the same light as another persons, im guilty of it as well many times without even realizing. So i guess the "Dharmic" thing to do is we have to re-evaluate our perceptions of others on a regular basis.

Well, I should add that not all traditionalists within Christianity are bullies either.

I don't doubt that either mate, Bullies are bullies no matter what world view they profess, i have met some people who come from exclusive traditions but are kind and caring as one can be.

Discussions like this help me to see past that one face of religion, to see the others, like your mother, like those I know are there as well.

I'll leave it at this, as I think the point has been made. By all means, challenge me any chance you get! I learn from others who have clear sight and a good heart.

I enjoy such discussions as well, and this has also provided me with a alternative view of the popular or readily available view of Christianity.

Also i might add, I don't want other readers to think that by giving the example of my mothers world view that im somewhat throwing emotional aspects into the discussion, i try to give real life examples which relate to our lives, as i think our perception of the world has real life impact, and our actions which are based on our world view impact real people and have a ripple effect on their lives and may influence their world view, Asking you about my mothers world view was not a attempt to discourage you (Im sorry if it seemed this way, as i read back at my post to me i did not come across vary intelligible but more emotional, this was not my intent) or to end the discussion on emotional grounds.
Anyways, a good discussion should not end.

Namaste.

 

[Windwalker]

where my perspective of the OM does also include the idea where there is no Brahman or a God or even the underlying consciousness of unity and all that OM represents is just Prakriti at work all in the duality of nature, where the Devas and Devis are the natural elements of existence, although i don't think that you believe in a creator GOD type theology, i think see your Darshan as being what i would call theistic in general.

For many months I've known I've wanted to reply to this last post of yours in our earlier conversation, so this revival of this thread gives me the opportunity to pick up where we left off in March.

I would agree with what you say above about OM including the idea of no God. I think I'll focus on what you said about my spiritual experience or vision (Darshan) as being theistic. I am assuming you are speaking of the experience I described, and not my conceptualized frameworks about the nature of the divine? If so, yes my experiences have been and are to varying degrees theistic. But they are also, and include the lack of any deity form. I like the term to describe this as "God beyond God", or Godhead, or Spirit.

I see God as the face we put upon the Infinite to give it a name. It's a dualistic view of the Absolute reality in a personal "other". But as we move into what "God" represents, we become That ourselves and there is no God anymore. I think you may benefit from reading my thoughts about this expressed in a discussion about the "3 Faces of God" where I speak about the progression and nature of perception and relationship with the Absolute through a 3rd, 2nd, and 1st person perspective. It's post 11 in this old thread: Wilber's 3 faces of God

In my meditation practice on a daily basis I experience 2nd person in one form or another, to higher degrees of duality where it becomes closer to 1st person plural "we". But much more so lately there is nothing but 1st person where there is no "other", and that which was or is seen or experienced as God, just Is, and I rest in that, as that, and there is no I in the sense of who I am in my identity as "Keith", just Spirit, to try to describe it. It is all same thing, formless and form, Emptiness and Fullness, Unmanifest and Manifest.

So I would say I hold all 3 perspectives, and speak in these terms depending on the emphasis. Historically I'd been attracted to 2nd person because it was my first experience, or Darshan, when I was 18. But the second experience back then was really more nonduality, and the face of the divine, or God was not there (but not not-there either in the sense of excluded). In other words it was not a "theistically" defined experience. Today, I am finding myself able to shift the set of eyes much easier to all these perspectives through repeated exposure to them through meditation practice.

And of course i could be dead wrong about your Philosophy, please don't take this as me trying to define who you are, its more me trying to define my own identity.

This is fine. The philosophy I hold would be described as an Integral philosophy, but with any framework like this, it does not define the experience, but merely gives it a way to talk about things. I don't hold it as "this is reality!", as so many do. I describe these things as two-dimensional tree like structures upon which we hang the ornaments of Spirit, in order to see them against a backdrop of the worlds our minds create. How's that?

And of course, the other difference that i just mentioned about my perspective of the OM in my Adhidaiva view, which i shall clarify briefly, is that to me OM is the concept which includes a great principal of existence (Prakriti) which is non living and includes Kaal (time) which changes into Chitta, Mana and a Shareera (intellect, mind and body), which then by further conditioning of time generates our Atman (selfs) as we know it.
In this view i see the OM as ever changing, non eternal principal of existence, life is a combination of elements which are non living.

Yes, absolutely. The thing about traditional views of "God" in the sense of the eternal, is that is is unchanging. This is the core of binary metaphysical systems which seek for balance or equilibrium, Yin and Yang for instance. It presumes that there is a "pregiven world", and static state, that we must attain or realize. All of these perspectives lacked the advantage of understanding evolution. We now know that evolution or change is part of the nature of the system, and so God, or the eternal itself is not static, it is dynamic. God itself evolves.

This can get really deep in discussion, but I'll just add in here that what brings about this change, this evolution, is a movement towards destabilization. That tension pushes forth a new emergent reality, and new unfolding of Spirit into form.

So to try to bring this back into our discussion about the perspectives of OM and Logos, again even though traditional Christianity may have lost this in their purely theistic ideas of God (as both static and wholly separate from the world), I believe early on the vision of the divine or Godhead was quite different. I believe this dynamism, this evolutionary view of Godhead was what the formulation of the Trinity doctrine was about expressing. It was a way to describe this creative relationship that brings forth all that is, in a constant unfolding. So Logos is the Agent of change, all change. (Maybe it could be described as Spirit in motion? I'll think about that.)

But as is the case with things that people can't tap into on the mystical level using only their mind's reasoning abilities, this becomes a two-dimensional model that get's set forth as Absolute Reality. The Trinity becomes this three-headed theistic deity "up there", removed from the world. You follow?

So as you put well, I hear a Unity beyond these differences of language or ways to talk about things. I believe at its heart, a mystical realization of the same Reality lays beyond all these ways of talking about it. But without mystical experience, all we see are differently defined worlds, which become different worlds altogether. I enjoy fleshing out these languages, while seeing eye to eye through Spirit.

I look forward to picking up our conversation like this again.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

="Windwalker, post: 4050421, member: 41917"]For many months I've known I've wanted to reply to this last post of yours in our earlier conversation, so this revival of this thread gives me the opportunity to pick up where we left off in March.

Namaste,

Thanks for the reply.

I see God as the face we put upon the Infinite to give it a name. It's a dualistic view of the Absolute reality in a personal "other". But as we move into what "God" represents, we become That ourselves and there is no God anymore. I think you may benefit from reading my thoughts about this expressed in a discussion about the "3 Faces of God" where I speak about the progression and nature of perception and relationship with the Absolute through a 3rd, 2nd, and 1st person perspective. It's post 11 in this old thread: Wilber's 3 faces of God

Vary interesting,

Now im not the one to find "sameness" in truth claims, but it may be that some of this first, second and third person experiences to me allies with the Advaita Vadanta view, but the difference i think is that the advaita claim would render second and third person as "avidya, "Mithya" or more popularly "Maya", where only the first person Advaita (Non Duality) is the reality of things (Advaitins can correct me on this). I think it is the Sankhya-Yoga view that prescribes a practical method of attaining the oneness or the union with not only Ishvara or Purush but (to me) the only reality which exists, the Atman (OM), and it advises to continuously work through the third and second person to finally the first person realization. I think Advaita is the claim of the final realization of all acquired Vidya, while its Yoga and Sankya that offers the means of this realization. Now the only thing i would say here is that i think the realization is not the same from one person to another, i think that the realizations are as diverse as the individuals. The methods are but advise of how to reproduce a experience but the experience and realization itself is varied.

Today, I am finding myself able to shift the set of eyes much easier to all these perspectives through repeated exposure to them through meditation practice.

Well you have one up on me mate, the Gita says that meditation/Yoga is not easy for those who have not realized the equilibrium of the Atman with Prakriti, and those who minds are not settled from the waves it produces, i unfortunately count myself as one of these. My experiences i would say are are also a mix (Mithya), of first, second and third. I try to take the Sankhya view of Purusha experiencing Prakriti and leave it at that.

But as is the case with things that people can't tap into on the mystical level using only their mind's reasoning abilities, this becomes a two-dimensional model that get's set forth as Absolute Reality. The Trinity becomes this three-headed theistic deity "up there", removed from the world. You follow?

Yes i understand, I think the Hindu tradition advises that our attitude must be of "The desire to Know", as Knowing requires inquiry and experience and by reasoning of our experiences that we had through our inquiry it would provide a clearer Darshan or the world. I think the good thing about Hinduism is that one group of people can hold the view that the "three headed theistic deity" is up there or here and everywhere, and at the same time other group of people can see the "Mystical", expressions of the observer and the observed, while others may claim many other views, but all can co-exist without the requirement that one view gets subjugated by another or put in a museum and called primitive belief.

As it goes with our concept of the OM and Logos, what i see is different from what you see, what i experience is different from what you experience, the Unity is our humanity, and our difference is what makes us Human.

OM TAT SAT