Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 Interesting and wide-ranging article: http://www.bedegriffiths.com/Golden/gs_17.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:36:44 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > Interesting and wide-ranging article: > http://www.bedegriffiths.com/Golden/gs_17.htm Wide-ranging and far-fetched. Indophiles love to read Indian philosoply into their own texts, finding it in all sorts of unlikely places, and producing a result that is unsatisfactory to Christians and Hindus alike. "Jesus as God (the thuriya, “I and the Father are oneâ€), ontological non- duality." This is not non-dual. Jesus may have claimed to be God, but he did not say All is God. Profound dualism here. "Jesus also utters mahavakyas, ‘great statements.’ To quote four of them, “I am the light of the world†(I am Brahman)..." The statements are not identical. Not even close. Light may be salvation, moral influence, truth, but in the Judaic context it is not non-dual Brahman. “You are the light of the world†(You are Brahman)..." The context makes it plain Jesus was talking about evangelism, about spreading the light of the knowledge of messianic truth. This has nothing to do with ontology. Or with Brahman. “I and the Father are one†(Atman is Brahman)..." Judaism did not believe God to be a universal soul, nor did it believe the individual soul to be of the same essence as God. "'This is my body and this is my blood' (All this is Brahman).'" Not "all this"; just bread and wine. Still completely within the context of dualism. And again, Brahman is not the personal God of the Judaic tradition. "Though Jesus opened the door to this [non-dual] possibility for every human being, Christian tradition reserved it only to Jesus and closed this possibility for Christians." The essence of the Christian religion is the unique deity of Jesus Christ. Affirmation of non-dual realization for anyone else is without support in the Bible or the Christian tradition. This statement is meaningless except as the expression of the wishful thinking of the author. But the real torment of Bede Griffiths and others like him is stated in the last paragraph where he frankly acknowledges the sad state of Christian teaching vis-a-vis nondualism, but rushes on and plunges into it anyway: "Christian mystics could go as far as the experience of God’s indwelling presence, but they could never claim the non-dualistic experience. If there is anyone on record who made the statement “I am God,†it was Meister Eckhart of Germany, who said that a spiritually poor person is one who says, “I and God are one.†But he was condemned as a heretic. Perhaps at that time no one could have imagined the possibility of non-dualistic experience. But today Christians are ready for it." So, non-dualism is completely outside the Christian tradition, "But today Christians are ready for it". They are ready to distort the Bible, they will do violence to Christian history and dogma, and they will produce something that is not authentically Christian OR advaitic. A result unsatisfactory to Christians and Hindus alike. Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 >> Interesting and wide-ranging article: >> http://www.bedegriffiths.com/Golden/gs_17.htm >Wide-ranging and far-fetched. Namaste Sri Shivaram! You know, I actually agree with most of your acerbic comments. I had just put that forward as something to think about. However, I do think that those who try to find similarities in religions are on the right track, especially if they look at what is BEST in other religions. I am well aware of how annoyed Hindus are at missionaries, and I fully sympathize. It is quite obnoxious to go into another country and tell them that their religion is all wrong, especially when these missionaries have such a poor and uncharitable understanding of Hinduism in the first place. And I agree that the organized political structures in Christianity have tended to be antagonistic towards mystics, especially of the 'nondual' variety, as this seems blasphemous to those with dogmatic minds. However, there is also no doubt that mystics such as Meister Eckhart and others independently discovered something very close to Advaita, even if there were some differences. Let's emphasize those happy coincidences, few and far between as they may have been. Let's put it this way. Having read the Koran, I have no doubt that Mohammed was a 'Jehadi' according to any meaningful definition. And a number of the verses are blood-curdling. So those Muslims who say that Jihad really means only 'inner struggle' are perhaps a bit naive or incomplete in their assessment of Islam. I used to feel like criticizing them, but now I feel like encouraging them wherever possible. You will never be able to 'overhaul' an entire religion of 1 or 2 billion people as you would like to to be, so you should encourage whatever positive aspects do arise. This is the wiser course. If some Christians want to believe that their 'relationship' with Christ has a 'nondual' aspect to it, let them have their feelings, as long as they don't go around annoying others. Do you think that when a Hindu feels devotion to Krishna, Shiva or Ram, then this is automatically 'dualistic'? One may think so from a purely logical or scholarly point of view, but then how do we explain the devotional side of Shankara? Spirituality is far more than just being clear about your thoughts and feelings, though I agree that 'thinking people' such as the respected members of this list should perhaps strive for some rigor. Also, your use of the word 'Indophile' is slightly questionable to me. It suggests a superficial infatuation like an adolescent love affair. It is possible to consider that Indian spirituality has expressed some of the most profound truths without losing one's ability to criticize what is wrong in the Indian tradition and in contemporary India. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Namaste, Sri Benjamin. On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:37 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > You know, I actually agree with most of your acerbic comments. I had > just put that forward as something to think about. I realize that, which is why I did not address the comments to you personally, and I agree it is indeed a thought-provoking article. My comments on this topic are bound to have an edge to them, as I regard this particular variety of syncretism as a special menace. As Jesus put it so well, "no man can serve two masters." A person really must choose. Despite our best verbal rationalizations, we know when we are putting down something that is forced or contrived, and, deep down inside, we have spiritual indigestion because don't process it in a healthy manner. The inward conflict undermines our spiritual progress. > However, I do think that those who try to find similarities in religions > are on the right track.... mystics such as Meister Eckhart and others > independently discovered something very close to Advaita, even if there > were some differences. Let's emphasize those happy coincidences, few and > far between as they may have been. It is good to find instances of independent discovery of nondual reality. These instances can be examined and correlated from a comparative religions perspective, but we should be wary of saying they are the same even in the case of fellow-disciples of the same tradition. Maya is endlessly diverse. Comparisons on a general systems level are probably more helpful than on the micro-level of words and texts. > Let's put it this way. Having read the Koran, I have no doubt that > Mohammed was a 'Jehadi' according to any meaningful definition. And a > number of the verses are blood-curdling. So those Muslims who say that > Jihad really means only 'inner struggle' are perhaps a bit naive or > incomplete in their assessment of Islam. I used to feel like criticizing > them, but now I feel like encouraging them wherever possible. Whenever possible this should be from within the tradition rather than by cross-referencing. Rumi, for example, was saying jihad is within, and that was 800 years ago. Problem is, like Meister Eckhart with the Christians, Rumi is regarded as a heretic by many Muslims. But it's a start. > If some Christians want to believe that their 'relationship' with Christ > has a 'nondual' aspect to it, let them have their feelings, as long as > they don't go around annoying others. Again, it's a start, and probably a necessary stage for many. > Do you think that when a Hindu feels devotion to Krishna, Shiva or Ram, > then this is automatically 'dualistic'? One may think so from a purely > logical or scholarly point of view, but then how do we explain the > devotional side of Shankara? Happily, there is ample literature on the relation of bhakti and jnana - some of it from the pen of Shankara himself. > ...Also, your use of the word 'Indophile' is slightly questionable to me. > > It suggests a superficial infatuation like an adolescent love affair. It > is possible to consider that Indian spirituality has expressed some of > the most profound truths without losing one's ability to criticize what > is wrong in the Indian tradition and in contemporary India. That's precisely what the "Indophile" - and his opposite number, the "Anglophile" - fails to do: criticize. I mean criticize in the positive sense, to employ analytical, grammatical-historical, and contextual objectivity. Bede Griffiths is wrong to equate Yahweh and Brahman. Yoganandaji errs as badly when he equates Christ Consciousness with finding Krishna in the spiritual eye. I don't question the sincerity or spiritual realization of these persons, but I do challenge the wisdom of their forms of expression. The superficiality of these interpretations is evident and is a real problem. Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Namaste again, Sri Shivaram! >I realize that, which is why I did not address the comments to you >personally, >and I agree it is indeed a thought-provoking article. >My comments on this >topic are bound to have an edge to them, as I >regard this particular variety of >syncretism as a special menace. >As Jesus put it so well, "no man can serve two >masters." A person >really must choose. Despite our best verbal >rationalizations, we >know when we are putting down something that is forced >or >contrived, and, deep down inside, we have spiritual indigestion >because don't >process it in a healthy manner. The inward conflict >undermines our spiritual >progress. Thank you, and don't worry, I did not take it personally. In fact, upon reviewing your comments to my long-winded and torturous Consciousness discussion, I realize that yours were some of the most thoughtful and sympathetic. It is surely the case that religions have strong cultural, philosophical, and doctrinal differences at the level of the common man. It could hardly be otherwise. But naive as I may be, I feel a strong inclination to find similarity at the level of the highest 'mystic' experiences, which I feel must tend towards the 'nondual' variety. My reasons for doing this are not diplomatic or philanthropic but rather are because the Truth must be One, if it is the truth at all. For sure, orthodox Christianity does not allow an Advaitin experience, as our friend the Pope so diligently reminds us! :-) But I still feel that in the cases of the rare mystics of the highest caliber that we were discussing previously, the sun must be shining through the clouds. I think that you basically agree with me. And it is precisely this convergence and agreement among those rare spirits that persuades me that the nondual experience is real, even though I have not experienced it myself. So it is quite important to me! I realize that some scholars dismiss this kind of attitude as sloppy and not in agreement with the texts, but I have also read a number of key texts from around the world and think that they are wrong. As far as the Jesus event itself is concerned, I am still wondering about it. I don't want to offend any Christians who may be reading this, but my own investigations on the web have convinced me that Jesus, if he existed, was an inspired person who then had a lot of extra baggage placed on him after his death. In particular the resurrection concept seems to have been rather common in the Roman world of that time, which leads me to strongly suspect that it was artificially grafted onto the growing myth surrounding a certain wise man from Galilee. Who knows? But at the same time, I think that we must have some sophistication about the value of myth. I believe that they can be used as psychological 'props' by people who are really discovering some aspect of the 'Self' within. Please remember than many people would consider pure Advaitic concepts to be rather insane, not to mince words! (For example, everything is 'One'.) The avatar concept seems a bit more reasonable in comparison. Still, I have problems with someone else 'dying for my sins'. I find karma to be a rather more satisfactory concept. >Happily, there is ample literature on the relation of bhakti and >jnana - some >of it from the pen of Shankara himself. I did not know this! I really must investigate... >Bede Griffiths is wrong to equate Yahweh and Brahman. Yes, you are essentially correct. Here is how I see it. Humanity evolves through different 'levels of consciousness', basically from the dualistic to the non-dualistic. Dualism is in agreement with common-sense and with our animal origins, but non-dualism is in conformity with the ultimate truth. Yahweh represents a dualistic stage, but the Brahman of the rishis is clearly non-dualistic. The nondualistic scriptures are also noticeably more gentle. Blood-curdling passages can be found in the Bible as well as the Koran. But at the same time, we must look around and see that many Jewish people today are quite enlightened and liberal. Such is the blessing of education and intelligence! Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.