Christianity: An Integral Yoga?

(A)s ever, what actually happens here is one gets the 'no, you're wrong' response, which kills any discourse stone dead.

Thomas
Hi Thomas,

On the subject of killing conversation:

What do you think of taking a dismissive attitude toward someone (me) who took the time to respond to a personal opinion (yours) by stating a personal opinion of their own? And what would you call that ?

It seems to me that you have a dualistic agenda with conflicting goals. On the face of it, you purport to engage in open-ended inquiry on subjects that have promise for "meaningful ecumenical discourse between traditions." But then you change the rules of discourse in order to score a point on relevance, thereby positioning yourself as the clever debater rather than the objective scholar.

To minimize further confusion, kindly make up you mind what role you see for yourself in these discussions. Scaring people off is probably not a desirable form of persuasion... unless of course you don't really want to interact at all and prefer your own monologues over what anyone else might have to say.
 
Hi Nativeastral —

may be of interest, sounds rather gnostic?
The psychic being.

Yes it is ... (of interest) ... I'll offer some comments from what I understand of Eriugena's metaphysic.

To give an adequate idea of what the psychic being means we need to consider the origin of creation. When the Divine Spirit decided to manifest, the upanishad describes, a million sparks sprang out of the central Fire, each spark being a portion of that Divine Spirit.
Here's where the two traditions would seem to diverge — the Upanishad appears to imply the Divine can be apportioned out, therefore subject to contingency ...

... for Eriugena, the Absolute is unchangeable, immutable, etc, so not subject to anything ... by the Will of the Divine, a million sparks sprang out of nothing, into existence. They are not Divine by nature, but subsist by the grace of the Divine Will.

Having said that ... I'm pretty sure Hindu metaphysics argues the same point, so I'd have to check my sources...

Each started out with a truth-idea to realize along its own line of fulfillment.
Here the two seem to converge ... for Eriugena, when the Will calls something into being, its good and its end is already in the divine mind, as it were ... so that is 'its line of fulfillment'...
(Eriugena's first work was 'against predestination' in which He shows that because God knows all, that does not mean man is predestined ... )

Anyway ... thanks for the link ...

Thomas
 
golly Thomas, I guess I can't even ask a question.
Hey Wil, no, hang on! Not you ... !!!:eek:

I didn't mean to imply you were killing the discussion. It's Netti-Netti who insists I don't even understand Christian doctrine, let alone anything else ... so there's the death of the debate ...

Thomas
 
Hi Netti-Netti —

May I point out that the divergence between us started off with your comment:
Thomas, if may ask what Christianity are you talking about? You can't possibly be speaking as a Catholic.
So please don't accuse me of being dismissive.

It seems to me that you have a dualistic agenda with conflicting goals... On the face of it, you purport to engage in open-ended inquiry on subjects that have promise for "meaningful ecumenical discourse between traditions."
Which I suggest is founded on grounds of mutual agreement, not the statement that the other party doesn't know what they're talking about?

But then you change the rules of discourse in order to score a point on relevance, thereby positioning yourself as the clever debater rather than the objective scholar.
Actually, coming from someone who refutes the Magisterium, then quotes a pope, who refutes Tradition and the interpretation of Scripture, then quotes Scripture according to Tradition, who refutes the argument of authority, then cites an authority ... that's somewhat rich.

To minimize further confusion, kindly make up you mind what role you see for yourself in these discussions.
OK. Let me make it plain:

I was delighted and inspired by the coincidence of doctrine between orthodox Christianity as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in the doctrines common to Catholicism and the Orthodox Patriarchates, and Sri Aurobindo ...

... I offered my inspiration for anyone else who might be so inspired.

I never asked for a debate, a discussion, or anything else ... it was just an act of exuberance, in the moment.

On another note – I am not particularly interested in personal interpretations of what Christianity is, of what it might be, or what it ought to be ...

Thomas
 
Thanks for your comments, Thomas.

To back to dualism, which is the issue at hand. I don't think Aurobindo is a good candidate for supporting the unitive view suggested in the OP. It seems Aurobindo is actually rather dualistic in his thinking. As though to highlight the disctinctivenss of the dual realms, Aurobindo states that we have two lives, one relates to the transient physical self which "was born and will die." The other life relates to what he calls "a subliminal force" which is not subject to the limiting evolutionary parameters of physical existence and which is the "true vital being behind the form of living which we ignorantly take for our real existence." (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 234)

That's a nice description of Maya (which is at least partly an epistemic problem). Importantly, it's also a metaphysical view of a dualistic universe where the temporal processes of matter reflect divine action, but the divine remains separate from matter. I see this as very compatible with the Biblical view of Creator and Creation. However, it contradicts the suggestion made in the OP to the effect that "the body is the form of the soul."

Nor does Aurobindo's view support the position taken in Thomas the OP that the perfection of Becoming ultimately involves or depend on a physical Resurrection. It's possible some other writings from Aurobindo clarify the issue. I do notice he lavishly quotes the Gita, which presents highly dualistic views, not only so far as metaphysics, but also with respect to the progression of the soul.

In the absence of any attempt to reconcile a doctrine of reincarnation with Resurrection doctrine, I think the OP has the potential to be rather misleading. Perhaps you could help us out at this point, Thomas, because I'm out of time.
 
I don't think Aurobindo is a good candidate for supporting the unitive view suggested in the OP.
OK, I'll take your word for it, I'm no expert on the 'who's who' (or what) of Hindu metaphysics ... Seems like the short answer to the question I posed is a 'no' ...

Hey-ho. Meanwhile Periphyseon beckons ...

Thomas
 
Thanks Thomas. Looking forward to your thoughts on reincarnation versus resurrection at some point. Or has that been covered on this forum already?
 
Looking forward to your thoughts on reincarnation versus resurrection at some point.
Well as orthodoxy has always taught the latter, and not the former, I would have thought that a forgone conclusion ...

My big question regarding reincarnation is that I've never managed to get anyone to explain to me what actually reincarnates ...

Thomas
 
I'm very late on the scene I realize, but as a follower of the Integral Yoga who started out as a Christian mystic, I might have something to contribute.

Thomas, you asked what it is that reincarnates. According to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother (his co-equal and spiritual partner, nee Mirra Alfassa) it is the psychic being that reincarnates. The psychic being is something like the soul. It is not the mind or emotions, however, and it is definitely not physical. I would paste a link, but apparently I am not allowed to do so in my first post. However, you can Google 'Sri Aurobindo. Psychic being' and it should help.

The hope in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's (SA/M's) Yoga lies in their bringing nearer to us the actualization of the promise of glorification of the entire manifestation/creation. This was not completely realized in Christ's resurrection, as the resurrection represents an individual Supramentalization only (this is a high stage of Divinization. Here also a link would be useful, but meanwhile you can Google 'higher divinization stage of transformation', or search for it on www [dot] kheper [dot] net), whereas SA/M initiated a collective Supramentalization which was necessary for such glorification to be achieved by everyone.

Although Jesus was not less or more Divine than SA/M, he existed (i.e. in his embodied form) at an earlier stage in humanity's collective evolution, a stage at which collective Supramentalization was not possible even by the most Enlightened of beings (i.e. it was not God's Will at the time). Thus, as Jesus himself stated, he will return again, and he will return on the right hand side of Power. The 'right hand side of Power' statement also accords with SA/M's statement that Christ represented Divine Love, but both Power and Love will be needed, and experienced, for the Kingdom to come.

As should be clear by now, my view is that all the Avatars have been doing the same work. The work is to consecrate the world and speed up the process of evolution which will culminate in the coming of the Kingdom of God. Specifically, this work involves bringing down the higher, Divine consciousness to the lower, more carnal Earth/body, so that the distinction between the two -- that was necessary for the manifestation and for multiplicity -- can finally be erased. Thus, the difference between Christ and SA/M's message/work is not one of essence, but only of their relative positions on an evolutionary timeline. In other words, Christianity IS indeed an Integral Yoga, or at least one early realization of it.

Hope this was useful.

Cheers,
Komal
 
Hi Komal —
Yes, thanks for that. Can't say I entirely agree with it — but then I'm Catholic, so you wouldn't expect otherwise — but the references are always useful.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Vedanta philosophy is a spiritual tradition that aims to unravel the ultimate nature of reality and the self. The origins of Vedanta can be traced back to the ancient Indian scriptures, particularly the Upanishads, which are the culmination of Vedic thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vedanta philosophy is a spiritual tradition that aims to unravel the ultimate nature of reality and the self. The origins of Vedanta can be traced back to the ancient Indian scriptures, particularly the Upanishads, which are the culmination of Vedic thought.
Hi @nishanttomer, and welcome aboard ...

Perhaps you'd care to pop into 'Introductions' and tell us something about yourself?
Hi, yes, I hope you do stick around and share some things about yourself.
This thread, about our spiritual journeys, is great and I hope to see your story there sometime!
 
Back
Top