God or G-d

[AdvaitaZen]

Truth requires no doctrine or belief system, let alone a tradition.

Truth is available this moment, it has never been found in a book.

 

[Thomas]

The problem for you, Thomas, is that the only Gospel to speak of the Logos is John, whereas in Greece it was an established notion.

Why is there a problem with that?

Further, there is absolutely nothing in Judaism which points to it at all. We must ask who this John character is, whether he has simply applied Hellenistic ideas to Jesus.

Ah ... that's no longer the current school of thought:

Classic Christian scholarship has viewed John’s gospel as being a late work (second-third centuries) that reflects a thoroughly Hellenized (Greek philosophical) worldview. In marked contrast, the Fourth Gospel today is widely held to be a first-century composition that is indelibly Hebraic in character and composition. (Center for Judaic-Christian Studies)

Much of the revision of Johannine thinking was brought about by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

John’s theology, archeology and spirituality are quite at home within the diverse but vibrant mix of Second Temple Judaisms. One need not look to the West and the “sons of Greece” for interpretative keys to the Fourth Gospel; they better are to be found in the hands of the “sons of Zion” and Jewish hermeneutics.

One distinguished scholar, noted for his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, goes so far as to claim that the Gospel of John is the “most Jewish of all the gospels.” That conclusion probably overstates the evidence, but what is abundantly clear now is that the Fourth Gospel is in fact a Jewish document written to a Jewish audience using Hebraic categories of thought and subtle Hebraic literary techniques. (Ibid)

Catholic theology has long recognised this fact, that John is a lot more Jewish than many suppose, and there is still enormous work to be done in this area.

Take a lok at Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology on Amazon (but buy it locally, if you want it!)

I cite one reference:
This book is truly a paradigm shift in the history of the Johannine prologue. It efficiently analyzes and decimates the alternative hypothesis proposed for the origin of the Logos theology. Using the Targumim, this author describes with great effectiveness the validity and superiority of the Memra as the foundation for the development and use of the Word in John. ... No longer is it intellectually valid to postulate a Greco-Roman philosophical foundation as the Weltanschauung for the post-Maccabean occupied Judea...

I really don't recommend that you - as a Christian - try arguing too much about the Logos.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I would counter that advice with the suggestion that you check out contemporary scholarship on the issue ... you're well out of date now.

The Logos had been central to the Greek mysteries for as much as 800 years prior to Jesus, what better way to sell him to them?

A moot point, really, as Memra had been central to Hebrews for longer than that, so logos makes sense when introducing the idea of memra to an alien audience.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ecumenist]

Thomas, you are HOPELESS, in more ways than I count, given all my digits, and all the hairs on my head. Dialogue with you is far less productive than trying to coax that dike of yours not to ignore your futile efforts to plug the five new holes that burst open for each ONE that your theology tries to plug. You and skinker, and bananabrain for that matter, are birds of a feather. Just one feather, unfortunately, and that's why you keep flying 'round in circles, bumping into each other. Well, you're all on ignore ~ just in case I bother to treat you by posting here again. Certainly, I won't know what you think about it, I don't give a SHIT what you think about it ... and brother, when that dike gives way, I'm gonna laugh my ASS off with the hordes and multitudes who gather 'round to jeer at you and say, "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!"

Silently, I shall say to myself, "Yes, and I told him that TEN YEARS AGO ... or perhaps twice TEN CENTURIES AGO!" And what a lot of attention he paid me then.

GO FISH

 

[Ecumenist]

Warning: You are all headed for increased, if not infinite frustration ... by following this thread, reading others with the current cadre of posters, etc.

Word to the Wise: Abandon before you wish you had done so days, hours or even moments earlier!

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Why is there a problem with that?

There is a problem because Christians have no leg to stand on with the Logos.

Ah ... that's no longer the current school of thought:

I don't care what the current school of thought is, find something in the whole of Orthodox Judaism that speaks on the Logos. There is simply nothing at all, yet all of the Hellenistic writers have at least touched on it.

Much of the revision of Johannine thinking was brought about by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Are you telling me Catholicism accepts the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are you telling me any of them are authentic Orthodox Judaism? The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden all this time exactly because your tradition would have killed anyone that possessed them.

Catholic theology has long recognised this fact, that John is a lot more Jewish than many suppose, and there is still enormous work to be done in this area.

Again, I challenge you to point to something in Judaism that aligns with him.

Take a lok at Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology on Amazon (but buy it locally, if you want it!)

This is not orthodox Catholicism, it is some guy trying to justify a Greek concept in terms of Judaism to prove that it is authentic.

I cite one reference:
This book is truly a paradigm shift in the history of the Johannine prologue. It efficiently analyzes and decimates the alternative hypothesis proposed for the origin of the Logos theology. Using the Targumim, this author describes with great effectiveness the validity and superiority of the Memra as the foundation for the development and use of the Word in John. ... No longer is it intellectually valid to postulate a Greco-Roman philosophical foundation as the Weltanschauung for the post-Maccabean occupied Judea...

Tell me when your tradition accepts this.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I would counter that advice with the suggestion that you check out contemporary scholarship on the issue ... you're well out of date now.

You have spoken about the power of tradition, and now you cite examples about modern scholarship. You understand that these contradict each other? If you are accepting modern scholarship, you are throwing the tradition away. In accepting this, I throw all tradition away, yet you find a way to reconcile it in your own mind. In throwing all tradition away, I am able to look at it with fresh eyes, and have found a direct path to the divine in finding each founders commonalities.

Most importantly, I am not required to find books which relay my true thoughts through the bogus tradition I feel obligated to.

A moot point, really, as Memra had been central to Hebrews for longer than that, so logos makes sense when introducing the idea of memra to an alien audience.

The problem is most of the Greeks were going to India and Egypt to look into these matters, and lo, the Jews were at least in the latter. Further, the problem arises that Abraham was not born to a monotheistic faith, he was almost certainly a Sumerian. No matter, what is certain is this is not something original to Christianity or the whole Abrahamic line.

You see, the thing is, in ancient times, people weren't so quick to distinguish religion, they were much more akin to discuss openly and mix and match their ideas. It is indeed only those of the Abrahamic line which insist only theirs is true, yet nothing in it is original at all. Really, all we're left with when we look for what is actually original is that this crazy old man was willing to kill his son because a voice in his head told him to do it. We can look at Hinduism - which is actually at least 5 religions - and things like the Mahayana branch of Buddhism to see just how open other groups are to external input. My own username points to two such mergings, that of Buddhism and Hinduism through what is called Advaita Vedanta, and Taoism and Buddhism through Zen. These two are coming together today and something even more beautiful is sprouting, all because none say they have the total truth.

The Abrahamic line is poison exactly because it claims otherwise. Truth is never something written or said, it is an experience, and the wisdom of these traditions is that they are willing to try all techniques that bring us into truth directly, instead of claiming their words alone deliver.

 

[Thomas]

The degrees of distinction in Catholicism between God and man are far more than they are in Theosophy.

D'you think so? How odd!

Theosophy places untold barriers between this order of realisation, not the least being it radically fails to see Christ for Who He Is.

I cite Athanasius:
"God became man that man might become God."
Or Augustine (on the Eucharist):
"See what you receive, and receive what you are."

You bring up Meister Eckhart, but the man was almost executed for discussing his experience.

Er.let's not get carried away. For one, Eckhart never claimed any 'experience', nor would he, being far more insightful into metaphysics than that! (He discusses matters beyond the experiential.) For anothjer, he was never at risk of execution. He was accused, and condemned in absentia, and died on his way to clear his name.

But if Eckhart upsets you, there's alternatives I could reference ...

There was debate about whether it was heresy for hundreds of years, yet you point at him to show the peaks of your tradition, strange.

Such is the way of things, sometimes.

He is perhaps the only genuine sage Christianity has produced, the first to climb to the peaks of Jesus within Christian history and the Christians almost killed him.

Now you're getting carried away. He might be the only one you've heard of, but there are many ...

Theosophy is very complicated,

I know, it's problem is it's syncretism, it can't help but be complicated and confused.

but at least it hasn't been used to justify any wars yet.

Luckily ... but it has shown itself prone to all the accessible vices.

What surprises me is you actually think it is less complicated than the nonsense you spew about Catholic tradition.

Really ... I have to say that doesn't say much for your depth of knowledge of Christianity.

I really don't see any difference, except that Jesus is more respected than Helena.

That confirms it ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I cite Athanasius:
"God became man that man might become God."
Or Augustine (on the Eucharist):
"See what you receive, and receive what you are."

I see nothing of this in any Catholic church I have been to, instead most of it seems to be about glorifying Jesus, about being the best sheep we can be for the shepherd. Quite frankly, most times I have been to a Catholic mass, I have felt utterly degraded.

Now you tell me that Catholic tradition comes this close to truth, that we are each the divine, we are each of the same nature as Christ. I cannot believe it, what a revelation, now if only you could let the rest of your Catholic buddies and clergy in on this.

Er.let's not get carried away. For one, Eckhart never claimed any 'experience', nor would he, being far more insightful into metaphysics than that! (He discusses matters beyond the experiential.) For anothjer, he was never at risk of execution. He was accused, and condemned in absentia, and died on his way to clear his name.

There is a recorded text of him explaining his experience, telling us he saw with God's eyes, heard with Gods ears, etc. I find it almost insulting that you say he was a man of metaphysics, the man was a mystic and I find the circumstances of his death highly suspect.

But if Eckhart upsets you, there's alternatives I could reference ...

You may find others who are more learned, but you will not find a more beautiful man within Christian tradition.

Now you're getting carried away. He might be the only one you've heard of, but there are many ...

I'll bite, name some that have actually entered the mystical rather than merely are studied. The difference between the two is stark, yet I find only scholars in your line.

I know, it's problem is it's syncretism, it can't help but be complicated and confused.

The most simple tradition in the world is the product of syncretism, Zen doesn't even have scriptures, nothing to learn at all, simply dissolve in this moment is all it says. Allow yourself to drown in the divine by remaining utterly still and silent, without attaching to body or mind, just being. This complete and utter surrender to life is all that is necessary for Truth to be revealed, no amount of scripture can compare to the real thing so why fill our heads with it?

Really ... I have to say that doesn't say much for your depth of knowledge of Christianity.

I find Judaism utterly disgusting, and Christianity does not reject it. I cannot respect Jesus for upholding it, so why would I go deeply into the words of those that love him?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

What I know is that you have found Athanasius meaningful only because you have dialogued with those of Eastern thought and he echoes them.

Excuse me for going to a more direct source.

 

[Ecumenist]

HA HA HA HA HA

Look at the poor little blind man, still taking shots at Theosophy. You CRUCIFIED your Lord already, Thomas. STOP beating a dead horse. STOP projecting your theology's woeful inadequacies and con-job-patch-up-work onto the only system YOU have ever seen which answers all the questions. STOP playing Scapegoat, and get on with YOUR OWN DAMN LIFE.

You really are a bastard.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

HA HA HA HA HA

Look at the poor little blind man, still taking shots at Theosophy. You CRUCIFIED your Lord already, Thomas. STOP beating a dead horse. STOP projecting your theology's woeful inadequacies and con-job-patch-up-work onto the only system YOU have ever seen which answers all the questions. STOP playing Scapegoat, and get on with YOUR OWN DAMN LIFE.

You really are a bastard.

Do you think you prove yourself better than him with these words?

You only show you are equally clung to an outside source.
The only true source of wisdom is within YOU.
The only meaningful role of any tradition is to help you find it.

 

[Ecumenist]

A-Z, the way ignore works is: I stop reading what you post, even if one click of the mouse can fix that.

I don't want to fix that.

Goodbye.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

A-Z, the way ignore works is: I stop reading what you post, even if one click of the mouse can fix that.

I don't want to fix that.

Goodbye.

I appear to have hit a nerve, I wonder if you think I'm supposed to be affected by this? You seem to have placed yourself in a position of importance...

Helena Blavatsky is great in that she shows the ties each stream shares, but where she falls short is actually eating of the fruits of the traditions. I think your reactions in this thread prove the impossibility of attaining equanimity through such mental pursuits.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Strange that each Theosophist I have come into contact with, despite speaking loudly of Buddhism and Hinduism, misses the point of each so drastically.

 

[Thomas]

There is a problem because Christians have no leg to stand on with the Logos.

Why? Because you say so? That's rather a self-serving position, isn't it?

I don't care what the current school of thought is ...

You don't care for the evidence that upsets your opinions, is that what you mean?

It's often the case that the more prejudiced one is, the harder it is, even in the face of indisputable evidence otherwise, to give up that position.

You can't even get your facts about Catholicism right, let alone offer any meaningful critique. You obviously have no idea what is doctrine and what isn't, and your opinions are the product of ignorance and prejuduice.

How many times have I faced this kind of thing here ...

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
Really ... I have to say that doesn't say much for your depth of knowledge of Christianity.

Originally Posted by AdvaitaZen,
I find Judaism utterly disgusting, and Christianity does not reject it. I cannot respect Jesus for upholding it, so why would I go deeply into the words of those that love him?

a] disgusting
vs
b] why would I go deeply into words of those [Bible] that love him?

Yes. It ended with a Question posed.

Why would he go there? Who asked him to?

Why all the NEGATION-AS-Philosophy.

Does a] & b] contradict each other --causing a neutral stance-- or are both statements examples of real-double-talk reverse-dis-information techniques?

The Hare Krishna Flower child warns against Cult-leader behavior ---seems like fair warning.

All Hare Krishna followers learn to 'discriminate' between real Gurus and Svengalis with a chip on their egos.

All Hare Krishna followers learn to learn to recognise Bogus Gurus and Atheistic far East Impersonal (atheist aka, sunya-vadi or maya-vadi) Doctrine.

That's what Hare Krishna followers are good at.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

That's what Hare Krishna followers are good at.

Self-realization, however, not so much.

Just a bunch of Krishna fanatics filled with information that isn't helping.

Here's some info for you, Krishna's first appearance in the Rig Veda is characterized as evil, he is the very personification of darkness. It is hardly coincidence that it is he who, in the 1500's, devotional traditions sprung up around. Bhakti without Jnana from personal dhyana is a perversion of truth - although a sufficient device under proper guidance, but devotion is never to be used as an end unto itself.

The traditions of India are so beautiful exactly because when a Guru dies, they understand they must find another. The founder of the Hare Krishna movement died long ago. I might recommend either Mooji or Jaggi Vasudev as a starting point that is alive. The former is of Ramana Maharishi's line, others from this include Adyashanti and Gangaji too.

On the path of knowledge, something is picked up everyday.
On the path of wisdom, something is dropped everyday.
Which will you choose?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Knowledge will only cause reincarnation, the knower will persist.

 

[Ecumenist]

Tell me, bhaktajan, are Vaishnavas, or other Hindus, the only ones who are able to correctly discern "real Gurus?"

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Tell me, bhaktajan, are Vaishnavas, or other Hindus, the only ones who are able to correctly discern "real Gurus?"

He thinks I am posturing as a Guru.

The Guru game is as any other leela though, more maya.

The only difference between a Guru and disciple is that the Guru know it is a game.

A True Guru allows the disciple to decide the rules while nudging towards truth, the false guru attempts to impress so that the disciple becomes willing to play his.

A Guru has nothing that anyone is lacking, he simply understands why you seek.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Tell me, bhaktajan, are Vaishnavas, or other Hindus, the only ones who are able to correctly discern "real Gurus?"

A] "other Hindus" may very well refer to the Common layman Hindu on the street of India ---in which case it should be expected that a native born person knows the ways of provincial traditions as they are in the "old country".

Just as any Tourist can gain gidence by the locals living in the district being traversed by the tourist.

B] I as a Card carrying Hare Krishna Devotee (as we casually refer to ourselves) begin with a copy of the Bhagavad-gita that was translated by Swami with authentic bone fides.
Swami Bhakti-vedanta translated the Gita into English and attached his own commentary --[as is traditional protocol for authentic old-school Swami and Sanskrit Pandits]--- the provocative & scholarly editorial gibe that the swami did was to publish the classical Bhgavad-ita with the emphatically stressing the issue of PROVINANCE, the swami did this by Titling the Gita as such:

"The Bhagavd-Gita As-It-Is".

This is the start of Swami Bhaktivedanta's "Back-to-basics" approach to revealing authentic and authorised representation of Hindu Vedic Literatures that set the standard at its highest for and johnny-come-lately Yogi-group-leader.

Then next comes the authentic Swamis of India that happen to be of the school of thought of Vedic Mysticism that proponds [as per their sect] that there is no Godhead ---they are referred to as "Sunya vadi" or "Maya vadi".

Sunya (zero, zed) & maya (shakti-prakriti) are all that exists and thus a state of Nirvana (lit. 'without qualities') is the DEFINITION OF LIBERATION/SALVATION/MOKSHA.

So the only problem for us souls in samsara, was accessing the truth of the revelations of the Vedas ---for most of us transmigrating souls since time-immemorial--- we all have had to wait countless births of fruitive behavior learning by the carrot or the stick ---until a Bonefide Guru presents the most complete nuanced translations of those Vedas.

As a result of learning the complete story of the Veda's contents ---it becomes imperative that WHATEVER IS REALLY SAID IN THE VEDAS should be transmitted to the yoga student and the world public without any diminuation or watering-down of the contents.

So Yes, the first thing a HK devotee must learn from the Vedas is Waht is the Vedas? and What does the Vedas Say?

The Spiritual contents and message of the Vedas have been hidden for many moons ---and it did get revealed during the cultural revolutions of the 1960's ---that is why the Beatles left India, but George Harrison stayed on to study Krishna Consciousness and Chant The Maha-mantra.

Krishna Consciousness is NOT a New-wave new-age Slogan ---Krishna Consciousness is the essence of the Veda's revelation.

Bogus Gurus were all in vogue when bhaktivedanta Swami came to the west to propagate this revelation in the Vedas.

Krishna Consciousness means being aware of Krishna ---because Krishna is the Godhead that is Yaweh & Allah.

The name fame form personality paraphenalia and pastimes of Krishna are the complete and final revelation of the Vedas.

You can take it ...or... if you leave it, you are free to continue to wander in samsara.