Blessed are the Peacemakers?

[Guest guest]

I am looking for the source of a quote. It goes

something like, "Blessed are the peacemakers (or is it

blessed are the meek) for they shall inherit the

earth."

 

If this is from the Bible, could someone give the

exact quote and a proper interpretation.

 

Thanks,

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Harsha,

 

 

--- Harsha <harshaimtm wrote:

> I am looking for the source of a quote. It goes

> something like, "Blessed are the peacemakers (or is

> it

> blessed are the meek) for they shall inherit the

> earth."

 

Matthew 5 verse 5

'Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth'

 

Matthew 5 v9

 

' Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called

the children of God.'

 

These are from a sermon called the 'Sermon on the

Mount' or the Beatitudes. You may also like verse 8:

'Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see

God.'

 

I have just searched the house but cannot find a book

called 'The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta'.

by Swami Prabhavananda published by Mentor books in

1963.

 

Many other Vedantins have referred to this text. It is

worth having a look at the Greek of the verses if you

get so inspired

 

Om sri ram

 

 

ken Knight

>

> If this is from the Bible, could someone give the

> exact quote and a proper interpretation.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

> =====

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up

> now.

> http://mailplus.

>

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

--- Harsha <harshaimtm wrote:

> I am looking for the source of a quote. It goes

> something like, "Blessed are the peacemakers (or is

> it

> blessed are the meek) for they shall inherit the

> earth."

 

Namste again Harsha,

Found the book, quick scan and brief effort at editing

the errors.

I hope that this will be of interest to you. I am not

endorsing everything that is written here but offer it

to your in response to your request for the reference.

 

The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta Swami

Prabhavananda The BEATITUDES

 

'Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the

earth.

 

Ignorance and delusion are characteristic of the

unregenerate mind. This ignorance is confirmed and

buttressed by our sense of ego—our idea that we are

separate from one another and from God. Egotism must

be overcome if the mind is to be freed from delusion.

Therefore—blessed are the meek. But why does Christ

say that they shall inherit the earth? At first sight,

this seems difficult to understand. Among the yoga

aphorisms of Patanjali (yoga means union with God,

also the path to that union) there is one aphorism

which corresponds to this beatitude: “The man who is

confirmed in non-stealing becomes the master of all

riches.” What is meant by “non-stealing”? It means

that we must give up the egotistic delusion that we

can possess Things, that anything can belong

exclusively to us as individuals. We may think: “But

we are good people. We do not steal anything! Whatever

we have, we have worked for and earned. It belongs to

us by right.” But the truth is that nothing at all

belongs to us. Everything belongs to God. When we

regard anything in this universe as ours, we are

appropriating God’s possession.

What then is meekness? It is to live in self-surrender

to God, free from the sense of “me” and “mine.” This

does not mean that we should get rid of wealth,

family, and friends; but we should get rid of the idea

that they belong to us. They belong to God. We should

think of ourselves as God’s servants to whose care he

has entrusted his creatures and possessions. As soon

as we understand this truth and give up our deluded

individual claims, we find that in the truest sense

everything belongs to us after all.

Conquerors who try to become masters of the world by

force of arms never inherit anything except worry,

trouble, and headaches. Misers who accumulate huge

wealth are only chained to their gold, they never

really possess it. But the man who has given up his

sense of attachment experiences the advantages which

possessions afford without the misery which

possessiveness brings.

Many people dislike this saying of Christ because they

think that the meek can never achieve anything. They

think that no happiness is to be had in life unless

one is aggressive. When they are told to give up the

ego, to be meek, they are afraid that they will lose

everything. But they are wrong. In the words of Swami

Brahmananda “People who live in the senses think that

they are enjoying life. What do they know about

enjoyment? Only those who are filled with divine bliss

really enjoy life.” But arguments will not prove this

truth. You have to experience it; then only will you

be convinced.

If a spiritual aspirant sincerely follows Christ’s

teaching of meekness, he will find it very practical.

He will find that anger and resentment can be

conquered by gentleness and love. The Chinese mystic

Lao Tm expressed this truth by saying: “Of the soft

and weak things in the world, none is weaker than

water. But in overcoming that which is firm and

strong, nothing can equal it. That which is soft

conquers the hard. Rigidity and hardness are

companions of death. Softness and tenderness are

companions of life.” By sincerely giving up the ego to

God, by being meek, we will gain everything. We will

inherit the earth.

 

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

 

In every religion we find two basic principles: the

ideal to be realized and the method of realization.

Every scripture of the world has proclaimed the truth

that God exists and that the purpose of man’s life is

to know~ him. Every great spiritual teacher has taught

that mat~ must realize God and be reborn in Spirit. In

the Sermon the Mount the attainment of this ideal is

express as perfection in God: “Be ye therefore

perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is

perfect.” And the method of realization which Christ

teaches is the purification of the heart which leads

to that perfection.

What is this purity which we must have before God

reveals himself to us? We all know of people whom

would describe as pure in an ethical sense, but they

have not seen God. What is the reason? Ethical life,

the steady practice of moral virtues, is needed as a

preparation for spiritual life and therefore is a

fundamental teaching in every religion. But it does

not enable us to see God. It is like the foundation of

a house; it is not, the superstructure.

What is the test of purity? Try to think of God now,

this very moment. What do you find? The thought of

his presence passes through your mind, perhaps like a

flash. Then many distractions begin. You are thinking

of everything else in the universe but God. These

distractions show that the mind is still impure, and

therefore not ready to receive the vision of God. The

impurities consist of various impressions which the

mind has gathered from birth to birth. The impressions

have been created and stored in the subconscious part

of the mind as the result of an individual’s thoughts

and actions, and in their totality they represent his

character. These impressions must be dissolved

completely before the mind can be considered pure. St.

Paul referred to this overhauling of the mind in his

Epistle to the Romans, when he said: “...be ye

transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

According to Yoga psychology, there are five root

causes of impressions in the mind. First is ignorance,

in a universal sense, of our divine nature. God dwells

in and around us, but we are not conscious of this

truth. Instead of seeing God, we see this universe of

many names and forms which we believe to be real—just

as a man who sees a rope lying on the ground in the

dusk may believe it, in the twilight of his ignorance,

to be a snake. Secondly, there is the sense of ego,

projected by this ignorance, which makes us think of

ourselves as separate from God and from one another.

Out of the sense of ego we develop attachment and also

aversion; we are attracted by one thing, repelled by

another. Both desire and hatred are obstacles in the

path to God. The fifth cause of impure mental

impressions is the thirst to live, which Buddha calls

tanha, and to which Christ refers when he says: “For

whosoever will save his life shall lose it.” This

clinging to life, or fear of death, is natural to all,

good and bad alike. Only the illumined soul has no

ignorance, no sense of ego, no attachment, no

aversion, and no fear of death; the impressions have

all vanished.

Even if God were to offer us spiritual enlightenment

this very moment, we would refuse to accept it. Even

if we have been seeking God, we momentarily draw back

in panic when we are about to have his vision. We

instinctively cling to our surface life and

consciousness afraid to give them up, even though

doing so me passing into an infinite consciousness,

compared which our normal perceptions are, as the

Bhagavad Gita says, “like a thick night and a sleep.”

Swami Vivekananda, the apostle of Sri Ramakrishna was

from his boyhood a pure soul longing for God. Yet he

experienced that same fear. When he first came to his

future master, Sri Ramakrisbna gave him a touch, and

his spiritual vision began to open. Then Vivekananda

cried out: “What are you doing to me? I have my

parents at home!” And Sri Ramakrishna said: “Oh you

too!” He saw that even this great soul was subject to

the universal clinging to surface consciousness.

There are many ways to purify the heart. As we shall

see, Christ teaches them throughout his Sermon. The

main principle in all the methods is devotion to God.

The more we think of the Lord and take refuge in him,

the more we shall love him—and the purer our hearts

will become.

The principle of centering our life in God is equally

affirmed by holy men of the Jewish, the Christian, and

the Hindu traditions. “The Lord is my strength and my

shield,” said the Psalmist. In the Imitation of

Christ4 we read: “Thou art my hope, thou art my trust,

thou my comfort... I find all infirm and unstable

whatever I behold outside thee.”

Swami Brahmananda taught his disciples this same’

truth: “Hold on to the pillar of God.” In India, the

children first hold on to a pillar, and then spin

round it—without danger of falling. In the same way,

as long as we hold on to God, we realize that the

experiences of pleasure and pain are impermanent in

their very nature. And as we continue to hold on to

the pillar of God and become devoted to him, our

passions and cravings, which obstruct God-vision, lose

their strength.

One method to calm the mind and grow in purity is to

try to feel that we are already pure and divine. This

is not a delusion. God created us in his own image;

purity and divinity are therefore basically our

nature. If we cry all our lives that we are sinners,

we only weaken ourselves. Sri Ramakrishna used to say

that by repeating constantly, “I am a sinner,” one

really becomes a sinner. One should have such faith as

to be able to say: “I have chanted the holy name of

God. How can there be any sin in me?” “Admit your sins

to the Lord,” Sri Ramakrishna taught, “and you vow not

to repeat them. Purify body, mind, and tongue by

chanting his name. The more you move toward the light,

the farther you will be from darkness.”

 

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called

the children of God.

 

Only when we have been illumined by the unitive

knowledge of God do we really become his children and

peacemakers. Of course it is true that we are always

his children, even in ignorance. But in ignorance our

ego is “Unripe, it is self-assertive and forgets God.

We cannot bring peace until we have realized our

oneness with God and with all beings. In the state of

transcendental consciousness (that perfect divine

union which the Hindus Call samadhi) the illumined

soul has no ego; his ego is merged in the Godhead.

When he returns to a lower Plane of consciousness he

is again aware of his individuality; but now he has a

“ripe” sense of ego which does not create any bondage

for himself or for others, In illustration of this

ripe ego the Hindu scriptures speak of a burnt rope;

it has the appearance of a rope but it cannot tie

anything. Without such an ego it would not be possible

for a God-man to live in a human form and teach. When

I was a young monk, a disciple of Ramakrishna once

said to me: “There are times when it becomes

impossible for me to teach. No matter where I look I

see only God, wearing so many masks, playing in so

many forms. Who is the teacher then? Who is be taught?

But when my mind comes down from plane, then I see

your faults and weaknesses and to remove them.”

There is a passage in the Bhagavata, a popular

devotional scripture of the Hindus, which reads: “He

whose heart God has become manifest brings peace and

cheer, and delight everywhere he goes.” He is

peacemaker Christ speaks of in the Beatitudes. I am

reminded of a life that I have seen—the life of

master, Swami Brahmananda. Whoever came into presence

would feel a spiritual joy. And wherever went he

brought with him an atmosphere of festivity.

In one of our monasteries there were a number young

postulants, not yet trained, fresh from school When

they had been together a short time, their tendencies

began to assert themselves, and they formed cliques

and quarreled. A senior swami of our order went to

investigate. He questioned everybody soon discovered

the ringleaders. Then he wrote to Swami Brahmananda,

who was the head of our order, that these boys were

unfitted for monastic life and should be ‘expelled. My

master answered: “Don’t anything about it. I am coming

myself.” When arrived at the monastery, he did not

question anyone He just started living there. He

insisted on only one thing~—that all the boys should

meditate in his presence regularly every day. The boys

soon forgot their quarrels. The whole atmosphere of

the place became uplifted. By the time Swami

Brahmananda left, two or three months later, perfect

harmony had been established in the monastery. No one

had to be expelled. The minds and hearts of the

postulants were transformed.

When I first came to our monastery at Belur, two young

boys quarreled and came to blows. Swami Premananda,

the abbot, saw this and asked Brahmananda, his brother

disciple, to send the boys away. My master told him:

“Brother, they have not come here as perfect souls.

They have come to you to attain perfection. Do

something for them!” Swami Premananda said: “You are

right!” He called all of us monastics together and

brought us to Swami Brahmananda. With folded hands he

asked my master to bless us. Swami Brahmananda raised

his hand over our heads, and one by one we prostrated

before him. Speaking from my own experience, I can

only say that that blessing was like a cooling spring

to a fevered body. It gave one an inner exaltation

which could be felt but not described. All our

troubles were forgotten, and our hearts were full of

love. This is how a real peacemaker affects us. When

our hearts are uplifted by his presence, we no longer

have any desire to quarrel, because we are engaged in

the love of God.'

 

 

Peace

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Kenji! I will share this with others.

 

Love,

Harsha

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> --- Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> > I am looking for the source of a quote. It goes

> > something like, "Blessed are the peacemakers (or is

> > it

> > blessed are the meek) for they shall inherit the

> > earth."

>

> Namste again Harsha,

> Found the book, quick scan and brief effort at editing

> the errors.

> I hope that this will be of interest to you. I am not

> endorsing everything that is written here but offer it

> to your in response to your request for the reference.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji:

 

Thanks for sharing those beautiful quotations along with the

Vedtantic view expressed by Swami Prabhavananda.

 

Let me share with you Gandhiji's thoughts on the Semon on the Mount.

This is a good time to remember Gandhiji who believed in "Ahimsa" and

also "universal love."

 

GITA AND THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Though I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to identify myself

with orthodox Christianity:.. Hinduism as I know it entirely

satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find a solace in the

Bhagavadgita and Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the

Mount. Not that I do not prize the ideal presented therein, not that

some of the precious teachings in the Sermon on the Mount have not

left a deep impress upon me, but I must confess to you that when

doubts haunt me, when disappointments. stare me in the face, and when

I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavadgita

and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in

the midst of over-whelming sorrow. My life has been full of external

tragedies and, if they have not left any visible effect on me, I owe

it to the teaching of the Bhagavadgita. (From an address to

Christian Missionaries, Young India, 6-8-1925)

The Gita has become for me the key to the scriptures of the world.

It unravels for me the deepest mysteries to be found in them. I

regard them with the same reverence that I pay to the Hindu

scriptures. Hindus, Musalmans, Christians, Parsis, Jews are

convenient labels. But when I tear them down, I do not know which is

which. We are all children of the same God. "Verily I say unto you,

not every one that sayeth unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom

of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

shall enter the Kingdom," was said, though in different words, by all

the great teachers of the world.

 

Source: The message of Gita by Mahatma Gandhiji.

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

>

> The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta Swami

> Prabhavananda The BEATITUDES

>

> 'Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the

> earth.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram,

> Let me share with you Gandhiji's thoughts on the

> Semon on the Mount.

>Though I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to

> identify myself

> with orthodox Christianity:.. Hinduism as I know it

> entirely

> satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find

> a solace in the

> Bhagavadgita and Upanishads that I miss even in the

> Sermon on the

> Mount.

 

Thank you for this. I wonder what Gandhiji would

define by his word 'Hinduism'? To pitch the brief

content of the Sermon on the Mount against the vast

years of teaching and different inputs is a little

unfair.

We always need the context of such brief speeches and

it helps to know of the belligerence of the Jewish

world of the time. Although based in universal

principle the 'Sermon on the Mount' has a particular

function in time and place although each of us may

find in it something relevant to our own context.

 

As I noted in my offer of the text as a reply to

Harshaji's request for information, I was not trying

to promote or dismiss the quotes.

 

Having said all that, and in responding to Gandhiji's

comment which I share, I would think that in my

preferred study time, it would be 80% Shankara, 15%

Bhagavad Gita, 4% Sufi and 1% Christian.

 

Having said that, it is only the immediacy of pratibha

(anubhava) that enlivens any sruti study. In order to

help that process of Self revealing Itself in Itself

it is probably better to let our own preferences

disappear once they have played their part in

'polishing the mirror' as Sufis would describe it.

Otherwise we will soon find ourselves enmeshed in a

delusory, dualistic world of 'I like' and 'I don't

like'.

 

Just a few thoguhts arising from your posting and I

hope that they are relevant.

 

 

Om sri ram

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ken:

 

To find the answer to the question, "How Gandhiji define the term,

Hinduism" we need to understand his most complex (SIMPLE) personality

of him. Gandhiji's life focused on two principles that can be taken

as the definition of Hinduism:

(1) "Satyameva Jayathe - Victory is inseparable from the Truth.

(2) "Yatra Dharmashya, Tatra Vijayebhava - Victory is inseparable

from Dharma.

 

Gandhiji comment on the "Sermon on the Mount" should be taken within

the context of Bhagavad Gita. He greatly respected admired other

religions and thoughts but at the same time that his life was mostly

influenced by the teachings of Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

This email is rather long because you have a loaded question and the

answer requires careful scrutiny of Gandhi's entire life. That is an

impossible task and I have provided below few passages that

highlights what he believed in.

 

Gandhiji through his disciplined life demonstrated that those who

maintain the above principles with conviction can never face

failures. One of the difficulty is that "Hinduism" can't defined

like on the same scale like the organized religions such as

Christianity or Islam. Gandhiji in one of his delivered at Arsikere

in Mysore State states: "The other day, in the course of a

conversation, a missionary friend asked me, if India was really a

spiritually advanced country, why it was that he found only a few

students having any knowledge of their own religion, even of the

Bhagavadgita. In support of the statement, 'the friend who is himself

an educationist, told me, that he made it a point to ask the students

he met whether they had any knowledge of their religion or of the

Bhagavatgita. A vast majority of them were found to be innocent of

any such knowledge. I do not propose to take up at the present

moment the inference that because certain students had no knowledge

of their own religion, India was not a spiritually advanced country,

beyond saying that the ignorance on the part of students of religious

books did not necessarily mean absence of all religious life. or want

of spirituality among the people to which the students belonged……."

 

To get a better understanding of Gandhi's view on religion in general

and Hinduism in particular, I recommend the following passage from

the Observer, February 4, 1994:

PREMISES AND THEIR INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES

On January 2, 1937 a Professor of Philosophy from Poland, Krzenski

came to see Gandhiji. Krzanski told Gandhiji that Catholicism was the

only true religion.

"Do you therefore say that other religions are untrue?" Gandhiji

asked.

Krzenski: If others are convinced that their religions are true they

are saved.

Gandhiji: Therefore, you will say that everyone would be saved even

through untruth. For you say that if a man really and sincerely

believes in what is as a matter of fact untruth, he is saved. Would

you not also hold, therefore, that your own way may be untrue but

that you are convinced that it is true and therefore you will be

saved?

Krzenski: But I have studied all religions and have found that mine

is the only true religion.

Gandhiji: But so have others studied other religions. What about

them? Well, I go further and tell you that religion is one and it has

several branches which are all equal.

Krzenski: I accept that no religion lacks divine inspiration but all

have not the same truth, because all have not the same light.

Gandhiji: It is an essentially untrue position to take, for a seeker

after truth, that he alone is in absolute possession of truth. What

is happening to the poor astronomers today? They are changing their

position every day, and there are scientists who impeach even

Einstein's latest theory.

Krzenski: No. But I have examined the arguments in favour of other

religions.

Gandhiji: But it is an intellectual examination. You require

different scales to weigh spiritual truth. Either we are all untrue -

quite a logical position to take - but, since truth does not come out

of untruth, it is better to say that we all have truth but not the

complete truth. For God reveals His truth to instruments that are

imperfect. Raindrops of purest distilled water become diluted or

polluted as soon as they come in contact with mother earth. My

submission is that your position is arrogant. But I suggest to you a

better position. Accept all religions as equal, for all have the same

root and the same laws of growth.

Krzenski: It is necessary to examine every religion philosophically

and find out which is more harmonious, more perfect.

Gandhiji: That presupposes that all religions are in watertight

compartments. That is wrong. They are always growing. Let us not

limit God's function. He may reveal Himself in a thousand ways and a

thousand times.

Now the Professor switched on to the next question viz., that of

fighting materialism.

Gandhiji: It is no use trying to fight these forces without giving up

the idea of conversion, which I assure you is the deadliest poison

that ever sapped the fountain of truth.

Krzenski: But I have a great respect for your religion.

Gandhiji: Not enough. I had that feeling myself one day, but I found

that it was not enough. Unless I accept the position that all

religions are equal, and I have as much regard for other religions as

I have for my own, I would not be able to live in the boiling war

around me. Any make-believe combination of spiritual forces is doomed

to failure if this fundamental position is not accepted. I read and

get all my inspiration from the Gita. But I also read the Bible

and the Koran to enrich my own religion. In incor- porate all that is

good in other religions.

Krzenski: That is your goodwill.

Gandhiji: That is not enough.

Krzenski: But I have great respect for you.

Gandhiji: Not enough. If I were to join the Catholic church you would

have greater respect for me.

Krzenski: Oh yes, if you became a Catholic, you would be as great as

St. Francis.

Gandhiji: But not otherwise? A Hindu cannot be a St. Francis? Poor

Hindu!

Krzenski: But may Take your photograph?

Gandhiji: No, surely you don't care for materialism! And it is all

materialism, isn't it? (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol

64, pp.203-4)

Gandhiji's acuity and wit! On the other side, the trap the dogma

of certain- ties lays for its adherents.

For the position that Krzenski was articulating is the standard

position, it is the ineluctable position that every adherent of a

revealatory, milleniar- ist religion must take.

The premises of such religions - of Christianity, of Islam, of

Marxism- Leninism-Maoism - are that there is one Truth; that it has

been revealed to One Man - the Son of God Jesus, the Messanger of God

Mohammed, the Culmination of Philosophers Marx; that it has been

enshrined by him or on his behalf in One Book - the Bible, the Quran,

Das Kapital; that this text is very difficult to grasp and,

therefore, one must submit to and be guided by One (external,

overarching) agency - the Church, the Maulvi, the Party.

 

Summary of a speech delivered by Gandhiji at Arsikere in Mysore State:

The other day, in the course of a conversation, a missionary friend

asked me, if India was really a spiritually advanced country, why it

was that he found only a few students having any knowledge of their

own religion, even of the Bhagavadgita. In support of the

statement, 'the friend who is himself an educationist, told me, that

he made it a point to ask the students he met whether they had any

knowledge of their religion or of the Bhagavatgita. A vast majority

of them were found to be innocent of any such knowledge.

I do not propose to take up at the present moment the inference that

because certain students had no knowledge of their own religion,

India was not a spiritually advanced country, beyond saying that the

ignorance on the part of students of religious books did not

necessarily mean absence of all religious life. or want of

spirituality among the people to which the students belonged. But

there is no doubt that the vast majority of students who pass through

the Government educational institutions are devoid of any religious

instruction. The remark of the missionary had reference to the Mysore

students and I was somewhat pained to observe that even the students

of Mysore had no religious instruction in the State schools. I know

that there is school of thought which believes in only secular

instruction being given in public schools. I know also that in a

country like India, where there are most religions of the world

represented and where there are so many denominations in the same

religion, there must be difficulty about making provision for

religious instruction. But if India is not to declare spiritual

bankruptcy,, religious instruction of its youth must be held to be at

least as necessary as secular instructor. It is true that knowledge

of religious books is no equivalent of that of religion. But if we

cannot have religion we must be satisfied with providing our boys and

girls with what is next best. And whether there is such instruction

given in the schools or not, grown up students must cultivate the art

of self help about matters religious as about other. They may start

their own class just as they have their debating and now spinners'

clubs

Addressing the Collegiate High School students at Shimoga, I found

upon enquiry at the meeting that out of a hundred or more Hindu boys,

there were hardly eight who had read the Bhagavadgita. None raised

his hand in answer to the question, whether of the few who had read

the Gita there was any who understood it. Out of five or six Musalman

boys all raised their hands as having read the Koran. But only one

could say that he knew its meaning. The Gita is, in my opinion, a

very easy book to understand. it does present some fundamental

problems which are no doubt difficult of solution. But the general

trend of the Gita is, in my opinion, unmistakable. It is accepted by

all Hindu sects as authoritative. It is free from any form of dogma.

In a short compass it gives a complete reasoned moral code. It

satisfies both the intellect and the heart. It is thus both

philosophical and devotional. Its appeal is universal. The language

is incredibly simple. But I nevertheless think that there should be

an authoritative version in each vernacular, and the translations

should be so prepared as to avoid technicalities and in a manner that

would make the teaching of the Gita intelligible to the average man.

The suggestion is not intended in any way to supplement the original.

For I reiterate my opinion that every Hindu boy and girl should know

Sanskrit. But for a long time to come, there will be millions without

any knowledge of Sanskrit. It would be suicidal to keep them deprived

of the teachings of the Bhagavadgita because they do not know

Sanskrit.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Namaste Ram,

>

>

> Thank you for this. I wonder what Gandhiji would

> define by his word 'Hinduism'? To pitch the brief

> content of the Sermon on the Mount against the vast

> years of teaching and different inputs is a little

> unfair.

> We always need the context of such brief speeches and

> it helps to know of the belligerence of the Jewish

> world of the time.

[Guest guest]

Namaste again,

Your posting is very gratefully received and is being

forwarded to a friend of mine who teaches Religious

Studies and needs such inspiring material.

I have often used this statement:" It is only that

which has a boundary that can be divided." This simple

principle is easily demonstrated by the religions of

this world which are fractured continuously from the

moment that a group sees difference. Or rather sees

difference and takes that for the reality rather than

the substratum.

Tha Dalai Lama opened his address to the World

Parliament of Religions...this was a recent event

celebrating the one initiated by Vivekananda in

Chicago more than a hundred years ago......with the

words:'Buddhism is right for me, that does not mean

that it is right for you.'

With such a statement he acknowledges the substratum

while pointing out a form that appeals to him.

Clearly we respond in accordance to our vAsanas.

I was interested to note in your mail that Gandhiji

states that the Bhagavad Gita inspires both the heart

and the intellect. That is indeed my own experience

and why I recommend the reading of it to my

acquaintances and why, if I was allowed only one book,

that would be it. However there are times when it

seems as if my whole being is crying out for the

directness and ultimate simplicity of Adishankara's

teachings. That is my personal experience and so I

echo the Dalai Lama and say that it is right for me

but that does not mean that it is right for everyone.

 

A final point is one that I have offered to this site

before. This is the problem of dualistic thought being

realised as 'higher' and 'lower' which soon becomes

'better' and 'worse'. The one cannot have any meaning

without the latter therefore they are co-dependant. I

cannot walk 'under' a bridge without the bridge being

'over' me. This is the world of duality which can only

exist in a common substratum.

We may also consider the terms 'strong' and 'weak'.

Is the king or the servant strong? In the act of

service it is the servant for the king knows not how

to cook his food or dress himself. When the king

serves...eg. Yudhishthira.....then strength is with

him. It is when either tries to take the strength and

claim it as their own that trouble arises as is shown

throughout history. This is because the real strenght

is not contained in either part but is an attribute of

the substratum in which both exist. Strength means

service and Gandhiji demonstrated that time and again.

My own experience of true aspirant of any of the

world's religions is that they manifest a true

humility. Not the humility of the obsequious but of

one empowered. To meet such a one is a joy and a light

that guides.

In fact I have just remembered someone from my days as

a teacher in a school. The 'lowest' person employed

there was the man who swept the playground and did odd

jobs around the building. Whatever was asked of him he

did immediately and with full attention. I often

directed my pupils to watch him at work as he could

teach us all so much: strenght in humility. In

mentioning him here I suddenly realised that it would

have been impertinent and ignorant indeed to have

asked such a man "What religion are you?"

 

If I have rambled too far then may I direct us back to

the Vedas to recall Gandhiji's comment on the Gita and

the heart and mind:

‘The thoughtful (vipashcitah) perceive (pashyanti)

with heart (hrd) and mind (manas) the bird adorned

with magic (maayaa))) of an asura (a heavenly class of

beings)’

Rg Veda 10.177.1

 

It seems to me that these are indeed the peace

realisers rather than the 'peacemakers' which is a

nonsensical term.

In case anyone likes to pick up on this verse I would

be very keen to hear of your translation of

vipashcitah as, to me, thoughtful is very inaccurate.

 

Final point for Harshaji if he comes this way. In the

early English translations of the Greek 'Makarioi' the

word given is not Blessed but Blissed. They may be

the same word of course but I have not tracked that

etymologically. So maybe you would like to use the

word 'Ananda' when thinking of the word 'blessed.'

 

I hope that this is not too long a posting nor a

deviation,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ken:

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and especially I liked your

statement, "It seems to me that these are indeed the peace realisers

rather than the 'peacemakers' which is a nonsensical term." I totally

agree with this announcement.

 

A good starting point for 'Peace' is to realize peace within instead

of silencing others. Most of the peacemakers seems to force peace on

others without realizing that "the world doesn't need any change and

only we need change!"

 

I want to go back to your question on the definition of "Hinduism,"

and let me add some additional observations. It is possible to

define chirstianity through Bible and Islam through Kuron but to

understand Hinduism, one needs to study the entire life of Hindus.

This may partly explain the misconception about Hinduism among the

westerners who are not too familiar with the superimposition of Hindu

culture and religion. The earlier Vedic religion is known

as 'Sanatanadharma' there was never an institution at that time which

propogated one set of rules to fit the entire population. The term

Sanatanadharma stands for dharma from time immemorial following the

two principles that I stated earlier: SatyamevaJayathe and

YatraDharmasya TatraVijayebhava. Essentially Hinduism recognize the

fact that 'one size doesn't fit all,' and consequently every Hindu

family practised their own religion focusing on Truth and Dharma.

 

Finally, I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Stig, Dennis,

Frank, Greg and so many others from the West who contribute

generously by propogating the Vedantic Truth to the fellow

citizens.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Namaste again,

> .....

> It seems to me that these are indeed the peace

> realisers rather than the 'peacemakers' which is a

> nonsensical term.

> ......

> Ken Knight

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>"

<rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ken:

>

> Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and especially I liked

your

> statement, "It seems to me that these are indeed the peace

realisers

> rather than the 'peacemakers'

 

Namaste,

 

Interfaith rapprochement in the context of Spiritual uplift

being a subject of some interest, these references may help in the

process.

 

The HOLY BIBLE: In the Light of Kriya

 

168 Pp, 12 photographs, 6 x 9, Paper, ISBN 1-877854-23-9, $15.00

 

The Holy Bible will never seem the same after reading this book. At

last, a perspective that clearly makes sense of verses that many

have heard all of their lives and never clearly understood.

 

This title includes:

 

Insight into the Holy Bible

The New Testament

The Old Testament

Kriya: The Science of Breath

The author was told by a fellow disciple of Babaji that Jesus came

to the Himalayas to complete his Kriya education from Babaji, which

he was unable to do in his previous life.

Jesus then taught Kriya to his disciples in his last incarnation,

and so the New Testament is a book of Kriya.

 

 

Power vs. Force, by David Hawkins -

 

http://64.177.173.162/powervsforce/power_vs_force_book_review.htm

 

 

I also read that William Carey, 1761-1834, a missionary and

a prolific linguist, translated the Bible into Sanskrit. I guess

there is no copy extant.

 

Does someone know if anyone else has also tried it?

 

http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/bibles/translation.htm

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Final point for Harshaji if he comes this way. In the

> early English translations of the Greek 'Makarioi' the

> word given is not Blessed but Blissed. They may be

> the same word of course but I have not tracked that

> etymologically. So maybe you would like to use the

> word 'Ananda' when thinking of the word 'blessed.'

>

> I hope that this is not too long a posting nor a

> deviation,

>

>

> Ken Knight

>

********

Thank you Kenji. I had wondered about the root of blessedness in this

context and what it might mean.

 

It occurs to me that (regardless of our religion) when we say, "God

bless you" it means that I take you into my heart and warmth of my

being.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>"

<rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ken:

>

> Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and especially I liked

your

> statement, "It seems to me that these are indeed the peace

realisers

> rather than the 'peacemakers' which is a nonsensical term." I

totally

> agree with this announcement.

 

Namaste,

 

Yes semantics again, the verb to make or do. 'To do' peace sounds a

better translation than make peace. For doing peace infers becoming

peace. We become what we think about......moksha. As Jesus

continually talked of realisation in the terms of 'Peace that passeth

all understanding'; I venture this is probably His meaning of this

particular beatitude. I also consider that Jesus's education in India

etc shines through in these beatitudes. Peace, Salaaam, Santi, Shalom.

There is only peace in Brahman.........ONS....Tony.

 

My book'The Sermon on the mount according to Vedanta', by Swami

Prabhavananda is by the Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore 1964.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram and others,

> A good starting point for 'Peace' is to realize

> peace within instead

> of silencing others.

 

This is so important. We have the saying 'Beauty is

in the eye of the beholder.' In order to see beauty

'outside' then beauty must be first realised 'within'.

In order to love it is necessary to allow ourselves

to be loved or rather 'be in love'. I cannot teach

fractions in the classroom unless I know fractions.

This does not negate the sudden awakening in the

moment but for that it helps if we start from the

point 'I do not know.'

>The earlier Vedic religion is known

as 'Sanatanadharma' there was never an institution

> at that time which

> propogated one set of rules to fit the entire

> population.

 

Sanatanadharma is the golden thread which needs to be

taught. Without this we soon fragment into -isms and

proponents become opponents.

> Finally, I want to express my sincere thanks to you,

> Stig, Dennis,

> Frank, Greg and so many others from the West who

> contribute

> generously by propogating the Vedantic Truth to the

> fellow

> citizens.

 

This follows on from the Sanatanadharma comments.

It is through the grace manifested by Anandamayee Ma

and Dr Gopinath Kaviraj in Varanasi many years ago

that the pain I experienced at the divided world could

be eased. It is through their grace that such work is

possible.

May I quote an account that was given to me recently

in London as part of my research. The lady giving the

account spoke of looking down at her chest, while

seated in her kitchen. She saw a bright light emerging

from her chest and also balls of light in the 'air' of

the kitchen. She felt wonderfully at peace. ( She was

giving this account not knowing the nature of my

research on mystical experiences). The account is

lengthy so I will cut it short here. Later in the day

she went out into the street. A man was on the other

side of the road and she saw the same light emerging

from his chest.

Obviously such an experience has many interpretations

but in the reality of the moment what she knew as an

Indian lady in London ( the man was English )was that

which was essentially the same in us all.

 

May we all have such insight,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

>

> I also read that William Carey, 1761-1834,

> a missionary and

> a prolific linguist, translated the Bible into

> Sanskrit. I guess

> there is no copy extant.

>

> Does someone know if anyone else has also tried

> it?

 

Namaste Sunder,

 

I have a copy of the New Testament in Sanskrit. This

was a 1962 reprint of an earlier translation and may

be that by Carey. It was reprinted by 'The Bible

Society of India and Ceylon', A/1, Mahatma Gandhi

Road, Bangalore 1.

I think that I bought my copy at SPCK in London.

 

 

If I get some time later in the day I will post the

translation (ie. Sanskrit) of the first verses of

John's Gospel. These are very important words on the

nature of Vak which echo those in the RgVeda.

I will post this as a different thread as we are

getting too far from this one otherwise,

 

Om sri ram

 

Ken Knight

>

>

> http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/bibles/translation.htm

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> > I have a copy of the New Testament in Sanskrit. This

> was a 1962 reprint of an earlier translation and may

> be that by Carey. It was reprinted by 'The Bible

> Society of India and Ceylon', A/1, Mahatma Gandhi

> Road, Bangalore 1.

> I think that I bought my copy at SPCK in London

 

Namaste Ken,

 

I had a hunch you may have it! When you have time, posting

the translation of the Sermon on the Mount, would be a good idea.

 

Many thanks,

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunder,

> posting

> the translation of the Sermon on the Mount, would be

> a good idea.

>

>

I had not thought of that as I am not sufficiently

well versed in the grammar of Sanskrit to be able to

say whether the translation is good.

I must admit this is all very strange: Posting a

Sanskrit translation of an English translation of

something written in Greek on a site which, though

having many members proficient in Sanskrit, most will

have little or no knowledge of the language.

The gods must be chuckling at us.

 

I will have a look at transliterating the Sanskrit of

the Sermon on the Mount tomorrow but I am going to

post a little of the beginning of John below.

 

For those who are unaware of this text it is one in

which we are reminded strongly of the Vedic verses on

vAk. Although I do not want to start a thread on this

particular topic at the moment, anyone inspired to

take up a study of the theme can find some excellent

work in the book 'The Vedic Experience' by Raimon

Pannikar which is on-line at

www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience

He also deals with the mahAvAkyas in an interesting

way although I would disagree with his analysis at

times. As a reference work it is excellent.

 

Here are the first five verses of St. John's Gospel

with the English translation:

 

Adau vAd AsIt sa cha vAd ishvarabhimukha AsIt sa cha

vAd ishvara AsIt |

sa AdAvIshvarAbhimukha AsIt |

tena sarvamudbhutaM tanmadhye cha taM vinA na

kimapyudbhutaM |

tasmin jIvanamAsit tajjIvana~ncha manushyANAM

jyotirAsIt|

tajjyotishvAnghakAre rAjate-nghakA rastu tanna jagrAha

|

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with

God and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him, and without him was not

anything made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

Apologies if I have made mistakes in the

transliteration. If you pick them up I will check

whether either the book or I am wrong.

Please understand that I am only posting this as

something of general interest and if anyone finds

something offensive in the translation into Sanskrit

please accept my apologies,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Namaste Sunder,

> > posting

> > the translation of the Sermon on the Mount, would be

> > a good idea.

> I had not thought of that as I am not sufficiently

> well versed in the grammar of Sanskrit to be able to

> say whether the translation is good.

 

Namaste Ken,

 

Sorry, I did not mean to impose on your goodwill. I just got

carried away with eagerness to find any vedantic echoes! [i still

would be interested in the translation of the Beatitudes only that

Harshaji alluded to.]

 

Hope the gods give us something in return for the chuckles!!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ken:

 

Thanks for sharing the beauty! I find the strange coincidence that

the very first verse of Kural (Thirukkural)in Tamil is identical!

 

"Akara Muthala Eluthu Ellam

AdiBhagawan Muthartre Ulagu"

 

Including the first letter, "a" everthing of the world can exist only

with God!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> .......

> Here are the first five verses of St. John's Gospel

> with the English translation:

>

> Adau vAd AsIt sa cha vAd ishvarabhimukha AsIt sa cha

> vAd ishvara AsIt |

> ......

> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with

> God and the Word was God.

> .....

> Ken Knight

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:48:23 -0800 (PST), ken knight <hilken_98

wrote:

> I must admit this is all very strange: Posting a

> Sanskrit translation of an English translation of

> something written in Greek on a site which, though

> having many members proficient in Sanskrit, most will

> have little or no knowledge of the language.

> The gods must be chuckling at us.

 

Chuckling? More like ROTFLOL if they're online.

 

But seriously, before getting too excited about this approach to inter-

religious understanding, consider what is the point of translating

Christian scriptures into Sanskrit? This is not a rhetorcial question or

an invitation to self-examination; there is an historical answer: it was

created in order to convert Hindu people to Christianity. The real motive

behind the whole enterprise is bluntly stated by Sir William Jones, writing

in 1784 (from Asiatic Researches Vol. 1. Published 1979, pages 234-235.

First published 1788). “As to the general extension of our pure faith

(i.e., Christianity) in Hindustan there are at present many sad obstacles

to it… and the only human mode, perhaps, of causing so great a revolution,

will be to translate into Sanscrit… such chapters of the Prophets,

particularly of ISAIAH, as are indisputably evangelical, together with one

of the gospels, and a plain prefatory discourse, containing full evidence

of the very distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the

history of the Divine Person (Jesus) predicted, were severally made public;

and then quietly to disperse the work among the well-educated natives.â€

 

Historically, this type of literature is in actuality and in origin anti-

Hindu, just as the Hebrew translation of the New Testament is anti-Semitic.

The aim is annihilation by proselytism.

> 'The Vedic Experience' by Raimon

> Pannikar which is on-line at

> www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience

 

Pannikar's Raimon Pannikar is a Jesuit priest. His strategy is eminently

Jesuit and illustrates my point exactly: convert Hindus to Christianity by

any practical means including the subtle subversion of their own

scriptures.

Pranaams,

 

Shivaram

 

--

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering.

There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."

--Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

[Guest guest]

--- Shivaram <conte wrote:

>

> Historically, this type of literature is in

> actuality and in origin anti-

> Hindu, just as the Hebrew translation of the New

> Testament is anti-Semitic.

> The aim is annihilation by proselytism.

 

Certainly true of some material. However there were

outstanding scholars in those times and even if their

basis was negative their work has often resulted in

quite the opposite outcome. They opened the door for

others to come and sit at the feet of the Vedas.

>

> > 'The Vedic Experience' by Raimon

> > Pannikar which is on-line at

> > www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience

>

> Pannikar's Raimon Pannikar is a Jesuit priest. His

> strategy is eminently

> Jesuit and illustrates my point exactly: convert

> Hindus to Christianity by

> any practical means including the subtle subversion

> of their own

> scriptures.

 

People who know me on this site will appreciate that

if I say that this is nonsense then such a comment is

rare.

 

I have sat with Raimon Panikkar on retreats where

there were hundreds of people attending, mostly Roman

Catholic but often with a multi-faith element. On one

occasion the large audience was largely made up of

members of the Roman Catholic Church. For three days

he taught advaita. It was beautiful and I am sure that

he gained many converts to Vedantin thought even if

the purity of advaita passed them by.

 

Please give me your evidence to the contrary but do

not block up space on the site as it would be better

sent direct.

 

I would certainly counter some of his interpretations

but I can assure you that he is opening the minds and

hearts of many in the Western Churches. He is a true

servant and doing great work here in the West.

 

Happy studying

 

 

Ken Knight

 

> Pranaams,

>

> Shivaram

>

> --

> "Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your

> perfect offering.

> There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how

> the light gets in."

> --Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

>

>

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:36:23 -0800 (PST), ken knight <hilken_98

wrote:

> --- Shivaram <conte wrote:

>> Raimon Pannikar is a Jesuit priest. His

>> strategy is eminently Jesuit and illustrates my point exactly: convert

>> Hindus to Christianity by any practical means including the subtle

>> subversion

>> of their own scriptures.

>

> People who know me on this site will appreciate that

> if I say that this is nonsense then such a comment is

> rare.

>

 

On the contrary, if he is a Jesuit in good standing, his ultimate purpose

is conversion of Hindus.

 

If he is not a Jesuit in good standing - that is, if he has been condemned

by the Church as was his fellow-Jesuit Anthony DeMello - then I will

withdraw my comment.

 

Pranaams,

 

Shivaram

 

 

 

--

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering.

There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."

--Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

[Guest guest]

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

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:36:23 -0800 (PST), ken knight

<hilken_98@Y...>

> wrote:

>

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

>

> >> Raimon Pannikar is a Jesuit priest. His

> >> strategy is eminently Jesuit and illustrates my point exactly:

convert

> >> Hindus to Christianity by any practical means including the

subtle

> >> subversion

> >> of their own scriptures.

 

Namaste,

 

Shades of Teilard de Chardin, St John of the Cross, St Theresa of

Avila etc. They were all essentially Advaitic in a Bhakti way.

I'm not a practising Catholic but there are some in there that

understand Immanent God and God Transcendental, but you are right

officially as all religion the can only be Dvaitic.......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:10:21 -0600, Shivaram <conte wrote:

> If he is not a Jesuit in good standing - that is, if he has been

> condemned by the Church as was his fellow-Jesuit Anthony DeMello - then I

> will withdraw my comment.

 

The above was written concerning Father Raimondo Panikkar, but I suspect

the reference to Father Tony de Mello is lost on most of our readers. The

de Mello case is, however, illustrative of the situation in which the

"Asian Theologians" of the Catholic Church find themselves. If Father

Panikkar has somehow happily escaped the Vatican's censure, it would be

interesting to know the grounds of his exemption. How do his teachings

differ from those of Father Tony de Mello, if not by stopping short of de

Mello's thoroughgoing embrace of advaita? I append the full text (not

long) of Father Tony's condemnation. It's a "must read" for those who want

to understand the realities of the situation.

 

Pranaams,

Shivaram

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_d\

oc_19980624_demello_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ

 

The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known

due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages,

have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all

of these texts were authorized by him for publication.  His works, which

almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements

of oriental wisdom.  These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in

breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in

approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life.  Especially in

his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of

Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of

Christian spirituality.  In these books, he treats the different kinds of

prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the

mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.

 

But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater

degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from

the essential contents of the Christian faith.  In place of the revelation

which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition

of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure

void.  To see God it is enough to look directly at the world.  Nothing can

be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing.  To pose the question of

his existence is already nonsense.  This radical apophaticism leads even to

a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God.  The words of

Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence.  In

other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the

Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from

following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and

cruel.  Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles

to the discovery of truth.  This truth, however, is never defined by the

author in its precise contents.  For him, to think that the God of one's

own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism.  "God" is considered as

a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is

ignored and in practice denied.

 

Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares

himself to be a "disciple."  But he considers Jesus as a master alongside

others.  The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and

fully free, while others are not.  Jesus is not recognized as the Son of

God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of

God.  In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give

rise to perplexity.  At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the

impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water.  On various occasions, the

question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the

present life should be of interest.  With respect to this life, since evil

is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality.  Good and

evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

 

Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according

to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in

Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth.  The Church,

making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up

banishing God from the temple.  She has consequently lost the authority to

teach in the name of Christ.

 

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the

Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned

positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave

harm.

 

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the

undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in

the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

 

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.

 

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect

 

+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

Secretary

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shivaram and Tony,

May I qualify your definition of religion:

etymologically it is possible to trace the word back

to dhattu yuj...such a derivation is not secure

academically but it does give a non-dual perspective

to religion. We must ask what is bound to what?

Some will say Man to Man and Man to God. Chapter 9 of

the Bhagavad Gita will give us plenty to study in this

respect.

Once convinced that 'I am the body' and 'You are

separate from me' the first steps of the route back,

the pathless path in truth but it does not appear so

at this stage, must be dvaitin and the various

teachings arise to accommodate this approach. This

produces an imbalance in the psychic structure so that

the heart...h^Rid....and intellect...manas... are

lopsided:

‘The thoughtful (vipaszcitah-) perceive (paszyanti)

with heart (hr-d) and mind (manas) the bird adorned

with magic (maayaa))) of an asura .'

Rg Veda 10.177.1

In this state of imbalance it is natural that the

heart-dominated will talk of 'My personal God' and the

intellect dominated will talk of 'My Theory'.

 

For some there will be a move on to the qualified

non-dualism of Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita. Some will

stay there for a while. Have a look at Father Bede

Griffiths' life and the revelations as his increasing

heart attacks took a toll on his body.

 

For some there is further to travel to the foothills

of advaita and have a look at the colleague of Father

Bede, Abhishiktananda, whose journey from Benedictine

monk to a recluse in the Himalayas demonstrates the

point of Aquinas, so often reported by de Mello, that

he stopped writing his books because once 'the

Absolute is 'met', what can be said?'

 

In this process of disrobing the clothes of dualistic

thought, some get stuck on the way.

When a priesthood arises in any tradition spirituality

can become a career and careers create structures that

manfest a good dollop of tamas to hold their

structures in place.

That is all lawful as is their ultimate destruction as

rajas arises to allow the flow of sattva. It is all

the play of the gunas.

 

On the radio in the UK we once had a programme called

'The Third Meadow' which was a philosophical

discussion arising from one man's observation that the

rabbits secure in the woods ventured out one field to

nibble the grass. Some ventured far out into a second

field while a few ventured even further.

I would put de Mello, Pannikar and others in that

second field.

 

At the present time I am privileged to watch this

process in a monk who has taken over from Bede

Griffith's at his ashram. This is Brother Martin who

is a young..to me anyway....monk of Indian birth. When

I first heard him speak some 6 years ago in Guildford

I was not impressed; but over the years he has come to

stay with us as a quiet house away from the round of

talks on which he embarks in Europe and USA. He will

be a very interesting speaker in a few years time.

While on speech may I offer this poem from an Islamic

tradition that explains the place of speech in

advaita.

‘That is the Ocean of Oneness, wherein there is no

mate or consort. Its pearls and fish are none other

than its waves.

Oh Absurd! Absurd! That any should ascribe partners to

Him! Far be it from that Ocean and Its undefiled

waves.

There is no partnership and complication in the Ocean.

But what can I say to him who sees double? Nothing!

Nothing!

Since we are paired with double-seers, oh idolater, it

is necessary to talk as if we ascribe partners to Him.

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and

states. Nothing but duality enters speech’s playing

field.

So, either live in this duality, like the

double-seeing man, or sew up your mouth and be happily

silent!

Or, speak and be silent by turns---beat your drum like

the double-seer, and that’s all.

When you see a confidant, tell him the mystery of the

spirit, and when you see a rose, sing like a

nightingale.

But when you see a water-skin full of deception and

falsehood, shut your lips and make yourself a vat.

Divan-i 19454

 

 

To return to a point made in an earlier posting, peace

cannot be 'done' nor can advaita be taught.

These are lived and a true seeker is drawn to that

state of purity when all intention (tatparya) for

action falls away. Only we, in our appearance as

individuals, can observe the intentions in ourselves.

That of 'others' is for them to see.

 

I do not think that I have any more to say on this

thread but my intention is clear, my context is one of

pain when I hear or see people denying the value of

the lives of others and my intention is to seek union,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Shivaram <conte wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:10:21 -0600, Shivaram

> <conte wrote:

>

> > If he is not a Jesuit in good standing - that is,

> if he has been

> > condemned by the Church as was his fellow-Jesuit

> Anthony DeMello - then I

> > will withdraw my comment.

>

> The above was written concerning Father Raimondo

> Panikkar, but I suspect

> the reference to Father Tony de Mello is lost on

> most of our readers. The

> de Mello case is, however, illustrative of the

> situation in which the

> "Asian Theologians" of the Catholic Church find

> themselves. If Father

> Panikkar has somehow happily escaped the Vatican's

> censure, it would be

> interesting to know the grounds of his exemption.

> How do his teachings

> differ from those of Father Tony de Mello, if not by

> stopping short of de

> Mello's thoroughgoing embrace of advaita? I append

> the full text (not

> long) of Father Tony's condemnation. It's a "must

> read" for those who want

> to understand the realities of the situation.

>

> Pranaams,

> Shivaram

>

>

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_d\

oc_19980624_demello_en.html

> CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

>

> NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER

> ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ

>

> The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello

> (1931-1987) is well known

> due to his numerous publications which, translated

> into various languages,

> have been widely circulated in many countries of the

> world, though not all

> of these texts were authorized by him for

> publication.  His works, which

> almost always take the form of brief stories,

> contain some valid elements

> of oriental wisdom.  These can be helpful in

> achieving self-mastery, in

> breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from

> being free, and in

> approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes

> of life.  Especially in

> his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing

> the influence of

> Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained

> within the lines of

> Christian spirituality.  In these books, he treats

> the different kinds of

> prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well

> as contemplation of the

> mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.

>

> But already in certain passages in these early works

> and to a greater

> degree in his later publications, one notices a

> progressive distancing from

> the essential contents of the Christian faith.  In

> place of the revelation

> which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he

> substitutes an intuition

> of God without form or image, to the point of

> speaking of God as a pure

> void.  To see God it is enough to look directly at

> the world.  Nothing can

> be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. 

> To pose the question of

> his existence is already nonsense.  This radical

> apophaticism leads even to

> a denial that the Bible contains valid statements

> about God.  The words of

> Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a

> person to silence.  In

> other passages, the judgment on sacred religious

> texts, not excluding the

> Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to

> prevent people from

> following their own common sense and cause them to

> become obtuse and

> cruel.  Religions, including Christianity, are one

> of the major obstacles

> to the discovery of truth.  This truth, however, is

> never defined by the

> author in its precise contents.  For him, to think

> that the God of one's

> own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. 

> "God" is considered as

> a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the

> personal nature of God is

> ignored and in practice denied.

>

> Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for

> Jesus, of whom he declares

> himself to be a "disciple."  But he considers Jesus

> as a master alongside

> others.  The only difference from other men is that

> Jesus is "awake" and

> fully free, while others are not.  Jesus is not

> recognized as the Son of

> God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all

> people are children of

> God.  In addition, the author's statements on the

> final destiny of man give

> rise to perplexity.  At one point, he speaks of a

> "dissolving" into the

> impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water.  On

> various occasions, the

> question of destiny after death is declared to be

> irrelevant; only the

> present life should be of interest.  With respect to

> this life, since evil

> is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of

> morality.  Good and

> evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon

> reality.

>

> Consistent with what has been presented, one can

> understand how, according

> to the author, any belief or profession of faith

> whether in God or in

> Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to

> truth.  The Church,

> making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an

> idol, has ended up

> banishing God from the temple.  She has consequently

> lost the authority to

> teach in the name of Christ.

>

> With the present Notification, in order to protect

> the good of the

> Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that

> the above-mentioned

> positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith

> and can cause grave

> harm.

>

> The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience

> granted to the

> undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present

> Notification, adopted in

> the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and

> ordered its publication.

>

> Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the

> Doctrine of the Faith,

> June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John

> the Baptist.

>

> + Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect

>

> + Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. Archbishop Emeritus of

> Vercelli

> Secretary

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

> of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to :

> advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

> advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:14:42 -0800 (PST), ken knight <hilken_98

wrote:

> Namaste Shivaram and Tony,

> Some ventured far out into a second

> field while a few ventured even further.

> I would put de Mello, Pannikar and others in that

> second field.

 

Clearly, they are/were somewhere on a continuum and the notes of their

journeyings are of great value to other travelers.

> Only we, in our appearance as

> individuals, can observe the intentions in ourselves.

> That of 'others' is for them to see.

 

This is on the subjective level, a trackless realm. My intention was to

supply an objective landmark, a point of reference with regard to a

religious institution. The Catholic Church has either missed Father

Panikkar's work (not likely) or else finds it more in accord with its

orthodoxy than is the case with Father Tony de Mello's. To return to my

original observation, pure advaita is not compatible with Christian

orthodoxy. The Vatican censors said it well in their condemnation of

Father Tony's teaching:

>> In

>> place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he

>> substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of

>> speaking of God as a pure void.  To see God it is enough to look

>> directly at

>> the world.  Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is

>> unknowing. . . .

>> With the present Notification, in order to protect

>> the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that

>> the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith

>> and can cause grave harm.

> I do not think that I have any more to say on this

> thread but my intention is clear, my context is one of

> pain when I hear or see people denying the value of

> the lives of others and my intention is to seek union,

 

Yesterday you characterized my words as nonsense. I don't think that's

fair or accurate. Advaita is indeed incompatible with orthodox

Christianity and it's concepts are alien to an orthodox interpretation of

the Bible, as even a cursory reading of the Vatican's condemnations of the

Asian Theologians will show.

 

And now today you imply I'm causing pain by denying the value of someone's

life as you go about seeking union. Ken-ji, I think you should honor that

pain and recognize the realities of the situation. For me, the moment of

pain came when I learned of the Vatican's condemnation of Father Tony, whom

I dearly loved. But the pain also brought realization: Rome is not

Rishikesh, the Tiber is not the Ganges. "A different god, a different

mountain top".

 

Pranaams,

 

Shivaram