Vedic Christianity

[forestofclarity]

I agree with Michael. The truth is the truth, it is reflected through different cultural lenses. No doubt some people reflect the truth more clearly, but it must be based on common ground. How can it be otherwise?

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I agree with Michael. The truth is the truth, it is reflected through different cultural lenses. No doubt some people reflect the truth more clearly, but it must be based on common ground. How can it be otherwise?

 

Right on.

 

The only alternative would be to assume that some religions are right, whereas others are wrong on an essential level. Only once enough humans have matured to realize that all systems offer genuine outlooks at the One metaphysical reality - beyond cultural differences - will the insane war about true and false religions stop.

 

The latter being based on a view that regards religions as something like different football teams bound to compete with one another in order to determine the strongest (read: the one which rightfully holds the claim to truth).

Edited May 23, 2022 by Michael Sternbach

[old3bob]

Come on, really?  The only way to God and Heaven is through Jesus Christ per traditional Christianity, and that is not alluded to or found anywhere in far more tolerant Hinduism.  So the only match ups that can be made are with esoteric or deep mystical correlations and even those have limits. 

 

Paramahansa Yogananda went a long ways with such mystical correlations in his Autobiography of Yogi, but even those have limits and are taking somewhat  dubious liberties imo.

Edited May 23, 2022 by old3bob

[Michael Sternbach]

On 21.5.2022 at 11:55 PM, Nungali said:

 

Pollen and tree ring analysis indicates the Chang Tang plateau in Northern Tibet had a far more liveable environment than it has today - one that could support a primordial civilization - until the climate become colder and drier starting around 1500 BCE, a climate change that caused the population to migrate out of the northern plateau.

 

The world was a very different place back then ;

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhangzhung

 

As it happens, new Denisovan fossile remains have been found even further down the map just a few days ago, in Laos.

 

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/laos-denisovan-10814.html

 

Of course, we already knew that the Denisovans must have spread all over Asia in time immemorial. Remarkably, the people with the highest percentage of Denisovan genes today are from Oceania.

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad9416

 

 

[forestofclarity]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

Come on, really?  The only way to God and Heaven is through Jesus Christ per traditional Christianity, and that is not alluded to or found anywhere in far more tolerant Hinduism.  So the only match ups that can be made are with esoteric or deep mystical correlations and even those have limits. 

 

I think by "traditional" you mean "common" or "popular." Just as the sky is more apparent at the peak rather the base of the mountain, so too is it with spiritual traditions. 

 

Check out this passage from Nicholas of Cusa from the Vision of God: 

 

"And since Your love Is always with me and is nothing other, Lord, than You Yourself, who love me, You Yourself are always with me, 0 Lord. You do not desert me, Lord; You safe-guard me on all sides because You most carefully watch over me. Your Being, 0 Lord, does not forsake my being, for I exist insofar as You are with me. And since Your seeing is Your being, I exist because You look upon me. And if You were to withdraw Your countenance from me, I would not at all continue to exist.

 

But I know that Your gaze is that maximal goodness which cannot fail to impart itself to whatever is capable of receiving it. Therefore, You can never forsake me, as long as I am capable of receiving You. Hence, I must see to it that, as best I can, I be made more and more capable of receiving You. But I know that the capability which conduces to union is only likeness; but incapability results from unlikeness. Therefore, if by every possible means I make myself like unto Your goodness, then according to my degree of likeness thereto I will be capable of receiving truth. 0 Lord, You have given me being; and my being is such that it can make itself more and more capable of receiving Your grace and goodness." 

 

And the idea that the way to God is through Christ is really not different from saying that the way to Brahman is through wisdom. There are many traditional Christian mystics and traditions that in fact put forth that Christ is wisdom, or gnosis, which performs the same function as the Sanskrit jna-, as in jnana or prajna. 

 

Surely there is no less a tolerant form of spirituality than universalism in Christianity, based on such Biblical passages as:

 

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV)

 

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV)

 

“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32, ESV)

[Michael Sternbach]

5 hours ago, old3bob said:

Come on, really?  The only way to God and Heaven is through Jesus Christ per traditional Christianity, and that is not alluded to or found anywhere in far more tolerant Hinduism.  So the only match ups that can be made are with esoteric or deep mystical correlations and even those have limits. 

 

This is actually an excellent example. From the esoteric perspective, Christ stands for the Inner Self, which I think every religion has some concept of - whether they call it Atman, Buddha Nature, Shen, Fravashi, Aumakua, and so on.

 

Moreover, most religions go back to a historically more or less identifiable avatar who had a realization of this Inner Self and gave it tangible expression in the mundane world. When Jesus said: "I and the Father are One", no doubt it was that kind of realization he was trying to put in words.

 

Alas, most of his listeners took his words - ignorant of their esoteric meaning - as a monopolistic claim, inducing either devout reverence, or contempt for his apparent blasphemy.

 

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these ... "

 

You are quite right, Hinduism is more tolerant than many other religions - because it is more attuned to mystical experience even in its popular form. What sense could it make to object to people that are subject to the same universal principles, just  employing a different terminology and following different rituals?

 

And the same can be said of some pre-Christian religions of more Western origin as well - for instance, the ancient Greeks readily identified their deities with those of the Egyptians, and vice versa. They understood that they were both talking about the same spiritual forces or entities - only using (to one degree or another) different symbols to refer to them.

 

Quote

Paramahansa Yogananda went a long ways with such mystical correlations in his Autobiography of Yogi, but even those have limits and are taking somewhat  dubious liberties imo.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Michael Sternbach

[old3bob]

I was more or less a correlation junkie myself for a long time but have mostly given up on the "new age" like conflating habit...which mostly means well but also gets off track and goes around and around in trying to fit a wide range of concepts and meanings into a greater I got it all figured out concept and meaning.  

Edited May 24, 2022 by old3bob

[Zhongyongdaoist]

The problem with the posts here is that they search far afield for a source for the teaching of Jesus when nearer sources are available and not considered at all.  As I noted here:

 

On 10/14/2017 at 9:51 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

My own answer is that assuming that any of this actually happened and in many ways that is a big assumption, that he had a very sympathetic audience of "God Fearers" and Hellenizing Jews who would have been only to happy to listen to some nice young itinerant preacher speaking Greek Philosophy, which the Greeks had stolen from the Jews anyway, or at least that is what they believed, in terms which had been made as Kosher sounding as they could be by a line thinkers including Aristobolus and the older and very prolific contemporary of any conceivable historical Jesus, the Apostles and Paul, Philo of Alexandria.  I have posted a little bit about this milieu in my posts on the religious background of the Renaissance Neoplatonist and author on magic Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy here:

Agrippa Book One Introduction

(The Relevant posts are mostly on the first and second page, but the whole thread is short and worth a read.)

 

The upshot of which is that a tendency to synthesis Platonic and and Jewish thought existed possibly as early as the Third Century B.C.E. in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that it continues into the Patristic period starting with Justin Martyr, the first of the Church fathers, and running through such Church Fathers as Lactantius and Marius Victorinus, the teacher of St .Augustine.

 

Finally two things, it should be remembered that Joseph and Mary were supposed to have fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus in order to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocents and if all of this interesting stuff was going on in Alexandria, there would have been no need for Jesus to go off to India for instruction from Hindus or Buddhists would there?  For those people who find the notion of Plato and the Gospels farfetched, I did post about the possible use of Plato's Gorgias in the "Sermon on the Mount" here:

 

Plato's Gorgias in Matthew

 

If you think finding Plato in the Gospel's is simply my own odd and eccentric hobby, you should find yourself a copy of:

 

Plato and the Christians by Adam Fox, Philosophical Library, 1957

 

On the title page the author is listed as Archdeacon of Wesminster, a title of some significance in the Anglican Church.  In this book he takes almost every commonplace among Christian thought that originates somewhere in the New Testament and traces it to some interesting section of Plato's dialogs.  There on p. 131 you will find under the heading, "Love your Enemies", a correlation of Matthew 5.43-45 with Plato's Republic 335B-E.

 

Finally for the sake of brevity I have had to engage in some real oversimplification, nonetheless I hope the above is helpful.

 

I hope people will consider this possibility with an open mind, there are a lot of links in this which should be followed in order to get the full force of the post.

 

ZYD

[Cobie]

Moved to my PPD https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/53685-posts-to-think-about/?do=findComment&comment=983286

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Cobie

[Michael Sternbach]

10 hours ago, old3bob said:

I was more or less a correlation junkie myself for a long time but have mostly given up on the "new age" like conflating habit...which mostly means well but also gets off track and goes around and around in trying to fit a wide range of concepts and meanings into a greater I got it all figured out concept and meaning.  

 

There are those of us (including yours truly) who are of the scientific mind set. We do like to identify underlying patterns and try to see the bigger picture in all we study... It is our very way.

 

Is it a "new age" kind of thing? Depends on what you mean by that. I do believe that, as a species, we are heading towards a blending of science, philosophy, and religion. In fact, this will be crucial to our survival and spiritual evolution.

 

However, the syncretistic approach as such is not really something new. Pretty much every religion or metaphysical doctrine in existence today is the result of a revision and amalgamation of previous systems.

 

Such is the nature of human creativity. 🙂

[old3bob]

ok, up to a point that is part of the process...I'd say the other part is not diluting 1 drop with a thousand gallons and then claiming the thousand gallons are as pure as the now diluted one drop.

[forestofclarity]

Well, we can also consider from the opposite direction. What is Brahman? Well, Brahman is unlimited being--- unlimited in time, space, and all objects depend on Brahman. So Brahman is omnipresent--- even here and now. In fact, Brahman is who we really are. 

 

Despite this universality of Brahman, are we really to believe the only people who know about this universal and foundational truth, not only of every human experience but also of the entire cosmos, is a handful of Advaitins? 

 

That every Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, --- and not just the ones alive today, but everyone who was ever born and died--- out of the untold millions and millions of practitioners over many millennia--- many of whom are intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and/or meditative geniuses--- well, they all got it obviously wrong? Every Single One? And that I, somehow despite my failings in every way, and my limitation to a narrow time, space, and culture--- that I am in fact more discerning then all of of them combined? 

 

Well, that truly boggles the mind.  

 

 

 

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

On 5/21/2022 at 3:31 PM, Nungali said:

Note how the settings will not allow me to post a map explaining academic principles  ..... but a silly meme  or picture or gif  is super easy to post and comes up every time

 

Do you mean posting a map like this:

 

 

or something else?

 

ZYD

[dwai]

If we ask any "realized" person, they would see the nondual fabric which is shaped in different ways as the infinitely diverse universe. All names and forms have some application/applicability. Religious traditions are also part of the "names, forms and application". The problem arises only if one thinks "only my way is right".

 

The two younger siblings of Judaism are very immature as they are generally practiced. But anyone with proper context, who sees specific statements attributed to Jesus, can see their nondual nature shining forth. But as is with nondual teachings in general, they are highly confusing to those without context (which I assume are most of those who wrote down his teachings).

 

I've had conversations with Christian friends who have an understanding of Advaita Vedanta or other Advaita traditions in general, and they all agree that the essence is similar. But those who don't know/understand Advaita, especially the literalists (and I've encountered far more of those than the first category) are vehemently opposed to any attempts to even suggest that there can be a common ground. 

 

This is a "slippery slope" from another perspective, which is the phenomenon of missionary activity and proselytization that happens in India, Africa, etc. For all intents and purposes, India is the last bastion of those who are called "pagans" by the Church, or "Kafirs" by the Islamic clergy. Both Christianity and Islam are expansionistic religions.

 

I think attributing the sameness of the higher teachings in Christianity to Hinduism and then using that as a ploy to convert people, is a terrible thing IMHO. It deracinates people, making them rootless, and therefore abandoning their socio-cultural and spiritual traditions/heritage. So, I have some trepidation around that topic (more about it being abused by unscrupulous missionaries). 

Edited May 24, 2022 by dwai

[Vajra Fist]

28 minutes ago, dwai said:

The problem arises only if one thinks "only my way is right".

 

I would say that historically this served a purpose. It preserves the integrity of a tradition. If all paths are considered equal, there is the tendency to mix and match. You see this now with absurdities like 'YoQi'.

 

The result is arguably you end up with something that leads nowhere. They might all lead to the same place, or near enough the same, but how they get there is different. 

 

But at the same time, it's important not to get too attached to the form.

 

In the Buddha's parable of the raft, he asked monks what he should do with a raft after crossing a river. Should he leave it by the shore, or carry it across the land. The monks said he should - of course - leave it by the shore.

 

Quote

In the same way, monks, I have taught the dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.

 

But I would build on that analogy by saying that you shouldn't make alterations to the raft in the process of crossing over the river, otherwise you'll sink. Therefore fostering the sense of your raft is superior is a useful mentality for teachers to cultivate in their students.

 

But once you've got to the other shore, you can see that all the rafts effectively serve the same purpose, although they might look different in form. 

 

[dwai]

26 minutes ago, Vajra Fist said:

 

I would say that historically this served a purpose. It preserves the integrity of a tradition. If all paths are considered equal, there is the tendency to mix and match. You see this now with absurdities like 'YoQi'.

 

The result is arguably you end up with something that leads nowhere. They might all lead to the same place, or near enough the same, but how they get there is different. 

I subscribe to the ladder theory. While all rungs do lead to the top, not all are at the same level. So, after a certain point, to reach the top, one has to step off the lower rung and climb onto the higher one. And finally, when one reaches the top, one will have to step off the final rung as well (ie if there was a goal). Similarly, not all systems are complete (or even if they are, there are not too many who can teach them that way), so if someone is on a limited system, there might be a need to switch to a system that can take one to their target. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Vajra Fist said:

 

But at the same time, it's important not to get too attached to the form.

 

In the Buddha's parable of the raft, he asked monks what he should do with a raft after crossing a river. Should he leave it by the shore, or carry it across the land. The monks said he should - of course - leave it by the shore.

 

 

But I would build on that analogy by saying that you shouldn't make alterations to the raft in the process of crossing over the river, otherwise you'll sink. Therefore fostering the sense of your raft is superior is a useful mentality for teachers to cultivate in their students.

 

But once you've got to the other shore, you can see that all the rafts effectively serve the same purpose, although they might look different in form. 

 

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

Do you mean posting a map like this:

 

 

or something else?

 

ZYD

 

Yes .....   but you have 'powers'    ( and probably not a 15 year old lap top  and down in an ancient  subduction fault with a weak 3G signal .    )

 

P.S.  how did those freshwater seals get into Lake Baikal  ? 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

13 hours ago, old3bob said:

ok, up to a point that is part of the process...I'd say the other part is not diluting 1 drop with a thousand gallons and then claiming the thousand gallons are as pure as the now diluted one drop.

 

That sounds a bit like the making of a homeopathic remedy! 

 

Actually, the analogy is not a bad one... Taking the essence of a system, not the form - and potentizing it.

 

For a form is subject to change and adaptation, while the essence it contains may always stay the same.

[old3bob]

19 hours ago, dwai said:

If we ask any "realized" person, they would see the nondual fabric which is shaped in different ways as the infinitely diverse universe. All names and forms have some application/applicability. Religious traditions are also part of the "names, forms and application". The problem arises only if one thinks "only my way is right".

 

The two younger siblings of Judaism are very immature as they are generally practiced. But anyone with proper context, who sees specific statements attributed to Jesus, can see their nondual nature shining forth. But as is with nondual teachings in general, they are highly confusing to those without context (which I assume are most of those who wrote down his teachings).

 

I've had conversations with Christian friends who have an understanding of Advaita Vedanta or other Advaita traditions in general, and they all agree that the essence is similar. But those who don't know/understand Advaita, especially the literalists (and I've encountered far more of those than the first category) are vehemently opposed to any attempts to even suggest that there can be a common ground. 

 

This is a "slippery slope" from another perspective, which is the phenomenon of missionary activity and proselytization that happens in India, Africa, etc. For all intents and purposes, India is the last bastion of those who are called "pagans" by the Church, or "Kafirs" by the Islamic clergy. Both Christianity and Islam are expansionistic religions.

 

I think attributing the sameness of the higher teachings in Christianity to Hinduism and then using that as a ploy to convert people, is a terrible thing IMHO. It deracinates people, making them rootless, and therefore abandoning their socio-cultural and spiritual traditions/heritage. So, I have some trepidation around that topic (more about it being abused by unscrupulous missionaries). 

 

Well said, especially the last paragraph.  (and various missionaries may not be unscrupulous per intent but as the saying goes and sometimes takes place, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"