The silliness of calling Christ an "enlightened man"

[Honza]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

They view Jesus as a future King; not God.

What I meant was how do they see the coming of the Jewish Messiah?

If the Jewish Messiah is not God incarnate then what is he?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Honza

What I meant was how do they see the coming of the Jewish Messiah?

If the Jewish Messiah is not God incarnate then what is he?

Do a little research.... As I posted earlier, different Sects see him differently.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Aknaton

Taking only a brief look at the posts here, some argue from a Christian point of view and others from a shall I say yogic/Hindu point of view.

I believe the idea of enlightenment comes from the hindu religion, where a person comes to "know they're self, Atman, etc" and lives with that realisation.

And then we look at the Christian point of view that talks of Salvation, where a person is saved from the fall through receiving the Holy Ghost. He disaccossiates from the Adamic nature and identifies himself so to say with the Christic/Logoic/Creative/Godly nature through Jesus Christ the Image of that Self same God.

Here we see an ideal of enlightenment which none who have typed the word here on this thread have attained, attempting to fit this ideal into Christianity or specifically, upon Jesus Christ. How can a person who isn't enlightened know who is and who isn't enlightened, let alone define this term? Hypocrites!!!

And what is Atman?

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Honza

…an enlightened man rather than God incarnate.

Originally Posted by Jyotir, in reply #56

What is the difference for practical purposes?

God is an enlightened man; man is an unenlightened God

Avatars like Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Krishna are manifestations of the Divine Who come to demonstrate what the possibilities are for human beings. Otherwise what they would represent is an anomaly, an aberration - that God is unapproachable and unattainable because separable and alienable which is not true since God is not only in all, but IS all, and as such all in the Creation is in the process of becoming God - consciously - including and especially in and through the individualized self-conscious human life which these figures represent NOT ONLY as a GOAL, but also (because of Who they essentially are fully manifesting) as a VEHICLE to that goal in and through THEMSELVES.

It is only because human beings feel unworthy, by allowing ignorance/ego to predominate and self-perpetuate*, that they create a divide within themselves (e.g., between themselves and God) which they then project onto their understanding of what is possible, available, and attainable as demonstrated by God’s direct representations.

Why impose a human limitation on God?
Better to attain a divine liberation in and through the human.

Is God really omnipresent or not? But importantly, in what status?
This is what the avatars demonstrate.
*why Jesus Christ had to "die for our sins", so that we could move on and further progress beyond incessantly recursive cycles of guilt and paralysis. If you are forgiven in principle that means always a new start, new work, and the implication that perfection is possible, attainable, and amazingly, inevitable per the Will of God.

Originally Posted by Aknaton

Taking only a brief look at the posts here, some argue from a Christian point of view and others from a shall I say yogic/Hindu point of view.

I believe the idea of enlightenment comes from the hindu religion, where a person comes to "know they're self, Atman, etc" and lives with that realisation.

And then we look at the Christian point of view that talks of Salvation, where a person is saved from the fall through receiving the Holy Ghost. He disaccossiates from the Adamic nature and identifies himself so to say with the Christic/Logoic/Creative/Godly nature through Jesus Christ the Image of that Self same God.

Here we see an ideal of enlightenment which none who have typed the word here on this thread have attained, attempting to fit this ideal into Christianity or specifically, upon Jesus Christ. How can a person who isn't enlightened know who is and who isn't enlightened, let alone define this term? Hypocrites!!!

Again, how are these different views i.e., Hindu/Christian effectively different or irreconcilable for practical purposes of sadhana?

More specifically, “the idea of enlightenment” comes from the Real Idea of Light, which issues forth from, IS, and eventual becomes Source Consciousness in the physical Cosmic scheme, all of which the Avatars - like Jesus Christ - came to both represent as an embodied prototype e.g., ideal, but also to enable as a vehicle themselves as a means for conditionally ignorant human beings to have access to and attain that ideal.

Otherwise their presence has significantly diminished meaning; perhaps God showing-off how great, unattainable and aloof He is? That's an old-school religious idea, (ironically in this discussion) one that Jesus Christ came to open the door to walk out of by His sacrifice.

Therefore, there is no hypocrisy in the failed or incomplete approximations of the ideal - in fact they prove and demonstrate its viability - especially if that ideal as so embodied in human form (Avatar) is recognized and applied. That, in-and-of itself is a form of enlightenment that occurs by the Will of Spirit enlightening the individual human being - whatever the relative or transitory degree, status, or definition.

“How can a person who isn't enlightened know who is and who isn't enlightened, let alone define this term?”
By the inalienable Light within themselves which is none other than Spirit/Atman, Who is externalised, represented by, and is the Avatar.

The important thing - especially in the current era - is the intrinsic progressive spiritual aspiration, which is the ongoing evolutionary purpose, the Will of Spirit these figures demonstrate and support for those who are ready (also by God's Grace) to become further responsive. It is therefore the progressive tendency, the possibility recognized and actualized in dynamic evolution, that is key - not the relegation of temporary, relative, or partial enlightenment as fixed, static, inferior, unworthy, etc. as compared to an unattainably superior Ideal that effectively corrupts and invalidates the very progress these divine exemplars come to enable.

So for practical purposes enlighenment, realisation, salvation are all the same in that the continuous viability is the significant thing; any amount or degree attained is significant for both the individual and the collective because it is progressive…

The Avatar is the Ideal (in form, embodied) and at the same time, the vehicle of progression to it.


~ J

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Honza

What I meant was how do they see the coming of the Jewish Messiah?

If the Jewish Messiah is not God incarnate then what is he?

Traditionally, based on scriptures, the Messiah would be a Jewish King.

[Aknaton]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Again, how are these different views i.e., Hindu/Christian effectively different or irreconcilable for practical purposes of sadhana?

More specifically, “the idea of enlightenment” comes from the Real Idea of Light, which issues forth from, IS, and eventual becomes Source Consciousness in the physical Cosmic scheme, all of which the Avatars - like Jesus Christ - came to both represent as an embodied prototype e.g., ideal, but also to enable as a vehicle themselves as a means for conditionally ignorant human beings to have access to and attain that ideal.

Otherwise their presence has significantly diminished meaning; perhaps God showing-off how great, unattainable and aloof He is? That's an old-school religious idea, (ironically in this discussion) one that Jesus Christ came to open the door to walk out of by His sacrifice.

Therefore, there is no hypocrisy in the failed or incomplete approximations of the ideal - in fact they prove and demonstrate its viability - especially if that ideal as so embodied in human form (Avatar) is recognized and applied. That, in-and-of itself is a form of enlightenment that occurs by the Will of Spirit enlightening the individual human being - whatever the relative or transitory degree, status, or definition.

“How can a person who isn't enlightened know who is and who isn't enlightened, let alone define this term?”
By the inalienable Light within themselves which is none other than Spirit/Atman, Who is externalised, represented by, and is the Avatar.

The important thing - especially in the current era - is the intrinsic progressive spiritual aspiration, which is the ongoing evolutionary purpose, the Will of Spirit these figures demonstrate and support for those who are ready (also by God's Grace) to become further responsive. It is therefore the progressive tendency, the possibility recognized and actualized in dynamic evolution, that is key - not the relegation of temporary, relative, or partial enlightenment as fixed, static, inferior, unworthy, etc. as compared to an unattainably superior Ideal that effectively corrupts and invalidates the very progress these divine exemplars come to enable.

So for practical purposes enlighenment, realisation, salvation are all the same in that the continuous viability is the significant thing; any amount or degree attained is significant for both the individual and the collective because it is progressive…

The Avatar is the Ideal (in form, embodied) and at the same time, the vehicle of progression to it.


~ J

My Personal definition of "enlightenment" is having a direct connection with the Source & Creator. By this I mean being able to communicate in an intelligible exchange with the Creator in a fully conscious manner.

The Christian way of being enlightened is by receiving His Spirit thereby establishing the connection, which can be summed up in Acts 2:38. One only believes, disengages from the Adamic nature through Baptism and connects to the Creative Godly nature through receiving the Holy Ghost.

The hindu/yogic/buddhic/etc way is to believe that one is not enlightened and go about various lengthy Sadhanas to attain to this state of knowing oneself. Now, the Atman is not the Creators Spirit, but man's spirit created by Him.

I have spent a few years in the Kriya Yoga tradition before I began to follow after Christ. It was not conclusive in that I didnt get enlightened, but I am knowledgeable about a few of the stuff in that tradition. Amongst the planes, there is one beyond the Causal where various beings exist. This plane was taught to me to be the devic plane, perhaps there are other names. In this plane, there are many deities; gods and goddesses from numerous points in time and yes, Hindu, Buddhist, African, native American, ancient Babylonian, so on and so forth were there. It's a great and mighty plane but not at all the place where creation was planned and executed. The so called Avatars and deities you speak of are from this plane. I was not adept at travelling in the subtle regions, but a good sit would push me into that plane with the help of the disincarnate teacher I had. But I saw fake Yeshuas there no doubt and believed at the time.

The one who knows Christ knows Him by His Holy Spirit. You do not have the Holy Spirit, therefore you do not know Christ and your speculations of Him do not come from personal experience, revelation or realisation. Even what you say is foreign to you, Christ, enlightenment by your own definition.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Buddha's sayings mimic Jesus' teachings so Buddha should truly be considered an enlightened person. Besides, Buddha became enlightened about 540 years before Jesus' became 'enlightened'.

And... Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita came before both of them. It's my belief that much of what Jesus taught and said echoes the Bhagavad Gita. Not entirely, of course, a few centuries or millennia will change things up a bit. But parts. I don't believe the "Jesus in India" business, but there was a lot of trade between the Roman Empire in the west, and as far to the east as China, over the Silk Roads, and by sea. Ideas and people were not so isolated.

Understandably there is much interest on these forums as to what constitutes a genuine path to enlightenment. Different paths imply different methods and approaches to this quest. I will mention the perceivable differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhists advocate the Noble Eightfold Path. It is essentially a practice of self-help or self improvement. The individual or self is challenged to meet the criteria.

Christianity demonstrates a different emphasis. The sayings and parables of Jesus are instructive. e.g. Jesus said...."Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it". Basically this means whenever one surrenders the desire to improve one's self then it allows God to improve us. In other words, surrendering to grace.

An example from the parables is that of the publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee praised himself giving examples of the good things he had done. On the other hand, the publican simply said...…"Have mercy on me for I am a sinner". Jesus commended the publican and criticized the Pharisee. It is recognition that ultimately we are saved(enlightened) by grace rather than by our own efforts.

I have admiration for those who attempt to follow the Noble Eightfold Path for it appears to be a strenuous endeavor.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Understandably there is much interest on these forums as to what constitutes a genuine path to enlightenment. Different paths imply different methods and approaches to this quest. I will mention the perceivable differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhists advocate the Noble Eightfold Path. It is essentially a practice of self-help or self improvement. The individual or self is challenged to meet the criteria.

Christianity demonstrates a different emphasis. The sayings and parables of Jesus are instructive. e.g. Jesus said...."Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it". Basically this means whenever one surrenders the desire to improve one's self then it allows God to improve us. In other words, surrendering to grace.

An example from the parables is that of the publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee praised himself giving examples of the good things he had done. On the other hand, the publican simply said...…"Have mercy on me for I am a sinner". Jesus commended the publican and criticized the Pharisee. It is recognition that ultimately we are saved(enlightened) by grace rather than by our own efforts.

I have admiration for those who attempt to follow the Noble Eightfold Path for it appears to be a strenuous endeavor.

' Buddhists advocate the Noble Eightfold Path. It is essentially a practice of self-help or self improvement. The individual or self is challenged to meet the criteria. '



The ' Four Noble Truths are the first Teachings of Buddha, the Fourth is where he sets out the Noble Eightfold Path.

The heart of each element of the Eightfold Path is non-clinging, which is the essence of the Third Noble Truth: the cause of the end of suffering.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Aknaton

The one who knows Christ knows Him by His Holy Spirit. You do not have the Holy Spirit, therefore you do not know Christ and your speculations of Him do not come from personal experience, revelation or realisation. Even what you say is foreign to you, Christ, enlightenment by your own definition.

I think the Holy Spirit is active in all sorts of ways not only exclusively accessible to Christians alone which seems quite possessive. I don't know what everyone else means by enlightenment i'm just assuming its related to what Christians experience and that would make sense. I mean all humans are conceived the same way, way can't they be saved the same way?