Gandhi

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Your post, Saltmeister, reminds me of an excerpt from On Eastern Crossroads:

THE QUESTIONER OF CINEDRION

MEMBER of Cinedrion asked Christ:

“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”

Christ answered:

“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”

A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”

“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”

“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”

“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”

“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”

“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”

Hello and greetings, AndrewX.....

I don't have any background into this literature, so I was sort of lost when it came to understanding what it all meant. I did a search for Cinedrion but only found 4 references!!! There was only one other passage after the Questioner of Cinedrion, which was pretty short. The context isn't clear to me. I was thinking at first that a lot of it might be metaphor or paradigms that I needed to identify . . . the trouble it's really short which makes it hard for me to see the pattern. Could you point me in the right direction? This is kind of new to me....

[Ahanu]

He certainly wasn't a Christian in the exclusive use of the term (i.e following Only Jesus), but maybe in the inclusive (following Jesus as well as others).

This is why Christians debate against him so much. Because he did not follow Jesus only. . .

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Hello and greetings, AndrewX.....

I don't have any background into this literature, so I was sort of lost when it came to understanding what it all meant. I did a search for Cinedrion but only found 4 references!!! There was only one other passage after the Questioner of Cinedrion, which was pretty short. The context isn't clear to me. I was thinking at first that a lot of it might be metaphor or paradigms that I needed to identify . . . the trouble it's really short which makes it hard for me to see the pattern. Could you point me in the right direction? This is kind of new to me....

No prob, Saltmeister. Try saying the word out loud.

The book I quote from was first published in 1930. I've never seen the spelling quite this way anywhere else, but if you reference the Wikipedia article, you will find it `synedrion' - so phonetically it is the same, and closer than `sanhedrin,' which is how most people know it today.

If you read the section on Traditions of Origin (at Wiki), you can gain further insight into why Christ Jesus would have stated what he did about tradition ... and how important it is to make sure we honor the correct one(s). In some esoteric teachings, it is pointed out that Jesus simply was Joshua son of Nun in one of THREE former incarnations bearing this same name (Joshua twice, and also Jeshua, all of these being cognate with `Jesus').

So, although this will be lost on the majority of Christian believers (although many I know DO accept reincarnation) ... Christ's words to the Sanhedrin take on a deeper meaning, significant because he himself, Jesus of Nazareth, had everything to do with instituting, guiding, nurturing and providing these TRADITIONS - in the first place (literally, since his time with Moses!).

The great irony to me, is that with all the fuss about tradition, and the rules that you mentioned in your post, especially all the pomp and glory that has been pasted on top of Christ's simple Ways and words ... it has become rare indeed to see those who make loud claims actually walking the walk!

Gandhiji said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” And this echoes one of G.K. Chesterton's remarks quite clearly ... that the Christian Way has not failed, but has simply never been tried!

Fortunately, it is not too late ... for any of us!

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

No prob, Saltmeister. Try saying the word out loud.

The book I quote from was first published in 1930. I've never seen the spelling quite this way anywhere else, but if you reference the Wikipedia article, you will find it `synedrion' - so phonetically it is the same, and closer than `sanhedrin,' which is how most people know it today.

I knew about the "sanhedrin," the more common spelling, but not the "synedrion"!!! It all starts to make more sense now. It seems that the Sanhedrin are asking Jesus why he doesn't adhere to their traditions, or if he is going to destroy them. Jesus says yes he does, but not in the way they think.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I knew about the "sanhedrin," the more common spelling, but not the "synedrion"!!! It all starts to make more sense now. It seems that the Sanhedrin are asking Jesus why he doesn't adhere to their traditions, or if he is going to destroy them. Jesus says yes he does, but not in the way they think.

You got it!

[flowperson]

New information for me also Andrew. Thanx !

flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by InLove

Interesting that many Christians also condemn Mother Teresa. If Gandhi and Teresa are not examples of practical and spiritual devotion to God; if they were not working according to the teachings of Christ and the will of the Father, then I guess we are just supposed to talk a great deal, but not follow up with our actions. Makes no sense to me.

InPeace,
InLove

That is the best thing I have ever read on CR InLove and Amen to it. There is far too much talking about how we should be good humans and worship G-d and by far, not enough shutting up and getting on with the job.

Go girl. xox

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

That is the best thing I have ever read on CR InLove and Amen to it. There is far too much talking about how we should be good humans and worship G-d and by far, not enough shutting up and getting on with the job.

Lol - Here Here!

... Neemai

[Dondi]

What I know about Gandhi I first learned through the admiration of hi through Martin Luther King Jr, who happened to be a Baptist minister. King actually traveled to India and met with some of Gandhi's followers. That is where he developed his philosophy for non-violent civil disobedience. One Gandhi quote that particularly struck King was: "Through our pain we will make them see their injustice".

Of Gandhi, King said this,

"Gandhi" he says, "was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force..."

and

"I found " he tells us, "in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi... the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom."

Perhaps the current administration might learn from this, hmmmm....

[Ahanu]

1. Gandhi, the Hindu, saw Jesus as one god among many gods.
2. Gandhi did not profess Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Gandhi, therefore, is not a Christian nor did he have the Holy Spirit. People that followed him, and claimed that he was the Mahatma, are being deceived because he is the devil!
3. Gandhi is an idolater. His religion is Hinduism and he does not believe in the God of the scriptures, so Gandhi's God was an idol.
4. Did I mention that he was just nice and polite? He was not Holy. Basically he is simply a little care bear.

These comments about him agitate me. Here are my thoughts. . .

Well, Gandhi did not follow many gods. He just claimed to follow Truth. In Hinduism, self-realization (atma-jnana) is the key to obtaining Moksha. Moksha is the closest word to salvation, I think. It is basically to search for God's face. Also, Christians will say that he did not have the Holy Spirit. Christians do not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit: "All those who are led by the Spirit of God are daughters and sons of God." [Romans 8:14] How can he be only nice and polite? He went up against the British empire and said that Europe has the Spirit of Satan.

He also read the Gita daily. . .

However, it is worthy of note that the Bhagavad Gitadiscourages the worship of demigods, as it does not lead to Moksha. The concept is essentially of devotional service in love, since the ideal nature of being is seen as that of harmony, euphony, its manifest essence being love. By immersing oneself in the love of God, one's Karmas (good or bad, regardless) slough off, one's illusions about beings decay and 'truth' is soon known and lived

Here is another quote near the end of his autobiography. . .

“. . .Without much ado I presented my difficulties to him. He asked: ‘Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin?’
‘I do,’ said I.
‘Well then, Hinduism offers no absolution therefrom, Christianity does,’ and added: ‘The wages of sin is death, and the Bible says that the only way of deliverance is surrender unto Jesus.’
I put forward Bhakti-marga (the path of devotion) of the Bhagavadgita, but to no avail.”

Yep, lots of people say Gandhi is in hell. This really dissapoints me

[Pathless]

I like this quote from the man himself, which I first heard in the movie Gandhi (great film):

(When asked if he was a Hindu) Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.

There are a bunch of good Gandhi quotes here.