does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Maya3]

Namaste,

No one read post #33?



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.

The Vedas probably don't say much about it. The Vedas was written during the time when you couldn't take an airplane over to say Mexico to see what they were worshiping there.
Like Vinayaka said, the Jews and Christians came long after the Vedas, so there can be nothing about NOT worshiping Jesus in them.

Why is it so important that Hindus don't worship Jesus?
I'm sure most dont. So I don't see why it is so important to tell people that they can't.

Maya

 

[Poeticus]

The Vedas probably don't say much about it. The Vedas was written during the time when you couldn't take an airplane over to say Mexico to see what they were worshiping there.
Like Vinayaka said, the Jews and Christians came long after the Vedas, so there can be nothing about NOT worshiping Jesus in them.

Why is it so important that Hindus don't worship Jesus?
I'm sure most dont. So I don't see why it is so important to tell people that they can't.

Maya

Namaste,



The Vedas don't have to explicitly say not to worship Jesus for the matter to be perfectly clear.

What part of avrata, ayajavāna, abrahma, anyavrata do you not understand? This is Shruti. Shruti clearly says that the veneration of things or personas that do not offer fire salutations to the Hindu (Vedic) Gods is adharmic. It also clearly says that a Hindu cannot worship those that hate the proper prayers (which would be characterized by the word abrahma). Which "proper prayers" you might ask...well, those that are non-Hindu prayers for starters. Have you read the Shri Shruti Rig Veda to acquaint yourself with these laws of Rta and Vrata?

M.V.

EDIT: It is important that Hindus don't worship Jesus because according to Shruti it is adharmic, it is na-Rta.

 

[Maya3]

Namaste,



The Vedas don't have to explicitly say not to worship Jesus for the matter to be perfectly clear.

What part of avrata, ayajavāna, abrahma, anyavrata do you not understand? This is Shruti. Shruti clearly says that the veneration of things or personas that do not offer fire salutations to the Hindu (Vedic) Gods is adharmic. It also clearly says that a Hindu cannot worship those that hate the proper prayers (which would be characterized by the word abrahma). Which "proper prayers" you might ask...well, those that are non-Hindu prayers for starters. Have you read the Shri Shruti Rig Veda to acquaint yourself with these laws of Rta and Vrata?

M.V.

EDIT: It is important that Hindus don't worship Jesus because according to Shruti it is adharmic, it is na-Rta.

This is pointless.

Maya

 

[Poeticus]

This is pointless.

Maya

Namaste,

Is it pointless because you choose not to acknowledge it? Or, is it pointless because you abide by rules that you have created yourself and those of the most high (Shrutic) don't matter anymore? I mean, what do I know, right? What is Shruti to Hinduism anymore, right?

M.V.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

Namaste,
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.

Alright then, I must have misread and/or misunderstood your posts then. Your strong reaction against the picture of Sri GaneshJi on the same altar as Buddhist deities was quite misleading, at last for me.

I was not putting down other religions in this thread.

Again, your reaction on the photo must have mislead me then

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.

This is your point, just like the point of your neighbour is a different one, just like the point of your neighbour's neighbour is different...As long as it does not lead to strife between brothers and sisters, then it is okay.

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.

Please, don't be angry or like that. You don't know anything about my Sadhana and I don't know anything about yours, let's not assume things about each other that could lead to wrong appreciations. I never said I was worshipping jesus or going agains this or that law. I am a Saiva, I don't care about those issues. What I care however is respect and uplifting good behavior between us, it is honor.

Aum Namah Sivaya



There is no problem.



Is it me that is forcefully mixing stuff?

M.V.[/quote]

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Vanakkam,
Alright then, I must have misread and/or misunderstood your posts then. Your strong reaction against the picture of Sri GaneshJi on the same altar as Buddhist deities was quite misleading, at last for me.

You really took that seriously? Me and the Kashmiri Pandit were having a tug of war. Stuff gets dirty when personal emotion gets involved.

This is your point, just like the point of your neighbour is a different one, just like the point of your neighbour's neighbour is different...As long as it does not lead to strife between brothers and sisters, then it is okay.

I see what you did there. Bravo!

Please, don't be angry or like that. You don't know anything about my Sadhana and I don't know anything about yours,

I would never question your devotion. Who do you think I am?

I never said I was worshipping jesus or going agains this or that law.

Neither did I.

I am a Saiva, I don't care about those issues. What I care however is respect and uplifting good behavior between us, it is honor.

I have neither attacked your respect nor your honor. Har Har Mahadeva. I too offer salutations to the father of the Lords Maruts, that very Lord Shri Rudra, that terrifying Lord Bhairava, that gentle Lord who sleeps in meditation, who is the most kind of all the Gods, who is the most giving and most gratuitous, he who slew the disobedient and prideful Daksha, who vanquished the Vaishnava army at Daksha's Host, the Nataraj of Hindus, the holy Shri Sadā-Shiva.

M.V.

जय श्री महादेव

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vannakkam,

My first language is not English, I don't often get all language subtilities and stuff...So yeah, I took that seriously, but it wasn't, sorry then

Aum Namah Sivaya

 

[Poeticus]

Vannakkam,

My first language is not English, I don't often get all language subtilities and stuff...So yeah, I took that seriously, but it wasn't, sorry then

Aum Namah Sivaya

Namaste,

What is your first language, sir? If you don't mind me asking.

M.V.

EDIT: Oh, French! Geez, I didn't notice your location initially. My b.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hindu's CANNOT worship Jesus.

You just issued the equivalent of a Papal Encyclical. How ironic.

Playing devil's advocate, Hindus can worship whomever they want to in whatever way they want to and call themselves whatever they want to. Who appointed either of you to the Worship and Name Police Force?

For the record, not that it's anyone's business, I do not worship Jesus or have him on my altar. However, as one who knows what Christianity is about having been Christian for half my life, because precious few here have any idea whatsoever what Christianity is, I do revere and honor his teachings. There is one teaching especially a lot of people would do well to mark: "Judge not lest you be judged. For how you judge, so you too shall be judged." - Matthew 7:1-2

This Jesus fellow is taking up entirely too much room in people's heads, the reason for which I am at a loss to understand. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." That's an indication of a neurosis (yes, familiar with psychology among my many talents I've gathered in 56 years). And the excuse that Christians are trying to destroy Hinduism and convert Hindus is tiresome. Those "Christians" are not Christians, and if Hindus don't have the stones or the security in their faith to remain Hindu and fight off the evangelizers, then maybe THEY don't deserve to be called Hindu. And if it's the poor who are the suckers, then blame the Indian government. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Damn, this **** is old!

 

[Vinayaka]

Namaste,

What is your first language, sir? If you don't mind me asking.

M.V.

EDIT: Oh, French! Geez, I didn't notice your location initially. My b.

Nor did you notice her gender.

 

[Jainarayan]

Shruti clearly says that the veneration of things or personas that do not offer fire salutations to the Hindu (Vedic) Gods is adharmic.

The Rig Veda also says
Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

And please don't give me the line that those are only the true gods to worship, because neither Rudra nor Vishnu are mentioned in that line. The Rig Veda speaks 93 times of Vishnu, "All-pervading", and how many more times of Rudra? But not in that verse, so I take it we should kick Vishnu and Shiva to the curb because they are not mentioned as being ekam sat? Krishna told the people of Vrindavana not to worship Indra, a Vedic god. Krishna went against shruti... is Krishna adharmic!?

Stop putting on airs.

 

[Poeticus]

The Rig Veda also says
Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

And please don't give me the line that those are only the true gods to worship, because neither Rudra nor Vishnu are mentioned in that line. The Rig Veda speaks 93 times of Vishnu, "All-pervading", and how many more times of Rudra? But not in that verse, so I take it we should kick Vishnu and Shiva to the curb because they are not mentioned as being ekam sat? Krishna told the people of Vrindavana not to worship Indra, a Vedic god. Krishna went against shruti... is Krishna adharmic!?

Stop putting on airs.

Namaste,

What does "ekam sat" mean to you?

M.V.

ps - Why do you think Lord Shri Vishnu is known as "all-pervading"?

 

[Jainarayan]

What does "ekam sat" mean to you?

Grammatically or conceptually?

Grammatically it's probably in the nominative. Ekam is nominative and accusative. Accusative would need to be the direct object of a verb, and unless one reads it as '[there is] one truth..." which would be accusative I have to go with nominative.

Conceptually? It means what it says. No more, no less.

ps - Why do you think Lord Shri Vishnu is known as "all-pervading"?

Because he is ekaṃ sat viprā bahudhā vadanti.

I graduated #30 out of a class of 600, had a g.p.a. of 93 out of 100, aced (high 90s) three quarterly exams in as many weeks to do catch up work. Please do not play with me; it will save you embarrassment. Please quit while you are behind.

I think we can put our legs down, the tree is wet enough.

 

[Poeticus]

Grammatically or conceptually?

Grammatically it's probably in the nominative. Ekam is nominative and accusative. Accusative would need to be the direct object of a verb, and unless one reads it as '[there is] one truth..." which would be accusative I have to go with nominative.

Conceptually? It means what it says. No more, no less.



Because he is ekaṃ sat viprā bahudhā vadanti.

I graduated #30 out of a class of 600, had a g.p.a. of 93 out of 100, aced (high 90s) three quarterly exams in as many weeks to do catch up work. Please do not play with me; it will save you embarrassment. Please quit while you are behind.

I think we can put our legs down, the tree is wet enough.

Namaste,

Is your pride that important to you?

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nope, I have no ego. It's a simple statement of fact that you should stop trying to play one-upmanship. You're losing. You can quote scripture all you like ("Even the devil can quote scripture to his purpose" - The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 3), and as Swami Nikhilananda says: "According to Hinduism, religion is experience and not the mere acceptance of certain time-honoured dogmas or creeds. To know God is to become like God. A man may quote scripture, engage in ritual, perform social service, or pray with regularity, but unless he has realized the divine spirit in his heart, he is still a phenomenal being, a victim of the pairs of opposites."

 

[Poeticus]

Nope, I have no ego. It's a simple statement of fact that you should stop trying to play one-upmanship. You're losing. You can quote scripture all you like ("Even the devil can quote scripture to his purpose" - The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 3), and as Swami Nikhilananda says: "According to Hinduism, religion is experience and not the mere acceptance of certain time-honoured dogmas or creeds. To know God is to become like God. A man may quote scripture, engage in ritual, perform social service, or pray with regularity, but unless he has realized the divine spirit in his heart, he is still a phenomenal being, a victim of the pairs of opposites."

Namaste,

1. Not all Hindus are followers of the RamaKrishna-Mission. So, your quote by Nikhilananda-ji does not speak on behalf of all Hindus. Just like how my Shrutic approach to Jesus worship didn't speak for all Hindus; for, it only spoke on behalf of Hindus that are Shrautin.

2. And, this isn't about losing. But, I guess it is very important to you that you be seen as the victor, therefore, according to my dharma, I will state my loss, for winning and losing are both subjective to the material plane. And, thus I do not wish to be in this material plane with such exuberant pride that is reminiscent of Duryodhana - that of one which you extort, O' GPA 30 out of something who uses such to show his credentials.

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

Just like how my Shrutic approach to Jesus worship didn't speak for all Hindus; for, it only spoke on behalf of Hindus that are Shrautin.

It took 12 pages to get that wrung out of you!?

Well, persistence pays. If I had given up sooner, I doubt we'd have gotten that little tidbit.

 

[Poeticus]

It took 12 pages to get that wrung out of you!?

Namaste,

I initially stated that I would be applying the Shrutic approach. It was never meant to be definitive.

M.V.

 

[Sb1995]

Grammatically or conceptually?

Grammatically it's probably in the nominative. Ekam is nominative and accusative. Accusative would need to be the direct object of a verb, and unless one reads it as '[there is] one truth..." which would be accusative I have to go with nominative.

Conceptually? It means what it says. No more, no less.



Because he is ekaṃ sat viprā bahudhā vadanti.

I graduated #30 out of a class of 600, had a g.p.a. of 93 out of 100, aced (high 90s) three quarterly exams in as many weeks to do catch up work. Please do not play with me; it will save you embarrassment. Please quit while you are behind.

I think we can put our legs down, the tree is wet enough.

What program did you study and at which school. Doesn't matter what your marks are when it comes to religious talk.

 

[Jainarayan]

What program did you study and at which school. Doesn't matter what your marks are when it comes to religious talk.

Sure it does. It's an overall indicator of one's skills. I studied linguistics, history and philosophy. I flunked out of Dogma and Rigidity 101. Rutgers University.