Name:dattaswami •
Title: Concept of death and Jesus on the cross •
Date posted: 05/20/07 12:25
Q: Concept of death and Jesus on the cross
One of you asked Me about the significance of cross in Christianity. Some scholars have interpreted it to the striking of I, which represents the egoism. It is a good interpretation but it does not speak about the significance of Jesus present on the cross in the process of crucification. Therefore, if you consider both the cross and Jesus on it, there is more important significance, which represents the death of Jesus. In the death the soul leaves this external human body. It indicates that one day or other you have to leave your body and everything and everybody associated with the body.
Therefore, the concept of death is the most sacred spiritual preacher, which preaches about the non-eternal bonds with your relations and related things in this world. Thus, death is the most pious concept and one should not fear for it. You should not fear for your spiritual preacher who is the most sacred and pious. You must give your utmost attention to this most pious spiritual preacher, the concept of death. When Nachiketa asked his father about the donation of himself, his father told that he would be donated to the God of death called Yama. Infact, Nachiketa received the best spiritual knowledge from Yama as you find in Veda. Everybody knows that death is inevitable. But such is only knowledge. By Knowledge one just knows. This is not sufficient unless the knowledge is often memorised, which leads to realization. Thus, knowledge, memorization and realization are the three steps after which only practice comes as said in Veda (Srotavyo….).
Due to the absence of the other two steps, in practice the human being is behaving as if these worldly bonds are eternal. Unless these bonds are cut, liberation or salvation is impossible. Without liberation attainment of God is subsequently not possible. When you are bound to certain things, how can you achieve other things? The attachment to the Lord is unable to give the salvation from these bonds because the attachment to the Lord is not strong. Unless you realise the nature of these bonds, you cannot get salvation from these bonds. The nature of these bonds is best exposed by the concept of death. Thus, when you are constantly looking at the cross with Jesus on it in the process of crucification, then you realise the nature of these bonds continuously. Such continuous realization leads to continuous practice. Practise alone can give the result. Thus, the cross with Jesus in the phase of death is having the greatest spiritual significance in giving you the liberation. Unless you derive the concept from the statue of Jesus on cross, such statue becomes useless, if it is conceived only in the sense of the death of Jesus.
Jesus himself advises the people not to weep on His death, but they should weep about themselves. This means that the physical sense of crucification should not be taken. If you take the internal significance; it will be useful for your spiritual development. Thus, when you are worshiping the idols, the concepts for which the idols stand should be realised. The constant attention on the idol is also necessary so that the concept is memorised again and again. It is for this purpose, the idol worship is introduced. Therefore, one should not mock at the idol worship. Christians wear cross with Jesus on it in the chain around the neck. The church also shows the same. Such photos are in the houses. All this is the idol worship. I do not know why they criticize the idol worship and follow the same in practice. The Christian scriptures criticize the idol worship. The point in such criticism is that mere worship of idols without realizing the concepts for which those idols were created is useless. From this angle idol worship is to be criticized. Thus, you have both positive and negative angles for any point based on the context. Thus, we know the concept of death but we have not realized it. Therefore, we do not remember the concept. Our continuous impression is only about the life, which we are constantly experiencing. Hence, our feeling was that we lived in the past, we are living in the present and we will live forever in the future. Due to this we feel that these bonds are eternal and that this world is also eternal. It is said that spiritual knowledge is to be obtained from Lord Siva (Jnanam Mahesvarat..). Lord Siva is famous for destroying the world.
Thus, when we remember Siva, we must remember that this world is not eternal. Siva lives in burial ground. This again signifies that any individual has to meet the death. Therefore, Siva preaches you that both this world and your body are not eternal. Yama, the deity of death preached spiritual knowledge to Nachiketa, which means that the concept of death gives you real spiritual knowledge. The brother of Yama, Sani (Saturn) is the source of all problems and troubles. Astrology says that the planet Sani is the source of spiritual knowledge (Jnana karaka..). Again this means that troubles only make you active by which you will think about God. Thus, Sani and Yama, the brothers, are the source of problems and death give you spiritual knowledge. The pleasures will make you inactive, egoistic and inert.
Kunti asked Krishna for constant troubles only. The very word Siva means auspicious or most pious. This again means that his work of the destruction of world and his burial ground indicate the temporary existence of world and body. Such realization is most sacred. Therefore, the very meaning of the word Siva is that is most sacred spiritual preacher. Yama and Sani are said to be born to the Sun. Sun represents intelligence and light of knowledge, which removes the dark ignorance. This again indicates that the concepts of problems and death are the products of the real intellectual spiritual knowledge.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 05/20/07 21:48
A: All your l-rds and g-ds have no power nor life of their own, they are inate objects created through ones lack of understanding the true knowledge of the One who created All. You utilize your various inferior human created philosophies [ Hindu-Budda-Christian etc. ] with stories and metaphors to convince others that a person can give life to these idols through the processes of their soul. To fill the soul[s] with a foreign matter is contrary and damaging to the original created design and intent of the souls and denies the power and existence of the One who created All, who needs no other.
Name:sam •
Date: 05/20/07 23:00
A: dattaswami ,
- "Concept of death and Jesus on the cross."
---------- you take your concept from the point of view of your believe, and your believe is no more than a philosophy which created unlogical ideas, for example:
-"Siva lives in burial ground."
------Did anyone witnessed him?
-"his work of the destruction of world and his burial ground indicate the temporary existence of world and body. Such realization is most sacred."
------Every living things on earth, live and die and turn into dust, and your Siva has nothing to do with it. Siva is the product of man imagination, and the man philosophy can create unlogical stories around him!.
-"Thus, when we remember Siva, we must remember that this world is not eternal."
------No one should remember Siva, and no need to remember that this world is not eternal, since it is the fact that everyone knows that no one will live forever, our life is short and the end of it is sure, but the time and what hapen after is a mystery beyond our imagination.
-"Yama and Sani are said to be born to the Sun. Sun represents intelligence and light of knowledge, which removes the dark ignorance."
-------WOW, The sun has TWO SONS !!!!!. Who is the one who find out this secret?. If the sun has two sons only, and her children been named, Yama & Sani, then from the logical point, we can say that maybe the SUN had more than two sons, because if she created two is able to create more, maybe three, or ten, or thousand and more thousands and thousands.
The sun is just one source, and there are other important sources for life , and without them life cannot be created. There is no life on the moon and Mars and any other planet while they recieve the light and the heat as the earth does.
THE SUN ONLY REPRESENT WHAT IT PRESENT and that is well known today, do not forget that we are in the 21st century, and saying that the sun removes the dark ignorance from people is just the ignorance itself coming from people who brought this philosophy, which far from any truth or logic.
-"The constant attention on the idol is also necessary so that the concept is memorised again and again. It is for this purpose, the idol worship is introduced. Therefore, one should not mock at the idol worship. Christians wear cross with Jesus on it in the chain around the neck. The church also shows the same. Such photos are in the houses. All this is the idol worship. I do not know why they criticize the idol worship and follow the same in practice."
-----------In the holy book, it is writeen:
1- You shall have no other gods before Me. (that is one God)
2- You shall not make for yourself an IDOL.
Those are the commandments of God, But ignorant people who came after Jesus ignore everything that came in the book and created their own beliefs.
constant attention on the idol by the time will steer people away from the original beliefs towards the believe that those idols has a power in themself, as we see happen in the Christian world (of course in yours too), when people kneels to a statues made of stones and talk to them etc., and believing that they will help them, forgeting that the stones has no power not even if they made in someone shape Things went much further by creating gods with animal heads and with many shapes, and you give them offerings and things, believing that they will help you.
As for "the cross with Jesus on it " which you agree that it is the right things to do, while It is the wrong thing that the Christian do, because they are not following the commandment of God and Jesus Himself.
Jesus did not leave a photo and no one of His followers gave a clear picture of how He look like, So the thing on the cross or the paintings does not represent Jesus, and it is no more than some chaped objects or drawn objects.
I don't think you will accept that someone draw a picture as what you suppose to look like and tell you that is you on that picture, also the people of India will not accept to carry on their necks the statue or picture of an Indian, any indian as if it represents their leader Ghandi, because that is a personal insult to Ghandi and his family and his people.
they criticize your idol , because you went too far from reality by creating many different gods with many different shapes and you put a head of an animal on the body of human, and that is beyound any logic.
Name:dattaswami •
Date: 05/21/07 2:59
A: sam;
Temple(Church) and statue are necessary for low level people as said in Sastra (Pratima Swalpa Buddhinaam). It is a teaching model for a school student. But for a college or university student it is not necessary. It is called as Pratika (Model). Veda says to meditate upon the Sun assuming Sun as the Lord. The Sun is not the Lord. The Lord is not in the Sun. Sun is only a servant of the Lord.
All these points are told in Veda (Adityam Brahmeti, Nedam tat, Bheeshodeti Suryah). Veda says that the Lord is not in the statues (Natasya Pratima). Veda also says that no inert object and no human being is the Lord because the object or human being is an item in the creation (Neti, Neti). Gita says that the Lord comes only in human form (Manusheem Tanumaasritam).
The statue, which is in the human form is a model teaching you the concept that the Lord comes only in human form for preaching the divine knowledge in every human generation, to avoid the partiality to a particular human generation as said in Gita (Yada Yadaahi). Once you understood this concept the temple and statue is not necessary for you but they should be protected and respected as the models of divine knowledge for the future ignorant devotees. Some people are telling that ‘Kulluka Bhatt’ says about worship of statues. Kulluka Bhatt is a ‘Purva Mimaamsaka’ who is an atheist (Devo Na Kaschit).
How can he contradict Veda, which says that the Lord does not exist in statues? Gita condemns severely that a person-worshipping statue will be born as a stone. Here the meditation upon the statue is not condemned. Only worship like offering the food is condemned because the statue does not eat the food. Some fellow behind the statue is eating the food. In Gita the word ‘Bhutejyah’ means worshipping the inert object by offering food. Ijya means offering the food. Bhuta means inert substance, which is one of the five inert elements (Pancha Bhutas).
Some people say that the word Bhuta means ghost and those who worship ghosts become ghosts. We do not object such meaning. But the word Bhuta also means the five inert elements. Our meaning is in the same line of your meaning. A person worshipping ghosts becomes ghost. Similarly a person worshipping inert objects will become inert object. We are not contradicting your meaning. Our meaning is in the same line of your meaning and therefore you cannot contradict. Moreover the verse says that those who worship deities become deities etc., Therefore our meaning is in the line of the meaning of the verse. Yajna means feeding the guest after cooking the food and not burning the food in the fire. The guest is treated like fire. The hunger in his stomach is treated as ‘Vysvanara fire’.
Krishna stopped burning the food in fire and ate the food stating that He was hungry. Kapila condemned such burning of food in Bhagavatam. The Yajna is only cooking the food and feeding the guest. In this true sense Yajna is essential and must be performed.
Name:sam •
Date: 05/21/07 17:30
A: dattaswami ,
In my relpy to your post, and after analyze it , one statement at a time, using the logic to show you that what you claims in your philosophical beliefs cannot be accepted logically and they are wrong.
You did not really answer me about what I claimed, and that mean what I said is right.
All what you brought after is more philosophy.
dattaswami , PHILOSOPHY IS THE ART OF USING WORDS (in speach or in writing), and this kind of art can create unlimited versions of thoughts which has nothing to do with logic or realities, it is the same as when the artists use the pen or the brush, to create different pictures . In both cases the imaginations of the philosopher or the artist might draw unrealitic but nice looking picturs that can steer the imaginations of the others towards believing in them as the real things.
The philosophical picture of the REINCARNATION in your belief:
"From the WIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA"
- "Reincarnation, literally "to be made flesh again", is a doctrine or mystical belief that some essential part of a living being (in some variations only human beings) survives death to be reborn in a new body."
---------In other variation, they believe that the human soul will be reincarnated many times through lower forms of livings before acheaving the state of "enlightenment". Hindu, believe some animals are sacred, and some worship or regard as holy the cows and rats!!!.
"Hinduism teaches that the soul goes on repeatedly being born and dying"
----------THE WRONG TEACHING. No one went through this prossess and came back to tell. If you or anyone else witnessed those things, please bring them supported by facts and not by phiplosophy. BRINGING THE WRONG TO PROVE THE WRONG WILL NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
"After many births, every person eventually becomes dissatisfied with the limited happiness that worldly pleasures can bring. At this point, a person begins to seek higher forms of happiness"
------------ Some persons wish to come back, but when the person die his wishes will die with him. Nothing will come back after death, not the person and not his wishes.
My question, "when the person reincarnated after death, and after the body became dust, the reincarnated person will come back by the means of the natural birth (father & mother) by using another person or animal body as a mean of tranportation ?." Please explain , only by bringing facts and not philosophy.
"When the cycle of rebirth thus comes to an end, a person is said to have attained moksha, or salvation"
----------What a great and colorful picture that your philosophy create. Everything is explained from the biginning to the end, even, not even one person came back from death to tell his jouney. WOW, WOW.
I cannot believe that people living in the 21st century, and in this age will believe in myths and stories told by people who do not know or understand the world that they live in, and knowing everything about life and death!!!.
Any faith or religion built upon false teaching is false.
Here, I am not talking about some exercies as: (laws, pleasure, love & devotion, meditation or yoga), but about our existence and the existence of the other living things, from these points:
a- how all things started at the first place and why?
b- was it created (there is a creator- God) or not.?
c- why from all the billions of creatures only one receive such an excellent brain?
d- what is the purpose, that we, the only one who asked questions and wanted answers?, and the only one who can differentiate between the good and the bad, and between the right and the wrong and between the true and the false, all that by using the logic?.
The faith and the religions that gives logical answers to the many questions about the creation and the creator is the right faith and religion.
dattaswami , Please, answer my previous post first, adding to it this one, and when you answer back, bring things that can be supported by logic or facts, and not by only more philosophy.
Name:Messiah •
Date: 05/21/07 22:17
A: Ask yourself what's a man? Who named man, man? Well it's no more complicated than naming a frog or constituting America. Those who do it becomes founding fathers. So who named man, man? It sure was a man (or woman) who did it, and he or she is remembered as "the father of man" - but what force did he/she use to be able to do it?
God created man as his selfimage. God, which is the personification of the ancient Greek combination of Logos/Gnosis, can't exist without man - because God reside within the head of Man.
Jesus is the rational personification of the ethics that was needed as the world had evolved since the Abrahamic understanding of the world. A new Messiah sure is needed since the new testament also is ethicly outdated about 1500 year or so...
/Messiah
Name:JMD •
Date: 05/21/07 22:34
A: Hiranyagarbha
"Firstborn of the Womb" - title claimed by nearly all Hindu gods, each of whom insisted on being the eldest son of the primal Creatress. Modern scholars tend to conceal the true meaning of the word avoiding its feminine connotation."
[gee, why am I not surprised! always trying to hide the feminine - well, that's one of my duties as a gnostic, seeking to find her and bring her out from behind the veil into the light...]
"A commentator on the Upanishads said any god may be called Hiranyagarbha 'when associated with the power called Maya - the power to evolve the empirical universe.' This effectively withholds the information that 'the power called Maya' is the Great Goddess, and the 'association' between here and the god is that of mother and child."
-B.Walker 'Woman's Encyclopedia'
:D
Name:dattaswami •
Date: 05/23/07 2:41
A: sam;
Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable.
When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all.
A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire. Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far.
The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist? The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.
