Does Hinduism acknowledge Jesus as an Avatar?

[Aupmanyav]

Parinamavada: All forms exist (or are inherent, hidden) in Brahman.
Vivartavada: It is only your perception. Forms are unimportant at the level of absolute truth.
Brahman is always 'it', neither he, nor she. We do not know Brahman exactly. Brahman is not a being. Brahman is not a God. In both the vada's, Brahman is uninvolved.
Please note, my explanation is limited to my knowledge.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

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?

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.

You're joking, right? When the Jews did not accept his divinity, he referred to them as the children of the devil, just like what many present day Evangelicals (like Pat Robertson, for instance) say of non-Christians. The Roman Catholic church, or at least the early one, is supposed to have been the rock on which Jesus established his church, as is evident in its relation to Peter and Paul. Gnosticism was a heretical, pseudo-mystical sect which was surprisingly sexist.

 

[punkdbass]

You're joking, right? When the Jews did not accept his divinity, he referred to them as the children of the devil, just like what many present day Evangelicals (like Pat Robertson, for instance) say of non-Christians. The Roman Catholic church, or at least the early one, is supposed to have been the rock on which Jesus established his church, as is evident in its relation to Peter and Paul. Gnosticism was a heretical, pseudo-mystical sect which was surprisingly sexist.

I feel like you do have a point here. Unfortunately, the primary texts we have to learn about who Jesus was as a person, and what his teachings were is the New Testament... and we simply have no way of knowing whether or not every single verse truly reflects Jesus's character and teachings, rather than something that was fabricated by the Church to suit some sort of agenda.

I personally choose to interpret such verses, like the ones you have alluded to above, as not being true to Jesus's actual character.. but I have to admit that there is simply no possible way I could know this. And this is a big reason Judaism chose to simply throw the "Jesus Question" off the table because in reality, all we have left to learn about Jesus is a book that's extremely likely to be heavily edited to fit the Churches needs (needs which are often contrary to Judaism)... I can only assume that Hindu's also choose to "dismiss" the "Jesus question" for similar reasons. Basically, all we have left from Jesus is a book that is heavily edited by an institution whose values, needs, agenda, etc are different than organizational Judaism or Hinduism for that matter - hence we don't spend too much time seriously contemplating the question of the value of Jesus's life.

Correct me If what I've said is incorrect but your post has helped me to realize what I have described above as another reason why Hinduism might find it best to "dismiss" the question of whether or not they should include Jesus into their philosophy.

 

[Windwalker]

You're joking, right?

No.

When the Jews did not accept his divinity, he referred to them as the children of the devil, just like what many present day Evangelicals (like Pat Robertson, for instance) say of non-Christians.

Did he? Are you sure? He called the Jews devils because they didn't accept him as divine?

Here's the verse in question,

"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me."
​

First of all, I'm seeing him talking to a very specific group of people who were the religious leaders that were seeking to destroy him. This is NOT him standing up and declaring all Jews are of the devil, nor is he condemning those who simply didn't believe. He is condemning those who were conspiring against him. He was condemning those who were hiding behind their religious heritage to justify themselves, yet there actions betraying them and condemned themselves.

You raised the Televangelists to compare to Jesus. No. The Televangelists are actually comparable to those whom Jesus condemned with these words! "You claim to call yourself my disciple, yet you are full of deception and greed! You serve the devil, not God". Yes, that's more appropriate than your spin on things to make Jesus into this devil. "You cannot hear my words," he says, because they are blinded by the deception of their religious blinders, calling themselves righteous when they are not.

People like Pat Robertson serve themselves.

None of this has to anything whatsoever to do with accepting a theological view of Jesus.

The Roman Catholic church, or at least the early one, is supposed to have been the rock on which Jesus established his church, as is evident in its relation to Peter and Paul. Gnosticism was a heretical, pseudo-mystical sect which was surprisingly sexist.

You have a very limited understanding of what these things are, and base sweeping judgments against it based on your ignorance. Is that fair for you to do this?

If you are actually interested in knowing the reality of these things, please ask those who know, like me. In the meantime, anything of these condemnations you proclaim and posit as being knowledgeable will be understood as just some emotional prejudice that has no substance.

 

[Kalidas]

I am sorry not to be rude to anyone but why on earth are we discussing the character of Jesus and his morality in the Hindu DIR? I can CAN see discussing the possibility of him being an avatar being a Hindu topic. But this has turned in a topic where Jesus has become the main emphesis now which I feel should be relocated to comparative Religions.

I know this wasn't your fault Punkdbass and I'm not mad at you or anyone for that matter. But I do believe and others here would agree this DIR should only be for Hindu topics. This thread started that way and now it is not. BUT I do hope Punkdbass that you got you answer if you have more questions I don't mind answering in a PM. Being an ex Christian myself I feel I could offer you a lot of answers you may find understandable.

 

[Windwalker]

If I'm not mistaken it was those who dislike Jesus that starting slinging mud at him. Rather than moving the topic, just keep it on topic instead.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

If I'm not mistaken it was those who dislike Jesus that starting slinging mud at him. Rather than moving the topic, just keep it on topic instead.

If I remember correctly, YOU were the one who first mentioned what you believed were Jesus' views (i.e. "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.")

None of this has to anything whatsoever to do with accepting a theological view of Jesus.

The title itself asks for a theological position on Jesus (i.e. whether or not he is an avatAra). In vaiShNava dharma, an avatAra is an incarnation of shrIviShNu in part or in totality, not merely a "realized soul" or jIva who is "one with brahma." The concept of an avatAra is moreso a vaiShNava vedAnt-ic concept, not an shAkta or shaiva concept. If you don't understand that avatAra traditionally (in the case of kR^iShNa) refers to a descent of the supreme lord from vaikuNTha, then perhaps you shouldn't even be talking about whether or not Jesus is an avatAra and excuse yourself from replying. Thanks.

Edit: In addition, the fact that he (Jesus) even speaks of a devil or HaSatan makes his omniscience questionable from a Hindu perspective, as no such concept exists in Hinduism. Since shrIviShNu is considered omniscient, then clearly Jesus is not an avatAra of shrIviShNu. More likely (from my perspective), Jesus is an incarnation of a lower life form, as he has similar guNa-s as those of lower sentient beings, such as a tendency to lie or decieve.

 

[Windwalker]

If I remember correctly, YOU were the one who....

This speaks for itself. I'll say no more.

 

[Poeticus]

If I'm not mistaken it was those who dislike Jesus that starting slinging mud at him. Rather than moving the topic, just keep it on topic instead.

WW,

The thread question has been answered by Hindus many times in this thread. In fact, this subject has been talked about at quite some length before. I'd recommend taking a quick usage of the Search Feature.

Other than that, there is really nothing more to discuss. It's time to move on.

 

[Windwalker]

WW,

The thread question has been answered by Hindus many times in this thread. In fact, this subject has been talked about at quite some length before. I'd recommend taking a quick usage of the Search Feature.

Other than that, there is really nothing more to discuss. It's time to move on.

Thank you for your view.

 

[Poeticus]

Thank you for your view.

(emphasis mine)

Sure.

...And, just to be safe, you can also ask other Hindus (both traditional and non-traditional) and see if they think there is anything more to discuss.​

 

[Windwalker]

(emphasis mine)

Sure.

...And, just to be safe, you can also ask other Hindus (both traditional and non-traditional) and see if they think there is anything more to discuss.​

If you need support, I'll let you do so for yourself. I'm satisfied.

 

[Poeticus]

...And, just to be safe, you can also ask other Hindus (both traditional and non-traditional) and see if they think there is anything more to discuss.​

Wait, MV...wouldn't that be redundant?

Why yes! Correct! Because, Vinayaka, Jaskaran, Aupmanyav, Kalidas, NYK, George-ananda, Philomath, Fireside_Hindu, Maya3, HLK, Satya, SB, ameyAtmA, and ShivaFan (who are all regular posters of the HinduDIR) have already given their input.​

To carry this on further would defeat the purpose of being progressive...since afterwards, it would borderline being forced.

 

[ameyAtmA]

If I remember correctly, Ameya is associated with another Baba.

I am associated with Shri Kṛshṇa and Shri Kṛshṇa alone and no one else. tvameva mātā cha pitā tvameva, bandhu sakhā draviṇam sarvam sarvasvam tvameva.
prāṇanāth, suṛhud, sakhā, Guru, aja, upadṛshṭā, anumantā bhartā bhoktā maheshwara gopijana-vallabh bhakta-vatsal paramānanda-dāyak...

Jews do not consider Jesus to be a good rabbi.

I heard a well-represented Jewish Rabbi say that on TV. Maybe the modern jews are more civilized and understanding than the crucifying Romans.

Ameya, did the Hindu Gods also gave you darshanas?

Yes.

Oh! So Jesus' teaching have a harmless portion and a harmful portion. I wonder what kind of avatara is he?

I did not say he is avatār . If you look carefully, I said he is a siddha yogi saint . That is the safest thing to say. Notice I am using present tense, not past --- Mahāyogī Bābāji (the great-grand guru of Yogananda, param guru of Yukteshwar ji, is in gupta rūpa currently, and is claimed to be in touch with Jesus among other yogi-siddhas in gupta rūpa, who assemble in occasional meetings for jagat-kalyān).

Regarding harmful portions - it means follower-christians or others taking his desh-kāl-pātra-context-sensitive words literally and engraving them in fanatycal bronze.

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.

But He was not naturally conceived . He was transfered into Vasudev' s heart, then from Vasudev' s to Devaki' s heart

- Oh but I forget, Kṛshṇa says BG 18.67 - Do not explain this [My] yoga to those who are not devotees, not austere, those who are not interested in hearing, or to those who are averse to Me.

So, Please Forgive me dear Ghanashyām but had to say this , and aupmanyav loves you anyway

 

[ameyAtmA]

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:

A Christ and Krishna created perfect by God, without any effort of self-evolution on their part, and merely pretending to struggle and overcome their trials on earth, could not be examples for suffering humans to follow. the fact that the great ones too were once such mortals but overcame, makes them pillars of strength and inspiration for stumbling mankind. when we know that divine avatars, in order to make themselves perfect, once had to go through the same kinds of human trials and experiences that we do, it gives us hope in our own struggle.

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.

No. Please, not this . No. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

BG 4.9 janma karma cha me divyamevam yo vetti tattvatah: |
tyaktvā deham punarjanma naiti māmeti so 'rjuna ||

O Arjun, My appearance (birth) and activities are divine, transcendental, [ pure, untouched by modes of material nature - sattva, raja tama]. One who knows this in Truth [has really really understood this principle of My Divinity and appearances], is not born in this world again, and comes to Me, becomes one with Me.

----
Nārāyaṇ is, was and will always be pūrṇa nārāyaṇ, pūrṇa bramhan', untouched, untainted, unmoving, irrespective of peope' s fancies of dragging Him down to bondage just for their own spiritual convenience.

As for a Guru saying such, perhaps they looked at it as a means to make the disciples eat their spinach - sām dām danḍa bheda. Do what it takes .

Even your point 2 -- assumes there is a tokenID that Kṛshṇa had as a samsārī ordinary soul, which evolved over lifetimes . No. Nārāyaṇ was never in bondage. Ever . Nārāraṇ -- that directly descends, and we are talking about pūrṇa-purushottam bhagvān here, not even some other avatār .

Sometimes, empowered jivas -- empowered by Nārāyaṇ are also called āvesh avatār, shaktyāvesh . Kṛshṇa was not such .

Which were the previous births of Kṛshṇa? Nar-Nārāyaṇ Ṛshī, Shri Rām, Dattātreya, Hayagrīva, Yajña-Varāha, Matsya, Kūrma, Devaṛshi Nārad, 4 kumārs, ṚshabhDev, KapilDev, ...

None of them were born in kārmic bondage. They were forms Nārāyaṇ took directly as per the need of the times - the purpose, mission .

Descent of Nārāyaṇ is not well-understood easily by beginners, reading bhāgvat canto 1 chapter 3 or canto 2 chapter 7 may help.

 

[Maya3]

I am sorry not to be rude to anyone but why on earth are we discussing the character of Jesus and his morality in the Hindu DIR? I can CAN see discussing the possibility of him being an avatar being a Hindu topic. But this has turned in a topic where Jesus has become the main emphesis now which I feel should be relocated to comparative Religions.

I know this wasn't your fault Punkdbass and I'm not mad at you or anyone for that matter. But I do believe and others here would agree this DIR should only be for Hindu topics. This thread started that way and now it is not. BUT I do hope Punkdbass that you got you answer if you have more questions I don't mind answering in a PM. Being an ex Christian myself I feel I could offer you a lot of answers you may find understandable.

I could not agree more Kalidas.

Maya

 

[punkdbass]

No. Please, not this . No. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

BG 4.9 janma karma cha me divyamevam yo vetti tattvatah: |
tyaktvā deham punarjanma naiti māmeti so 'rjuna ||

O Arjun, My appearance (birth) and activities are divine, transcendental, [ pure, untouched by modes of material nature - sattva, raja tama]. One who knows this in Truth [has really really understood this principle of My Divinity and appearances], is not born in this world again, and comes to Me, becomes one with Me.

----
Nārāyaṇ is, was and will always be pūrṇa nārāyaṇ, pūrṇa bramhan', untouched, untainted, unmoving, irrespective of peope' s fancies of dragging Him down to bondage just for their own spiritual convenience.

As for a Guru saying such, perhaps they looked at it as a means to make the disciples eat their spinach - sām dām danḍa bheda. Do what it takes .

Even your point 2 -- assumes there is a tokenID that Kṛshṇa had as a samsārī ordinary soul, which evolved over lifetimes . No. Nārāyaṇ was never in bondage. Ever . Nārāraṇ -- that directly descends, and we are talking about pūrṇa-purushottam bhagvān here, not even some other avatār .

Sometimes, empowered jivas -- empowered by Nārāyaṇ are also called āvesh avatār, shaktyāvesh . Kṛshṇa was not such .

Which were the previous births of Kṛshṇa? Nar-Nārāyaṇ Ṛshī, Shri Rām, Dattātreya, Hayagrīva, Yajña-Varāha, Matsya, Kūrma, Devaṛshi Nārad, 4 kumārs, ṚshabhDev, KapilDev, ...

None of them were born in kārmic bondage. They were forms Nārāyaṇ took directly as per the need of the times - the purpose, mission .

Descent of Nārāyaṇ is not well-understood easily by beginners, reading bhāgvat canto 1 chapter 3 or canto 2 chapter 7 may help.

Sorry, as I said elsewhere my understanding of Krishan's nature is quite limited.. I'm still very much in a learning phase - but I have definitely added the Bhagavata Purana to the long list of things I need to look into in this life... thanks for your explanation

 

[Stormcry]

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.

Which india divine ? Post the link.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Punkdbass,

I wasn't trying to be hard on you, or anyone. The "Nooooooooooooooooo" was just an undirected 'expression' in the ākāsh mahākāsh

From another perspective... Since there is no one else around, anyways, other than this One

 

[ameyAtmA]

Which india divine ? Post the link.

The same one you are thinking of. IndiaDivine.org - Daily News on Hinduism, Yoga, Ayurveda and Natural Healing - IndiaDivine.org (Audārya).
Aupmanyav called it a "Hare Krishnas site" because the moderators are Gauḍīya Vaishṇav (Janhavi Nitāi Dās et al). However, they have genuinely made it a full-fledged site for Hindu Dharma. It has articles and videos from knowledgable contributors, besides the forums .