Banning Richardson - East & West meet in The Maharshi #5

[Guest guest]

...................

 

 

With regard to the criticism that saints in the Hindu

tradition, like Bhagavan Sri Maharshi, don’t do physical healing,

nor has any of them risen from the dead like Jesus the Christ,

one can only say this: Jesus was certainly an exceptionally great

spirit or, possibly, the greatest known to mankind. He wanted

to make men realize that God was not the fierce God of the

Old Testament Hebrews, but a living, merciful God. Secondly,

He, like Sri Maharshi, wanted men to realize that the Kingdom

of God lay within them and that if they would look within they

would be given unlimited power to help their fellowmen. The

most striking means of such power was to be the healing of the

sick; but He made it clear that those who had faith in Him (i.e.,

in the truth of what He said and did, and of His divine nature)

were to be given this gift only as a means of making men realize

that the real world lies behind the barrier of the flesh and that

men must remould their lives and their philosophy of life if

they would enter into this world.

 

In other words, Christ used healing as a sign of hope and

of the reality of the Spiritual Kingdom. To say that all other

spiritual teachers must use the same method is, to say the least,

narrow minded.

 

As for the resurrection of Jesus, an impartial study of

the evidence suggests that it did take place. My belief is

that no sincere Hindu would find any difficulty in accepting

it, for it fits in with his tradition of divine beings assuming

bodily form when necessary and convenient. Whether or

not we accept the Christian teaching that Jesus Christ’s

Resurrection is the only one known to history, we must

admit that it is the only one backed by considerable

historical evidence. However, that its apparent uniquenes,

therefore, affirms the unique nature of Jesus Christ does

not necessarily follow.

 

Again, we must look at Christ’s intention in the

Resurrection. The Gospels are filled with prophecies of the

Resurrection, and their intention in this matter is clear, when

Jesus says, “Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose

from the dead.” (Luke, XVI, 31), as well as from other

passages. The intention is, then, (i) to show finally and

positively that death has no reality, and (ii) that Jesus is the

Christ, the Messiah whom the Old Testament Hebrew

prophets had promised.

 

A very powerful Jewish sect, the Sadducees, at the time

of Christ denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the

dead, and the existence of spirits. To disprove their

arguments once and for all, as well as to ensure that

mankind, or a part of it at least, should be turned from the

worship of false ideas of God to a realization of the God of

Love in their own hearts, Christ had to resurrect his physical

body. It was a particular act to meet a particular need. I am

not arguing that others have done or could do the same,

but I would point out the logical fallacy of the opposite,

the orthodox Christian argument, that therefore Jesus Christ

is proved to be not only an incarnation of God, but the

only incarnation of God.

 

This is not the place to go into this argument in detail, but

one may point out that the conception of God is involved in it.

I can find no fundamental difference between Jesus Christ’s

conception of God and Bhagavan Sri Maharshi’s, but I find a

very great difference between Christ’s conception and that of

the Christian Church, in which the Jehovah of the Old

Testament is inextricably confused with the Inner Spirit, who is

“within” every man, of the New Testament.

 

 

.................to be continued

 

taken from Golden Jubilee Souvenir 1896-1946

[Guest guest]

Dear Viorica, I greatly enjoy and appreciate your series of posts re our Beloved Bhagavan. And I also love the book you are quoting from, for me it is one of THE great books on Ramana Maharshi. I find it unfortunate that you would post a quote without comment re "the resurrection" of Christ, "an impartial survey of the evidence suggests that it did take place." and, "it is... backed by considerable historical evidence." I think that putting this out for public consumption without any disclaimers or explanations of the sectarian agenda behind the statements is unfortunate. Perhaps even dishonest. A true impartial survey of the evidence will not convince the unbiased reader of these resurrection fables as historical fact. Actually, impartial study is very likely to undermine belief that Jesus as a historical figure ever existed at all. In my view Truth is the highest religion and we need not pretend the historical veracity of teaching myths and symbols to benefit from them. As another tradition might say, the finger which points is not the moon itself. Thanks though, for what you are doing. Its 99% perfect.

 

Sincerely from a friend and supporter,

Orva Schrock

 

-

viorica

ThePowerOfSilence

Cc:

Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:40 AM

Banning Richardson - East & West meet in The Maharshi #5

 

 

 

...................

 

 

With regard to the criticism that saints in the Hindu

tradition, like Bhagavan Sri Maharshi, don’t do physical healing,

nor has any of them risen from the dead like Jesus the Christ,

one can only say this: Jesus was certainly an exceptionally great

spirit or, possibly, the greatest known to mankind. He wanted

to make men realize that God was not the fierce God of the

Old Testament Hebrews, but a living, merciful God. Secondly,

He, like Sri Maharshi, wanted men to realize that the Kingdom

of God lay within them and that if they would look within they

would be given unlimited power to help their fellowmen. The

most striking means of such power was to be the healing of the

sick; but He made it clear that those who had faith in Him (i.e.,

in the truth of what He said and did, and of His divine nature)

were to be given this gift only as a means of making men realize

that the real world lies behind the barrier of the flesh and that

men must remould their lives and their philosophy of life if

they would enter into this world.

 

In other words, Christ used healing as a sign of hope and

of the reality of the Spiritual Kingdom. To say that all other

spiritual teachers must use the same method is, to say the least,

narrow minded.

 

As for the resurrection of Jesus, an impartial study of

the evidence suggests that it did take place. My belief is

that no sincere Hindu would find any difficulty in accepting

it, for it fits in with his tradition of divine beings assuming

bodily form when necessary and convenient. Whether or

not we accept the Christian teaching that Jesus Christ’s

Resurrection is the only one known to history, we must

admit that it is the only one backed by considerable

historical evidence. However, that its apparent uniquenes,

therefore, affirms the unique nature of Jesus Christ does

not necessarily follow.

 

Again, we must look at Christ’s intention in the

Resurrection. The Gospels are filled with prophecies of the

Resurrection, and their intention in this matter is clear, when

Jesus says, “Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose

from the dead.” (Luke, XVI, 31), as well as from other

passages. The intention is, then, (i) to show finally and

positively that death has no reality, and (ii) that Jesus is the

Christ, the Messiah whom the Old Testament Hebrew

prophets had promised.

 

A very powerful Jewish sect, the Sadducees, at the time

of Christ denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the

dead, and the existence of spirits. To disprove their

arguments once and for all, as well as to ensure that

mankind, or a part of it at least, should be turned from the

worship of false ideas of God to a realization of the God of

Love in their own hearts, Christ had to resurrect his physical

body. It was a particular act to meet a particular need. I am

not arguing that others have done or could do the same,

but I would point out the logical fallacy of the opposite,

the orthodox Christian argument, that therefore Jesus Christ

is proved to be not only an incarnation of God, but the

only incarnation of God.

 

This is not the place to go into this argument in detail, but

one may point out that the conception of God is involved in it.

I can find no fundamental difference between Jesus Christ’s

conception of God and Bhagavan Sri Maharshi’s, but I find a

very great difference between Christ’s conception and that of

the Christian Church, in which the Jehovah of the Old

Testament is inextricably confused with the Inner Spirit, who is

“within” every man, of the New Testament.

 

 

.................to be continued

 

taken from Golden Jubilee Souvenir 1896-1946

[Guest guest]

Dear Orva,

 

When I started posting Banning Richardson's article in the form of this mini-series, I somehow felt that his strong Christian background that undoubtedly makes itself sensed in this article, might bring some feedback and might touch some people's sensitivities in respect to his comments about Christ and Hebrews. And sincerely, I asked myself what to do, shall I post it or not? Banning Richardson's heart has been touched by the flame of love for Bhagavan as the heart of so many, mine and yours, and out of consideration for that love I decided to go on with Banning's words and article that has been hosted in such an honourable publication.

 

Indeed we are not here to debate historical facts neither about the resurrection of Christ nor about his existence/non existence as a historical figure.

His teaching - whether he existed or not - is the same as the Maharshi's. And the same Truth is pointed out by all religions.

 

It is said that the Maharshi had some visions about Arunachala. Once he saw a whole city with large buildings and streets in it. As Ramana never encouraged visions, he was told: "But that's only a vision". "All this is only a vision too", Ramana said, meaning our world. "That is just as real as this." When all worlds are just visions in the mind, why should we trouble about which one is more real than the other, or which fact is more real than the other?

 

With respect to all members and hoping to have had your understanding, I hope you will allow me to continue bringing Banning Richardson's article to the list.

 

viorica

 

 

, "orva schrock" <otsclu wrote:>> Dear Viorica, I greatly enjoy and appreciate your series of posts re our Beloved Bhagavan. And I also love the book you are quoting from, for me it is one of THE great books on Ramana Maharshi. I find it unfortunate that you would post a quote without comment re "the resurrection" of Christ, "an impartial survey of the evidence suggests that it did take place." and, "it is... backed by considerable historical evidence." I think that putting this out for public consumption without any disclaimers or explanations of the sectarian agenda behind the statements is unfortunate. Perhaps even dishonest. A true impartial survey of the evidence will not convince the unbiased reader of these resurrection fables as historical fact. Actually, impartial study is very likely to undermine belief that Jesus as a historical figure ever existed at all. In my view Truth is the highest religion and we need not pretend the historical veracity of teaching myths and symbols to benefit from them. As another tradition might say, the finger which points is not the moon itself. Thanks though, for what you are doing. Its 99% perfect. > > Sincerely from a friend and supporter,> Orva Schrock> - > viorica<viorica_weissman > ThePowerOfSilence<ThePowerOfSilence > > Cc: > Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:40 AM> Banning Richardson - East & West meet in The Maharshi #5> > > > ..................> > > With regard to the criticism that saints in the Hindu> tradition, like Bhagavan Sri Maharshi, don’t do physical healing,> nor has any of them risen from the dead like Jesus the Christ,> one can only say this: Jesus was certainly an exceptionally great> spirit or, possibly, the greatest known to mankind. He wanted> to make men realize that God was not the fierce God of the> Old Testament Hebrews, but a living, merciful God. Secondly,> He, like Sri Maharshi, wanted men to realize that the Kingdom> of God lay within them and that if they would look within they> would be given unlimited power to help their fellowmen. The> most striking means of such power was to be the healing of the> sick; but He made it clear that those who had faith in Him (i.e.,> in the truth of what He said and did, and of His divine nature)> were to be given this gift only as a means of making men realize> that the real world lies behind the barrier of the flesh and that> men must remould their lives and their philosophy of life if> they would enter into this world.> > In other words, Christ used healing as a sign of hope and> of the reality of the Spiritual Kingdom. To say that all other> spiritual teachers must use the same method is, to say the least,> narrow minded.> > As for the resurrection of Jesus, an impartial study of> the evidence suggests that it did take place. My belief is> that no sincere Hindu would find any difficulty in accepting> it, for it fits in with his tradition of divine beings assuming> bodily form when necessary and convenient. Whether or> not we accept the Christian teaching that Jesus Christ’s> Resurrection is the only one known to history, we must> admit that it is the only one backed by considerable> historical evidence. However, that its apparent uniquenes,> therefore, affirms the unique nature of Jesus Christ does> not necessarily follow.> > Again, we must look at Christ’s intention in the> Resurrection. The Gospels are filled with prophecies of the> Resurrection, and their intention in this matter is clear, when> Jesus says, “Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose> from the dead.” (Luke, XVI, 31), as well as from other> passages. The intention is, then, (i) to show finally and> positively that death has no reality, and (ii) that Jesus is the> Christ, the Messiah whom the Old Testament Hebrew> prophets had promised.> > A very powerful Jewish sect, the Sadducees, at the time> of Christ denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the> dead, and the existence of spirits. To disprove their> arguments once and for all, as well as to ensure that> mankind, or a part of it at least, should be turned from the> worship of false ideas of God to a realization of the God of> Love in their own hearts, Christ had to resurrect his physical> body. It was a particular act to meet a particular need. I am> not arguing that others have done or could do the same,> but I would point out the logical fallacy of the opposite,> the orthodox Christian argument, that therefore Jesus Christ> is proved to be not only an incarnation of God, but the> only incarnation of God.> > This is not the place to go into this argument in detail, but> one may point out that the conception of God is involved in it.> I can find no fundamental difference between Jesus Christ’s> conception of God and Bhagavan Sri Maharshi’s, but I find a> very great difference between Christ’s conception and that of> the Christian Church, in which the Jehovah of the Old> Testament is inextricably confused with the Inner Spirit, who is> “within” every man, of the New Testament.> > > ................to be continued > > taken from Golden Jubilee Souvenir 1896-1946>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your kind and well spoken response. It reminds me of a Bhagavan story I read in one of my many books; [i quote here from memory], Bhagavan was asked, "do the gods really exist?" and He responded, "they are just as real as you are." Your point is well taken and appreciated by me. By all means continue with your great work. I do recognize I am overly sensitive, perhaps because I was born and raised in an abusive fundamentalist christian home. Your brother in Bhagavan, Orva - viorica Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:40 AM Re: Banning Richardson - East & West meet in The Maharshi #5Dear Orva, When I started posting Banning Richardson's article in the form of this mini-series, I somehow felt that his strong Christian background that undoubtedly makes itself sensed in this article, might bring some feedback and might touch some people's sensitivities in respect to his comments about Christ and Hebrews. And sincerely, I asked myself what to do, shall I post it or not? Banning Richardson's heart has been touched by the flame of love for Bhagavan as the heart of so many, mine and yours, and out of consideration for that love I decided to go on with Banning's words and article that has been hosted in such an honourable publication. Indeed we are not here to debate historical facts neither about the resurrection of Christ nor about his existence/non existence as a historical figure. His teaching - whether he existed or not - is the same as the Maharshi's. And the same Truth is pointed out by all religions. It is said that the Maharshi had some visions about Arunachala Once he saw a whole city with large buildings and streets in it. As Ramana never encouraged visions, he was told: "But that's only a vision". "All this is only a vision too", Ramana said, meaning our world. "That is just as real as this." When all worlds are just visions in the mind, why should we trouble about which one is more real than the other, or which fact is more real than the other? With respect to all members and hoping to have had your understanding, I hope you will allow me to continue bringing Banning Richardson's article to the list. viorica , "orva schrock" <otsclu wrote:>> Dear Viorica, I greatly enjoy and appreciate your series of posts re our Beloved Bhagavan. And I also love the book you are quoting from, for me it is one of THE great books on Ramana Maharshi. I find it unfortunate that you would post a quote without comment re "the resurrection" of Christ, "an impartial survey of the evidence suggests that it did take place." and, "it is... backed by considerable historical evidence." I think that putting this out for public consumption without any disclaimers or explanations of the sectarian agenda behind the statements is unfortunate. Perhaps even dishonest. A true impartial survey of the evidence will not convince the unbiased reader of these resurrection fables as historical fact. Actually, impartial study is very likely to undermine belief that Jesus as a historical figure ever existed at all In my view Truth is the highest religion and we need not pretend the historical veracity of teaching myths and symbols to benefit from them. As another tradition might say, the finger which points is not the moon itself. Thanks though, for what you are doing. Its 99% perfect. > > Sincerely from a friend and supporter,> Orva Schrock> - > viorica<viorica_weissman > ThePowerOfSilence<ThePowerOfSilence > > Cc: > Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:40 AM> Banning Richardson - East & West meet in The Maharshi #5> > > > ..................> > > With regard to the criticism that saints in the Hindu> tradition, like Bhagavan Sri Maharshi, don’t do physical healing,> nor has any of them risen from the dead like Jesus the Christ,> one can only say this: Jesus was certainly an exceptionally great> spirit or, possibly, the greatest known to mankind. He wanted> to make men realize that God was not the fierce God of the> Old Testament Hebrews, but a living, merciful God. Secondly,> He, like Sri Maharshi, wanted men to realize that the Kingdom> of God lay within them and that if they would look within they> would be given unlimited power to help their fellowmen. The> most striking means of such power was to be the healing of the> sick; but He made it clear that those who had faith in Him (i.e.,> in the truth of what He said and did, and of His divine nature)> were to be given this gift only as a means of making men realize> that the real world lies behind the barrier of the flesh and that> men must remould their lives and their philosophy of life if> they would enter into this world.> > In other words, Christ used healing as a sign of hope and> of the reality of the Spiritual Kingdom. To say that all other> spiritual teachers must use the same method is, to say the least,> narrow minded.> > As for the resurrection of Jesus, an impartial study of> the evidence suggests that it did take place. My belief is> that no sincere Hindu would find any difficulty in accepting> it, for it fits in with his tradition of divine beings assuming> bodily form when necessary and convenient. Whether or> not we accept the Christian teaching that Jesus Christ’s> Resurrection is the only one known to history, we must> admit that it is the only one backed by considerable> historical evidence. However, that its apparent uniquenes,> therefore, affirms the unique nature of Jesus Christ does> not necessarily follow.> > Again, we must look at Christ’s intention in the> Resurrection. The Gospels are filled with prophecies of the> Resurrection, and their intention in this matter is clear, when> Jesus says, “Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose> from the dead.” (Luke, XVI, 31), as well as from other> passages The intention is, then, (i) to show finally and> positively that death has no reality, and (ii) that Jesus is the> Christ, the Messiah whom the Old Testament Hebrew> prophets had promised.> > A very powerful Jewish sect, the Sadducees, at the time> of Christ denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the> dead, and the existence of spirits. To disprove their> arguments once and for all, as well as to ensure that> mankind, or a part of it at least, should be turned from the> worship of false ideas of God to a realization of the God of> Love in their own hearts, Christ had to resurrect his physical> body. It was a particular act to meet a particular need. I am> not arguing that others have done or could do the same,> but I would point out the logical fallacy of the opposite,> the orthodox Christian argument, that therefore Jesus Christ> is proved to be not only an incarnation of God, but the> only incarnation of God.> > This is not the place to go into this argument in detail, but> one may point out that the conception of God is involved in it.> I can find no fundamental difference between Jesus Christ’s> conception of God and Bhagavan Sri Maharshi’s, but I find a> very great difference between Christ’s conception and that of> the Christian Church, in which the Jehovah of the Old> Testament is inextricably confused with the Inner Spirit, who is> “within” every man, of the New Testament.> > > ...............to be continued > > taken from Golden Jubilee Souvenir 1896-1946>