another yoga and christianity commentary

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by pattimax

These philosophies that you are touting (or at least trying to understand) were developed long before these cultures knew the good news about Jesus Christ.

Did Christ not say, "Before Abraham, I AM"? If so, then that's good enough for me!

The billions of people who were born *before* the time of Jesus were not just experiments, or God's dress rehearsal ... so that people of Jesus' day and afterward could reap the good benefit of Christ's teaching.

Nor also, are the people of the rainforests, and in other semi-isolated areas of the world today who have not heard of Jesus of Nazareth, without an appreciation or concept of the Divine. Even the Native American Indian, who DID experience our Western IDEAS of God, believed in a Great Spirit, though I don't doubt they had a hard time reconciling the notion of a bloodthirsty, power- and land-hungry Jesus-God-Deity with their own peaceful and protective Great Spirit.

Don't you tell me that the Native American couldn't recognize the divinity within both himself, and his "white brother." I know better. But I'd agree with you on one thing. The white brother doesn't seem to know it, recognize it, or know how to find it ... within himself.

Yes pattimax, you are correct. I'm just sad to have to admit it.

~Zag

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

Did Christ not say, "Before Abraham, I AM"? If so, then that's good enough for me!

The billions of people who were born *before* the time of Jesus were not just experiments, or God's dress rehearsal ... so that people of Jesus' day and afterward could reap the good benefit of Christ's teaching.

Nor also, are the people of the rainforests, and in other semi-isolated areas of the world today who have not heard of Jesus of Nazareth, without an appreciation or concept of the Divine. Even the Native American Indian, who DID experience our Western IDEAS of God, believed in a Great Spirit, though I don't doubt they had a hard time reconciling the notion of a bloodthirsty, power- and land-hungry Jesus-God-Deity with their own peaceful and protective Great Spirit.

Don't you tell me that the Native American couldn't recognize the divinity within both himself, and his "white brother." I know better. But I'd agree with you on one thing. The white brother doesn't seem to know it, recognize it, or know how to find it ... within himself.

Yes pattimax, you are correct. I'm just sad to have to admit it.

~Zag

Jesus also quite specifically stated there were other sheep not of the fold that He had to tend to. Could be anyone at anytime...

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

Did Christ not say, "Before Abraham, I AM"? If so, then that's good enough for me!

The billions of people who were born *before* the time of Jesus were not just experiments, or God's dress rehearsal ... so that people of Jesus' day and afterward could reap the good benefit of Christ's teaching.

Nor also, are the people of the rainforests, and in other semi-isolated areas of the world today who have not heard of Jesus of Nazareth, without an appreciation or concept of the Divine. Even the Native American Indian, who DID experience our Western IDEAS of God, believed in a Great Spirit, though I don't doubt they had a hard time reconciling the notion of a bloodthirsty, power- and land-hungry Jesus-God-Deity with their own peaceful and protective Great Spirit.

Don't you tell me that the Native American couldn't recognize the divinity within both himself, and his "white brother." I know better. But I'd agree with you on one thing. The white brother doesn't seem to know it, recognize it, or know how to find it ... within himself.

Yes pattimax, you are correct. I'm just sad to have to admit it.

~Zag

I said "before they KNEW", not before He was.

I should have clarified this from the beginning:
Living and loving with grace are benefits in this world that are only temporary; please do not kid yourself. When you are not focused on Jesus Christ as Lord, this is it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I said "before they KNEW", not before He was.

I should have clarified this from the beginning:
Living and loving with grace are benefits in this world that are only temporary; please do not kid yourself. When you are not focused on Jesus Christ as Lord, this is it.

A play on words seems to be the game of the day, Pat...no sense in tripping over words you know by heart...eh?

v/r

Joshua

[pattimax]

Zageus,
Oh, and about our "blood-thirsty and power hungry God," hmmm...TV? popular media? Try learning some things on your own.

[earl]

Originally Posted by pattimax

What you said works in the p.c. realm, but it is not what God said in His book. We were not given instructions to focus on the divine in ourselves, we were told to keep our focus on Christ. Why not do it in any activity? You can fool yourself by having all around you agree with you because what you are saying sounds so well-mannered, polite, and culturally broad minded, it doesn’t matter that it is the farthest thing from the truth. You tend to lull yourself into a false sense of security about eternal life.

Yes, God is everywhere, but that spark of light is only for those focused on Jesus Christ. I know that sounds so blatant and culturally blunt, but it is not. These philosophies that you are touting (or at least trying to understand) were developed long before these cultures knew the good news about Jesus Christ. God has given us this beautiful gift and it is up to us to accept it. He does want you to tell people about it. Living and loving with grace are benefits that are only temporary; please do not kid yourself.

Sincerely, Karen

Ps. I learned the definition of nirvana was no thoughts. Heaven?… scary.

Karen, the oft proposed version of Christian "Good News" that our "loving God" proclaimed join Jesus or perish is just the spin on his message that gives Christianity its black eye and focuses those who follow a version with that sort of expectation on a "fear-based" orientation, which in my opinion is the opposite orientation of what a healthy religion would expound. To use the analogy of parenting, one would not consider it healthy to raise children with the notion that you must fully align yourself with a particular member of the family or perish, (though I don't start from the premise that God is a "being" per se anyway). Nirvana by the way does not mean cessation of thought but rather dissolution of suffering brought about by the type of enlightenment proposed by Gautama the Buddha. Bless you, earl

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Zageus,
Oh, and about our "blood-thirsty and power hungry God," hmmm...TV? popular media? Try learning some things on your own.

Right back atcha, Karen. The Christ I know is within the *human* heart ... as well as God's. He is, in fact, the link between these - the bridge.

And ya know what? I learned this on my own. Not from a televangelist. And not from a holy book. (The books just help add clarity, and definition.)

Also, I did not say that God was blood-thirsty and power-hungry. But this is how God gets (mis)represented. And if you were a Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, tell me again how you would regard this new Jesus-God of the white man? A God of Peace and Love? Superior to the Great Spirit?

And you tell ME to learn some things on my own? Shame, shame.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Jesus also quite specifically stated there were other sheep not of the fold that He had to tend to. Could be anyone at anytime...

Zageus,

Precisely. And you know, with mass communication, the world is getting smaller all the time. China is a great example. The way Christianity is making a difference all around the world is a testimony itself. It would be difficult to find somewhere that hasn't at least heard of Him.

As for the people born before Christ's teachings, they had the teachings of God. Are you asking me if God ignored His creation? Please. Obviously not, and there were some very signifigant prohecies about a Savior. Hence, Jesus Christ.

What I have learned about the early Native American's understanding of Christ is that it was very well recieved and I KNOW we did dreadful things to them and I'm sorry (please don't go there) Prior to learning about Jesus, it's pretty much the same thing as the people who lived before Jesus was born. As for focusing on the "divinity within", I think they realized a lot more than either of us will ever know.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

Right back atcha, Karen. The Christ I know is within the *human* heart ... as well as God's. He is, in fact, the link between these - the bridge.

And ya know what? I learned this on my own. Not from a televangelist. And not from a holy book. (The books just help add clarity, and definition.)

Also, I did not say that God was blood-thirsty and power-hungry. But this is how God gets (mis)represented. And if you were a Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, tell me again how you would regard this new Jesus-God of the white man? A God of Peace and Love? Superior to the Great Spirit?

And you tell ME to learn some things on my own? Shame, shame.

Hmmm, there were also the soldiers on the Rattan march...funny they didn't condemn god as a white man's bain...

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by earl

Karen, the oft proposed version of Christian "Good News" that our "loving God" proclaimed join Jesus or perish is just the spin on his message that gives Christianity its black eye and focuses those who follow a version with that sort of expectation on a "fear-based" orientation, which in my opinion is the opposite orientation of what a healthy religion would expound. To use the analogy of parenting, one would not consider it healthy to raise children with the notion that you must fully align yourself with a particular member of the family or perish, (though I don't start from the premise that God is a "being" per se anyway). Nirvana by the way does not mean cessation of thought but rather dissolution of suffering brought about by the type of enlightenment proposed by Gautama the Buddha. Bless you, earl

That is where we are today, truly HORRIBLE things have been done in the name in the name of Christ. Are we supposed to be paralyzed because of this?

I would not follow anything that is "fear based." As for a healthy child, it is good to start with a healthy family. My brothers and sisters in Christ are an incredibly healthy family.

The nirvana definition, yes, your's sounds right, but mine is more accurate. Buddhism is really a discipline. I guess that is where the cessation of thought comes in.
Many Blessings, Karen

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

And you tell ME to learn some things on my own? Shame, shame.

Yeah, you learn things on your own. That's what I get.

I am sorry for getting peed. I'll talk to you Monday.

[Thomas]

Belated reply to Pattimax:

How do you define nirvana?

It is a western over-simplification to view nirvana as simply 'extinction', as if such means 'nothingness,' as if it were possible to realise something that is 'nothing'. Now either Nirvana is nothingness, in which case it is unrealizable; or else it is realizable, in which case it must correspond to something real.

It is also necessary to distinguish between three Nirvanas, or three degrees of Extinction, two of which are still in the order of Maya or contingency, while the third, Parinirvana, is Absolute.

The first Nirvana is ontologically that of the Bodhisattva: it is extinction in relation to formal manifestation and corresponds to the degree of the Archangels, Heaven, Existence; we say “ontologically” because the
Bodhisattva “lives” at this level even if he has already realized the second Nirvana...

The second Nirvana coincides with the state of the terrestrial Buddha, that is to say with extinction in regard to universal manifestation, which corresponds to the degree of pure Being.

The third Nirvana, beyond Maya, is that of the celestial or absolute Buddha: this is Parinirvana, extinction in relation to Being or to Maya and which corresponds to the supreme Self of the Vedantists.

(It could be argued that the uncreated Beatific Vision corresponds to the positive content of Nirvana – and also that such is achieved by the “annihilation” of all that is not holy.)

The first Nirvana then is extinction of, or rather in relation, to ignorance (or sin); the second is the extinction of all accidence and contingency, that is in relation to the cosmos, and the third, Parinirvana, is extinctyion in relation to Being.

Nirvana is thus identified with Being (a connection that is more ontological than properly metaphysical, since a “principle” is here represented as a “state”); and Parinirvana is identified with Non-Being, that is to say with 'beyond-Being', the divine “Quiddity” which, according to Christian theology, “enfolds” Being, and which, according to Sufism, “erases all predicates” (munqat al-isharat).

+++

And some comments subsequently:

Wil:

heaven on earth.
This is technically wrong because 'the earth' belongs to the realm of samsara, and consequently is not the goal of nirvana, but rather a stumbling block.

Prober:
I would say that with either, you focus on the "divinity" within you. Both require killing the ego (or will) in one way or another.
Not in Christian doctrine – the essential goodness of human nature calls for aligning one's own will to the Divine Will, not the cessation of individual will as such. If the will is dead, then there is no activity – no life, no love ... Christ does not want us to kill the will, but to willingly attach ourselves to God – 'in him we live and move and have our being' - if you kill the will, you kill the being.

Pattimax:
"Christianity does not focus on "inner-divinity", it focuses on transforming the mind.
I would rather say it focusses on us transformning the heart, and on the Holy Spirit transforming our nature.

What if this life is just a dress rehearsal?
Again, not a Christian perspective. This life is 'real', not a hiatus nor a sideshow.

I don't see where those focusing on the divine within is focusing on oneself, rather it is focusing on the bringing that divine to the surface.
Because in Christianity there is no divine within oneself ... oneself is in the Divine (or not) ... to say so suggests that divinity is part of human nature, and people too easily regard it as such ... to say 'I exist by virtue of the divine' is not to say 'I am divine by virtue of my existence' and that phrase is simply too vague a determination ... man is not divine any more than than a contingent being can contain the Absolute, or the finite contain the Infinite ... if the divine is in you, then you are God ... it's a phrase which is all too easily misunderstood rather the Divine – the Holy Spirit – can work 'in, with, by and through' the self ... or as St Pio used to say 'when I am in Christ' which acknowledges a state of grace beyond his contingent nature.

Or Jesus to St Catherine: "I am He who is, you are she who is not."

Thomas

[Thomas]

I have posted a new thread discussing Buddhist and Christian eschatalogical vision under: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...-new-post.html

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have posted a new thread discussing Buddhist and Christian eschatalogical vision under: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...-new-post.html

Thomas

Good. Thread merged.

[InLove]

Thomas, thank you. Excellent idea to merge the thread as well, Q.

I am prayerfully reading, and got lots of windows open here!

The more I can understand about the mind and heart of my fellow earthlings, the more chance there is for us to peacefully communicate. It may not be that we will agree on everything, especially in practice. But to me, the bridge of understanding extends from the heart (Spirit), and as thus is most stable.

This is why I joined CR. Understanding.

InPeace,
InLove