Conference hydra::dejavu

    RE: -.1
    
    Don't mean to be picky, but more elaboration is required on what you 
    consider a "major religion".
    
    My background is Roman Catholicism, which is generally accepted as a 
    "major religion", and which has always allowed for what we term 
    supernatural (can't get more supernatural than a resurrection   ;-) ).  
    What we term miracles is an integral part of the RC faith, which can be 
    considered supernatural; at least with our present day understanding.   
    
    The bible versus in the New Testament related to what the bible calls
    the gifts of the Spirit could be considered supernatural or psychic.
    The RC faith does hold there are two supernatural forces, God, or good,
    and the Devil, or evil.  There is a whole teaching on testing whether
    a gift is of God, or the Devil, as both have the ability to bestow
    such gifts on mortals, according to RC teaching.
    
    I know of some teachings of other faiths, but lack sufficient knowledge of
    them to speak authoritatively on them.  Perhaps others in the file can
    offer better insight.  
    
    Peace.
    
    Bill

Bill,

>    Don't mean to be picky, but more elaboration is required on what you 
>    consider a "major religion".
    
>    My background is Roman Catholicism, which is generally accepted as a 
>    "major religion", and ...

	I see you've understood what I meant by a "major religion".

	Interestingly enough, I raised the same question with someone yesterday,
	and she (an ex-Catholic, now Baptist) said the Catholic Church would
	have very little to do with the Supernatural / Psychic.

	The reason I asked the question was that I'm looking for a flexible
	religion (one that won't mind me asking/doubting/questioning) and I
	figured one of the best way to do this would be to test the attitude
	of that religion towards something controversial.

	I don't want to get into an argument along the lines of
	"religion X says this, religion Y say this...", as far as I'm concerned,
	each religion places emphasis on different aspects of what appears to be
	a similar "root". This is understandable due to [mis]interpretation,
	ambiguity, translation, etc etc.


	If anyone thinks I'm mistaken, *please* let me know - I'm not one
	to take offence, and I'm new at all this.

As always, seeking the truth,
Pete.

    Try the Unitarian/Universalist religion.  They sponsor the UU PSI
    Symposium.  

    justme....jacqui

    I don't know much about this, but my impression is that most religions 
    consider these things similarly to the way they look at mental illnesses
    and other exceptional things, either as miracles and signs of
    grace, or equally as signs of falling from grace.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    
    Pete,
    
    My opinion of these things is probably different from yours, but I
    would only seek to join a religion if I first found out that I already
    believe the things they espouse. I think finding a religion which
    "won't mind" if you believe in other things is putting the cart before
    the horse, so to speak.
    
    You may need to belong to a particular religion, and I respect that.
    Long ago though, I realized that there is no one organized religion
    for me. The search is the exciting part for me....
    
    
    Marilyn  

    Mainstream Christian denominations oppose ceremonial magic, and the
    more conservative they are, the more firmly they oppose them.  Common
    modern practices that fall in this category are mostly forms of
    fortune-telling or closely related to it -- mediums/channelers, ouija
    boards, crystal-gazing, Tarot reading, palmistry, horoscopes.
    
    There is less concensus about other kinds of paranormality -- research
    into parapsychology, UFOs, crop circles, "energy work," and the like.
    In general, the more conservative a denomination, congregation, or
    individual Christian, the more likely they are to be opposed to having
    anything to do with these less ceremonial forms of the paranormal; they
    will tend to suspect them of being covert forms of ceremonial magic or
    of exposing the researcher to demonic attack.  Less conservative
    mainstream Christians will not be so wary.
    
    This, at least, is my own experience.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

|    In general, the more conservative a denomination, congregation, or
|    individual Christian, the more likely they are to be opposed to having
|    anything to do with these less ceremonial forms of the paranormal; they
|    will tend to suspect them of being covert forms of ceremonial magic or
|    of exposing the researcher to demonic attack.  Less conservative
|    mainstream Christians will not be so wary.
    
    Yes, when I write about hypnosis, which was traditionally associated
    with the paranormal in some ways, I sometimes receive comments from
    people who appear to be very conservative concerned Christians warning 
    me about leaving myself exposed to demonic influences by even studying 
    the subject.
    
    								todd

    
    Pete,
    
    I'd highly recommend you read "Power Of The Myth", by Joseph
    Campbell.  This book is the transcript of a 6-part series that
    was an interview with him done by Bill Moyers back in 1986/87
    or so, and is shown every once in a while on our public
    broadcast stations here in the US.  Campbell died in 1987.
    The world lost a truly brilliant soul.
    
    Campbell's other works are brilliant as well, including, "The 
    Hero With 1000 Faces", his 4-part Mythology collection, and
    many others.  The easiest one to begin with is "Power Of The
    Myth" though.
    
    A side story - one of my dear Hindu friends who is in his late
    50s has studied the Hindu Sanskrit texts for a large part of his 
    life.  He is also head of research at a scientific company and 
    holds a post-doctoral degree in his field.  He came to the idea 
    of wholeness, not through the Sanskrit texts, but by encountering
    David Bohm's works.  Through these works, suddenly his Hindu 
    religion made a lot more sense, and the bulk of his work in this
    area has been to explain the links between science and religion.
    He does this brilliantly.  And yet, I knew he was missing one more
    critical link, which was the link between the idea of the energy
    body (the chakra system) and his scientific and Hindu perspectives.
    
    Unfortunately, I was not able to assist him in understanding this
    link intellectually, though I made some progress experientially when
    he injured his back, shoulder and arm, and I did some energy work on 
    him.  He did feel it somewhat, and much to his amazement gained 
    immediate mobility in the use of his arm, whereas it was too stiff 
    to move beforehand.  All that happened without my touching his 
    physical form except on a few points extremely lightly.
    
    Recently the Campbell interviews were on public television again,
    and I insisted that he watch at least one of them.  It was the one
    where Campbell talked about the chakra system.  Campbell explained it
    in such a way that my friend 'got it', and now he wants to feel his
    chakras directly.  I said I could help him to do that.  (;^)
    
    Anyway, given how the interviews provided my friend with such immediate
    insight, they might do so for you as well.
    
    Cindy

    
    I have to agree with Marilyn. I have been doing my own searching off
    and on for years. I was raised a Methodist and joined a fundamentalist
    church when I was a teenager (that only was for a short time), and my
    husband is Catholic (we are a "mixed marriage" so one priest so nicely
    put). So I have been coming to terms with all of the stuff I had learned
    over the years. Bigotry from Catholics because I wasn't one when I was a
    child and the fundamentalist church was big into "laying on hands" and
    "talking in tongues" but they were so wrapped up into "church" and
    not what spiritality is suppose to be about. I could get into on how
    I feel about the Catholic Church but I won't because I have learned
    to respect all faiths even if I don't agree. So in the end, I always
    say, "I don't need a church to talk to my God" Also I've never been
    one to follow all the "rules" that they have. 
    
    I don't want to offend...but I have to say this, I think what the
    churches (organized religion) have done with the Christian Bible
    over the years is a disgrace. I think some of the true meanings
    have been lost or changed over the years to fit the churches needs.
    
    Sorry, I had to say that.
    
    		Terry   

    re: .8, Cindy,
    
|    life.  He is also head of research at a scientific company and 
|    holds a post-doctoral degree in his field.  He came to the idea 
|    of wholeness, not through the Sanskrit texts, but by encountering
|    David Bohm's works.  Through these works, suddenly his Hindu 
|    religion made a lot more sense, and the bulk of his work in this
|    area has been to explain the links between science and religion.
|    He does this brilliantly.  And yet, I knew he was missing one more
    
    Care to mention what he is working on ?
    
    								todd

              
    Re.10
    
    Todd,
    
    My friend is VP of research at Koch Membrane.  It's the second largest
    privately held company in the US, bigger than Digital. I'm not sure of
    the actual details of his job, however he has mentioned that they
    make membranes of all kinds including some that can be used in the 
    body, and others filter out the red from red wine, for example.
    
    Cindy

    Pete:
    
    RE:  .1 and .2
    
    Actually, myself and the other person you spoke to about the Roman
    Catholic Church are correct in our understandings of the RCC's stand
    on supernatural/psychic activity.  
    
    On a layman level, no, the RCC does not readily accept just any old
    event.  The RCC, being a true bureaucratic autocracy does have a
    process in place to judge supernatural/psychic events.  Basically,
    the event(s) requires Vatican sanction, which is difficult to come by.
    
    In order for a person to be cannonized to what the RCC calls sainthood,
    among other things is "proof" of what is considered miracles.  
    
    There's a lot more to it, but basically, it ain't so unless the holy
    fathers say it's so (holy fathers being the elders, or hierarchy in
    Rome).
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Peace.
    
    Bill

|    the actual details of his job, however he has mentioned that they
|    make membranes of all kinds including some that can be used in the 
|    body, and others filter out the red from red wine, for example.
    
    How does he investigate the links between science and religion by doing 
    this sort of work ?  Did I misunderstand what you were saying ?
    
    Or is he making water from wine ?  B-)
    
    							todd

    Re.13
    
    Todd,
    
    Yes, there is a miscommunication somewhere.
    
    It's not so much his actual 'work' today, but his entire career which
    includes being a physics professor in a university in India several
    decades ago.  Reading the works of people like David Bohm helped him 
    to see the links between science and religion (Hinduism) at the direct 
    level, as opposed to resorting to 'faith' to explain things.  
    
    His ongoing 'work', then, (in life, vs. his actual day-to-day job) is 
    to show others these links...especially those who believe (on both 
    sides) that there is virtually no connection between science and 
    religion.
    
    Cindy

	What's a pantheist?

    Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe, the universe is God. 
    It follows that, in pantheistic systems, all finite creatures such as
    individual people, beasts, rocks, atoms, worlds, etc., are all parts or
    aspects of God.
    
    Many forms of Hinduism are pantheist, as are many of the forms of
    spirituality in the New Age movement (which mostly derive from
    Hinduism).  Many Western philosophers have been pantheists, too,
    including Spinoza.
    
    Mainstream Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all reject pantheism and
    draw a sharp distinction between the Creator and His creation. 
    However, they affirm that God is present everywhere and in all things,
    even though He is not identical with these created things.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re.16        
    
    Hinduism is not a pantheist religion.  That is an extremely common
    misconception. 
    
    There is an ancient Hindu saying that:
    
     	"God is One, the saints call it by many names." 
    
    (Don't have the Sanskrit handy right now.)  Vedanta - the condensed 
    philosophical overview of the Vedas - says that God is both manifest 
    and unmanifest, and so when a Hindu is worshipping God in front of a
    statue, they are not worshipping the statue itself, but rather what
    is behind it (the unmanifest).  If they were worshipping the statue
    thinking that the *statue alone* was God, this would be pantheism.
    
    There is a more correct word to describe Hinduism, and that is
    'panentheism', which means God is in the Universe, and the Universe 
    is in God. 
    
    In Hinduism, there are indeed many 'gods and goddesses', however it 
    is recognized that they are all but aspects of the One, or Brahman.  
    
    Cindy

    Re .17:
    
    You describe Hinduism as "panentheist" rather than "pantheist," but the
    definition you give for "panentheism" is not the definition I have
    heard for that term.  As I understood it, panentheism was the belief
    that the universe was *part* of God, but not all of Him.
    
    Certainly the Bhagavad-Gita sounds pantheist to me, in its climactic
    passages.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    On the subject of important distinctions :
    
    Certainly Hinduism is more congenial toward the theogenic idea
    (the seed of divinity within each person), than most (mainstream) 
    Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are, and Gnosticism and Hermeticism are 
    even more accepting of or encouraging of this idea.  This is probably at 
    least as much a crucial distinction as the degree to which God is
    identified with the universe or set apart from it, since it has
    a direct effect on how the individual 'soul' is perceived in
    relation to the greater cosmos.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Re.18
    
    >panentheism was the belief that the universe was *part* of God, but
    >not all...
    
    Yes, that's true.  God is both Manifest (the Universe), and Unmanifest
    (Field of All Possibilities).  
    
    In a nondual state of consciousness (which is, I believe, even beyond
    the panentheistic definition), one realizes both of these states
    (manifest and unmanifest), and realizes also that everything - absolutely 
    everything is God.  This is a rare event for most people though.  So, in 
    a dual state which is more common, there is the view that God is somehow 
    separate from Creation, but permeating it (more of the panentheistic 
    view.)  
    
    Still, Hindus realize that a manifest statue/idol (or icon - same thing) 
    is not the totality of God (the true pantheistic view), but rather a 
    representation of God in the physical form, much like a photograph is but 
    a 2-dimensional image of a real 3-dimensional person, place, or thing.  
    To take this one step further, the 3-dimensional statue (idol/icon) of 
    God is but a representation of the Infinite Being in the physical
    world.
    
    A good book to read on this topic is, "Vedanta - Voice Of Freedom", by
    Swami Vivekananda, forward by Swami Chetanananda.  
    
    Can you go into detail about the B-G verses?  Unfortunately I don't
    have a copy with me at the moment, but even in my readings I have not 
    come to the conclusion that you have.  
    
    Cindy
    

Re .20:

"Absolutely everything is God" is a very succinct definition of PANtheism.
I think there is confusion here about the use of the term "universe."
I meant it as "absolutely everything," "whatever is," and did not mean to 
limit it, for instance, to the observable cosmos.

Since PANENtheism means that the (rest of the) universe is part of God, I
don't see how "the view that God is somehow separate from Creation, but
permeating it" can be "more of the panentheistic view."  It would be like
saying I was separate from, but permeating, my arm, or the left hemisphere of
my brain, or my sense of humor (should that prove to exist...) 

I can't give much detail about the Bhagavad-Gita verses.  I just remember 
that, at the climax of the vision, Krishna describes himself in terms that 
sounded very much like saying he was everything.  I'll try to find the 
passages.

Re .19:

Yes, a religion's teaching on the relationship between the soul and God is 
probably at least as important as its teaching on the relationship between God 
and the cosmos.  In monotheistic religions, blessedness is typically described 
as enjoying God's love; in pantheistic religions, it is typically described as
fusion with God or realizing one's identification with God.

Earl Wajenberg

                      
    Re.21
    
    Given that your definition of PANtheism is "Absolutely everything is
    God", and given that Krishna said he is everything, then yes, your
    conclusion makes sense, and your argument is logical, deductive,
    rational, and even sound.
    
    Except that Krishna was making that statement from the state of nondual
    consciousness.  So your definition for 'everything' and his definition
    for 'everything', are different.  Krishna was not talking just about
    his physical form, by the way.
    
    As for 'absolutely everything' = 'whatever is', I believe the piece I'm
    also including in the equation is:
    
    	'absolutely everything' = 'whatever is' + 'whatever can be'
    
    Cindy
                      

    Re .22:
    
    I never for a moment imagined that Krishna was just talking about his
    physical form.
    
    ESW

    
    Re.23
    
    Then somewhere, the definitions are not matching.
    
    In the Christian notesfile (and other places), pantheism has been
    denounced (as you mentioned), and it has been associated with idolatry
    - the case of the people worshipping the golden calf in the OT (yes?)
    as if the form itself - and only the form - were God.  Taking this
    idea further, they point to the statues in the Hindu temples saying
    that (and in fact it is true) the priests bathe them, clothe them, and
    offer food to them and treat them as if they *are* God, and not a
    physical representation of the totality of God.
    
    To me, pantheism is defined when there are separate gods that are not
    part of the whole, but many in number with no One unifying force behind
    them.  Hinduism, then, does fit the idea that there are separate gods
    and goddesses, however behind them is the 'Hero With 1000 Faces', to
    quote Joseph Campbell, and therefore does not fit the pantheism
    idea of separateness (physical form, nature energies, etc.)
    
    Cindy  

RE: .24

    Cindy, you seem to be confusing "polytheism" with "pantheism" which
    is, at its root necessarily monotheistic -- though, as in the case
    of Hinduism, it may take an outwardly polytheistic form.

				    Topher

    Re .24:
    
    Then the folk in the Christian conferences were confusing pantheism,
    polytheism, and idolatry, which are three distinct concepts.  You can
    have each of them without the others, or you can have them in any
    combination.
    
    I have run into confusions between "pantheism" and "polytheism" before,
    I suppose based on their similarity of sound.  The fact that the
    world's largest pantheistic religion -- Hinduism -- is (or looks)
    polytheist at the popular level probably compunds the confusion.
    
    Also, monotheism is opposed to both pantheism and polytheism.  (Yes,
    pantheism is technically a form of monotheism, but "monotheism" usually
    refers to belief in God as a being distinct from the rest of the
    world.)  People often lump their opponents together.  So some
    Christians, speaking or writing hastily, dealing with unfamiliar terms,
    may well muddle the two words.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re.24 and .25
    
    No, I'm not confusing them.  I'll enter some passages from the book,
    "The Spiritual Heritage of India", by Swami Prabhavananda, foreward by
    Huston Smith, later when I have more time.
    
    Cindy

    re: Cindy,
    
|    To me, pantheism is defined when there are separate gods that are not
|    part of the whole, but many in number with no One unifying force behind
|    them.  
    
    If Huston Smith defines pantheism as you did above, I will be very,
    very surprised.  I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
    
    							todd

    
    Here's hoping that you will be, Todd.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    It's not so much the actual definition, but the definition as applied
    to Hinduism that is in question here.
    
    Cindy

    re: .30, Cindy,
|    It's not so much the actual definition, but the definition as applied
|    to Hinduism that is in question here.
    
    	Righto.  You said that Hinduism is not pantheistic and that you were 
    	not confusing pantheism with polytheism when you were talking about
    	pantheism defined as many gods without a 'unifying force.'  I'm
    	interested in seeing how that is applied to Hinduism, which 
    	I always thought of as pantheistic (which I take to be the belief 
    	that God is all as opposed to the Creator of all, etc.).  
    
    					thank you,
    
    					todd

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.117

"The conception of a personal God contained in the Gita has been 
identified by certain modern Indian thinkers with theism, whereas some 
Western writers have called it pantheism.  But it would be a great 
mistake to identify the teachings of the Gita with any Western system.  
God, to traditional Hindu thinkers, is not a mere intellectual 
abstraction, nor a mode of thinking; he is a being realized and 
realizable.  

Western theism and pantheism are at their best intellectual concepts, 
or convictions of the mind, whereas God, as has been clearly asserted 
in all Hindu scriptures, is beyond mind and thought.  When this being
beyond thought is given by the seers a name within the domain of
thought, this name may resemble theism or pantheism, yet it signifies
something vastly different from any intellectualized God of the West." 

From the Foreward by Huston Smith:

"Upanishadic truth is so subtle, so abstruse, that purely objective, 
rational intellects are likely to miss it entirely - off such intellects 
it rolls like water off oil."

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.32-33

"In the following famous hymn, the Purusa Sukta, the Supreme Being, or 
God, is represented as at once concrete ('infinite heads', 'unnumbered 
eyes') and in the highest degree abstract - 'beyond all predicates'.  He 
both is and is not the created universe, for while the created universe 
is part of his being it is not the whole of it:

	'The Universal Being has infinite heads, unnumbered eyes, 
	and unnumbered feet.  Enveloping the universe on every side, 
	he exists transcending it. All this is he - what has been 
	and what shall be.  He is the lord of immortality.  Though 
	he has become all this, in reality he is not all this.  For 
	verily his he transcendental.  The whole series of universes 
	- past, present, and future - express his glory and power; 
	but he transcends his own glory.  All beings of the universal 
	form, as it were, a fraction of his being; the rest of it is 
	self-luminous, and unchangeable.  He who is beyond all 
	predicates exists as the relative universe.  That part of him 
	which is the relative universe appears as sentient and 
	insentient beings.  From a part of him was born the body of 
	the universe, and out of this body were born the gods, the 
	earth, and men.' [From the Rig Veda, i.24)]

In this passage, it may be observed in passing, there is a definite 
rejection of pantheism: 'Though he has become all this, in reality he is 
not all this.'  The words are characteristic of all Indian thought...
There is, properly speaking, whatever appearances may sometimes suggest 
to the contrary, no pantheism in India.  The Hindu sees God as the 
ultimate energy in and behind all creation, but never, either in ancient 
or in modern times, as identical with it."

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.34-35

[omitting lengthy hymn here...from Rig Veda, x.129]

"This famous hymn has provided the basis for a great deal of philosophic 
speculation.  For in it God is represented (it may be observed) as both 
the material and the efficient cause of the universe - both that out of 
which it was made, and that by which it was made.  In it also is that 
extraordinary conception of the universe, alluded to in the preceding 
chapter, as continually alternating between the phase of expression and 
the phase of potentiality:  birth, existence, destruction - then a state 
of quiescence - then again birth, existence, death, destruction; and so 
on forever.

The preceding brief survey of the varying conceptions of God in the 
Samhitas quite naturally raises two questions.  The first is this:  Why 
is it that now one god, now another, is lifted to the loftiest position 
and celebrated as the supreme divinity?  Professor Max Muller has 
observed this phenomenon, and named it henotheism, but has done little 
to fathom its mystery.  Its true explanation is to be found in the hymns 
themselves; 'and it is a grand explanation' declares Swami Vivekananda, 
'one that has given theme to all subsequent thought in India and one 
that will be the theme of the whole world of religions: Ekam sat vipra 
bahudha vadanti [From the Rig Veda, i.164], or "That which exists is 
one: sages call it by various names'.

The subject is worth pausing with, for in the quoted works lies the 
secret not only of an aspect of the Vedic hymns but also - as Swami 
Vivekananda suggests - of an aspect of the religious life of India 
throughout her long history.  Casual visitors to this ancient land carry 
away with them the impression of an elaborate polytheism.  True it is 
that India has always had many gods - but in appearance only.  In 
reality she has had but one god, though, with prodigal inventiveness she 
has called him 'by various names'.  Indra, Varuna, Hiranyagarbha - Rama, 
Krishna, Shiva: What does it matter?  Whichever of these or of many 
others the Hindu chooses for his adoration, that one becomes for him God 
himself, in whom exist all things, including, for the time being, all 
other gods.  It is because India has been so permeated with the spirit 
of Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti that she has known relatively little 
of religious fanaticism, of religious persecution, of religious wars.  
Characteristically she has sought the truth in every faith - even in 
faiths not her own.

But there was a second question: Why is it that in the Vedic hymns we 
find elementary ideas of God as well as the most advanced?  To the 
Western scholar there is here no mystery; for he is accustomed to think 
of all things in terms of evolution, as he conceives evolution, and in 
the simpler anthropomorphic notions he sees the first stages of a growth 
which slowly ripens to abstraction.  But not so the orthodox Hindu.  
What he sees is the graduated scale of Vedic conceptions is a 
beneficent correspondence to varied stages of religious attainment.

Some men are but barbarians in spiritual things; others are seers and 
sages.  The Vedas (and this, say the orthodox, was a clear purpose of 
the exalted rishis) minister to all according to their needs.  Some they 
teach to fly; some they must first teach to walk.  To those at a low 
stage, they offer polytheism, even at times materialism; to those at a 
higher stage monotheism; and to those at the top of the scale a notion 
of God so utterly impersonal, so devoid of anything describable in human 
terms, as to be suited only to the greatest saints, and to these only in 
their most strenuous moments.

For it would appear, in general, that even the greatest of Hindu saints 
have found the conception of God as abstract reality too rarefied for 
constant use.  Occasionally they rise to it, but not for long.  Like 
more ordinary mortals they too have yearned for a notion of divinity 
close to their minds and hearts, something they could readily love, 
meditate upon, and worship.

In contrasting spiritual levels of the Vedic hymns, as interpreted by 
the orthodox, we touch on a general aspect of Indian thought to which we 
must often return: its variety and flexibility, despite its 
extraordinary central oneness - its remarkable genius for adaptation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE - the Samhitas are collections of mantras, or hymns, most of which
sing praises of one or another personal god. (from p.31)

    So it can be both pantheistic and its diametric opposite, panentheism, 
    at the same time, 'God' is in all things, and all things exist because 
    of 'God.'  Is that a fair summary ?
    
    To me, this could also easily be interpreted as saying that the philosophy 
    is so complex that you can read anything you want into it, depending on what
    you are looking for and on your state of consciousness at the moment.
    
    In fact, I think that's probably the main reason why people of diverse
    religions find an affinity for Hinduism, and why it is so popular in
    New Age philosophy.  Not only does it express the mystical philosophy
    in a beautiful and poetic way, but is elaborate enough that you can
    find expression of almost any belief within its writings.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.41-43 - Chapter on the Upanishads

Brahman
-------

Like all mortals, before and since, the rishis looked out upon a world 
in motion - wind and wave, waxing and waning moon, growth and decay, 
birth and death.  But was that all there was?  Was there nothing that 
stayed the same, and could therefore be felt as real - in contrast with 
the things that changed?  Yes, answered the rishis, there was something; 
and they called it Brahman - God.

Still if Brahman was conceived as the permanent, enduring, that was 
evidently because of the existence, in some sense, of the transient.  On 
the one hand there was Brahman; on the other hand there was the 
universe.  What was the relation between them?

To this question the Upanishads give what may appear to be three 
separate answers.

Often they speak of Brahman *and* the universe: two things, not one, and 
both possessed of a permanent reality.  Not that the two are really 
separate, however, and unrelated: distinctly not.  The connection 
between them is expressed in a great variety of ways.  Sometimes they 
are referred to as soul and body, Brahman being the soul, the universe 
being the body - Brahman the indwelling life, light, force, energy; the 
universe that in which Brahman resides.  But this is an image which must 
be interpreted in the light of other images - as, for example, that in 
which Brahman is clay, the universe individual vessels into which clay 
has been moulded.  The universe, in this view, is of the same ultimate 
substance as Brahman, though Brahman is and remains distinct from the 
vessels into which some of it has been shaped.  In the following 
illustrative passages many other images will be met with - the language 
of the Upanishads is often richly inventive; but what is to be 
especially observed is that in each of them the seer has before his mind 
duality - Brahman on the one hand, the universe on the other - and that 
this duality persists.

  'In the heart of all things, of whatever there is in the universe, 
dwells the Lord.' [Isa, 1.]

  'This is the truth of Brahman in relation to nature: whether in the 
flash of the lightning, or in the wink of the eyes, the power that is 
shown is the power of Brahman.'  [Kena, IV.4]

  'This is the truth of Brahman in relation to men: in the motions of the 
mind, the power that is shown is the power of Brahman.'  [Kena, IV.4]

  'The imperishable is the Real.  As sparks innumerable fly upward from 
a blazing fire, so from the depths of the Imperishable arise all things.  
To the depths of the Imperishable they again descend.
  'Self-luminous is that Being, and formless.  He dwells within all and 
without all.  He is unborn, pure, greater than the greatest, without 
breath, without mind.
  'From him are born breath, mind, the organs of sense, ether, air, 
fire, water, and the earth, and he binds all these together.
  'Heaven is his head, the sun and moon his eyes, the four quarters his 
ears, the revealed scriptures his voice, the air his breath, the 
universe his heart.  From his feet came the earth.  He is the innermost 
Self of all.'  [Mundaka, II.i.1-4]

  'Self-luminous is Brahman, ever present in the hearts of all.  He is 
the refuge of all, he is the supreme goal.  In him exists all that moves 
and breathes.  In him exists all that is.  He is both that which is 
gross and that which is subtle.  Adorable is he.  Beyond the ken of the 
senses is he.  Supreme is he. Attain thou him!
  'He, the self-luminous, subtler than the subtlest, in whom exist all 
the worlds and all those that live therein - he is the imperishable 
Brahman.  He is the principle of life.  He is speech, and he is mind.  
He is real.  He is immortal.  Attain him, O my friend, the one goal to 
be attained!'  [Mundaka, II.i.1-4]

In the following passages again the duality has been resolved by 
identifying Brahman with the universe - 'yet he is still the same'.

	Thou art the fire,
	Thou art the sun,
	Thou art the air,
	Thou art the moon,
	Thou art the starry firmament,
	Thou art Brahman supreme:
	Thou art the waters - thou,
	The creator of all!

	Thou art woman, thou art man,
	Thou art the youth, thou art the maiden,
	Thou art the old man tottering with his staff;
	Thou facest everywhere.

	Thou art the dark butterfly,
	Thou art the green parrot with red eyes,
	Thou art the thunder cloud, the seasons, the seas.
	Without beginning art though,
	Beyond time, beyond space.
	Thou art he from whom sprang
	The three worlds.  [Svetasvatara, IV.2-4]

	Filled with Brahman are the things wee see;
	Filled with Brahman are the things we see not;
	From out of Brahman floweth all that is;
	From Brahman all - yet is he still the same.  
		[Peace chant in the Upanishads of the White Yajur Veda]

Let us note in passing the relation of these three last lines to the 
question, already touched upon, of pantheism in India.  If the universe 
emanated from Brahman, then clearly he - or rather some portion of him - 
*is* the universe; and to that extent the idea is pantheistic.  But 
observe that despite this emanation Brahman 'is still the same' - in 
which case it is evident, whatever else may be true, that the universe 
and Brahman are not identical; it is precisely the identity of the two 
that the West understands by pantheism. **

[** Footnote - Pantheism, says Webster, 'is the doctrine that the universe,
taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God 
but the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the existing 
universe'.]

From: "The Hero With A Thousand Faces", by Joseph Campbell, p.267

"The cosmogonic cycle pulses forth into manifestation and back 
into nonmanifestation amidst a silence of the unknown.  The
Hindus represent this mystery in the holy syllable AUM.  Here
the sound A represents waking consciousness, U dream consciousness,
M deep sleep.  The silence surrounding the syllable is the unknown:
it is called simply "The Fourth." [Mandukya Upanishad, 8-12]  The
syllable itself is God as creator-preserver-destroyer, but the 
silence of God is eternal, absolutely uninvolved in all the
openings-and-closings of the round.

    "It is unseen, unrelated, inconceivable,
       uninferable, unimaginable, indescribable.
     It is the essense of the one self-cognition
       common to all states of consciousness.
     All phenomena cease in it.
     It is peace, it is bliss, it is nonduality.

                       [Mandukya Upanishad, 7]

    
    Re.35 (Todd)
    
    It can appear to be pantheistic and panentheistic, however to say
    that it is ONLY pantheistic or ONLY panentheistic is incorrect - and 
    this is my main point - because in truth, real Hinduism is beyond 
    both of these states.
    
    I find the philosophy to be quite simple, actually.
    
    Cindy

|    I find the philosophy to be quite simple, actually.
    
    	Then I'm impressed at your comprehension of it.
    	Huston and I find it abstruse.
    
    					thanks again,
    						todd

                
    Huston goes on to add after that sentence:
    
       "Only when discerned in a life that is living it - a life that 
        incarnates it in its outlook, moods, and conduct - does truth 
        of this order become fully convincing.  It is like an art.  
        There comes a time when every master musician must say to his 
        pupil, 'Don't bother with what I say.  Just watch how I take 
        that passage.'"
    
    It is only abstruse (hidden or concealed - the Latin meaning) when one
    tries to understand it via the intellect only.  It becomes known and
    understood when put into practice.  
    
    And that's what real spiritual teachers, masters, and gurus are doing
    on the planet.  Teaching ways to access the knowledge - via yoga, tai
    chi, meditation, etc. - so that their students come into direct 
    experience with what is written.  In that way, it becomes understood.
    Much like describing the taste of a strawberry vs. actually tasting
    one.
    
    Cindy

NOTE:  Hinduism is the religion of Vedanta.  Vedanta is an Eastern philosophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Vedanta - Voice Of Freedom", by Swami Vivekananda. pp.27-28

In nondualistic Vedanta, Brahman is the Ultimate Reality, Existence-
Knowledge-Bliss Absolute.  The world is shown to be nothing but name and
form, all of which is apparent, not real, having only relative existence.
 But from the absolute standpoint, everything is Brahman - one without a
second.  The individual soul is nothing but Brahman. Name and form evolve
and dissolve, but the Self, the real nature of every being, is immortal
and unchanging.  After realizing one's identity with Brahman through
meditation, a person then sees Brahman, or God, in everything. 

In the beginning it was hard for Vivekananda to accept the nondualistic
view that 'everything is really Brahman', because he was a staunch
follower of Brahmo Samaj, which taught a theistic philosophy.  As he said
to Sri Ramakrishna:  "It is blasphemous, for there is no difference
between such philosophy and atheism.  There is no greater sin in the
world than to think of oneself as identical with the Creator.  I am God,
you are God, these created things are God - what can be more absurd! The
sages who wrote such things must have been insane."  Because Sri
Ramakrishna knew how to train a mind, the young man's outspokenness did
not deter him.  Smiling, he said, "You may not accept the views of these
seers.  But how can you abuse them or limit God's infinitude?  Go on
praying to the God of Truth and believe in any aspect of His that He
reveals to you." 

According to the Vedantic tradition, one must reach an understanding of
the philosophy with the help of 'shruti (the scriptures), 'yukti'
(reason), and 'anubhava' (experience).  Vivekananda's rebellious nature
did not surrender easily.  He was a votary of Truth.  Whatever did not
tally with reason and experience, he considered false, and it was his
nature to stand against falsehood. 

One day at Dakshineswar, while chatting with one of his friends,
Vivekananda sarcastically remarked concerning the Vedantic experience of
oneness: "How can this be?  This jug is God, this cup is God, and we too
are God!  Nothing can be more preposterous!"  Sri Ramakrishna heard
Vivekananda's laughter from his room.  He came out and inquired: "Hello! 
What are you talking about?"  He then touched Vivekananda and entered
into samadhi.  Preachers merely talk about religion, but Incarnations
like Buddha, Christ, and Ramakrishna, can transmit religion through a
glance or by a touch.  Vivekananda graphically described the effect of
that touch: 

    The magic touch of the Master that day immediately brought a wonderful 
    change over my mind.  I was stupefied to find that there was really 
    nothing in the universe but God!  I saw it quite clearly, but kept 
    silent, to see if the idea would last.  But the impression did not abate 
    in the course of a day.  I returned home, but there too, everything I 
    saw appeared to be Brahman.  I sat down to take my meal, but found that 
    everything  - the food, the plate, the person who served, and even 
    myself - was nothing but That.  I ate a morsel or two and sat still.  I 
    was startled by my mother's words: "Why do you sit still?  Finish your 
    meal," and began to eat again.  But all the while, whether eating, or 
    lying down, or going to college, I had the same experience and felt 
    myself always in a comatose state.  While walking in the streets, I 
    noticed the cabs plying, but did not feel inclined to move out of the 
    way.  I felt that the cabs and myself were of one stuff.  There was no 
    sensation in my limbs, which, I thought, were getting paralyzed.  I did 
    not relish eating, and felt as if somebody else were eating.  Sometimes 
    I lay down during a meal, and, after a few minutes, got up and again 
    began to eat.  The result would be that on some days I would take too 
    much, but it did no harm.  My mother became alarmed and said that there 
    must be something wrong with me.  She was afraid that I might not live 
    long.  When the above state altered a little, the world began to appear 
    to me as a dream.  While walking in Cornwallis Square, I would strike my 
    head against the iron railings to see if they were real or a dream.  
    This state of things continued for some days.  When I became normal 
    again, I realized that I must have had a glimpse of the Advaita state.  
    Then it struck me that the worlds of the scriptures were not false.  
    Thenceforth I could not deny the conclusions of the Advaita philosophy.

As time passed and Vivekananda went through various kinds of experiences,
his rebellious attitude, intellectual skepticism, and argumentative
nature were gradually transformed into self-surrender, faith and
devotion.  Brajendra Nath Seal, one of his friends who later became a
well-known professor, watched this change and remarked, "A born
iconoclast and free thinker like Vivekananda, a creative and dominating
intelligence, a tamer of souls, himself caught in the meshes of what
appeared to me an uncouth, supernatural mysticism, was a riddle that my
philosophy of Pure Reason could scarcely read at the time." 




From: "Vedanta - Voice of Freedom", by Swami Vivekananda, pp.70-71

The Absolute and Its Manifestation

The one question that is most difficult to grasp in understanding 
Advaita philosophy, and the one question which will be asked again and 
again and which will always remain unanswered, is: How has the Infinite, 
the Absolute, become the finite?  I will now take up this question, and 
in order to illustrate it I will use a figure.

	---------------------
	| (a) The Absolute  |
	---------------------
	|       (c)         |
	|      Time         |
	|      Space        |
	|    Causation      |
	---------------------
	| (b) The Universe  |
	---------------------

Here is the Absolute (a), and this is the universe (b).  The Absolute 
has become the universe.  By this is meant not only the material world, 
but the mental world, the spiritual world--heavens and earths, and in 
fact, everything that exists.  Mind is the name of a change, and body is 
the name of another change, and so on, and all these changes compose our 
universe.  This Absolute (a) has become the universe (b) by coming 
through time, space, and causation (c).  This is the central idea of 
Advaita.  Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which 
the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, it appears 
as the universe.

Now, we at once gather from this that in the Absolute there is neither 
time, space, nor causation.  The idea of time cannot be there, seeing 
that there is no mind, no thought.  The idea of space cannot be there, 
seeing that there is no external change.  What you call motion and 
causation cannot exist where there is only one.  We have to understand 
this and impress it upon our minds--that what we call causation begins 
after, if we may be phenomenal, and not before; that our will, our 
desire, and all these things always come after that.

Now the question is: What are time, space, and causation?  Advaita means 
nonduality--there are not two, but one.  Yet we see that here is a 
proposition that the Absolute is manifesting Itself as many, through the 
veil of time, space, and causation.  Therefore it seems that here are 
two: The Absolute and 'maya', the sum total of time, space, and 
causation.  It seems apparently very convincing that there are two.  To 
have two, we must have two absolute, independent existences which cannot 
be caused.  But time, space, and causation cannot be said to be independent 
existences.  In the first place, time is entirely a dependent existence; 
it changes with every change of our mind.  Sometimes in a dream one 
imagines that one has lived several years; at other times several months 
have passed as one second.  So time is entirely dependent upon our state 
of mind.  Secondly, the idea of time sometimes vanishes altogether.  So 
with space.  We cannot know what space is.  Yet it is there, 
undefinable, and cannot exist separate from anything else.  So with 
causation.

The whole of this universe, therefore, as it were, a peculiar form [of 
the Absolute].  The Absolute is that ocean, while you and I, and suns 
and stars, and everything else are various waves of that ocean.  And 
what makes the waves different?  Only the form--and that form is time, 
space, and causation, which are all entirely dependent on the wave.  As 
soon as the wave goes they vanish.  As soon as the individual gives up 
this maya, it vanishes for him and he becomes free.

|    It is only abstruse (hidden or concealed - the Latin meaning) when one
|    tries to understand it via the intellect only.  It becomes known and
|    understood when put into practice.  
    
    I understand.  So you were saying that it is simple to you by putting
    it into practice rather than that you understand it intellectually
    as simple.
    
    Having taught martial arts for a number of years, I can vouch for
    the fact that very little of the experience of practice can be
    transmitted verbally to someone who hasn't done it yet.  Meditation
    (Zazen) being one of our practices, I know that it is impossible
    to teach it in any way other than providing the right initial conditions
    and general instructions and having the individual experience 
    'here and nowness.'  They cannot learn it from books.  
    
    But that isn't to say that it's philosophy and practice cannot be dissected
    intellectually to understand it from other perspectives.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    
    It is simple to me because I have begun the practices, and as a result
    of the practices, I have had the experiences that enable me to more 
    fully understand what is being said.
    
    Had I not ever had the experiences (that came from the practices that
    came from the scripture to begin with), then yes, the philosophy would 
    be rather difficult for me to only understand intellectually too, just 
    like it was for Swami Vivekananda back in .40.
    
    .40 also mentioned that it is necessary to combine scriptures with
    reason and practice to reach the greatest understanding.
    
    Cindy

    re: .43,
    	I guess I'm making a different distinction between 
    	"simple" and "experiential."   Things I've experienced
    	helped me to understand other people's descriptions better,
    	but I don't claim that they are simple.  They more
    	"feel simple."  
    
    	I think I am tieing the concept of simplicity here more to _explanatory 
    	elegance_ than to wisdom or comprehension.
    
    			thanks for your patience, 
    
    			todd

    
    Re.44
    
    That's the difficulty I run into again and again.  
    
    Just as in trying to explain the non-verbal realizations that one can 
    receive in ecstatic states of consciousness...how does one intellectually 
    begin to explain the taste of a strawberry?  Even though it might point
    a person in the right direction, still the best of 'explanatory elegance' 
    can never be an adequate substitute for the real thing.  
    
    Well, in any case, I hope at least that I was able to set straight 
    the original misconception, and adequately show to everyone's
    satisfaction that true Hinduism is neither PANtheistic nor polytheistic.  
    
    Cindy
                                                           

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.118-119

The ideal of a personal God is certainly present in the Gita, but it is 
the ideal of an impersonal-personal Deity, expressing the ultimate 
oneness in which there exists no 'I' or 'Thou' but only he one 
indivisible, self-luminous, blissful Existence.  Absorption in the 
absolute and perfect union, from which the devotee, preoccupied too 
exclusively with some divine personality and with the values of the 
finite world, may at first shrink, is borne witness to by the mystic 
experiences of the saints and sages.  A St. Francis of Assisi or a Shri 
Caitanya of Bengal, though he may begin his life of devotion by loving 
and worshipping a personal God, concludes it by realizing his oneness 
with the Eternal and by being absorbed in him.

In the same way the teachings of Christ or of the Bible as a whole 
cannot be reconciled with any of the theological conceptions of Godhead, 
either theistic or pantheistic.  When Christ bids us pray to the Father 
in heaven, we can give his words a theistic or deistic interpretation; 
but when he indicates that the kingdom of God is within, and that 'I and 
my Father are one', he implies a mysticism not usually associated with 
the word theism.  And in the 139th Psalm occur the following words, of 
great mystic significance:

   'Whither shall I go from thy spirit?  Or whither shall I flee from 
    thy presence?  If I ascend up into Heaven, thou art there; if I make 
    my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.  If I take the wings of the 
    morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall 
    thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.'

Just as the idea of one immutable God, personal and yet impersonal in 
his nature, pervades all advanced religions, so the conception of an 
avatar, the Supreme Being descending upon earth in human form, seems 
also universal.  This conception finds its place for the first time in 
Indian philosophy in the Gita, though its basis is laid in all beings as 
their innermost Self is the fundamental truth of both these scriptures.  
To know the innermost Self is to become one with God.  'A knower of 
Brahman becomes Brahman.' [Mandukya Upanishad IIII.ii.9]

Since God exists in all beings, every being in a sense represents a 
descent from God into the finiteness of name and form and only the veil 
of ignorance hides from him his essentially divine nature; and when a 
being born with the full knowledge of the Self, and with the divine 
consciousness not veiled by ignorance, that being is a full embodiment 
of the Godhead.  Such a man is known as an avatar.

The Gita doctrine of the avatar is parallel and almost identical with 
the conception of the Word made flesh, 'full of grace and truth', as we 
find it in the Gospel according to St. John, but with this difference, 
that Jesus of Nazareth is alone identified with the Logos; he is clearly 
called the only begotten Son of God, whereas in the Gita it is clearly 
stated that God is made flesh many times, in different ages, and in 
different forms.  It is thus easy for the Hindus to accept Christ as an 
avatar and to worship him unreservedly, exactly as they worship Krishna. 
They cannot accept him, however, as the *only* Son of God.

Krishna, the teacher of the Gita, openly declares himself to be an 
incarnation of the Godhead, asserting that he appears whenever he is 
needed upon earth.  His birth, however, was not similar to that of 
Arjuna and other embodied souls, who were born in consequence of their 
past karmas, are tied by the fetters of ignorance, and remain under the 
thralldom of maya.  The birth of a Krishna or a Christ is the result of 
free choice; for the Incarnation does not yield to the domination of 
maya, but rather puts maya under subjection, does not live in ignorance 
but in full consciousness of his divinity.  Krishna speaks:

	I am the birthless, the deathless,
	Lord of all that breathes.
	I seem to be born;
	It is only seeming,
	Only my maya.
	I am still master of my Prakriti,
	The power that makes me.  [Gita IV.6]

	He who knows the nature 
	Of my task and my holy birth
	Is not reborn 
	When he leaves this body:
	He comes to me. [Gita IV.9]

Compare with these last lines the words of the Bible: 'But as many as 
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; even to 
them that believe on his name.

To know a Krishna or a Christ is to know God; for verily these are the 
children of the Light - indeed, they are Light themselves.  Though God 
dwells everywhere, to see him one must look through these divine 
incarnations.  To worship a Krishna or a Christ is not, however, to 
worship a man as God, is not to worship a person; it is to worship God 
himself, the impersonal-personal Existence, in and through a man-god [or 
woman-god - CP].  Sri Ramakrishna said that the divine incarnations are 
like so many doors through which we peep into or touch the Infinite.

The Hindus have a theory, demonstrated by historical events, that 
spiritual culture moves in cyclic waves.  An upward movement is followed 
by a downward one, the downward by an upward one, and so on - an 
alternation which may be described as the dilation and contraction of 
the higher life of society.  When the pendulum swings low and truth and 
righteousness are forgotten, the necessity arises for the birth of an 
avatar.  The Gita says:

	When goodness grows week,
	When evil increases,
	I make myself a body.

	In every age I come back
	To deliver the holy,	
	To destroy the sin of the sinner,
	To establish the righteousness. [Gita IV.7,8]

From time to time, then, a divine incarnation is needed to re-establish 
eternal truth, the eternal spirit of religion, by his living example.  
God descends to earth in human form to instruct all how to ascend toward 
him. Thus does the avatar really become the way, the truth, and the 
life. 	

I've come across several terms that may or may not refer to the same thing...
could someone elaborate?

Guru; Sage; Seer; Prophet... etc

Thanks in advance,
Pete.

Re .47:

After the bru-ha-ha raised by your last question, I hesitate, but my 
*impressions* are that "guru" and "sage" are roughly equivalent, as are 
"seer" and "prophet," but the two pairs are not equivalent to each other, 
and there remain some differences between the members of each pair.

"Sage" as an adjective just means "wise," and a sage is a wise person.

"Guru," as I understand it, is a spiritual teacher or mentor, which implies 
(one hopes) a fair bit of wisdom.

The function of gurus and sages, generally, is to impart wisdom (in this 
context, spiritual wisdom) to their pupils, that is, to lift their proteges up 
to their own level.

"Seer" is a fortune-teller, one who has surprising knowledge, especially of 
the future, either by native clairvoyance or by some other means.  Seers give
you information, but their function is not to make you into a seer, too. 

"Prophet" is often just a synonym for "seer," but the Biblical prophets were 
somewhat different.  Their source of information is God, and they are always 
charged with a definite mission from God.  In fact, they are more concerned 
with telling you what God wants you to do that with telling you the future.
In Islam, Mohammed is clearly a prophet of this type.

Dictionary definitions:

	sage: one (as a profound philosopher) distinguished for wisdom

	guru: 1: a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism
	      2a: a teacher and esp. intellectual guide in matters of
		  fundamental concern
	      2b: one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent
		  (as of a cult, movement, or idea)

	seer: 1: one that sees
	      2a: one that predicts events or developments
	      2b: a person credited with extraordinary moral and spiritual 
		  insight
	      3: one that practices divination, esp. by concentrating on a
		 glass or crystal globe

	prophet: 1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations
		 2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral 
		    insight
		 3: one who foretells future events
		 4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine,
		    or group

So the dictionary definitions do indeed involve a lot of overlap.

Earl Wajenberg

Thanks Earl. I'm sorry my questions cause any bru-ha-ha.

Regards,
Pete.

    re: Pete,
    
    Bru-ha-ha is good (ha-ha).  The flowers that bloom in the spring,
    tra-la.   Why apologize for other people wanting to respond
    to an idea ?  It makes it sound like we were wasting our time getting
    involved in the previous discussion.  I don't feel that way.  I feel 
    badly that Earl does.  
    							todd

	I was apologizing in case my ignorance was causing problems,
	not for other people's responses to an idea. Hope this helps.

Regards,
Pete.

    Re .50 (& several by Cindy):
    
    Rather than make Todd feel bad, I'll continue the discussion.
    
    Actually, Cindy, I still think Hinduism (or, more carefully, many of
    the more carefully developed forms of it) are pantheistic.  In fact,
    much of the material you quote to demonstrate Hinduism is NOT
    pantheistic sounds to me like further proof that it IS, so I think we
    still have a problem with terminology here.
    
    There are several kinds of pantheism, after all, just as there are several 
    kinds of monotheism or polytheism.
    
    If "from the absolute standpoint, everything is Brahman - one without a
    second" (.41), this sounds perfectly pantheistic to me.  It is, in
    fact, a particularly strong form of pantheism that regards multiplicity 
    and individuality as illusions, unreal.
    
    This strong form does reject a different, weaker form of pantheism, in
    which the cosmos as a whole is said to be a single, highest, divine
    being, but the multiplicity within it is also held to be real in some
    sense and there is no doctrine that God transcends the cosmos that is
    part of Him.
    
    But they are both forms of pantheism.  They just differ about God's
    "anatomy," just as different forms of monotheism can (e.g. trinitarian
    versus unitarian conceptions of God), even though both are
    monotheistic.
    
    Some time back, I said I'd go look through the Bhagavad-Gita to see
    what it was that had struck me as pantheistic.  Here are some of the
    bits (all from the Isherwood translation):
    
    From Ch. 9:
    
    	Krishna: "Arjuna, I am the cosmos revealed and its germ that lies
    		hidden."
    		...
    		"My face is equal to all creation, loving no one nor hating
    		any."
    
    From Ch. 10:
    
    	Arjuna to Krishna: "O Prime Cause of all, even Brahma the Beginner
    		-- deathless, world's abode, the Lord of devas, you are
    		what is, and what is not, and what transcends them. ...
    		You are all that is, since everywhere we find you."
    
    (Perfectly nondualistic.)  Granted, the context is poetic, even ecstatic, 
    so one shouldn't press too hard for exact doctrinal content, but those
    two quotes have a lot of company, and there is very little that can be
    taken as pointing *away* from the pantheism that they suggest.
    
    Earl Wajenberg 

    
    Re.52
    
    Earl,
    
    At this point, then, you will probably have to take it up with 
    someone else.  I don't think I can offer anything more to the 
    discussion that would assist in clarifying the points any further.
                                    
    If you're interested in pursuing beyond this, I can put you in 
    touch with my friend who is the president of the Hindu cultural 
    organization.  He lives in Needham, Mass., and I'm sure he would
    be happy to speak with you.  Or I can provide you with the address 
    of Dr. David Frawley, who is the director of the Institute for 
    Vedic Studies in Santa Fe, NM.  
    
    Cindy 

    Thanks, Earl.  :-)
    
    Cindy,
    	Do some of your sources consider the 'widespread misconception'
    	of Hinduism at pantheistic to be a _bad_ thing ?  Is that why
    	there is some contention over this ?  
    
    	Do they perhaps feel that it creates an uncrossable gap between 
    	Hinduism and Christianity for it to be viewed in that way ?  
    	I know that your concept that all religions are different ways of 
    	expressing exactly the same thing is also a traditional Hindu belief.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Re.54
    
    Todd,
    
    Yes, they *absolutely* consider this misconception to be a bad thing.
    
    The first, and probably most important reason is because it's JUST NOT 
    TRUE.  *Every single Hindu sage/guru/master/swami*, and any Hindu who 
    really understands their religion will tell you this, too.  Even people 
    like Huston Smith, David Frawley, and many, many others, will tell 
    you this as well.  
    
    It gets worse when the fundamentalists of other religions (particularly
    Christianity) believe this pantheistic, polytheistic fallacy, and use it 
    as an excuse to go in and conquer and convert the "heathens", believing 
    that their concept of God is far superior to theirs.  Although the 
    intellectuals of the world don't tend to go conquer and convert, still 
    if they too believe the fallacy, then they are not contributing to the
    greater understanding and therefore in a very subtle way are only 
    contributing to the problem. 
    
    I had thought seriously about just not replying earlier when Earl had 
    made his original comment.  I tend to avoid these kinds of debate-style
    discussions, and prefer to participate in a 'sharing' environment.  So 
    I have not found some of the exchanges on this particular topic to be 
    all that pleasant either.
    
    And yet I continued because this is such a fundamental point and the
    very key to understanding what Hinduism is really all about.  That, and 
    given that I'm working so closely with the largest Hindu cultural 
    organization in the US (and their counterpart in India) who's primary 
    job here is to educate people on precisely this point (since it is by 
    far the most widely misunderstood point about Hinduism in the West in 
    general), then I just couldn't, in good conscience, NOT do my best to
    correct the misunderstanding in this file.  
    
    Cindy

    Re .55:
    
    Do these folk then regard Hinduism as panentheistic?
    					     --
    Do they regard that as a crucial distinction?  (Distinctions that seem
    crucial to insiders may seem trivial to outsiders, and vice versa, and,
    to me, panentheism seems like a variation on the general theme of
    pantheism.)
    
    Given that, at the start of this conversation, in .24, you originally
    defined "pantheism" as "when there are separate gods that are not part
    of the whole, but many in number with no One unifying force behind
    them" -- which is the wrong definition, and belongs to the word
    "polytheism" -- and given your reference in .55 to "this pantheistic,
    polytheistic fallacy," I can't help suspecting that there is still some
    confusion about the terms "pantheism" and "polytheism."
    
    What, exactly, is the error that "any Hindu who really understands
    their religion" and people like Hustom Smith are trying to correct?
    
    Is it the idea that Hinduism worships many gods?  (That would be
    polytheism.)
    
    Is it the idea that Hinduism regards God as the All?  (That would be
    pantheism and seems to be what a lot of Hindu scripture is saying.)
    
    Is it something else?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    P.S.:
    
    Let me try a guess.  I can imagine that a Hindu might object to the
    label "pantheism" on these grounds: "Pantheism means God is the
    universe, but God is NOT the universe -- the entire collected furniture
    of heaven and earth -- because all that is just illusion, nonexistent.
    The universe and all its particular memebers -- you, me, atoms,
    galaxies -- are ultimately unreal.  Only God really exists."
    
    Would that be it?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Cindy,
    
    It's just that I have a hard time believing that very many Hindus are 
    really so afraid of militant Christian extremists coming to kill them that 
    they would publish all of these books you are talking about, none of which 
    their target audience would likely ever read, simply to dispense with a 
    notion that the Hindu's believe that God is in all things.  There's 
    clearly more to some people's distaste for the term 'pantheism' than 
    just fear of Christian extremists.  
    
    I'm sorry you've found the discussion unpleasant.  I found it extremely
    informative and I thank you for your obviously very stretched patience.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Re.56
    
    You might want to ignore my initial attempts at definitions and go with
    the text I entered, since it comes directly from a real Swami - and a
    highly respected one at that - and has also been acknowledged by Huston
    Smith.
    
    I personally know the difference between pantheism and polytheism - and
    I was hoping that the additional texts would show this - but apparently
    that is still an outstanding point.
    
    One definition that has been used by many (mostly born-again) Christians 
    to describe Hindus as 'heathen'.  If one takes the definition of this 
    word as, "one who belongs to a tribe or nation that does not acknowledge 
    the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam", then this covers both the 
    case of polytheism (since it appears to the novice that Hindus worship 
    many gods and goddesses, and not the One True God of Christianity), and 
    also pantheism (belief that God is the Universe, which clearly is also not 
    the God of Christianity, etc., as they define it, since the concept is 
    of God generally outside of Creation, and He sitting up there in Heaven 
    somewhere. Also, Hindus have idols which, although they are the
    equivalent of Catholic icons, still there is the misconception that God
    is really in the idols themselves, as priests tend to bathe them, put
    flowers on them, bring food to them, and so on.)
    
    I did once try to explain the concept of panentheism, but for the most
    part they tended to stay with their pantheism definition.  I never 
    bothered to even try to explain the state beyond both pantheism and 
    panentheism.
    
    As for polytheism, the idea of the One True God in Christianity being
    the "Truth is One, the saints call it by many names" God of Hinduism
    never really went over very well either, especially since Christ is
    supposed to be the *only* Begotten Son of God, and Hindus also
    recognize that Krishna, Ram, and many other incarnations have also
    walked the Earth as Sons of God in human form as well.
    
    That said, I'll try to answer the remainder your questions as best I can.  
    
    More soon.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.57
    
    Sort of.  That's actually the second of the three answers mentioned in 
    the text of .36, however I only had time to enter the first answer.  So 
    I'll enter the second and third answers as time allows.
    
    In my understanding, it kind of goes in stages.  
    
    One first thinks about Brahman and the universe - two separate entities.  
    I vs. That.  This is the beginning of observation.  The idea of a child
    being separate from its parents, if you will.
    
    Then the next level of realization (the answer to the question, "What is 
    Brahman?"), and you look around at the universe in separate pieces and 
    says 'neti neti', or 'not this, not that'.  At this level, then, it is
    revealed that the universe is maya, or illusion, and only Brahman is real. 
    This is the intellectual process to cut away that which is not Brahman, 
    to find that which is Brahman.  
    
    Then, when one comes to that realization, the next step is to realize
    that ALL is Brahman.  This is the 'mystical' step, and the one that is
    described in the account in .41.  This is the most difficult to
    describe, because it isn't an intellectual state.  It is a direct
    experience state where you literally feel it in and around your body.
    
    I popped into a very low level of this state once, and I completely
    lack the words to describe it.  And I can also say that had never had
    this experience, there's no way I would understand it simply by reading
    about it, or by intellectually saying that All is Brahman.  It happened
    without the help of mind-altering substances, by the way.  (;^)  It's
    ecstasy, bliss, nonduality - just as the Upanishads describe it.    
    
    But these are my own words.  I'll enter the text later from the book 
    for consistancy's sake.  At the moment, it is at home.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.58
    
    Todd,
    
    It's more that it's SIMPLY NOT TRUE.  I don't know how to put 
    it any more clearly than that.  If you something was not true,
    would you try to set the record straight?
    
    The Christian example was only something to show you how
    misunderstandings like this can lead to more negative actions.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.57 (more)
    
    >I can imagine that a Hindu might object to the label "pantheism"...
    
    I'll ask a real Hindu for you and see what he says.
    
    Cindy

    My goodness.  This file is as active as Soapbox this afternoon.  I
    missed the action because I'm unable to do the "next unseen" thingy.
    
    Cindy, I like the point you make that you wish to share, not debate.  I
    feel the same way, which is why I drop out of this conference every now
    and then.  

Just so you all know where I'm "coming from," here is a discussion of 
pantheism from the "Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western
Thought," by W. L. Reese: 

	Pantheism. From the Greek `pan' and `theos' meaning "everything is
	God."  ... 

	A. Pantheism in the West arose in the context of philsophical
	speculation, rather that in the context of religious practice. ... 

	B. In the Near and Far East pantheism first appears in the context of
	religious devotion. 

	(13) In the Hindu scriptures, both in the Vedas and in the Upanishads,
	man's inner self and the divine are help to be identical.  The problem
	is to interpret what this means. 
	
	(14) Shankara, for whom the world is the phantom of a dream and only
	the unmanifest Brahman is real, takes the position of Acosmic
	Pantheism. ["Acosmic Pantheism" holds that "the change and variety of
	the world are apparent only. ... The world of change has disappeared
	into the changeless Absolute."] 
	
	(15) Ramanuja, on the other hand, presents a system in which the
	qualified world emanates from the unmanifest Brahman; but thereafter
	-- until the end of this cycle -- is the body of Brahman.  The system
	in the first stage mentioned is Emanationistic Pantheism.  In the
	second, it is Relativistic Monistic Pantheism.  ["Emanationistic
	Pantheism" holds that "all that is comes from the Divine Being, and is
	tha Being in attenuated form."]  ["Relativistic Monistic Pantheism"
	holds that "the world is real, changing, and in God, although God
	remains absolute and is not affected by the world."] 
	
	(16) In Buddhism the same distinctions appear.  When Ashvaghosa holds
	the world to be waters stirred by the wind when in reality only the
	Absolute exists, he is taking the position of Acosmic Pantheism. 
	
	(17) The the Buddhist Nagarjuna holds that the Absolute and the Void
	are identical, he is giving an instance of Identity of Opposites
	Pantheism.  [This form of pantheism holds that "contradictory
	ascriptions apply equally to God."] 

	(18) When Chih-i, founder of a school of Chinese Buddhism, holds that
	ordinary existence is based on illusions, and only the Pure Mind
	exists, once again we are [resernted an instance of Acosmic Pantheism.
	
	(19) In the Near East the mystical movement of Sufism developed into a
	pantheism of the monistic type. 

Earl Wajenberg

All,

	I've been reading through some of the older entries in this conference.
	Often, I've seen references to "seekers" and "masters" coming together
	(sometimes used in a religious context, sometimes psychic, somtimes both).

	It would appear then, once someone begins seeking, they attract other
	seekers, masters etc. - I know this to be true from personal experience.

	Given that this is going to happen, how can a new seeker protect against
	the attentions of some "higher" seeker/master who may wish to corrupt
	the novice?

	In a nutshell, how can the novice protect themselves? (in a religious/
	psychic/both/other context).

Regards,
Pete.

    
    Re.64
    
    What is W.L. Reese's background?  
    
    Cindy

    re .64
    
    Before you decide whether "Hinduism" is Pantheistic or not, you have
    to first define what you mean by Hinduism as the term covers a *lot* of
    ground.  For example, if you are refering to the Non-dualistic schools
    like Kasmir Shaivism or Adaita Vedanta, ,they are definately Hindu but
    since they propose that God is everything that *is* and everything that is 
    *not*, as well as being *not* everything that is and *not* everything that 
    is not, you can't really fit them into the Panthesim definition.  There
    is a form of qualified non-dualism that is really Pantheistic.  The
    Dualistic schools are not Pantheistic since they propose a Creator and
    a separate Creation.
    
    I know this doesn't really help but I could'nt resist.
    
    Mark O'B      

    Re .66:
    
    He appears to be a professor of philosophy at the State University of
    New York at Albany.
    
    Re .67:
    
    I think, back at the beginning of this, I *did* qualify my remarks as
    applying to "some forms" of Hinduism, or some similar statement.  More
    than almost any other religion, Hinduism comes in a huge variety of
    forms.  I expect, for instance, that a lot of contemporary Hindus --
    those with little taste for philosophy, for instance -- tend to be
    straightforward polytheists.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Actually most Hindus have as the focus of their worship a form of either 
    Shiva or Vishnu.  So it gets even trickier Earl because these people
    would suggest that rather than being many Gods (polytheistic) the
    different idols are all representations of aspects of either Shiva or
    Vishnu so they are actually *monotheistic*.
    
    Or something like that..
    
    Mark O'B

    Re .65:
    
    I don't have a complete answer for you.  A very general one is, Don't
    abandon your critical faculties.  I also offer the following material 
    by Daniel Goleman, a psychologist:

Spiritual groups -- like families, corporations, therapy groups, and marriages 
-- are susceptible to the full range of human foibles.  Vanity, power-seeking, 
and looking out for Number One are as likely to show up in a spiritual 
organization as any other.  The very nature of such groups often makes it 
difficult to notice or acknowledge that something is awry....

As a spiritual freelancer for many years who has been at the center or 
periphery of a variety of such groups, I've had ample opportunity to note or 
fall prey to some of the typical pitfalls listed below.  Of course, in one or 
another context each of these signals may be a false negative -- a benign 
symptom with no underlying pathology.  More often than not, they mean that an 
open-minded and skeptical inquiry is called for.

Be wary when you notice the first signs of:

* Taboo Topics: questions that can't be asked, doubts that can't be shared, 
  misgivings that can't be voiced.  For example, "Where does all the money 
  go?" or "Does Yogi sleep with his secretary?"

* Secrets: the suppression of information, usually tightly guarded by an
  inner circle.  For example, the answers, "Swiss bank accounts," or "Yes,
  he does - and that's why she had an abortion."

* Spiritual Clones: in its minor form, stereotypic behavior, such as people
  who walk, talk, smoke, eat, and dress just like their leader; in its much
  more sinister form, psychological stereotyping, such as an entire group of
  people who manifest only a narrow range of feeling in any and all 
  situations: always happy, or pious, or reducing everything to a single
  explanation, or sardonic, etc.

* Groupthink: a party line that overrides how people actually feel. 
  Typically the cognitive glue that binds the group.  E.g., "You're fallen,
  and Christ is the answer"; or "You're lost in samsara, and Buddha is the
  answer"; or "You're impure, and Shiva is the answer."

* The Elect: a shared delusion of grandeur that there is no Way but this one.
  The corollary: you're lost if you leave the group.

* No Graduates: members are never weaned from the group.  Often accompanies
  the corollary above.

* Assembly Lines: everyone is treated identically, no matter what their
  differences; e.g., mantras assigned by dictates of a demographical 
  checklist.

* Loyalty Tests: members are asked to prove loyalty to the group by doing
  something that violates their personal ethics; for example, set up an
  organization that has a hidden agenda of recruiting others into the group,
  but publicly represents itself as a public service outfit.

* Duplicity: the group's public face misrepresents its true nature, as in the
  example just given.

* Unifocal Understanding: a single world view is used to explain anything and
  everything; alternative explanations are verboten.  For example, if you
  have diarrhea it's "Guru's Grace."  If it stops, it's also Guru's Grace.
  And if you get constipated, it's still Guru's Grace.

* Humorlessness: no irreverence allowed.  Laughing at sacred cows is good for
  your health.  Take, for example, Gurdjieff's one-liner: "If you want to
  lose your faith, make friends with a priest."

	Earl Wajenberg

    re: .70, Earl,
    
    I'd agree with most of that list, and add my impression that the single
    most distinctive characteristic of a group which has fallen prey to
    charismatic social dynamics to an extreme degree is that it becomes
    extraordinarily _isolationist_.  
    
    In terms of social system theory, this
    takes many the existing factors that you mentioned and magnifies them
    many times because the usual checks and balances of interaction with
    the rest of the world is missing.  Various analyses of the Rev. Jim 
    Jones/Jonestown tragedy seemed to reveal that the point where the
    situation ran out of control was where the group isolated themselves
    entirely and had no further checks on the personal influence of the
    leader, no outside comparison as sanity checks.
    
    							kind regards,
    							todd

                       
    Re.a few back
      
    Back to the 'pantheism' discussion - the image that keeps coming to 
    mind is the Earth.
    
    To a person standing on the Earth in a lot of places, the Earth does
    indeed appear to be flat.  Just as some forms of Hinduism can appear to
    be pantheistic.  Both are true.  In this case, then, Earl, I can see
    your view, agree with your conclusions, and appreciate your perspective.
    
    But taking the larger view, from space one can see that the Earth is
    round (or thereabouts.)  When one looks at Hinduism from the larger
    view, it can appear to have pantheistic spots on it (like the flat 
    spots on the Earth), but overall it is not pantheistic.  Those sections
    are an integral part of the whole, and not separate from it.
    
    I had asked a Hindu friend here at Digital to join the discussion - a
    fellow who is extremely familiar with the depths of Hindu philosophy - 
    however he is too busy to do so unfortunately.  He did read through a
    few of the notes though, and did state that he too felt that Hinduism
    is not pantheistic.
    
    Cindy 

    Re.68                    
    
    >Re .67:
    
    >I think, back at the beginning of this, I *did* qualify my remarks as
    >applying to "some forms" of Hinduism, or some similar statement.  More
    >than almost any other religion, Hinduism comes in a huge variety of
    >forms.  
    
    True.
    
    >I expect, for instance, that a lot of contemporary Hindus --
    >those with little taste for philosophy, for instance -- tend to be
    >straightforward polytheists.
   
    I really don't think so.......I know a *lot* of Hindus, and not one of
    them is a straightforward polytheist.  Maybe in the tribal areas in
    India, but I'd be very surprised that this is the case in the majority
    of the culture.  The culture is too permeated with the idea that "Truth 
    is One, the saints call it by many names."  Even if they don't know 
    in-depth philosophy, they do know this much, even as children.   
    
    Y'know...I think this and the pantheism question would be a great 
    discussion to take to the INDIA conference.  Then you'll get all sorts 
    of different perspectives.  I'd be happy to begin the basenote there, 
    since they all know me.  Or you can too, if you like.  Or we can 
    co-author one here and enter it there.  Yes/no?  It should prove to
    be fun and enlightening, actually.  
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. That's a great list by Daniel Goleman.

|    To a person standing on the Earth in a lot of places, the Earth does
|    indeed appear to be flat.  Just as some forms of Hinduism can appear to
|    be pantheistic.  Both are true.  In this case, then, Earl, I can see
|    your view, agree with your conclusions, and appreciate your perspective.
|    
|    But taking the larger view, from space one can see that the Earth is
|    round (or thereabouts.)  When one looks at Hinduism from the larger
    
    Thanks for that perspective, Cindy.
    
    Do you think this is comparable to the perception of Roman Catholicism
    as being polytheistic because of the Holy Trinity (I got an impression
    similar to this early in my Jewish education, probably a mixture of
    what was taught and my own naive interpretation as a child).  Whereas the 
    three parts are intended by Catholic theology to be aspects of one God ?
    
    							todd

    This issue seems easily resolved.

    You only need give an example of something which "is" and which is not
    God or which is not part of God according to Hinduism.

    If you can name something which clearly "is" or which clearly "is"
    according to Hinduism, then we can all agree that Hinduism is not
    pantheistic (translation "All-is-God").

    If you can only name something whose "is-ness" is disputable within
    the framework of Hinduism, then it becomes a matter of interpretation.

    If you cannot name the something but are convinced that there is
    something which "is" which is not God, and explain your reasons for
    believing that such a thing exists within the Hindu framework, then
    you will have made a case for Hinduism not being pantheistic.

    If, however, Hinduism claims that there is nothing which "is" and which
    is not God, then Hinduism is pantheistic by definition.

    Note that:

	If, according to Hinduism, the Universe "is" not then its
	"God-nature" is irrelevant to the question.

	That there are things which "are not" but are God is irrelevant to
	the question.

        Saying that the issue of pantheism is irrelevant or even meaningful
        within the Hindu framework is irrelevant to the question, though it
        may be relevant, if you are Hindu, as to whether or not you waste
	time discussing it.

	Saying that Hinduism is not pantheistic in the same sense that
	pantheism exists within other systems of thought is not relevant to
	the question.  In fact, it almost goes without saying.

    So Cindy, what "is" which is not God?

				    Topher

RE: .74 (todd)

>    Do you think this is comparable to the perception of Roman Catholicism
>    as being polytheistic because of the Holy Trinity (I got an impression
>    similar to this early in my Jewish education, probably a mixture of
>    what was taught and my own naive interpretation as a child).  Whereas the 
>    three parts are intended by Catholic theology to be aspects of one God?

    Interesting.  Within the Cabala (I forget which book) it says that
    there is one God, but that that God may be viewed as a jewel of 22
    facets (corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet).
    Except for a question of the specific count, that always seemed like a
    nice illustration of the nature of the Trinity (though Catholic
    theology does tend to emphasize the seperate nature of each "facet"
    more than the Cabala emphasizes the seperateness of each "letter-view"
    of God).

					Topher

    
    Re.74
    
    Precisely, Todd! 
    
    Though I made the Earth comparison to illustrate resolving the problem 
    of pantheism in the Whole, and you replied on polytheism, still the 
    polytheistic analogy you mentioned is correct.  
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.76
    
    Yes, Topher.  And more than that, Hinduism recognizes that all
    religions, too, are but paths to/facets of the very same God.  
                                    
    Cindy

RE: .78

    "Yes" what, Cindy?  I did not ask a yes/no question.

    "Yes, everything is God, and therefore Hinduism is pantheistic"?

					Topher

    Re .74 & .76: point of information
    
    The "Catholic doctrine of the Trinity" is in fact shared by almost all
    of Christianity, Protestant and Orthodox as well as Catholic.  There
    are subtle differences between the Orthodox and western versions of the
    doctrine, but they both hold it.  There are some Christian groups that
    disbelieve in the Trinity -- Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness
    Pentacostalism, for instance -- but their numbers are small.
    
    Re .78:
    
    Let me try a slight re-wording of Topher's question, as I understood
    it:  In Hindu opinion, is there anything that has true existence which
    is not also God, part of God, or an aspect or appearance of God?  If
    the answer is "no," then Hinduism is pantheistic.  If the answer is
    "yes," then I would be interested to hear what this independent
    existence is.
    
    Let me ask a related question:  What do you think "pantheism" means?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Re: The base note:

>What's the current attitude of the Church (major religions)
>towards things Psychic and Supernatural?

	I am not very knowledgeable in Hinduism, however, I will try to give
	the readers my own perspective based on my brought up.

	"Psychic and Supernatural" phenomenon in Hinduism is for real.
	Once I witnessed a feat when I was young in my home town in India.
	The guy was a monkey entertainer which was his main occupation for
	a living. After the show, this gentleman, said that he had been 
	bestowed with a feat for the removal of tooth. If any one wanted 
	his/her tooth extracted, he would do so in the name of public 
	service. He didn't charge a penny for this service otherwise 
	he would lose this trick, said the entertainer. (In fact, this
	trick was given to him by a wandering seer who was pleased with
	this guy.) One guy from audience came forward with a decayed tooth
	which he could barely hold with fingers. The entertainer asked
	this guy for a clean cloth on which he read few mantras. The
	entertainer gave the cloth back to this guy and said that please pull
	out the tooth with this piece of cloth. He warned before giving
	the piece of cloth that whichever tooth he picked will be out.
	The guy gently pulled the tooth out. This is an eye-witness incident.

	Another feat happened with my wife who lost all her hairs at a
	very young age. My father-in-law came to know about this guy who was
	not living on this trick but had another business for a living.
	He made some kind of dough out of plant roots and applied on my
	wife's head for about a week. This had to be done before sunrise.
	It was not all. He had read some mantras for this process to be
	effective. You wouldn't believe thick hairs started coming out 
	in just one week!!! Todate my wife still has same thick hairs. 
	This guy also said the same thing that he was not allowed to earn 
	money for this trick. In addition, if he tells the trick to other 
	people, the trick would become ineffective. Later on we learned 
	that some people insisted him telling the trick. He did and 
	the trick really became ineffective.

Note: One has to be careful about such feats because there are many
fake people in India who will claim to know such things and try to cheat
innocent. Don't believe unless it is for real. A real one will not even ask for
money or reward. Such people are very rare and I was lucky to witness
these two incidents.

	I know there is no proof of all these things. I can't even
	insist people for believing what I saw as I am afraid I will
	be declared lunatic. I can cite Shastras and scriptures and
	still get the same lunatic behavior. Atharva-Veda is entirely 
	devoted to feats and incantations. My observation of Hinduism 
	has been that proofs and categorizations are not really important. 
	My own theory is that categorizations promote stereotypes. Later 
	on when such categorizations get into the hands of 
	less-fortunate-innocent-not-so-knowledgeables, they become the 
	real victims by providing stereotypical arguments for and/or 
	against a philosophy.

	The development of philosophy in India has been on different
	set up than its counterpart in the west. Not everyone was
	allowed to comment on mystical phenomenon unless the commentator 
	was himself/herself a seer. Because of this approach, there
	was no incoherent philosophies and the commentator could not
	take any credit for such ideas. That is one reason why you
	wouldn't find any authors attached to a particular scripture.
	It was a collected work of many seers. Unfortunately, for this
	reason, Sanskrit and commentaries were limited to very few
	people and a common Hindu did not attempt to question any
	of these findings. That is why there is so much misunderstanding
	and lots of mind boggling modern interpretaions of Hinduism. This 
	is probably the reason that most late 19th century Indologists 
	rejected Vedas as the creation of barbarians. 

	Dr. S.N.Dasgupta was an authority on Indian philosophy. He wrote
	five great volumes on Indian philosophy. Britainica has 
	heavily drawn from his works on Hinduism. He has categorically 
	rejected Hinduism as being any kind of -isms, i.e., monotheism,
	polytheism, qualified dualism, dualism, pantheism, atheism,
	henotheism, you name it. Hinduism simply cannot be limited to
	these kind of isms.

	The basic tenet of Hinduism is on self-realization of truth.
	Faith and scriptures are a starting point. Arguments and logic
	are for understanding the truth. That's not enough, the truth
	has to be realized.

	Hinduism insist that every one has the power of becoming God or
	supernatural being through the practice of yoga which cleans the
	impurities of mind. This way an aspirant can see the truth.
	Such a person is called seer or 'rishi', the one who sees the
	truth. This is an evolutionary process in which atma unites with
	the ultimate reality called Brahma.


On other notes:

	On God and nature being same: A better analogy would be that God
	breathes through matter. Both are separate entities when it
	comes to the formation of universe. Yoga philosophy is based on
	two assumptions: Purusha (Parmatma) and Nature. God in this
	model is a transcedental aspect which is further extended by a later 
	Hindu philosophy called the Vedanta. 

	It is not monism because even though there is a supreme God, but
	for practical purposes its significance disappears in daily
	rituals. There is rarely any Brahma temple in India.

	It is not polytheism because Gods have no independence. Each
	god yields to one or another god. The importance of each god
	is given based on occasion. For example, to ask for rain, Indra
	is invoked, but it does not mean that other gods are unimportant.
	On another occasion, by same person, another god may be invoked.

	It is not pantheism because God is not same as nature. Both are
	different although God acts through all of nature. Here too
	gods are to follow the laws of nature such as the effect of
	gunas - kind of orderly (intelligent) movement. My usage
	of the term God is loosely related to Parmatma, a kind of
	chief Soul. 

	It is Dualism only in degree. For example, to expain the formation
	of universe Sankhya brings Purusha and Nature because God is
	not necessary to explain such phenomenon.

Just my views.

-- Virendra

    re: .81,
    
    If God breathes through matter, rather than being matter, then 
    He/She/It/They is distinct from matter, (and Topher's answer would be
    that _matter_ is not part of God).  That's straightforward enough.
    
    But isn't matter also viewed as part of some sort of universal mind ?
    The unreality of all matter, isn't that a Hindu concept ?  So the
    answer to the pantheism question might depend on whether this
    universal mind is considered an aspect of God or something created
    by God (or other interpretations ?).
    
    Or maybe I'm just confused about the universal mind concept.
    
    								todd

    
    Re.79
    
    Topher,
    
    I was agreeing with, and adding to, .76, and have not yet replied 
    to .75.  That answer to follow when I have more time.
    
    Cindy

    Whoops, sorry, got mixed up about my own note numbers.

				Topher

    
    Re.80
    
    Earl,
    
    You may wish to take another look at .36 again.  There is a definition
    of pantheism at the very end (from Websters), and perhaps an answer to
    your other question as well.
    
    Cindy

    re: .84,
    Does this mean that ice cream _does_ have bones ?
    
    						todd

    
    Additional to .36 - that note only contains one of the three answers,
    as you'll read in the text.
    
    I'll try to type the other two in as time allows.  Then it will make
    more sense.
    
    Cindy

    But it isn't the doctrine of emmanations that seems to me to reflect
    pantheistic thought, Kabbalistic cosmology has a doctrine of
    emmanations as well, yet considers the Creator completely distinct from the
    creations.  it is the Hindu notion (?) of the unreality of matter that
    I'm stuck on.
    
    						todd

    Re .85 & .87:
    
    Thank you.  Yes, it is clear that Hinduism does not match the
    definition of pantheism given in Webster's, since it finds divinity at
    least as much in the unmanifest as in the manifest.
    
    It still seems to me that the definitions of pantheism given in .64
    (the Reese dictionary of philosophy and religion) apply to Hinduism. 
    If you look at points 14 and 15, they sound very similar to the verses
    quote in .36.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Re: .82
>    But isn't matter also viewed as part of some sort of universal mind ?

	Yes. But Mind is not God or Parmatma. Mind is matter - very 
	subtle matter. It is very much part of nature.
	
>   The unreality of all matter, isn't that a Hindu concept ?  

	It is unreal simply because it is mutable - that is changes
	with time. Universal Mind is third evolute in the process of
	creation.

>So the
>    answer to the pantheism question might depend on whether this
>    universal mind is considered an aspect of God or something created
>    by God (or other interpretations ?).

    The theory goes like this. God does not create anything. The
    change takes place because of the influence of gunas of nature which in
    turn change by karma produced by individual atmas or purushas.
    Consciousness is a production of the reflection of soul or atma
    in matter via a translucence material called buddhi. God is a passive
    entity which acts as a background just like light does in a movie
    film.

    re: .90,
    	Thank you very much.
    				todd

    Here's another approach to the topic of pantheism:
    
    The metaphysical angle (God = All) defines the idea, but this may not
    be what is most religiously significant about it.  After all, pantheism
    comes in many forms (see .64).  The difference between, say,
    Emanationistic Pantheism or Relativistic Monistic Pantheism, and the
    monotheistic idea that God is immanent and omnipresent, may be a real
    difference, but it is a rather delicate one to define clearly.
    
    I think it may be of greater religious importance to look at
    pantheistic vs monotheistic eschatology, that is, the fate of the soul.
    
    In a typical pantheistic system, the ultimate fate of an individual
    soul is to be cured of the illusion of individuality, to resolve or
    melt back into the Divine from which it came (or which it always really
    was).  Ultimately, individuality ends.
    
    In a typical monotheistic system, individuality never ends.  The final
    state of the blessed soul is an ecstatic intimacy with the Divine, a
    far greater intimacy than we can describe, but the distinction between
    creature and Creator remains eternal.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re.92
    
    I promise to formulate some responses to prior notes (yours, Earl, and
    Topher's outstanding note too.)  Time is short at the moment.  
    
    One thought that came back to me from a workshop I attended somewhere 
    was that the idea of an 'individual' is usually thought of as 
    'separation'.  When you think about it though, the word 'indivisible' 
    also can be looked at as 'something that cannot be divided'.  So our 
    True nature, then, really is Brahman - the undivided, unseparated - and 
    that this idea of 'individual' as a separate entity from everything 
    else is the illusion that we must pierce through.  
    
    Are we ever truly separate, then?  I don't believe so, even though our
    senses might lead us to believe that we are.
    
    This follows along with the idea of the Earth model representing
    Hinduism and the many forms really being a part of the Whole.  There
    used to be a time where we could exploit the Earth, and the effects of
    this exploitation could only be felt locally, and even that took some
    time to manifest.  Now, though, we are coming more and more to realize
    that anything we do, can and will affect not just those locally, but
    those on the other side of the Earth as well....Chernobyl coming to
    mind almost immediately.  Or cutting down the rainforests.  Or dumping
    toxic wastes.  Etc.
    
    Cindy

    Re .93:
    
    Thank you.  The idea that 
    
    	"So our True nature, then, really is Brahman - the undivided, 
    	 unseparated - and that this idea of 'individual' as a separate 
    	 entity from everything else is the illusion that we must pierce 
    	 through."
    
    is a very clear expression of the view of the soul that I, at least,
    have always thought of as typically "pantheistic."  Whether or not the 
    word "pantheistic" is appropriate to that concept, it is still a very
    different concept from the Christian idea of salvation and the
    analogous ideas found in Islam and some parts of Judaism.  (However,
    compare with items 13, 16, and 18 in .64.)
    
    In this monotheistic concept, the blessed souls are forever distinct
    from God and from each other, and it is this distinction that makes
    possible communion, community between God and the blessed, and among
    the blessed.
    
    In Dante's "Paradiso," the visions of Heaven all revolve around an
    exchange of light, streaming down from God, being given by one soul to
    another, enriching both by the exchange.  Paul compares the saints to
    the different but interdependent organs of a body, or the stars, each
    with its unique color and luster.
    
    It is a different vision of blessedness.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

                              
    Re.94
    
    I think there are also different levels too, depending upon one's state
    of consciousness at any time.
    
    Hope to get back to Shankara and Ramanajua soon, but going through the
    book just now, I came across the following explanation under Sri
    Ramakrishna's section (he was Swami Vivekananda's guru - the fellow
    mentioned in one the notes before who got touched and immediately
    'realized' God...)
    
    P.346
    
    "The main schools of thought in [the philosophy of] Vedanta - dualism,
    qualified monism, and nondualism - Sri Ramakrishna reconciled in the
    following manner.  Quoting an ancient verse from the Hindu scriptures,
    he told how Rama, who was worshipped as a divine incarnation, asked his
    faithful devotee Hanuman how he looked upon him.  Hanuman replied" 
    "When I consider myself a physical being, thou art the master, I am thy
    servant.  When I consider myself as an individual being, thou art the
    whole, I am one of thy parts.  And when I realize myself as the Atman
    [or, for the sake of some consistancy - Brahman], I am one with thee."
    [end of quote]
    
    This matches the statements in the Bible that Jesus Christ makes at
    different times.  When he considers himself a physical being, he tells
    people to pray to his Father in Heaven, and not to him.  When Christ is
    an individual being, he sits at the right hand of God. Then, when 
    Christ speaks from the realization that he is Brahman, he says, "I and 
    my Father are One."
    
    The idea of salvation only happens at the dualism and qualified monism
    levels.  At the nondualism level, there is no separation any longer,
    and no need for salvation.
    
    Cindy

                    
    Re.94 (add'l)
    
    It's beginning to sound like a very large paradox, and that all three
    states actually exist simultaneously all the time (and in no-time too.)
    
    The factor that determines how one perceives it all is the level of
    consciousness that one is 'tapped into' at any one time.  
    
        >In Dante's "Paradiso," the visions of Heaven all revolve around an
        >exchange of light, streaming down from God, being given by one soul
        >to another, enriching both by the exchange.  Paul compares the saints
        >to the different but interdependent organs of a body, or the stars,
        >each with its unique color and luster.
       
    Dante, when writing this, appears to have been writing it from the 
    Vedantic 'qualified monism' state (which appears to be identical to 
    the monotheism (?), and it's just as true and valid as a total physical
    separation (the dual state), or the complete merge (nondual state).  
    
    There is a saying that comes to mind from some book that goes something
    like this, "If you say you are God, you are not.  If you say you are
    not God, you are not."  The idea being that if you are indeed merged
    with Brahman/God, there's nobody 'out there' to say it to.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

NOTE - this is a continuation of note .36
=========================================

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.41-43 - Chapter on the Upanishads

Brahman (cont'd)
-------

According to a second conception, for which there is ample apparent support 
in the text of the Upanishads, there is no longer the question of 
Brahman 'and' the universe; there is only Brahman.  Brahman is 
completely transcendent - if such an expression can be used when there 
is no longer anything to transcend.


'This is Brahman, without cause and without effect, without anything 
inside or outside.

In the course of his teaching, the sage Yajnavalkya says:

'My beloved, let nothing I have said confuse you.  But meditate well the 
truth that I have spoken. 

'As long as there is duality, one sees 'the other', one hears 'the 
other', one smells 'the other', one speaks to 'the other', one things of 
'the other, one knows 'the other'; but when for the illuminated soul the 
all is dissolved in the Self, who is there to be seen by whom, who is 
there to be smelt by whom, who s there to be heard by whom, who is there 
to be spoken to by whom, who is there to be thought of by whom, who is 
there to be known by whom?  Ah, Maitreyi, my beloved, the Intelligence 
which reveals all - by what shall it be revealed?  By whom shall the 
Knower be known?  The Self is described as 'not this, not that' (neti, 
neti).  It is incomprehensible, for it cannot be comprehended; 
undecaying for it never decays; unattached for it never attaches itself' 
unbound for it is never bound.  By whom, O my beloved, shall the Knower 
be known?'  [Brhadaranyaka, IV.v.14-15]

In a view in which Brahman is 'without effect', or in which Brahman is 
assumed but there is declared to be no duality, there is manifestly no 
provision for a universe.  In other passages of similar purport, of 
which the following is an example, the figure of clay is used - and the 
many forms it takes from the hand of the potter:

'In words or speech alone the modification originates and exists.  In 
reality there is no such thing as modification.  It is merely a name and 
the clay alone is real.  [Chandogya, VI.i.5]

So the universe of name and form is in name and form alone, for Brahman 
is the only reality.  On this point the Mundaka Upanishad speaks thus:

'As rivers flow into the sea and in so doing lose name and form, even so 
the wise man, freed from name and form, attains the Supreme Being, the 
Self-luminous, the Infinite.' [Mundaka, III.ii.8]

It was from such sayings as these that the greatest of Hindu 
commentators, Shankara (or Samkara), drew the philosophy for which he is 
known.  [Note - Earl, this is your #14 in note .64]  This, like that of 
Ramanuja [Note - #15], we shall examine later.


Still a third conception of Brahman is hinted at in the Upanishads.  No 
affirmation whatever regarding Brahman, the rishis sometimes felt can be 
made.  He escapes all definition, all description.

'Brahman is he whom speech cannot express and from whom the mind, unable 
to reach him, comes away baffled.'  [Taittiriya, II.4.]

'That which cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks 
- know that to be Brahman.  Brahman is not the being who is worshipped 
of men.  

'That which is not comprehended by the mind but by which the mind 
comprehends - know that to be Brahman.  Brahman is not the being who is 
worshipped of men.

'That which is not seen by the eye, but by which the eye sees - know 
that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the being who is worshipped of men.

'That which is not heard by the ear but by which the ear hears - know 
that to be Brahman.   Brahman is not the being who is worshipped of men.

'That which is not drawn by the breath but by which the breath is drawn 
- know that to be Brahman.   Brahman is not the being who is worshipped 
of men.  [Kena, I.5-9]

And again, in a passage preserved only in Shankara's commentary:

"Sir," said the pupil to his master, "teach me the nature of Brahman."  
The master did not reply.  When a second and third time he was 
importuned, he answered:  "I teach you indeed, but you do not follow.  
His name is silence."

[to be continued - the summary of all three views]

From: "The Spiritual Heritage Of India", by Swami Prabhavananda

p.45-46 - Chapter on the Upanishads

Brahman (cont'd)
-------

This last paradoxical view of Brahman seems more worth noting because of 
the possibility that it too, like the others we have defined, had an 
important place in later Hindu philosophy - perhaps indeed a more 
important place that either of the other two.  For who can say whether 
the apparent agnosticism of Buddha, often miscalled atheism, his refusal 
to make any affirmation whatever regarding Brahman, or God, may not have 
come from his attention to such passages as we have just quoted?  For 
nobody doubts that Buddha made the most thorough study of the ancient 
scriptures.

Three views of Brahman, then, to sum up, all have a basis in the text of 
the Upanishads, the first two of which, primarily associated 
respectively with Ramanuja [NOTE - #15] and Shankara [NOTE - #14], have 
for centuries divided the allegiance of orthodox saints and scholars.  
Must they continue to do so?  Is there no means by which they can be 
reconciled?

Non, it is clear, if reconciliation is to depend upon a discovery of 
identity between passages which on a natural interpretation are plainly 
dissimilar in meaning.  That the relation of Brahman to the universe is 
variously represented in the Upanishads there can be no manner of doubt; 
and if a student is forced to make a choice between one formulation and 
another, then he will naturally lean to that one which seems to him to 
be best supported and the least productive of difficulties.  But is he 
forced to choose?  May not each of the three principal interpretations 
be correct - and at the same time, taken by itself, incomplete?

Such a view tends to seem natural and plausible the more one comes to 
realize a general characteristic of the Upanishads which has already 
been mentioned.  They are not calculated constructions of logic, but 
spontaneous records of mystic experience and mystic or transcendental 
experience is not a static thing but a process.  With one stage of this 
experience there corresponds one view of reality, with another stage 
another view, and the truth that each of the three views we have 
encountered can be explained as a simple reflection of a particular 
stage of mystic experience.  This will be clearer on closer analysis. (;^)

The primary step towards the mystic experience is the negation or denial 
of external things. Brahman (or Atman) is 'neither this nor that' - neti 
neti Atma.  As the sages became absorbed in meditation, as they rose 
above the plane of physical perception, the universe of finite objects 
and the universe of ideas were both obliterated from their 
consciousness.  'Who is there to be seen by whom, who is there to be 
smelt by whom, who is there to be heard by whom, who is there to be 
spoken by whom, who is there to be thought of by whom, who is there to 
be known by whom?"  [Brhadaranyaka, IV.v.15]  In that ineffably exalted 
state,time and space and causation, which are the conditions of object 
experience, entirely cease to exist.  Here there is no thought, here 
there is no theory.  What is now the relation between Brahman and the 
universe?  But what is Brahman?  But what universe?  Santoyam Atma - His 
name is silence.

Thus we may account, in terms of inexpressible experience for that view 
or no view which amounts, in finite formula, to something like 
agnosticism.

Let us follow further the mystic cycle.  On his return from the peak of 
unitary consciousness, the sage, now enlightened with regard to the 
ultimate nature of reality, may find himself either in the normal state 
of consciousness or in bhavamukha, an intermediate state in which his 
consciousness is both normal and transcendent. 

If he is in the normal state, he will clearly perceive finite objects, 
but - the memory of the transcendental vision of Reality being present 
in his consciousness - the finite mist that veils the Infinite dissolves 
before his eyes as fast as it appears.  The clay vessels - to revert to 
the familiar - are seen to be all of one substance, what makes them 
apparently separate being but name and form.  Name and form, which give 
us the appearance of a finite universe, are realized as appearance only. 
 If then the sage, while in such a state, is moved to give an account of 
his experience, he will depict God as the only reality and the world as 
maya, and appearance.

If, on the other hand, he descends from the height of meditation, he 
finds himself in bhavamukha, he will again perceive what we call finite 
objects, being partly in a normal state of consciousness' but since the 
transcendental vision is also present, with its all-enveloping unity, he 
will be vividly aware that in reality they emanate from God and share in 
his being.  Giving expression to this experience, he will supply the 
basis for the first view to which attention has been drawn.

All three views, then, are actually present in the Upanishads.  On this 
point there need be no controversy.  All three views are true - for each 
corresponds with and exactly expresses a typical stage of transcendental 
experience.  As to which is the highest, the truest truth, probably no 
mystic would doubt, since that for him must be the one which best 
interprets the culmination of his vision.

    didn't read all the replies to this topic.  wanted to share, however, info 
    on what a friend of mine and i call the psychic church.
    
    i've only been there a couple of times.  I have no personal opinion or 
    academic knowledge on the place yet.
    
    I have an article here written by the reverend.  following are
    extracts.
    
    "...the bible does not forbid spirit communication.  what the bible
    forbids is the seeking of the guides before the seeking of god.  what
    the bible forbids is asking for glimpses into the future in order to
    give us some advantage over life.  what the bible forbids is asking a
    psychic to tell us what to do or what investments to make.  this, also,
    is what the church truly condemns; and we agree.  unfortunately, the
    Church has fallen victim to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
    
    "we believe in and work with the varied gifts of the spirit, one of
    which, clearly, is mediumship, or descerning the spirits.  however, we
    instruct people NOT to run their lives based upon the utterance of
    psychics and mediums.  go, first, to god.  seek that he make you whole
    again.  don't give up on god, on scripture, on the church, or on
    spirit.  give up on those who edify themselves; you will know who they
    are...
    
    "...please feel free to pass this article on..." it says.
    
    first spiritual temple 
    brookline , ma.
    
    they've been around about 110 years.
    
    even though there were only about 10 people, i admit, i liked the mind 
    reading going on there.  i think i'm probably the only one into mind 
    reading at my current church, some baptist thing, and i'm beginning to 
    have mixed feelings about going there --just don't fit in; you know?     
    the temple place is an hour and a half away, though.  
    
    
    

Re .99:

These people must have some fairly unusual interpretations of the Bible to say 
that it "does not forbid spirit communication."  Here are some of the things 
the Bible has to say about spirit communication:

	There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his
	daughter pass through the fire [child sacrifice], one who uses
	divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens,
	or a sorceror, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist,
	or one who calls up the dead.

						Deuteronomy 18:10-11

The next two verses explain that these are practices of the gentiles, but that
God will raise up prophets in place of these assorted fortune-tellers.  
Biblical prophets speak only for God.

The New Testament enters mediumship in several lists of condemned practices.
See Galatians 5:19, 1 Timothy 4:1, or Revelation 21:8. 

It may be that the First Spiritual Temple's concept of "descerning the
spirits" somehow falls outside the practices condemned in Deuteronomy.  But 
even so, it seems to me that, for these folk to acknowledge the Bible as 
authoritative, they have to be very deft with a loophole.

Earl Wajenberg

    yes, i would trust that their interpretations are unusual.
    
    i believe all religions are very very deft with loopholes, especailly
    when comparing themselves to other religions.
    
    i'm certain the reverend has long retorts to the verses you mentioned.
    i'm certain he is aware of the verses.  he seemed very very
    professional.  
    
    the word `mediumship' and the phrase `descerning the spirits' aren't 
    clear enough to me to understand what he was trying to say.  word choice 
    alone can cause theological debate for years and years; that is, when 
    comparing certain words with words used in the old-english bible, or when 
    comparing them to words in non-english versions of the bible.    
    
    didn't god tell what's-his-face to sacrifice his son?  what was his
    name?  abraham? --don't know...
    
    it seems we have to be so very very careful about the context in which
    bible verses are nested.  the do's and don't's take on such
    dramatically different meanings depending on the context of the story
    or chapter in which they reside.  
    
    i will send your note to the reverend, if you want.  i understand you
    asked no question, but purely made statements.   
                                                  

    Re .101:
    
    Ask his opinion of the verses I mentioned, if you like, but only to
    please yourself.
    
    Yes, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, then dramatically
    cancelled the sacrifice at the last minute.  (See Genesis 22.)  The
    story is presented simply as a test of Abraham's faith.  My own personal 
    hunch is that this was God's forceful was of demanding an end to child
    sacrifice.  Child sacrifice (in times of crisis) was a standard feature
    of Abraham's culture.  God's call for Isaac would not have surprised
    him, however unwelcome it might have been.  The surprise would have
    been in the cancellation; "I don't want that kind of sacrifice."
    
    Not that this has any obvious connection with mediumship...
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re.102
    
    I rather like that hunch actually.  I've never heard that interpretation 
    presented before, but it does make a lot of sense.
    
    Cindy

    Thanks.

    I believe that is also the interpretation placed on Abraham's/Isaac's
    tale by the Jews.
    
    I also like that particular interpretation. I can't imagine anything
    turning me off God more than thinking he'd want me to sacrifice my
    child to him. :^(
    
    MY God is better than that :^)
    
    
    Marilyn

|    I also like that particular interpretation. I can't imagine anything
|    turning me off God more than thinking he'd want me to sacrifice my
|    child to him. :^(
    
    That's why it's a suitable test of faith.  
    
    Also consider the effect on you for the rest of your life if you
    had made the honest commitment to sacrifice your own child.  That's quite
    a commitment of faith to live up to, once you've seen yourself as 
    a person who loves the Lord so much that you'd perform this act.  
    
    							todd

    I just thought of something else. I wonder what would have happened if
    God had asked it of Abraham's wife?
    
    
    Marilyn

    - god does not test people.  love cannot do that.
    
    - women are second-rate, one step above slaves, i believe, in the
    version of the bible i have.  

|    - god does not test people.  love cannot do that.
    
    This seems amazing to me.  On the contrary, I observe that love provides 
    the most difficult tests of all.  I have no idea how anyone can experience 
    love and not be tested at some point in their commitment.  That's one 
    of the most profound and universal messages in religious literature I can 
    think of.  Maybe I misunderstood ... ?
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    if you are purely loving, you are not testing.

|    if you are purely loving, you are not testing.
    
    In other words, in a perfect world there would be no trials ?
    And bad things would never happen to good people ?
    Is that what you are getting at ?
    							todd

    
    Re.110
    
    YES!!!!!
    
    Thank you 10,000 times for that reply, and the other one.  
    Made my year.    
    
    Cindy

    111
    
    but, you are perfect; there are no trials.
    what is perfection?
    what is so good about feeling bad?

    Re .113:
    
    This is another area where Eastern and Western spirituality often
    differ.  In many strands of Eastern thought (not all, I realize), there
    is no real imperfection, no real evil.  The impression that these
    things are real is part of the illusion that should drop away when one
    becomes enlightened.
    
    In Western spirituality, evil is never ultimate, but it is generally
    quite real.  In Christianity, St. Augustine gave a definitive
    description of evil's place in the world as "the privation of good." 
    That is, evil is not a positive quality in itself; it is what you get
    by subtracting something from a good thing.  The opposition of good and
    evil is not like the opposition of left and right, or acid and base,
    but like the opposition of whole and broken, complete and incomplete,
    heatlhy and sick.
    
    "what is so good about feeling bad?"
    
    Nothing is good about the bad feeling itself, but the feeling may spur
    one to take corrective measures.  There are two kinds of people who do
    not feel pain -- the uninjured and the numb.  It is fine to be
    uninjured, but if you are numb, as lepers are in their extremities, you
    will suffer one wound after another until your limbs are destroyed.
    
    Whatever enlightenment or grace or satori may be, they cannot be
    spiritual leprosy, a mere numbness, an indifference that ignores
    suffering and guilt.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

|    Nothing is good about the bad feeling itself, but the feeling may spur
|    one to take corrective measures.  There are two kinds of people who do
|    not feel pain -- the uninjured and the numb.  It is fine to be
|    uninjured, but if you are numb, as lepers are in their extremities, you
|    will suffer one wound after another until your limbs are destroyed.
    
    Yes.
    
    As far as I know, everyone feels pain, anxiety, and sadness at some
    point, even if they are protected from harm or mostly numb.  We differ
    greatly in how we respond to these feelings, though.  Some people become 
    hopeless and depressed, others have a propensity to rise above.  This
    is the meaning of 'testing.'  The ability to rise above partly reflects our
    hope and our faith, as well as our biology. In rising above, we reach
    new levels.  That's how I envision this.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd