Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliation!!!

[Bhaktajan II]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

Yes, Jesus said the soul lives on after the death of the body, but what he certainly never said is that it 'reincarnates' into a new body.
He said it goes on a one-way trip to heaven or hell and stays there forever.

Reincarnation is a man-made --one might even say Satanic-- belief; we can imagine Satan whispering in gullible ears-"Psst, don't worry about hell, you'll reincarnate straight back out of it into a new body, you can trust me, why would I lie?"

Any faith that includes a reincarnation belief is therefore a "revolving door" religion for those who can't or won't accept that death is a one-way trip..

There is no "reincarnation" of Memories-Ego-Self-Identity of which your statement alludes to.

God can reincarnate as famously referred to "God adventing as an Avatara".

Jesus said to be like your fateher in Heaven ---else we'll be beasts upon the earth. And is the status quo of Transmigrating Souls.

BTW, I do NOT see the logic as you delineated:
Reincarnation [of Memories-Ego-Self-Identity] is NOT an advantage to be exploited. Anyway, there is no "reincarnation" of Memories-Ego-Self-Identity ---there is the "Life force" that leaves the temporal material carnal body and then is awarded with another body in accord with one's "Fruits of one's works" (aka, karma-phalam).

If we cultivate service to God --or any myaid of Non-God-related endeavors ---we are awared accordingly.

Rig-veda begins with the advise: "Arthato brahma-ji-jnasa"
"Now in the Human form of Life let us inquire unto the absolute Spiritual Truth".

We must be seek salvation in this life ---lest we die with only petty or funky or stupid or dullheaded or mis-fortunate or wonton or delusional or mis-guided or short-sighted "Fruits of works" that acrrue a future birth that DOES NOT facilitate any degree of spiritual pursuit.

It is bad advise to plan to rectifiy sins in a future date ---that is deliberate theivery. Since we are all on borrowed time in a world we do not own nor preside over as eternal Lord & Master ---we must tread carefully because this Material World is deluding us into thinking that this world is a comfortable place. Repeated Births and Deaths is a dis-advantage. We Must stop going through & transcend Repeated Births and Deaths ---by seeking out the Spiritual Master's path.

To carry one's own cross is to become a Yogi.

The mystery of the stations of the Cross that Christ enacted is the path to be taken ---and not to be relegated to some unforeseen future debt repayment plan of one's own whimsical design.

 

[Waymarker]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

Bhaktajan mate, this discussion is going nowhere because you won't--or can't-- answer my simple brief questions with simple brief answers..

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

Bhaktajan mate, this discussion is going nowhere because you won't--or can't-- answer my simple brief questions with simple brief answers..

I see your point.

My loquacious propensity is ubiquitous,
I summise that it is solely due to my
unmitigating persnicketous perspicacity.

Usually I am reticent until prompted to be extemporaneous.

just a one-off,
Bhaktajan

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

IThis is pinicale of Yogic Mysticism.

This is humorous to me, for you speak of the form of Krishna and other characteristics of a man as this pinnacle. You are a Bhakti practitioner, this is the commoners Hinduism - it is difficult to even say Hare Kishna teachings are mystic.

You reject Advaita on sight, yet in reality THIS is the pinnacle of Yogic mysticism. To experience Brahman directly, there can be nothing higher. You take a very dualistic approach, it is highly scholarly, but I doubt it has led to any direct experience at all - how can it? It merely emphasizes duality the more you study. Yoga means to yoke, to bind, when two things are merged there is no longer two, they are one. This is Advaita - simply 'not two'. Nothing in the East more directly speaks about mysticism than this.

Every faith has its aspect of merging, in Christianity it is about becoming part of the body of Christ, Advaita teaches about oneness, Sufi's teach the same, as do Sikh's. Buddhism teaches merging with ultimate consciousness rather than considering yourself an individual. This is mysticism, concentrating on the manifest forms and personalities is irrelevant.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

I can't delete this post.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
This is pinicale of Yogic Mysticism.

This is humorous to me, for you speak of the form of Krishna and other characteristics of a man as this pinnacle. You are a Bhakti practitioner, this is the commoners Hinduism - it is difficult to even say Hare Kishna teachings are mystic.

You reject Advaita on sight, yet in reality THIS is the pinnacle of Yogic mysticism. To experience Brahman directly, there can be nothing higher. You take a very dualistic approach, it is highly scholarly, but I doubt it has led to any direct experience at all - how can it? It merely emphasizes duality the more you study. Yoga means to yoke, to bind, when two things are merged there is no longer two, they are one. This is Advaita - simply 'not two'. Nothing in the East more directly speaks about mysticism than this.

Every faith has its aspect of merging, in Christianity it is about becoming part of the body of Christ, Advaita teaches about oneness, Sufi's teach the same, as do Sikh's. Buddhism teaches merging with ultimate consciousness rather than considering yourself an individual. This is mysticism, concentrating on the manifest forms and personalities is irrelevant.

Krishna has declare it Himself, thus is the 'Satnard of Measuement'.

The degree of my enlightenment sees that which you “Ultimately” dismiss as irrelevant: Persons and their “suffering”. The degree of other People’s suffering.
But, I refer to “suffering” from the POV of the highest pinnacle of Yogic enlightenment.

I do not refer to “suffering” for want of “Bread”. I see the “suffering” transpiring all around me.

Inre: Advaita, I do not IMHO see the possibility of knowing Krishna’s personage without first undergoing all paths of righteous disciplines since time-immemorial; that would inclued the paths of “Obedience to Laws + Intellectual (aka, Jnana and/or sankhya and/or dhayana) study of the Construct of Nature unto th enth-metaphysical degree unto the final frontiers + Devotion to vocation ---as the application of the latter two”.

IMHO, when “Advaita” tracts and soliloquies . . .

[ie: To experience Brahman directly, there can be nothing higher. You take a very dualistic approach, it is highly scholarly, but I doubt it has led to any direct experience at all - how can it? It merely emphasizes duality the more you study. Yoga means to yoke, to bind, when two things are merged there is no longer two, they are one. This is Advaita]

. . . refer to “Brahman” ---that is the indirect plea to renounce the world and live a life of sitting meditation. For if the Goal is “Brahman” then the means of getting the goal is sitting meditation ---which is best done under the supervision of expert Gurus, usually found in ashram-life. Other than strict ashram life, worldly associations cause us not prioritize pursuit of a “Brahman”-Life.

So if I were a common Hindu I would read the term “Brahman” yes, primarily the supreme consciousness, as well as meaning, “Get thy self the a Brahman-ary”. Follow the path taken by those seeking Brahman, ergo, traditional Ashram life.

IMO, Advaita is not the “goal” but the “means”. The the “means” upon which is predicated the famous intellectual gauntlet known as “neti-neti”. Advatia IMO, can be summarized by the exercise known as “neti-neti”. All is things fall into the category of “neti-neti” ---ergo, Brahman is emerges as the Only name outside “neti-neti”.

As for the summation of the Vedic Literatures of Ancient India, we seek out the Literary Incarnation of Vasudeva, known as Krsna-Dvaipayana- Veda-Vyasa aka, Vyasadev.

An orthodx hindu has little but to express verbatim the text as it is.

That is why Krishna is introduced as the Supreme Personality of Godhead ---because Hindu Scripture says so. It is really bad karma to change or take away the words of scripture as they are originally revealed.

BTW, “Humorous” is related to ‘humor’ which is classically garnered via the expense of another misfortune.

IE: The two footballers laugh after seeing the school nerd fall on a banana peal.

Common Hindus are more important to the Life of the Hindu community than the lofty thoughts of any ‘un-common’ Hindus. The Epic story of ancient India’s heritage, known as the Maha-bharata requires devotion to spend the time watching on DVD or reading it’s 100.000 verses ---to personally learn it’s lessons.

The vast terrain of the Vedic Literatures, harkens to all the diasporas of migrating societies, since time-immemorial. It proclaims the most super-excellent pronouncements that we blow away all expectations of discovery in pursuit of spiritual life. Krishna is India’s Crown Jewel.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Soul of Christianity, Atman of Hinduism and Anatman of Buddhism -A Reconcilliatio

Inre: Advaita, I do not IMHO see the possibility of knowing Krishna’s personage without first undergoing all paths of righteous disciplines since time-immemorial; that would inclued the paths of “Obedience to Laws + Intellectual (aka, Jnana and/or sankhya and/or dhayana) study of the Construct of Nature unto th enth-metaphysical degree unto the final frontiers + Devotion to vocation ---as the application of the latter two”.

Why are you interested in Krishna's personage at all? He is a man that has achieved something miraculous, but you can also - and indeed it is your destiny in either this or a future life to eventually achieve this.

All of the methods you list are about acting completely, the action itself is nearly irrelevant. You cannot achieve by acting half-heartily. None of the practices themselves accomplish anything, it is your dedication to them which delivers you.

refer to “Brahman” ---that is the indirect plea to renounce the world

Inaccurate, it is about renouncing atman, not about renouncing the world. You cannot renounce the world, for you are always within it, you can only increase your own suffering by going against nature.

Other than strict ashram life, worldly associations cause us not prioritize pursuit of a “Brahman”-Life.

You are merely excusing weakness here... you are saying no one can be trusted, so seek out some hand holding. We can prioritize Brahman in any situation if we understand that everything happening is a manifestation of That. Of course, at a certain point most require assistance to finally defeat the ego/atman but before that time it is not useful at all. Indeed, I would say it is quite dangerous to approach a 'guru' without understanding the search, for you become quite prone to manipulation.

IMO, Advaita is not the “goal” but the “means”. The the “means” upon which is predicated the famous intellectual gauntlet known as “neti-neti”. Advatia IMO, can be summarized by the exercise known as “neti-neti”. All is things fall into the category of “neti-neti” ---ergo, Brahman is emerges as the Only name outside “neti-neti”.

Certainly, it is a form of Jnana Yoga, I prefer it simply because it simplifies and brings us more directly to the true path. Disputing duality is not useful, picking a particular figure or learning about someone elses life is simply irrelevant to what that person has taught.

I choose to take what is valuable form each such guru, but apply it to my own understanding. I am not here to be another Jesus or Krishna, by duplication I render my own experience irrelevant.

That is why Krishna is introduced as the Supreme Personality of Godhead ---because Hindu Scripture says so. It is really bad karma to change or take away the words of scripture as they are originally revealed.

Is it useful to define him in this way? I take away nothing, I simply understand that duality is invalid and thus anything that applies to any enlightened being or avatar applies also to myself. What is important is not allowing this to affect ego or atman, the individual is not special, the unique experience is valuable but the experiencer is always the same.

Common Hindus are more important to the Life of the Hindu community than the lofty thoughts of any ‘un-common’ Hindus. The Epic story of ancient India’s heritage, known as the Maha-bharata requires devotion to spend the time watching on DVD or reading it’s 100.000 verses ---to personally learn it’s lessons.

I disagree, there is nothing valuable about group-think.

The vast terrain of the Vedic Literatures, harkens to all the diasporas of migrating societies, since time-immemorial. It proclaims the most super-excellent pronouncements that we blow away all expectations of discovery in pursuit of spiritual life. Krishna is India’s Crown Jewel.

I might position Buddha here instead merely because he is more direct, he doesn't provide concepts which aren't useful in the seeking, instead allowing the refugee to find these truths out by walking their own path.

That said, however, do you not think it is useful to study other cultures crown jewels also? Perhaps you are a nationalist and thus apposed to outside influence, but there is a great benefit in studying another cultures perspective on these matters. They all arrive at the same truths, so what can it hurt? The figures of religion are irrelevant, only God - irregardless of what you name him - truly matters, for it is through God that all have their being. It simply isn't plausible that there be two Brahmans, or two Dharmakayas, or two Allahs, or two Jehovahs... no just God would only concentrate on a single peoples, however, and every culture has had someone sent by God to shape their culture.