Does Hinduism acknowledge Jesus as an Avatar?

[Jaskaran Singh]

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.

You should just do whatever makes you happy. You've gone through a more traumatic experience than most people on this forum (I could never imagine what I would feel like if I had a child and he/she died), so I can understand if things from your past make you feel uncomfortable. Also, I completely agree that empty philosophizing isn't really the point of religion, although many here might disagree.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I know of no Hindu scripture that mentions Isa (Jesus of the Jewish House of David and a Royal blood) as an avatar of Vishnu.

In theory, you could argue Isa is a part and partial of Vishnu, a "son" or conditional soul or part and partial of Shiva, Devi, Surya, Indra and so on, since it could be argued Hindu scripture speaks of conditional natures of the soul for all, true for jiva souls in general.

As far as Hindu savants, saints, yogis, gurus, siddhis and even sadhus and so on (sorry if I left any off the list), yes there have been some who have given praise to Isa as a sadhaka or seeker of the true way of life, or even a yogi who obtained siddhic powers (such as curing the sick or dead).

I cannot speak for such Hindu leaders, I am just a layman or common village type Hindu, but in my opinion, the spirit behind such statements has an agenda of peace in society --- in other words such Hindu leaders are worried about selfish, crude, hateful or violent oriented Westerners (they are not saying you are a barbarian just because you are a Westerner, this is specific to such selfish vice oriented types) causing havoc in the world, so they are hoping that by invoking a perchance of admiration for Jewish savants as Isa, on the assumption (sometimes incorrectly) the targetted audience is Christian, that peace is possible in society.

Such Hindu leaders are, should I say? ... the "(peaceful) end justifies the (peaceful) means". But they are not the only one's who bring up Isa or Jesus.

There is also the one type that, well, simply wants to be "nice" to everyone, and they think or hope that by bringing up Isa in a friendly way they will make "friends" with let us say Christians, or at minimum demonstrate they mean no evil or harm or (?) to Christians.

Because both methods have shown to be somewhat successful on occasion, some others copy-cat the language, or it is passed on down from one leader to the next.

Personally, I never even think of such things or try to engage such conversation, so I would not be good at it.

I remember in the late 1960s and early 70s some Westerners who were interested in yoga and Hinduism were fascinated with a book called (as I recall) "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ" which if I recall correctly claimed Isa has a connection to India -- I think the idea was he traveled to India but I could be wrong. Anyway, some of these advocates would try to get the "Jesus Freaks" (these were long haired Jesus followers of the hippie type) interested in "Eastern Religions and Philosophy".

They actually were also somewhat successful as I recall.

But that is not my path or agenda, nor that of any of those who teach me.

But I always tell it as it is, or as it was.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

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?

Yes, indeed: ITRANS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's important for pronunciation reasons, for example, in English, the "a" in "about" and in "car" is spelled the same exact way, but in saMskR^itam, they would be considered as different sounds (अ vs. &#2310. Hence, "a" is used for transcribing the "uh" sound into Roman script whereas "A" is used for transcribing the "aah" sound. For example, the "a" in karma (कर्&#2350 is pronounced differently than the "A" in pItAmbara (पीताम्ब&#2352. Some people use IAST instead (where, for example, one would use ā for आ rather than A), but it's easier for me to just capitalize on my keyboard than add macrons or other diacritics and I'm lazy, so I prefer the former (ITRANS).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is in the wrong DIR too

Oh that was just a comment about God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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."

Not funny. Remember how much trouble that caused. You mean an evil God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Jesus is a divinely empowered Saint and Yogi, who learned many things from the Hindu Yogis in the Himālaya between the ages of 12 and 32 [years of his which are not accounted for in the Bible].

2. The Jews view Jesus as "A good Rabbii", this is similar to viewing Jesus as a Yogi-saint with Yoga siddhī s .

3. We can say that Jesus was a yogi saint empowered by the Divine Supreme Bramhan' to lead and teach a particular group (pātra) at a particular time/erā (kāla) in a particular nation (desha). Therefore,
a) His teachings are context sensitive to a specific nation, era, people
b) He is the Son of the Father, not the Father, but had realized his oneness with the Father.

4. The great-grand-Guru of Paramhaṃsa Yogānanda viz. MahāYogī Babaji who lives for 400-500+ years till date, in an invisible state in Himālayan caves, without aging (like a 25 yr old), claimed he is in touch with Jesus among many other Yogis and Siddhas .

5. Jesus gave me darshan (vision) on Christmas Eve one year. I used to think of him while merely passing by the church of latter day saints when living out of India. He heard my thoughts and gave me darshan . It made a difference to me .

6. There is no harm in holding onto the harmless portion of Jesus's teachings (but not Churchianity), while being Hindu or exploring Hinduism PROVIDED one is mature enough to NOT take many things of the New Testament literally, fanatically, but merely use Jesus' core words to link with Vedānta philosophical concepts.
[e.g. I and my father are one -- Advaita: ayam ātmā bramhan
The kingdom of God is within you --- AtmA is Bramhan]

WHERE did you read that? Thank Ghanashyām(Kṛshṇa) you are only just curious.

Shri Kṛshṇa is a pūrṇāvatār -- i.e. is complete, 100% Nārāyaṇ - The Supreme Lord Himself, who is omniscient omnipotent omnipresent, Who comes in human form.
Even among all authentic and listed direct avatārs of Nārāyaṇ (Vishṇ&#363, Shri Kṛshṇa is the fullest, most complete . He is unborn, and eternal .

He was not born conventionally. The Lord manifested Himself, and covered Himself with māyā and leelā so that non-believers will think He is ordinary . Also, He knew His divinity and manifested it almost since birth (destroyed Pūtn&#257, at 3 months (destroyed shatkāsur), at 1 yr (destroyed tṛṇāvarta) ... and continued to destroy all such evil forces and protect the good, while spreading Love, knowledge of AtmA, and mesmerising all.

There are many un-Vedic un-Hindu sources more than willing to write rubbish about Kṛshṇa (I am not saying you have posted anything like that). Please do not go to such sources . Go to authentic Hindu, Vedic sources, like Jaskaran has given - Shrimad Bhāgvatam Canto 10 .

Read the Bhagvad Gitā to know Who Kṛshṇa really is .


om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

If I remember correctly, Ameya is associated with another Baba. So, he believes all silly unnatural unscientific baba stories, as well as 'Jesus visited India/Tibet' crap. Jews do not consider Jesus to be a good rabbi. They got him cricified, if we go by Bible. Jesus was kind enough to Ameya to give him a darshana, made a special journey for that, something that he did not bestow to many of the saints of Christianity. Ameya, did the Hindu Gods also gave you darshanas or just Jesus did? Oh! So Jesus' teaching have a harmless portion and a harmful portion. I wonder what kind of avatara is he?

An advaitist would not say "I and my father are one". Brahman is not my father, I am myself Brahman. An advaitist would not also say that "The kingdom of God is within you", because he would not subscribe to a dualist idea of there being a God.

As for the birth of Lord Krishna, SrimadBhagawatham says "devakyām" (from the womb of Devak&#299. Of course, many events happened at the time of Krishna's birth, but it was a natural birth.

On the whole, I find the post silly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. I mistaking read "Coward" ..

There is one instance when Lord Krishna acted cowardly, that is in case of the fight with Kalayavana. But that was done for a purpose. At the time of Devasura Sangram (fight between Gods and Demons), a king named Muchukunda fought brilliantly for the Devas. When the war was over, the Devas asked Muchukunda for a boon. Muchukunda was very tired and requested to be allowed to sleep undisturbed, so much so that the first person who woke him up was to be burnt to ashes. His boon was granted. During the fight with Kalayavana, Krishna abandoned the fight and ran with Kalayavana following him. Krishna then went to the cave where King Muchukunda was sleeping and hid on one side. When Kalayavana entered the cave, he saw a person covered with a cloth/blanket sleeping on the floor and thought it was Krishna. He kicked the person, who was actually Muchukunda. As Muchukunda gaze fell on Kalayavana, Kalayavana was reduced to ashes. Then Krishna came out from his hiding. Seeing Krishna, Muchukunda paid obeisance to him and departed for heaven. That is why Krishna is also called 'Ranchhod' (Deserter in a war). Hindus have 'Ranchhod" temples all over India.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I suppose someone has already pointed out that both these statements are wrong as far as Hinduism goes. Avataras are always perfect for a main-line Hindu (some Vaishnavas think Krishna is superior to Rama). But avataras do not struggle with temptations. Who is there to tempt them? We do not have a God and a Satan. Maya is their reflection only. And what would an avatara desire, when the whole universe is his creation? Krishna's past life was Rama.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I suppose someone has already pointed out that both these statements are wrong as far as Hinduism goes. Avataras are always perfect for a main-line Hindu (some Vaishnavas think Krishna is superior to Rama). But avataras do not struggle with temptations. Who is there to tempt them? We do not have a God and a Satan. Maya is their reflection only. And what would an avatara desire, when the whole universe is his creation? Krishna's past life was Rama.

I agree, although one could say that he does desire premabhakti.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are there other must-read texts for learning about Sri Krishna?

Have you gone through Wikipedia, BBC Hinduism, and About.com Hinduism sites? India Divine is another site to learn about Sri Krishna, though it is a Hare-Krishna site. Whenever time permits you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, and I am none.

Muslim? No? Kindly do not spread the cloth so hard that it tears down. Basically, Christianity and Islam are predator religions. That is why we hesitate. That is not the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or even Dao. Christian and Muslim Gods tell you to carry the good news all around, and once anybody hears it it is obligatory on him/her to accept that, otherwise, you know it very well as to what would happen to you till eternity. Christians and Muslims have taken the good news all around the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's important for pronunciation reasons, for example, in English, the "a" in "about" .. keyboard than add macrons or other diacritics and I'm lazy, so I prefer the former.

What about use of color? But you like it that way, I understand. I have a sticky note on the desk top with the macron, that serve the purpose nicely. If there is a better way to do it, that would be welcome.

 

[Aupmanyav]

...and it happens yet again:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/158586-hindu-persecution-complex-7.html

I'll probably cop an infraction or a temp ban for this, but I need some 'time out' anyway...all this just doesn't make any sense...no sense at all.

Why do you think it is for you? I also posted on that topic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree, although one could say that he does desire premabhakti.

I think, avataras require action according to a person's 'dharma', in that case even premabhakti is not necessary. Premabhakti is beneficial for the person, because it may prevent him/her from going against 'dharma'. Gods and Goddesses do not have any 'trishna' (thirst) for devotion from humans, at least not the Hindu ones.

 

[Windwalker]

Muslim? No? Kindly do not spread the cloth so hard that it tears down.

In order to spread it like this, it must be held loosely. Those who stretch it tightly are those that try to bind only their views as exclusively true within it, trying to contain the world in those. Stretched tightly is the exact opposite of my way of holding my views.

And no, not so much Muslim, nor Judaism, nor any of a long list of other religions, simply because of a lack of familiarity. I do however embrace those such as the Sufis, because they too see the non-exclusivity of ones religions traditions. But as a perennialist, I believe that Truth exists in all religions.

Basically, Christianity and Islam are predator religions.

I'm not going to speak for Islam, but historically Christianity has been about spreading itself politically as it had become part of the State. I do not believe whatsoever that Jesus himself had such an idea, nor would have approved in anyway.

So, since we are talking about Jesus as a person in this thread, the institutional religion itself is not what defines Jesus. The thread is not asking is the Roman Catholic Church an Avatar. Right?

That is why we hesitate. That is not the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or even Dao. Christian and Muslim Gods tell you to carry the good news all around, and once anybody hears it it is obligatory on him/her to accept that, otherwise, you know it very well as to what would happen to you till eternity. Christians and Muslims have taken the good news all around the world.

I for one find much missionary work to be disgusting. I don't believe Jesus actually ever intended for any religion to be started in his name as some sort of established political institution that spread its influence into other cultures. I believe he intended that all know freedom from religion, and realize the kingdom of God is within each and every one of us. God transcends, and is within, all religions. Jesus was not about religion, but about knowing God. That to me sounds like what God as an incarnation, or Avatar, would say.

 

[punkdbass]

@Aupmanyav

Thanks for your replies. I had realized that what I mistakenly thought I read as saying Krishna was at once a "coward" actually said that Krishna was a "cowherd" (i.e. He hearded cows as a youth)... how embarassing, I know

As for the question of whether or not Krishna faced similar temptations/struggles that we face... I just don't know enough about Krishna's life or nature to have a decent understanding on this topic. But I like your thought that if Krishna is God-incarnate (i.e. Krishna is God and thus everything) - then who or what would be able to tempt him considering Krishna is everything?

As for Krishna not having any desires, I have some questions. Is it fair to say God has a "desire" or "wish" to create? Or to love? In order for love, meaning, relationship etc. to exist there must be an other, at least in a relative sense (I'm not saying the "other" has to be completely independent from God, rather I do believe God permeates everything.. but there is at least an illusion or a sense in which an "other" feels real to us, and hence love, relationship, meaning are possible for us.) Does Krishna have a "wish" to create, love, or be loved?

 

[Aupmanyav]

As for Krishna not having any desires, I have some questions. Is it fair to say God has a "desire" or "wish" to create? Or to love? Does Krishna have a "wish" to create, love, or be loved?

This is a very interesting question. Hindus would take it in two ways (never one way with Hinduism except for 'dharma', duties and righteous action. There is no debate there). A dualist would say that God created the universe, so obviously, God had a desire (whoever did this, we have three claimants. Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti; Brahma being the one who was given the assignment, so to say the contract).

An advaitist (non-dualist) would say that all things in the universe are Brahman, the 'ultimate substrate of the universe'. We have limited senses and a limited mind, and we make assumptions with their help, that gives rise to 'samsara'. We do not exactly know what Brahman itself is, but it is uninvolved, and eternal.

Let me quote from Wikipedia about creation of the world/universe:

"All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda, which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. It is explained in a central passage at Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4 (which is my signature), where the sage Uddalaka Aruni explains the working causality to his son, Śvetaketu, using the example of the relation of clay to a pot:

"Yathā, Saumya, ekena mrit-pindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnātam syāt; vāchārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam, mrittiketyeva satyam."

(O Excellent man, as by means of just one lump of clay one would know all things made of clay - the transformation is a verbal handle, a name - while the reality is just this: "It's clay.")

But there are two different views on the status of the "effect", that is, the world. Most schools of Vedanta, as well as Samkhya, support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation of Brahman. According to Nicholson, "the Brahma Sutras also espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins". Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedanta adheres to the other view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.

"Although Brahman seems to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are essentially unreal, as the only real entity is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts.""

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Section: Creation of the World)

Between these two extremes, duality (Madhvacharya) and non-duality (Sankaracharya), there are various positions. These are Vishishta Advaita (Ramanujacharya), Dvaita Advaita (Nimbarkacharya), Shuddha Advaita (Vallabhacharya), and Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - Hare-Krishnas). These are the great teachers of Hindu philosophy (my homage to them).
(I only hope I have not made mistakes here)

 

[George-ananda]

That is not how it should be. I visit some atheist forums. We delight when a theist comes in. If the person is intelligent, we have a nice discussion. If the person is not intelligent, we have a lot of fun. You know, I am a person sailing in two boats without any problem. I am an atheist and I am a Hindu, both, with all earnestness.

Maybe you misunderstood my post? I was talking about the Atheists DIR here on Religious Forums not outside forums.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Maybe you misunderstood my post? I was talking about the Atheists DIR here on Religious Forums not outside forums.

No, I got it all right. I have not been to Atheist Dir here. But I think they should discuss things with theists. But the rules here, discussion not allowed in Green/Blue/Yellow/Red dirs. I have not yet understood it all.

 

[punkdbass]

@Aupmanyav,

Interesting, thanks for your explanation. So correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm getting out of your explanation of the advaitist response to my question: there are 2 basic advaitist responses to my question... those that agree with Parinamavada and those that agree with Vivartavada.

And then between the 2 extremes of dualism and non-dualism there are various other positions.. but the ones you listed are still all types of Advaita Hindu philosophy correct?

I like your clay pot example. If I understand it correctly, It is like saying "Everything is Brahman" and the question of why does Brahman take on this specific type of form (e.g. a round clay pot) is sort of a meaningless question.. the answer being something like: Brahman just is, He is what he is.. He was, is, and will be. So in the context of the clay pot, you don't need to label the pot as something concrete and stress over determining the essence/nature of the pot - rather the clay pot just is what it is. Ehh enough with this example, I know I'm going to learn more about Advaita Hindu philosophy in the future for I'm very much interested in it but I'll be busy studying other things for a while first.