Daniel

@Chang dao ling, I feel very strongly, this is important. It must be both: Christ in him AND is in Christ. Both. Jesus is sealing the breach. Matthew 12:25: “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”. It needs to be complete. It can not be divided.

My vote? If the Mahavatar is in Christ and Christ is in him then it is Christian. If not? Then not. If not, it's borrowing jargon. The intention may be pure, perhaps the technique works for himself and others? It works, but, it's still not Christian. In case it's helpful / informative: In Christ = ( all four ) Born again In water In spirit Baptism In water In fire Christ in oneself = In-dwelling of the spirit of truth John 16

I love this. Teamwork. It's like poetry in motion.

I would appreciate elaboration on this. And I am guessing other readers would benefit. Not only those participating in this thread, but also others. Please? At what point are you referring to? I saw reference to cultivating compassion and wisdom. That part I understand. But I'm unclear on much beyond that. Thank you,

It is a way to validate the Yogi's teachings through a sort of adapted version of Christianity? It's using ( abusing? ) Christian jargon for the purpose of preaching?

Thank you.

Good. The Pharisee technique is an emptying of self, nullifying the self, becoming a completely empty vessel for divine will. Will. That's all. Not God itself. If the individual identifies them-self with God, in the way you are describing, it sabotages, compromises the technique. Imagine a tight-rope. The acrobat is crossing. Identifying oneself with God, is like taking a step to the left, or a step to the right, and down, down, down they go, off the tight-rope into a net. This is because, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, King David's God, King Solomon's God, Jeremiah's God, Isaiah's God, Jesus' God, Pauls' God is: Absolutely Everything and More. Identifying oneself with this, is not only impossible, it is counter-productive to emptying. It would be the opposite. It would be filling. And that is like taking a sharp turn off the tight-rope in the technique of Paul the Pharisee and Christ-Jesus. This is important. Paul and Jesus are not happy. They are not rejoicing at all. They are sacrificing and suffering for their beloved friends. Agape! And, in turn, their beloved are able to rejoice in a way, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the love one feels when they are meeting their soul-mate. These concepts, especially the "soul-mate" and "self-sacrifice for another", the greatest LOVE according to Jesus, do not exist in the solitary practice of Yoga. However, it could be that there is a connection, a relationship, a correlation, which is valuable and useful to explore. But, it is NOT from the Pharisees. It is from Christ-Jesus.

Perhaps you're right? The OP has been answered? I'm asking. For myself. Is there something special, unique, about the rejoicing of those newly in Christ? Is it similar to the "eternal bliss" described by Yogis? @old3bob, Have you heard of "Christ consciousness"? If so, what is it? The rejoicing of those newly in Christ? Is it unique to Christianity? If not, what are the others which are similar to it?

What is this? Referred to below? Any ideas? How would you describe it? I'm reading this ^^ as the focus of Chang-dao-ling's inquiry.

This, the bliss, maybe someone can correct me? In America, maybe elsewhere, we affectionately refer to this as "drunk on Jesus". It is a term of endearment. It's a feeling of unconditional love and acceptance from the very tippy-top of heaven, all the way, down down down to earth. It's supposed to be like falling in love, but much much greater by many magnitudes. Maybe another expression that approaches it ( only approaching, because, I would argue, it's wholly unique ) is punch-drunk-love. Here it is portrayed in small part in song and dance. At the fountain? That's one way to present the rejoicing in Christ The Lord. Is what you see in the video in the fountain after hearing the "wake-up-call", what you expect to occur using the Kriya Yoga technique? Withdrawal >>> reunion >>> eternal bliss?

Excellent. Thank you. These are the parts which I am focusing on: " ... yoga union with the rejoicing (eternal bliss) of the Christ consciousness ... " "... Verily, I protest by our rejoicing which I have in Christ, I die daily ... " " ... he was consciously aware of being dead to the delusive sensory world of maya ... " For me, speaking only for myself: "I die daily" is not at all the same as " being dead to the delusive sensory world" when I put myself in Paul's position and read his words as he is composing them. What I am feeling is pain, sorrow, suffering. Paul IS DYING daily. He is not awakening from a dream. He is living in a nightmare where people need to be saved, and many have been, but there is so much more work to do in order to save them all. And, it would be good to see from which epistle this is? Is Paul writing from a jail cell? If so, Paul is suffering, and dying for a holy purpose. It is this self-sacrifice which is fueling his mystical experiences. That, to me, just me, maybe others will agree, is the opposite of awakening from the delusion which naturally produces child-like innocent bliss.

Apologies: I'll be more clear. ETA = Edit to Add. I thought, up to now, that it was a well known internet forum acronym.

It would be best to bring a quote from the book in order to discuss what is written there. To be clear? Did you read the words yourself, or is this something you heard from someone else? At the time when the epistles were written, there was no "Christianity". The author who is known as Paul was a Pharisee. Yes, the Pharisees were initiated into a "mystery school". No, it would have been any Levite. Only a few of them were high priests. ETA: I suppose the scribes would have learned them also. The scribes came from any tribe.

I think I watched that one a while ago. Do you know what it's missing? The Jewish perspective. Have you watched this video? Are you prepared to discuss it?

Right. That is Judaism. Our God is everything and more. Good work. The ancient Jewish philosophers saw the Pagan religions with their many Gods in conflict and we put them in order and and they are included as revelations of one and only one God with one and only one divine will. All of those other gods are like sock-puppets, or gloves on a divine hand. They are window dressing. They are shells, husks, they are meaningless to us. Judaism was constructed from the other Pagan religions, yes, and we decided they were wrong. Not wrong in that these other gods didn't exist, but they have no will of their own. These other gods do not make choices, they do not grant favor, they do not answer petitions. They are like electricity, like gravity, like wind. We Jews would never petition the wind. We Jews would not ever scream at clouds and expect a response. That is what was happening in Pagan religions. They built idols of rock and stone. The egyptians did all sort of strange things religiously, but none of it worked. Judaism, therefore looked at what they were doing and rejected it. That's the construction of Judaism. Paganism doesn't work, we'll correct it.

I guess I need to be quicker to enjoy the strangeness. Or bring my own! Presenting.... The amazing cellophane man in Victoria BC!

And I suppose I'll mention as well, many point to the Emuna Elish as the source for the Jewish creation myth/metaphor. It also adapted over time. the original from 2000BCE has zero correspondence to the Hebrew bible. The version from around 1300BCE starts showing some similarities. Then there's a later version from around 300CE written in Greek with quite a few significant similarities. The self-taught internet researcher, or perhaps someone who "took comparative religion at uni", almost always assumes that the version of the Emuna Elish they are reading is the oldest version from 2000BCE. But it's not. It's the version from the the 2nd iron age collapse when there was political and social pressure to establish legitimacy among the mixed cultures for the purpose of creating a unified empire.

I doubt that. Your attention to detail is lacking. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day I will locate the legend of King Harishchandra to see if it is indeed a near exact replica or if you are exaggerating and/or remembering wrong.

I doubt that. Your attention to detail is lacking. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day I will locate the legend of hercules to see if it is indeed a near exact replica or if you are exaggerating and/or remembering wrong.

Nungali, you're conflating the common Jewish individual with the leaders / founders of the religion. This happens all the time with self-taught internet researchers. The common folk did a lot of things. They worshiped many gods. They were polytheists. Certainly. They, the common folk, also couldn't read much less write. The scripture is teaching an ideal. The archaeological evidence shows the practices of the common people. I think if you can keep this in mind it will render a much more accurate picture of the "construction" of Judaism as an ideal. It is an aspiration of a scribal community and their religious/political leaders. This ideal became a way of life during the babylonian exile. Why? Because the Jews had motive and opportunity to do so. After the return to what is now known as Israel, it took about 4 generations for the Jewish way of life to become popular among the common people such that there is archeological evidence of the practice in that way: 200BCE. However, there is very good archeological evidence that there was a monotheistic YHVH religion which matches the bible narrative. It is the Temple at Tel Arad. The Temple is dated to approx 1000BCE. The emergence of the religion which would produce such a large temple complex and infrastructure supporting is would have predated the temple's construction by at least several hundred years. And this places the date of Judaism's emergence, not construction, in line with the bible's narrative. https://madainproject.com/tel_arad_temple https://www.jstor.org/stable/27925035 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1356269 https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/arad-an-ancient-israelite-fortress-with-a-temple-to-yahweh/

Nungali, that's a straw-man argument. No one says that. This is what we, Jews, say: We Jews say: "The direction of influence is being assumed." We Jews say: "You don't know the moral principles of our Torah, because you cannot read the language, and you do not study it like we do." That is not true. It is not almost exactly like it. There are 3-4 examples of very close, almost exact wording. But, the rest of it is completely different. Further. There are multiple versions of the Epic. That is very very important. As time went on, each version of the Epic became closer and closer to the story in the bible. Think about that. The first version, the original had no similarity at ALL to the bible story. The next version was closer. And then the later version had some eerie near copies of phrases. The version of the epic which includes matching phrases to the bible is dated 1100BCE on tablet 11. 1100BCE was a chaotic period in the region. It is following as the 2nd iron age collapse. Several empires were vying fro power. There was a lot of mixing and scattering of people. It is at least as likely that the Jewish myths were being borrowed as it is likely the that the Jewish myths were borrowing. We Jews say: "The direction of influence is assumed." If we look to the source of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Atra-Hasis ( see wiki link above ) There is virtually no correspondence what so ever with the Noh's ark bible story. This indicates that the other nations were adapting their myths. If they were adapting their myths, then there is good reason to consider that the Jewish stories were being borrowed, not the other way around.

Good. Here is more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud_inscriptions That leads to my second point. The second reason that it makes more sense that the inscription is referring to Astarte rather than Asherah comes from the location where the inscriptions were found. The inscriptions were found in a sort of shared worship facility where travelers would come to make offerings and petition various gods from various religions. It makes sense, here, in this location that a traveler would be bringing together two deities from two regions, hedging their bets, so to speak by offering devotion to both. There is strong academic inertia behind this idea. Many consider the divine feminine in the region in this time to all belong to a sort of general category which is being labeled "Asherah" even though each region had its own version. See below. Although there is resistance and multiple theories regarding this. https://therealsamizdat.com/2015/06/25/asherah-astarte-anat-athirat-in-ancient-ugarit/ https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_floor/ashtoreth

There are several reasons why it makes much more sense for the inscription to be read as referring to Astarte rather a miss-spelled version of Asherah. First grammar. Grammatically the possessive suffix is not applied correctly. No one wrote that way, no one spoke that way. No one speaks that way in any language. My father's name is Meir. No one would ever bless us: Meir V' L' DanielTah. That is the form in which the inscription is written. Here is the actual inscription: lyhwh. šmrn. wlʾšrth Inscription 3.1, Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012: 87-91. Cf. Renz 1995a: 61; Zevit 2001: 390-392; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005: 289-292; Naʾaman 2011: 302.

Nungali, this is simply false. The inscription does not read that way. You need to see the inscription for yourself. Please see academic research linked below. Asheratah is a conjugation of asherah with a pronominal suffix "Tav". Also, the vowels have been added. The original inscription does not include vowels. Because of this, the word could be, and probably is Astarte. It is spelled exactly the same way. There is no difference between the letters phonics "S" and "SH" in paleo-cannaite script. Astarte is an egyptian goddess. A feminine warrior. Associated with cats. Astarte was found on what is known as an Asherah "pole" in a cultic site in and around the temple complex in one of the border regions. Here is the most complete academic research available on the Asherah inscriptions. All of the inscriptions are listed. The analysis is performed by a native hebrew speaker. The conclusion is very simple: gramatically it cannot be referring to Asherah the goddess. It must be something else. It's simply process of elimination. "A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah" - LINK From the link: While we currently lack information to clarify the precise meaning of asherah in the inscriptions, the identification of the term as a common noun has important religio-historical implications and may point us toward a possible answer. We have already seen above that because asherah in the inscriptions is declined with a pronominal suffix, it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. This asherah is by definition distinguished from all other asherahs, including perhaps especially the goddess whose proper name was Asherah. And: ... the interpretation of ʾšrt as a reference to the goddess Asherah can account for evidence that the inscription has in view a female deity paired with YHWH as an object of blessing but at the same time is unable to decisively explain the significance of the attached pronominal suffix, while the interpretation of ʾšrt as a cult object/shrine belonging to YHWH resolves the pronominal suffix and yet downplays evidence that the blessing is directed toward a deity. This line of thinking takes its point of departure from the fact that the h- on ʾšrth is most easily analyzed as a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent and therefore as a declined substantive ʾšrt must represent a common noun rather than a proper name. According to the syntactic context, ʾšrt cannot refer to the goddess Asherah, but must signify something else. in the final analysis the theoretical argument that a proper name such as Asherah could carry a pronominal suffix is beset by a number of problems. First, although from a materialist perspective deities in the ancient Near East typically had properties of both common and proper nouns, they were nevertheless treated in practice as quasi-distinct persons, i.e. unitary entities. For example, within the immediate context of worship at local cult centers such as Samaria, Teman, and Jerusalem YHWH was not regarded primarily as a member of a class of deities but as the YHWH relevant to the worshipping community. Consequently, we would not expect the discourse surrounding divine names to completely upend conventional norms of the spoken language for distinguishing common vs. proper nouns (cf. Wiggins 1993: 188; Tropper 2001: 100; Smith 2002: 119-20; Irsigler 2011: 142-43). As a matter of linguistic function, the lexeme asherah cannot simultaneously inhabit both determined and indeterminate categories. If ʾšrth is correctly interpreted as the substantive asherah with an attached pronominal suffix it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. By definition the suffix distinguishes this asherah from every other asherah: this asherah is YHWH’s asherah.