An Advaita Vedanta philosophy site, focusing on Realization, enlightenment, nisarga yoga, non-duality (nonduality), your original nature, dwelling as your natural state, and the teachings of Maharaj.
FROM A SITE VISITOR: You say that Christ was taught the Advaita Vedanta message and talked that message at the end, so why not encourage people to go to church and hear his words?
F.: First, if you understand that religious and/or spiritual role-playing happens at the third of seven steps to Realization, go to church for a time and play the role with an awareness that all role-playing must eventually end in order to transition beyond the third step. But do not go based in a belief that you will hear a discussion of the Advaita pointers that Christ offered.
Evidently, you have some experience with going to church. If so, name the times you were at church and heard a sermon that clearly and accurately explained, “Before Abraham was, I AM” or “Heaven and earth shall fade away” or “No one shall see the kingdom of heaven for it is within” or "A dual-minded person is unstable in all ways."
If honest, the answer would be…never. Never are the Advaitin pointers of Christ discussed, and only about 1% of all of the so-called “holy scriptures” used in churches are even words that were reportedly spoken by him. 99% of the content in the “Christian Bible” are words not spoken by Christ.
That 99% of the "Christian Bible" which has nothing to do with Christ is a compilation instead of Jewish teachings, of pagan dogma, and of mythical tales—none of which have anything to do with either Advaita or the one called “The Christ.”
If Christianity were really about Christ and his teachings, then why is anything other than “the red letter part” mentioned in sermons or included in studies or included in their “holy book”? Why would one who has assumed the identity of “A Christian” study the other 99% of the Bible that is not “the red letter part” which offers the words supposedly spoken by Christ? Only because of “the sheep factor.”
More to the issue, why would you suggest that one can go to church and learn anything about Advaitin pointers? It will not happen. If it is an understanding of “the not two-ness” (the Oneness) that is being sought via understanding some of the teachings of Christ, then consider:
Christ reportedly rode an ass into
Advaitins, on the other hand, know that the ass was Christ and Christ was the ass. There is the Oneness, the "not-two." Whether called “Christ consciousness” or “ass consciousness,” consciousness is consciousness. So why elevate Christ to something that is supposedly “different from” or “better than” while claiming to be seeking the Atonement…the at-one-ment? Christ and the ass were “not two.”
So if you worship one, you might as well worship the other. You might as well spend trillions on buildings where the ass can be worshiped, where ghastly carvings and bloody images of the ass can be displayed, and where murals of the ass can be painted on the ceilings.
You may as well ask people to make cash contributions in the name of the ass. You might as well live in supernatural and unnatural ways so that you will be convinced that you are good enough to spend eternity with the ass. You might as well build up huge cash reserves and collect gilded art and erect marble buildings in the name of the ass.
You might as well encourage members to fornicate with abandon to make as many little asses as possible. You might as well try to encourage others to live as the ass lived. (That part, by the way, would make sense.)
If you were to understand certain basic biological principles, you would know that the bodies of both Christ and the ass were a combination of the same basic elements and that the breath of each was the same circulating air.
You would know that, after the ass “died” and after Christ was “crucified,” in both cases the elements rejoined the universal pool of elements, the breath rejoined the universal pool of air, and the conscious-energy was freed from both of those plant food bodies and then merged with the limitless field of unmanifested energy.
So was there any difference in the two? Actually, yes. The donkey lived far more naturally and far more sanely. The donkey was not lied to and told that it was “different” and was “special” and was conceived virginally instead of vaginally—a lie perpetuated by a woman who was trying to avoid being stoned to death for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
At no point was the donkey ever enamored with concepts that he wanted to share with the entire world; it had neither opinions nor beliefs to share; it had no judgments to render, no resentments to foster, and no assumed identities; it had neither good motives nor bad motives; it joined none of the sky cults; and it was not willing to die in order to perpetuate a false identity.
The ass, in fact, had no motives other than the natural, instinctive drives for thirst and hunger and sex. The ass expressed no words that could be twisted to support 2000 years of war, guilt, repression, torture, control, and murder that were all sanctioned by “the church.”
So forget “What Would Jesus Do?” If you would live naturally and sanely, ask instead, “What Would the Ass Do?” Seriously, ask what the ass would do.
In what fashion could the relative existence happen via the lifestyle of an ass that might serve as a model for you to follow that would be far saner than modeling the existence of the one called “The Christ”? Are “natural” and “spontaneous” two of the words that you would use in your answer? Is “identity-less” another?
You would be far freer and saner if you modeled the ass than if you model the one who played the role of "The Christ," and you don’t have to go to church to emulate an ass (though many do that too).
Maharaj advised, Hang Christ! Hang
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
