Religious Roundtable

Advaita Vedanta and Christian Thought

2008-06-19T12:47:00.004-06:00

How can advaita vedantic thought be presented to a Christian audience as a legitimate goal of attainment? There are not many Christian advaitists out there, to begin with. Meister Eckhart is perhaps the closest one that I know of, who believed in a radical identification with God, not as God but sharing that inmost Ground of Being, although we being non-existent in our selves.

Bede Griffiths (December 17, 1906- May 13,1993), life long friend, and once a student under C.S. Lewis, lived as a Benedictine monk in India. There, while remaining a monk, took on the trappings of Hindu monasticism, and entered into dialogue with Hinduism.

His views of harmony between Christianity and Advaita Vedanta are called Wisdom Christianity.

I've not yet sufficiently studied his thought, but I am struck with his views, as far as I know them. One such view is that he sees the Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and the faiths of the East, such as Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism as striking a harmony between monism and theism. I believe he pictures a cross, where the vertical line represents the theistic, and dualistic relationship we may have with God; the horizontal line represents the Oneness, and non-duality that we may realize in the Eastern faiths.

Very intriguing, anyway.

Well, that to me is very interesting, because as Sri Anandamayi Ma (d.1982) taught, that both duality, as experienced in bhakti yoga (devotional), and advaita vedanta which is non-dual are both true, both One. And as a Christian, I am coming to some similar conclusions. I believe that ultimately, only God exists, and from another, both God and the Cosmos exist in relationship.

Also, there is a Muslim saint, or Hindu avatar (as is believed) of Shiva named Sai Baba from the 19th century, who also merged bhakti yoga and advaita vedanta in his approach to both Hinduism, and Islam.

Some preliminary questions I may have are:

1. What is the difference between a Hindu seeking Oneness through Self-realization, and a Christian seeking Oneness by partaking of the divine nature (2Pet 1:4)?

2. Given the psycho-spiritual physiology as taught within Hindu and Eckhartian thought, what occurs to the wicked upon damnation, giving that he is existent because of God's Being, and has been given light in his existentiation?

3. On what level is this Oneness with God accessible, must one first be a Christian?

4. Do Hindus experience the same Oneness that Christians do, but to a lesser, or greater extent?

5. Or are they the same experience?

We know that for us as Christians, what seperates us from God is sin, on the level of dualistic relationship between us and the Persons of the Godhead. However, for those of the Eastern mindset, the great "sin" is ignorance, and that moksha is release from the wheel of samsara, that is endless births and deaths as in reincarnation.

These are some preliminary thoughts, and questions in this comparison of two great faiths that both teach a divinization in various, or similar ways.

May God lead us all unto Himself.

Christ Encrypted in the World's Religions

2008-02-23T22:06:00.006-07:00

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.- Jn 5:39.

We know that the story of Jesus Christ was encrypted, as it were, or enfolded in the Old Testament Scriptures. Yet when a non-converted Jew reads the text, he is blinded as by a veil (2Cor 3:14-15).

Clement of Alexandria applied this idea to the philosophers of Greece, that the Logos was hidden within philosophy as it was in the Torah.

The question is, if we believe the above, how far could this idea of the Logos be extended toward the religious texts and philosophies of the world?

I have seen a balance between these two texts:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie Rom 1:25; and,

and that no lie is of the truth. 1Jn 2:21b.

That the other religions of the world according to the light they had, transformed that into a lie, based on their human understandings, or even demonic deception.

And while the lie can be deciphered back into the truth, the lie is not equal to the truth.

So there is no confusion, not all religious texts are created equal. And yet the Logos may well be hidden within for a seeker to perhaps discover.

This may be done in a number of ways, through symbols, or an area I've not fully explored yet, gematria.

For the first, an example would be: Krishna, of the Baghavad Gita as being a shepherd, as was our Lord. And he attracted the gopika-cow herding girls, even as Christ woos our hearts as His Bride, His virgins, as in Song of Songs.

And I think that there are really only two religions in the world, as prototypically portrayed in the narrative of Cain and Abel (Gen 4):

That of Cain: Representing human efforts, and trust in one's own good works in order to be accepted by God. and-

That of Abel: Being the religion of love and trust, not in one's self, but in the mercy of God, and in the shed blood of the Atoning Lamb in order to be accepted by God.

I had also thought of Justin Martyr, but it had been a while since I read of his view on this matter. As to the spermatikoi, I know that he believed that the seeds were planted in all the various philosophies of his day. I read last night a quote of his,

It is our belief that those men who strive to do the good which is enjoined on us have a share in God; according to our traditional belief they will by God's grace share in his dwelling. And it is our conviction that this holds good in principle for all men.

Further the above passage continues:

Christ is the divine Word in whom the whole human race share, and those who live according to the light of their knowledge are Christians, even if they are considered as being godless- I Apology 46, 1-4

What implications does the above have in today's pluralistic society? And what of the exclusivist approach to evangelism? Most importantly (in my mind) what of evangelism in the context of a more inclusive approach?

This in no wise means that all scriptures or holy books are equal, nor does it mean that the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian Bible is to be somehow diminished, but rather exalted in its true Superiority.

On one hand, neither Satan, nor any deceived person could ever create their own truth, as that is impossible. "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar"- Rom 3:4a. Thus no lie is of the truth.

On the other hand, the truths available to mankind, and we know this to have occurred at the tower of Babel, were twisted, or changed to exalt the creation over the creator as Paul said.

The idea of "miracles" can apply here. Occultists may perform false miracles by manipulating psychic or spiritual laws, as happened before Pharaoh when Moses and the Egyptian magicians had a showdown. But they could not imitate a true creative miracle when dust was turned to lice, because a true miracle is above even spiritual 'law'.

So it is with Truth, Who is the Logos. Man can manipulate truths to fit their own ends, and thus change it, at least in appearance and application. But the Truth itself is metaphysical, and beyond the reach of man's lying tongue. Thus no lie is of the Truth.

In this way, as the Logos incarnated as Jesus Christ. So it is in all His expressions in all texts of the world, be they religious or philosophical. I would say even fiction and nonfiction works of literature. Though it may not be apparent on the surface text. But there is a sub-text which makes understanding any writ, or language (or even any phenomenon whatsoever) cognitive, or logical, structured or intelligible. Thus the Scripture states,

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.- Jn 1:5. Comprehended, which is to say neither apprehended, nor grasped.

Jesus Christ, the Truth (Jn 14:6), the Logos incarnate (Jn 1:1, 14), becomes the "Philosopher's Stone", the Key to all encrypted texts in the world. The Holy Scriptures themselves become the master key by which all other texts may be deciphered. The Bible defines world literature, but world literature does not define the Bible.

This is one of the means by which Christianity overthrew the pagan world of the ancient day. Well entrenched religions were infiltrated from within, or out right overthrown by the Superior Truth of the gospel.

In cryptology, as in the world of espionage, you have a plain text, say in a newspaper (this is a hypothetical example):

The Plain text may say Today Dog Saves Boy from Fire ;
The Encryption, or sub-text once deciphered might say Meet me at Joe's at 3:00

In this case, it wouldn't be the encryption that was "perverse" but the plain-text.

As for the two texts compared together, we know that Truth being divine, being God, cannot be altered or changed. But what was changed when they changed the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1:25)?

What they changed was the plain text of their understanding, of their recording (as it were) of truths in their holy books. But what cannot be changed is the Truth, or Logos which gives all things meaning, whether through a dark glass or a distorted mirror. This is because Truth is unalterable, and so if, for example, the revealed truth is AB, and this was misunderstood, or deceptively (by man) changed to BA, the plain text has changed, but the sub-text, or encryption could still be deciphered back to AB, and the intended truth discovered.

So if the truth is changed, your right, the lie is no longer of the truth.

But to say that the truth of the Logos is encoded with Satan's lie, is not exactly true, as there is no fellowship between darkness and light. But the truth is encoded despite the lie. What is marred is the surface, but the sub-text cannot be altered.

For example, in Taoism, the original understanding of the Chinese of God as Shang Ti, the Lord on High may appear to have been lost, or altered say in the Tao Teh Ching, but this is only on the surface. The Light cannot be arrested, or comprehended by the darkness:

"Tao gave birth to One, One gave birth to Two, Two gave birth to Three, Three gave birth to all the myriad things."- Tao Teh Ching 42.

In this, to a believer we may decipher this text to be speaking of the Trinity, and the order of Their eternal procession, and as relates to creation. Will a Taoist see the same things? Not necessarily, but it could be a good conversation starter in proclaiming the gospel.

I am also not saying that any "perverse encryption is being passed off as the Logos that appears in fully revealed truth in scripture", that kind of reverses my point.

However, this truth can definitely be applied to watered down humanist "translations" of Scripture. That's a new thought....

And yes, truth can be known, as it is revealed to whosoever has an ear. But I would say that rather than being the basis for the revelation of truth, I would say that the Bible, as His Word is truth (Jn 17:17), and that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the basis of this revelation.

But the lie is a marring of the truth, at least existentially. I meant to make a similar point above. But I'll make it here: that the Truth of the Logos is the Substance in relation to the distorted versions of the truth, say in non-canonical texts of world literature, which are the Shadow.

The Bible, or Jesus as the Logos is the "Philosopher's Stone", or the Key to deciphering even the texts of world literature, religious or otherwise.

But what's important to realize is that these religions already claim to have the truth, and would deny Christ as we understand Him. Their claims don't make them so, or any more true- Let God be true, every man a liar...

But, could we take their texts and unveil Christ for them? Would they stay in their religion? I think not, as they would see the Light in His true effulgence.

I know the Torah is God's Word, but to one in Judaism, when Christ has been unveiled to them from their Scriptures, they would receive Christ in all His splendor as He's revealed in the New Testament.

The Light is more concealed and remote within a non-canonical work, but if God unlock his own religious texts to him, then the result would be an embrace of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, as the Superiority thereof would then be made manifest.

Living Koan

2008-02-15T10:11:00.008-07:00

I've been reading the book put out by Fonts Vitae called, "Thomas Merton and Buddhism". It is part of the "Thomas Mertion and..." series, which deals with the Trappist monk's relationships with the different faiths.

In this particular book, I just read about an interesting concept, which was under the chapter dealing with Thomas Merton's relationship with Zen Buddhism. Zen emphasizes direct perception, satori, or as we could say, gnosis. This is acheived through meditation (zazen) where you center your mind, experience the direct perception of your true nature, which is the Buddha nature of naked, complete awareness, emptiness. Once this is attained, you make effort to walk that out in your daily experience, to embody your enlightenment. (This three-fold practice is not successive, but to be done simultaneously).

A vehicle in attaining to the second "fruit" of Zen practice, which is the apect of satori, or enlightenment, is the koan. This may be a word, phrase, or action that confronts the practicioner's rational mind, in order to challenge all preconceived notions, prejudisms and dogmas to break apart these hinderances to satori, or enlightenment, whereby one perceives his true nature.

Thus, in discussing Merton's experiences from a "Zen perspective", the author referred to Merton as dealing with a living koan in his life, and spirituality. This 'living koan' was such a situation, a circumstance in his personal life which challenged him in such a way so as to be paradoxical, and thus eliciting the problem solving one would undergo in hopes of solving a koan, and thus breaking through to one's true nature.

This living koan Merton faced from about August of 1966 on through to the end of that year, at least, and was probably an issue all the way to his abrupt death in 1968. This issue was with a woman who he calls "M" in his journals. She was a nurse with whom he fell in love. She, too, was in love with him, and dedicated herself to him, though she understood his monastic vows. This caused great consternation within the soul of Thomas Merton. Would he leave the monastic vows behind? Would he quit the lifelong dedication to the mystical quest, along with the vows of celibacy, and solitariness that they entailed?

Here he was, in love with a woman, who was also in love with him. Yet living a life that defined him as a person, one who belonged wholly to God. This was his living koan. He resolved not to 'solve it' as such, but to allow God, Who is a God of love, work it out. He would not concern himself with it overly much, so as to either encourage the inordinate affections, nor to try and fix the problem. This koan, too, literally ripped him apart emotionally, and demanded the kind of confrontation with his psyche, and persona, which any other kind of koan would do.

Question: Did Thomas Merton find this koan 'solved' in his lifetime. Had he attained satori through this living koan, as perhaps God intended?

One wonders... But, he did remain faithful, and renewed toward his vows after some infractious involvements with M that summer of '66. Yet, perhaps when he received that epiphany, or 'satori' while he was in India before the statues of the dying (or dead) Buddha, and Ananda who was standing over him; perhaps here he realized his death and resurrection as one who "broke" the koan of his own paradoxical life, and found that enlightenment and bliss of realizing the divine nature.

Om and the Logos

2008-02-08T10:08:00.000-07:00

In Hinduism there is the primal sound that began all things, Om (spelled in Sanskrit with the three letters A-U-M). This sound, or sacred syllable also embodies all deity. It is also taught that each letter represents one of the three primary gods within Hinduism, called the Trimurti (3 forms): A=Brahman; U=Vishnu; and M=Shiva. Otherwise, it is taught that Om is Brahman, as the underlying principle of all things. Thus, this sacred mantra, or bija-seed syllable is the root of all mantras and seed syllables.

Thus it is not difficult for a Christian to see the Logos, the Word of God as represented, or even 'hidden' within this doctrine. As the famous text reads, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us Jn 1:1, 14. The 'Word' in the Greek is Logos. Thus the very idea of Om is present in the doctrine of the Logos. In fact, one could say that if the Logos had a sound, it would be, according to Hinduism, 'Om'. Because the Logos also captures within it all the essence of language, as does the Seed Syllable. This is why Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha, and Omega of the Greek alphabet, to convey that He is the root, and Essence of all language, yes, the Seed of all ideas and concepts.

That is another powerful image, that as Om is the bija-seed of all mantras, so also is Christ the Logos called the Seed in Scripture (Ga 3:16). And as God's word is compared to seeds (Lk 8:11), and the Logos as the Seed, so also is Om the Bija, and all other syllables used in mantras are bijas-seeds.

Finally, as Om contains within all deity, so also it is true of the Logos, as Scripture says, and the Word was God, and, For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9. Thus, in the Logos is the fullness of all deity. When God incarnated as Jesus Christ, it could be said that Om walked among us as a man of flesh and blood, died for us, (that is for our bad-karma), and rose again from the dead.

Harmony of Opposites

2007-12-02T19:18:00.001-07:00

Within Taoism, as well as in Neo-Confucianism there is the idea of opposites as represented by Yin and Yang, and expressed in Nature, or the 10,000 myriad things.

The opposites of yin and yang are the forces of female and male principles which manifest Cosmically as receptivity, and initiative respectively. These forces are united metaphysically in what is termed in Neo-Confucianism as T'ai Chi, or the Great Ultimate. In Toaism it is called the Tao that can be named.

In the Judeo-Christian Scriptures the harmony of opposites is also taught. This is seen in the famous text from Ecclesiastes, theres a time for war, and a time for peace...

Also in the New Testament, Christ is spoken of thus, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God 1Cor

This is a very important doctrine to consider as Christians. We may learn a new perspective concerning God's relationship with the Cosmos, which Christians are often accused of not appreciating.

That relationship begins deep in the Godhead, as He is in His Essence. The Essence would be the Tao that cannot be named, and that Tao which can be would be the Godhead as revealed in the Beginning. The Father is that which may first be known in the Revelation of the Logos (the Preincarnate Christ), as He reveals deity. This is the First Emanation. It is in this that T'ai Chi, the Great Ultimate is known. T'ai Chi represents the harmony of Yin and Yang, the female and male principles respectively.

The Second Emanation is that of the Son, born of the Father for eternity. It is here where Yin and Yang are revealed through Li, Principle, the inner law of all things. It is also here that the Logos contains within Himself the male-female principle of Yin and Yang, refered to as Dunamis-power (Yang), and Sophia-wisdom (Yin).

It is from the dynamics of the two pole opposites as found within the Logos, from which all male-female relationships, or opposites within the Cosmos may be rooted. All change, and dyamics spring from these pole opposites within Him. Thus, the harmony is the balance between these two principles of Male and Female.

Li as Principle and the Logos

2007-09-17T19:33:00.000-06:00

The Neo-Confucian term Li- principle, can be understood in relation to Christian theology as being the Logos.

Let's look at this a little:
The Chinese word Li means reason, logic, science, theory, inner principle, or structure. This is in agreement with the Greek word logos which means reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics used this word to signify the anima mundi the soul of the world. And Marcus Aurelius spoke of spermatikos logos as the generative principle in nature. Of course this word is best known for its usage in Christianity, particularly the Johanine writings. Most famous of all is the opening verse in John's gospel,

In the beginning was the Word [Gk- Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made.- Jn 1:1-2.

Thus it is understood within Christianity that Christ as the Logos is the principle, reason, and structure within all things found in the Cosmos. Thus the Scriptures state, And he is before all things, by him all things consist [Gk. are held together]- Col 1:17.

With this being said, it in not accurate to say that Li- principle is personalized within Confucianism. For though having its roots in a metaphysical reality, as we believe in the metaphysical reality of God, this principle is not necessarily a "person" as we ascribe to the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos.

Within Neo-Confucianism Ch'en Ch'un (d.1223) taught that Li- principle is identical to Tao, though with the differentiating nuance that Tao is the Way that men can follow forever, and Li is that Principle which will forever be unchanging. The concept of T'ai-Chi (the Great Ultimate) is here seen as the metaphysical reality that is the eternal harmony of all things. This term is often paired with Wu-Chi, the Great Non-Ultimate. Within Taoism, the Great Ultimate is the Tao that can be named, and the Great Non-Ultimate is Tao that cannot be named, beyond all being and delimitation. As Wing-tsit Chan (d.1994) explained, these two terms represent a single reality, the Principle, but from two different points of view. "The Non-Ultimate is the state of reality before the appearance of forms whereas the Great Ultimate is the state after the appearance of forms."- Source Book, pp.464-65.

This is right in tune with God as presented in Judeo-Christian Scriptures. But of course with the main difference that one is impersonal, the other is personalized. For God, Who is identified as the Logos (Jn 1:1) can also be seen as Wu-Chi, and T'ai-Chi. For God is the Non-manifest deity, which is correlative to Wu-Chi, the Non-Ultimate; and He is Manifest deity which corresponds to T'ai-Chi the Great Ultimate. Thus the Non-manifest, and the Manifest deity are One God, and One Logos from different points of view. As Jesus said, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son- Mt 11:27b, which would be the Unknowable Essence of Li as Wu-Chi; and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him- refers to God as He has revealed Himself to Himself, and to the Cosmos is Li as T'ai-Chi.

A final thought on this is that of Ch'i, which is the vital-energy, wind, or breath permeating all things within the material Cosmos. As Chu Hsi (d.1200) taught, Ch'i and Li are two sides of the same reality. Li is hidden, and Ch'i is manifest. This is the same idea between Wu-Chi, and T'ai-Chi but on a different level. Thus when Li is non-manifest as Tao, it is Wu-Chi, but when manifest as Tao, it is T'ai-Chi. Then once Li-principle is manifest (as the Great Ultimate), it is non-manifest, at least in relation to the Cosmos until that Ch'i is "breathed forth", then Li is manifest with all its forms within the Cosmos.

The idea of Ch'i, though a materialist doctrine on one hand, is akin to the concept of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and Son of the Trinity. As Jesus said, He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.- Jn 16:14. And Scripture also states, Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.- Ps 104:30. Thus the Holy Spirit is sent forth, as the concept of Ch'i, and manifests the Principle that is the Logos in all His glories within the Cosmos. This is done first as creation, then second as a perpetual renewing of the Cosmos' existence at each moment.

Thus we see Li-principle as the Logos, manifest and non-manifest first revealing the Great Ultimate, Who is Manifest deity, second revealing the material Cosmos through the ch'i-like agency of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and blessings.

Jesus: Who's Son is He?

2007-08-20T10:22:00.000-06:00

It is no secret that in Islam it is denied that Jesus is God's Son. But if He is not the Son of Allah, then who's Son is He according to the Quran?

Of course we know the Judeo-Christian Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God:
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.- 1Jn 4.15.
Neither is this a doctrine introduced in the New Testament Scriptures. Though Judaism does not teach that Jesus Christ is God's Son, the doctrine is nonetheless found in the Jewish Scriptures called the Tanakh, what Christians refer to as the Old Testament:
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.- Psa 2.7;
and, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.-v.12.
Thus it is not inconceivable that the earliest Christians, who were Jewish believers in Jesus as the promised Messiah, would also believe that He was the Son of God.

What does the Quran teach on this matter?
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.- Q 112:1-4.
And, The Jews call Uzayr [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!- Q 9:30.
And, To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: how can He have a son when He hath no consort?- Q 6:101a.

Islam rejects the notion that God is "father", or can have a son because it implies in the Arabic mind either the idea of procreation, or temporal sequence. For one, the Moslems have an aversion to these ideas because the pagan Arabs of Mecca in pre-Islamic times worshiped whom they said were daughters of Allah: their names are even given in the Quran as Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat (Q 53:19-20). These goddesses with Allah (Il-Lah- the god) were the head of the Arabic pantheon whose center of worship was at Mecca.
Now Moslems believed that Mohamed sought to return people to the true monotheistic religion of ancient times. Etymologically this is true. And Mohamed in this regards was the ultimate iconoclast amongst his people. I will at this time give no weight to supposed evidence of archeology from Robert Morey as inconclusive, as he claims that Allah was a moon god worshiped in pre-islamic times. Etymological evidence suggests otherwise.
In all fairness and misconceptions aside, the Quranic narrative is correct in this regard. And we can understand as Christians why Islam, and the Quran in particular are opposed to the idea of God having a Son, or being a Father. Because in the Arabic culture there had to be a strong exodus from the idolatry and polytheism of Mohamed's day in which Allah was included. Even in Israel in ancient times the worship of Yahweh (Elohim) was mixed with that of other gods, and had to be reclaimed in its original monotheism by an arising prophet (Ezek 14.1-7; Zeph 1.4-5).

Before we answer the question, Who's Son is Christ according to the Quran, we will first answer the Islamic objection to the Father and Son of the Godhead.
First, it is a misconception on Islam's part to assume that the doctrine of God the Father, and God the Son are in any way akin to the concepts of the pagan nations among whom Christianity evangelized. We may now appreciate the fervor behind the backlash against idolatry and polytheism as Mohamed sought to distance his people from the idea of Allah having daughters, etc. But it is not in this sense that God is the Father of Jesus Christ:
1) Not in the sense of procreation. God did not come down as Zeus did, and impregnate a woman, and have offspring in this way.
No. But God in His Ultimate Unity is infinitely transcendent and unknowable beyond all duality (Dt 6.4; Ga 3.20; Acts 17.23). When He revealed Himself, it was as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This revelation is through the Logos, Who is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. He who reveals is the Father, and He who is revealed is the Son, in Whom all deity and the cosmos, albeit in its preexistent state (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2-3), are known. This is the meaning of this text taken to a metaphysical/theological application: All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.- Mt 11.27. Therefore, not as an act of procreation with a consort, nor even yet exclusive to the incarnation through Mary (Ps 2.7; Heb 13.8), but as an eternal act of Self-Revelation, the Son is ever revealing the Father in His being revealed as the Logos, and the Father is ever revealing the Son in His being the Revealer, yet they with the divine Breath of Spirit are One in Essence.
2) Not in the sense of temporal sequence, as the texts referred to above (Ps 2.7; Heb 13.8) speak to the eternality of the Self-Revelation of deity. Beyond which God could not be known, nor could He have brought about creation with out introducing duality to Himself in relation to the Cosmos. Thus it was through His Self-Revelation that He could be known, and the Cosmos through Him. Though Essentially He remains One. Nor could we have known such an impersonal God if He forever remained hidden in His transcendent Oneness.

Now on to the question at hand: Whose Son is Jesus according to the Quran? To be sure, He is often called the Son of Mary (Q 19:34). But who was His Father in the Quran? Are we to assume that He was fatherless? God forbid.
No, but we read in the Quran, Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah...She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, 'Be', and it is!"- Q 3:45, 47.
And in this same context concerning Mary and her Son Jesus, the Quran again says, It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter., He only says to it, "Be", and it is.- Q 19:35.
I am not claiming that Islam teaches that Christ is not created, but in the texts above it doesn't seem to say this. What is does say is that a Plan, in this case, the Plan of the Messiah, is created.
Also, Christ is here called a word from Him, that is from Allah. And further, the Quran states, Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him- Q 4:171a. Though the text here denies the Sonship of Christ, and the very Trinity, nonetheless the language echoes (if not originates from) the gospel of John, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God...And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us- Jn 1.1-2, 14a.
The Quran, while denying that Jesus is God's Son, nevertheless does not attribute His being sired to human paternity. But the teaching is that Christ was, yes a Word, but also His Word, that is, a Word from Allah.

Is this "word" created? Is this breath from Allah created? If this is believed in Islam, then herein is a big difference, obviously. But conclusively, is He the Son of Mary? Yes. A Son of Allah? This is denied. Yet He has no human father. Instead it is affirmed that He is a word, yea, Allah's very word: to this the Christian Scriptures agree. But it is hinted at, at least, in the Quran that this word, or the Son of Mary was created, as a thing to whom Allah said, 'Be!', and it was. But I would counter this to say that He, as Allah's Word, is the very word 'Be!' And when He, the Logos is spoken to anything Allah wishes, it is.

A Tri-unity in Kabbalah

2007-08-07T15:59:00.000-06:00

A fascinating phenomena within esoteric Judaism, called Kabbalah, are the repeating themes of threes found within their mysticism. I will list these themes and then comment on the first tri-unity in comparison with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But let me say right off that I'm not convinced that the early Kabbalists believed in, or were somehow crypto-Christians. It was Christians who utilized what they found in Kabbalah as similar to their own faith with which they either evangelized the Jews, or began the Christian Kabbalah movements.

The tri-unities within Kabbalah are:

1. Ain, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur;
2. Keter, Chokmah, Binah;
3. Keter, Tifferet, Malkuth;
4. Pillar of mercy, pillar of severity, and the pillar of balance;
5. Mother letters Aleph, Mem, and Shin;
6. Chesed, Gebura, Tifferet;
7. Netzach, Hod, Yesod
(and there may be more for future discussion)

Commentary on the Ain, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur:
These three Kabbalistic terms transliterate as Nothing, Infinite nothing, and Infinite Light. These are called the 3 veils of negative existence, (or the 13 veils if you count the Hebrew letters used in the 3 terms). They represent the levels of God before manifestation. This relates to the Essence of God "prior" to Him Birthing forth the Son, or Speaking forth the Logos. Though we know this Holy emanation occurs eternally. Thus the 3 veils of negative existence refer to the Non-manifest deity as yet being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, albeit "occultisized", hidden, unknown. This is Agnostos Theos spoken of in Acts 17.23.
1) Ain Is the negative "Nothingness" that is the only way to describe the divine Essence as all affirmations are not possible. This is non-manifest deity in its most Hidden transcendent state. This is comparable to the Father insofar as the Father gives birth to the Son, or speaks forth the Logos, which He does for an eternity (Ps 2.7; Heb 13.8). In other words, like the Father as the Source. Yet it is not like the Father in that as the divine Essence beyond all activity, it is the Perfect Emptiness. As the Kabbalists explain it, it is the vacuum of pure spirit.
As God in His Inmost Essence is Pure Being, and the Absolute Self, He is non-delimited Being. To define Him is to restrict Him. This is not possible in that Ain-nothing is beyond all definition, or delimitation.
He is the Absolute Self, as Ain permutes in Hebrew to Ani- I. Thus the Essence of God is beyond all objectification.
2) Ain Soph is conceived of as the deity between transcendence to the revealed God called Yahweh. This is the non-manifest veil of nothingness, where there is a kind of contraction as in the Kabbalah of Isaac Luria (a.k.a. the Ari). This contraction the Ari called tsimtsum. Which is conceived that God in His infinite vastness contracted down to a single point of Light, to make room, as it were, for the Cosmos.
This contraction is a perfect correlation to the Son of God, as Scripture states of Him, But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men- Phil 2.7. The Greek word used for ...made himself of no reputation is kenosis which means to make empty, to empty, or to make void. This is most often applied to the Self-emptying of the Logos when He incarnated as a man (Jn 1.1, 14).
Yet applying the Scripture speaking to the eternity of the Son, the same yesterday, today, and forever.- Heb 13.8b, we know that there is a primordial kenosis of the Logos from eternity to eternity. How is this so? In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.- Gen 1.1. The Beginning is the Self-Revelation of deity as Father and Son (Jn 1.1-2). The Hebrew bereshit is this word. The second word to follow in the Genesis text in Hebrew is bara, which is to create, but also to "cut out", to carve out. Thus meaning a negation. Creation is actually an act of negation. Thus when all things were seen pre-existently in the Logos, as with Him are all things (Jn 1.1-2; Mt 19.26), He emptied Himself- kenosis, as an act of denying nothingness from God. For the pre-existent things in them selves do not exist. And this is impossible with God, For with God shall nothing be impossible.- Lk 1.37. Because God is pure non-delimited Being, nothingness is an impossibility with Him. The things with Him in the Logos, as entities, are glories, and revelations of the Son. But as foreknown entities, non-existent in themselves there nothingness is an impossibility with God, hence they are negated from Him, which is a conceptual, if not actual kenosis. This kenotic dynamic within the God head is Ain Soph.
3) Ain Soph Aur is the final veil of negative existence. This is the Infinite Light which is the point of Light (the point in the middle of the circle) at the final moment of the infinite contraction. This is that point of Light just prior to the first positive, or affirmative emanation of deity called Keter-crown. Ain Soph Aur is that final veil of non-manifest deity just prior to the phrase, Let there be light- Gen 1:3a.
The 10 Sephirot emanate from Ain Soph Aur- the limitless light, from Keter to Malkuth. The 10 Sephirot have been compared to YHWH- Yahweh, the Holy Tetragramaton. As Christians we see theologically that Yahweh is identical to the Godhead in His Oneness of Essence, and His Threeness of Persons. But we can see that as the 10 Sephirot are the modes in which not only does God bring about the Cosmos, but also how He relates to creation. So too, the name YHWH did not appear in Scripture until it was in relation to the Cosmos, These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD [YHWH] God made the earth and the heavens- Gen 2:4. Thus this Holy Name is associated with the cosmos as the 10 Sephirot are said to be.
It is in this sense that the Holy Spirit can be represented by Ain Soph Aur. Why? Because as the Breath sent forth from the Father and the Son, He carries with Him not only all the cosmos, but all the glories of the Glory Jesus Christ, all logoi of the Logos.
Scripture states, Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.-Ps 104.30. He goes forth as an out breath of the Father and the Son. Yet this is still as a veil of negative existence. Earlier we saw that creation (distinct from the formative and making aspects of existentiation- Is 43.7) is a negation. Hence when each entity is denied as other than God, they are thus individuated. But this too is prior to affirmative existence. All that need be said now is, Let there be light- Gen 1.3a., which begins the 10 m'amerot- commands of existentiation that result in our coming into being in the Cosmos.
Scripture also says, He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.- Jn 16.14-15; and, But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.- 2Cor 3.18.
Thus we see that the three negative existences of deity as elucidated within the esoteric tradition of Judaism, Kabbalah, are comparable to the Godhead in His emanations and manifestations from a negative, or non-manifest aspect. We may say that deity prior to being manifest toward the Cosmos as He truly is being YHWH, there were yet inward movements of unknowableness within the very Godhead Himself. These things are truly inscrutable from our weak human attempts at explaination. Yet as Paul the apostle preached, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.- Acts 17.23b.

Trinity and the Trikaya

2007-07-26T14:03:00.000-06:00

In Mahayana Buddhism the Buddha is said to have three bodies, which in Sanskrit are called Trikaya (tri-three, and kaya-body). These consist of:

1. Dharmakaya: Buddha body of universal principle (dharmadhatu), which is beyond comprehension, yet is the Emptiness, or Buddha-Mind (depending on which of two major schools of thought one adheres to) within all things, yet transcendent beyond all things, as ultimate reality;

2. Sambhogakaya: Buddha body of enjoyment, or bliss. This is the exalted place of assembled buddhas who receive the teaching of the Buddha. It is also a place of deity;

3. Nirmanakaya: The Buddha body of appearances, or transformation body. This is the body the historical Buddha walked in on earth.

Often the Trikaya is called a "Buddhist Trinity", but is this term accurate? Is the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, (One God in Essence, subsisting in Three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) comparable to this Buddhist teaching?

First of all, the Trikaya are emanations of the One Buddha-Nature, or Buddha-mind which is One. This is similar to the Judeo-Christian God in His Oneness, which is a Oneness of Essence, but are the Persons of the Trinity emanations? By and large this is not an acceptable theology within Christianity. However, this disbelief is based on the temporeality of the idea of emanationism.

Yet I believe that the Persons of the Trinity are successive emanations from each other, much as the Trikaya are. But with a couple of important differences:

1) The emantaions of the Godhead are eternal, which is to say that God is forever revealing Himself through the speaking forth of the Logos, the Father is always birthing forth the Son, as Scripture says, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.- Ps 2.7. So also the Holy Spirit is sent forth eternally, and thus He continuously renews the face of the earth (Ps 104.30 );

2) And, the Buddhists believe that the emanated buddhas, especially of the Sambhogakaya and Nirmankaya, have no real permanence, no existence, but are appearance only. They are considered, as well as everything else, as "empty dharmas". This is a docetic view of deity, and the cosmos. Docetism being the Gnostic Christology that while the historical Jesus walked the earth he wasn't really here physically (that corporealty is so evil, how could He have incarnated), but was here only in appearance. Thus the view is called epiphanic, and the philosophy can be applied to various cosmological doctrines. Thus the obvious difference would be that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do exist as such. With the Trikaya, only the Dharmakaya as the Buddha-principle is the ultimate reality, Emptiness, or Mind.
I can see a correlation, not so much between the Trikaya and the Persons of the Trinity as Persons, but as to the sphere or domain of each Person of the Trinity:
1.The Dharmakaya correlates to the Father in that He is the First emanation, or the First Emanator, as both statements are simultaneously true, as God is Self-revealed. He is closest to the Essence, the Godhead being the Father. But without the Son we would not have known the Father (Mt 11.27), He would have forever remained Agnostos Theos (Acts 17.23), the Unknown God, which He is in Essence, as is the Dharmakaya;

2. The Sambhogakaya is correlative with the Son, in that all deity is revealed in Him (Col 1.15; 2.9; Heb 1.3). Anything that we know of God, of the Father is revealed in Him, as Jesus said, he that hath seen me hath seen the Father- Jn 14.9b. And so it is with the assembly of buddhas in the heavenly realms of Sambhogakaya, they teach through their deity-like status, and enlightenment the reality of the innermost essence that is called Buddha-nature, or Buddha-mind. Through their dharma (teaching), they show the inmost essential nature of emptiness, they do so through their own enlightenment. This is also taught of the bodhisattvas, who are buddhas-to-be, but hold off on their own enlightenment in order to lead others to attainment;

3. The Nirmanakaya is comparable to the Holy Spirit in that, as the Nirmanakaya represents the empty dharma of phenomenal existences, so too the Holy Spirit relates in a special way to the cosmos in that He conveys the glories and revelations of deity which are the entities which come into manifest reality. The difference here though is that while the Buddhist cosmos is mere appearance, the cosmos of Christianiy is the very incarnation of deity through the Being of God (Acts 17.28). True, in and of ourselves we have no existence, and to think that we do independent of God is our own "maya-delusion"(Ga 6.3), yet in stead of negating our existence through the essential emptiness (which thing is also true in relation to the divine Essence -we are less than nothing- Ps 62.9), we are affirmed as existents through the very incarnation of deity who is being. This existence then is ever, and always renewed by this Breath.

Thus the Trikaya-Trinity comparison is one of function rather than one of a diversity of personalities within a Godhead, especially as the Trikaya are not perceived as a threeness of persons subsisting as one. And a major difference, too, is of existence, not only cosmologically, but also theologically.

The Crucifixion and the Quran

2007-07-21T21:41:00.001-06:00

It is commonly held in Islam that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ did not occur.
It is stated in the Quran, That they said (in their boast), "We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah"- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety They killed him not-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise- Q 4:157-158.
Most Moslems believe this to mean that Jesus Christ never died, but simply ascended up to heaven. Yet the Quran quotes Jesus as saying, "So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"- Q 19:33. What an awesome presentation of the Gospel in that verse! Clearly the Gospels were well known to Mohamed as he received the Quranic revelation. Did he really intend to say that Jesus would not be killed? Or that He would not be crucified? Doubtful.
In fact, I don't see in Q 4:157-158 a denial of Christ's death, nor yet a denial of His crucifixion. Actually, I see a harmony between the text of that Surah, and John's gospel, when Jesus said, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.- Jn 10.17-18.
It is so then that Jesus was not actually killed by the Jews, but it only appeared to them that they crucified Him, when in fact, He laid His own life down for us on the cross. It is not that He simply appeared to die on the cross as a docetic type of epiphany, with someone else being the actual victim (as portrayed in the apocryphal gospel of Barnabas). This need to have Jesus "trick" the Jews is not necessary if we realize that the Quran is not actually denying His crucifixion, nor yet His death. And to consider that He was raised up to life, and subsequently raised up to Allah, as is also in harmony with Christian Scripture (Jn 20.9-17; Acts 1.2-3, 9). Thus the Quran tells us, And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgement He will be a witness against them- Q 4:159. To this Jesus also said of Himself, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.- Jn 8.24, and again Scripture says, ...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.- Jn 20.31.