Originally posted by Varqa
There are of course enlightened people, those who are better tuned than the average person is to the divine realm. Some examples are Isaiah in Christianity and Imam Hussein in Islam. These people received revelation from God, but the Bible makes a sharp distinction between the enlightened individuals and the Messengers.
[i]If there be a prophet among you, I ...[text shortened]... truth will stand out and be the same in every holy Book, from the Gita to the Quran and beyond.
[/i]We are coming from two paradigmatically different viewpoints here, both of which sometimes use the same language. When the Upanishads use theist language, they are no more positing a theistic being than were the Stoics. It is metaphorical language (reflecting, in part, our nature as relational beings) for Brahman, Ein Sof, the One without a second, the All without another—sometimes the language is personal, sometimes impersonal (an area where I remain agnostic, depending on what one means by those terms). The same when Kashmiri Shaivites speak of “the lord Shiva.”
I think the books, including the Bible, reflect the experiences, and attempts at expressing such experiences, of the ground-and-whole-of-being, by various people—some perhaps more enlightened than others. Someone may feel compelled to bear the message, to reveal it. Nevertheless, I do not see the various scriptures as being in any way “the inerrant word of God.”
Who are you to follow? I can’t tell you. As a matter of fact—not belief, not doctrine, but fact—in making that decision you are following yourself: your own experiences, beliefs, conclusions, predilections; the nature of your own consciousness. It seems to me that you have found your path—may it be for you and others a path of enlightenment and blessing. But the decision that that is the right path was made, at rock bottom, on your own authority; as is every decision to recognize another authority.
In the end, we either realize our existential “entanglement” with the One—our existence as a stream in the ocean, and of the ocean—or we continue locked in the box of the ego-construct. The ego-construct is valuable, but it is not ultimate, though it pretends to be. That is the illusion.
NOTE: I echo Whodey’s question about the word versus interpretations, etc...