does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Jainarayan]

Well said Jainaryan.

I think often people are afraid of not seeming Hindu enough and feel threatened at the mention of another deity such as Jesus.

Also people seem to misunderstand the Universalist message. Just because you like a teaching from some other tradition does not mean that you minimize your own Hindu tradition.
A Universalist uses any religious book and ritual as part of their practice. That is much different than accepting that others may worship different than you, and accepting that another tradition might have something really nice that you like.

I'm not going to not be Hindu because I like The prayer of St Francis, or because I have Harriet Tubman on my altar. I'm secure in my faith I know what I believe.
I have not found a religion I like more than Hinduism. Nothing will sway me from this path.

Someone who runs because something isn't Hindu, just seems panicky and insecure about their own faith.

Maya

I too am secure enough to not feel threatened. I have attended Catholic weddings, funerals, christenings, bar mitzvahs (wait, wut!? ) and did not feel it was more fulfilling than my own belief system, whacked out as it may be, or the desire to convert back.

Moreover, I've said time and again, the word 'universalism' is used incorrectly. Universalism in its proper usage means that one recognizes the validity of all religions for the practitioners of that religion: Judaism for a Jew, Hinduism for a Hindu, Wicca for a Wiccan, and so on. Universalism gets conflated with 'syncretization', 'fusion' and 'amalgamation'. A universalist need not be a syncretic, but a syncretic is most likely +99% universalist.

Hinduism is the basis of my belief system; the layers that are on top of it are not contradictory, but extensions, complements and supplements to it. "You Know Who" is a great teacher, in my estimation, and I do quote him, but he is not in my shrine. However, bodhisattvas and buddhas, and Chinese deities are. Why? Because they are different and colorful manifestations of the same reality: Tara is Durga; Manjushri is the consort of Saraswati; Ganesha as highly revered in Japan; Avalokiteshvara is an embodiment of compassion; and so on.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

No one read post #33?

Yes you can. Heretical? If you are concerned about not mixing Abrahamic concepts maybe you shouldn't used words like heretical, going against the law, and not permitted...

We are Hindus, relax.

Maya

I am very relaxed, Maya-ji. But, heresy is different from blasphemy as well as apostasy. Maybe you were thinking of those two when you read my post? In its simplest definition, heresy is variation from established beliefs or customs. What are our established customs/beliefs? That the Vedas are the greatest authority. What do the Vedas say about worship of non-Hindu aspects/concepts/personas which would be variations from our established customs/beliefs? Well, read post #33 to acquaint yourself with the matter. Obviously, this is just the Shrutic approach. You can do whatever you would like, Maya-ji. You can even have Jesus and Muhammad in your altar, along with Tengri and Thor and Zeus and the God of the Zulus. What do I know, right?

M.V.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

I am not into the universalism stuff, but that's another debate. However, I am surprised that as Hindu you don't praise the coexistence of Dharma in harmony, peace and acceptance, and instead ou seems only to preach one way in a orthodox manner.

My point wasn't to praise the coexistence of Hinduism with other faiths. My point was to strictly point out that the veneration of Jesus by Hindus is against Shruti law. I didn't make these rules up. Our Hindu forefathers did. They are found in the Vedas. Have you read them? I am sure you must have at least skimmed through them, right? This isn't about being orthodox-like, brother. My point was to address the misconception that one can worship Jesus and still be Hindu.

It is not a good attitude to have to put down people's beliefs and what they do with it. This looks more like an abrahamic concept. And Hindus that practice Santana Dharma (those from India and those from the west alike) should have their minds free of these concepts.

I was not putting down other religions in this thread. And, this is not an Abrahamic concept. If it is written to not worship those that do not offer fire oblations to the Hindu Gods, why worship them at all? That is my point. But, by all means, go against Shruti law if you like. I am just a layman. It seems I have created quite a stir by arguing a notion that is strictly Vedic.

If Sri GaneshJi is worshipped and loved in a south east asian country with a Buddhist history and a different culture than India, what is the problem. The only problem I see is intolerance toward a matter that is none of our buisness. It does not degrade Dharma in any way in the eyes of the world.

There is no problem.

More than that, Sanatana Dharma is a very large umbrella that include absolutely everything and every way needed for the sincere seeker. So...Why looking elsewhere or try to forcefully mix stuff that cause strife and fights to it ?

Is it me that is forcefully mixing stuff?

M.V.

 

[Ashoka]

Even I think that's silly. The artwork of it is just plain poor.

I find this to be more appealing to represent the universal mother than that one.

I love Japanese madonnas! She looks like Kuan Yin!

I found other pictures on this website with faeryfolk surrounding her. "Our Lady of the Forest" I think one was called. I'll have to find them!

 

[Jainarayan]

I love Japanese madonnas! She looks like Kuan Yin!

I found other pictures on this website with faeryfolk surrounding her. "Our Lady of the Forest" I think one was called. I'll have to find them!

I believe she is a representation of Guanyin. I have a couple of small statues of Guanyin holding a child. Otoh, they could be a Chinese or Japanese depiction of Madonna and Child. In any case, they represent any mother and child... a universal theme.

 

[Ashoka]

I believe she is a representation of Guanyin. I have a couple of small statues of Guanyin holding a child. Otoh, they could be a Chinese or Japanese depiction of Madonna and Child. In any case, they represent any mother and child... a universal theme.

Nice! I love that picture of Maa Kali/Tara holding Shiva.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Hinduism has made inroads into Japan!

Hindu Devas take a (silk) road trip to Japan! « Videshi Sutra

M.V.

 

[Sb1995]

Namaste,

Hinduism has made inroads into Japan!

Hindu Devas take a (silk) road trip to Japan! « Videshi Sutra

M.V.

That's great to know! I'm still shocked and happy after seeing this a while back.
[youtube]2Zq-3A4xnxs[/youtube]
Hinduism in Ghana 2012 - YouTube

 

[Vinayaka]

That's great to know! I'm still shocked and happy after seeing this a while back.

Thanks. I knew about him but have never seen this video. Really inspiring.

Aum

 

[Sb1995]

Thanks. I knew about him but have never seen this video. Really inspiring.

Aum

I came across that video in the Hinduism DIR section so I'm surprised you didn't come across it before I did!

 

[Vinayaka]

I came across that video in the Hinduism DIR section so I'm surprised you didn't come across it before I did!

Old man here. Poor memory so quite possible I did.

The idea of old sections is also partly the problem for this and other threads when a new arrival appears on scene. Some people are sick and tired of discussing what seems to them as 'the same old thing' but of course it's new to the new person. This thread is essentially a copy of one done 3 or 4 years back. Same topic, some different people.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=मैत्रावरुणिः;3428054]Namaste,

Please acquaint yourself with the following verses from the foremost of all Shri Shruti texts:

[agne tvam asmad yuyodhi amīvā anagnitrā abhyamanta kṛishṭhīḥ - punar asmabhyam suvitāya deva kshām viśvebhir amṛtebhir yajatra]

"Agni, drive away from us the enemies who came to attack us, the tribes who keep no sacred fires. Come again to the earth, sacred god, with all the immortals, come to our libation." (R.V.1.189.3)​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[na yajamāna rishyasi na sunvāna na devayo - devānāṃ ya in mano yajamāna iyakshaty abhīd ayajvano bhuvat(16)
nakish ṭam karmaṇā naśan na pra yoshan na yoshati - devānāṃ ya in mano yajamāna iyakshaty abhīd ayajvano bhuvat(17)
asad atra suvīryam uta tyad āśvaśvyam - devānāṃ ya in mano yajamāna iyakshaty abhīd ayajvano bhuvat(18)]

"Never are ye injured, worshipper, presser of juice, or pious man. The man who, sacrificing, strives to win the heart of Deities will conquer those who worship not." (R.V.8.31.16)
"None in his action equals him, none holds him far or keeps him off. The man who, sacrificing, strives to win the heart of Deities will conquer those who worship not." (R.V.8.31.17)
"Such strength of heroes shall be his, such mastery of fleet-foot steeds. The man who, sacrificing, strives to win the heart of Deities will conquer those who worship not." (R.V.8.31.18)​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[...nāśiram duhre na tapanti gharmaṃ...]

"...they (the non-observer, the one distant from the fire) pour no milky draught; they heat no cauldron!" (R.V.3.53.14)​

- - - - - - -

Nice translations, if interpreted in the Adhiyajñika (ritualistic) sense i see similar injunction as you do.

But in the Ādhyātmika (Spiritual) sense i think the "Fire sacrifice" would have more a spiritual meaning such as selfless action, driving away enemies would mean removing our internal enemies such as hate, anger ect. and "conquer those who worship not" would mean to take hold of the internal desires which make us selfish such as greed ect which hinder our ability to be unselfish.

But all in all good translations. But in saying this i don't do any of this (As ritualistically ordained in the Rik), and neither do i consider Jesus at all to have anything to do with Hinduism. I do try to follow the Ādhyātmika sense of things mentioned in the Vedas, does it make me not Hindu?

Considering many Hindus have not even heard of the Veda let alone what is ordained in them, what would it make them? Nastika?

I do understand you point and fully support it in the subject of Jesus or Abrahamic religions in relation to Hinduism, but i don't consider the Veda as even concerning it self with the "Non-Believer" or even any concept of such.

PS: Jesus/Abraham/Muhammad or any Abrahamic religions are not Hinduism, Staying away from them will be the Hindu thing to do...

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm loath to continue this, but in the interest of total accuracy I have to:

"Agni, drive away from us the enemies who came to attack us, the tribes who keep no sacred fires. Come again to the earth, sacred god, with all the immortals, come to our libation." (R.V.1.189.3)

Jesus was an orthodox Jew and bound by the Torah. It was a requirement of orthodox Jews to make sacrificial burnt offerings, right up to the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. Yes, they were animal sacrifices, but so were the sacrifices in ancient Vedic times. This Rig Veda prayer is very similar to prayers one can find in the Torah invoking God's presence and protection.

It's all well and good to extol the virtues and truths of the Vedas, but let's keep all truth flowing and not slant things. Moses is said to have lived approx. 1500 BCE. Maybe the Jews were influenced by traditions from further east, maybe they came up with fire offerings on their own. We weren't there to see it.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Nice translations, if interpreted in the Adhiyajñika (ritualistic) sense i see similar injunction as you do.

Thank you for your appreciation.

But in the Ādhyātmika (Spiritual) sense i think the "Fire sacrifice" would have more a spiritual meaning such as selfless action, driving away enemies would mean removing our internal enemies such as hate, anger ect. and "conquer those who worship not" would mean to take hold of the internal desires which make us selfish such as greed ect which hinder our ability to be unselfish.

Yes, you can take the non-ritualistic approach. A Vedantist would usually take the spiritual approach, nonetheless.

But all in all good translations. But in saying this i don't do any of this (As ritualistically ordained in the Rik), and neither do i consider Jesus at all to have anything to do with Hinduism. I do try to follow the Ādhyātmika sense of things mentioned in the Vedas, does it make me not Hindu?

No, you are still Hindu. This was concerning a conversation between Vināyaka and me; my goal was to show him that a Hindu worshipping Jesus would be in violation as per Shruti law.

Considering many Hindus have not even heard of the Veda let alone what is ordained in them, what would it make them? Nastika?

It is unfortunate that many have not encountered the Vedas yet alone even read them. But, when you do ārti/pūjā, do you light a diyā bāti, offering that small lit fire to the Hindu Gods that you worship? Doing so would mean that you are offering the sacred fire. So, without having read certain injunctions in the Veda, you are still abiding by certain Shrutic laws. Such is far from being nāstika...

I do understand you point and fully support it in the subject of Jesus or Abrahamic religions in relation to Hinduism, but i don't consider the Veda as even concerning it self with the "Non-Believer" or even any concept of such.

I disagree. As per Shri Shruti Rig Veda, there is a concept of "non-believer" and it comes in the phrases of avrata and anyavrata and ayajavāna. The second part of my post (#33) dealt with these distinctions. The only difference is that they aren't in the Abrahamic (Semitic) sense. They are strictly Indic (retaining Indo-Iranian features).

PS: Jesus/Abraham/Muhammad or any Abrahamic religions are not Hinduism, Staying away from them will be the Hindu thing to do...

Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate that such adoration for the ones mentioned above have been incorporated into their fold of worship by a few Hindus.

M.V.

 

[Poeticus]

I'm loath to continue this, but in the interest of total accuracy I have to:

"Agni, drive away from us the enemies who came to attack us, the tribes who keep no sacred fires. Come again to the earth, sacred god, with all the immortals, come to our libation." (R.V.1.189.3)

Jesus was an orthodox Jew and bound by the Torah. It was a requirement of orthodox Jews to make sacrificial burnt offerings, right up to the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. Yes, they were animal sacrifices, but so were the sacrifices in ancient Vedic times. This Rig Veda prayer is very similar to prayers one can find in the Torah invoking God's presence and protection.

It's all well and good to extol the virtues and truths of the Vedas, but let's keep all truth flowing and not slant things. Moses is said to have lived approx. 1500 BCE. Maybe the Jews were influenced by traditions from further east, maybe they came up with fire offerings on their own. We weren't there to see it.

Namaste, Jainarayana-ji:

They may be similar to the un-distinguishing eye, but they are two worlds apart. The Semitic tradition is abrahma - those that loath to offer the correct prayers. These "correct" prayers would be those of the Shri Shruti Veda-s (Ved&#257. Therefore, they cannot be similar. My point was not to slant things. We may not have been their to see it, but our Hindu forefathers were keen on passing these traditions down through their sons and so on and so on. This isn't something to loath about. If our most important Hindu scriptures say not to worship those that didn't offer the proper salutations to the proper deities, what is so wrong about that?

M.V.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, you are still Hindu. This was concerning a conversation between Vināyaka and me; my goal was to show him that a Hindu worshipping Jesus would be in violation as per Shruti law.

And you failed to convince me, mainly because Shruti was there far before the time of Abrahamics. I seriously doubt if there was any such regulation or declaration. It would be like us passing some law today banning the use of some machine that hasn't even been invented yet. Nor were the passages quoted convincing (for me).

All that said, I'm still with the irrelevance bit.

 

[Poeticus]

And you failed to convince me, mainly because Shruti was there far before the time of Abrahamics. I seriously doubt if there was any such regulation or declaration. It would be like us passing some law today banning the use of some machine that hasn't even been invented yet. Nor were the passages quoted convincing (for me).

All that said, I'm still with the irrelevance bit.

Namaste,

My point was not to convince you. My point was to show you that worshipping Jesus would fall into the category of ayajavāna and avrata. It doesn't matter if the lad was born a thousand years or two after. Did Jesus offer salutations to the Gods of Shruti? I doubt it. Therefore, his worship is abrahma. But, it is okay. You don't have to believe in Shruti, brother. EDIT: Apparently, Shruti isn't important anymore these days. No one really cares about it. It seems that I am outnumbered by a long shot. The traditions of our forefathers has withered away into something else. What do I know, eh?

M.V.

 

[Vinayaka]

You don't have to believe in Shruti, brother.

I believe in the authority of Shruti. But something I don't believe even existed is Jesus. You seem to believe such a person did exist. I actually don't.

 

[Poeticus]

I believe in the authority of Shruti. But something I don't believe even existed is Jesus. You seem to believe such a person did exist. I actually don't.

Namaste,

[I have heard that Jesus may actually have been a continuation of Julius Caesar...]

I don't believe in Jesus at all, brother; I am just trying to tell other Hindus that he should not be worshipped. To them he was real. To me, the mere concept of him is abrahma and ayajavāna. Even when Hindus worship the deities of Smriti, they still offer fire salutations, and in doing so, they abide by yajvanic principles. I am sure you light a small lit fire during poojā, am I correct?

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste, Jainarayana-ji:

They may be similar to the un-distinguishing eye, but they are two worlds apart. The Semitic tradition is abrahma - those that loath to offer the correct prayers. These "correct" prayers would be those of the Shri Shruti Veda-s (Ved&#257. Therefore, they cannot be similar. My point was not to slant things. We may not have been their to see it, but our Hindu forefathers were keen on passing these traditions down through their sons and so on and so on. This isn't something to loath about. If our most important Hindu scriptures say not to worship those that didn't offer the proper salutations to the proper deities, what is so wrong about that?

M.V.

You're missing my point... my point is that to the Jews their prayers and sacrifices are correct for them. Your position is no different than that of the Christians who say that one who is not Christian cannot be "saved". It's that elitism that makes me, for one, to be embarrassed to be associated with any group, religious or cultural. If it was the duty of our Hindu forefathers to pass these traditions down, they did a pretty ****-poor job of it if they kept it from Jews, Africans, Chinese, Ainu, Inuit, or at the least didn't get it to them. Sanātana Dharma belongs to everyone, not just desis, and comes in all the languages ever spoken by humans, and even to Alpha Centaurii, if they exist. So on the one hand it's a virtue that Hindus don't proselytize, yet on the other it keeps Hinduism from other cultures, and it's the fault of those other cultures that they are ignorant of the truth? Oh please!