Jonesboy

Not sure what you are getting at Spotless. Nobody is talking about one doing ones practice to attain abilities. Abilities do happen. The problem with sight is that you see it. What you see you believe to be true. I can show you people on other sights who think they are so advanced because of what they see. They see themselves having a light body. They see themselves projecting and traveling around the universe. They see themselves with 11, 12 chakras opened.. It is all astral and it is the trap that I talk about.. because they are not there.. I do agree that attachments can limit ones growth. Attachment to abilities or to food or drugs or... We are not talking about that. Attachments is a different thread. I will say that from my corner of the world I do met "a lot of people with their third eye open". One thing of note... Not everyone who opens their 3rd eye will have sight. Some "know" where others can see.

Not wacky at all. That is the darn point everyone has been making. The one you refuse to see. Joy is our natural state. It radiates outward in a beautiful loving manner. It can be an everyday thing. I have written about this every since I started meditating Karl.. Check the ayp thread "Are you happy". You are the one keeping yourself from that realization with all of your local mind rationalization. There is more out there.. You just have to let go to see it, to feel it. If you want help, I am sure there are many people here willing to help you. I wish you the best.. and maybe only one thread to keep saying the same things in..... Have a good day, Tom

I have met a lot of people with there 3rd eye open. What I have found is that it is often a trap. I have met people who have extreme gifts of seeing. What they don't realize is they are limited in there view to there level of depth. To how clear there window is. I know people that can see so well it is like they can see the fabric of existence. They see themselves as one of the most powerful beings in the world. It is that seeing that has held them back. All the best, Tom

Deflecting again. In truth Samadhi like TI is saying takes a second. How far can you let go is what he is asking. Can you observe your thoughts? Can you observe them without noticing them, labeling them.. grasping after them? Where are you at in your practice?

double post

Karl, Please stop deflecting. Answer the questions or say you have never experienced them. But dismissing people and then claiming Trivium is like the end all be all is kinda funny. Also, if you have ever been around Jesus you would know he is real. It would not be a question of is he real or multiple people.

Thank you for your open and honest answer. I will say that you were doing AYP. SBP left me with my mind floating on clouds. Really a drug induced feeling and it made it hard to concentrate and think. Many have talked how SBP is not grounded and can lead to issues. I think that is what you experienced. For many that can be to much and they don't care to continue along the way. It can be scary. Overloads can do that. I will just say that if you had the ability to think of a thing and be that thing. If you had the ability to think of Jesus and be, experience Jesus I don't think you would be talking like you are now.

Wow Karl, So if you don't mind me asking. What is your meditation experience like? What is your day to day experience like? Is your heart opened and do you feel joy during the day radiating outward? Do you reside outside of thoughts or have moments of silence? Are you at the point where you think of someone and you are that person? Do you become one with all that which is around you? Do you feel ecstatic energy in your body during meditation? How about during the day outside of meditation? Just curious as to your experience. It might help explain your positions.

Everything you just said is a thought. It is a thought that you believe in an attachment. This thought is not you. Take the thought of being alone. Pull up that thought and all the emotions. Feel the emotions in your body, in your heart. Reside with it. Give that hurt love. What you will notice is the thought of being alone goes away. You are becoming present and working with the energetic feeling that causes the mind stories that cause us pain. Spend time doing this and you will notice how the "feeling" starts to integrate and go away. Residing in the body prior to conversations allows one to feel the energetic body. Allows one to feel emotions as energy that comes and goes. More importantly it allows us the ability to respond to our emotions and situations instead of reacting. Hope this helps, Tom

What are you afraid it will do?

What is it that you don't believe Karl? Where are you at that you don't believe what is next is possible?

Compassion doesn't matter if it is returned or not. It is far from wasted. I will say you are trapped and you are making the trap bigger and bigger for yourself. All the best on your journey. Tom

That is sad Karl. I am so sorry for you my friend.

Sorry for coming to the discussion so late. Here are a couple of powerful techniques that I use. The first being Samyama. I used this technique to quit my 30 year nicotine habit. http://livingunbound.net/lessons-resources/level-2/techniques/samyama-and-self-inquiry/ The next technique is very powerful and is from a writing by Michael Brown. http://community.livingunbound.net/index.php?/topic/472-working-with-emotions/ A much more in depth and step by step process is the 10 week course called The Presence Process. Very, very powerful. Each of the above techniques will help one get past the mind stories and help deal with the energetic charge of the emotion. A new technique that comes highly recommended to me is ETF Tapping. This should be a big hit here on this site. Each of these methods have worked for me. Best of luck, Tom

Spotless, It sounds like you have had a very powerful and wonderful experience. Shared by many spiritual teachers. What you are sharing though is just your experience. Dwai is absolutely correct in saying that for most people. It will be a gradual sinking into. Like the tide coming in and out. You will have experiences of great oneness and then get lost in thought/emotions. Over time the getting lost in thought/emotions become less and less as one removes more and more obstructions. Some few are blessed that they have an experience like yours. A wham, bam kundalini type experience. For most people it truly is a gradual sinking into. Remember there is always more than one road..

Topics about AYP Plus compared to free AYP have been told to stop. No posts will be approved in the main forum or in the moderator forum. Bad for business and all that.

You can do a few things. A 10 min asana routine will help. AYP has a nice little routine. You can also do some Sun Salutations. Pranayama practice before meditation is always powerful. Alternate Nostril Breathing is a nice one to start with if you don't have one already. Yidam practice is very powerful. If none of that sounds good to you, you can always focus on your breath and then do a body scan. I always find doing the body scan calms the mind for meditation. Hope this helps, Tom

Enjoying the posts. Thank you.

I would say it's not the Christian that is at fault. It is all they know, it is what they have been taught. The following is a very long article but it had a big impact on me. http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm Why a Hindu Accepts Christ and Rejects Churchianity By Swami Abhedananda (A direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa) Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Calcutta. A Hindu distinguishes the religion of the churches from the religion of Jesus Christ. Speaking from the Hindu standpoint, the religion that the churches uphold and preach today, that has been built around the personality of Jesus the Christ, and which is popularly known as Christianity, should be called ‘Churchianity’, in contradistinction to that pure religion of the heart that was taught by Jesus the Christ and practised by his disciples. The religion of Christ or true Christianity had no dogma, no creed, no system, and no theology. It was a religion of the heart, a religion without any ceremonial, without ritual, without priest-craft. It was not based upon any book, but upon the feelings of the heart, upon direct communion of the individual soul with the heavenly Father. On the contrary, the religion of the church is based upon a book, believes in dogmas, professes a creed, has an organized system for preaching it, is backed up by theologies, performs rituals, practises ceremonials, and obeys the commands of a host of priests. The popular history of churchianity begins from 325 years after Christ, the 20th year of the reign of Constantine the Great, when the famous Council was convened at the City of Nocea. Those who have read the life of this august Roman Emperor will remember how remarkable was the character of this so called pious supporter of the church dogmas. He put to death his own son and his wife Fausta on groundless suspicion, cut off his brother-in-law Licinius and the unoffending son of Licinius and massacred everyone of his rivals. Nevertheless the Greek Church has canonized him, and adores the memory of St. Constantine. It was Constantine the Great who issued a decree in 321 A.D., for the general observance of Sunday, instead of the Jewish Sabbath. He hated the Jews and everything connected with the Jews, and said: "This day shall be regarded as a special occasion of prayer, because it is the Sun’s day, the day of our Lord". Since that time, the church has accepted that decree, ignoring the fact that this was the day for the worship of the sun among the pagans. It was Constantine the great who decided what should be the creed of the church and commanded the assembled bishops to receive the decrees of the Council of Nicea as the dictates of the Holy Spirit. Since that time the church has given authenticity to that creed, which is repeated almost every Sunday in all the orthodox churches in Christendom. The horrifying accounts of fraud, political wire pulling, theological jugglery, ecclesiastical scandal-mongering, passions breaking forth into curses and anathemas, bloody massacres and inhuman assassinations in the ecumenical councils, show that these were the principal instruments in the building up of the creed of Churchianity. Readers of ecclesiastical history will remember that in one of the disputes following the great Council of Nicea, maidens were insulted and scourged, the holy temple was profaned, books were thrown into flames, and the church and baptistery were burned and monks were trodden under foot. Such were the deeds of the pious bishops and founders of Churchianity. In the Council of Ephesus, which was held in 431 A.D., monks and bishops screamed: "Whoso speaks of two natures is a Nestorius, and let him be cut asunder". A bishop was kicked to death by another bishop in course of their arguments, and 137 corpses were left in a church to attest the convincing reasons by which the most ruffian side proved its orthodoxy. Such were the assemblies of saints who formed the pillars of the structure of Churchianity. We can easily imagine the nature of the guiding spirit of those councils, which established the creed of the church. From the beginning of the history of churches, down to the present day, freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that are the most essential characteristics of true religion, have been suppressed; and fanaticism, bigotry, curses, anathema, religious persecution, tortures of inquisition and diabolical crimes have been committed in the name of religion. Hatred, cruelty and fighting have reigned in the place of love, mercy, kindness, peace and goodwill. The creed of the church would have vanished from the world if swords were not drawn and innocent blood was not shed in the name of religion. The deeds of Churchianity are written indelibly upon the pages of the religious history of the world. Shall we wonder, then, if the humane, kind, gentle, peace-loving hearts of the Hindus, that are ever ready to send forth blessings, good-will, benediction and a current of love toward humanity, nay, toward all living creatures, reject Churchianity? Shall we wonder that the Hindus, who recognize Divinity in the souls of all, should refuse to accept a system that was founded upon the barren soil of dogmas, fertilized with the vital forces squeezed out of the hearts of innocent humanity; and nourished by the blood of martyrs? By a strange irony of fate, the Hindu sees today that the followers of Churchianity, ignoring its past history, have come over to India to tell the so-called ‘heathen’ how Churchianity has civilized the world, how it has brought peace on earth, and how it has saved the souls of sinners. But a Hindu is a lover of Truth and Freedom. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are his guiding stars. From ancient times, search after Truth and unswerving love for Truth have forced the minds of the Hindus to make rational investigation into matters that have been presented to them. It is very difficult to persuade a Hindu to blindly believe in anything. Before he accepts a dogma as truth he must trace its source and weigh all the arguments, pro and con, and then compare it with the highest ideals that are known in his own country. Stimulated by this natural tendency and by his love of Truth, when a Hindu studies the facts upon which Churchianity is founded, he first reads the Bible as critically as possible, applies logic and reason at every step, and then he looks into all the available writings of those Western scholars and critics who have made impartial examination of the Christian scriptures from the standpoint of historical researches. I know many Hindus who read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason before they opened a page of the Bible. A Hindu knows that there has been a great dispute in the present century among Western scholars regarding the historical personality of Jesus of Nazareth, as it is described in the Synoptic Gospels. Therefore he doubts the historical side of the personality of Jesus of the Gospels. He also knows that the researches of the higher critics of the Bible have shown that the description of the canonical Gospels regarding the events connected with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, do not harmonize with the facts of history, which can be gathered from other sources. A missionary preaches in India that the New Testament is the revealed scripture, or word of God. The educated Hindus, however, know that Jesus did not leave any writings of his own, nor did any of his direct disciples write any of the Gospels, which were accepted by the church as the infallible and revealed word of God. They are also familiar with the fact that there are absolutely no contemporary records or accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, either in the Bible itself or outside of it; and that the earliest of the writings, in the order of their composition, were the genuine epistles of Paul. Out of the fourteen epistles attributed to Paul, four only are held to be authentic; they are these: Epistle to the Romans, First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, Paul never saw Jesus the Christ except once in a vision, and only once did he quote the language of Jesus – a single phrase in connection with a reference to the commemoration of the last supper: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." It is admitted by many of the orthodox ministers of churches that Paul introduced many of the doctrines and dogmas that were afterwards accepted by Churchianity. It is a well-known fact that Paul did not preach the religion of Christ; if he did, he could not have boasted that he withstood Peter at Antioch to his very face. To the followers of Churchianity who preach to the Hindus that the New Testament is the revealed word of God, the Hindu asks: "If God intended to reveal His word, why did He inspire so many different men to write the history of one transaction, and why is it that almost all of these writings, except four, were afterwards rejected by human beings as fraudulent and incorrect?" We do not hear about the four canonical Gospels until the time of Irenius, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, who lived in 178-200 A.D. He was the real founder of the Church Canon. It was Irenius who first mentioned four Gospels. His arguments for accepting four Gospels were very remarkable, though not convincing. He says: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than four. For, since there are four quarters of the earth, four elements, four seasons and four cardinal winds, the church ought to have four pillars; for this reason there should be four Gospels". How clever was the argument of this noted bishop! Moreover, there are so many inconsistencies, discrepancies and errors in the Gospels, that no critical student among the Hindus could say that they are infallible and revealed word of God. As the church upholds this theory, and preaches the infallibility of this book, the Hindus reject it as a dogma of the church. When the Hindus read the Apostles’ Creed or the ‘Twelve Articles of Faith’ which were maintained and amplified in the Nicene creed, which formed the main body of the Reformation Theology, and which eventually developed into the Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal creed, they find there a set of dogmas which are neither supported by science nor by philosophy, nor do they appeal to reason. They must be accepted whether they appeal to reason or not. But a Hindu’s mind is not ready to accept any of these articles of faith as true unless it is based upon sound reasoning and supported by science or philosophy. A Hindu says that while God has given us reason, understanding and intellect, and freedom to use them, we should be acting against His wish if we accepted anything blindly upon the authority of anybody’s statement. We must question, we must test every claim in the crucible of logic upon the fire of right reasoning. Therefore, a Hindu says, before we accept any of the articles of faith, we must examine them. The first article of the creed is a great stumbling block to a Hindu, because it is backed by the story of creation. The genesis account of creation of the world in six days out of nothing by an extra-cosmic being seems absurd and childish to a Hindu, because he has been brought up with a belief in the doctrine of evolution; that the world is the result of a gradual evolution. The Hindu mind cannot believe that this world was created 6000 years ago, and that this earth came into existence before the sun was created. The Hindu says that the writer of such a story, whether he was divine or human, should have offered a more reasonable explanation, that he cannot believe in a creation out of nothing. In the voluminous writings of the Hindus sages and philosophers, ancient and modern, you will search in vain for any theory of creation out of nothing or creation by any extra-cosmic being. As Churchianity believes in such a creation, and preaches it, the Hindu rejects it as an absurd dogma. The second article of the creed is based upon a belief in Jesus the Christ as the only begotten Son of God. This article offers nothing new to the Hindu mind except in its exclusiveness. The doctrine of Incarnation of God or Logos (the Word), is an Indo-Aryan theory, and the Hindus believe that there have been and will yet be many such incarnations. The theory of Logos, or Word, or Son of God, travelled from India to Greece, and found expression in the writings of the early Greek philosophers, Heraclitus, Plato, Neo-Platonists, in the writings of Philo and his followers – the writer of the fourth Gospel – until it was accepted by the church as its fundamental doctrine. Although many of the Hindus believe in the doctrine of the incarnation of God in a human form, still they strongly object to the dogmatic method by which the churches preach it among the heathens. Their first objection is that if God could incarnate in one place for a certain purpose, why should He not incarnate whenever and wherever such an incarnation was needed? The church dogmas make the love of God for humanity limited by time, place and nationality. The love of God for humanity must be unlimited by such narrow considerations. God loves all humanity; His love shines equally upon all living creatures like the light of the sun. The Hindu conception of the incarnation of God is beautifully expressed in the Bhagavad Gita. In that Lord Krishna says: "Wherever irreligion prevails and true religion declines, I manifest Myself in a human form to establish righteousness and to destroy evil". Among the incarnations of God recognized by the Hindus are Krishna, Buddha, Rama, etc. When a Hindu reads the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ, as given in the Synoptic Gospels, and compared them with the life and teachings of Krishna and Buddha, he is amazed to find the singular coincidences in every minute detail, from the immaculate conception and the rising of the stars, to the resurrection and ascension to Heaven. [Note: The period when Krishna lived can be established by geological expertise that can help determine when the city of Dwarka sank beneath the waves of the ocean. Buddha was born in 547 B.C.]. Many eminent European scholars who have impartially studied Oriental religions have shown by their able articles and non-partisan criticism that the synoptic Gospels, being the productions of a later date, might well have drawn many of their important truths from the accounts of the lives and teachings of Krishna and Buddha in India. When the Christian missionaries first came to India, they were so astonished to find these singular coincidences in the lives and teachings of Krishna, Buddha and Christ that they satisfied their questioning minds by assuming as Sir William Jones said; "That the devil foreseeing the advent of Christ, originated a system of religion in advance of His, and just like it". The readers of the history of symbolism know that the cross as a religious symbol had existed in India ages before Christ was born, and many centuries before it was accepted by the Christian church and monopolized by it as its own property. The Hindu mind does not believe in any monopoly in religion, therefore it rejects the claim of Churchianity. Churchianity depicts in a dramatic way the temptation and fall of Adam from Paradise, seeking in this ‘fall’ to find the origin of evil and to explain the way that sin came into the world. But this account finds no acceptance from the Hindu. He looks upon it as the mythology of a primitive people, the explanation of undeveloped minds, who believes that one man who lived about 4000 years before Christ was the parent of the whole human race, and that because he sinned, all his descendants are born sinners. The Hindus know, and have known for countless ages, that such an account of creation is irrational and unscientific. [Note: Modern researchers have proved the correctness of their views, with evidences of a vast nation with highly developed civilization, existing tens of thousands of years before Christ. Some artefacts recovered from the recently discovered sunken city of Dwarka, are carbon dated to around ten thousand years. Nasa satellite images show the existence of man-made bridge between India and Sri Lanka predating by far all other civilizations. See page ‘Oldest Civilization’ www.hinduism.co.za/] How, then, is it possible for a Hindu to accept such a theory of the origin of sin? Millions of people lived and died before Adam was ‘created’. How could his conduct affect them? The Hindu believes that all men are children of God, and that they inherit divinity as a birthright. They say that sin means selfishness and trace its cause, not to any mythological devil, nor to a super-natural power of evil, but to man’s ignorance of his divine nature, and of the fact that God dwells in every individual soul. As long as we do not know our true nature, we identify ourselves with the limitations of mind and body and become selfish; but the moment we can realize that God dwells in us and come to understand our true nature, we become unselfish and free from all sin. The fire of true knowledge of the divine nature burns all sin into ashes and makes the soul realize that it is free. Such being the conception of sin among the Hindus, they do not care for any special scheme for the salvation of souls. They do not believe in the hell-fire doctrine, nor in any hell as a place for eternal punishment, therefore they do not need any help of a mediator. Those who believe in eternal punishment may feel the need of a Saviour from it. When Dr. John Henry Barrows, a prominent missionary, went to India, he addressed an intelligent audience in one of the large cities and preached that doctrine. After the lecture one person from the audience got up and said: "Sir, we thought you had come from an enlightened country to enlighten us; we did not know until now that your enlightenment is no better than what we call superstition". After Dr. Barrows had returned to America, he said that there were thousands of Brahmins who were waiting to be baptized and requested his audience to send more missionaries, and to give more money for that purpose. One well-known speaker hearing this, said: "My friends, why do you not send a fire engine instead; it would be so much cheaper?" The church dogma teaches the doctrine of vicarious atonement; it horrifies the tender feelings and loving nature of the Hindus. They do not interpret this act as an act of mercy or of love on the part of the heavenly Father, but they say it was an act of cruelty and injustice on His part to allow such a sacrifice of His innocent child. The next dogma of Churchianity is the resurrection of the body. Most of the churches believe that Jesus the Christ was the "first fruits of the dead," the only one that ever arose after death. The Hindus do not believe in physical resurrection, for the same reasons that the scientists and the best thinkers of the West do not accept this dogma. The Hindu belief is that the soul is immortal and indestructible; and by death they mean only a change of body. The whole of Hindu philosophy and religion is based upon the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; but many of the missionaries affirm that the Hindus do not believe in immortality. On the contrary this doctrine is so well known and so largely accepted by the Hindus that it is unnecessary for anyone to go to India to prove it by the traditional resurrection of a single person. The Hindus have better arguments than this. They say that there are two things necessary for the proof of immortality, the pre-existence of the soul, and its existence after death. If anything is created, or if anything has a beginning, it must have an end. This is the law of nature. If the souls of men were created by God out of nothing, they cannot be immortal, they must die. It is illogical to assert that the soul which is created should exist forever. If you wish to preserve immortality, first prove the pre-existence of the soul. The churches do not believe in the pre-existence of the soul, but preach its everlasting life after death, which the Hindus say is absurd on the face of it, and on the contrary to all we know of nature’s laws. In the writings of the Hindus you will find that the soul of man is described as free from birth and death. In the Katha Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita, occurs that beautiful passage made so familiar in America by Emerson: "If the slayer thinks that he has slain, or if the slain thinks that he is slain, they know not well that the soul can neither slay nor be slain". As Churchianity preaches that the soul of man had a beginning, but will have no end, the Hindus cannot accept it. The next dogma of the church is the doctrine of pre-destination and grace, which makes God partial and unjust; while the Hindu believes in the more rational and scientific doctrine of the reincarnation of souls. This theory explains most satisfactorily the problems of life and death, without imputing partiality and injustice to God. Churchianity teaches that God punishes the wicked and rewards the virtuous; while the philosophy of the Hindus teaches the law of karma, that is, the law of cause and effect, and says that God neither punishes nor rewards, but that we punish and reward ourselves by our deeds. Punishment and reward are the reactions of our own actions. Another reason why Hindus cannot accept Churchianity is that its (Churchianity’s) highest ideal is going to heaven and enjoying the pleasures of life through eternity. The highest ideal of religion, according to the Hindus, however, is not enjoying the eternal pleasures, but the attainment of God-consciousness and freedom in this life from the bondages of ignorance and selfishness. Salvation must begin here. We must be perfect here, and the hereafter will take care of itself. Although the Hindus do not agree to accept the doctrines and dogmas of Churchianity, still they do not hesitate to believe in Jesus the Christ as the Son of God, as an incarnation of Divinity in a human form on earth. The Hindu conception of the incarnation of God is much more rational and deeper in meaning than that of the Christians. Those who have read the Bhagavad Gita will understand what the Hindus mean by the incarnation of Divinity on earth. Whether Jesus the Christ had a historical personality or not, is not discussed by the Hindus. They understand by the word Christ that supreme state of God-consciousness where all dualities vanishes, where all idea of separateness ceases forever, and where the tremendous onrush of the divine essence of the universal Spirit, breaking down all the barriers and limitations of our human consciousness, causes us to realize our eternal oneness with the heavenly Father on the spiritual plane. Whoever reaches that state becomes a Christ, whether he be Krishna or Buddha, or a Jesus of Nazareth. The particular name makes no difference to a Hindu. They are all great, all divine, all incarnations of God on earth. Show me one who has reached that state, and I will worship him as a living divinity on earth. The Christian may think that Jesus was the greatest of all incarnations. The Buddhist may think that Buddha was the greatest of all, and a follower of Krishna or Rama may say the same thing regarding his Master, but when we examine the lives of these divine men we find that each of them was as great as the other. One may have manifested one phase of divinity; another may have presented another phase. When Jesus of Nazareth lived the life of renunciation and preached the ideal of spiritual oneness as the highest goal of all religions, he showed that he understood that state of Christhood. But ordinary people, forgetting the great mission of Jesus the Christ, fight for his historical personality. The masses quarrel and fight regarding the superiority of this or that incarnation, and the followers of each try to convert the others, but the wise man pities them all and tries to help them out of superstition, bigotry, race prejudice, fanaticism and religious persecution. The religion of Christ was a religion of love, renunciation and self-control; it was a religion of God-consciousness. As these are the highest ideals among the Hindus, they accept Christ and His true religion in so far as it is one with their ideals; but when they see that Churchianity does not preach renunciation, and that its advocates do not practise love for all, nor show self-control, when they see that Christian governments encourage vice by opium trade, liquor trade, and introduce intoxicating things among innocent and temperate people for the sake of gain, they reject a religion which allows such things. They believe in Jesus the Christ as the Son of God, and know that he did not teach such things. The duty of true religion is to broaden the human mind, to open the spiritual eyes, to lead humanity to the realization of oneness with the supreme Father in Heaven, and to repress all quarrels over dogmas and creeds. As long as we are not spiritual, we fight and quarrel, but when we realize that God dwells within us, that we are all children of God, irrespective of nationality, creed or denomination, when we rise above all dogmas, above beliefs, theories, and sectarianism, then, and then alone, we are the true followers of the Christ. Then, and then alone, are we able to say with Jesus, "I and my Father are one". The Hindus leave aside the disputed personality that dwells in each individual soul and believes that each soul is a latent Christ. They believe that the voice of God tells this truth within each soul, but we do not listen to it, through our ignorance and selfishness. Krishna says: "Giving up all the formalities of religion, come unto Me, take refuge in Me, I shall make thee free from sins, sorrows and sufferings". Jesus says: "Come unto Me all ye that are weary and heavy-laden and I will give you rest". Let us listen to that voice, for it is one and the same, and let us follow it. Let us realize the spirit of true Christianity that was exhibited in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us live as he lived, and be living Christs on earth. The Hindu is not satisfied merely to accept Christ in theory, but he strives hard to live the life, which Jesus lived, to lead a life of renunciation, of self-control and of love to all. Thus he seeks to fulfil the mandates of that eternal Religion which is taught by Christ-Krishna, Christ-Buddha, and Christ-Jesus.

He would be a she. We can always be rude. It is a choice.

Bindi, May I ask you a question. Someone who believes in the church teachings of Jesus. Why are you on a non duality site? Why are you on a site that the church believes promotes practices that can lead to possession? Why do you do such practices that are clearly against the churches teaching? Are you aware that in olden times you would have been burned for your practices that you do and the abilities you have? Lastly.. Why if you believe the way you do. Why would you come to this website or any other non duality website and put down the beliefs of those the website was intended for?

What Paul the apostle in his epistle to the Corinthians was referring to when he wrote “Death has been swallowed up in victory”, was a passage from the Old Testament, Isaiah 25:8. “He will swallow up death in victory [or forever]; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.” What Paul meant is that: Quote the Messiah shall by his death, and resurrection from the dead, obtain such an entire victory over death, not only for himself, but for all his people, that in the resurrection morn, when they will be all raised from the dead, death will be so swallowed up, that it will be no more. http://biblehub.com/...hians/15-54.htm You say: Jonesboy, on 21 Jul 2015 - 07:55, said: When you have achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara you will come to understand the meaning “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” Now I can understand the meaning of the words “Death has been swallowed up in victory” in the context of Paul, without having achieved oneness and having moved beyond samsara. This passage is specifically referring to Christians being raised from the dead and never having to face death again, in what is popularly referred to as ‘the second coming of Christ’, an event that Paul believed was immanent, but that has not yet been authenticated. Hi, Bindi.. Sorry I can't seem to get quotes working with this darn browser. The very first thing you posted on this thread was this. " Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21 And Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. Verse 3 Gospel of Thomas So yes, I choose to believe the words of Jesus that says look within for the kingdom of God. Not some anonymous guy's interpretation of duality. You say: Jonesboy, on 21 Jul 2015 - 07:55, said: Those who belong to samsara (perishable) must clothe themselves with the imperishable (Oneness), and we will be changed. Samsara is the repeating cycle of birth, life and death (reincarnation) as well as one's actions and consequences in the past, present, and future (wiki quote). Christians don’t believe in reincarnation, thus implicitly they don’t believe in samsara. I don’t think you can use concepts from one tradition to examine another conflicting tradition. Who say's I can't? Why is it wrong to find commonality within traditions. I find it much better to move beyond your team and my team or my group is better than your group. It is best to find what is common amongst all paths. “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” means in simple English “For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die” (New Living Translation bible). It doesn't mean "Those who belong to samsara must clothe themselves with Oneness, and we will be changed." Yet you will be changed. To go further are you talking about a Rainbow body or an Illusory body as taught in other traditions? Are you talking about those type of bodies? I just went with oneness to keep it simple. Or have you achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara, and therefore have direct knowledge or experience of the meaning of the lines “Death has been swallowed up in victory” and “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” that is different to the accepted meaning as stated above, and more in line with your view? I do have glimpses of oneness and emptiness. Of what Jesus refers to as Motion and Rest. http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html 50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" The term Christ was not coined hundreds of years later by the church. The term Christ was used to translate the term "The Anointed One" as used in the Old Testament, from Aramaic to Greek (Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed"). Your playing games now. The term Christ is used to refer to Jesus as being the ONLY son of God. That does go against Jesus mentioning many times that we are all children of God. Jesus used the term to define himself as a Son of God.. and Enlightened being. I didn't know that you found the bible to be such a non credible source, considering how you like to quote from it when it suits you. By my last count, a possible range of 70-110CE for the gospels in question puts the refernces to Christ as being written anywhere from 36-40 years after Jesus' death, (counting his death at 30-34 years old), to 76-80 years at the latest. Hardly the dismissive "hundreds of years later" that you initially claimed. I like to quote the Gospel of Thomas. I don't quote the bible to often. That would be Jeff. Also, your first quote "The Gospel of John was written by three different authors over a period of 200 years", doesn't tally with your 2nd Gospel of John quote which states "the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. I went with the latter date range, as I was unable to find references to your quotes. It's poor form to not acknowledge a quote, it's called plagiarism. Thank you, I have added links. Sorry for being in such a hurry. It still proves my point that the gospels where not written by the Apostles and were edited by the church. Edit: I will say that you are probably right on what Paul is saying. I am not a big fan of Paul. He was not a Disciple of Jesus. More his writings are added to help build the church more so that to promote what Jesus taught. http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html 91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

Haha

I agree I am also saying if you go deeper you will find it in the heart.

It does, it says it is in the physical body located where the heart chakra is located. In the absolute since there is no heart or body. But what he is saying is that as you change depth and become more immersed in samsara there does become a location for the heart from which all things seem to arise. From the same article. If one inquires as to where in the body the thought “I” rises first, one would discover that it rises in the heart. That is the place of the mind's origin. (Ramana Maharshi, WHO, 13.) It is true that the throat is stated to be the location of the mind, the face or the heart of the intellect, the navel of the memory, and the heart or sarvanga of the egoity; though differently stated thus yet, for the aggregate of these, that is the mind or internal organ, the location is the heart alone. This is conclusively declared in the Scriptures. (Ramana Maharshi, SE, answer to question 7.) I ask you to observe where the “I” arises in your body, but it is not really quite correct to say that the “I” arises from and merges in the chest at the right side. The Heart is another name for Reality and this is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in or out for it, since it alone is. I do not mean by “heart” any physiological organ or any plexus or nerves or anything like that; but so long as a man identifies himself with the body or thinks he is in the body, he is advised to see where in the body the “I” - thought arises and merges again. It must be the heart at the right side of the chest since every man of whatever race and religion and in whatever language he may be speaking, points to the right side of the chest to indicate himself when he says “I.” This is so all over the world, so that must be the place. And by keenly watching the emergence of the “I” - thought on waking and its subsidence on going to sleep, one can see that it is in the heart on the right side. (Ramana Maharshi, TBSRM, Chapter 1.)