|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 9:23:02 GMT -5
Faith is important. For instance, Nisargadatta Maharaj had blind faith in what his guru told him, but then again so do fundamentalists. Was thinking of that very thing about Niz and his guru as I wrote this, but you've added a twist that reveals both edges of faith. That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 10:19:56 GMT -5
Was thinking of that very thing about Niz and his guru as I wrote this, but you've added a twist that reveals both edges of faith. That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. Moved in to a new house. The garage door is very slow. Tried to walk in before it fully opened. Almost knocked myself out. Tweaked my neck. So much cruddy false, hard unreal objects about. Or is it that life is the only real that can be and the falseness is that we are a mere component. That sounds better to my ever scrutinizing ego. Meditation calls.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 10:36:40 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. Moved in to a new house. The garage door is very slow. Tried to walk in before it fully opened. Almost knocked myself out. Tweaked my neck. So much cruddy false, hard unreal objects about. Or is it that life is the only real that can be and the falseness is that we are a mere component. That sounds better to my ever scrutinizing ego. Meditation calls. Sorry to hear of your misfortune .. ouch! Remember, pain is inevitable, but the suffering is always optional. The differing interpretations of the third noble truth are an excellent example of the faith/belief dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2019 10:59:24 GMT -5
Was thinking of that very thing about Niz and his guru as I wrote this, but you've added a twist that reveals both edges of faith. That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. I'm not following this line of the discussion very well. Can you explain a bit more about the conflation of faith and belief? The way I see is that conventional Christianity (and most other religions that are primarily dualistic in nature) tell people only to believe in the stated tenets of the tradition and to have faith that they've true. By contrast, in all of the ND traditions people are told that words CANNOT capture the truth, and they're pointed to do things (mainly to meditate, become silent, inquire, contemplate existential issues, etc). It is assumed that those concrete activities will sooner or later reveal the truth and thereby allow one to verify ND truth claims independently. The Buddha and most other ND teachers have stated, in essence, "Don't take my word for anything; verify everything for yourselves. (Be a lamp unto yourselves)." In the dualistic traditions people are given various commandments regarding how to act, but in the ND traditions it is assumed that people who discover the truth will know how to act without being attached to rigid ideas about those matters. In the Zen tradition, for example, people are told that all human situations are dynamic in nature and dependent upon many variables. Knowing the truth provides flexibility and understanding of the total context and is worth more than any rigid formulas. I became convinced that Zen Masters, Advaita Masters, and Sufi Masters understood what I wanted to know at least 8 years before I started to meditate, but none of the books I read about enlightened people explained how they became enlightened. For some odd reason it never dawned on me to research what they did to become enlightened. None of the books I read at that time discussed meditation, and the Zen books only told stories about specific enigmatic events that triggered realizations. After 5 months of meditation, I finally saw a path that I thought would lead to SR, but I don't remember any Zen teacher ever explaining how meditation might lead to SR. Students were just told to sit, and were told that a daily meditation practice was important. Koans were used as a methodology for penetrating various illusions, and meditation was therefore necessary for triggering the insights that would resolve the koans. Today I would explain the path to a seeker in this way: thoughts obscure the truth of who you really are and what's really going on. To escape the prison created by attachment to thoughts, meditate/contemplate/self-inquire in order to attain mental silence. Sufficient mental silence will lead to realizations that will inform the intellect by shattering the conventional illusions that cause people to suffer and cause them to believe that they are separate from the Infinite. Don;t take my word for this explanation, but if you want to acquire the direct experience necessary to verify or refute this explanation, then you'll need to follow the advice to become mentally silent and find out for yourself what will happen. Faith is not necessary; you only need to be wiling to investigate these matters for yourself (perform an experiment with your own consciousness).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 11:43:49 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. I'm not following this line of the discussion very well. Can you explain a bit more about the conflation of faith and belief? The way I see is that conventional Christianity (and most other religions that are primarily dualistic in nature) tell people only to believe in the stated tenets of the tradition and to have faith that they've true. By contrast, in all of the ND traditions people are told that words CANNOT capture the truth, and they're pointed to do things (mainly to meditate, become silent, inquire, contemplate existential issues, etc). It is assumed that those concrete activities will sooner or later reveal the truth and thereby allow one to verify ND truth claims independently. The Buddha and most other ND teachers have stated, in essence, "Don't take my word for anything; verify everything for yourselves. (Be a lamp unto yourselves)." In the dualistic traditions people are given various commandments regarding how to act, but in the ND traditions it is assumed that people who discover the truth will know how to act without being attached to rigid ideas about those matters. In the Zen tradition, for example, people are told that all human situations are dynamic in nature and dependent upon many variables. Knowing the truth provides flexibility and understanding of the total context and is worth more than any rigid formulas. I became convinced that Zen Masters, Advaita Masters, and Sufi Masters understood what I wanted to know at least 8 years before I started to meditate, but none of the books I read about enlightened people explained how they became enlightened. For some odd reason it never dawned on me to research what they did to become enlightened. None of the books I read at that time discussed meditation, and the Zen books only told stories about specific enigmatic events that triggered realizations. After 5 months of meditation, I finally saw a path that I thought would lead to SR, but I don't remember any Zen teacher ever explaining how meditation might lead to SR. Students were just told to sit, and were told that a daily meditation practice was important. Koans were used as a methodology for penetrating various illusions, and meditation was therefore necessary for triggering the insights that would resolve the koans. Today I would explain the path to a seeker in this way: thoughts obscure the truth of who you really are and what's really going on. To escape the prison created by attachment to thoughts, meditate/contemplate/self-inquire in order to attain mental silence. Sufficient mental silence will lead to realizations that will inform the intellect by shattering the conventional illusions that cause people to suffer and cause them to believe that they are separate from the Infinite. Don;t take my word for this explanation, but if you want to acquire the direct experience necessary to verify or refute this explanation, then you'll need to follow the advice to become mentally silent and find out for yourself what will happen. Faith is not necessary; you only need to be wiling to investigate these matters for yourself (perform an experiment with your own consciousness). In terms of insight, what I've been referring to as faith would best be translated as a genuine, open not-knowing, along with the humility of acknowledging that one is seeking. It seems to me that faith and belief have been conflated (for well over a thousand years) in precisely the way you describe: "have faith that these beliefs are true". But despite the way it's been misused, the real meaning of faith hasn't been erased: it's a leap into the unknown despite evidence to the contrary. In Christian terms, it's the radical notion of making a sincere effort to love your enemy. I mean, who really does that, and why? You can't really love someone else just because you're told to, and the distinction between the two words, belief, and faith, remains despite the ages-old conflation. To the extent that a Christian can find some relative measure of inner-peace by their faith, as they live a world that can be dangerous and hostile, the dogma might seem important to them, the clergy, and anyone from the outside looking in. But anyone who's gained insight knows better. It's not the beliefs that led to the inner-peace, but the prayer. If they believe they have to pray to find that peace, they're no different from folks who meditate to relax or get in tune with their environment. Faith, in this sense, is a trust in God, and not the God of the devotee's imagination, but rather, trust in the degree they can sense of their own true nature. That this is directly in opposition to the dogma is why devotion and insight seem to be roads in directly opposite directions to the people on them. The devotee places his attention on the deity in an act of surrender, while the seeker of insight broadens their sense of awareness as the appearance of limitation falls away. To the extent that a Christian engages in a blind belief because they want to go to heaven, then this might serve the institutions that perpetuate the religion, but it seems to me there is more than one biblical parable that illustrates the "sin" of this. As examples: the workers all receiving the same pay regardless of when they started, and that good works can't get you into heaven. Whether those have survived despite the institutions is an interesting question that I have no answer to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 11:58:57 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. I'm not following this line of the discussion very well. Can you explain a bit more about the conflation of faith and belief? The way I see is that conventional Christianity (and most other religions that are primarily dualistic in nature) tell people only to believe in the stated tenets of the tradition and to have faith that they've true. By contrast, in all of the ND traditions people are told that words CANNOT capture the truth, and they're pointed to do things (mainly to meditate, become silent, inquire, contemplate existential issues, etc). It is assumed that those concrete activities will sooner or later reveal the truth and thereby allow one to verify ND truth claims independently. The Buddha and most other ND teachers have stated, in essence, "Don't take my word for anything; verify everything for yourselves. (Be a lamp unto yourselves)." In the dualistic traditions people are given various commandments regarding how to act, but in the ND traditions it is assumed that people who discover the truth will know how to act without being attached to rigid ideas about those matters. In the Zen tradition, for example, people are told that all human situations are dynamic in nature and dependent upon many variables. Knowing the truth provides flexibility and understanding of the total context and is worth more than any rigid formulas. I became convinced that Zen Masters, Advaita Masters, and Sufi Masters understood what I wanted to know at least 8 years before I started to meditate, but none of the books I read about enlightened people explained how they became enlightened. For some odd reason it never dawned on me to research what they did to become enlightened. None of the books I read at that time discussed meditation, and the Zen books only told stories about specific enigmatic events that triggered realizations. After 5 months of meditation, I finally saw a path that I thought would lead to SR, but I don't remember any Zen teacher ever explaining how meditation might lead to SR. Students were just told to sit, and were told that a daily meditation practice was important. Koans were used as a methodology for penetrating various illusions, and meditation was therefore necessary for triggering the insights that would resolve the koans. Today I would explain the path to a seeker in this way: thoughts obscure the truth of who you really are and what's really going on. To escape the prison created by attachment to thoughts, meditate/contemplate/self-inquire in order to attain mental silence. Sufficient mental silence will lead to realizations that will inform the intellect by shattering the conventional illusions that cause people to suffer and cause them to believe that they are separate from the Infinite. Don;t take my word for this explanation, but if you want to acquire the direct experience necessary to verify or refute this explanation, then you'll need to follow the advice to become mentally silent and find out for yourself what will happen. Faith is not necessary; you only need to be wiling to investigate these matters for yourself ( perform an experiment with your own consciousness). And in this context consciousness means contact. Whatever you are in contact with, is, what consciousness is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2019 12:03:47 GMT -5
Was thinking of that very thing about Niz and his guru as I wrote this, but you've added a twist that reveals both edges of faith. That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. This distinction is what I used to talk about when I advocated faith IN faith itself. It's a bottomless faith. A constant leap into the unknown. It's not a faith in something, nothing, or even 'that which cannot be named'. The faith is the destination, not the means to an absolute certainty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 12:06:01 GMT -5
I'm not following this line of the discussion very well. Can you explain a bit more about the conflation of faith and belief? The way I see is that conventional Christianity (and most other religions that are primarily dualistic in nature) tell people only to believe in the stated tenets of the tradition and to have faith that they've true. By contrast, in all of the ND traditions people are told that words CANNOT capture the truth, and they're pointed to do things (mainly to meditate, become silent, inquire, contemplate existential issues, etc). It is assumed that those concrete activities will sooner or later reveal the truth and thereby allow one to verify ND truth claims independently. The Buddha and most other ND teachers have stated, in essence, "Don't take my word for anything; verify everything for yourselves. (Be a lamp unto yourselves)." In the dualistic traditions people are given various commandments regarding how to act, but in the ND traditions it is assumed that people who discover the truth will know how to act without being attached to rigid ideas about those matters. In the Zen tradition, for example, people are told that all human situations are dynamic in nature and dependent upon many variables. Knowing the truth provides flexibility and understanding of the total context and is worth more than any rigid formulas. I became convinced that Zen Masters, Advaita Masters, and Sufi Masters understood what I wanted to know at least 8 years before I started to meditate, but none of the books I read about enlightened people explained how they became enlightened. For some odd reason it never dawned on me to research what they did to become enlightened. None of the books I read at that time discussed meditation, and the Zen books only told stories about specific enigmatic events that triggered realizations. After 5 months of meditation, I finally saw a path that I thought would lead to SR, but I don't remember any Zen teacher ever explaining how meditation might lead to SR. Students were just told to sit, and were told that a daily meditation practice was important. Koans were used as a methodology for penetrating various illusions, and meditation was therefore necessary for triggering the insights that would resolve the koans. Today I would explain the path to a seeker in this way: thoughts obscure the truth of who you really are and what's really going on. To escape the prison created by attachment to thoughts, meditate/contemplate/self-inquire in order to attain mental silence. Sufficient mental silence will lead to realizations that will inform the intellect by shattering the conventional illusions that cause people to suffer and cause them to believe that they are separate from the Infinite. Don;t take my word for this explanation, but if you want to acquire the direct experience necessary to verify or refute this explanation, then you'll need to follow the advice to become mentally silent and find out for yourself what will happen. Faith is not necessary; you only need to be wiling to investigate these matters for yourself (perform an experiment with your own consciousness). In terms of insight, what I've been referring to as faith would best be translated as a genuine, open not-knowing, along with the humility of acknowledging that one is seeking. It seems to me that faith and belief have been conflated (for well over a thousand years) in precisely the way you describe: "have faith that these beliefs are true". But despite the way it's been misused, the real meaning of faith hasn't been erased: it's a leap into the unknown despite evidence to the contrary. In Christian terms, it's the radical notion of making a sincere effort to love your enemy. I mean, who really does that, and why? You can't really love someone else just because you're told to, and the distinction between the two words, belief, and faith, remains despite the ages-old conflation. To the extent that a Christian can find some relative measure of inner-peace by their faith, as they live a world that can be dangerous and hostile, the dogma might seem important to them, the clergy, and anyone from the outside looking in. But anyone who's gained insight knows better. It's not the beliefs that led to the inner-peace, but the prayer. If they believe they have to pray to find that peace, they're no different from folks who meditate to relax or get in tune with their environment. Faith, in this sense, is a trust in God, and not the God of the devotee's imagination, but rather, trust in the degree they can sense of their own true nature. That this is directly in opposition to the dogma is why devotion and insight seem to be roads in directly opposite directions to the people on them. The devotee places his attention on the deity in an act of surrender, while the seeker of insight broadens their sense of awareness as the appearance of limitation falls away. To the extent that a Christian engages in a blind belief because they want to go to heaven, then this might serve the institutions that perpetuate the religion, but it seems to me there is more than one biblical parable that illustrates the "sin" of this. As examples: the workers all receiving the same pay regardless of when they started, and that good works can't get you into heaven. Whether those have survived despite the institutions is an interesting question that I have no answer to. Are American Christians starting to recognise that their heaven is right here?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 30, 2019 12:15:40 GMT -5
I have interacted with many Buddhists who engage in blind belief and I've met Christians who engage in quiet contemplative prayer who are less interested in dogma. And it's not a case of nonduality good, duality bad. The dualistic path of Bhakti yoga or devotion and the selfless service of karma yoga is far more prevalent than the direct non-dual path of self inquiry or jnana. Both are legitimate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 12:19:53 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. This distinction is what I used to talk about when I advocated faith IN faith itself. It's a bottomless faith. A constant leap into the unknown. It's not a faith in something, nothing, or even 'that which cannot be named'. The faith is the destination, not the means to an absolute certainty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 12:21:14 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. Moved in to a new house. The garage door is very slow. Tried to walk in before it fully opened. Almost knocked myself out. Tweaked my neck. So much cruddy false, hard unreal objects about. Or is it that life is the only real that can be and the falseness is that we are a mere component. That sounds better to my ever scrutinizing ego. Meditation calls.Meditate while the garage door opens.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 12:34:38 GMT -5
That other edge is precisely the conflation of faith with belief. The 2nd and 3rd noble truths can be translated into Advaita as: the cause of suffering is that the false isn't seen as false, and, suffering ends when the false is no longer seen, as other than false. For Christians, their faith is a matter of degree that unfortunately involves at least some measure of this conflation, but that doesn't mean that all of them are hardcore attached to the dogmas. It just means, that, within whatever matter of degree that applies to them, they're still not seeing all falsity, as false. This is the common human condition of the day: to suffer. In that measure that they do see the false as false, we might ascribe to their faith. This distinction is what I used to talk about when I advocated faith IN faith itself. It's a bottomless faith. A constant leap into the unknown. It's not a faith in something, nothing, or even 'that which cannot be named'. The faith is the destination, not the means to an absolute certainty. Yes, I recall your interest in the belief vs. faith distinction from past dialogs.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 12:35:31 GMT -5
In terms of insight, what I've been referring to as faith would best be translated as a genuine, open not-knowing, along with the humility of acknowledging that one is seeking. It seems to me that faith and belief have been conflated (for well over a thousand years) in precisely the way you describe: "have faith that these beliefs are true". But despite the way it's been misused, the real meaning of faith hasn't been erased: it's a leap into the unknown despite evidence to the contrary. In Christian terms, it's the radical notion of making a sincere effort to love your enemy. I mean, who really does that, and why? You can't really love someone else just because you're told to, and the distinction between the two words, belief, and faith, remains despite the ages-old conflation. To the extent that a Christian can find some relative measure of inner-peace by their faith, as they live a world that can be dangerous and hostile, the dogma might seem important to them, the clergy, and anyone from the outside looking in. But anyone who's gained insight knows better. It's not the beliefs that led to the inner-peace, but the prayer. If they believe they have to pray to find that peace, they're no different from folks who meditate to relax or get in tune with their environment. Faith, in this sense, is a trust in God, and not the God of the devotee's imagination, but rather, trust in the degree they can sense of their own true nature. That this is directly in opposition to the dogma is why devotion and insight seem to be roads in directly opposite directions to the people on them. The devotee places his attention on the deity in an act of surrender, while the seeker of insight broadens their sense of awareness as the appearance of limitation falls away. To the extent that a Christian engages in a blind belief because they want to go to heaven, then this might serve the institutions that perpetuate the religion, but it seems to me there is more than one biblical parable that illustrates the "sin" of this. As examples: the workers all receiving the same pay regardless of when they started, and that good works can't get you into heaven. Whether those have survived despite the institutions is an interesting question that I have no answer to. Are American Christians starting to recognise that their heaven is right here? 'dunno, I ain't got the time nor the means to take a public pulse like that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2019 12:38:27 GMT -5
I have interacted with many Buddhists who engage in blind belief and I've met Christians who engage in quiet contemplative prayer who are less interested in dogma. And it's not a case of nonduality good, duality bad. The dualistic path of Bhakti yoga or devotion and the selfless service of karma yoga is far more prevalent than the direct non-dual path of self inquiry or jnana. Both are legitimate. But I see ZD's point in that the advice to find out for yourself by inquiry and other means such as meditation might seem contrary to someone who hears it to the traditional Christian call for faith-by-belief.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 30, 2019 13:12:51 GMT -5
I have interacted with many Buddhists who engage in blind belief and I've met Christians who engage in quiet contemplative prayer who are less interested in dogma. And it's not a case of nonduality good, duality bad. The dualistic path of Bhakti yoga or devotion and the selfless service of karma yoga is far more prevalent than the direct non-dual path of self inquiry or jnana. Both are legitimate. But I see ZD's point in that the advice to find out for yourself by inquiry and other means such as meditation might seem contrary to someone who hears it to the traditional Christian call for faith-by-belief. Yes I accept ZD's point but he seemed to associate it specifically with nonduality. The true Bhakti is engaged in non dogmatic dualist devotion to God or guru with the goal of surrender just as it is with the path of nondual jnana. It's just that most devotional followers of the Abrahamic religions don't take devotion to it's conclusion. It's easier to follow a set of moral rules and beliefs and when one stumbles or falls short, one can resort to playing the role of weak sinner seeking forgiveness. I know. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. Ramana said that it was just as valid to surrender and put your life's burden in God's hands as it was to self inquire which doesn't necessitate devotion but doesn't rule it out either. It all depends on temperament and inclination.
|
|