You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Who am I beyond the shell of a body? Revelations from the Sanskrit source codes
Interesting. It's been a while since I've read anything from the Eastern religions. In my religious tradition, Christianity, we believe we are created in the image of God and therefore possess a body, soul, and spirit reflecting the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. Yours appears much more detailed and nuanced.
Yes the three levels of body, soul (mind) and spirit are the same in both traditions, though the eastern texts just go into more detail about their nature. Our identity in the image of God is a valid one, as originally our eternal spiritual self, is in quality also pure spirit, in the image of God, but our size is very small in quantity by comparison. There are more similarities than differences.
True, a lot of similarities, but one major difference. Christ claimed to be God in the flesh and died for the sins of the world. I haven't seen anything like that in the Eastern texts.
Now that you mention it, the concept of the guru being the living representative of God, or God in the flesh, is similar in the Vedic philosophy. The guru is called the "transparent via-medium". When the disciple is initiated at the ceremony, it is described that the guru takes on the karma or the sins of the disciple, in exactly the same way as Christ takes the sins of his disciples, then and now. It appears to be the identical concept. The guru is required to be the living memeber of a chain of "disciplic succession", going back to his guru and the one before and so on back through the lineage. There are 4 lineages in the Vishnu sect of the Vedic tradition.
So obviously the difference is in the practice of the Christian faith that Christ is the only via-medium and only representative and son of God, whereas in the Vedic culture, there are more than just the one via-medium.
Of course even in the different lineages of the east, the disciples often compete and declare their lineage to be the only one or the better one, so there will always be competition based on interpretation and actual comprehension or particularly realization as to what is actually going on, what is the underlying principle and in the end whose theology are we adopting.
The more catholic approach, or inclusive approach, would be to see the eastern and western lineages as alluding to the same ultimate premise of linking up the soul with the source, or God via the medium of the messiah or guru. The difference is subtle though meaningful, though the similarities are what add validity to both paths in my mind, as opposed to being sources of divergence.
That's a very important distinction. Christ claimed to be the only path to God the Father. As second person of the Trinity, he was present at the creation of the world "in the beginning." Chapter 1 of the book of John says he "was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh and dwelt here among us." No other religious leader has made that claim.
Bottom line: Christ claimed to be the only way man can reach God. If that's true, then all other religions are false paths. If it's not true, then Christianity is a false path.
It's a matter of interpretation.