Does Hinduism acknowledge Jesus as an Avatar?

[Poeticus]

Compare that with this. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.". Hebrews 4:15

It seems to me this understanding of each religion's religious figures is shared by them mutually. And each culture creates a mythology about them as perfect children, born fully aware of their own divinity without need for growth. Buddha had lotus blossoms flower in his footsteps as a toddler; Jesus breathed life into a dove made of clay which then flew away, etc.

But it is my belief that these individuals had a strong knowledge of their divine nature, which is shared in all of us, but were particularly attuned to and responsive to that within themselves to overcome skillfully the temptations of distraction which plague us all. "Yet, without sin" (or falling short of the mark as the word sin means). The stories of not having to grow and overcome are created by us to elevate them as supernatural for us to look up to, to reach out to in our own quest to overcome and realize Self as they. At a certain point, as I say for example, "It is better to call Jesus brother, than Lord". That's the goal. To become Christ. To be Atman. They are us, and we are them, as we realize who we truly are.

Commendable...but, you are in the wrong DIR.

 

[George-ananda]

Maybe God looked at the world and at each region and said "you know what would be funny? If I told them two different things."

This is in the wrong DIR too

 

[Windwalker]

Isn't the question itself in the wrong DIR then? I felt my reply was appropriate to the thread that itself in the Hindu DIR, unless of course traditional views and understandings alone are allowed, as some contend. Perhaps the site should consider a "Traditionalist Hindu DIR" thread, in which case such questions are outside the scope of that. And isn't Hinduism about inclusiveness of many views, or is that a misunderstanding?

 

[Poeticus]

Isn't the question itself in the wrong DIR then?

In my opinion, it's more suitable for the Comparative forum(s).

I felt my reply was appropriate to the thread that itself in the Hindu DIR, unless of course traditional views and understandings alone are allowed, as some contend.

You say that in a way as if traditional Hindus are the boogeymen & boogeywomen.

Perhaps the site should consider a "Traditionalist Hindu DIR" thread, in which case such questions are outside the scope of that.

Such a question is very suited for the Site Feedback section, wherein both moderators and administrators will be more than helpful.

And isn't Hinduism about inclusiveness of many views, or is that a misunderstanding?

As far as I know, it's inclusive because the term, "Hinduism" (which is academically and historically incorrect), is suited to show a collective attitude of bonding between the myriad Vedic-derived sects and sub-sects: Vaishnava (and Her sub-sects), Shaiva (and Her sub-sects), Shakta (and Her sub-sects), and the list goes on.

In regards to why the Hindu-boogeymen won't accept Jesus as an avatar:

It's pretty much in line with the same logic as why traditional Judaism doesn't accept Christ. Instead of Jesus not having fulfilled the requirements of a Messiah...he didn't fulfill the requirements of an avatar. On the other hand, if he did...you would see him in every Vaishnava shrine/altar.​

EDIT: But, why does this bother you so much?

 

[Windwalker]

I do not consider traditionalists boogie men. I understand and respect their ties to their linage. I disagree with them shutting down conversation which steps outside what fits within their views, and claim that a DIR about their adopted religion must be restricted to what is acceptable to them. This is not exclusive to Hinduism by any means, and I know it all too well in other traditions too.

As for the site rule condoning restricting DIRS to the traditionalist views, guarded and approved by traditionalist of those lineages against all deviations they call inappropriate, I defer to the management of the site. It is my understanding that diversity is allowed, with respect to all points of view within lineages. Which is why I suggest if traditionalists dislike things that rub them wrong whenever someone in their tradition brings them up, they should request a traditionalist DIR to isolate themselves from deviation if it makes them uncomfortable and feel a need to stop such views being discussed. Requesting such topics as these be moved whenever someone brings it up, seems like they are self-policing the site in favor of their views against others in a way it is not intended to be. It seems sensible to me. Doesn't it?

 

[Poeticus]

I do not consider traditionalists boogie men. I understand and respect their ties to their linage.

Are you talking about socio-ethnic/racial lineage?

I disagree with them shutting down conversation which steps outside what fits within their views, and claim that a DIR about their adopted religion must be restricted to what is acceptable to them.

I don't see any "traditional" Hindu here doing the above. In fact, a majority of their posts are about how threads such as these have been done very often; and, they can be found through utilizing the Search Feature.

As for the site rule condoning restricting DIRS to the traditionalist views, guarded and approved by traditionalist of those lineages against all deviations they call inappropriate, I defer to the management of the site.

I'm sorry, but can you restate this please? I'm not clearly understanding what you are trying to say.

It is my understanding that diversity is allowed, with respect to all points of view within lineages. Which is why I suggest if traditionalists dislike things that rub them wrong whenever someone in their tradition brings them up, they should request a traditionalist DIR to isolate themselves from deviation if it makes them uncomfortable and feel a need to stop such views being discussed.

As far as I know, a few of the traditional Hindus of this DIR, myself included, would love to have the HinduDIR become blue once more. But, like I said a while back...this is more suited for the Site Feedback Section.

Requesting such topics as these be moved whenever someone brings it up, seems like they are self-policing the site in favor of their views against others in a way it is not intended to be. It seems sensible to me. Doesn't it?

Self-policing would be against Forum Rules. But, to go along with the above:

There was an incident a while back when someone was posting anti-Sai Baba stuff. Most traditional Hindus would not believe in Sai Baba...but, it was the traditional Hindus of the HinduDIR that posted the most in defense of Shirdi Sai Baba.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste ameyAtmA,

I can relate very well to the points you have given, especially point number 6. Also, I am currently studying the Bhagavad Gita and absolutely love it thus far. As for reading somewhere that "Krishna" was originally a coward, I remember the source now!! And upon re-reading it, I mistaking read "Coward" when the actual text was explaining that Krishna was a "cowherd" in his early days (i.e. he herded cows)... how embarassing of me

But on the subject of Krishna being born perfect.. I think the following quote from Yogananda's Man's Eternal Quest is relevant and thought-provoking:

I guess you could interpret this primarily in 2 ways: 1) Avatars like Krishna did struggle with temptation and desire, and put effort into self-evolution during his life as Krishna, i.e. during the stories of Krishna that we have. Or 2) using the law of Reincarnation, Krishna struggled with many temptations, desires, suffering, etc in past lives... similar to the struggles we all face today - but through effort in self-evolution, Krishna conquered these struggles in past lives to the point where he was one day completely free and one with God, and after achieving that state, he eventually was born into Earth as the Krishna we know about, and was literally perfect at birth.

Even Alan Watts admits it is possible to be born perfect, i.e. completely Self-Realized and one with God as a baby... and I too believe it is possible, although I used to be very "averse" to such ideas of "divine" beings, but now I understand that such divine beings were really beings who 100% maximized their own humanity.. hence their lives/stories can be helpful to us as humans the following quote is brought to my mind... "To be divine is to fully maximize your own humanity."

shrI kR^iShNa is bhagavAn, transcendental to all karma-s; he incarnates due to his own will to please his devotees and to destroy adharma. Making him out to be a mere "realized soul" is insulting to vaiShNava-s. According to the uddhavagItA, he gives others the consciousness with which to know him, since he is the source of all of jIva-s and he creates the universe through mAyAprakR^iti; his sharIra when he descends is not made of matter, this is continually stated throughout the shAstra-s (for example, when mAtA yashoda looked into his mouth, he saw the universe and when he commanded arjuna's chariot, he stated that since the entire weight of the cosmos is on the chariot). It makes absolutely no sense for the individual from whom consciousness arises to be himself affected by guNa-s or karma. Although I will completely agree that he is not "created perfect by God", not because of yogAnanda's reason, but because he IS GOD in the flesh. In my opinion, if you want to look for the works of a "Hindu scholar," then look not to new-age gurus like paramhaMsa yogAnanda, but to vedavyAsa himself. If there is any fault you find with shrI hari within the shAstra-s then you are free to express it, but neither ameyAtmA nor me would likely agree that kR^iShNa ever "struggled with temptation or desire" (unless it was a part of his lIlA, like when he stole mAkhan in gokul).

 

[George-ananda]

I do not consider traditionalists boogie men. I understand and respect their ties to their linage. I disagree with them shutting down conversation which steps outside what fits within their views, and claim that a DIR about their adopted religion must be restricted to what is acceptable to them. This is not exclusive to Hinduism by any means, and I know it all too well in other traditions too.

As for the site rule condoning restricting DIRS to the traditionalist views, guarded and approved by traditionalist of those lineages against all deviations they call inappropriate, I defer to the management of the site. It is my understanding that diversity is allowed, with respect to all points of view within lineages. Which is why I suggest if traditionalists dislike things that rub them wrong whenever someone in their tradition brings them up, they should request a traditionalist DIR to isolate themselves from deviation if it makes them uncomfortable and feel a need to stop such views being discussed. Requesting such topics as these be moved whenever someone brings it up, seems like they are self-policing the site in favor of their views against others in a way it is not intended to be. It seems sensible to me. Doesn't it?

Do you consider yourself Hindu? Or any one tradition for which a DIR exists?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Do you consider yourself Hindu? Or any one tradition for which a DIR exists?

Meh, it's okay. However, I too don't like the fact that he seems to argue with the so-called "traditionalist" Hindu-s, like me, who find it unpleasant to place a dead man on a crucifix (Jesus) at the same level as an avatAra of shrImannArAyaNa. Why doesn't he go stalk the Christian DIR asking the Christians there why don't consider kR^iShNa to be the supreme lord?

 

[punkdbass]

Compare that with this. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.". Hebrews 4:15

It seems to me this understanding of each religion's religious figures is shared by them mutually. And each culture creates a mythology about them as perfect children, born fully aware of their own divinity without need for growth. Buddha had lotus blossoms flower in his footsteps as a toddler; Jesus breathed life into a dove made of clay which then flew away, etc.

But it is my belief that these individuals had a strong knowledge of their divine nature, which is shared in all of us, but were particularly attuned to and responsive to that within themselves to overcome skillfully the temptations of distraction which plague us all. "Yet, without sin" (or falling short of the mark as the word sin means). The stories of not having to grow and overcome are created by us to elevate them as supernatural for us to look up to, to reach out to in our own quest to overcome and realize Self as they. At a certain point, as I say for example, "It is better to call Jesus brother, than Lord". That's the goal. To become Christ. To be Atman. They are us, and we are them, as we realize who we truly are.

This makes so much sense to me, really enjoying your posts! Not sure if it is allowable in the Hindu DIR as some members are saying but I honestly can't see why not.. you are simply peacefully and respectfully contributing ideas relevant to the discussion at hand.. perhaps I need to review the DIR rules though.

EDIT: After doing some review of the DIR rules, the Hindu DIR is a "green forum" which means: "...non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments. These DIRs will be coloured green." I'd say you perfectly fit within this condition... I'm definitely enjoying the discussion.

 

[punkdbass]

shrI kR^iShNa is bhagavAn, transcendental to all karma-s; he incarnates due to his own will to please his devotees and to destroy adharma. Making him out to be a mere "realized soul" is insulting to vaiShNava-s. According to the uddhavagItA, he gives others the consciousness with which to know him, since he is the source of all of jIva-s and he creates the universe through mAyAprakR^iti; his sharIra when he descends is not made of matter, this is continually stated throughout the shAstra-s (for example, when mAtA yashoda looked into his mouth, he saw the universe and when he commanded arjuna's chariot, he stated that since the entire weight of the cosmos is on the chariaot). It makes absolutely no sense for the individual from whom consciousness arises to be himself affected by guNa-s or karma. Although I will completely agree that he is not "created perfect by God", not because of yogAnanda's reason, but because he IS GOD in the flesh. In my opinion, if you want to look for the works of a "Hindu scholar," then look not to new-age gurus like paramhaMsa yogAnanda, but to vedavyAsa himself. If there is any fault you find with shrI hari within the shAstra-s then you are free to express it, but neither ameyAtmA nor me would likely agree that kR^iShNa ever "struggled with temptation or desire" (unless it was a part of his lIlA, like when he stole mAkhan in gokul).

Sorry, I am not intending to be insulting at all.. I still have much to learn about Krishna - I was only saying what I currently thought/knew about Him in order to facilitate discussion and to help myself learn. I still have so much to learn about Hinduism, I get that lol.

Anyhow, sorry if I'm misunderstanding you (the way you type is sort of hard for me to read) - but you are suggesting the best way to learn about Sri Krishna would not be from Yogananda (not that I'm going to stop reading Yogananda anytime soon lol his works are helping me in so many ways) but from Sri Krishna Himself, i.e. by reading the Bhagavad Gita for example? I currently am studying the Bhagavad Gita, although at a pretty slow rate with all the things I have going on at my University. Are there other must-read texts for learning about Sri Krishna?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Not sure if it is allowable in the Hindu DIR as some members are saying but I honestly can't see why not.. you are simply peacefully and respectfully contributing ideas relevant to the discussion at hand.. perhaps I need to review the DIR rules though.

It's allowed, I assume (that's what I meant by "it's okay"). However, I (and possibly other Hindu-s) take slight offense at how he (and, to an extent, Contemplative Cat) have recently been considering those individuals' who adhere to orthodox Hindu views as being "embedded in their cultural perspective."

Anyhow, sorry if I'm misunderstanding you (the way you type is sort of hard for me to read) - but you are suggesting the best way to learn about Sri Krishna would not be from Yogananda (not that I'm going to stop reading Yogananda anytime soon lol his works are helping me in so many ways) but from Sri Krishna Himself, i.e. by reading the Bhagavad Gita for example? I currently am studying the Bhagavad Gita, although at a pretty slow rate with all the things I have going on at my University. Are there other must-read texts for learning about Sri Krishna?

Here (I don't complete support the bhAShyam-s, as they seem to be biased towards the view of the gauDiyavaiShNavasampradAya, but the translations are fairly accurate): http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/16/en
Edit: Also, I realize that it was probably hard to read. Often times, I just try to express the main points and don't intially write it with the general flow of a paragraph (mainly because it saves me time as it allows me to be as brief as possible).

 

[Windwalker]

Do you consider yourself Hindu? Or any one tradition for which a DIR exists?

I was waiting for that question. I identify with many views within multiple traditions. I deeply respect Hindu views in many areas and incorporate them into my spiritual life, Christian views in others, and Buddhist views in others. I benefit from all of them, and am attracted to all of these. I identify as all religions and none, which means I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, and I am none. I seek to identify with God, therefore all truths are relative and serve Truth itself. I do not feel to be beholden to any one tradition, yet seek with joy to know truth from them and identify with them in those parts of myself that embrace them.

Which is why I find it frustrating when hoping for dialog with Hindus on topics such as these, to hear the same sorts of dialog squelching, and what I call "heretic hunting", whenever understandings that bridge multiple perspectives come up. It turns me off, and I do not consider it a legitimate response to request the site act to remove topics that Hindus themselves believe, or Christians, or Buddhists, etc., in their respective DIRs. I want to hear Hindus who think differently without being driven off with excuses of them not talking about Hinduism, saying it needs to be elsewhere, like comparative religion, or debate areas. That's offensive. Hinduism is made up of Hindus. And if they are Hindus who believe that, then isn't that Hinduism too?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

. Hinduism is made up of Hindus. And if they are Hindus who believe that, then isn't that Hinduism too?

Using that logic, if there are Hindus like me who don't believe that Jesus was divine or even enlightened, then isn't that also Hinduism? In my opinion, Hinduism is a very broad term. I personally do not think the thread should be moved; however, I do think it would be slightly more effective to narrow down the term "Hinduism." Perhaps you could change it to "Do new-age Hindu-s acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra?" or "Do neo-advaitins acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra."

 

[Poeticus]

It's allowed, I assume (that's what I meant by "it's okay"). However, I (and possibly other Hindu-s) take slight offense at how he (and, to an extent, Contemplative Cat) have recently been considering those individuals' who adhere to orthodox Hindu views as being "embedded in their cultural perspective."

Agreed. And, I find it ironic because a majority of the traditional Hindus here on RF are of a Western background. Thus, I asked WW if what he meant by "lineage" was in socio-ethnic terms. Hopefully, he can clarify.

 

[punkdbass]

It's allowed, I assume (that's what I meant by "it's okay"). However, I (and possibly other Hindu-s) take slight offense at how he (and, to an extent, Contemplative Cat) have recently been considering those individuals' who adhere to orthodox Hindu views as being "embedded in their cultural perspective."
Quote:

I will try to keep an open mind to what you are describing, for I do not wish to "put down" or belittle people here from the Orthodox perspective. I doubt those members you listed do either, to be honest I have not read every single post though.

Here (I don't complete support the bhAShyam-s, as they seem to be biased towards the view of the gauDiyavaiShNavasampradAya, but the translations are fairly accurate): Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11 Chapter 16
Edit: Also, I realize that it was probably hard to read. Often times, I just try to express the main points and don't intially write it with the general flow of a paragraph (mainly because it saves me time as it allows me to be as brief as possible).

Thanks, I will read the link you sent me. Could you tell me exactly what is the the content of the link you sent me though? Is it a small snippit from the "Bhagavata Purana"? I am trying to understand the oganization/categorization of Hindu scriptures.. your scriptures are so vast The primary guide I use for understanding the organization of Hindu Scriptures is Swami Sivananda's explanation in his book "All About Hinduism."

Right now I am mainly studying the Bhagavad Gita. The member Satyamavejayanti here sent me a link to the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and I am going to read those as well.

 

[Windwalker]

Using that logic, if there are Hindus like me who don't believe that Jesus was divine or even enlightened, then isn't that also Hinduism?

Yes it is.

In my opinion, Hinduism is a very broad term.

I agree, which is why it shouldn't be restricted to even a majority view, while minority views are included, even when contradictory.

I personally do not think the thread should be moved; however, I do think it would be slightly more effective to narrow down the term "Hinduism." Perhaps you could change it to "Do new-age Hindu-s acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra?" or "Do neo-advaitins acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra."

I don't see any of this as New Age. And I'm sure those who are Hindu that embrace Jesus don't consider themselves New Age either. You have Buddhists that embrace Jesus. And Christians who embrace Buddha, as well as other forms of God within Hinduism. None of that qualifies them as New Age, which is a very specific phenomena centered around California. In the simplest terms New Age is everything that traditional Christianity is except substituting other symbols for traditional symbols. It's entirely externalized, and can be called "Experimental Christianity". Those who have been cited so far are not in the Shirley McLain school of philosophy.

What I really fall under myself is the contemplative school of thought, and why these things are more easily for me seen in their Unity, as opposed to their diversity. I see all of this as more a matter of perception, than a comparative analysis. I see those who say these things as not New Age, but within a certain mystical point of view.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Thanks, I will read the link you sent me. Could you tell me exactly what is the the content of the link you sent me though? Is it a small snippit from the "Bhagavata Purana"? I am trying to understand the oganization/categorization of Hindu scriptures.. your scriptures are so vast The primary guide I use for understanding the organization of Hindu Scriptures is Swami Sivananda's explanation in his book "All About Hinduism."

Yes, it is from the bhAgavatapurANa, although you might not find it too intriguing as it's a bhaktirasashAstra and is hence more concerned with devotion than philosophy (although, from a vaiShNava perspective, it's still filled with tattva-j~nAna).

Right now I am mainly studying the Bhagavad Gita. The member Satyamavejayanti here sent me a link to the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and I am going to read those as well.

I have read the pAta~njalayogasutrANi, and although out of the ShaDdarshana-s, yogam and nyAya are to some extent the furthest from vedAnta, the yogasutrANi also state that Ishvara is not affected/independent of klesha-s (afflictions) and karma vipAka (fruits of action) in verse 24 of the first pAda/adhyAya (kleshakarmavipAkAshayairaparAmR^iShTaH puruShavisheSha IshvaraH) and the bhagavadgItA also says the same thing. Both of those statements go against yogAnanda's claim that kR^iShNa struggled with temptation or desire.

 

[Kalidas]

Using that logic, if there are Hindus like me who don't believe that Jesus was divine or even enlightened, then isn't that also Hinduism? In my opinion, Hinduism is a very broad term. I personally do not think the thread should be moved; however, I do think it would be slightly more effective to narrow down the term "Hinduism." Perhaps you could change it to "Do new-age Hindu-s acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra?" or "Do neo-advaitins acknowledge Jesus as an avatAra."

Not a bad idea. At that point I would say yes many do.

I am an odd mix. I am a mixture of traditional Hindu and new age trying to take in the best of both worlds.

This whole Jesus thing reminda me of my past and maybe this may help some. I came here from Christianitu and had some issues assimilating at times. If i am being 100% honest the idea of Hell still scares me, I attribute that to years of indoctrination. There was a time when I tried to fit Jesus in my Hinduism an almost non living guru. But I had to do some real thinking. And it came down to these three choices.

1. Go back to Christianity. No I refuse. Even if I respect Jesus I do not respect of agree with 99% of the bible. Shortly after this I contacted the church where I was baptised and asked to formly be removed from the church and let the head pastor know I was no longer going to be a Christian.

2. Become a Christian/Hindu syncretic. This kind of appealed to me but shortly became a no because I felt it was not good for me. I have a hard enough time keeping things in order in my head. I think to much and I feel too much philosophical thinking harms spiritual growth. Its like the man who reads about the world but never experiences the world. So for me giving myself more philosophical issues to tackle was damaging.

3. Fully devote myself to Hinduism. I picked this option. I work better putting all my brain power into one thing at a time. Jesus though a man worthy of respect to many was not needed. What ever good he taught I can find present in Hinduism, and without all that annoying philosiphising. Now to those who say "respecting him just shows you haven't lret go" I disagree. I respect MLK does that make me a Lutheran? I respect pope Frances does that make me a Catholic? You can respect a person for who or what they are without including them in your belief system. He is not a spiritual teacher to me (though he may be to others) he is not the only son of God nor the only path to God. Just a man that said a few things I agree with and a few things I disagree with. Either way he is not and will probably never be a part of my Hinduism.

 

[punkdbass]

Yes, it is from the bhAgavatapurANa, although you might not find it too intriguing as it's a bhaktirasashAstra and is hence more concerned with devotion than philosophy (although, from a vaiShNava perspective, it's still filled with tattva-j~nAna).

That's alright. So the section you sent me is specifically about Sri Krishna's nature then I take it? I will read it soon when I have time.

I have read the pAta~njalayogasutrANi, and although out of the shaDdarshana-s, yogam and nyAya are to some extent the furthest from vedAnta, the yogasutrANi also state that Ishvara is not affected/independent of klesha-s (afflictions) and karma vipAka (fruits of action) in verse 24 of the first pAda/adhyAya (kleshakarmavipAkAshayairaparAmR^iShTaH puruShavisheSha IshvaraH) and the bhagavadgItA also says the same thing. Both of those statements go against yogAnanda's claim that kR^iShNa struggled with temptation or desire.

Oh okay, I know I am most interested in Advaita, or non-dual Hindu philosophy, but seeing as how vast Hindu scripture and philosophy is, it's hard to decide where exactly to jump in lol but I'm happy with what I've been learning so far.

Also I'm not exactly sure what Yogananda would say on the question of whether or not Krishna struggled with temptation or desire.. I know I provided a quote earlier, but If you read my comments on my interpretation of the quote, I see a possibility of multiple interpretations. So I don't think it's fair to say, at least for myself, at this point what his stance is on the "nature of Krishna" - I just haven't read enough of his stuff yet on that subject but I'll get back to you once I do.

Also, the reason I was saying it was hard for me to read some of the things you type is because you Capitalize a lot of letters in the middle of words, or use other symbols.. but you do this for a reason right? Doesn't this have something to do with Sanskrit?