Is it wise to try and be everything?

[Honza]

From I AM, to Son Of I AM, to I AM not etc. Which is the best principle?

I heard people/beings say all three. Someone like Sai Baba would say I AM all. Christ said I AM the Son Of I AM. Others say I AM not.

To be honest my gut instinct tells me Christ is the wisest. I AM, but it is best to bow down and not try a BE everything. To remain the Son....and not the whole.

Sai Baba on the other hand just throws caution to the wind and says I AM the ultimate! What about Buddha? Did he say I AM not?

How do you see it?

[mihael_11]

Try all of them, but you are beyond that. When you go past all that principles created by others.

[Baile]

I followed several paths since my teens.
My life was always full of conflict and self-doubt.
Realized at age 48 my path is me and who I am.
Happy traveling ever since.

[dattaseva]

Electricity by itself is beyond our reach. It has no form and cannot be seen. However, it can be felt (as an electric shock) only through the medium of a live wire. Without a wire, electricity cannot be felt by us. Thus from the point of view of our perception, electricity is identical with a live wire.

The unimaginable Lord, who is beyond the reach of the devotee, offers the medium of the human body of an incarnation to reach Him. It is indeed the wish of God that the devotee considers the human incarnation of God as God Himself. The devotee who accepts and worships God in the human body of the incarnation worships God Himself.

But alas, not all devotees can do this. Devotees who have completely conquered their ego and jealousy towards other human beings, alone can accept the human incarnation of the Lord as the Lord Himself (as in the case of Sai Baba).

Those who have only partially conquered ego and jealousy can at the most accept that the Lord dwells in the human incarnation as the major component (as in the case of Jesus). They still think that there is a minor component of individuality in the human incarnation. It is equivalent to stating that in the live wire, electricity and the wire both exist, but that electricity is the major component. The electricity and the wire represent the concepts of the Father and the Son in Christianity. In this case, God is believed to exist in the human incarnation as if a king were living as a guest in the house of his friend. These people, who have partially conquered their ego and jealousy, accept an underlying unity in duality.

In devotees whose hearts are full of ego and jealousy, the human incarnation cannot be accepted as God either fully or in part. They simply cannot accept the entrance of God into a human body. All they can accept is that the person in question is a prophet or messenger from God in whom, the power of God exists but not God Himself (as in the case of Mohammed).

Thus, based on these three categories of devotees, the human incarnation can be taken as identical with God (Sai Baba), an abode of God (in whom God lives like Jesus) or a servant of God (Mohammed).

In both Hinduism and Christianity, all these three approaches to God are present. In Hinduism, the three great preachers (Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva) separately preached about each of these three angles respectively. The three approaches are called Advaita, Vishishthadvaita and Dvaita respectively. The three preachers gave a systematic analysis of their respective approaches and developed the three angles as elaborate philosophies. In Christianity, Lord Jesus alone preached about these three angles briefly.

Islam preaches only the last angle in which they do not recognize any human incarnation of God. At the most, they accept prophets and messengers of God. There is a certain advantage to this approach. False preachers who either claim to be God, or who claim that God lives in them, are avoided. Thus Muslims treat Prophet Mohammed as a messenger of the Lord and not as an incarnation.

Jesus, Mohammed, Sai Baba and Buddha were all human incarnations of God, but treated in different ways by different devotees.

[urbanzennist]

Originally Posted by Honza

Sai Baba on the other hand just throws caution to the wind and says I AM the ultimate! What about Buddha? Did he say I AM not?

How do you see it?

The Buddha did not say "I am not". Rather, the Buddha taught that what we refer to as "I am" is ever changing. If anything, the Buddha simply said "I am impermanent", which means that there are countless things which we are, from moment to moment, and countless things that we can be at any point in our lives. By clinging to one particular idea of self, we limit our potential. We may not be everything, but the changes in this illusory self are almost limitless.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by dattaseva

Electricity by itself is beyond our reach. It has no form and cannot be seen. However, it can be felt (as an electric shock) only through the medium of a live wire. Without a wire, electricity cannot be felt by us. Thus from the point of view of our perception, electricity is identical with a live wire.

The unimaginable Lord, who is beyond the reach of the devotee, offers the medium of the human body of an incarnation to reach Him. It is indeed the wish of God that the devotee considers the human incarnation of God as God Himself. The devotee who accepts and worships God in the human body of the incarnation worships God Himself.

But alas, not all devotees can do this. Devotees who have completely conquered their ego and jealousy towards other human beings, alone can accept the human incarnation of the Lord as the Lord Himself (as in the case of Sai Baba).

Those who have only partially conquered ego and jealousy can at the most accept that the Lord dwells in the human incarnation as the major component (as in the case of Jesus). They still think that there is a minor component of individuality in the human incarnation. It is equivalent to stating that in the live wire, electricity and the wire both exist, but that electricity is the major component. The electricity and the wire represent the concepts of the Father and the Son in Christianity. In this case, God is believed to exist in the human incarnation as if a king were living as a guest in the house of his friend. These people, who have partially conquered their ego and jealousy, accept an underlying unity in duality.

In devotees whose hearts are full of ego and jealousy, the human incarnation cannot be accepted as God either fully or in part. They simply cannot accept the entrance of God into a human body. All they can accept is that the person in question is a prophet or messenger from God in whom, the power of God exists but not God Himself (as in the case of Mohammed).

Thus, based on these three categories of devotees, the human incarnation can be taken as identical with God (Sai Baba), an abode of God (in whom God lives like Jesus) or a servant of God (Mohammed).

In both Hinduism and Christianity, all these three approaches to God are present. In Hinduism, the three great preachers (Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva) separately preached about each of these three angles respectively. The three approaches are called Advaita, Vishishthadvaita and Dvaita respectively. The three preachers gave a systematic analysis of their respective approaches and developed the three angles as elaborate philosophies. In Christianity, Lord Jesus alone preached about these three angles briefly.

Islam preaches only the last angle in which they do not recognize any human incarnation of God. At the most, they accept prophets and messengers of God. There is a certain advantage to this approach. False preachers who either claim to be God, or who claim that God lives in them, are avoided. Thus Muslims treat Prophet Mohammed as a messenger of the Lord and not as an incarnation.

Jesus, Mohammed, Sai Baba and Buddha were all human incarnations of God, but treated in different ways by different devotees.

I see what U see ... well analyzed/seen (IMO), dattaseva!

[shiningstars]

Honza,

The wise point to Truth in many ways/forms. They are all saying the same thing. That's the beauty of reaching the Peak. Until then, even the truest words quoted can be nothing but trickery or deceit.

In the hand of the woodworker, even the coarsest, most unrefined piece of wood will be known to be a masterpiece.

In the hands of another, what might be the finest treasure in all of the world cannot be unlocked or known. It's like a beautiful bird trapped in the hands of a tyrant - even his/her song becomes muted at the hands of the wrong person and no "repetition" of the bird's rhythm equals the beauty of the bird's song itself.

As with all things, it's not the "what" - it's the individual wielding the tool, as well as the blessings given by those around them.

Therefore, in my opinion, focus not so much on the words but on the spirit of a teaching, follow not a thousand paths but take one diligently, at the end of the path you can admire all the other avenues. And above all, keep genuine friends or guides if you are so fortunate to encounter them, for they will show you the way when you are lost. You will know peace and transcendence when you have realized it - it will be beyond doubt, but is not an intellectual arrogance nor is it a belief. By thine fruits will it be known, and when all else fails your heart will show you the way.

shiningstars

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Therefore, in my opinion, focus not so much on the words but on the spirit of a teaching, ...

Aye to that!

Originally Posted by shiningstars

... follow not a thousand paths but take one diligently, ...

The great ones, in music and art for instance, try out all 'styles', learning something in the case of each, but then develop their own style/mode/method. The 'take (only) one path diligently' approach may be (for) 'the best' in some cases, won't necessarily in every case, IMO.

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by davidsun

The great ones, in music and art for instance, try out all 'styles', learning something in the case of each, but then develop their own style/mode/method. The 'take (only) one path diligently' approach may be (for) 'the best' in some cases, won't necessarily in every case, IMO.

At levels of relative mastery, I can't imagine people would not be able to take inspiration from multiple paths, but until then, I do believe it best. The reason is because, as examples, "I am that", "I am", "I am not", whilst all pointing to the same element, are taught within the context of a broader philosophy of teaching - whether it is Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Christianity - and mixing and mashing can be grossly misunderstand or confusing until one has a true inner gnosis, if you get my drift.

shiningstars

[markings]

Originally Posted by Honza

From I AM, to Son Of I AM, to I AM not etc. Which is the best principle?

The best principle is to have no such principle.

But if you have to believe in one of them it, the best is the one you are on, until you are not on it anymore.
You cannot follow a principle which you have not adopted.