Do we all pray to the same God?

[RJM]

.... And there it is. In the Christian world, the soul is created ...


.... Well I tend to think of the body as the means by which the soul manifests in the world. No body ... nothing there ...

.
Are you going to stop there?

The natural body dies. Christianity teaches the return of Christ and resurrection of the body? Does the soul 'hibernate' until the resurrection of the body?

 

[RJM]

Christ said that at the resurrection, 'they shall not marry, or take wives, etc.'

But the soul will be reintegrated with some sort of spiritual body, bearing the essence of the personality that is 'I'?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

The main difference -- that God can be 'achieved' rather than received as the gift of grace, especially the sacrifice of the cross -- isn't that difficult to get around, with an open, intelligent reading of both scriptures?

Yeah and it's really not that big a stretch. In my wife's Hindu tradition for instance, there is an idea of forgiveness and grace. Just not in the same sense as the Christian ideal. They're of the belief, by doing good, past sins may be forgiven and the more good you do the better your soul becomes and the more favor you'll receive when it comes time for your soul to return to God. And really, what does the Bible tell us? We will be judged according to our deeds.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

And there it is. In the Christian world, the soul is created.

True, but the Gita states that the soul is not born and that 'once existed' it does not cease to be. To me, this implies that the soul didn't always exist. I brought this up to a Pandit in Fiji once who agreed, but said that, rather than being created, the soul was brought into being. I'm not altogether sure what the difference is, if any, but the Sanskrit word for soul 'Atman' can also be translated as self, essence and breath. ????

Then what distinguishes the soul from God?

Very little, in the sense that one is part of the other. One invokes the power, the other is the power. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do..."

Take away everything that did not come through the material senses, and there's nothing left.

Well, from a Hindu perspective, what's left is our true selves. Atman, our very soul, essence and breath. In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge. That is, to realize one's true self.

Well I tend to think of the body as the means by which the soul manifests in the world. No body ... nothing there ...

I don't disagree here as far as the physical realm is concerned. I just believe, as do most Hindus, that the soul transcends that and represents our true self. The one outside of the physical realm.

I've never examined it in that light ... I'm sure there's common ground, however.

Agreed.

 

[Thomas]

True, but the Gita states that the soul is not born and that 'once existed' it does not cease to be.

OK.

There is, within Christian metaphysics, a manner by which the soul can be said to cease to be. Anything brought into being can, by that same token, go out of being.

To me, this implies that the soul didn't always exist.

Quite.

... rather than being created, the soul was brought into being. I'm not altogether sure what the difference is, if any...

Nor am I.

... but the Sanskrit word for soul 'Atman' can also be translated as self, essence and breath. ????

A correspondence, probably derived from the same view of what constitutes life? Sacred Scriptures abound with them.

Very little, in the sense that one is part of the other.

But that's quite contrary to the Abrahamic viewpoint.

One invokes the power, the other is the power. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do..."

Quite.

Well, from a Hindu perspective, what's left is our true selves.

This is where I always get stuck, in understanding what exactly is meant by true self. Let me, if I may, proceed by stages:

One: True Self
This is the ground of being, or selfhoos, as such.

Two: Contingent self
The self that we call 'I' or 'me'. It begins with the dna-inherited traits that, in effect, pre-programme us, and then goes on as we shape ourselves, and are shaped, according to our environment, our ecology, our experience. Everything that happens here is physical, and works via the physical faculties. As the scholars say: 'nothing is in the mind that was not first in the senses', and more and more neuro- and other physical sciences are providing evidence to underpin that claim.

In that sense then, there is the True Self which is actually prior to all determination. That which we perceive as 'ourselves' is learned.

What I can't get a grip on, is when you say 'True Self', what exactly is that? Again, working from my above hypothesis, if one strips away everything of the contingent self, there's no 'you' left? So one can't say 'one's true self' because that true self does not belong to you or me.

As an example, taken human nature. If you remove all the contingent aspects from human nature — size, shape, colour, gender, etc., etc. What's left? Nothing but an abstract concept.

I wish I could get an answer to these questions ...

So there is Atman, our very soul, essence and breath.

is it though? Does not Atman transcend everything we think of as 'ours'? Is not Atman the principle of soul, essence and breathe? Otherwise there would have to be an individual Atman for each and everything?

In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge. That is, to realize one's true self.

I'm split on this one.

I can accept that 'acquiring self-knowledge' means understanding one's place in the order of things, seeing through the illusory, etc. Bbut how does one 'realise' something that is in a different class to the individual self? The true Self has no individuality, no personal characteristic ... there's nothing to realise, because as soon as you do, it's individuated, and not the true self ...

Here I'm with the Perennialists who see the True Self as the principle of selfhood as such, which is One, actualised in individuals, in time and in space, simultaneously.

I don't disagree here as far as the physical realm is concerned. I just believe, as do most Hindus, that the soul transcends that and represents our true self. The one outside of the physical realm.

Probably a difference between how the physical is perceived. Certainly not as 'pure' as the spiritual — in its present state — but man potentially elevates the physical to a higher realm because man has a foot in both realms, as it were, physical and spiritual, as St Paul declared when man is, in that regard, higher than the angels because man can do what angels cannot.

And, as ever, temporal, illusory, finite, etc., as our physical selves may be, that's the one we've got to work with, and no other.

Indeed, that one is higher, I would say, than all other selves because it is maleable. Spiritual beings are what they are and cannot change. Man can change.

In all, I think too many spiritual commentaries run the risk of disappearing up one's own wazoo — this is especially true of the west in which people read books and jump on 'whoo-hoo' aphorisms, and assume that because they've read it, they've got it / done it / are it ... this is the only world we've got and we should cherish it, not run away seeking some abstract otherwhere.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It's one of those terms that seems to have emerged from the human psyche.

Ancient China did Human sacrifice [as per the new documentary on TV]. And of course, Aztec Mexico did Human sacrifice ... etc etc ...
Temple of Jerusalem did Bird etc sacrifice?

But Why? Where did the logic come from?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Ancient China did Human sacrifice [as per the new documentary on TV]. And of course, Aztec Mexico did Human sacrifice ... etc etc ...
Temple of Jerusalem did Bird etc sacrifice?

But Why? Where did the logic come from?

As if it was self-evident. Or else it lingered from a pre-historic common pathos.

 

[wil]

Beings of light betrayed by darkness...

Our true self? I think is who we are, how we act. Sure there may be a higher self...we could be better, but we've chosen to be who we are...that choice identifies our "true" nature.

The devil made me do it? I ain't buying it...you bought that dress...

 

[Thomas]

Our true self? I think is who we are, how we act.

In a humanist sense, correct. But that's not what the world's sacra doctrina says, and that's the point we're discussing.

 

[wil]

So the humanist sense is reality? and the sacra doctrina is simply for conversation?

how 'real' is this true self if it only shows itself in a very narrow percentage of the population?

 

[wil]

seems akin to handing a cell phone or even a light bulb to someone in a remote amazonian tribe...and telling them all the wonderful benefits of something that can't wonderfully benefit them in any way. (or I suppose a coke bottle....The Gods must be Crazy)

 

[Namaste Jesus]

This is where I always get stuck, in understanding what exactly is meant by true self.

Oh, as do I. It can mean a lot of different things to different people. From a Hindu perspective though it's the inner being. That which does not perish and continues on after death. Speaking from my wife's Hindu perspective here. As you know, not all Hindus share the same beliefs.

In that sense then, there is the True Self which is actually prior to all determination. That which we perceive as 'ourselves' is learned.

Exactly.

What I can't get a grip on, is when you say 'True Self', what exactly is that? Again, working from my above hypothesis, if one strips away everything of the contingent self, there's no 'you' left?

Well, think of 'true self' as spiritual and 'you' as material. Your material self will indeed ceases to be, while your spiritual self will eventually return to the father. Some aspects of that contingent self doth tag along however. Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

n all, I think too many spiritual commentaries run the risk of disappearing up one's own wazoo —

Indeed. More often than not the point I'm trying to make pales in comparison to the one under my hat.

 

[Thomas]

So the humanist sense is reality? and the sacra doctrina is simply for conversation?

LOL, no. The limited humanist sense is the illusion. It is maya. The sacra doctrina speak of the reality. It is the other than is simply conversation.

how 'real' is this true self if it only shows itself in a very narrow percentage of the population?

Assuming you have the means to take the measure? We could walk by Christ or Buddha in the street and never know it. Or we could read 'the infinite in a grain of sand'.

 

[Thomas]

The idea of the Higher Self in the Christian paradigm is framed within the context of the Logos — the Source of All.

Christ the Creator-Logos has implanted in each created thing a characteristic logos, a 'thought' or 'word', which is the divine presence in that thing, which makes it to be distinctively itself and at the same time draws it inexorably towards God. By virtue of these indwelling logoi, each created thing is not just an object but a personal word addressed to it by the Creator. (Bishop Kallistos, Through the Creation to the Creator (London: "Friends of the Centre", 1997, p. 11.)

Christ is the Logos, and in Him resides the logoi, the uncreated idea of each and every created thing. These logoi exist eternally within the uncreated mind of the Logos, if you will, because nothing can exist without first being in the Divine Mind.

But the individual logoi is not the self, but rather its blueprint and, being perfectly itself in the Mind of God, the self's ideal and exemplar.

There is talk of 'the mirror of the soul', and one could say this mirror is actually the image of the logoi. For me my logoi is my alpha and my omega, my beginning and end, and the judgement of my life is then the measure of my self against my logoi. The question then is how much we have effaced or obscured the logoi-image through our thoughts, words and deeds.

Here we can consider St Paul's "through a glass and darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12) and even more pointed, St John's "We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).

This is a meaning of 'the kingdom within', for the pure heart that gazes on the mirror sees not his or her own reflection — because the reflection is a veil — nor even the image of their own logoi, but the Logos Himself, as the ontological source of being and selfhood.

When the self 'detaches' itself (detachment was Eckhart's most prized virtue) from the world and from the passions, then the mind is able to contemplate its logoi, that transcends the natural order. Some Fathers use the term 'heart' rather than 'mind' but in that sense the two are synonymous.

Theosis or deification is when one's self-identification with one's logoi occurs without any 'illusion', to use a Buddhist term. When one detaches oneself from the attachments that bind, one 'sinks into' or 'rises up to' the logoi, and it at this point, in the meeting of 'I and Thou' that all Eckhart's distinctions between creature and Creator disappear ... not because I am Thou, but because the love that flows from the 'Thou' takes the 'I' to Itself without hindrance nor interference.

Maximus says of the Transfiguration:
"They (the witnessing apostles) passed over from flesh to spirit, before they had put aside this fleshly life, by the change in their powers of sense that the Spirit worked in them ... Then, having both the bodily and the spiritual senses purified, they were taught the spiritual meanings of the mysteries that were shown to them ... Thus they arrived at a clear and correct understanding concerning God, and were set free from every attachment to the world and the flesh."

 

[Yay2Interfaith]

It isn't G!d who has trouble with this...but man.

Lol

 

[RJM]

Ancient China did Human sacrifice [as per the new documentary on TV]. And of course, Aztec Mexico did Human sacrifice ... etc etc ...
Temple of Jerusalem did Bird etc sacrifice?

But Why? Where did the logic come from?

What can you give to God more valuable than human life? It's human deliberate stupidity and deliberate mental laziness corrupted by satan: twisted from the original idea of giving to God the highest and cleanest and best that you can give? Can't spare the firstborn lamb of your flock? Ok a pure white dove will do. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is to put an end to blood sacrifice?

 

[wil]

Typically the sacrifice of animals was symbolic...and that food fed the priests or holy ones..it was similar to barter...the doc comes and delivers the baby, you gibe him a chicken for his troubles...those in the monastery praying and contemplating all day...ya gotta feed them...

Does anyone think that fatted calf was just left to rot?

 

[RJM]

Then that's a further corruption down the line of the concept, because the original idea was the sacrifice was burned and totally consumed on the altar. There was no material benefit from it, and it was a different practice from giving to charity?

There was a provision for priests out of donations to the temple, etc. But the priest's chief duty was to do the ritual sacrifice.

 

[RJM]

The idea of the Higher Self ...

Christ is the Logos, and in Him resides the logoi, the uncreated idea of each and every created thing. These logoi exist eternally within the uncreated mind of the Logos, if you will, because nothing can exist without first being in the Divine Mind.

But the individual logoi is not the self, but rather its blueprint and, being perfectly itself in the Mind of God, the self's ideal and exemplar.

There is talk of 'the mirror of the soul', and one could say this mirror is actually the image of the logoi. For me my logoi is my alpha and my omega, my beginning and end, and the judgement of my life is then the measure of my self against my logoi. The question then is how much we have effaced or obscured the logoi-image through our thoughts, words and deeds.

Here we can consider St Paul's "through a glass and darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12) and even more pointed, St John's "We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).

This is a meaning of 'the kingdom within', for the pure heart that gazes on the mirror sees not his or her own reflection — because the reflection is a veil — nor even the image of their own logoi, but the Logos Himself, as the ontological source of being and selfhood.

When the self 'detaches' itself (detachment was Eckhart's most prized virtue) from the world and from the passions, then the mind is able to contemplate its logoi, that transcends the natural order. Some Fathers use the term 'heart' rather than 'mind' but in that sense the two are synonymous.

Theosis or deification is when one's self-identification with one's logoi occurs without any 'illusion', to use a Buddhist term. When one detaches oneself from the attachments that bind, one 'sinks into' or 'rises up to' the logoi, and it at this point, in the meeting of 'I and Thou' that all Eckhart's distinctions between creature and Creator disappear ... not because I am Thou, but because the love that flows from the 'Thou' takes the 'I' to Itself without hindrance nor interference.

Maximus says of the Transfiguration:
"They (the witnessing apostles) passed over from flesh to spirit, before they had put aside this fleshly life, by the change in their powers of sense that the Spirit worked in them ... Then, having both the bodily and the spiritual senses purified, they were taught the spiritual meanings of the mysteries that were shown to them ... Thus they arrived at a clear and correct understanding concerning God, and were set free from every attachment to the world and the flesh."

Brilliant

 

[Namaste Jesus]

What can you give to God more valuable than human life? It's human deliberate stupidity and deliberate mental laziness corrupted by satan: twisted from the original idea of giving to God the highest and cleanest and best that you can give? Can't spare the firstborn lamb of your flock? Ok a pure white dove will do. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is to put an end to blood sacrifice?

Amen.

Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hebrews 10.10-12: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God...