As an atheist, do you still “acknowledge” Jesus Christ?

There are many psychic abilities and you have just listed some of them.

I have witnessed many of these acts, and I don't want to go into detail on this as this may seem implausible. Also I give more importance to wisdom rather than these abilities.

There are ancient tales in the Panchatantra as well as Hindu religious epics of people having such powerful occult abilities getting into trouble due to lack of wisdom. Such abilities are usually safe in the hands of the wise, imho, while the foolish dig their own grave with the same.

The same goes for science and technology at present.

As a teenager, I have read about such abilities in the scriptures, such as Patanjali's yoga sutras and Vivekananda's Raja Yoga as well as in the biographies of sages and saints.

I investigated personally those with such abilities and found them to be authentic.

The first display of such abilities I witnessed around a quarter of a century back in an ashram in India which was well-connected to the rest of the world through good roads, airports and had a computer cafe in the ashram itself.

So there is nothing preventing anyone from investigating and seeing for themselves, as long as they are ready to go outside their comfort zone.

There are frauds as well as people with authentic skills. It would be dishonest to generalize all such as fraudulent without giving them a benefit of a doubt.

I had met people with authentic skills which helped to get rid of my own skepticism and cynicism as I stated earlier.

However through the practice of sadhana and spiritual exercises I found a few psychic abilities rising within myself which can be classifed as ESP perhaps. The arising of such abilities within myself got rid off any remaining minute skepticism and I think that would be the best proof one would get personally , devoid of any fraud.

As I stated earlier, this can be attained by anyone if they put in the right efforts. I do not wish to go too much into such occult abilities due to reasons mentioned earlier( as per the Buddha and Ramakrishna), especially as I am unenlightened and not a Buddha yet.

Again I wish to emphasize that wisdom is more important than such psychic abilities or scientific knowledge/technology for that matter.

One can have all the psychic abilities as well as scientific and technological skills, and still be a fool digging his own grave.

 

That's the dilemma with religious experience. It's veridical for those of us who experience it, but trying to communicate it to those who haven't is always problematic. Was it factual or an hallucination? Are we schizophrenic or suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy? Did geneticist Dr. Francis Collins have one when he contemplated a frozen waterfall in three strands? If there had been multiple strands would he have become a Pastafarian instead of a Christian? When theologian Marcus Borg had his experience of oneness with the universe on an airplane, was that before or after cocktails were served? In my own case, my life-changing experience was triggered by a passage in Genesis. Do I believe that Genesis is factual? No way! The best I can come up with to justify my faith is existentialism. I decided to go with my experience, and so far am more than pleased with the results. But I've never been one for leaps of faith. I prefer hops, supported by substantial available evidence (including personal experience and intuition) and consistent with the available facts. Like a scientist, I hold my beliefs tentatively, subject to revision on the basis of new evidence. I'd define God, based on this approach, as the felt experience (note the emphasis on a feeling or intuition) of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being." My concept of the divine is closer to that of the Hindu Brahman than the Judeo-Christian Dude in the Sky. But like you, I think wisdom and moral values are the important things.

However, I tend to favor the maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's why, on this thread, I tend to believe that Jesus was an historical figure, for reasons I've explained at some length. Nothing at all extraordinary about a messianic claimant of the era being crucified by the Romans. But when it comes to the miracles, I'm more skeptical. You say you've witnessed such events, but I haven't and don't think the evidence for them is very strong. I feel the same way about extraterrestrial abductions, but lots of people claim to have experienced them first hand.

 

Jesus may or may not have existed 2000 years back. What is important is our own spiritual and moral development at this point of time !

If you can be a Jesus or Buddha yourself, that would be more effective factual veracity for the atheist-materialists and skeptics. Perhaps you can become a greater figure than both of them.

Stating that hero worshipping Jesus or Buddha or Krishna is the only way to heaven would sound ridiculous and infantile to some, especially in the west which tends to sound intellectual understanding.

It is also not correct to impose a religious straitjacket upon all, taking into account varying temperaments.

In Hinduism, people are considered to be of different temperaments relating to devotion (Bhakti yoga), intellectual understanding (jnana yoga), action (karma yoga) and mysticism (raja yoga), and hence different paths mentioned have been forged for different temperaments for spiritual development.

Unfortunately, Western philosophy and psychology, due to its relatively shorter timeline, have not yet come across the phenomenon of Buddhahood and enlightenment. Hence, with all their intellection, they don't have much time-tested data to speculate soundly upon as well and are in a state of confusion as such with numerous theories.

Worse, it is plagued by tamasic or regressive philosophies like nihilism (which considers all values/virtues to be mere abstract contrivances), a viewpoint that has been ascribed to be the philosophical cause of the previous world wars by Viktor Frankl. I don't think western philosophy at this point have matured enough to foster sound judgement.

As per eastern philosophy, atheists and agnostics can also attain enlightenment through adherence to virtuous conduct and obeying their conscience.

I have cited the example of enlightened master Rajini Menon in this thread, who attained enlightenment in this manner...

Female enlightened master Rajini Menon on attaining enlightenment by adhering to virtuous conduct...

Buddhism and Sankhya religious philosophy/methodology in Hinduism are also non-theistic in nature.

Stating that one ought to believe in the historical figure of Jesus to escape damnation and eternal hell, are very unhealthy ideas (for the reasons I have explained earlier), and can even evoke a reactionary attitude as well to religion and value systems in general.

Also if you condition people to believe in incoherent ideas, you are in fact conditioning them to be incoherent as well, which can be regressive in the long run.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, although I don't aspire to be as great a figure as either!

Unfortunately, stating that Jesus is the only way to heaven doesn't seem ridiculous to folks here in the Bible Belt of the U.S., who misinterpret John 13:6 to reach exactly that conclusion.

Now, now. You're beginning to sound chauvinistic. I think there's a lot to be said for empiricism.

That seems to be the decadent downside of free thought. I'm not sure it had anything to do with the causes of the world wars, which were arguable more influenced by confidence in the idea of progress and (particularly in the Nazi case) romantic nationalism.

I agree! I know atheists who could put Christians to shame in terms of how they live their lives.

I'm afraid some Christians go farther and say one must believe it, and that that's all one must do to to attain salvation. (Some will make exceptions for invincible ignorance or the inability to hear about Jesus). And not just in the historical figure, but all the legends that grew up around Him. I don't believe it!

Yes, I fear that fundamentalist versions of Christianity and other religions condition people to believe the unbelievable--never good in the long run.

Lest Hindus get a free pass, I might remind them of the caste system, untouchability, and sati (in which a wife is expected to throw herself on the husband's funeral pyre.) These customs seem to have gone out of style, but India is still plagued by a significant Hindu contribution to inter-faith violence, and by the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and militant Hindu nationalism. And the everyday religion of many Hindus is a far cry from the sophisticated ruminations of the Vedanta.

 

Caste system, untouchability and sati are not part of the Hindu religions basic beliefs or Shrutis as mentioned in the Vedas.

They are part of the smritis or man-made laws framed from time to time in consideration of the various needs of society in various phases of time. They are supposed to be changed in varying circumstances when such man-made laws become obsolete in favour of better ones. Because they were not upgraded in a timely fashion, Indian society was not able to keep pace with a changing world and regressed.

The caste system came about as a feudal system similar to that in Europe and Japan.

Untouchability with respect to certain lower castes probably came about to prevent communicable, infectious diseases, under the instruction of ayurvedic physicians. Similar to the quarantine rules that came about with infectious diseases. The monsoons which arrived in India each year brought about infectious diseases as well in its wake and it can be noticed that untouchability as a custom prevailed the most in south india which was hit with the full force of the monsoons arriving from the Indian ocean.

Similarly sati as a custom came about amongst the widows of the upper warrior castes, during the time period of foreign invasions. Sati was put to an end by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a Hindu scholar and reformist who successfully pointed out that such customs, including casteism and untouchability, had no sanction in the vedas or shrutis.

Hinduism definetely have its vices and superstitions which prevent coherent thought and action, and which needs to be eradicated with diffusion of right knowledge and institutions.

For example, some Hindus believe that bathing in the river Ganga is a sure ticket to heaven, a notion which the Buddha considered irrational, stating that if that is the case, then the fish in the river would be free of all sin.

But I will state here that atheist philosophies which championed rationalism, humanism and even hedonism had existed in India for milleniums known as Charvaka, and such adherents to the Charvak philosophy were known as Charvaks.

Many atheists in India at present uses the Charvak philosophical points as tools to argue and debate. Many who consider themselves to be Hindu atheists adhere to the Charvak philosophy.

Charvaka - Wikipedia

And as I stated earlier, as per Hindu enlightened sages like Anandamayi Ma and Rajini Menon, agnostics and atheists can also attain enlightenment or Buddhahood provided there is adherence to virtuous conduct and a clean conscience.

So, from the Hindu viewpoint, you can see that there is no hell or damnation for the ethical atheist/agnostic who follows his conscience. There are heavens and hells described in the Hindu scriptures, but no eternal hells as such because the core of each soul is considered to be divine.

 

Advaita means nonduality. It is by transcending all mental labels of duality that one arrives at this dimension of nondual and pure consciousness, referred to as the unitary perception.

Labels of theism and atheism are also similarly just mental labels corresponding to a particular stream of conditioned thoughts instilled by the society and environment around us. Labels like American, European, Russian, Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, Marxist are all such streams of conditioned thoughts doctored to create dualistic boundaries amongst unsuspecting human beings.

Also all such streams of thoughts and corresponding emotions blur the natural state of blissful Self within us. This is why the dualistic world is termed as Maya , a mirage which promises everlasting pleasure, success and happiness to the foolish and weak, but skillfully lures one to doom just as unwary moths are attracted to the flame of a lamp.

The intelligent and heroic realises the deception and cuts the net of illusion with the sword of correct judgement (viveka).

Thus to arrive at advaita or nonduality means to decondition the mind, ending the slavery and reactivity to external narratives, and ensuring mental equanimity in all situations and circumstances, which is necessary to reveal the Self within.

An analogy is that of the bottom of the lake which is blurred in storms due to agitation, but clearly visible at times of calm. The eye of the cyclone is similarly revealed at the calm center and not the chaotic periphery.

The truth is similarly blurred in mental agitation due to the narratives fueled by conditioned thinking and emoting , but revealed in mental equanimity wrought by deconditioning.

 

It seems to me there is a lot of circularity in your argument. Your own thoughts are presumably, by your own admission, "conditioned thoughts instilled by the society and environment around us"--in your case a Hindu belief system. Maya is a concept originating in Hindu religious writings, and carried over to Buddhism. Bhattacharji (1970) The Indian Theogony. It is a label that has utility in indicating an important concept in Vedantic thought that can be distinguished from its opposite (reality).Thoseother labels that you mention are often useful in designating observed phenomena or patterns encountered in the observable world around us. It is useful, for example, to speak of me as being "American" (despite the quibble that Latin Americans could legitimately claim the same title, using the label to designate citizens of the United States is generally accepted). It is certainly a convention, but one which has a clear referent in designating people who have a certain status linked to a geographic entity that has a common government distinct from those of other countries. It is not an illusion. (I feel the same way about "self", which Buddhist doctrine insists is an illusion. Muslims have an identity which sets them apart from Christians in many respects that are salient to believers, although there may be considerable internal differences about what the believers mean by the terms. We can argue that national and religious divisions are stupid, and the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. I'd tend to agree. But for the sake of clarity, I also think it's useful to recognize their reality. What you're dishing out is a large dose of Hindu (and Buddhist) doctrine asserted as fact. The course of action you advocate is commendable as an ideal, but calling the opposite an illusion seems unwarranted and impedes clarity of thought.

 

The problem is the word "merely". Humans are "merely". Brahman in Hinduism is the ultimate reality, the Ground of Being, the name from which all words recall"." Merely" doesn't do justice to the concept, and desacralizes a concept to which Hindus accord the opposite attitude; the transcendent.. It reflects a misunderstanding that "God" must be about a Dude (or dudes, or dudettes) in the Sky, which is at variance with what many scholars of religion tell us about the essence of religion. (Rudolph Otto, The Idea of the Holy (religion is about "the numinous"), Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life (religion is about the "sacred", as distinct from the "profane"; Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane; the essence of religion lies in in hierophanies or "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the non-reality of the vast surrounding expanse")., Herbert Richardson, Toward an American Theology, (the feeling of an infinite whole); Robert Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution (symbolic transcenance). Many Native American traditions have the concept of a pervasive transcendent presence: Orenda (pervasive invisible power) in Iroquois religion, Gitchi Manitou (Great Spirit) for Algonquians, Wakan Tanka (Great Spirit or Great Mystery) for the Lakota, which seem closer to the Hindu Brahman than the Abrahamic "God". Polynesians have a similar concept they call "Mana", which is a life force permeating the universe.

I agree "It would be a misunderstanding to attribute anthropomorphic characteristics to God." Atheism, however, tends to secularize and desacralize reality. Some western atheists have turned to "godless" Asian belief systems like a scaled-down Buddhism to give a sense of meaning and spirituality to their lives, as a supplement to a point of view defined by what they don't believe in. I think this is fine, provided they don't confuse this with the beliefs and practices that historically went by that name in Asia, with its temples, monasteries, metaphysical doctrines (dharma, karma, reincarnation), community (sangha), and code of morality (five precepts), and sectarian divisions. Classical Buddhism didn't reject belief in gods; it just didn't attach importance to them in its program for ending suffering.

I agree in part and dissent in part. For many religious folks, those are vehicles for focusing on the transcendent--always a struggle for humans where worldly concerns and values exert a strong pull. But there is always a danger of reification, a problem which the Torah addresses in the Second Commandment. We need to keep the ultimate ultimate, and avoid taking our metaphors literally.

 

i.e., the practical definition of illusion.

i.e., when hell (or Naraka) freezes over!

 

Note the corrected version. The word is "the", not "he".
Dictionary definition of "lllusion": something that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses". Definition of ILLUSION

 

Dualism means consciousness is under the domination of insentient matter. And insentient matter due to its tamasic nature, strives to make that which is conscious insentient as well through disharmony and discord.

In the unitary perception, consciousness is free from dualistic perception and the domination of matter . And consciousness, due to its sattvic nature, sees even the insentient as alive, conscious and worthy of reverence.This is the basis of love seeing unity in diversity and seeking concord or harmony thereby.

This is not a matter of mere intellectual understanding or superficial speculation, but actual experiential understanding.

I have read posts over here and elsewhere of people serendipitously attaining this state in the midst of nature or the beach ( where there is high prana/chi) , terming it as the most beautiful experience of their life, and trying to figure out what had happened, hoping to regain it.

Some moves into the unitary perception consciously, also known as samadhi, to get a natural high though they are not able to sustain this state.

Austerity is the price needed for maintaining mental equanimity necessary for creating and maintaining this state. This is why austerity and mental equanimity is emphasized in most religions, especially the Dharmic.

Being permanently established in this state of samadhi is known as nirvikalpa samadhi, also known as enlightenment.