Eastern Mystic comparisons to Jesus and St. Paul

[Mystical_Seeker]

I was going on the basis that Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as living water that will flow from within us.

So that’s where I got the idea about the Holy Spirit coming from within us.

The “inexpressible groanings” of the Spirit are kind of hard to locate. I’ve never reliably identified “this one is just a hunch” and “this one is a conviction” and “this one is the Holy Spirit.” And during contemplative prayer or exercises, if I were to challenge the “spirits” to identify themselves and their point of origin, that would cease to be a contemplative form but an anal-ytical form. There is a time to judge and identify spirits, but I would think an exorcism is more where that skill is really needed, not so much for comtemplative prayer unless it’s some fancy new age kind I don’t know about.

If we are trying to match up terminology and words, then sure I want to be as close as I can with the terms I use, but for common human experiences, if we have to insist on having common words to describe it or common things one must believe and report experiencing before this experience is considered a “valid” application of the term Holy Spirit, then we’re sunk. Because that is exactly what I’m trying to cut through. :banghead:

So yes I appreciate improvements and expansions in the way I describe things, but if the terminology has to match before we can identify common human experiences, that is opposite what I’m even trying to do here. We have apologist and apologist wannabees standing in line to prove what is different about us. The more our terms match up the better, but we are still dealing with observations and remedies for much of the same “human condition.”

Religion provides a language by which we communicate our experiences, mysteries, and inner movements, of the divine and related mysteries. Just because one speaks Buddhist and one speaks Christian and one speaks “atheist” or whatever, we still eat, breathe, feel, grieve losses of loved ones. If the only thing that makes our human condition different is the beliefs we have in the supernatural forces governing it and the words to describe it, then to me that says nothing about the substance of the experience itself.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Certainly, we must remain vigilant against the worldwide threat of Buddist extremism. This talk of love and peace is downright subversive, and I’d sure keep an eye on that radical, the Dali Lama. We cannot afford to let our guard down and look at this in a non-judgmental way with an open mind.

It is known the Dali Lama held spiritual discussions with Thomas Merton!

He’s quite a suspicious character, all right. He is so evil that he laughs even when he doesn’t get the joke. Clearly his entire pleasant affectation is a lie, because how can any TRVE religion’s leader laugh, or may I suggest even “rejoice and be glad” when some goober makes an awkward joke about your religion. Obviously by having such a silly religion in the first place, of course that opens him up to these attacks. And he is really seething with anger, a passive-aggressive character like a caged lion that could strike back. It’s a relief he didn’t use some magical kind of king fu

By doing this he plans to undermine not ONLY Christianity, but Buddhism as well. Look carefully here where he clearly fails to chant while the joke is being told, which means he is not only trying to undermine others’ religions, but he is a disgrace to his own ostensible faith that is a mere cover for his true nefarious motives.

The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop…

.

 

[Thomas_White]

"…I’m a bit surprised that even on this website there is this much push back about something I can probably explain to most four year olds and they would get it. Maybe adults are trained by experience to make everything complicated and to stick to their stories if challenged by someone in an out group.

“Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.” Mark 10:15

“Amen, I say to you unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

“Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.” Mark 10:15

“Amen, I say to you unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3

:winter:

:grouphug:

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

There is mysticism as an academic subject, a thing understood by the intellect, and there is the mystical experience. They are not the same thing. The mystical experience is not of the intellect. That is of the outside. So is argument, and it has no meaning. The mystical experience is an interior one where concepts such as ‘you’, or self, or an inside or outside, or any concept, are transcended. This is not something that can be understood or expressed in words. It must be experienced.

It ought also to be understood that the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God, and the Holy Spirit, the same God, have existed outside of time for all eternity.

Of course academics must fall behind mysticism: words will fail to express what mystics describe. However, academics and mysticism must point to the same reality. If they do not, then one or both of them are false.

The relationship between academics and mysticism is like that of like a map to the edge of an unknown area. The map shows you the safe way towards your destination. However what you experience on your journey towards your destination is impossible to be placed in the map. Moreover, you would reach a point where the map cannot be of help anymore but just point out where to go from thereon and what it looks like in the outset.

To disregard academics in the spiritual life is like grown men acting childishly instead of being childlike, for they disregard the warnings of their elders in the Catholic Church. Especially when the Christian traditions describe not only a different way but also a different experience as what is described in Eastern mysticism.

 

[Thomas_White]

+JMJ+To disregard academics in the spiritual life is like grown men acting childishly instead of being childlike, for they disregard the warnings of their elders in the Catholic Church. Especially when the Christian traditions describe not only a different way but also a different experience as what is described in Eastern mysticism.

I agree. When I said that the study of mysticism differs from the experience of it, I meant only that and nothing more. I can honestly say it would never even have occured to me to disregard academics in the spiritual life. I’ve read my share of spiritual works.

I am Roman Catholic, have been since early infancy and always will be. I could never be anything else. I did attend Catholic schools for twelve years, and there was religion class every single day. When I attended a public university I enrolled in a number of courses of comparative religion, including courses in the religions of East Asia and India. It was both educational and interesting to learn about the faith traditions of much of the world. But perhaps because of my upbringing, education and faith, I again can honestly say it never even occurred to me that this could be spiritually dangerous. But apparently this is not true for everyone.

I did study certain Buddhist meditation techniques. From this I learned ways to help empty the mind during meditation and contemplation. For many years, I have used these methods to help enable me to focus on the mysteries while I pray the Rosary. Those pesky extraneous thoughts just pop into one’s mind of their own mysterious volition.

I only know what I have experienced of mysticism, and I could have no idea of the experiences of anyone else. But what I do know is that the true experience is transcendent beyond all words and all concepts. Consequently, I would not dare judge the experience of anyone else. Whether the Catholic experience differs from that of Eastern mysticism is a thing I just don’t know, but I do know I am not at all concerned about it.

As for the Scriptual verses I provided, what is there to say? They are Scripture. I copied them from the Douay-Rheims translation, the version I prefer.

Peace.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A lot of people spend time identifying what distinguishes Catholicism from other religions.

“The guide is not outside, the guide is within you. One has to go deeper into one’s own being to find the guide. Once the inner guide is found there are no more mistakes, no repentance, no guilt. There is no question of doing good or doing bad. One walks in light and one walks lightly because the head and the burden of the head is no more there. And when one walks in light and walks lightly, life becomes laughter, love, joy.”

Osho: The guide is not outside, the guide is within you.

Bible - Jesus:

John 7:37-
37 On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as scripture says:
‘Rivers of living water will flow from within him.’”
39 He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

… so the Spirit is the living water flowing from within. So the living water from within is connected with his quenching a thirst. So now to connect the Spirit with guide:

John 14:15-25
15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” 22 Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.

25 “I have told you this while I am with you. 26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.*

Osho: Once the inner guide is found there are no more mistakes, no repentance, no guilt. There is no question of doing good or doing bad.

Bible – St. Paul:

Rom 8
1 Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
Osho: One walks in light and one walks lightly because the head and the burden of the head is no more there.

Bible – Jesus:
John 9
5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
Matt 11
28 Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Osho: And when one walks in light and walks lightly, life becomes laughter, love, joy."

Bible – St. Paul:
Gal 5: (about “fruit of the spirit” – what you do when spirit-led)
22 In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ [Jesus] have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit. 26 Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envious of one another.

Before I was baptized Catholic, I studied eastern religions and participated in eastern religious practices. I did, and still do, find similarities, but Osho here is coming from a major difference. That of, the eastern mystic view of the divine within, which is not God, but oneself. His whole philosophy is about tapping into a self generated divinity. Which is of course, completely antithetical to Christianity.

The Holy Spirit is not something we generate from ourselves, but dwells in the faithful as a gift from God.

BTW, Osho taught that there is no God.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I agree. When I said that the study of mysticism differs from the experience of it, I meant only that and nothing more. I can honestly say it would never even have occured to me to disregard academics in the spiritual life. I’ve read my share of spiritual works.

I am Roman Catholic, have been since early infancy and always will be. I could never be anything else. I did attend Catholic schools for twelve years, and there was religion class every single day. When I attended a public university I enrolled in a number of courses of comparative religion, including courses in the religions of East Asia and India. It was both educational and interesting to learn about the faith traditions of much of the world. But perhaps because of my upbringing, education and faith, I again can honestly say it never even occurred to me that this could be spiritually dangerous. But apparently this is not true for everyone.

I did study certain Buddhist meditation techniques. From this I learned ways to help empty the mind during meditation and contemplation. For many years, I have used these methods to help enable me to focus on the mysteries while I pray the Rosary. Those pesky extraneous thoughts just pop into one’s mind of their own mysterious volition.

I only know what I have experienced of mysticism, and I could have no idea of the experiences of anyone else. But what I do know is that the true experience is transcendent beyond all words and all concepts. Consequently, I would not dare judge the experience of anyone else. Whether the Catholic experience differs from that of Eastern mysticism is a thing I just don’t know, but I do know I am not at all concerned about it.

With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian. Proposals in this direction are numerous and radical to a greater or lesser extent. Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation; others go further and, using different techniques, try to generate spiritual experiences similar to those described in the writings of certain Catholic mystics. Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory, on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a “negative theology,” which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion “in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity.” These and similar proposals to harmonize Christian meditation with eastern techniques need to have their contents and methods ever subjected to a thorough-going examination so as to avoid the danger of falling into syncretism.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Before I was baptized Catholic, I studied eastern religions and participated in eastern religious practices. I did, and still do, find similarities, but Osho here is coming from a major difference. That of, the eastern mystic view of the divine within, which is not God, but oneself. His whole philosophy is about tapping into a self generated divinity. Which is of course, completely antithetical to Christianity.

The Holy Spirit is not something we generate from ourselves, but dwells in the faithful as a gift from God.

BTW, Osho taught that there is no God.

Thank you for your comparison.

It dwells in the faithful. Osho talks about “finding a guide” and Jesus talks “giving them a guide.” I don’t see that with is something we generate from ourselves. Jesus says that living water (the Holy Spirit) comes from within ourselves.

As far as whether Osho’s idea about whether or not there is “a God” in the way that we say it, that isn’t of immediate concern because I’m trying to connect similar ideas and experiences, without needing the authors to be aligned with our beliefs.

So back to the quote:

“The guide is not outside, the guide is within you. One has to go deeper into one’s own being to find the guide. Once the inner guide is found there are no more mistakes, no repentance, no guilt. There is no question of doing good or doing bad. One walks in light and one walks lightly because the head and the burden of the head is no more there. And when one walks in light and walks lightly, life becomes laughter, love, joy.”

With this quote taken out of context, I looks essentially like an echo of the words of Jesus and Paul, using different terminology.

1. The guide is inside.

Check. We may “look for Him” outside which is the wrong approach and I think Jesus and Osho agree on that.

1. One has to go deeper … to find the guide.

Here we have Jesus saying “deny oneself” which when taken along with the Light and Bushel Basket teaching, would seeme to indicate a similar approach. It seems to be that many Christians don’t actually get this part, because it seems to me that we are always looking for how we are separated from God and looking toward some vague external source of approval for our good behavior.

Also backing this up is Jesus telling us to go to our “inner room” and pray, in a context where houses were only of one room. Contemplatives have told me that this as a call to contemplative prayer form as an extension to more active ones.

1. Once the inner guide … good or bad.

The entire chapter Rom 8 speaks to this. Let’s check how it starts. This time I’m using D-R version

Rom 8:1-5
There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.

For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh;

That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit.

And yet, most Catholics I know are nearly 100% focused on maintaining contention between one’s will and one’s behavior … which to me indicates they are not in the spirit. I’ve been told that Confirmation means a person is born in the spirit. I’ve also been told that Sacraments are outward signs of inner graces. I contend that Confirmation is a sign, not the substance, of being born of the spirit. Clearly those who are confirmed either don’t believe this to be the case, or haven’t studied Rom 8 or noticed its implications. Because after Confirmation, we continue to be just as worldly minded as before, and trying to impress God with our righteousness regarding worldly acts. Kind of cancels out the whole idea of having a spirit IMO if we’re going to stick to our old scripts about good and evil even having supposedly transcended them.

But is seems we aren’t ready or able to hear this, which is part of why I go on about it.

True freedom involves not even worrying about sin and death on our own behalf, because our flesh no longer controls us.

For what it’s worth, I think “born again” Protestants have much of the same problem, and a related one. They at least recognize “born again” as a central teaching of Jesus, which I almost never hear from Catholics. But they seem to think if they devoutly and intensively read certain scriptures that will do it.

(continued)

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

(continued)

Maybe that’s one of the reasons Catholics are so turned off by people who say, “you must be born again” or worse, “I am a born-again Christian” when basically these people come across in appearance as just as prideful and angry and judgmental as the rest of us. In this case, appearances may reveal, rather than deceive. So it used to be natural for me to be wary of becoming “born again” because I saw so many people say that and then act like fools. Ultimately I saw that what others in other religions were saying, were in fact similar to what Jesus was saying, except with Jesus we consider him sort of a hybrid-human as opposed to “fully human”, kind of like us but with certain cheat skills we will never have so we can never really follow Himi or hear His teachings completely. Doesn’t sound like Good News to me, that Jesus came to show us a way we are not capable of following. That would make Jesus pretty cruel and heartless.

1. One walks in light and one walks lightly because the head and the burden of the head is no more there.

“Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

1. And when one walks in light and walks lightly, life becomes laughter, love, joy.

Gal 5:22-25 (NABRE)
In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ [Jesus] have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.

I applied “bold” to “Against such there is no law.” For this reason, I use “fruit of the spirit” as signposts to indicate whether I am walking in the spirit, and for basis of comparison with other religions. If there is no law against them, than if any other religion leads to conclusions other than this, I would consider such a religion as “false.”

Kind of like the secular religions of “anger and might makes right” that even Catholics seem to fall into. People who are offended and angry and upset over the state of the world are IMO are of the world and not of the spirit. And that includes me, when amnesia sets in and I forget my own divinity.

This is the type of comparison I can’t help but see when I read these things. Some divergent thinking applied to other’s readings opens up these possibilities, rather than academice – convergent thinking – that will tend to explain and/or exclude. Remember that Jesus had NO New Testament readings to go by or reference or use as a backup, but all the things He said, were revealed to HIm (as in contemplation?) or were consequential from the Old Testament. Even the part about love neighbor as ourselves was an observation on the O.T. which is why Jesus was so pleased when somebody other than Himself actually picked up on that.

MS

 

[Thomas_White]

Before I was baptized Catholic, I studied eastern religions and participated in eastern religious practices. I did, and still do, find similarities, but Osho here is coming from a major difference. That of, the eastern mystic view of the divine within, which is not God, but oneself. His whole philosophy is about tapping into a self generated divinity. Which is of course, completely antithetical to Christianity.

The Holy Spirit is not something we generate from ourselves, but dwells in the faithful as a gift from God.

BTW, Osho taught that there is no God.

I would note that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism, there is the concept of Atman, a Sanskrit word that means ‘inner-self’ or ‘soul’. Atman is considered the true self–the essence of self. It is identical with the transcendent self of Brahman (God). To know Atman is to know God, both inside and outside oneself–though Atman is not itself God (Brahman).

This Hindu teaching is orthodox, but different schools of Indian philosophy hold widely dissimilar ontologies. A major difference between Christianity and Hinduism is that Brahman is an impersonal God. Some schools of Hinduism are monotheistic while others are not.

‘Eastern Religion’ consists of many religions in various regions of the world, from China to India to Southeast Asia to Japan. Faith traditions and beliefs vary greatly, as they do in Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, among many others.

Of Osho, I know only his name and the quote provided by the OP. If his religious tradition was Hinduism it is unlikely that he taught there is no God. If he were a Buddhist, then this could be so. But there would be more to that.

 

[Thomas_White]

For the human intellect, God is an Idea, a concept. So are all dualities, including life/death and good/evil. Nirvana is the Buddhist word for the ultimate transcendence of all ideas and concepts. It is in this sense that God, as a human concept, ceases to exist.

There are many verses in Christian scripture and teaching that say much the same thing, a primary one that God cannot be understood or defined by the human intellect. It is those notions, the intellectual concepts of God, widely admitted as limited and insufficient, that ultimately do not exist in Buddhist teaching. This is necessarily difficult to understand, for by its very definition it cannot be understood. But Buddhism teaches it can be experienced. It also teaches that Buddha is not God, a point sometimes overlooked.

IMHO, this spirituality can be experienced by receiving the Eucharist. And it isn’t necessary to explain it.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

This is my take on the Cloud of the Unknowing. All we can ever think or say about God in an intellectual sense that fits within the human imagination, is limited. To encounter God, be open to the Cloud of the Unknowing, which is all about God (everything) that we don’t or even can’t ever know properly. Transcending our understanding gives us experiential contact with God, which I give the role of “mystery” here. We can “know it” without “knowing about it” to convey to each other – trying to cram a wide-band experience into narrow bandwidth of human verbal ability.

St. Paul snippet I like to pull out of context 1 Cor 8:2 "If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.:

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

For the human intellect, God is an Idea, a concept. So are all dualities, including life/death and good/evil. Nirvana is the Buddhist word for the ultimate transcendence of all ideas and concepts. It is in this sense that God, as a human concept, ceases to exist.

There are many verses in Christian scripture and teaching that say much the same thing, a primary one that God cannot be understood or defined by the human intellect. It is those notions, the intellectual concepts of God, widely admitted as limited and insufficient, that ultimately do not exist in Buddhist teaching. This is necessarily difficult to understand, for by its very definition it cannot be understood. But Buddhism teaches it can be experienced. It also teaches that Buddha is not God, a point sometimes overlooked.

IMHO, this spirituality can be experienced by receiving the Eucharist. And it isn’t necessary to explain it.

If the perfection of Christian prayer cannot be evaluated using the sublimity of gnostic knowledge as a basis, neither can it be judged by referring to the experience of the divine**, as Messalianism proposed. These false fourth century charismatics identified the grace of the Holy Spirit with the psychological experience of his presence in the soul.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html**

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

This is my take on the Cloud of the Unknowing. All we can ever think or say about God in an intellectual sense that fits within the human imagination, is limited. To encounter God, be open to the Cloud of the Unknowing, which is all about God (everything) that we don’t or even can’t ever know properly. Transcending our understanding gives us experiential contact with God, which I give the role of “mystery” here. We can “know it” without “knowing about it” to convey to each other – trying to cram a wide-band experience into narrow bandwidth of human verbal ability.

St. Paul snippet I like to pull out of context 1 Cor 8:2 "If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.:

But, as I said, intellect and “knowing” must point to the same direction. If one points somewhere and the other points somewhere else, then it is either one or both which is false.

 

[Thomas_White]

+JMJ+

If the perfection of Christian prayer cannot be evaluated using the sublimity of gnostic knowledge as a basis, neither can it be judged by referring to the experience of the divine****, as Messalianism proposed. These false fourth century charismatics identified the grace of the Holy Spirit with the psychological experience of his presence in the soul.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html

I suppose to dispute whatever is said on this thread by the OP, and to any comments by others in reply, by quoting Church documents out of context is one’s prerogative, but I have no clue what a Fourth Century denunciation of heresy has to do with my comment, or what positive purpose doing so could serve. I have tried to make it clear I do not require instruction concerning the teachings of the Church, and my comments should be understood in that context. If I comment on an aspect of Buddhism it certainly does not mean I personally subscribe to the teachings of that religion.

From the same document:

“The majority of the great religions which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as ‘the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions’, neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian.”

And further on in the same document:

“There is no doubt in prayer one should concentrate entirely on God and as far as possible exclude the things of this world that bind us to our selfishness. On this topic St. Augustine is an excellent teacher: if you want to find God, he says, abandon the exterior world and re-enter into yourself. However, he continues, do not remain in yourself but go beyond yourself because you are not God: he is deeper and greater than you.”

What would be of interest is to hear about one’s experience of mysticism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would note that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism, there is the concept of Atman, a Sanskrit word that means ‘inner-self’ or ‘soul’. Atman is considered the true self–the essence of self. It is identical with the transcendent self of Brahman (God). To know Atman is to know God, both inside and outside oneself–though Atman is not itself God (Brahman).

This Hindu teaching is orthodox, but different schools of Indian philosophy hold widely dissimilar ontologies. A major difference between Christianity and Hinduism is that Brahman is an impersonal God. Some schools of Hinduism are monotheistic while others are not.

‘Eastern Religion’ consists of many religions in various regions of the world, from China to India to Southeast Asia to Japan. Faith traditions and beliefs vary greatly, as they do in Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, among many others.

Of Osho, I know only his name and the quote provided by the OP. If his religious tradition was Hinduism it is unlikely that he taught there is no God. If he were a Buddhist, then this could be so. But there would be more to that.

Osho (or Rajneesh, as he changed his name several times) was popular with the new age movement in the west, beginning in the 70s and 80s. Indians did not consider him “orthodox” Hindu, and his self made religion was a mish mash of this and that, and throw in some of his own ideas. Including his own “Ten Commandments”.

He was called the "“sex guru” in the press, and had conflicts with the Indian govt. he relocated to the U.S.,setting up a commune in Oregon. Famous in the media then for the Rolls Royces he and his followers drove. Eventually the ashram dissolved, a lot of media attention then as his followers who lived in the commune had purposely contaminated food in a local community, at The Dalles. He was deported from the U.S.

All that was very strange, but he was a trained philosopher, and his mish mash of ideas was very popular in the west (for whatever reason).

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

All that was very strange, but he was a trained philosopher, and his mish mash of ideas was very popular in the west (for whatever reason).

Maybe because it resonates with the west, precisely because it does carry a portion of the Good News from Jesus, but without the “wrapper” or shall I say “bushel basket” that obscures the mysticism from Joe Pew Sitter from popular notions that the Church is fear and control-based rather than true seeking?

Funny thing that the words of Jesus, John and Paul, are the parts that correlate with the OP quote most. It’s the theology that had been constructed around them where we run into issues.

For example, I don’t recall Jesus saying that truth cannot be learned from those who either are sinners or are of another faith. Instead, he used sinners and those of other faiths as examples to prove that “group identity” is not what He is all about – and to shame the wise. And yet we use “group identity” and our theological constructs to judge the very lives of others as if to impeach any truth they might speak in advance.

If you are “wise” in theology, why would God want to shame the wise and the strong anyway? Aren’t we called to be wise and learned about our faith, and to be strongly convicted and motivated by it?

1 Cor 1
26 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28 and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, 29 so that no human being might boast[k] before God. 30 It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”

But in practice, if we hear something from a “lowly” person or one who isn’t sufficiently learned in Catholic teachings, we automatically reject it unless and until we can draw a 100% correlation with not only the quotation but the entire life history of the person, it is to be rejected. Seemingly we always turn to the wise and learned to settle issues among the lowly.

Jesus and/or Paul must have been crazy. Who ever thought of priests listening to some “nobody” born in a horse trough and raised in poverty anyway? I’m pretty sure he got it the other way around. The lowly and the uneducated and those of different clans must submit to the judgment of those would appear righteous and learned, right?

Matt 13:54-58
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.” And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.

So this is what you do when somebody who is “unqualified” to speak, speaks. You look at the stories you think you know about someone’s life, and they get in the way of hearing any truth that person is trying to convey.

1 Cor 1:21-26
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

But we seem to think that as Catholics, we honor those in high positions and listen attentively to them, but those in low positions really just need to pipe down and let the “experts” speak, for they know of which they speak.

It’s really kind of comical in a way, if I zoom really far back and don’t take any of it personally. It’s interesting that so many continue to confine their thoughts to those thoughts the “prestigious superiors in faith” bestow, as if the entire dynamics of the Church are different now than they were when Jesus was there. Basically we are “Jews on steroids” if we do the same stuff as Jews did before Jesus came, but now with the vigor of being able to name a Savior who saved us from – ummm, something. Must have been He saved us having to pay heed to the opinions of those uninformed and unqualified and have no business speaking of the nature of love and fear.

 

[Thomas_White]

But in practice, if we hear something from a “lowly” person or one who isn’t sufficiently learned in Catholic teachings, we automatically reject it unless and until we can draw a 100% correlation with not only the quotation but the entire life history of the person, it is to be rejected. Seemingly we always turn to the wise and learned to settle issues among the lowly.

But we seem to think that as Catholics, we honor those in high positions and listen attentively to them, but those in low positions really just need to pipe down and let the “experts” speak, for they know of which they speak.

"The evils that, over time, apear in Church institutions have their root in self-referentiality, a kind of spiritual narcicissism. In the book of Revelation Jesus says he is at the door and calling, and evidently the text refers to him standing outside the door and knocking to be let in, but I sometimes think that Jesus is knocking from the inside, for us to let him out. The self-referential Church presumes to keep Jesus Christ for itself and not to let him out.

“Spiritual worldliness is the worst evil that can befall the Church.”

The speaker is referring to a centrism of an elite that he believes prevents the Catholic Church from going out from herself toward the existential peripheries and prevents her from acting as the fruitful mother who lives from “the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing.” It was the speaker’s diagnosis of what had gone wrong within the Catholic Church, a Church those present agreed was in serious crisis.

The speaker believes the elite have something to learn from the peripheries, from those so excluded from the mainstream that, paradoxically, they have not been corrupted by it. It is the existential religiosity of the people.

The words were spoken to the conclave that would elect the next pope. The speaker would soon become known to the world as Pope Francis.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe because it resonates with the west, precisely because it does carry a portion of the Good News from Jesus, but without the “wrapper” or shall I say “bushel basket” that obscures the mysticism from Joe Pew Sitter from popular notions that the Church is fear and control-based rather than true seeking?

Funny thing that the words of Jesus, John and Paul, are the parts that correlate with the OP quote most. It’s the theology that had been constructed around them where we run into issues.

For example, I don’t recall Jesus saying that truth cannot be learned from those who either are sinners or are of another faith. Instead, he used sinners and those of other faiths as examples to prove that “group identity” is not what He is all about – and to shame the wise. And yet we use “group identity” and our theological constructs to judge the very lives of others as if to impeach any truth they might speak in advance.

If you are “wise” in theology, why would God want to shame the wise and the strong anyway? Aren’t we called to be wise and learned about our faith, and to be strongly convicted and motivated by it?

1 Cor 1
26 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28 and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, 29 so that no human being might boast[k] before God. 30 It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”

But in practice, if we hear something from a “lowly” person or one who isn’t sufficiently learned in Catholic teachings, we automatically reject it unless and until we can draw a 100% correlation with not only the quotation but the entire life history of the person, it is to be rejected. Seemingly we always turn to the wise and learned to settle issues among the lowly.

Jesus and/or Paul must have been crazy. Who ever thought of priests listening to some “nobody” born in a horse trough and raised in poverty anyway? I’m pretty sure he got it the other way around. The lowly and the uneducated and those of different clans must submit to the judgment of those would appear righteous and learned, right?

Matt 13:54-58
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.” And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.

So this is what you do when somebody who is “unqualified” to speak, speaks. You look at the stories you think you know about someone’s life, and they get in the way of hearing any truth that person is trying to convey.

1 Cor 1:21-26
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

But we seem to think that as Catholics, we honor those in high positions and listen attentively to them, but those in low positions really just need to pipe down and let the “experts” speak, for they know of which they speak.

It’s really kind of comical in a way, if I zoom really far back and don’t take any of it personally. It’s interesting that so many continue to confine their thoughts to those thoughts the “prestigious superiors in faith” bestow, as if the entire dynamics of the Church are different now than they were when Jesus was there. Basically we are “Jews on steroids” if we do the same stuff as Jews did before Jesus came, but now with the vigor of being able to name a Savior who saved us from – ummm, something. Must have been He saved us having to pay heed to the opinions of those uninformed and unqualified and have no business speaking of the nature of love and fear.

What? He never delivered the Gospel. He used it like he did everything else, to build his new religion. That to me, is not truth, or wise, but the most foolish of fools. No different than others before him who have done the same.