Sometimes I think there should be an automated feature on forums, that says "In my opinion," before every statement. Sometimes we (readers and writers) forget. I checked out your blog, BTW.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus an avatar of Lord Vishnu?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
Sometimes I think there should be an automated feature on forums, that says "In my opinion," before every statement. Sometimes we (readers and writers) forget. I checked out your blog, BTW.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Vinayaka,
Here the words personal understanding is used cause though understand that there is no *I* but a part of that whole and this part is not perfect as it is yet to merge with that whole and being a part it interacts with the other parts of the whole and in doing so, it refers to that part of the wole.
Love & rgds
Mind itself is the automated system that has already assummed that it is *his* opinion however the question remains who is that, who opines.
Here the words personal understanding is used cause though understand that there is no *I* but a part of that whole and this part is not perfect as it is yet to merge with that whole and being a part it interacts with the other parts of the whole and in doing so, it refers to that part of the wole.
Love & rgds
Every time you post, zenzero, all I can think of is this video
[youtube]4KXidr0z1RY[/youtube]
The Advaita Trap 1: Absolute and Relative Confusion - The Cartoon - YouTube
QFT.
Thanks again my Friend and pardoning my more assertive than intended or can actually be, reply. I practice remember the 'subject' discussed in these two quotes... but I haven't always mastered that intentionality.:namaste
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend DK,
Thank you for your response.
Had seen the clip before.Interesting!
However there is no confusion as you point cause if you understand what a BEING is you would understand that Jesus's cross and Gautam's middle meant.
A being is always at acrooss road, in the middle between form and noform between body and spirit. Like water- ice at one end and vapour at the other.
Like all beings lie on the path of evolution except that efforts are used to revolutionize the evolutonary process by being in the exact middle or that centre of the cross where one is neither bounded by time/space and is simply Here-Now!
Kindly remember only by responding appropriately are we sharing or else the tree was/is/will be beautiful even if not said as it too is a being and part of that whole which includes me.
Love & rgds
Thank you for your response.
Had seen the clip before.Interesting!
However there is no confusion as you point cause if you understand what a BEING is you would understand that Jesus's cross and Gautam's middle meant.
A being is always at acrooss road, in the middle between form and noform between body and spirit. Like water- ice at one end and vapour at the other.
Like all beings lie on the path of evolution except that efforts are used to revolutionize the evolutonary process by being in the exact middle or that centre of the cross where one is neither bounded by time/space and is simply Here-Now!
Kindly remember only by responding appropriately are we sharing or else the tree was/is/will be beautiful even if not said as it too is a being and part of that whole which includes me.
Love & rgds
sadhak
Member
I think whenever Lord Vishnu took an avatar he did so to deliver the people from adharma. He destroyed or subjugated the adharmis(evil doers). Whereas Jesus himself was a victim of adharma. Jesus was a sattvik person(a pure soul) always thinking of doing good to the people. He can be compared to Mahatma Gandhi a selfless man. The word Mahatma itself means a great soul. I would prefer calling him Mahatma Jesus.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I think whenever Lord Vishnu took an avatar he did so to deliver the people from adharma. He destroyed or subjugated the adharmis(evil doers). Whereas Jesus himself was a victim of adharma. Jesus was a sattvik person(a pure soul) always thinking of doing good to the people. He can be compared to Mahatma Gandhi a selfless man. The word Mahatma itself means a great soul. I would prefer calling him Mahatma Jesus.
Very logical argument.
sadhak
Member
Thanks brother. Krishna says, "The seeds of faith, only when sowed in the soil of logic can grow unabated." So i usually try not to accept anything that defies logic.
Paulo Márcio Pinheiro
New Member
Namaste
I Born in a Catholic family, was baptised but turned into hinduist when start to studie by myself Krishna Counscience in bhagavat-gita, my food is diferent now, not like years ago and all my family look at me like a stranger. In Brasil the monoculture of plantations its a problem. What that its all about Jesus Christ? We are the secound one of the Chritian ranking countries adepts, first E.U.A. the message of peace is the principal path.
I Born in a Catholic family, was baptised but turned into hinduist when start to studie by myself Krishna Counscience in bhagavat-gita, my food is diferent now, not like years ago and all my family look at me like a stranger. In Brasil the monoculture of plantations its a problem. What that its all about Jesus Christ? We are the secound one of the Chritian ranking countries adepts, first E.U.A. the message of peace is the principal path.
Christ was sent by Abraxas, a supreme Aeon and Christ himself is an aeon and he resides in everyone and in everything.
"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).
Do know that I'm a Hindu.
But I'm a Saivite and I believe in Avatars... kind of.
Go ahead. There is no stopping you.
But to go into more detail, the concept in and of itself never made much sense to me. Basically, I have to ask why all the time. Still like the little questioning kid I was 50 years ago. So if an ansere doesn't make sense to me, I either keep asking questions, or discard it outright. Why would God, or something as all-powerful, all-knowing, like that, have to make himself look and walk and talk like a human? Anything that was done in human form could have been done without human form ... easily. So I didn't get the point. It seemed somehow demeaning to my concept of God, which was formed long before I ever knew Hinduism existed. But I did figure, that for some people, it might somehow help them relate, like good concrete examples help in abstract math, or good analogies help in abstraction. So for some people it might work. I'm not one of them.
So I had it figured that God was two concepts. One was the ultimate Cause of everything. Stuff happens, form happens, brains think, etc. What causes that? Well, I had to figure it was God. Certainly no man could cause that. And ... it didn't have to have form at all, in fact it was most likely formless, beyond form.
Then I saw God. 'It' was everywhere. In roads, in people, in ideas, in trees, in clouds. Something was hiding under or in the middle of everything. At first I couldn't call it anything ... except some sort of energy ... the only words I knew that made any sense at all. Certainly although it was related to form, it wasn't exactly form, and although it flowed through all life, and through all humans, it wasn't human-like at all.
Then later yet I met God ... in the form of Nataraja. It was like He said, "Hey there Young Man. I'm God." Like a fly to honey, we sort of got stuck. But he did have more of a human form. But it wasn't real human like, and He swirled and danced and shone and faded, and moved with grace. Couldn't be a human.
After that nothing has ever clicked like those 3. But I did find a path within Hinduism that said the same things, at least about 95% of it, in total agreement with what I already had been convinced of through personal reflection and experiences. None of that involved avatar as a concept. I'm not big on Siva in the human form as seen in North India and is basically an offshoot of Vaishnava or Puranic practices that go about depicting all Gods in human form, either. It's okay, but I can't really get 'into' it.
So there you go, Riverwolf, et al. Hope its not totally boring.
Go ahead. There is no stopping you.
But to go into more detail, the concept in and of itself never made much sense to me. Basically, I have to ask why all the time. Still like the little questioning kid I was 50 years ago. So if an ansere doesn't make sense to me, I either keep asking questions, or discard it outright. Why would God, or something as all-powerful, all-knowing, like that, have to make himself look and walk and talk like a human? Anything that was done in human form could have been done without human form ... easily. So I didn't get the point. It seemed somehow demeaning to my concept of God, which was formed long before I ever knew Hinduism existed. But I did figure, that for some people, it might somehow help them relate, like good concrete examples help in abstract math, or good analogies help in abstraction. So for some people it might work. I'm not one of them.
So I had it figured that God was two concepts. One was the ultimate Cause of everything. Stuff happens, form happens, brains think, etc. What causes that? Well, I had to figure it was God. Certainly no man could cause that. And ... it didn't have to have form at all, in fact it was most likely formless, beyond form.
Then I saw God. 'It' was everywhere. In roads, in people, in ideas, in trees, in clouds. Something was hiding under or in the middle of everything. At first I couldn't call it anything ... except some sort of energy ... the only words I knew that made any sense at all. Certainly although it was related to form, it wasn't exactly form, and although it flowed through all life, and through all humans, it wasn't human-like at all.
Then later yet I met God ... in the form of Nataraja. It was like He said, "Hey there Young Man. I'm God." Like a fly to honey, we sort of got stuck. But he did have more of a human form. But it wasn't real human like, and He swirled and danced and shone and faded, and moved with grace. Couldn't be a human.
After that nothing has ever clicked like those 3. But I did find a path within Hinduism that said the same things, at least about 95% of it, in total agreement with what I already had been convinced of through personal reflection and experiences. None of that involved avatar as a concept. I'm not big on Siva in the human form as seen in North India and is basically an offshoot of Vaishnava or Puranic practices that go about depicting all Gods in human form, either. It's okay, but I can't really get 'into' it.
So there you go, Riverwolf, et al. Hope its not totally boring.
Nope.
But, then, I think of "avatar" slightly different than the Puranic concept. To me, an avatar is any imminent manifestation of the Divine, whether in a person, an object, or an event. Murtis being worshiped are temporary avatars. Prasadam is an avatar. Holy Books are avatars. Great works of art are avatars. Great men and women are avatars.
Of course, that's all well and good, but then, since the Divine is in all things, what's the point? Well, it's really just a way of looking at things. I haven't yet learned to see God in all things, so the avatar concept helps me along the way. Eventually it should get to the point where I can view the entire universe as a singular avatar.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
"Avatar" is an important concept both in puranas and agamas.
Aniconic representations of Shiva abound in the North.
Aniconic representations of Shiva abound in the North.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Namaste would you like to explain this further?