(Adding a few more cents)
I agree with you SomaticDreams about how this channelling demonstrates the mutual influence of channeller and source.
I think the biased language is directly happening due to the nature of the channelling process. Carla plays a role in selecting the right words to use, and she uses words that makes sense to her. Her explication of Buddhism therefore sounds a lot like what makes sense to her, what her perspective on it would be according to a mystical Christian and a Ra follower.
In the case of describing the Creator, I bet Carla sees the creator as both the Infinite One, the All-Being, as well as the more personal and anthropomorphized God. Her conception of the infinite includes both a personalized God as well as an impersonal Infinite Awareness.
This is how I see the Creator as well. Yogis endorse this view of the creator - seeing everything as the infinite one and infinity - and yet at the same time they suggest a personal relationship with a humanized creator can also be beneficial.
Buddhists, on the other hand, do not personalize infinity at all, and Christians exclusively personalize God. Hindus do both and the Ra Material also does both.
In the case of Carla, it's quite likely that she received a thought-form indicating "The One Infinite Creator" which she interprets to mean both God as well as Infinity or All-Being. The Ra concept of "The One Infinite Creator" is a bit of a melding of the two major ways of seeing the ultimate, infinite, union of everything.
So you can see that the purpose of the Q'uo channel process is certainly not to give an accurate and balanced representation of the two religions/religious figures. The channel is inextricably tied to Carla's personal vocabulary and apparently also to her personal experiences. Neutral language appears impossible in this type of channelling. You're always getting a big dose of the channeller as well as the message.
My Buddhism is mostly Theravada but I was heavily influenced by one teacher who was from the Dzogchen Tibetan tradition, I guess that means Nyingma.
I've done a hell of a lot of reading in all the religions, but also meditated and been instructed by various gurus/teachers from various places. For Hinduism I've read the Gita, Upanishads, bunch of other scriptures, but have not finished the entire Ramayana. I've read tons of Yoga books from a wide variety of gurus and also been instructed in person by a few yogis. I've read many commentaries on the Gita for instance and just countless books relating to Hinduism really, that religion puts out a lot of literature.
I've also read many Buddhist texts, from the Sutras to many different commentaries and expositions of buddhism and biographies of the Buddhia, as well as doing meditation and getting instruction from a few Buddhist masters.
After doing Buddhism for awhile, my meditation practice shifted toward Hinduism for the Bhakti (devotion). In hindsight, I wanted to express love and devotion toward the Creator to help with opening the heart.
Buddhism is great for Westerners coming from a Christian background because it removes a lot of the shame and guilt and self-flagellation that Christianity inevitably promotes. Bhakti Yoga suffers from this Christian pitfall as well. The Hindu/Christian dogmatic baggage very easily can get in the way.
It has been fairly easy for me to integrate the highest principles of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Ra material. I definitely see all of these like fingers pointing at the moon, and when it comes to the basic spiritual practice, on the important stuff I am able to see great agreement.
I agree with you SomaticDreams about how this channelling demonstrates the mutual influence of channeller and source.
I think the biased language is directly happening due to the nature of the channelling process. Carla plays a role in selecting the right words to use, and she uses words that makes sense to her. Her explication of Buddhism therefore sounds a lot like what makes sense to her, what her perspective on it would be according to a mystical Christian and a Ra follower.
In the case of describing the Creator, I bet Carla sees the creator as both the Infinite One, the All-Being, as well as the more personal and anthropomorphized God. Her conception of the infinite includes both a personalized God as well as an impersonal Infinite Awareness.
This is how I see the Creator as well. Yogis endorse this view of the creator - seeing everything as the infinite one and infinity - and yet at the same time they suggest a personal relationship with a humanized creator can also be beneficial.
Buddhists, on the other hand, do not personalize infinity at all, and Christians exclusively personalize God. Hindus do both and the Ra Material also does both.
In the case of Carla, it's quite likely that she received a thought-form indicating "The One Infinite Creator" which she interprets to mean both God as well as Infinity or All-Being. The Ra concept of "The One Infinite Creator" is a bit of a melding of the two major ways of seeing the ultimate, infinite, union of everything.
So you can see that the purpose of the Q'uo channel process is certainly not to give an accurate and balanced representation of the two religions/religious figures. The channel is inextricably tied to Carla's personal vocabulary and apparently also to her personal experiences. Neutral language appears impossible in this type of channelling. You're always getting a big dose of the channeller as well as the message.
(01-08-2012, 10:06 PM)SomaticDreams Wrote: If you don't mind me asking, which texts have you read in the Hindu tradition, or have you had any extensive experience with gurus?
And also, which traditions in the Tibetan tradition? There are four major schools:
The Nyingma (The most Ancient School)
The Kagyu (Concerned with the oral transmission, and meditative insight)
The Sakya (Known as the scholarly lineage, focused highly on intellectual insight)
The Gelug (Focuses on virtuous living, a reformist movement. The school of which the Dalai Lama was raised within)
If you have no idea, it's quite alright. I would be interested to see what school you studied under to gain an understanding of your experience with Buddhism.
Thank you for the thoughtful replies.
Namaste
My Buddhism is mostly Theravada but I was heavily influenced by one teacher who was from the Dzogchen Tibetan tradition, I guess that means Nyingma.
I've done a hell of a lot of reading in all the religions, but also meditated and been instructed by various gurus/teachers from various places. For Hinduism I've read the Gita, Upanishads, bunch of other scriptures, but have not finished the entire Ramayana. I've read tons of Yoga books from a wide variety of gurus and also been instructed in person by a few yogis. I've read many commentaries on the Gita for instance and just countless books relating to Hinduism really, that religion puts out a lot of literature.
I've also read many Buddhist texts, from the Sutras to many different commentaries and expositions of buddhism and biographies of the Buddhia, as well as doing meditation and getting instruction from a few Buddhist masters.
After doing Buddhism for awhile, my meditation practice shifted toward Hinduism for the Bhakti (devotion). In hindsight, I wanted to express love and devotion toward the Creator to help with opening the heart.
Buddhism is great for Westerners coming from a Christian background because it removes a lot of the shame and guilt and self-flagellation that Christianity inevitably promotes. Bhakti Yoga suffers from this Christian pitfall as well. The Hindu/Christian dogmatic baggage very easily can get in the way.
It has been fairly easy for me to integrate the highest principles of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Ra material. I definitely see all of these like fingers pointing at the moon, and when it comes to the basic spiritual practice, on the important stuff I am able to see great agreement.