Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Hello Benjamin, I think all the Apostles who were with Jesus in the body were martyred barring John the Evangelist. Did they do this for a myth that rose out of the collective unconscious? The stories they told - too extraordinary not to be true, liars would never offer such. The notion of a massive conspiracy is quite fanciful really. About the theory that our meditation on even the bogus can be a source of grace. Yes perhaps but you are still working on your imagination, the shakti of a real sat guru, those members who have experienced it will know to be something other than that which arises out of your own resources. Ultimately there is unity in SatChitAnanda but at the initial stages it makes an enormous difference. Why else would so many Hindus and others look for a living Master? More advanced souls will be able to focus on the Teacher from 2000 or 5000 years ago. 'For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof is possible' (Pascal?) Best Wishes, Michael Benjamin wrote: HOWEVER, I hasten to add some caveats in the hope of not offending any Christians who may be reading this list. First of all, I am certain that devotion to Jesus can lead to spiritual salvation, just as devotion to Krishna can. Only I explain the process in this way. The 'image' of Jesus to which they are devoted is an ideal in the imagination that serves as a psychological focus for the purification of consciousness. Krishna and Buddha have both been used in this way, and the Tibetans, e.g., are quite explicit about this type of meditation. Furthermore, I do not think that myths are mere falsehoods. Rather, I interpret human history as the evolution of consciousness, and different myths and religions arise spontaneously as a reflection of the level of consciousness of some group of people who are associated by bonds of collective karma. I have no doubt that there is some kind of infinite, cosmic Consciousness underlying the whole process, i.e. Brahman or God. Materialism cannot explain the universe, in my opinion, except in a superficial way. Consciousness, in some sense, must be the fundamental principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > > About the theory that our meditation on even the bogus can be a source of grace. Yes perhaps but you are > still working on your imagination, the shakti of a real sat guru, those members who have experienced it will > know to be something other than that which arises out of your own resources. Ultimately there is unity in > SatChitAnanda but at the initial stages it makes an enormous difference. Why else would so many Hindus and > others look for a living Master? More advanced souls will be able to focus on the Teacher from 2000 or 5000 > years ago. undamental principle. Namaste M, et al,IMO The Sakti of a Satguru is but one's own sakti for it is oneself. Even a fraud guru, a rock concert, sports, or a spiritual event will arise the energy. It is a matter of identification and displacement that is all. People look for a teacher for it is their karma for the teacher to come to them. When they can ride the bike alone they no longer need the bodily form. You are right it is introductory to those who are not specifically on the bhakti path. Benji is talking about the 'counterpoint' sign in Buddhism were the image becomes perfected and different from the original. It is still the mind working on itself though. If you think you are a person then you may need a person guru. If you think you are a dog you may need a dog guru, but if you think you are the universal then sakti is your guru......the Inner. Some people need gurus for different reasons, some for reinforcement and some for ego purposes as well. You know...'He/She is my guru, he is the best and he has chosen me etc etc, not you'. Unfortunately for this type it can be a dangerous path, for it prevents the actual act of 'seeking', for one thinks one has arrived, the letter has been posted so to speak. The teachings of a guru like Ramana etc avoid this by throwning the onus back on to the seeker.....Cheers,,Slan....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 "If you think you are a person then you may need a person guru. If you think you are a dog you may need a dog guru, but if you think you are the universal then sakti is your guru......the Inner. Some people need gurus for different reasons, some for reinforcement and some for ego purposes as well. You know...'He/She is my guru, he is the best and he has chosen me etc etc, not you'. Unfortunately for this type it can be a dangerous path, for it prevents the actual act of 'seeking', for one thinks one has arrived, the letter has been posted so to speak. The teachings of a guru like Ramana etc avoid this by throwning the onus back on to the seeker.....Cheers,,Slan....ONS...Tony." 'Acharyavan purusho veda' i.e. a person with a teacher alone knows. Going to a teacher implies the ability to surrender one's ego. With this the spiritual unfoldment has already begun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Namaste all. AvatAras are because I am. So is Jesus, whether He really existed or not. The concept of samaSti vAsanA is because I am for AvaTarAs to be explained. Also, the logic or otherwise of the concept is because I am. Benjamin has raised this issue because I am. His electronic association with this List is because I am. And Michael - dravya as well as attributes too are because I am. Then, why labour to say the former is relatively independent and the latter dependent on the former. Neither can be independent of me. We don't have to wait till October for this conclusion to dawn, unless of course what we want is some avoidable hair-splitting and brainstorming. I need not say all this because all are me. Yet, I do talk, knowing fully well that I don't and that I, my talking and the talked to are one limitless fullness. And, if talk we must about Jesus Christ, i.e. whether He really existed or not, why not request our Shivram Dasji, who, I understand, has some interesting, well researched, authoritative insights up his sleeve but is too hesitant to put them to print for fear of breaching the scope of this List. Peace, Benjamin. The world is the way you see it because it is custom-made for you. You ordered it that way full with myth-makers, pagans and a lot of intolerant brutes sprinkled with some lovely "Hindus" like me. Relax and watch it subside to see what remains. I am sure you already know the trick. If you then stop writing, please don't blame me. You sure will have good reasons to do so. I am going to do that for a month or so now. Of course, the reason is not self-realization. It is holiday. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: > > Namaste Sadaji, > > I have some difficulty with your avatar concept. For if the body is > willed by people, collective vasanas, where does the Ahamkara come > in? For surely there would be one to operate, as there are no > previous karmas. Tony - Avataara-s have no ahankara or ego. Ego is the notion that I am this (the body, or mind or intellect). He may use for 'I" for transactional purposes like I am coming or going etc, just like we say the sun raise tomorrow at 6:00am, knowing very well that sun neither raises nor sets. Ego is I and I want - and Krishan says there is nothing he wants in the three worlds for him to act yet he acts continously for the benefit of the totality, also to set example for those who are still deluded. If there is an Ego then the mind is not realised is > it? You are right - Hence avataara cannot have ego as an I am an idividual. >In fact the entire concept is against the idea of realisation. There is noting for him to realise since he knows who he is already. Hence Krishna's statement 'I was the one who taught this knowledge to Vivaswaan" etc. > As I have said before it makes no sense to create a Jivanmukta when > there are some available. You mean avataara. Jiivan mukta is born due to his vasanas and now has realized in this life who he is. The body of the jiivanmukta is the product of his prior vasana-s. Avataara body is not that type since it is dictated by the samashhTi vasana-s. The totality has to take the body that fulfills the SamashhTi vasana-s. Body of Krishna to kill Kamsa and as well as help Pandava-s to establish dharma. Body of 'Rama is different - All are dictated by the need of the samashhTi since he has no individual vasana-s determining the body requirement. Hence jiivanmukta is a jiiva who realized while avataara is a totality with total understanding coming down to take a particular body to suite the need of the samashhTi. >It also goes against the idea of karma and > non interference of Saguna in her own dream so to speak. I know that > is the basis of avataric belief though. How do we not know that all > Avatars were not jivanmuktas at birth? Krishna talked about > remembering his previous births. If you recall the Indian Mythological stories - there is request by all the good men and the gods for Narayana to take birth to help get rid of the evil. Then only Lord Narayana takes the birth as avataara. The is just to show that the birth is demanded by samashhTi rather dictatated by any individual vasana-s. > It is essentially a religious concept to fill a > gap.........ONS...Tony. May be Tony - But it is not illogical. Now one can ask the predestiners (non free-willers!) why not the destiny of the totality dictate local perturbation of the type that provides a birth of avataara? If jiivan mukta is logical, avataara is equally logical. And that is the point I was making. Hari OM! Sadananda > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Namaste! Madathil Nair: > And, if talk we must about Jesus Christ, ... Don't be annoyed to hear the J-word! The issue is not Jesus per se but myths. That is why I quickly changed the subject to Krishna, where the same questions arise. How do we know how much is 'mythical' in the story of Krishna? It is an age old question for all inquiring minds. Do you have any interesting ideas? Well, you did previously say that everything happens because 'I am'. But could you be a bit more specific? If Krishna is real, then it happens because 'I am'. And if Krishna is a myth, then it happens because 'I am'. This doesn't answer whether Krishna is real or myth. And does it matter? ombhurbhuva: >I think all the Apostles who were with Jesus in the body >were martyred barring John the Evangelist. Did they do this >for a myth that rose out of the collective unconscious? The >stories they told - too extraordinary not to be true, liars >would never offer such. Clearly we have here a man of faith! That is fine with me and more power to you! Of course, I might point out that the entire saga ... Jesus, apostles, and all ... might be mythical, i.e. stories that arose over time. (A key source of doubt for me is that, according to my research, it seems very much there are no reliable witnesses or historical accounts until at least 150 years after the events. But let's not get pedantic.) Buddha might also be largely mythical. The most likely explanation is that Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are some amalgamation of factual reality and myth. It is a good question and one not considered since I have been on this list. As good a topic as any... Regarding the Jesus discussion, let me just say this for the record. Much of what you read on the web is of course unreliable. For example, stories of Krishna (yes Krishna) being crucified seem altogether unreliable to me. Nevertheless, there seems to be a body of highly persuasive evidence that throws considerable doubt on the 'standard story', to put it mildly. that is just my opinion. But the point is not that I am trying to shove this down anyone's throat. The point, rather, is WHAT IF? WHAT IF Jesus, Krishna, etc. are (mostly or entirely) myths? How much does it matter to Advaitins? Regarding Krishna, this is a VERY GOOD question, especially for Hindu Advaitins, is it not? Now Sadanandaji draws an interesting distinction between faith and belief. I'm not sure I see the distinction. Also, he says Advatara is 'logical'. Actually, I agree that Avatara is plausible, but does that make it likely? Why would God come down only after X amount of evil has occurred? Why not after 0.5 X (or 2 X) has occurred? And what about karma? Aren't we supposed to suffer all the consequences of our behavior? Where does a 'free rescue' come in? It sounds a bit ad hoc to me (though a great relief I am sure). Regarding Jesus reaching Jivanmukti state ... I never denied this (if he existed). The bottom line is that I consider myself a rather cautious and skeptical person. My bedrock belief is that pure materialism and atheism is untenable for a variety of philosophical reasons. In some sense, Consciousness must be the fundamental principle of reality, in my opinion, and we are evolving towards that state. Everything else, including Avatars, seems at least a bit dubious to me. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda > perturbation of the type that provides a birth of avataara? > > If jiivan mukta is logical, avataara is equally logical. And that is the > point I was making. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda Namaste S, Yes they are both as real as we are! I still have a problem with Narayana forming another body, as Saguna forms all the bodies anyway. Is it that an Avatar is a Jivanmukta at a more subtle or higher level, Brahmaloka. That was once a person?......OM Namah Sivaya..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 > Namaste S, > > Yes they are both as real as we are! > I still have a problem with Narayana forming another body, as Saguna > forms all the bodies anyway. > Is it that an Avatar is a Jivanmukta at a more subtle or higher > level, Brahmaloka. That was once a person?......OM Namah Sivaya..Tony. > The possibility you have raised need not be excluded. But according to scriptures (Naaraayanopanishad) He is the same as Iswara, the intelligent and material cause for the universe. He is the same as the seen as Viraat Purusha in Viswaruupam in the 11th Ch. of B.G. Apprently there is a popular book in this country(do not rember the title) that considers earth as a living entity with its own life and we are like Bacteria in side that living body. Similarly the solar system as super life with earth as living parasite. Like wise Galaxies and ultimately the entire universe as one living entity - that soul of that body is Naarayana! Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > That is why I quickly changed the subject to Krishna, > where the same questions arise. How do we know how much is > 'mythical' in the story of Krishna? It is an age old question for > all inquiring minds. Do you have any interesting ideas? Benjamin - Tony referred recently to the article I translated that relates to Historicity of Mahaabhaarat and Krishna - It may be in archives. It fixes the exact dates. > But the point is not that I am trying to shove this down anyone's > throat. The point, rather, is WHAT IF? WHAT IF Jesus, Krishna, etc. > are (mostly or entirely) myths? How much does it matter to > Advaitins? Regarding Krishna, this is a VERY GOOD question, > especially for Hindu Advaitins, is it not? No problem Benjamin - It is not Krishna per sec that is important - it is the knowledge that is imported. I do not think any Advaitin really cares too much to worry whether Krishna was real or not. It is the teaching that is most precious. If Krishna said anything illogical, I don’t think anybody bothers reading the text. > Now Sadanandaji draws an interesting distinction between faith and > belief. I'm not sure I see the distinction. There is was extended discussion on this topic of faith versus belief. The working hypothesis that a scientist makes before he investigates is faith, and more than a belief, and don’t you agree? >Also, he says Advatara > is 'logical'. Actually, I agree that Avatara is plausible, but does > that make it likely? Looks like you have not heard Murphy's Law. >Why would God come down only after X amount of > evil has occurred? No no no. He does not come for X or X^N evil. He comes as I said when samashhTi vasana's dictate his coming. If Sadam Hussains can be taken care of by Bushes, he does not have to move out of his comfortable waterbed. >Why not after 0.5 X (or 2 X) has occurred? And > what about karma? Aren't we supposed to suffer all the consequences > of our behavior? Where does a 'free rescue' come in? It sounds a > bit ad hoc to me (though a great relief I am sure). Benjamin - I thought you believe in destiny - where does this 'free rescue' come in destiny. Why one can’t argue that it is our karma only that brings him in - that is what is implied by samashhTi vaasana-s. > > The bottom line is that I consider myself a rather cautious and > skeptical person. No problem in that - But you are not illogical person, right? That is all that counts. One can question whether there is life after death and life before birth - only logic demands continuity, but cannot be proved. My bedrock belief is that pure materialism and > atheism is untenable for a variety of philosophical reasons. In some > sense, Consciousness must be the fundamental principle of reality, in > my opinion, and we are evolving towards that state. Everything else, > including Avatars, seems at least a bit dubious to me. If you have faith (not belief) in the evolution, then why stop evolution up to some point. On that token itself one can argue that already evolved being, as TONY mentions, can take a birth. There is nothing that prevents him from taking birth for fun? Hari OM! Sadananda > > Om! > Benjamin > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. 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.