Is the Buddhist Sahasrarapadma, Hindu Sahasrara and Christian Kingdom the same?

From:  "jagbir singh" <>
Date:  Wed Aug 25, 2004  3:56 pm
Subject:  Is the Buddhist Sahasrarapadma, Hindu Sahasrara and Christian Kingdom the same?

—- In, "jagbir singh"
<adishakti_org@y...> wrote:
> Swami Vivekananda
> 26th September, 1893
> I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or
> Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India
> worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just now heard
> that I am going to criticise Buddhism, but by that I wish you to
> understand only this. Far be it from me to criticise him whom I
> worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views about Buddha are
> that he was not understood properly by his disciples. The relation
> between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas)
> and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the same
> as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and
> Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay,
> crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God
> and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus want to
> show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as
> the teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in this: Shakya Muni
> came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfil
> and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old
> people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of
> Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realise the import of
> his teachings. As the Jew did not understand the fulfilment of the
> Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the fulfilment
> of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, Shakya
> Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfilment, the logical
> conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus.
> The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts: the
> ceremonial and the spiritual. The spiritual portion is specially
> studied by the monks.
> In that there is no caste. A man from the highest caste and a man
> from the lowest may become a monk in India, and the two castes
> become equal. In religion there is no caste; caste is simply a
> social institution. Shakya Muni himself was a monk, and it was
> his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out the
> truths from the hidden Vedas and through them broadcast all over
> the world. He was the first being in the world who brought
> missionarising into practice — nay, he was the first to
> conceive the idea of proselytising.
> The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful sympathy for
> everybody, especially for the ignorant and the poor. Some of his
> disciples were Brahmins. When Buddha was teaching, Sanskrit was no
> more the spoken language in India. It was then only in the books
> of the learned. Some of Buddha's Brahmins disciples wanted to
> translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he distinctly told
> them, "I am for the poor, for the people; let me speak in the
> tongue of the people." And so to this day the great bulk of his
> teachings are in the vernacular of that day in India.
> Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever may be the
> position of metaphysics, so long as there is such a thing as death
> in the world, so long as there is such a thing as weakness in the
> human heart, so long as there is a cry going out of the heart of
> man in his very weakness, there shall be a faith in God.
> On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great Master dashed
> themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not
> crush them, and on the other side they took away from the nation
> that eternal God to which every one, man or woman, clings so
> fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural
> death in India. At the present day there is not one who calls
> oneself a Buddhist in India, the land of its birth.
> But at the same time, Brahminism lost something — that
> reforming zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity for everybody,
> that wonderful heaven which Buddhism had brought to the masses
> and which had rendered Indian society so great that a Greek
> historian who wrote about India of that time was led to say that no
> Hindu was known to tell an untruth and no Hindu woman was known
> to be unchaste.
> Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without
> Hinduism. Then realise what the separation has shown to us, that
> the Buddhists cannot stand without the brain and philosophy of the
> Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the heart of the Buddhist. This
> separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins is the cause of
> the downfall of India. That is why India is populated by three
> hundred millions of beggars, and that is why India has been the
> slave of conquerors for the last thousand years. Let us then join
> the wonderful intellect of the Brahmins with the heart, the noble
> soul, the wonderful humanising power of the Great Master.
> Swami Vivekananda

Sages have for millenniums extolled: "When Kundalini sleeps man is
awake to the world. He has objective consciousness. When Kundalini
awakes and ascends to Sahasrara then the person gains divine
consciousness and total awareness of the world and becomes one with
the universe. In Samadhi the body is maintained by the nectar which
flows from the union of Shiva and Shakti with Sahasrara."

The great sage Swami Vivekananda noted that wherever there was "any manifestation of what is ordinarily called supernatural power or
wisdom, a little current of kundalini must have found its way into
the sushumna what thus man ignorantly worships under various names
the yogi declares to the world to be the real power coiled up in
every being, The Mother of eternal happiness if we but know how to
approach her."

R.C. Zaehner, in his book Bhagavad Gita questioned: "How is it, one may ask, that the fully integrated self which has already 'become Brahman' can also attain to 'Brahman's saving touch', or, according to the variant, to 'union with Brahman'? ... a atouch' of which the Buddhists know nothing ... which Pascal spoke and over against which finite man seemed to make no sense ... When thought by spiritual exercise is checked and comes to rest, and when of oneself one sees the self in the Self and finds content therein, that is the utmost joy which transcends all things of sense and which soul alone can grasp. When he knows this and knowing it stands still, moving not an inch from the reality he sees, he wins a prize beyond all others ...(B.G. 6.20-22) — a state of complete interiority and introversion, in which 'his joy is within, his bliss within, his light within' (B.G. 5.24) and in which he 'becomes Brahman.' This is the Buddhist Nirvana, and the 'highest Brahman' of the Upanishads is identified with it."

Shri Mataji keeps insisting that this joy is within, this bliss is within, this light is within by which mortals realize Brahman. According to the Adi Shakti "the Joy of the Sahasrara is called as Nirananda since long, since ancient times called as Nirananda or Nirmala-ananda. So many call it as Nirmala-ananda or Nirananda. That Joy is the Joy that you enjoy even when you get crucified. That Joy is the Joy that you enjoy even when you get poisoned. Even on your death-bed you enjoy that Joy. That Joy is Nirananda."

Then isn't the Buddhist Nirvana of the Sahasrarapadma, and the
'highest Brahman' of the Upanishads experienced in the Sahasrara
similar to the Joy of the Kingdom of God within that Jesus preached?



If this page was accessed during a web search you may wish to browse the websites listed below where this topic titled "Is the Buddhist Sahasrarapadma, Hindu Sahasrara and Christian Kingdom the same?" or related issues are discussed, commented, criticized or researched in detail to promote peace and progress in religious harmony and spiritual development for all humanity: