Hari Om
'Freedays' are the 'gather our thoughts' days; Q&As; a general review of the week so far…
Even irregular readers of New Testament scripture know these words. The story, indeed, is known by all in the world, even disbelievers.
Disbelievers, note; not unbelievers. The latter is used by those who would call themselves 'rationalists'; they refer to themselves by the philosophy which they propound... which means they believe in something! It is impossible to 'un'believe. The moment a stance is taken in any philosophical format (and arguments against Jesus and his teachings would count as such) an assumption of belief in the argument being given has been taken. That stance may be that one 'dis'believes the accounts of a young man's travails in times of occupation; how he reached out to his teachers and was rebutted for his efforts; how, for fourteen years we can only think that he travelled widely and learned much, for he returned fully mature in his spiritual outlook and assuredness of teaching; how that teaching set him apart form the norm of his contemporary society - the establishment of the day; and how that resulted in the events noted above.
The 'dis'belief may be that, even allowing such a fellow did live and surely stirred up a hornet's nest, that he was deluded in his attempts to claim God-hood; the 'dis'belief may be about the presentation of 'Heaven and Hell' as physical constructs, or it may pertain to all teachings of all scriptures.
Yet Yeshu Himself let it be known that he preferred to debate with one disbeliever and seek to show that one the error in their thinking, than deal with the unquestioning, sheep-like followers.
Just as blind belief in God or religious injunction is not desirable for the true spiritual seeker; equally, a dogmatic rejection of open thinking to the extent that a person will label themselves as 'unbeliever' is damaging, even to their own cause.
To close oneself up to the extent the soul cannot roam, is sorrow indeed. This is what Yeshu sought to teach. In this way, he carried the message of Vedanta.
 |
| image (c) Yamini Ali MacLean |
Even irregular readers of New Testament scripture know these words. The story, indeed, is known by all in the world, even disbelievers.
Disbelievers, note; not unbelievers. The latter is used by those who would call themselves 'rationalists'; they refer to themselves by the philosophy which they propound... which means they believe in something! It is impossible to 'un'believe. The moment a stance is taken in any philosophical format (and arguments against Jesus and his teachings would count as such) an assumption of belief in the argument being given has been taken. That stance may be that one 'dis'believes the accounts of a young man's travails in times of occupation; how he reached out to his teachers and was rebutted for his efforts; how, for fourteen years we can only think that he travelled widely and learned much, for he returned fully mature in his spiritual outlook and assuredness of teaching; how that teaching set him apart form the norm of his contemporary society - the establishment of the day; and how that resulted in the events noted above.
The 'dis'belief may be that, even allowing such a fellow did live and surely stirred up a hornet's nest, that he was deluded in his attempts to claim God-hood; the 'dis'belief may be about the presentation of 'Heaven and Hell' as physical constructs, or it may pertain to all teachings of all scriptures.
Yet Yeshu Himself let it be known that he preferred to debate with one disbeliever and seek to show that one the error in their thinking, than deal with the unquestioning, sheep-like followers.
Just as blind belief in God or religious injunction is not desirable for the true spiritual seeker; equally, a dogmatic rejection of open thinking to the extent that a person will label themselves as 'unbeliever' is damaging, even to their own cause.
To close oneself up to the extent the soul cannot roam, is sorrow indeed. This is what Yeshu sought to teach. In this way, he carried the message of Vedanta.