Soul or soulless, God or godless? Why everybody established their own styles of religion

From:  jagbir singh <www.adishakti.org@gmail.com>
Date:  Wed Nov 24, 2004  11:08 am
Subject:  Soul or soulless, God or godless? Why everybody established their own styles of religion

> —- In shriadishakti@yahoogroups.com, "v_radha_om" <v_radha_om@y... wrote:
> >
> > If you tell to a blind person about light, he will understand
> > according to his assumptions and knoweledge but basically what
> > he thought is not exactly a light. But a person who can see
> > doesn't required any explaniation about light, because he can
> > see the light very clearly. Same way you don't required anybody
> > to show something nameless you have to see yourself now not
> > after 2 weeks 6 months.
> >
> > Sages or gurus whoever it may be how do you know they are
> > telling the truth? how do you really see truth? unless you
> > understand what is false and ways you get deceived you can't
> > really understand truth.
> >
> > Truth cannot be given to anybody it should be preceived every
> > moment of life. it is not a record that u can remember, it is
> > very dynamic. What you experience tells you is just a record of
> > the past not of the present. You people always take paths as
> > important not the truth. you given importance to path not to the
> > truth. To understand to truth you should never have choice.
> >
> >
—- In shriadishakti@yahoogroups.com, "jagbir singh" <adishakti_org@y...> wrote:
>
> "When the Bodhisattvas are possessed of four qualities, then they
> are practicing the Great Yoga," we read in the Lankavatara-sutra,
> one of the principal texts of the Yogacara. "These four qualities
> are as follows: 1. the realization that everything is but a
> manifestation of our spirit, 2. freedom from the false idea that
> there is any such thing as growth, duration, or succession of
> things, 3. the understanding that the sole characteristic of
> external objects is nonexistence, and 4. the understanding that
> the Holy Knowledge is to be realized within ourselves." This four-
> fold mental yoga recluses the practioner from the painful
> whirlpool of samsara, which is otherwise without end.
>
> Heinrich Zimmer, Philosophies of India
>

Dear Sampa,

You wrote to me regarding the above: "If soul is to be understood as an individual and particular spirit, then it is FALSE. If soul is considered as universal as in brahman, then it is truth and only the truth can set you free"

i think your statement is mainly from the Buddhist's point of view. However i subscribe to the common view of all faiths and prophets. For me truth cannot be contradicted, and the statement about the nature of the soul does contradicts the generally held view. Maybe Edgar Cayce may make all of us realize the sustaining power of organized religions:

"One of the great ironies of human nature is the fact that the very structure intended to enrich our relationship with God is the one
thing which divides us most as a human family. For countless eons, more wars have been fought on religious principles than for any other reason. Even to this day, wars, bloodshed, political battles, and countless examples of our inhumanity to one another are commonplace as one group tries to instill (or enforce) its belief systems, its politics, or the supremacy of its God onto the lives of others. These conflicts are not simply between various religions but are also within each denomination. There are sects within Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam-within every religion!-many convinced that they are just a little more right than anyone else. Even various churches, temples, and synagogues have found differences with other members of their own sect who have somehow fallen away from the "original" or the "true" faith."

So back to Buddhism. According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Buddha taught the existence of neither Soul nor God. According to early Buddhism there is no eternal soul in man. The world is empty of self. So does a being. It is not possible to believe that a soul, that is permanent and stable can exist in a being, because all beings are subject to continuous change, death and decay. ...

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon—the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings—you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."

So it is clear that Shri Buddha never admitted nor denied the existence of God or soul. If Shri Buddha never talked about the soul or God why have Buddhists assumed non-existence? Why did they put words in Shri Buddha's mouth? Was it to be different and distinct from Hindus, the modus operandi used by religious sects to induce disbelieve/ridicule others? i can think of no other reason for this radical departure. Even Shri Mataji admits that Shri Buddha never talked about God or self, but that does not mean non-existence of God or soul:

 

The Great Adi Shakti Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

 

 

 

 

"Something has gone wrong somewhere in every human enterprise, even in religions. That's why we find this kind of a farce going on.

And what has gone wrong is that we have to seek the Eternal. Maybe it might look a bit different. For example Buddha and Mahavira did not talk of God at all. I also did not talk about the God for four years. As soon as you talk about God people start jumping that when can we become God. So first you become the Self, the first step.

They said first you become the Self. Unless and until you have eyes, how can you see the colors? It is for your benevolence that you better get what you deserve, what is your own is your birthright as a human being, that is, to become the spirit. That is what Sahaja Yoga is. Sah means with, ja means born. Born with you is the right to get this Yoga — the union with the Divine. It is your birth right as a human being. You are the epitome of evolution.

And it has to work out, but please open your hearts and open your minds, and then see for yourself. I know it will work. But by thinking about it you cannot conceptualize. This is the biggest problem of our seeking, that we run after some sort of concept.
"

Shri Dvija-Vrnda-nisevita Devi
First, Know Thy Self, London, U.K. — August 1, 1989

(Dvija-Vrnda-nisevita (423rd): Propitiated by the twice-born.)


 

The Great Adi Shakti Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

 

 

 

 

"I don't know how many of you have read of Buddha's life and how ultimately He achieved his Enlightenment. I don't know how many of you have really seen the Buddhists or have met them; those who call themselves Buddhists. As in every religion all of them got lost into some sort of a fundamental disease because none of them got Realization, and that's why everybody established their own styles of religion. Even you can say that Tao of Lao Tze also ...

You have to see how He first felt that one has to seek something beyond life . . . He couldn't understand how this misery has come and what is the need to have this misery. So He gave up his family, He gave up His luxuries of life — everything He gave up — and went in search of the Truth, as many of you have done. He would have been lost also I would say because He had read all those Upanishads, and He read all the books that were possible for Him to say what the Truth is. But He couldn't get anything.

He was a complete sanyasi in the sense that as far as the food is concerned, as far as the entertainment is concerned, everything He gave up and ultimately the Adi Shakti gave Him Realization because He was so true, and was one of the one marked for a special place in the Virata. He had to achieve that. Of course I need not tell you about His previous lives; perhaps in so many of My lectures I have already talked about it — what was His previous life and how He achieved His own enlightenment about Himself.

But what we have to see about His life is that He discovered and found out that want is the reason of all the myths. But He didn't know what was the real Want, what was the pure Want, what was the pure Desire, and that's how He could not explain to people that they have to take their awakening through their Kundalini."

Shri Chunmayi Devi
Search For The Absolute,
Buddha Puja, U.K. — May 31, 1992

(Chunmayi (251st): Of the nature of Consciousness.)

 

The problem is that organized religions go to extreme lengths to divide humans and rule them. The issue of whether the individual soul exists or not is one of the countless wedges to keep us apart. Even within religions there are ongoing centuries-old arguments on certain doctrines that lead to eventual division. That is how religious sects splinter and flourish as sub-sects, and further divide themselves over time. There is absolutely no way to reconcile on the differences because most are conjured/speculated/devised by humans, not the prophets.

According to Dr. Haridas Chaudhuri "Buddha said our life is like a river. On this side of the river is the ordinary life we live. It is a life of samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, empirical existence, social development, economic growth, the march of history and civilization. On the other side of the river is timeless reality, the kingdom of heaven in the transcendental sense of the word. Some people through their spiritual development cross the river, experience transcendental reality and come back to tell their fellow human beings about the other shore and to help them get there. Still others cross the river, experience the treasures of transcendental reality, and discover that both shores are interconnected and interdependent. There is no dualism, no complete separation. These people come back armed with the power of the divine and with a clear understanding of the purpose of the ultimate reality. They understand the ultimate purpose is to develop something on this shore. They come back to inspire others to build a divine kingdom on this shore, transforming human society into the perfect image of the transcendental reality. This becomes their purpose and is the true goal of the evolutionary mysticism. It is the balanced spiritual ideal: attaining mystical experience and also having an evolutionary perspective regarding life. Through this we grow true to the kindred points of eternity and time, of heaven and earth."

Shri Mataji, as the Mai Treya, has fulfilled the prophecy to complete Buddha's work before this auspicious age of Kali Yuga in which he appeared runs its course. She has done all that Dr. Haridas Chaudhuri is talking about.

And what have i realized about the soul over the years? - We are all countless souls reincarnating to becomes pure enough to eventually merge into Brahman. But first we have to liberate ourselves, attain moksha and CONTINUE the journey. That is why it is so vital to first participate in the Great Event ordained for humanity.


jagbir

Note: i cannot conceive of anyone merging directly into Brahman from this physical Earth. Whose mind is that pure and free from impurities and ignorance? Which Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain sect/sub-sect - all divided amongst themselves and against their religious rivals - is favored for eternal life/moksa/anatta (non-self) while their opponents can all burn/suffer/rot in hell/rebirth/samsara?

-— In shriadishakti@yahoogroups.com, jagbir singh
<adishakti_org@y...> wrote:

From:  "jagbir singh" <www.adishakti.org@gmail.com>
Date:  Fri Dec 3, 2004  3:40 pm
Subject:  All religions propound notions of soul, of levels of soul

The Structure of the Soul

"What is soul, this mysterious something that forms our true
essence? Many speak of the soul, but rarely does anyone attempt to
say what it is. And so soul remains a vague but profound question
mark at the center of our life. Dare we wait until we die to explore
our soul, in the hope that death will offer a ray of clarity?
Despite the confusion, we feel that our soul is who we really are,
undeniably important even if always hidden.

To begin to make sense of this, we can look to the major spiritual
traditions for guidance on questions of the soul. All religions
propound notions of soul, of levels of soul, and of corresponding
levels of experience. Soul serves as the bridge between Heaven and
Earth, and is thus central to all spirituality. Christianity, Islam,
Taoism, Hinduism, and Judaism view the soul as a composite,
incorporating various levels or parts. The lower level exhibits
similarities to our physical body. Higher levels are progressively
more refined, with the highest approaching God. Christianity speaks
of the carnal, natural, and spirit bodies. Islamic Sufis call the
parts nafs, ruh, and sirr. The Hindu soul has etheric, astral, and
causal bodies, while Judaic Kabbalah teaches of the nefesh, ruach,
and neshamah."

Buddhism, on the contrary, denies the concept of an eternal, individualized soul. However, Buddhism does include some soul-like ideas, such as the collection of aggregates, or skandas, which bear a person's karma into future lives. Tibetan Buddhism speaks of the four bodies of the Buddha: nature body, truth-wisdom body, enjoyment body, and emanation body.

A detailed comparison of all these systems of the soul is better left for an academic thesis."


The Structure of the Soul
www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/Soul.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adishakti_sahaja_yoga/message/2853


"It is a mistake to attempt a final estimate of the views of either
Buddha, Plato, Jesus, or any other teacher of religious philosophy,
by means of a literal analysis of the printed record of what they
taught. In the case of Buddha, there is reason to think that, like
Jesus, he taught an inner, higher doctrine to his immediate
disciples. What may be called "popular" Buddhism has generally been
conceded to be preserved by the Southern or Ceylonese School, and it
is from the scriptures of Southern Buddhism that Western scholars
have gained the impression that Buddha denied the possibility of
immortality. Rhys Davids, the Orientalist whose interpretations are
best known to the West, has written: "There is no passage of a soul
or I in any sense from the one life to the other." ... Davids also
concludes that "death, utter death," is the sequel to Nirvana.

Edmund Holmes is convinced that this is a mutilation, a complete
misreading, of Buddhist philosophy, and his chapter in The Creed of
Buddha to correct the mistake seems a well-reasoned discussion of
the central implication of Buddhist teachings. The Southern version,
briefly, is that at death a man's tendencies and traits of character
are resolved into psychic residues termed by the Buddhists Skandas,
and that these are all that remain of the man who has died. The
Skandhas (carriers of Karma) are then reborn in some other person or
individual, but without any connecting link of continuing egoity.

Northern Buddhism [the Buddhism of Tibet, China, and Japan], on the
other hand, while exuberantly metaphysical in form, is said to have
preserved the teaching given by Buddha to his arhats, or initiated
disciples, and here one finds unmistakably taught the doctrine of a
permanent identity which unites all the incarnations of a single
individual. This latter is the view adopted by Holmes: "The question
we have to ask ourselves with regard to the Buddhist conception is a
simple one: Is the identity between me and the inheritor of my
Karma ... as real as the identity between the me of today and the
me of 20 years hence ...? If it is not as real, the doctrine of
reincarnation is pure nonsense."

— From an "essay on Buddha's thought contained in a translation
of the Dhammapada published by the Cunningham Press," quoted in
Reincarnation: An East-West Anthology.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adishakti_sahaja_yoga/message/2857
 


If this page was accessed during a web search you may wish to browse the websites listed below where this topic titled "Soul or soulless, God or godless? Why everybody established their own styles of religion" 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:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adishakti_sahaja_yoga/message/2813

http://adishakti.org/forum/archives.htm
http://adishakti.org/

 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


 
 





Search —>