Would you like to contribute to a text about how Hinduism views Jesus (and perhaps others)?

[NobodyYouKnow]

Yeah, and the quetzalcoatl is the foundation for all that exists, LOL. oM namo quetzalcoatlAya... Ooh, I can already feel the vairAgyam coming, hehe.

I'm just posting to say that gave me a good laugh and I needed it. Frubal.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Enlightenment philosophies all have similar elements;
Buddhists, Vedanta, Taoism, &Gnosticism

The sign of a real vedantin is dispassion. And acceptance of Gods will to guide the world.
If you are a advaita yogi. You know these mental notions of mine and other are illusions and thus nothing to get worked up over.

It would go to reason that anyone who seeks liberation
, would seek to end duality, and look to see how all opposites are one
& would trust in enlightened beings.

To call someone a fraud is to cast judgement based on preconceived assumption, which is contrary to the equinamity that characterizes a man in yoga.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

To call someone a fraud is to cast judgement based on preconceived assumption, which is contrary to the equinamity that characterizes a man in yoga.

Yet calling any deity other than mo(ro)n-ad (not to be confused with the moroni of mormonism) a devil or imposter really promotes egalitarianism, right? Let me get this straight though; in neo-Hinduism, calling my dear shrIpati an imposter is perfectly okay, but me calling Jesus a fraud (which he patently was IMO) is wrong. Pathetic... BTW, who stated that everyone was completely the same? I don't espouse the view that jIvatattva is in every way the same as brahmatattva (also, I'm not a kevalAdvaitI, and certainly not a nAstika or bauddha sarvashUnyatAvAdI).

 

[Windwalker]

I'm really curious what extreme universalists think of years in training in unique and specific religious and spiritual traditions/paths is all about?

I'm not sure if you meant to direct this question to me as I would not identify as a universalist, let alone extreme in anything, but to address the question as to what would I think specific religious and spiritual paths are all about, I'll refer back to the metaphor of the world mountain I used in post 86: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3642038-post86.html

They are important in many ways, and I support them. But make no mistake they are not the end in themselves for all people. They are not perfect in themselves, as no system of belief, practice, or tradition is. And so when there are those who move outside of them, not because they are arrogant or puffy or insolent or rebellious, etc, but because whatever that is within them that seeks to continue on that individuals path pulls them to new ground to continue their path on that mountain, they will many times, or at some point at least bring with them the many good and valuable things from that tradition within them, while of necessity not being bound to all of it and discarding what now hinders them on their path.

To quote the Buddha, which I think nicely expresses this far more succinctly, "To insist on a spiritual practice which had served you in the past, is to carry the raft upon your back after you have crossed the river."

The purpose of traditions is to teach the principles, to instruct, to create communities, to nurture, to support. But when one needs to leave because their path takes them elsewhere on it, then we should support them as well.

If we can sum up all of what matters in a forum post or one book or website page, what is the point? Can even a thousand page book share all the truths and mysteries or properly guide people in a path?

I don't believe anyone believes these things can be summed up like this. At best we create sketches of these things to try to create some sort of framework of understanding of them in order to try to talk about them. Anyone who claims these contain all there is to know or understand about these things is deeply ignorant.

When I quoted Wiber above and said this ties this up nicely, I was referring to what I had be trying to get at, just like quoting the Buddha in this post a few seconds ago. Is all truth of these things summarized in that quote? No, of course not.

Is one or two nights of reading Little Book of Zen or the Bhagavad Gita = to 5, 10, 20 years of living and cultivating a tradition or path?

Is a book that discusses childhood development the same as actually being a child? No, you cannot skip stages of growth to get to the place you can then latter make a sketch of it in some later book that gives an overview of it. You have to have some personal insights to understand childhood, as well as objective analysis. Someone with no experience of mystical states writing about mystical states will lack something important in their subsequent research about it.

I think much of it comes down to this. Some think they got the mystery and magic all figured out and they can pluck out the universal core.

Anyone who thinks this is as far away from that as can be. This is personally for me why I chaff against many within a traditionalist point of view, because they deny reality for others that don't fit into their reality, or understanding, or framework, or model of what the religion is or means. They see that person who takes the raft off their back and revile them, as not a true believer, etc. They interpret their raftlessness as a rejection of themselves and all they believe in.

When I was a little kid reading dozens of books on philosophy and spirituality I thought my little "ah-ha!" moments meant I had it all figured out as well. This is one of the reasons oral traditions are so important

Oh yes, there is a danger in the immature who turn an ah-ha moment into some arrogant ego thing, "I saw God! I'm super spiritual!" But then there is a point where someone might, for their reasons on their paths, need to break from the lineage and struggle alone up that mountain. That raft becomes a burden, a hindrance to them on their path. Sometimes new ground needs to be broken, but it is not a path for the immature who think they have the Answers now! They will feign quickly as that Light leaves no assumption unchallenged in them.

Do we have many millions of true sages, gurus, masters, etc. living in the world? We definitely have many millions, billions, who think they got it all figured out.

And we also have those who know they don't know, and therefore are learning Wisdom. We should be careful not to confuse the two because both appear to say similar things.

 

[idav]

I think we are all looking at different things here...love a/the Higher power/reality/self/ideal, love others...don't be selfish...

This is basic morality, philosophy, spirituality, etc. the devil is in the details. And really if Jesus said love YHWH/The LORD with all your heart...is he talking about something that really goes with Hindu, Buddhist, and various Pagan traditions, etc.? It's 100% understandable that he is working within the traditions of his people and culture. But YHWH doesn't equate to Brahman or much else without much looseness and generalization. I surely wouldn't love YHWH with even half my heart lol

The big factor outside of all the details and what's really being eluded to or transferred is what to do with the words that do seem to resemble other traditions. Practices and day to day life, methods to bring transformation or a stripping away, are very different. Now that you have discovered your message of*unity, live, Self, etc. what you do with it and what is your path? You don't become a hero, guru, sage, wizard, etc. by page one of a mysticism or enlightenment book or website.

This is why a cute, wise saying that seems to show universal ideals or concepts is not much more than a cute, wise saying. You tickled the surface with a feather.....now what? What about the 99.8% of the tradition and path that really represents their understandings and truths and breathes life?

Does it make any sense?

If you personally feel a couple ideas or concepts that are seemingly universally shared are the Truth and the Whole of what matters that is cool but what does it actually got to do with ancient, huge, varied traditions are actually learned, experienced, lived, passed down, etc.?

A big part of this I think is diet-pill religion, spirituality, enlightenment, self-realization, soul development, etc. People think it not only adequate, but truly 'ideal' to try to strip away majority of the teachings and the vehicle/path itself.

It's the difference between a true discipline and life-way vs. a few commandments or words of advice. You are still standing there on one of the first few steps with miles to go.

Will non-Christians agree with Jesus other teachings?

Even those considered most evil, tyrannical, and cruel individuals of the 20th century have some nice, wise words on love and spirituality. Crazy death cult leaders especially.

I don't dislike Jesus but he wasn't that special for me or most non-Christians....there is no reason to associate him at all outside of those traditions and paths or realization headquarters that already do.

I can understand the contention with jesus. As I delved into the dharma religions over the years I have found myslef further and further removed from orthodox views of christianity. I was relating more and more with hinduism and buddhism. The more liberal interpretation still coincides but not without ignoring much of the bible. In fact it is almost as if jesus was preaching a different god despite his references to god as father. Jesus left room for panentheism especially in gospels not found in the canon.

The goal is about finding truth wherever it may be without getting sucked into false dogma. I have much to learn about the dharma religions but I feel like I have found a place that fits for me. Obviously buddhism isnt for everyone, we each have our own path that suits us.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Monad is just a word. A Greek word.
Its not describing a deity, its describing the One(the whole living reality)

they also called it the invisible Spirit, pleroma(fullness), or just the unknowable father(or simetimes mother)

The Monad(One), also called aperion(boundless) is a western Concept of Brahman.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

A deity is a notion a thought in the brain.
The "one true God" is the same God adored by all realized yogis, the God that can only be experienced when all mental notions are done away with.
That which exists even when we aren't thinking about it.

A deity is an object that can only be recognized as a notion in the mind, if we forget the deity its as if it doesn't exist.
The real God exists even when we forget, God just appears as the world.
By fogetting notions the world disappears and God becomes obvious and apparent.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

I'm neither Hindu or Christian. I'm Atman, I'm Me.
Lean on any idea to long and it collapses and you fall.
Get caught up in who we Think we are, and forget who we really are as a human being.

Gnostic Christianity teaches against idolatry but i don't care.
But this was purely out of reasoning. Hinduism didn't.

But the enlightening aspects of each religion(the absolute reality) is the universal aspect.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Monad is just a word. A Greek word.
Its not describing a deity, its describing the One(the whole living reality)

they also called it the invisible Spirit, pleroma(fullness), or just the unknowable father(or simetimes mother)

The Monad(One), also called aperion(boundless) is a western Concept of Brahman.

Your comment makes no sense, as brahma is not just a concept, it is a benevolent deity which pervades and transcends material reality and is worshipped and meditated upon as the leader of the other deities, as per the kenopaniShad. If this mo(ro)nad is just a concept and not a deity and brahma is a deity, then clearly mo(ro)nad ≠ brahma. This is simple logic, if you can't comprehend this, then there must be a problem.

I'm neither Hindu or Christian. I'm Atman, I'm Me.

I realize that you're not a Hindu (you might be a neo-advaitI though); that is why I recommend you don't speak on Hindu topics (like brahma), which you have no knowledge of. Thanks. Also, I realize that you have an AtmA, we all have souls/identities. However, Buddhists do not believe that they have an AtmA, hence the term anAtmA or anatta.

Lean on any idea to long and it collapses and you fall.

Yeah, why should anyone follow religion when they can follow mish-mash nonsense wherein their own opinion takes precedence over those of shAstra-s?

Get caught up in who we Think we are, and forget who we really are as a human being.

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand. In my opinion, the fraud Jesus was certainly caught up in his own perception of himself (i.e as the creator of the universe) and was hence filled with ahaMkAra, if that's what you mean.

Gnostic Christianity teaches against idolatry but i don't care.
But this was purely out of reasoning. Hinduism.

Out of what reasoning, that monad was the "one true god?" In case you didn't know, other religions have the same concept of "only my deity is real, all others are false;" the Muslims have their shahada, the Jews have their shema, and the Christians have their own statement of faith in the "triune god." These Gnostics call YHWH/HaShem an imposter (acc. to you), and many Jews might respond by saying that this monad you speak of is just a figment of imagination. There is no way one could use "reason" to assert that one is any more true than another.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

It takes people as long as it takes.
People who dedicate their lives to God, figure it out.
You cant judge every novice, like you said people don't become perfect overnight, but that said you have to start somewhere.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Advaita posits that the true God is the impersonal absolute.
Brahma is born(lotus born) when time begins and dies when this universe ends. Perhaps he is a great gardian worthy of veneration.
But it isn't God because God is without birth or death.
Since all material objects are created preserved and created by God, God cant be an Object.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Advaita posits that the true God is the impersonal absolute.
Brahma is born(lotus born) when time begins and dies when this universe ends. Perhaps he is a great gardian worthy of veneration.
But it isn't God because God is without birth or death.
Since all material objects are created preserved and created by God, God cant be an Object.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It takes people as long as it takes.
People who dedicate their lives to God, figure it out.
You cant judge every novice, like you said people don't become perfect overnight, but that said you have to start somewhere.

Ahh, I see. You're not here to prove a point coherently, you just want to preach some pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Carry on...

 

[Poeticus]

Advaita posits that the true God is the impersonal absolute.
Brahma is born(lotus born) when time begins and dies when this universe ends. Perhaps he is a great gardian worthy of veneration.
But it isn't God because God is without birth or death.
Since all material objects are created preserved and created by God, God cant be an Object.

Will your butchering of Advaita-m know no bounds? Bro, even I'm not fond of Advaita-m, but for me to even reply to this even when I'm not fond of it should show the bright warning signs of how incredibly "counter"-Advaita-m your post I'm quoting above really is...

Here's a point-by-point breakdown:

Advaita posits that the true God is the impersonal absolute.

The concept of "the true God" is foreign to Advaita-m.

Brahma is born(lotus born) when time begins and dies when this universe ends. Perhaps he is a great gardian worthy of veneration.

You are using a Puranic paradigm that is unrelated to Advaita-m to...ironically...talk about Advaita-m.

But it isn't God because God is without birth or death.

Who says Brahma-deva literally dies and is reborn?

Since all material objects are created preserved and created by God, God cant be an Object.

Who is saying "God" is an "object"?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Advaita posits that the true God is the impersonal absolute.
Brahma is born(lotus born) when time begins and dies when this universe ends. Perhaps he is a great gardian worthy of veneration.
But it isn't God because God is without birth or death.
Since all material objects are created preserved and created by God, God cant be an Object.

Are you really this ignorant? brahmA (i.e the creator god of the trimUrti) is born from a lotus, whereas brahma is the supreme deity acc. to the upaniShad-s. They both come from the same prAtipadika (brahman), but they are DIFFERENT; they are both deities, and brahmA does not "die" at the end of each kalpa, he merges into bhagavAn during pralaya, just like the veda-s. Also, no one said that "brahma" is an object, he is both nirguNa and saguNa, but his divine sharIra is transcendent to mAyA regardless. For example, the shankha and chakra held by viShNu is NOT the same as a conch or disk on the earth, duh. This is the problem with neo-Hindus and neo-advaitI-s, they rattle on with some nonsense (like brahma not being a deity, yet also being God, lulz), yet never provide any shAstrika proof for their claim.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thread becomes:

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Thread becomes:

I don't see how any derailing is taking place. Contemplative Cat was saying that Gnostics view Jesus as being one with some "monad" concept and then equated brahma with monad (kind of saying that Jesus was preaching ahambrahmAsmi). Immediately after he mentioned how Gnostics believe "monad" to be the "one true god" and how all other deities are false (not unlike how Abrahamics view their deity). Immediately after, he states that monad is not a deity and claims that it is the western equivalent of brahma. I stated that according to the upaniShads, that cannot be the case as brahma is described as being worshipped, which would make no sense if brahma was just a concept rather than a deity. Sometimes it's good to clear up misconceptions, especially when the individual is, as MV put it, butchering advaitavedAnta. I could have avoided making sweeping generalizatons about neo-advaitI-s, it's just that this "ultimate reality" concept is misunderstood multiple times causing people to assume that "brahma" can't take a saguNa svarUpam or that brahma is not a deity, which is not the case (CC is not the first neo-advaitI to tell me such nonsense, ).

 

[Jainarayan]

Topic: Would you like to contribute to a text about how Hinduism views Jesus (and perhaps others)? not the right or wrong view of advaita. But this is typical.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Topic: Would you like to contribute to a text about how Hinduism views Jesus (and perhaps others)? not the right or wrong view of advaita. But this is typical.

Yes, indeed it asks about how "Hinduism" (funny, since Hinduism is such a broad term) views Jesus, not how Gnosticism views Hinduism; CC brought up Gnosticism (thereby indirectly derailing the thread) operating on the misconception/false premise that brahma was the same as "monad" and not a deity, but instead a concept.

 

[Jainarayan]

It takes two to have a conversation or play a game. If one does not participate, it ends. But this is not my thread, I'm just a disinterested third party making an observation.