80
   

If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

 
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Thu 14 May, 2015 03:14 am
@neologist,
Quote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Quote:
The world, then, is rife with antichrists.

Something on which we agree.
That is Theological nonsense . There was and is only one anti-Christ and he was a roman Emperor now long dead . Nero .
Prashant Tripathi
 
  -1  
Fri 15 May, 2015 02:20 pm
‘Heaven’ and ‘hell’ are obviously not geographies.

What is it that we call as ‘holy’? That which is untainted, un-corrupted. And obviously you call that as ‘holy’, because there something within you which gives you that definition. There is something within you which demands cleanliness, there is something within you which does not like taintedness, corruption, conditioning.

So what you call as ‘holy’ is demanded by something which is of the same ‘holy’ nature and is already present in you. Had you not been holy at all, you could not have demanded the ‘holy’, you would have been satisfied with all the dirt and filth that comes along in life. But we dislike all that. It becomes a load on the mind. We do not like it, we remain dissatisfied. We want something clean, pristine, like this sheet of snow all around. That very urge, firstly means that the ‘holy’ resides within us. Now this is a tricky situation then. If the holy resides within us, then why are we unclean? If our essence is holiness, from where does the unholy come?

There is a clear contradiction, there is a clear paradox. If essentially you are holy, how can life then be unholy? So when you meet a contradiction like this, obviously you have to reject one of the statements. If two statements contradict each other, both of them cannot be simultaneously true. One of them has to be rejected. You can either say, “Well there is nothing called ‘the essential’, that there is nothing called the ‘center’ or the ‘core’, and there is nothing holy about our existence. If there is, then show it to me. Can you demonstrate or display it to me?” And it will be very difficult to demonstrate, display or convince that essentially we are holy.

And so you have an easy option available, which is to discard the first statement itself and say that there is nothing called ‘holy’ within. “This haphazard, random, frustrating life is all that we have. Life is nothing but a spread of unholiness.” You can do that; you can reject the first statement. Or, you could say, “I have faith. Essentially I am divine, essentially I am clean, and that directly implies that all that appears unclean is just a myth, an illusion. It is to be rejected, falsified.” What do you do with a statement that is incorrect? You reject it. What do you do with a perception that is an illusion? You reject it. Are you getting it?

So there can be another type of mind which can then say, “I am not contended with this humdrum, with this unclean, stinking state of affairs. I reject them because essentially I am holy. If I am essentially holy, then how can life be like this? I reject it! I reject it.”

This rejection cannot happen if firstly you do not get a glimpse of the ‘true’. You are rejecting something by calling it ‘false’. Right? It is only the closeness to the true which gives you the power, the courage to reject the false. Otherwise, you will keep on accepting the false, helplessly, slavishly, without any possibility of redemption. You will keep on accepting it and you will call it ‘surrendering to fate’. You will say, “Well this is all that there is, what can we do? Life is like this for me and for everybody else. It has always been like this, it is like this and I do not foresee any possibility that something can change even in the future.” You will go on living in this falseness.

To reject the false, closeness of truth is required. Now, truth is by definition, the only element that there is! So what do we mean by ‘closeness of truth’? Does truth ever go far away? Yes, truth does go far away from the one who is living in the false. For him, even though truth is really close, but it becomes apparently very-very distant. Being close, it appears very distant.

What is meant by ‘association with the holy’ then? ‘Association with the holy’ means that in this false life, there is a possibility of coming in contact with a situation, a person, a book, and anything else that the mind can sense, an environment, which reminds me of my essentially true nature. That is association with the holy. Association with something, someone, the presence of whom reminds you of your own internal truth, whose presence is a proof, a validation that if it is possible in one case, then it is possible for me as well, that is what is meant by, ‘association with the holy’. That is what gives you courage to reject the false.

Otherwise, you are caught. There is the force of situations, home, family, office, society, education, livelihood, and you are in the middle of all that. And then there is that occasional, faint call from within, there is that gnawing feeling of discontent, you do not know what to do, no other world exists for you, you are in the middle of your situations, you cannot go anywhere else, and you do not feel satisfied. You are stuck!

Most people will take the easy way out. They will say, “Instead of rejecting this and taking so much trouble, why not simply reject the first statement? Why not simply reject the possibility of ‘holiness’? Why not just say that this is life. Full stop! Eat, sleep, drink and be merry. This is life. There is nothing more to it, don’t even talk about it, it’s dangerous.” They take this route because they are stuck, and they are hopelessly stuck.

“There is nothing around us which offers us any kind of help. And even if we try to rise a little from our own inner conviction and sense of motivation, there are a thousand forces outside that suppress this motivation. So we are caught. Nothing is there to help.”

What is ‘association with the holy’ then? It’s a helping hand. And remember that this ‘helping hand’ does not take you away to another world or another land. It only helps you do what you have always wanted to do. It only helps you realize what is your own deepest desire. Your own deepest desire is of freedom. That is what ‘association with the holy’ is. Are you getting it? And this is called as ‘heaven’.

‘Heaven’ and ‘hell’ are obviously for the mind, they do not have any existence elsewhere. So ‘heaven’ is a situation in which the mind gets what contends it deeply, a relaxation. That relaxation is not possible in the otherwise agitated life. Common life is sheer agitation. Right? Provocation, agitation, excitement, and the resultant frustration.

‘Heaven’ is the company that on one hand relaxes you, and on the other hand gives you the courage that it can happen! That it is not impossible, that the situation is not hopeless. “I can be free! My deepest dreams were not just nonsense. There were there to be realised. They can be realized!”

And what is your deepest dream? Not the dream that you start assimilating from here and there. Your deepest dream is to just be what you are, what you really are. And the world gives you a thousand dreams, but not this one. This is your own original dream. ‘Heaven’ is the moment when you realize that this dream is possible. ‘Heaven’ is the moment when you clearly see that in this hateful world, love is possible! And not only is it possible theoretically, it is possible for you. It’s there!

It doesn’t happen on its own, because you being what you are, you are just stuck. It happens when per-chance in the middle of your bonded world, just by chance you encounter a glimpse of freedom, you encounter the music of love. That is ‘heaven’.

You are struggling, laboring, somehow carrying yourself on, trudging and taking life as drudgery. You have given up all hope, and then the hope is rekindled. That is ‘heaven’. And not only is it a hope that something can happen in the future, it is there for the taking. Extend your hand and take it! That is ‘heaven’.

And now you all know what ‘hell’ is. That is easier to appreciate. Right? That appears less of a concept. It appears more real. Hell! (Laughingly) We know what ‘hell’ is. Pretty close! It’s sometimes our residential address!

All that convinces you that this is life, the company of forces that tell you not to fly too high, the forces that tell you that compromise is the name of the game, the forces that tell you to play safe and remain secure, the forces that tell you that the world is a fearful place, that you must be afraid, that you must be concerned about yourself, the forces that tell you that you are born to follow practices and patterns, the company of such voices is ‘hell’. That’s it.

(Snow starts falling)

Listener 1(whispers): Holy!

Speaker: The false will never admit that I am just a shadow. It will say that nothing but me is there. The world itself is ‘heaven’. When is the world ‘heaven’? When you realize that the world is like a door, a gateway to the beyond, now it is ‘heaven’! The beyond is not heaven. Remember! Because beyond, there is no mind, and ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ are in the mind. The world is ‘heaven’, when it is a gateway to the beyond. The world itself is ‘hell’ when the world becomes an objective reality in itself. “I am all!” When the world says, “I am all that there is,” then the world is ‘hell’.

(A group of people is sitting on the ground under a tree and it is snowing there). See, it’s snowing and it’s not comfortable here. Is it? But there is something in your heart which will bear all this. Had there been only snow, without ‘that’ thing in the heart, the world would have been…?

Listeners: Hell!

Speaker: And when there is the world plus ‘that’ thing in the heart, then it is…

Listeners: Heaven!

Speaker: The world will always be hell, if it is just material. But ‘that’ thing, that…

Listener 2: That is the association with the holy.

Speaker: Yes. When you have someone in front of you, or a situation like this in front of you, which sparks that thing, it is ‘heaven’. That is the association of holy. (Pointing at the environment around) That is probably why the Indian sages built all their holy places on the Himalayas, so that there is more possibility of holiness like this.

Listener 2: Sir, you said that holiness is essentially there, then why is there a disconnect with it? Why is there an effort to connect to ‘that’? It is essentially there, then why this disconnect?

Speaker: See, there is a ‘true’ and there is a ‘false’. The ‘false’ means ‘that which is not’. It is not! So the questions that, “Why did it arise, from where did it come?’ have no significance. When it is not, how can it come from anywhere? From where does illusion come? From nowhere! Go and ask illusion. When you are deluded, bring the ‘illusion’ in front of you and ask, “From where did you come?” What will you find? You will find that there is no answer. In fact, the moment you ask this question, the illusion is…

Listeners: Gone!

Speaker: So from where did the illusion come? In the moment of asking the question, the illusion is already gone! So from where did it come?

Listener 3: From not asking the question.

Speaker(laughs): From not asking the question. What does the ‘question’ symbolize? Presence! Remembrance, presence or attention! That is it.

Listener 3: So it means that the disconnect doesn’t really exist.

Speaker: The disconnect doesn’t really exist. Had it really existed, you could have talked to it, dissected it, done something about it. But the moment you want to talk to it, it is gone! It is not there at all. For you, the one who is asking the question, does any illusion exist? So, which illusion are you referring to?

Listener 2: The one that doesn’t exist.

Speaker: The one that doesn’t exist!

Listener 4: But the presence of holiness will be realized in the situation that is ‘holy’.

Speaker: Even if the situation is not holy, you will realize it through your frustration. See, why are you frustrated? You are living in a loveless world. Why are you frustrated? The world is loveless. That is it! Now, why are you frustrated? It is because essentially…?

Listeners: We are ‘holy’.

Speaker: That is the proof of ‘the holy’ within you. Your frustration is the proof of ‘the holy’ within you. Do not think that only a holy man, or a holy book or a holy situation, or a holy place is a proof of holiness. The stink that arises from within, all the frustration that we experience, all our tears of helplessness, they are the proof that holiness exists, and we are missing it. Had you not been missing it, how could you have been frustrated?

Listener 5: When you are totally hopeless and heaviness dawns upon you, and suddenly you find a gateway, that’s when the heaviness goes away.

Speaker: And ‘that’ thing within, ‘that’ movement within is ‘heavenly’. “I was missing it since long, and here it is.” This is ‘heaven’.

Listener 6: Sir, is it that everything is holy, but my continuous attempt to bind it in a limit, that is ‘hell’?

Speaker: Everything is neither ‘heaven’ nor ‘hell’. ‘Heaven’ exists for us because we are distant from the truth. When you are far something, only then it seems like ‘heaven’.

We said that the world is a gateway to the beyond. Beyond, there is no ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’! There is just an empty stillness. ‘Heaven’ is for the one who has lost his way and who suddenly gets a guide. ‘Hell’ is when you have lost your way, and there are voices around that say that you cannot go back, that there is no home.

A point comes where there is neither ‘heaven’ nor ‘hell’. So, from ‘hell’ to ‘heaven’ and then ‘beyond’!

The very thing that was craving for ‘heaven’, the very thing that was suffering and for it ‘heaven’ was like a balm upon the suffering, that very thing is now very peacefully retired. Gone. Beyond. Finished.

Reference:
"Heaven is the association with the holy.
Association with the worldly folk who are unholy alone is hell."
- Niralamba Upanishad

Read the article: http://prashantadvait.com/2015/04/09/what-is-heaven-and-what-is-hell/
Watch the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCbSzt_LjGE
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 15 May, 2015 02:28 pm
@Prashant Tripathi,
So many words. My head hurts just to think of them

But the traditional concept of 'hell' presupposes a survival of conscious mind after death. There is nothing in medical research or in Abrahamic scripture that supports this. Where do you stand, and how do you support your exegesis?

In one or two sentences, please.

Oh. And welcome to a2k.
Prashant Tripathi
 
  -1  
Fri 15 May, 2015 02:35 pm
@neologist,
Everything that comes to the mind is an object of the mind. For every object, there has to be a subject. For example, my words are the object right now, and you, as a reader, are the subject.

Death, too, is just a concept of the mind, an object of the mind, like all other thoughts of all other material. Now, if death be an object, who is the subject? Is the dead person the subject? No. This mind that is thinking of death right now is the subject.

So, death is not at all for a "conscious mind after death". Death is always for the mind that is thinking right now. Every'thing' is the thought right now.

If thought leads to silence: Heaven (call it 'heavenly thought')
If thought leads to noise and restlessness: Hell
If thought disappears: Joy, Peace, Bliss, God - the Ultimate
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Fri 15 May, 2015 04:31 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Quote:
The world, then, is rife with antichrists.

Something on which we agree.
That is Theological nonsense . There was and is only one anti-Christ and he was a roman Emperor now long dead . Nero .

Well, two of the epistles of John (1 John 2,4 and 2 John 1) refer to anyone who rejects that Jesus had come "in the flesh" as the antichrist. It was a reaction to docetism, the belief that Jesus had come only in spirit form.

Apparently, there was a difference of opinion as to what "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) really means.
Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 12:08 am
@neologist,
Quote:
But the traditional concept of 'hell' presupposes a survival of conscious mind after death. There is nothing in medical research or in Abrahamic scripture that supports this.
There is in Physics .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 12:12 am
@InfraBlue,
That's true, the word was overused even by its originator but a careful read shows that the anti-Christ is one person, Nero because he insists on being worshiped as a god, and anyone who rejects the true "God on Earth", Jesus, should be considered a supporter, a part, of the anti-Christ .

There is only one Christ so there can be only one anti-Christ .
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 03:11 am
@Ionus,
1 John 2:18 allows for many antichrists.
Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 04:01 am
@neologist,
Did you read what I wrote about many anti-Christs ?
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 06:54 am
@Ionus,
Yes.
Sommehow, I just can't follow your authority.

Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 08:12 am
@neologist,
Ok . The original ref is believed to be about Nero, but there may be some confusion over the correct transcription of the numbers, but the opinion is that it is not 666 . A parchment in Greek has been found saying the number of the beast is 616 , using the Jewish technique of writing letters of names disguised as numbers, gematria, (decoded by their position in the Jewish alphabet equating to the number) .

If it was 616 then it was Caligula .

The real anti-Christ if it is 666 was Nero who executed Peter and Paul and when the Christians set fire to Rome to usher in the arrival of God on Earth, the end of days, Nero executed many of them too in a fair and just manner . Those guilty of arson were set fire to, those guilty of Treason only were crucified, etc . The Christians had been encouraged by the revolt of Boadicea and the start of the First Jewish Revolt .

To me it seems more likely they started referring to the Emperor after the crucifixion of Jesus as the anti-Christ so the first one would be Tiberius, followed by Caligula, then Claudius then Nero . To call them the anti-Christ was the epitome of insult and an accusation of great evil . Unfortunately, it left them no where to go as the following Emperors out did the one prior, at least as far as Christians were concerned until you have Nero who seems to be the worst at about the same time as the Gospels cease to be written .

Anyone who supports the Emperor is the anti-Christ but the REAL anti-Christ is the Emperor, the worst of whom was Nero . In much the same way as the minions in the President's employ are referred to as the "White House" but the real "White House" is the President .

The time of the forecast End of Days has come and gone and failed . The real anti-Christ was Nero who stopped the ushering in of God on Earth dead in its tracks . He put out their fires 3 times . The Christians had to re-light them . He executed their two main leaders Peter and Paul and many of their staunchest supporters in Rome .

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 08:22 am
@Ionus,
You must have been in a hurry when you wrote that, Ionus, because you got lots wrong ...LOTS.

I hope Setanta comes along and sets the matter straight.
Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 08:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
You can tell me, dont be shy....
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 08:34 am
@Ionus,
Wow
Since antichrist is mentioned in the bible. I think I'll stick with biblical references.
Ionus
 
  0  
Sat 16 May, 2015 08:48 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Since antichrist is mentioned in the bible. I think I'll stick with biblical references.
Dont forget to read them with the understanding of a priest and not a dummy in the street .
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 09:02 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Dont forget to read them with the understanding of a priest and not a dummy in the street .
Right Exclamation
Who better to fleece the flock Question
Ionus
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 09:12 am
@neologist,
Since the dawn of agriculture peasants have needed priests . If the peasant knew what the priest knew, the priest would be out of a job and Stonehenge wouldnt have been built .
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Sat 16 May, 2015 06:17 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

That's true, the word was overused even by its originator but a careful read shows that the anti-Christ is one person, Nero because he insists on being worshiped as a god, and anyone who rejects the true "God on Earth", Jesus, should be considered a supporter, a part, of the anti-Christ .

There is only one Christ so there can be only one anti-Christ .

M'kay.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jul, 2015 07:11 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Since the dawn of agriculture peasants have needed priests . If the peasant knew what the priest knew, the priest would be out of a job and Stonehenge wouldnt have been built .
Another tourist opportunity missed Exclamation
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jul, 2015 07:13 am
Welcome to a2k.
No need to repeat yourself.
Please explain this rollover karma thesis
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 12:12:24