RE: The Good News (and the bad news)

January 23, 2003

I enjoyed the post from Ken but I do take exception to statements such as

the following:

"Repent means turn around. In other words, you have been going in the wrong

direction. Turn around, what you are

seeking is right at hand. In other places, Jesus said, "The Kingdom of

Heaven is amidst you and it's within you."

Sounds really good at first sight but... This sort of thing often seems to

crop up in arguments with Christians. They will quote something from the

bible and then refer to a supposed derivation to make what appears to be a

very interesting point, quite forgetting that their English bible has been

through many stages of hearsay, commentary and translation before it reached

the printed page. How is the above arrived at exactly? According to my

dictionary, 'repent' derives ultimately from the Latin paenitere, which

means, unsurprisingly, 'repent' (regret etc.) - i.e. nothing whatsoever to

so with 'turn around'. That would have to be something like circumvertere,

which sounds nothing at all like 'repent'. Since this word has been passed

down and written down as 'repent' and not as 'turn around', why should we

look for it to mean anything different, even though it does support the

ideas of Advaita?

Dennis (in an argumentative frame of mind - sorry!)

January 24, 2003

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:21:00 -0000, Dennis Waite <dwaite

wrote:

> I enjoyed the post from Ken but I do take exception to statements such as

> the following:

>

> "Repent means turn around. In other words, you have been going in the

> wrong

> direction. Turn around, what you are

> seeking is right at hand. In other places, Jesus said, "The Kingdom of

> Heaven is amidst you and it's within you."

I am highly dubious of alleged parallels between Hinduism and Christianity.

Some eminent personages, expressing themselves for the sake of religious

harmony, have made serious errors in this regard. Christianity - for all

its talk about union and communion - is radically and incurably dualistic.

Even Eastern Orthodoxy, that most mystical of Christian churches, which I

served for a number of years as a priest, categorically denies any union of

essence with the Divine. The most one can hope for is communion with the

outgoing energies of God, i.e. grace. Creator and creature remain

eternally and inviolably separate. Western Christianity, influenced by

the theology of Augustine, is even more adamant on this point, if possible.

It may be that there are similarities in mystical experience, but if such

is the case, it is because all humans have similar nervous systems. "A

rose by any name would smell as sweet." But the theology and metaphysics

of the two religions differ radically.

> Sounds really good at first sight but... This sort of thing often seems

> to

> crop up in arguments with Christians. They will quote something from the

> bible and then refer to a supposed derivation to make what appears to be

> a

> very interesting point, quite forgetting that their English bible has

> been

> through many stages of hearsay, commentary and translation before it

> reached

> the printed page. How is the above arrived at exactly? According to my

> dictionary, 'repent' derives ultimately from the Latin paenitere, which

> means, unsurprisingly, 'repent' (regret etc.) - i.e. nothing whatsoever

> to

> so with 'turn around'.

Partly correct. But the Bible was not written in English or Latin, it was

written in Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old. The Greek

word which is translated "repent" in Mt 3:2 and parallel passages is

"metanoia". It does not mean "turn around", it means literally "have a

change of mind." The Greek words for "turn,turn around,return," etc.

are derived from a completely different root, "strepho."

> That would have to be something like circumvertere,

> which sounds nothing at all like 'repent'. Since this word has been

> passed

> down and written down as 'repent' and not as 'turn around', why should we

> look for it to mean anything different, even though it does support the

> ideas of Advaita?

Well, "metanoia" does mean a change of mind, and if a Greek were talking

about advaita, he might possibly employ it. More likely he would use

"anakainosis" meaning "renewing of mind". But my point is, Jesus and John

the Baptist were not talking about advaita and returning to one's non-dual

identity; they were talking about the advent of a messianic ruler/deliverer

in the line of the warrior-king David who would usher in a kingdom of

righteousness. Or maybe he would usher in the last judgment. In either

case, "repent" meant "quit sinning and straighten your lives out before it

is too late."

For clarification of my own position I hasten to add that I am not

affirming the existence of an historical Jesus in any of the above remarks.

But that's another topic for another list.

Pranams,

Shivaram

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

January 24, 2003

Namaste Shivram Das-Ji.

It is indeed very nice to see you out there batting. You have opened

with a real sixer.

I know next to nothing about the areas covered in your post.

However, I must admit that it shows brilliant thinking on your part.

As Dennis-Ji and you have pointed out, we have a tendency to indulge

in pointless parallelism. You can see that even a great personage

like Sri Yogananda Paramahamsa-ji had found vedantic connotations in

biblical sayings and the experiences of Christian saints. There is a

whole book about it (I cannot recall the tile.).

This tendency is not restricted to the area of religion alon as it

extends to the area of science too. Hindus, Christians and Muslims

have vigorously endeavoured to stake claims on scientific discoveries

and prove vainly that it was all in their books.

Unwarranted parallelism has become banal. Such avoidable digression,

no dubt, is detrimental to clear thinking. We stand to lose our

perspective thereby.

Thanks to you and Dennis-Ji for calling attention to and throwing

light on the issue.

Pranams.

Madathil Nair

______________________

January 24, 2003

--- Shivaram Das <conte wrote:

Shree Sivaram Das

Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of the

sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching. I got the

impression that christianity is more parallel to VishishhTaadvaitic

theological concepts than adviatic concepts. I would welcome your

analysis of the Christian teachings for the benefit of everyone.

Hari OM!

Sadanadna

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

January 24, 2003

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

we have a tendency to indulge

> in pointless parallelism. You can see that even a great personage

> like Sri Yogananda Paramahamsa-ji had found vedantic connotations

in

> biblical sayings and the experiences of Christian saints. There is

a

> whole book about it (I cannot recall the tile.).

>

Namaste,

This is probably a reference to the book - Kaivalya Darshanam

(1894), written by Swami Yukteshvara, Guru of Sw. Yogananda,

translated into English as 'The Holy Science'[7th ed. 1972, Self-

Realization Fellowship].

https://www.srfbooks.com/Item.asp?id=1373

Regards,

Sunder

January 24, 2003

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> I enjoyed the post from Ken but I do take exception

> to statements such as

> the following:

>

> "Repent means turn around. In other words, you have

> been going in the wrong

> direction. Turn around, what you are

> seeking is right at hand. In other places, Jesus

> said, "The Kingdom of

> Heaven is amidst you and it's within you."

Dear Argumentative Dennis,

Did I say that? Or is there another Ken out there?

Having had my hard disk finally stop spinning I am

presently trying to re-load years of saved progs. so I

am not contributing much to the site at the moment.

When did I write this stuff about repentance, if I

did? Should I repent about so doing? It is not

impossible as it has echoes of ideas from long ago.

Having read the subsequent mail I would add a little

now.

Metanoia also means to 'reflect' and this is a very

important spiritual discipline across the world.

Together with meditation it is firmly seated in

advaitin practice.

Story:

Mullah Nasruddin was wandering about his village after

weeks of heavy rain. Suddenly he heard cries coming

from the river's banks, " Mullah, Mullah, come

quickly, you mother-in-law has fallen in the river.'

Nasruddin ran to the water's edge and dived into the

rushing torrent and started to swim valiantly

upstream.

"No, No, Mullah! Downstream. She would have gone

downstream."

"You do not know my mother-in-law!" Called back

Nasruddin.

Comment.

In 'our' mind there is a flow of words that lead to

actions that appear to bind us in samsara. That is the

flow downstream outward into 'the creation.'

Reflection first reveals the 'form' of the words that

have their origin back in the lake in the mountains,

that is Vak, the Holy Mother, the Word.

If we 'think again', 'repent' if you like although

this word has too many erroneous connotations in

Western theologies, then we will realise that the

words to which we are giving our attention are but

echoes.

'Keneshitam' as the Kena Upanishad begins.

So, like Nasruddin's mother-in-law, we look to go

upstream to return to the source of the words that

lead to our actions that we have classified as good or

bad.

Then discrimination arises.

In this way there is a 180 degree turn necessary.

However, having said all that. We may reflect a little

more on the story of Nasruddin's mother-in-law.

The notion that the source of the river is in the

mountains is ignorance of course. For is it not rain

that falls on the lake, the river and the sea at every

single point in the apparent progression from source

to conclusion? And is it not the Sun itself that

draws up the water from the river and the lake and the

sea?

Maybe there is more to that story!

But now it is back to the hard disk I am afraid and I

repent most sorrowfully that I did not back up many

files just before the New Year. Oh alas.

Happy argumentation,

Ken Knight

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

January 24, 2003

advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:21:00 -0000, Dennis Waite <dwaite@a...>

> wrote:

>

> Partly correct. But the Bible was not written in English or Latin,

it was

> written in Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old. The

Greek

> word which is translated "repent" in Mt 3:2 and parallel passages

is

> "metanoia". It does not mean "turn around", it means

literally "have a

> change of mind." The Greek words for "turn,turn

around,return," etc.

> are derived from a completely different root, "strepho."

Namaste,

The New Testament wasn't only written in Greek, but in Aramaic,

Coptic etc etc. See Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts etc.

There are parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, modern Christianity is

but a distortion of the original. The original was just a

continuation of the Essenic teaching with Jesus added. Jesus's

brother James was designated by Jesus as his successor--Gospel of

Thomas.

Peter and particularly Paul to a different route culminating some

hundreds of years later with the institutionalising of the Church by

the Roman Empire and the deletion of important

teachings....ONS...Tony.

January 24, 2003

Namaste.

No, Sunder-Ji. The one I referred to is a compiled short-hand

transcription of Shri Yogananda Paramahamsa's teachings by one of his

disciples - a lady.

Thanks for the additional information.

Pranams and regards.

Madathil Nair

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh>"

<sunderh> wrote:

> This is probably a reference to the book - Kaivalya

Darshanam

> (1894), written by Swami Yukteshvara, Guru of Sw. Yogananda,

> translated into English as 'The Holy Science'[7th ed. 1972, Self-

> Realization Fellowship].

>

> https://www.srfbooks.com/Item.asp?id=1373

January 24, 2003

Namaste, Tony,

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:20:47 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery

<aoclery wrote:

> The New Testament wasn't only written in Greek, but in Aramaic, Coptic

> etc etc. See Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts etc.

Au contraire, Tony-ji, the New Testament was written entirely in Greek with

the exception of a few Aramaisms and Hebraisms such as "hosanna" and

"maranatha". The Aramaic New Testament is actually the Syriac Peshitta and

is a translation from the Greek. Papias mentions Matthew who "put together

the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best

he could." However, the "oracles" were not a Hebrew version of our Matthew

but rather a collection of Old Testament texts which, in combination with

the hypothetical "Q" document may have formed a proto-Matthean gospel. The

writings to which you refer were written in approximately the same period

or even earlier in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls if a BCE dating is

accepted for them, but they are not part of the canonical New Testament.

They are classed as apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. These writings are

interesting and I make no judgment on their value here, only their

canonicity. The quotation from Ken by way of Dennis made reference to the

canonical New Testament and the argument turned on a point concerning the

Greek language.

> There are parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, modern Christianity is but a

> distortion of the original. The original was just a continuation of the

> Essenic teaching with Jesus added. Jesus's brother James was designated

> by Jesus as his successor--Gospel of Thomas.

I agree with you on the diversity of early Christianity. It is tragic that

this was distorted and suppressed, often by brutal means, but the issue I

am addressing is the relation of the Hindu religion to the orthodox

Christian religion in it's "modern" form.

> Peter and particularly Paul to a different route culminating some

> hundreds of years later with the institutionalising of the Church by the

> Roman Empire and the deletion of important teachings....ONS...Tony.

Again, I agree, but the question relates to the character of modern

exoteric institutional Christianity, not with hypothetical reconstructions

of its suppressed mystical precursors. The attempted correlations between

Hindu texts and the texts and dogmas of institutional Christianity are a

mis-guided and and failed attempt at rapprochement.

Pranaams,

Shivaram Das

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

January 24, 2003

Dear List,

My browser/email client has been behaving erratically, sending and deleting

messages on its own. I apologize for empty, duplicate, or missed posts.

I will try and post from the website until it becomes stable again.

Shivaram

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

January 24, 2003

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:13:32 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery

<aoclery wrote:

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>>

>> --- Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

>>

>> Shree Sivaram Das

>>

>> Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of the

>> sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching. I

> got the

>> impression that christianity is more parallel to VishishhTaadvaitic

>> theological concepts than adviatic concepts. I would welcome your

>> analysis of the Christian teachings for the benefit of everyone.

>>

>> Hari OM!

>> Sadanadna

>

> Namaste,

>

> All religion can only be dualistic.

Not in the sense I intended. Hindu Advaita and Trika affirm "Atman is

Brahman" and "Jiva is Shiva". Historic Christianity is adamant in its

opposition to any blurring of the distinction between Creator and creature,

any participation of man in the essence of God.

> Also as Jesus had spent some time in a monastery in Leh/Thibet it is no

> coincidence that the sermon has some parallels in Buddhism also.....Tony.

We have visited this before, Tony-ji. There is nothing in the teachings of

Jesus that cannot more simply and sensibly be traced to Old Testament

antecedants and there are plenty of reasons for excluding this particular

crotchet from serious consideration. Please argue the case on a list like

JesusMysteries. or Xianity. and make a sober appraisal of

the evidence.

Pranaams,

Shivaram Das

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

January 24, 2003

advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> Namaste, Tony,

>

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:20:47 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

> <aoclery> wrote:

>

> > The New Testament wasn't only written in Greek, but in Aramaic,

Coptic

> > etc etc. See Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts etc.

>

> Au contraire, Tony-ji, the New Testament was written entirely in

Greek with

> the exception of a few Aramaisms and Hebraisms such as "hosanna"

and

> "maranatha". The Aramaic New Testament is actually the Syriac

Peshitta and

> is a translation from the Greek.

Namaste,

I have one thought, perhaps only Lucius the scribe of Luke was known

to speak Greek. Most of the Apostles and Disciples were speakers of

Aramaic only, and some 'Church Hebrew'. The transliteration to Greek

was done mainly by the Pauline Church, as opposed the Jamesian, and

this was later. IMO...I take your point on comparing the modern

church etc.....OnS...Tony.

January 24, 2003

advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:13:32 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

> <aoclery> wrote:

>

> > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> > <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> >>

> >> --- Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> >>

> >> Shree Sivaram Das

> >>

> >> Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of

the

> >> sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching. I

> > got the

> >> impression that christianity is more parallel to

VishishhTaadvaitic

> >> theological concepts than adviatic concepts. I would welcome

your

> >> analysis of the Christian teachings for the benefit of everyone.

> >>

> >> Hari OM!

> >> Sadanadna

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > All religion can only be dualistic.

>

> Not in the sense I intended. Hindu Advaita and Trika affirm "Atman

is

> Brahman" and "Jiva is Shiva". Historic Christianity is adamant in

its

> opposition to any blurring of the distinction between Creator and

creature,

> any participation of man in the essence of God.

Namaste,

Keep your vestments on old fella!! Atman and Jiva are of course

Brahman but we are now talking of philosophy not religion per se.

Re ligio in latin means to bind back. To what? That is in itself

dualistic.........ONS....Tony.

January 24, 2003

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:54:02 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery

<aoclery wrote:

> advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:13:32 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

>> <aoclery> wrote:

>>

>> > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda >

>> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> --- Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> Shree Sivaram Das

>> >>

>> >> Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of

> the

>> >> sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching. I

>> > got the

>> >> impression that christianity is more parallel to

> VishishhTaadvaitic

>> >> theological concepts than adviatic concepts. I would welcome

> your

>> >> analysis of the Christian teachings for the benefit of everyone.

>> >>

>> >> Hari OM!

>> >> Sadanadna

>> >

>> > Namaste,

>> >

>> > All religion can only be dualistic.

>>

>> Not in the sense I intended. Hindu Advaita and Trika affirm "Atman

> is

>> Brahman" and "Jiva is Shiva". Historic Christianity is adamant in

> its

>> opposition to any blurring of the distinction between Creator and

> creature,

>> any participation of man in the essence of God.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Keep your vestments on old fella!! Atman and Jiva are of course Brahman

> but we are now talking of philosophy not religion per se.

>

> Re ligio in latin means to bind back. To what? That is in itself

> dualistic.........ONS....Tony.

To bind the self to the Self, of course! Recognition, in the Trika sense.

When you consider all 36 tattvas and Param Shiva pervading all, questions

of duality and non-duality, real and un-real are not so troubling. Or

maybe there's a problem with Trika that I'm not seeing?

Anyway, thanks for your good-humored response. It's not my vestments that

are troubling me - my knickers get all in a twist with this Jesus in India

stuff :-)

Pranaams,

Shivaram

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

January 24, 2003

advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:54:02 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

> <aoclery> wrote:

> > but we are now talking of philosophy not religion per se.

> >

> > Re ligio in latin means to bind back. To what? That is in itself

> > dualistic.........ONS....Tony.

>

> To bind the self to the Self, of course! Recognition, in the Trika

sense.

> When you consider all 36 tattvas and Param Shiva pervading all,

questions

> of duality and non-duality, real and un-real are not so troubling.

Or

> maybe there's a problem with Trika that I'm not seeing?

>

> Anyway, thanks for your good-humored response. It's not my

vestments that

> are troubling me - my knickers get all in a twist with this Jesus

in India

> stuff :-)

>

> Pranaams,

> Shivaram

Namaste,

Speaking Advaitically there nothing to bind back for we are already

there.

I see you have a problem with Jesus being in India but I don't know

why. Asoka had sent missionaries to the middle east centuries before

and there was a Buddhist installation in Alexandria. Then there are

the caravans, the trading etc etc. I usually correlate my information

with the Cayce readings on this subject, as I do with the scrolls etc

etc. I don't know whether you have been in India but it is not a far

fetched theory there. Also at his teenage he would have to be

betrothed on those days, so escaping to India for a few years would

fit right in. Many people and mystics have related the story of Jesus

in India including some puranas . The Essenes had a connection with a

group in Jaganath........ONS.......Tony.

January 24, 2003

namaste

isn't this beyond the scope of this list?

Tony O'Clery <aoclery

advaitin

1/25/03 6:31 AM

Re: The Good News (and the bad news)