"original" Hinduism vs. "original" Chris

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > "original" Hinduism vs. "original" Chris
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Xnun Registered User (7/19/03 5:30 am) Reply	"original" Hinduism vs. "original" Chris Hi everybody, I'm new to this site and I spent the past few days reading very many of the posts that are here. So I have the feeling I know many of you pretty well by now. I had left SRF in 2/2001, so I didn't know about the mass exodus that followed soon after (anyone have names of who left on the nuns' side since then?). And there were many other "lose ends" that I was able to connect by reading the posts here. (As many of you know, the SRF members have always had more info on what was going on than the low ranking monastics.) As I said before, I have the feeling that I know some of you pretty well after reading your posts, and so I also want to give you some info about myself. I am German. I read the AY late in 1992 and ordered the Lessons first thing in 1993. That's when I heard about the monastic order and thought what a cool thing that would be to enter. So I decided to check out the place by enrolling for the centennial convo and spending a few weeks in the Encinitas retreat and surrounding areas prior to the convo, but not intending to let anyone know what I was up to as I wanted to check things out without drawing attention to myself (must have been due to my upbringing in a formerly communist country ). But I had to ask for "Give Me Thy Heart" in order to get more info, and subsequently was asked to attend an interview regarding this matter -- which I refused flatly. But during the following days I felt so miserable w/o knowing why, until in one p.m. meditation the thought shot into my head, "You need to go to Mt.W.!" -- This thought was accompanied with such joy (especially in contrast to my previous misery!) that suddenly I couldn't wait to ask for this interview. When I went to the interview, I had the feeling they'd take in everyone right from the street. I didn't consider myself very spiritual. (By nature I am pretty quiet and shy, yet also quite independent and hard to impress, combined with a deep desire for honesty and genuineness. -- Of course, I also want to belong and be loved.) But there I was, and I was told that I could enter the ashram even without all the financial means that you usually need to present up front. Well, I delayed until I had finished my occupational training and entered about a year later. So, then I was in the ashram and didn't have any problems to put up with the routine and "training" (again, I had been brought up in a communist country). But I didn't think people in the ashram were that impressive and spiritually advanced either (as compared to what impression I had gained from the AY). At the '93 convo, I had already encountered some pretty obnoxious and ego-inflated members, though there had also been many nice people. And in the ashram there was the same mixture -- some struggling with temper tantrums and mean dispositions (even many long-term monastics) and some who were always kind toward me and others. But there was only one nun who seemed really genuine and who was a true inspiration for me and who happened to be my direct superior for a while. And it was for the sake of this special friendship with this senior nun that I stayed all the years I did. -- But in general I wasn't happy in the ashram, and the closest I've ever come to committing suicide was there during my postulant time. Ironically, I didn't go through with my plan to end "this incarnation" right then and there not because of fear of the karmic punishment that we had been told about (I was so down that I didn't care about that anymore), but because I thought it would be really ungrateful to SRF to bring them such bad publicity and that it all wasn't their fault but my own. (Hah!) Eventually, the senior nun, whose friendship had tied me to the ashram, left, and soon after that I left too, fully intending to stick with the teachings though. But then I discovered what the Bible truly says -- which wouldn't have been a big deal for me, just that this had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was taught by SRF the Bible says, which made the whole teachings untrustworthy to me. -- And that's where I call on all the brilliant minds whose posts I've read on this site: I've never had trouble follow along in school, and yet my chicken brain seems too small to see how the "Holy Science" proves that "original" Hinduism and "original" Christianity teach the same (as was also maintained in some of the posts here). In the beginning of my "SRF career" I just accepted this claim, trusting blindly and hoping that I would "understand" later, not knowing much about the Bible at that point anyway. But now that I have read the Bible cover to cover (having studied the historical and cultural backgrounds at the same time), I found that the Bible is a book that makes a whole lot of sense in itself, is complete in itself, and trustworthy in itself. -- So what is the term "original" Christianity supposed to mean? How can you separate that from the Christian Bible? And how does the "Holy Science" prove anything if you take away the blind faith because of the gurus' saying, "It is so, and that's why it is a proof!"? Hope someone is out there who is able to explain that to me without using too much intellectual terminology, just plain everyday English would do. Thanks!
soulcircle Registered User (7/19/03 12:01 pm) Reply	suppression of early "original" Christianity Hi Guests and All......Xnun, Welcome into our open arms of warm embrace. The early "christian" authorities may have lost some face When they banned, among other things, the book written by Thomas, from everyplace. This I, and others in here learned somewhere, in my case in a recent post on this board. From the almost disappeared New Testament Chapter from Thomas, much more important than, "My father is Lord," was upon hearing via Thomas that Jesus' central teaching is embrace and unfold what is within ...upon hearing this our hearts soared ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ so in simple words from a new friend, Xnun, instead of poetically speaking of this board, Lord and soaring.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. in a simple word we don't hear original Christianity what has endured are distortions authorities in the first centuries A.D. had a field day changing a rainbow of inner life, into on of following easily corrupted "authorities." as some of our friends put it, "do you feel me?" Jesus tells me at this moment, follow few, or even none, bring forth what is within love and compassion within, bringing it kindly to all welcome welcome welcome Xnun our circles of friendship
Lobo Registered User (7/19/03 9:42 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Hi Xnun, I enjoyed reading your account of your life in SRF, and the ashram. It was very interesting to learn how easy is was for you to enter the ashram. I say that not in any put-down way, just from the knowledge of knowing other women who had to wait and wait to enter, and others who while very devoted, being denied admittance. You must have had "SRF ashram karma!" As for the basis for the underlying unity between the two seemingly unrelated wisdom traditions (I don't think Hinduism is even a religion) I've found myself wondering as well. Some Christians have attacked Yogananda as a "syncretist"; meaning to take a little bit here and little bit there and making the text say something it doesn't. They also attack him for, in their view, taking certain biblical verses out of context (mainly the New Testament), and in doing so not being faithful to the "original" meaning (kinda ironic isn't it?). Verses like, "If thine eye be single,....", or "the kingdom of heaven is within...," or, his interpretations of some of John's Gospel, have been cited on various websites I've seen. They, on the other hand, seem very fundamental in their views, which means to me, viewing Hindu's and their "religion" as worst than devil worship: "occult." Other yogi's have also interpreted the Sermon on the Mount in much the way that Yogananda did. They have too, when you look at from their lives. They've experienced directly, through their yogic practices, the underlying truths which Jesus pronounced. Also, Jesus himself, it seems spent half his time explaining himself and his teachings to his own chosen disciples. They, the chosen 12, were apparently spiritually dense; consequently, he had to speak in parables so they could grasp it. Some, of course, were more advanced than others, a reading of the New Testament reveals, but there were others who just didn't get it. It was only after his death and resurrection that they were "annoited" by Spirit and could then clearly grasp their own guru's teachings. My belief is Yogananda was already able to grasp Jesus' teachings as a Hindu savant. He also grasped through his guru's instructions, the underlying teachings of Krishna. In his preface to his commentaries on the Gita he details that training and how he learned to apply it to understand the hidden meaning of Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna (which he wrote had little to do with a historical battle on the plains of Kurushetra), and everything to do with how one can reclaim their lost Self-hood. There are other reasons I've "bought" Yogananda's teachings on this issue, but they, in part have little to do with Yogananda directly. As SoulCircle wrote there are other disciples whose "books" were systematically left out of what became the New Testament, by those who were then in charge of the Church. Many of those books directly challenged their dogma. The scholar, Elaine Pagels, has written about this very eloquently. She has a new book, on the best seller lists, about Thomas' gospel, and the background of it being left out of the New Testament. Also she's written about the other books, in her study of the Nag Hamadi library. So, at the very least, we are left with an incomplete picture of Jesus and his teachings. We also have been indoctrinated for centuries to fear anything that differs from the "official" version. Yogananda, in this light, was a very brave man to come here to this country and teach what he did. That he found an audience was a testament, in my eyes, to a hunger for direct experience of higher knowledge and awareness that the "church" had just spent the last 2 thousand years suppressing. But in the end I believe that one should not take anything on blind belief. And Yogananda's teachings, at least in theory, give one the ability to contact Truth, which is always liberating from narrow, stuffy, conventionality and commonness.
soulcircle Registered User (7/20/03 7:33 am) Reply	thank you Xnun Hi Guests and All, Lobo, your post is so pleasant and has content and fullness that is a gift. First, i am still rereading your post Xnun, and Lobo, I hope to find time to converse with the nuggets you bring up in your post, in a later post. ~~~~~~~~~ Guests, two things in the menu item What can We do to Help SRF I have added a topic, you are ranked that takes a point from Xnun's post to express a few opinions secondly, Xnun's post above is worth at least one careful reread, as I am doing, and now here's one phrase of Xnun's I find essential, beautiful and haunting in its universality.. *Quote:* a deep desire for honesty and genuineness we reflect back on lovingly perfect moments in our lives sometimes traveling or even moving to seek the return of this pleasure and content comfort sometimes making life decisions sometimes divorcing or marrying to have it we reflect back on passion, beauty, music and art, and deep peace, community and we seek it more fully by joining SRF or by practicing certain disciplines and sometimes we take a second look within at this spring of honesty and geniuneness and drink....................................bottoms up and sometimes we have a friend like Xnun remind us and for you, Xnun, Xtranewandwondrousfriend and for you Xnun for that reminder everyone thanks you may the circle be unbroken and may the circles be honest and genuine circle Edited by: soulcircle at: 7/20/03 7:50 am
member108 Registered User (7/20/03 5:12 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C While for some years it was difficult to get into the SRF ashram, these days there is no real waiting list. They are being more careful you are a type of person they want inside (Walrus readers will know what that might mean) but there is no longer the waiting list we all knew of in the 70's and 80's. The last I heard the waiting list was ZERO. There are a number of empty rooms at the head quarters, a large number.
Xnun Registered User (7/20/03 9:35 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Hi Lobo, I know what you mean about me having had "SRF ashram karma." I became aware of this myself later when I talked with people about their experiences of wanting to enter, and it was one of the factors that made me stay when my gut feeling said, "Get out of here!" -- But continue this thought a little -- doesn't it imply that everyone moaning on this site has that same "SRF ashram karma" in one way or another, which would make this whole site a mute point??? Why complain about karma, when it's just that -- karma? Isn't it like a dog trying to bite his own karma-tail, turning in circles all the time? And even supposedly highly evolved beings with all their advanced techniques and vibs, like DM who seems to have amassed a lot of bad karma in this incarnation again, keeping turning in the same circle? What a wonderful teaching! But I am still wondering, can anyone explain how the Holy Science proves the underlying unity between Hinduism and Christianity? If I'm not mistaken, this book was written for this purpose, but IMHO it just demonstrated SY's world view. I am not a lawyer to know what a lawyer's understanding of a "proof" would be, but in school I learnt already in 5th grade during my math-lessons how to prove something, for example the question whether two different formulas were about the same thing: You had to take both formulas and strip them down to their basics and show that under the bottom line both formulas said the same. The emphasis is on "both." I think I understood pretty well what the Holy Science says (to one degree or another, having attended various classes on this subject in the ashram as well), but I never saw how this related to Christianity, and now I think this book is just another version of the naked emperor. But maybe I missed something here? When I first read the AY and things started becoming hard to believe (in particular the return of SY after his death and his talk about those lokas), I decided that, because I had trusted PY this far, I would take it a step further and trust him also where I had absolutely no way of verifying his statements. I decided to trust him blindly. As I implied before, when I came across the SRF teachings, I had very little knowledge and understanding of the Bible, unlike some of you who seem to have been brought up in Christian environments. And so I absorbed everything in PY's teachings very eagerly, with a deep hunger to learn about God. But even with my enthusiastic and trusting approach to PY's teachings, some interpretations of Bible passages didn't seem to go very far when I would look them up in the Bible. (Oh my, seems that neither communist nor SRF training have been able to completely rid me of this independent-thinking streak. ) As I see it, you can either accept the Bible or reject it. Either you believe it, or you say it is all forgery and completely dismiss it. That would IMO be an honest approach. But if some teachings say that the Bible is unreliable and the next moment use it to substantiate their own claims, this makes those teachings -- what? -- reliable? -- well, not in my eyes. For example here is what the Bible says who Jesus Christ is (I don't give the SRF-answer to this question because I assume that we all know it). As far as I understood from my studies during the past two years, the Bible says that Jesus Christ is also God -- God the Son -- together with God, the Father, and God, the Holy Spirit (in a way like ice, liquid water, and steam being able to coexist and still all being water) -- which would explain why the Bible sometimes says that God created the world and sometimes that Jesus created the world. Thus, according to the Bible, Jesus is the Creator and not a created being. According to the Bible, he himself claimed that, and the Pharisees and Sadducees very well understood his claim -- that's why they always got so mad at him. So, to say that Jesus was just a "good" teacher or "good" man is absolutely contradictory in itself. If someone claims to be God in the absolute sense, then he is either a madman, or a liar, or God in the flesh. If he is the latter, then calling him just "good" would be -- what? -- belittleling?, denigrating? -- I guess I don't find the right word, English not being my first language; but if he is just a madman or liar, then why would anyone want to call him "good," or an example, etc.? Maybe I am a fundamentalist or an extremist or whatever, but I think to make the Bible say anything else about Christ than what the Bible says who Christ is, is a very dishonest approach. It's like saying, "Well, I don't believe the Bible, but for some strange reason I cannot ignore it either, so I just make it say what I want it to say." Really strong ethics! And I have another important question to raise. I guess you all know the story in the AY where PY stood in front of the temple of Kali with another religious man, quoting off-handedly Solomon: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." (Ec. 3:17) When I first read the AY, I didn't know that this was a quote from the Bible, but it sure sounded very impressive to me. But when I started studying the Bible and came across this quote, I couldn't help but wonder if PY, who admitted to have never been a very ambitious scholar and had hardly any grasp on English or Western culture while living in India, would indeed have quoted the Bible so off-handedly to a fellow Indian instead of quoting from the Vedas for example? I discovered that the AY has many direct or indirect quotes from the Bible. Were they all added to impress people raised in a Christian culture? So the inevitable question for me is, "How much of the AY is really true?" After all, this is the very book on which I had based the decision to trust PY. So for me this is not a question to be taken lightly. Well, but let's not get too far off track. I still would like to know if I have missed anything in the Holy Science that could count as proof? And I also want to express my appreciation of this Walrus site! Among my friends, there is absolutely nobody to discuss my SRF past with. Sure, people know my story, but who can really understand unless you have been there? I mean, I lived in the ashram, and there are many stories to tell, some of which being really hilarious if you know the environment. But when something comes to my mind and I try to tell friends, usually I am the only one laughing. And that goes for everything related to the ashram and SRF -- people just give me blank stares, completely unable to relate to my experiences and maybe secretely wondering why I would want to talk about a cult. So I am really grateful to this site for the opportunity to share thoughts and information in a save environment! Group therapy, or what would you call this?
X Insider Registered User (7/21/03 1:29 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Hi, Xnun, Just alerted my other x-nun friend about your post, since you asked to know what other nuns left shortly after you did. She did not want to reply, though, since she said that you could not possibly be a former nun from east Germany who was at Mt. Wash when you said you were. She wonders if you are Marcia, the postulant who converted to Christianity when she left?? I do not know who this is, but thought you might want to respond to her. She said she feels reluctant, at this point, to answer your "people question" until she knows who you are. Seems to me it is up to you to do whatever you like! But I told her I would forward the message.
member108 Registered User (7/21/03 5:31 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C You two can communicate using the embedded Walrus email facility without revealing email accounts or names.
Borg108 Registered User (7/21/03 9:04 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C XNun, I have a feeling that the reason you ask the question concerning the similarities between original Hindooism and original Christianity as brought out in the Holy Science, is not so much to receive an answer as it is to make a statement (as reflected elsewhere in your postings) that SRF uses Christianity as it suits their purpose in order to attract Westerners into their fold. I could be mistaken though, so I will try to answer your question. It is actually a very good one if one really cares to go deeply into the subject. The first two chapters of the Holy Science is indeed Sri Yukteswar's take on the yugas, diet, hindoo cosmology, etc. The rest of the book, however, contains mostly salient points from the yoga sutras of Patanjali. Other than a cursory treatment of the yoga sutras in Guruji's Gita commentary, this is the only exposure SRFers get to this important scripture that underlies the entire philosophy and practice of yoga. By yoga, I am not referring to just meditation practices. Bhakti, or devotion, is certainly a form of yoga as pointed out in the Gita. This is the yoga that most Christian saints practice. We all have to become interiorized to make that conscious contact with spirit. Whether it's done through prayer or meditation or some other form of spiritual practice, the goal is the same, and what one experiences along the way is also the same. Swami Vivekananda once said, "See Christ, then you are a Christian." It is that close, personal experience with spirit that Sri Yukteswar is talking about. He points to these interior perceptions that are mentioned in the Bible on pages 20, 21, 52-55, and 64, along with the Hindoo counterparts. Sri Yukteswar twice mentions the true spiritual baptism that occurs when one reaches a certain state of evolution and is able to direct his organs of sense inward. One then hears the Om (or Amen) vibration everywhere and achieves true salvation. SRF ministers do not talk much about this, although at least a few of them do understand it. (Bro Achalanda once asked me if I ever heard the Om sound with open ears.) Christians without deep realization have interpreted many of these esoteric inner truths in a external way. Baptism, salvation, the holy spirit, and repentance all exist in the inner world. Those without deep understanding have developed external counterparts of them. The book of Revelations has symbolic references to the chakras and other inner truths for those who can understand them. Sri Yukteswar has made these same kinds of references in a more direct manner, and has further identified them in both the Christian and Hindoo esoteric traditions.
chrisparis Registered User (7/21/03 9:27 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C There is an alternative to believing the Bible is either all true or all false. It is to understand that the Bible was subject to extensive editorial review, especially during the early days of Christianity. It is therefore partially authentic and partially propoganda. During the first to the third centuries, Irenaeus and Athanasius worked dilligently to create a solid dogmatic base for the new religion. Athanasius in the third century sent a letter to all Christian centers ordering the destruction of all "heretical" documents. These documents included such works as the "The Gospel of Thomas", which, until this time, was as popular and accepted a Gospel as any of the other four. It was also at this time that it became the accepted wisdom that there were four and only four evangelists and four and only four gospels. It was also not until the Gospel of John that it became accepted truth that Jesus Christ was THE son of God, the only begotten son, the only path to Heaven. This perspective comes from John, and can be seen in opposition to the Gospel of THomas. In Thomas, Jesus exhorts his disciples to find God within, to go tot he root of their being, to their beginning. John says "Believe in Me. I am the Way. No one comes to the Father but through ME". John's Jesus (and ONLY in John) chastises Thomas for his doubt. Elaine Pagels sees John as a later gospel written specifically to refute the Gospel of Thomas. Interesting stuff. As a Christian, I feel that the Bible has to be read critically. No doubt this makes me a sinner. Oh well....
Xnun Registered User (7/21/03 10:13 am) Reply	Re: Identification X Insider and all, Thanks for the response. This seems to be getting an interesting thread after all. But for now I would just like to address X Insiders doubts. -- I just tried to send you a message, but your inbox is disabled. Any alternative way to contact you??? In the meantime I can give you a sample of my German skills, if you like.
dawnrays Registered User (7/21/03 10:40 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C X-nun, There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people, all of us being fountains and channels for the Holy Spirit, if we could but see ourselves in this light. It is also another problem, as Chrisparis has pointed out, that due to the at times self serving and ignorant nature of many human beings, even the purest teachings may be exploited and edited by unscrupulous individuals. All the more reason to trust no one (not even us at the Walrus!) to give you the ultimate answer as it is usually a bit more complex than yes (real) or no (fake). Contradictory feelings within have a way of working themselves out over time, sometimes even through the (temporary) application of "blind faith". Might I say that in my experience this situation is always temporary? The God within will not allow this often uncomfortable state of being to last forever. The problem is that when you do find the answer for your own true self and path, it may be useless or impossible to explain to others. It also may have no bearing anyway, as we are all so individual (as are our paths). Even the great teachers have problems (obviously) satisfying everybody. That is usually the problem with spiritual discussions of this nature, at times even leading to fights, disagreements, wars, inquisitions and all manner of sundry happenings... Might I suggest a little patience with yourself? According to the Cayce readings, Jesus in His former lifetimes was also the entities known as King David, Joseph and Adam. When a person obtaining a reading from Edgar Cayce requested information on Jesus (Cayce was the Roman Legion turned Christian "Lucius" in that life time) it was replied that the decision for Jesus to become a world savior was made after he "fell" in His life time as Adam. So I guess in this way He was working out His karma. Another difficult question though, is can you really separate karma? When you are empathetic, does not the suffering of another become yours? If you are extremely spiritual, sensitive and empathetic, do not such things become an almost unbearable burden that you seek to allieviate in order to relieve yourself? Joy and suffering are both contagious. You cannot be a bearer of either without infecting others with the same. It is my belief, and I know it is not everybody's, that Master (Yogananda) and Jesus are the same entity. dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 7/21/03 11:10 am
Xnun Registered User (7/21/03 1:42 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Borg, Thanks for your thoughtful reply! You are addressing the point that surprised me most when I read the Holy Science -- these sutras -- because from a book that is to prove the unity of Hind./Chr. I would have expected sutras vs. Bible verses. But the only thing Christian in this book is the Christian terminology, IMHO. But probably I am just too external. Hope you are right though. chrisparis, Given all your claims about the Book of John are true, that it is nowhere near "God-inspired" (as the whole Bible claims to be) but fake that was written to refute Thomas, then why use John at all to build your teachings on him, like "Word" in John 1:1 standing for the Aum-vibration? Why not just say, "Forget about John, my own teachings are powerful enough!"? Why use another person's foul apple if you own a whole garden full of good apples? dawnrays, I think this is very good advise to not even trust ourselves. However, one point of your post confused me a bit because I had read in your posts regarding Laurie Pratt how important the exact birthday (and hour?) of a person is to do the Cayce reading. So far I had thought that not even the exact year of Jesus' birth was known, let alone the rest. How was this reading done without this vital information? X Insider, I've been thinking about what information I could offer publicly to help build trust. So here is some info that wouldn't know because she left in 1997: A postulant called _ _ _ _ left for England in autumn of 1999. One of the two nuns, who left together one night in autumn of 2000, had become a Bni. only a short time before that. The reason why your friend might not know that there was an east German nun around (although there are, or maybe were, even two senior nuns from east Germany there), is that I was probably already in a secondary ashram when she entered. -- So, if you or your friend are willing to contact me, my inbox is enabled to receive messages; maybe you could then enable yours as well. Edited by: Xnun at: 7/24/03 9:19 am
dawnrays Registered User (7/21/03 2:14 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C x-nun, I think you might have me confused with somebody else concerning the Laurie Pratt post, I am not an astrologer and really don't know much about her (Laurie Pratt). Edgar Cayce was a gifted psychic, but also not an astrologer. He was as a matter of fact a Sunday school teacher and a devout Christian (Disciples of Christ). He went into trances and did readings for people, often concerning health problems. His readings and remedies were extremely accurate. Many of his remedies are in popular use today. (I believe he did have a great respect for astrology, went into it in his readings, but did not put much faith in "modern" astrology.) He also did many past life readings as most peoples' problems, phobias, etc. are tied in with thier past lives. Often times he would discourse on the Biblical era, particularly if requested to. He often referred to the "Akashic records" in his readings. These are records of all events in the Universe and are accessible in the way the our sub and superconscious minds are (but not always apparently so or without some effort.) He lived in the Virginia Beach area and died around 1947. I believe he was originally from Kentucky. He burned himself out doing readings in the world war two era for families desperate for information about thier loved ones in the war and died somewhat prematurely. dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 7/21/03 2:29 pm
ranger20 Registered User (7/21/03 3:03 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Borg writes: *Quote:* I have a feeling that the reason you ask the question concerning the similarities between original Hindooism and original Christianity as brought out in the Holy Science, is not so much to receive an answer as it is to make a statement (as reflected elsewhere in your postings) that SRF uses Christianity as it suits their purpose in order to attract Westerners into their fold. After a week or so of being as slow moving as my dog in the 100+ degree heat, suddenly this board, via this thread in particular, is drawing really complex content at a fast and furious pace. I have another $0.02. I have been thinking a lot on the ways that SRF presents Christianity. A year ago, I had given a friend the AY. (I've never been a prostelytizer (sp?), and he is maybe the third person I have given the book to in 20+ years). He asked about the lessons, and for some reason, I took him to the India Night at our Center. That was a turn off for him. He later said "Once again, they've deified the teacher." Initially I thought he simply didn't understand the concept of avatar, etc. Lately, however, I've come to wonder if his spiritual survival instinct didn't kick in appropriately. Come to think of it, how wierd for a civilian to suddenly be thrown into a crowd of many bliss bunnies, many in Indian garb, prefacing many a sentence as "Well, Master says..." Time was, I would have run too! Now the point (and there is one), is that SRF seems to be somewhat pointedly supporting this "deification" of PY. Yogananda's writings, even in whatever edited state they are, seem to point again and again beyond himself. "Give it to God," "Keep your mind on God." But the tone of recent mags, and the last several Convo's I've been to is "Give it to Master," "Keep your mind on Master." Think Anandamoy, Vishwananda. At the same time, (and this has become a source of some distress for me, during the process of really tuning in to my own Christian roots), I think there is a diminshment of the role of Jesus. No mention ever made of Jesus, without immediately focusing on the "Christ Consciousness." Jesus "just" a man, who worked real hard in previous lives, etc. Well I expect that's true, and overall it's a positive message, but am I just imagining it, or is there, as SRF presents it, a tendency toward the "deification" side of Paramahansaji, and the "humanization" side of Jesus? Others have mentioned the polarity recently cited in Elaine Pagels Beyond Belief, between the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of John. Thomas, and others of the Gnostic writings align more with the SRF position, that these states of consciousness are available to all, as our birthright. John, on the other hand, writes of Jesus as unique. Ironic that SRF loves to quote "No one comes to the Father except through me," and state that Jesus was talking of the Christ consciousness, rather than himself as a "unique" son. Now we do not really know what nuance Jesus intended, but it becomes quite clear in Pagels' work that "unique son" was precisely the meaning intended by the author of the Gospel of John! Anyway, I didn't promise coherance, just $0.02, but my question is, does anyone else have the sense that SRF has a tendency to "elevate" the status of PY, and "de-elevate" the status of Jesus?
X Insider Registered User (7/21/03 3:33 pm) Reply	To Xnun I understand you would like to communicate with someone from your ashram days! So I have given your info to the friend I mentioned. Maybe she will come find you via this board.
dawnrays Registered User (7/21/03 3:37 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Ranger, Well, to tell you the truth, as a very devout Catholic (my bad habits not withstanding) I had a number of problems and issues with the whole "Master" concept at first. I never really sensed it was coming from srf per se, but really from the actual writings of Master. I simply couldn't relate to Him (Master) for very many years. I felt guilty and bad, but I really just loved Jesus so much. I did recognize the teachings as being "healthier" than my Catholic roots, particularly as I had had so many problems with it (the church), not excluding many ex-clergy and some mental breakdowns in my family. After my dad committed suicide (after praying on the matter for some time) I jumped on my srf "life preserver". For many more years I continued to relate to Jesus and Master but often came up with dark, sad and even angry feelings. As a relief sometimes, I would concentrate on one of the other Masters (particularly Babaji) and things seemed to lighten up. I've always gotten very fatherly feelings from Sri Yukteswar. A few years ago I had a series of dreams where they both came (separately) and I recognized them to be the same. Things seemed to clear up after that and my thinking and meditations (and actions) became more focused. Also that They or He is unique and special (as we all are, of course) but not always in an enviable way. In my meditations it is my understanding that He or They are a fallen angel, with very heavy karma. Much in the same as we all are of course, but unique in a way in that He was so great and powerful and needed to learn humility. Hope I don't sound like a heretic. But don't we all (need to learn humility?) dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 7/21/03 3:47 pm
ranger20 Registered User (7/21/03 4:28 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C dawnrays, This is really a fascinating post. I have a couple of comments, and a couple of questions, because I didn't understand everything you said, as if you were writing quickly about things long considered. *Quote:* I had a number of problems and issues with the whole "Master" concept at first. I never really sensed it was coming from srf per se, but really from the actual writings of Master. When I first read the AY, I didn't have a problem with "Master." There were some examples that seemed to lodge it in (what I consider) a "right" concept, eg, when asked to heal someone, Lahiri says "I have no power to heal." It is only when the petitioner (Sri Yuketeswar in this episode if I recall) specifies, "Yes, but the God who lives within you has the power to heal," that he consents. As far as where it is coming from, SRF or PY's writings, I guess we'd have to compare specifics. I've got it (emphasis on "MASTER") in Convo notes, and as mentioned, see it less emphasized in the AY, but one way or another, it's out there. Did Master "worship" Sri Yuketesar? I get the sense that he loved, respected, obeyed, was infinitely grateful to his Guru, but that he worshipped Divine Mother. I get the sense that when he was in the body, he deflected worship past himself. Now I think SRF encourages or approves worship of him. Jesus is worshipped and Krishna is worshipped, and they have been by millions, over millenia. Part of that, I suspect, is the process outlined in book two of "God Talks With Arjuna," that collective devotion of that sort creates a "blueprint in the ether." There is not such a blueprint yet for Paramahansa Yogananda, and I sometimes feel that SRF is pushing the river. I find it to be natural to worship Jesus, and unnatural to worship Master, which seems (like most all of my real inner life) to put me at odds with what I imagine a "good" SRF devotee would be like. *Quote:* A few years ago I had a series of dreams where they both came (separately) and I recognized them to be the same. Do you mean Jesus and Paramahansaji? You mentioned Babaji and SY in the preceeding sentence, so I was not sure. You don't sound like a heretic to me - I'm not [think Monty Python] the Spanish Inquisition! You sound like what I imagine myself to be ever more explicitly becoming - someone who is no longer willing to hide the deep and knowing part of the heart under the weight of anyone else's opinion of what he should be.
dawnrays Registered User (7/21/03 6:52 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Ranger, I think what I meant was that I always felt that Master down played Jesus in His writings (at least as a man) and emphasized His teachings or message. I really never minded this so much and I can understand His mission (to clarify and unify the Christian and the Hindu teachings). However, being very Bhakti I find it very difficult not to "worship" and I can certainly relate to your feelings there. I think that srf (as in Gyanamata) really emphasizes the Janana (intellect) yoga. I think this is perfectly natural for some (my husband is one) and very hard for others. I have had several dreams of Master and one of Jesus. When they first started, He always seemed to be trying to tell me something or else He would use symbolism. Sometimes I would "get it", at others it might be months or even years before things would click. They were of different emotional intensities and sometimes they would even frightened me. There are times when we all want our Master to be human (like us) and at others when we don't, believe me. It threatens our safety and security issues to know that a Master can cry for example or even ask for help, appear to be frightened, angry, etc. My feeling from Master/Jesus was one of depth and emotional/spiritual intensity not to be believed. Also of extreme shyness and reserve (on personal matters in particularly). Whenever I have not been sure (but intuitively pretty certain) and have acted on these things, I have always been rewarded with happiness, joy and further enlightenment of my path and often some kind of material "validation". I would also like to say that for me, a large part of the reasons for some of these experiences was my intense concentration for so many years on the same subject. It is my feeling that I have had a recent previous life where I was a cloistered Catholic nun and such intensity was very much a part of my life. I actually think I have spent several as such and am doing the "wife and family thing" in this life to try to balance myself out (but it's not easy). There have actually times in the past where I just wanted my my "cell" back! Also, that early in life, particularly my late teenage to early 20's, I experienced such intense self loathing and hatred (largely because of my "sins") in this life that I simply found it easier to concentrate on somebody else. Happily, I am past those feelings now. dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 7/21/03 8:31 pm
Xnun Registered User (7/21/03 10:29 pm) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C X Insider, Thanks for your help!! dawnrays, >>In my meditations it is my understanding that He or They are a fallen angel, with very heavy karma. Much in the same as we all are of course, but unique in a way in that He was so great and powerful and needed to learn humility.<< Who were you referring to? Sounds almost like a Bible quote to me -- look up Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-17. Sorry for getting you confused with someone else! I spent the past days reading so many posts here that when you mentioned the Cayce reading, about which there had been said a lot in this Tara Ma thread, I assumed you were the expert who had spoken there. -- So, I learnt once again that I need to go back and check my resources before saying something. Ranger >>At the same time, (and this has become a source of some distress for me, during the process of really tuning in to my own Christian roots), I think there is a diminshment of the role of Jesus. No mention ever made of Jesus, without immediately focusing on the "Christ Consciousness." Jesus "just" a man, who worked real hard in previous lives, etc. Well I expect that's true, and overall it's a positive message, but am I just imagining it, or is there, as SRF presents it, a tendency toward the "deification" side of Paramahansaji, and the "humanization" side of Jesus? ... Ironic that SRF loves to quote "No one comes to the Father except through me," and state that Jesus was talking of the Christ consciousness, rather than himself as a "unique" son. Now we do not really know what nuance Jesus intended, but it becomes quite clear in Pagels' work that "unique son" was precisely the meaning intended by the author of the Gospel of John!<< Thank you, Ranger, for those statements! I had started to think I am the only one on this board with this impression. My way of expressing myself (and hence of thinking ) may be way more down to earth than everybody else's writing on this board, but your statement reflects exactly the impression I got when I finally took it on myself to study the Bible for myself. Sorry I made such a bad job of the quoting, but everything necessary to do that suddenly disappeared, including the emoticons on the right side??? (The reason I could use the emoticons anyway is that I have stored them elsewhere.)
chrisparis Registered User (7/22/03 5:57 am) Reply	Re: "original" Hinduism vs. "original" C Dear Xnun, Actually, the ideas about John come from Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief".

Page 1 2

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - SRF Teachings and Ideals -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.