How should we view Jesus in the Dharmic Religions?

[Vinayaka]

I've 'proven' no such thing, except that which exists in your own mind. I had no preconceived leanings toward the Essene account. In fact, I was raised a Christian, so by your standards, I should reject the Essene account as 'false teachings', shouldn't I?

The primary argument I am making is of the Essene accounts that 'The Teacher of Righteousness' are, in fact, who Christians refer to as 'Jesus Christ'. Your reference to the 'Unknown Years' is just additional support for my argument. That reference states that modern Christian 'scholarship' rejects the idea of Jesus's travels to the East, but has absolutely nothing to offer in place of it. After 'Jesus' returns to 'Nazareth' (for which there is zero evidence of its 1st century existence) the only words from the Christan camp of his whereabouts for some 18 years, is that he quietly lived in Nazareth without a peep, in a complete historical vacuum. Poppycock!:

And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Luke 2:51-52

And after that last so-called 'account', nothing..zilch...nada. And if that silence were only for a year, it would still be total garbage. But 18 years? Not a chance. We just need to use our heads a bit more to see that much of these writings are concoctions from whole cloth. This, in light of the many accounts of his travels in the East, which, in fact, do integrate one with the other. Even the different names given to this traveler match one another in meaning in the languages of their respective countries.

One more piece of information contributing to the idea of Yeshua's Eastern travels, is the Essene account of he and his family living and working at the Nazorean Essene family monastery atop Mt. Carmel, a mystical sect, which had connections to the Essene Theraputae of Greece and Egypt, a sect of healers, which came into being as a result of King Asoka, the Buddhist king of India, who sent his Theravada Buddhist monks westward to establish monasteries there. And who were these Theravada monks but healers. And where do you suppose 'Jesus' learned his healing powers from? Ultimately, these healers had been the Aryans who came down from the north into India some 4000 years ago. The Buddha practiced yoga, and so did the Essenes.

Want more?

I don't even know what the Essene accounts are. In my view, they fall into the same category as Christ for the Dharmic faiths as what was put into the OP. Irrelevant. History too. It's not useful to read a map of Santiago, Chile, to help navigate the streets of Moscow. It's not pragmatic to argue history. I see no value in it. You do, obviously.

The essence of the dharmic experience is to act in accordance with dharma, in the time of now, in order to better one's character, and by extension, mankind, and our collective path to moksha.

But if you feel the need, go for it. As I said before, i have no objection. People read, and act, as they feel best suits them. Best wishes reaching the goals dharmic faiths put forth.

 

[Vinayaka]

You not only don't know much, but you refuse to look at the information. We call that 'ignorance'.

I guess you missed what I had said: Yeshua is a man of the EAST, not of the West, as is usually portrayed in Christian writings. That means his original teachings derived from Dharmic teachings, which had been suppressed by Rome and overwritten by Paul with pagan doctrines, for the express purpose of the conversion of thousands of pagans, who already had the promise of eternal life in Mithra, in addition to creating a device for Constantine to initiate rule over his citizenry. IOW, the new Christian doctrine was one of total submission. As a convert, you didn't have to actually KNOW anything, as the Essenes did via access to the inner mysteries. Do you understand that this was a POLITICAL move on the part of Paul and Rome? So no, the pagan overlayed doctrines of modern Christianity do NOT reflect Dharmic teachings; they reflect pagan teachings, the primary one, of course, being that of blood sacrifice for the purpose of sin redemption, an old Jewish idea derived from animal sacrifice. On top of that, we have the sacrifice of infants to Moloch, the Sun God, made to ensure that the Sun would continue on after the Winter Solstice by nourishing it with blood, the superstitious fear being that it would die without such nourishment. The key here is renewal, which Jesus, also a solar deity, represents.

So when you go to New York, you take a map of London with you?

My point has always been that it is irrelevant TO ME, as it is to most Hindus. That means that I have no desire or need to study this. That's what irrelevant means. It means I don't care. The history of Christianity has no relevance to my life, nor to most Hindus or Buddhists. It's fine with me that you differ. Obviously it's important to you, just as it seems that it's important to you that I do care. But I don't. It's not important to me that you do care. It's your prerogative after all.

But since this is clearly going nowhere, I'm out. Best wishes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

GodnotGod, Your persistence is really a nuisance. Vinayaka has told you his views. I think I have also mentioned my views. JESUS IS IRRELEVANT FOR MOST HINDUS, even if he was a historical person or born in Middle-East (East for you). In Hinduism, we choose. Hinduism gives us the freedom to do so. We (Vinayaka and myself) do not choose Jesus, though I choose Buddha and do not mind Laozi. What problem or authority do you have against our choices?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry, GodNotGod, it is not your topic. It was started by Buddha Dharma. I have as much right to post my views here as you have. We know, you people (Evangelists) are very persistent and don't care for rules.

Yes, as an advaitist, I do not accept differences. Jesus too, if he ever lived, like the dog in my street, was none other than Brahman. "Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All things here (are) Brahman), even a stone in River Yamuna. "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second). That, in short, is 'advaita' (non-duality).

 

[ajay0]

This is not about choosing between Jesus, Buddha, or Laozi; it is not about any personage; it is about That which manifests the entire universe, and awakening to the fact that you are none other than That. Tat tvam asi.

See, most dharmiks view any talk about Jesus as prosleytising or evangelizing activity, and consequently give an emotive conditioned reply to it.

They do not have a sense of the historical narrative which you are putting over here, and is content with their own sects teachings.

What you are saying is quite correct, and I have a similar viewpoint, but this will not be palatable to most. Maybe you need to give a detailed account of nazarene 'Yeshua' as you put over here so that the dharmiks here can understand the context or big picture, and realise that there is no conflict of interests.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Simple, because of philosophies. Father! What father? Did he know who his father was?

 

[ajay0]

Yes, of course. It's just that it must be given a small piece at a time for proper digestion.

Okay. Do take your time. You can present links as well to present your information.

 

[godnotgod]

So when you go to New York, you take a map of London with you?

My point has always been that it is irrelevant TO ME, as it is to most Hindus. That means that I have no desire or need to study this. That's what irrelevant means. It means I don't care. The history of Christianity has no relevance to my life, nor to most Hindus or Buddhists. It's fine with me that you differ. Obviously it's important to you, just as it seems that it's important to you that I do care. But I don't. It's not important to me that you do care. It's your prerogative after all.

But since this is clearly going nowhere, I'm out. Best wishes.

Vinayaka, I think I was a bit too harsh on you, and I apologize. It's not your fault, of course, that you are not familiar with the Essene teachings, which have been suppressed for centuries. But I can only say that finally the truth of Yeshua's connection to the East is emerging, little by little.

Thank you very much.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think he meant 'that which sent him', ie; 'the creative force', as in 'Brahman'.

Are we sent by anyone? Kindly read it here: Human reproduction - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

This is not about choosing between Jesus, Buddha, or Laozi; it is not about any personage; it is about That which manifests the entire universe, and awakening to the fact that you are none other than That. Tat tvam asi.

But if you had studied Buddhism sufficiently, you would know that the Buddha himself made a point of having no preferences.

The great way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction however and heaven and earth are set distinctly apart.
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you don’t is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind’s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

By Seng Can (550ce). The Third Patriarch of Zen after Bodhidharma, and the Thirteenth Patriarch after Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.

https://nourishinglife.com/2017/05/...-difficult-for-those-who-have-no-preferences/

We don't care about any of this. Its utterly strange that you think we ought to care about the things you care about. Is that not egoism on your part?

 

[sayak83]

I just wanted you to understand that I went unnecessarily overboard, but glad to know you took no offense.

Yeshua is not a version of Christ; 'Christ' is a highly modified version of Yeshua. For example, let's say you lived in a totalitarian state and some government official wrote a public biography about you, a Hindu(?), but totally misrepresented you as being a Christian for some political reason. And let's take it further, and say that not only were you misrepresented, but you had little or no voice to prove otherwise. Now, I am not saying that Yeshua was a Hindu. The Essenes took doctrines from Hinduism, Buddhism, and other teachings and incorporated them into their sect of the Nazarenes.

Still we don't care. At all.

 

[ajay0]

I just wanted you to understand that I went unnecessarily overboard, but glad to know you took no offense.

Yeshua is not a version of Christ; 'Christ' is a highly modified version of Yeshua. For example, let's say you lived in a totalitarian state and some government official wrote a public biography about you, a Hindu(?), but totally misrepresented you as being a Christian for some political reason. And let's take it further, and say that not only were you misrepresented, but you had little or no voice to prove otherwise. Now, I am not saying that Yeshua was a Hindu. The Essenes took doctrines from Hinduism, Buddhism, and other teachings and incorporated them into their sect of the Nazarenes.

These are identical to my own thoughts on Jesus.

I had read the bible when I was 16, and I was quite fascinated by Jesus's sweetness and character though I could make no coherent sense out of the bible or Christianity.

Later on,decades later as I made a deep study of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sufism , Taoism and other traditions, I surprisingly found that when I read the bible this time around, I could make a lot of sense out of it.

So I would say that Jesus/Yeshua and the bible can be a source of wisdom and insights for those who are entrenched in the dharmic teachings, as in seeing the same teachings from a different angle or perspective, which can help in better spiritual understanding.

A grand-uncle of mine is a convert to Christianity as a protest against casteism and I have some christian cousins as well. Blood brings us together in brotherhood even though we are of different religious backgrounds at the moment. Hence I am quite empathetic to Jesus/Yeshua and Christianity , and hope better understanding and relations can come between the dharmik traditions and Christianity which can be fruitful to both.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is enough wisdom in Hinduism (and Buddhism if anyone is interested in that) to carry us across the ford. We do not need any more.

And if Yeshua took his wisdom from Hinduism and Buddhism, why not we go to the first sources rather than through Yeshua. That, of course, is not what I believe. The Middle-Easterners were all copies of Zoroaster and his one God, whether Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, even Joseph Smith.

 

[ajay0]

There is enough wisdom in Hinduism (and Buddhism if anyone is interested in that) to carry us across the ford. We do not need any more.

This thread is not about whether one needs the wisdom in the christian scriptures. It is about how we should view Jesus in the dharmic religious context.

 

[ajay0]

I am not personally sure, speaking for myself as a Buddhist- that I view him as anything more than a good man that may have encountered Ahimsa somewhere and adapted it into his culture's framework. I base that not on the gospels alone, but having knowledge that early sects like the Ebionites insisted strictly on vegetarian diet.

I personally view Jesus as an enlightened master who possibly created a synthesis of Judaism and HIndu-Buddhist-Jain teachings.

Just as the Ebionites insisted strictly on a vegetarian diet, the early Christian gnostic sects as well as Origen also taught about the concept of reincarnation.

It is quite possible that reincarnation was there in the early christian scriptures which were edited out by the romans in the council of constantinople as it conflicted with their own ideas and sensibilities about spirituality. St. Jerome had criticized Origen's views on reincarnation in his writings.

It has been speculated by many that Jesus spent many years in the east which would account for the absence of his youthful years in the bible from the time he spend arguing as a 12 year old child with the rabbis, to the time he began his ministry at age 30.

He could have easily hitched a ride among the numerous merchant wagons going and returning across the ancient Silk Route which connected Israel and eastern Asia. Just like the many western spiritual seekers at present like Barry Long, Dr. Jean Klein, Mooji, Gangaji, Madhukar, Gilbert Schultz, Sailor Bob Adamson who came to Asia seeking wisdom and enlightenment and became spiritual masters in their own right.

The Ahmediya sect of Islam, which is noted for its emphasis on scholarship and denunciation of violent Jihad, also holds as one of its fundamental beliefs that Jesus had lived in India.

As stated earlier, the christian scriptures can be incoherent for someone who is venturing into spirituality for the first time, but can be a useful tool for those who are well entrenched in the dharmic traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism as well as Taoism and Sufism, to view the same teachings from a different perspective, which can strengthen understanding.

The tampering and editing of the christian scriptures by the romans to suit their ideas and sensibilities of spirituality and obedience to the roman state, when they finally adopted Christianity after centuries of brutual persecution of christians, could be the reason for the incoherence of Christian scriptures as viewed at present.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome to your views, Ajay0. I personally do not like mix ups.
Jesus in India story is a (Kashmiri and Tibetan) farce for their own reasons.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Moderation Post ****

Please be aware of Rule 10:

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

 

[Vinayaka]

OP was back in February. I hope at least some of the answers were of a satisfactory nature. Certainly there is diversity within the dharmic faiths on this one, outside the dharmic faiths. Of course anyone is free to believe what they want. I've never discussed it with a Sikh, but next week we get to go to a Hindu - Sikh wedding, so maybe in a casual conversation I can bring it up.

 

[Aupmanyav]

godnotgod identifies himself as 'gnostic'. That is not a 'Dharmic Religion'. There is a separate Gnosticism DIR in RF. I do not know why is he fooling around here!

"Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish-Christian milieus in the first and second century AD."
Gnosticism - Wikipedia

 

[Vinayaka]

godnotgod identifies himself as 'gnostic'. That is not a 'Dharmic Religion'. There is a separate Gnosticism DIR in RF. I do not know why is he fooling around here!

"Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish-Christian milieus in the first and second century AD."
Gnosticism - Wikipedia

Yes this is why we have DIRs. It's so easy to start another thread elsewhere. Same topic, appropriate place. Seems we can't even answer a simple question without getting bombarded by other views. Little wonder OP never came back, his thread was totally hijacked. Sad.