Quaker women told me

@Mrs Malaprop

Finally, here is BP direct translation from the Sanskerit:

ye tu dharmamrtam idam
yathoktam paryupasate
sraddadhana mat-parama
bhaktas te 'tiva me priyah
ye—one who; tu—but; dharmya—generosity; amrtam—understanding; idam—this; yatha—as; uktam—said; paryupasate—completely engages; sraddadhanah—with faith; mat-paramah—taking the Supreme Lord as everything; bhaktah—devotees; te—such persons; ativa—very, very; me—Me; priyah—dear.

Ok, so there it is. I apologise again for my inadvertent error in post #21. It was not a deliberate attempt to mislead.
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
(Arjuna) is a warrior having qualms about killing his enemies in battle, hardly a Christ-like figure.
Click to expand...
It is a symbolic conflict between good and evil against enemies who include family and friends imo? It is more or less exactly comparable with Christ's words about bringing a sword between parents and children, etc? "And a man's foes they shall be of his own household."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:34-37&version=KJV

So there's another close parallel between the two scriptures?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
No I view Christ as the eventual culmination of all previous avatars. A bit like the Bahai who regard their messenger as wrapping up all that were before him. Same One God.
Click to expand...
I was about to say your latest comments seem Baha'i leaning thought.

In my mind it is coincidence and correlation... I mean is it everyone reaching thru the holes and describing the elephant or is it every dad trying to answer his kids tug at his garment, 'why are we here...how does the sun move across the sky...where do we come from...why is that wrong?!?!?"

Our answers are similar because we are trying to answer a similar set of questions each with a differently developed back story.

Its turtles all the way down.
 
wil said:
In my mind it is coincidence and correlation...Our answers are similar because we are trying to answer a similar set of questions each with a differently developed back story.
Click to expand...
@wil
First time it's happenstance
Second time its co-incidence
Third time it's enemy action
(Al Capone)

@Mrs Malaprop
Mrs Malaprop said:
(Arjuna) is a warrior having qualms about killing his enemies in battle, hardly a Christ-like figure.
Click to expand...
No: Krisna, not Arjuna, is the Avatar?

Matthew 10:34-37 KJV
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:34-37&version=KJV

Gita 1:26-40 Bhaktivedenta Prabupada Translation
There, Arjun could see stationed in both armies, his fathers, grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, brothers, cousins, sons, nephews, grand-nephews, friends, fathers-in-law, and well-wishers.

Seeing all his relatives present there, Arjun, the son of Kunti, was overwhelmed with compassion, and with deep sorrow, spoke the following words.

Arjun said: O Krishna, seeing my own kinsmen arrayed for battle here and intent on killing each other, my limbs are giving way and my mouth is drying up.

My whole body shudders; my hair is standing on end. My bow, the Gāṇḍīv, is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning all over. My mind is in quandary and whirling in confusion; I am unable to hold myself steady any longer. O Krishna, killer of the Keshi demon, I only see omens of misfortune. I do not foresee how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle.

O Krishna, I do not desire the victory, kingdom, or the happiness accruing it. Of what avail will be a kingdom, pleasures, or even life itself, when the very persons for whom we covet them, are standing before us for battle?

Teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, grandsons, fathers-in-law, grand-nephews, brothers-in-law, and other kinsmen are present here, staking their lives and riches. O Madhusudan, I do not wish to slay them, even if they attack me. If we kill the sons of Dhritarashtra, what satisfaction will we derive from the dominion over the three worlds, what to speak of this Earth?

O Maintainer of all living entities, what pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhritarasthra? Even though they may be aggressors, sin will certainly come upon us if we slay them. Hence, it does not behoove us to kill our own cousins, the sons of Dhritarashtra, and friends. O Madhav (Krishna), how can we hope to be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

Their thoughts are overpowered by greed and they see no wrong in annihilating their relatives or wreaking treachery upon friends. Yet, O Janardan (Krishna), why should we, who can clearly see the crime in killing our kindred, not turn away from this sin?
https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/1

Do I rest my case, lol?


 
Last edited:
Mrs Malaprop said:
... I was pointing to the shallowness of universalism and perennialism.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the Perennialism of the likes of René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon et seq? Just wondering, as they're very definitely not universalists nor 'it's all the same' New Agey ... I tend to agree with you on wishy-washy perennialism and the general offence offered by NA interpretations of the various Traditions.
 
RJM Corbet said:
No I view Christ as the eventual culmination of all previous avatars. A bit like the Bahai who regard their messenger as wrapping up all that were before him. Same One God.
Click to expand...

This is similar to the Islamic belief that Muhammad is the "Seal of the Prophets" (Qur'an 33:40)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Arif Ghamiq said:
Do you see Adam as an Archetype ?

I've read some about Adam Qadmon (Primordial Adam) as the Archetype.
Click to expand...
In the sense of being the original primary and complete model, from which all other versions copy and derive, that would be true, imo.
 
noun
  1. a very typical example of a certain person or thing.
    "the book is a perfect archetype of the genre"
    • an original that has been imitated.
      "the archetype of faith is Abraham"














      Similar:
      typification

      type


      prototype


      representative


      stereotype


      original


      pattern


      model


      standard


      mold


      embodiment


      exemplar


      essence


      quintessence
      the quintessence of political professionalism" data-hw="quintessence" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?client=ms-android-metropcs-us&sxsrf=ACYBGNQYwYDWI5zy6pp7Y09rPWY-yBkbkg:1578335273808&q=define+quintessence&forcedict=quintessence&dictcorpus=en-US" style="max-height: 999999px;">

      textbook example

      paradigm


      ideal


      idea

    • a recurrent symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology.
      "mythological archetypes of good and evil"
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
How do you mean, exactly, Thomas?
Click to expand...
Christ as the Arechetype drills down into Christology —

"In the beginning ... " John 1:1.
As discussed here before, this text opens, in Greek: "En arche ..." and 'arche' in this sense should be read as 'principle', in that John is talking ontologically, rather than temporally. The word 'arche' goes back into antiquity, and some of the earliest references we have is Anaximander (6c BC) who tried to reason the existence of things in an a priori divine paradigm. The language of Hebrew Scripture can be regarded the same way, as an ontological, principial procession, rather than a temporal one, which so exercises literalists. The Vulgate is explicit in that it uses the verb 'principio' rather than the more common 'initio'.

Anaximander is relevant here because he speaks of the appearance of all things from the Apeiron — the Boundless, the Infinite — according to the Arche, or principle, synonymous with ultimate reality, the Real.

To paraphrase John using Anaximanderian language:
"In the Principle was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Boundless, and the Logos was Boundless"

The Patristics drew the analogy between Son and Father as Arche and Arche anarchos (principle without principle), although they might have said Arche and Apeiron.

The Apeiron is void, because it is prior to all distinction. Nothing can be predicated of it because to describe or define it inevitably and inescapable introduces duality. It is, and that's as much as can be said, although St Denys refers to 'the Divine Darkness' and Scripture's 'darkness on the face of the deep' (Genesis 1:1). It is stated explicitly in the Divine utterance in Exodus 3:14: "ehyeh 'ăšer 'ehyeh" (I am that I am, and variations). The Fathers refer to the Arche (Principle:Son) and the Arche-anarchos (Principle-without-Principle:Father).

The Boundless, the Father, perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived; everything that is caused arises in the Boundless and is brought into being through the Arche/Logos. Everything (formal and formless, visible and invisible) derives from the Arche/Logos/Son, and everything has its own logoi, its particular principle and therefore its exemplar, it's 'idea' and its ideal.

Thus Christ is the principle of all manifestation, the Arche/Logos of God:
"Who is the image (Logos) of the invisible God (Apeiron), the firstborn of every creature (in that the idea must be first in the Logos to manifest at all). For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
Christ as the Arechetype drills down into Christology —

"In the beginning ... " John 1:1.
As discussed here before, this text opens, in Greek: "En arche ..." and 'arche' in this sense should be read as 'principle', in that John is talking ontologically, rather than temporally. The word 'arche' goes back into antiquity, and some of the earliest references we have is Anaximander (6c BC) who tried to reason the existence of things in an a priori divine paradigm. The language of Hebrew Scripture can be regarded the same way, as an ontological, principial procession, rather than a temporal one, which so exercises literalists. The Vulgate is explicit in that it uses the verb 'principio' rather than the more common 'initio'.

Anaximander is relevant here because he speaks of the appearance of all things from the Apeiron — the Boundless, the Infinite — according to the Arche, or principle, synonymous with ultimate reality, the Real.

To paraphrase John using Anaximanderian language:
"In the Principle was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Boundless, and the Logos was Boundless"

The Patristics drew the analogy between Son and Father as Arche and Arche anarchos (principle without principle), although they might have said Arche and Apeiron.

The Apeiron is void, because it is prior to all distinction. Nothing can be predicated of it because to describe or define it inevitably and inescapable introduces duality. It is, and that's as much as can be said, although St Denys refers to 'the Divine Darkness' and Scripture's 'darkness on the face of the deep' (Genesis 1:1). It is stated explicitly in the Divine utterance in Exodus 3:14: "ehyeh 'ăšer 'ehyeh" (I am that I am, and variations). The Fathers refer to the Arche (Principle:Son) and the Arche-anarchos (Principle-without-Principle:Father).

The Boundless, the Father, perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived; everything that is caused arises in the Boundless and is brought into being through the Arche/Logos. Everything (formal and formless, visible and invisible) derives from the Arche/Logos/Son, and everything has its own logoi, its particular principle and therefore its exemplar, it's 'idea' and its ideal.

Thus Christ is the principle of all manifestation, the Arche/Logos of God:
"Who is the image (Logos) of the invisible God (Apeiron), the firstborn of every creature (in that the idea must be first in the Logos to manifest at all). For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
Click to expand...
O ...kaaay
Well, I did ask, lol.

But it is outside of time? Like the archetype horse -- the extemporal essense of 'horseness' from which all physical horses take their temporal form?

No disrespect intended, obviously not equating Christ with horse. The important thing being that all previous avatars to Jesus the Christ were/are descended from, not precursor to Him?

Sort of thing?

Adam too?
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
Do you see Adam as an Archetype ?
I've read some about Adam Qadmon (Primordial Adam) as the Archetype.
Click to expand...
Yep, Kaballah.

In Christian terms (1 Corinthians 15) we have the First Adam, made a living soul (cf Genesis 2:7), in Christ we have the Last Adam, a quickening spirit (v45). The Primordial or Archetypal Adam therefore is the Principle of both and in that sense Divine (Adam Qadmon).

Going on:
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery ... we shall all be changed ... this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality" (v50-53).

What form this incorruptible, immortal, mysterious body will take is, of course, a matter of eschatalogical speculation, but my favorite on this topic is in the writings of Jean Borella — it's a long text, but in short it says this:

"What happens then, to the contrary, in the Resurrection of Christ (and, by virtue of that, us)?

What happens is that the resurrected Body ... is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but ... it is no longer of the essence of this presence to be passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will... Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen (explicit in the initial non-recognition of the risen Christ by Mary in Gethsemane and by the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24).

He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality (whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence) ... "

As an aside – in Luke's account of the Emmaus event (24), there are two disciples. One is named, the other is not. Here Christ offers the Eucharist, and in its reception their eyes are opened — He causes Himself to be seen as Himself – and then He disappears (v31).

The named disciple is Cleophas. In the mystical tradition, the other disciple is you.
 
Ya done it again. I got nothing, you are singing my song and I don't know how I know the words!

It as if we just crossed the red sea together...
.
Exodus 15

15 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:
Click to expand...
I always wondered who pushed the copier across and how all these people knew the tune...
 
RJM Corbet said:
O ...kaaay
Well, I did ask, lol.
Click to expand...
:p Soz ...

RJM Corbet said:
But it is outside of time?
Click to expand...
Yes.

RJM Corbet said:
The important thing being that all previous avatars to Jesus the Christ were/are descended from, not precursor to Him?
Click to expand...
Yes. Christ is God, ergo atemporal.

Note 1:
To stress again, for me the Christian Tradition exemplifies the unity and one-ness of the Uncreate and the created. The Incarnation is the union of the divine and the physical. The good derives ontologically from God (cf Luke 18:19), God alone is good as such, but all creation shares/strives to exemplify that goodness according to the limitations of its own order of being, be it a creature or a cauliflower, according to its logoi. Even an angel knows its own good is participatory.

Note 2:
This is all according to the Christian paradigm. Followers of other traditions will refute the idea that the Christian Christ is the source and origin of their avatars, but this is to be expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
Note 2:
This is all according to the Christian paradigm. Followers of other traditions will refute the idea that the Christian Christ is the source and origin of their avatars, but this is to be expected.
Click to expand...
Words...

Words of man, interpretations of the divine...explanations of the unexplainable at our level of understanding.

Pearls before swine...does that have to be negative? Or just acknowledgement of reality. Can I truly grock all that is when the burning bush speaks to me? And even if I could, can I describe, it relate it to others so they can understand?

Does the story of Christ make sense to us because of our state of evolution/experience? Where Krishna will speak to another and Mohammed another... And and and..

Are they all right and all incomplete?

The TOE, is not in a state yet where everyone can just look at it flip and say heads or tails...
 
wil said:
Words...
Click to expand...
Aye, there's the rub.

wil said:
Words of man, interpretations of the divine...explanations of the unexplainable at our level of understanding.
Click to expand...
To me, the genius of the world's sacra doctrina is the sense that no matter where one is in one's understanding, the deep goes on and on.

wil said:
Pearls before swine...does that have to be negative? Or just acknowledgement of reality.
Click to expand...
I am increasingly of the opinion that we don't acknowledge the physical world properly, which is something of an impediment when trying to understand the spiritual.

I mean religiously ... as you and others have expressed before, and I agree, Christ is not a 'get out of jail free' card, nor some kind of fairy godmother to magic everything and make it nice ... I wonder when Jesus wrote in the dust (john 8:6, 8), Did He actually write something profoundly occult? Perhaps He simply rubbed the dirt between His fingers to remind Himself that it is here, right here, right now, that the celestial rubber meets the road?

wil said:
Can I truly grock all that is when the burning bush speaks to me? And even if I could, can I describe, it relate it to others so they can understand?
Click to expand...
Nope. But – 'sufficient unto the day thereof' (cf Matthew 6:34). There are the words and then there's the savour ... how can you describe a taste? Or an ache?

wil said:
Does the story of Christ make sense to us because of our state of evolution/experience? Where Krishna will speak to another and Mohammed another... And and and..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we've changed significantly over the last couple of millennia? I mean we've surrounded ourselves with more stuff, but the questions are still the same, and they've been vocalised millennia ago and still resound with us, whether its philosophy or poetry. A millennia-old wisdom can still stop us in our tracks. The Golden Rule should be reason enough to be nice, without the threat of punishment or promise of reward.

wil said:
Are they all right and all incomplete?
Click to expand...
Yes, every sacra doctrina with its accompanying Tradition is complete and entire unto itself and requires no augmentation or completion for its faithful to realise that of which it speaks.

wil said:
The TOE, is not in a state yet where everyone can just look at it flip and say heads or tails...
Click to expand...
You've lost me again ... :D
 
RJM Corbet said:
It is a symbolic conflict between good and evil against enemies who include family and friends imo? It is more or less exactly comparable with Christ's words about bringing a sword between parents and children, etc? "And a man's foes they shall be of his own household."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:34-37&version=KJV

So there's another close parallel between the two scriptures?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, its comparing apples and oranges. To me Western and Eastern thought are fundamentally different. I don't need get the need to make them equivalent or parallel, why not just understand and respect the differences?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top