Thx, the key ingredient in your (and mine, and Cahn's, and anybody 
"IMO". ).  You may change your opinion after reading Cahn's "Book of 
Mysteries".  No mention of the Unified Field there.  It's all dualistic, not 
   The early Apologists for what ultimately became the current "mainstream" 
Christian positions where hashed out in the early centuries prior to the major 
Councils of Bishops which game us the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds.    Nothing 
about the Unified Field in those dogmatic pronouncements.  Obviously, the 
Gnostics and Neo-Platonists lost out in the battle for Biblical interpretations 
and which Books were to be included in the Bible.  There are 3 major questions 
in Biblical exegesis: a. What does the Bible say is the truth? b. What do you 
believe is "the truth" and c. What do we "want" to believe is the Truth. It's 
obvious that your emphasis is on the third approach - some bizarre and quite 
unsuccessful to fuse and render compatible Biblical teachings as they are (and 
not twisted into what we "want" is the truth), with MMY's version of what he 
calls Advaita Vedanta.  It will be left to Empty Bill for discernment on the 
question of whether MMY's teachings are in accord with Shankara, or not
 .  My conclusion is that as a whole, Biblical Judaeo-Christianity is dualistic 
with a big emphasis on Christian Love.....but not the Transcendent.  If can 
find few passages in the Bible that are remotely connected or point to the 
Transcendental Absolute (purusha).  Statements like "The Kingdom of Heaven is 
within you" are too vague to be useful, and can't by any stretch of the 
imagination be supportive of the notion that the Bible is about Gnosis (Self or 
Transcendental knowledge).  Any important battle between the "Early Church 
Fathers" and the Gnostics such as Marcion, Valentinus, etc; ensued before the 
mainstream concepts were codified, and the Gnostics lost and were forced 
underground.   There were valid reasons for why they lost the battle and books 
like the "Gospel of Thomas" were not in accepted list of Biblical Books.
 However, I do commend you for a worthy stance on stating: what might have 
been, or perhaps what the early Church Father should have taught.; but 
unfortunately they didn't.  They taught dualistic themes for the most part 
incompatible with non-dualism.
 In addition, regardliess of one's belief, (and in spite of it), one can be 
devoted to Jesus in any manner of loving devotion on the basis of heart-chakra 
experience, with no particular adherence to a set of beliefs.  But this would 
be anathema to Protestantism since salvation by faith requires belief.  Beliefs 
are a big part of the Bible.
 Thank God for George Fox who set us on the right course of action! 


Reply via email to