Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Well Hindus, what do you think? Is he?
-
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
Milind2469
Member
Avatar- yes.
Of Lord Vishnu- Can't say.
Of Lord Vishnu- Can't say.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
No, Jesus is not an avatar of Vishnu. There is no mention of Jesus in Hindu literature, except in the Bhavishya Purana, but this contains information from recent modern times as well, because it has been interpolated several times. In this Bhavishya purana it mentions a foreign sage caleld Isa who claimed to be the son of god and claimed his own people had persecuted and rejected him, he was given asylum by an Indian king and lived in Srinagar where he got a small following of people, lived to the age of 100+ and married an Indian woman and bore kids with her. His tomb can be found there today and is treated like a shrine by the faithful who believe he is Jesus.
Many Hindus gurus are very tolerant of Jesus though and some do elevate him to the status of an avatar(such as Swami Yogananda Paramhansa) and others consider him to be more of saintly man or spiritual teacher(such as Swami Vivekananda). Still others consider Jesus to be a nobody or a fraudster(such as Swami Dayananda saraswati). In general though, Jesus is not an important figure for Hindus, because they have their own figures(seers, sages, masters, avatars) from their own tradition.
In my opinion Jesus was a spiritual teacher like most Gurus of today. In that sense I respect him, but I do not rever him.
Many Hindus gurus are very tolerant of Jesus though and some do elevate him to the status of an avatar(such as Swami Yogananda Paramhansa) and others consider him to be more of saintly man or spiritual teacher(such as Swami Vivekananda). Still others consider Jesus to be a nobody or a fraudster(such as Swami Dayananda saraswati). In general though, Jesus is not an important figure for Hindus, because they have their own figures(seers, sages, masters, avatars) from their own tradition.
In my opinion Jesus was a spiritual teacher like most Gurus of today. In that sense I respect him, but I do not rever him.
Last edited:
kaisersose
Active Member
Depends on how we define Avatar.
1) If mere sentiment will suffice, then any Guru in India who managed to find a decent following is an avatar. Some of the better known avatars,
Shankara -> Avatar of Shiva
Ramanuja -> Avatar of Adi Sesha
Madhva -> Avatar of Vayu
Chaitanya -> Avatar of Krishna*
Swami Narayan -> Narayana himself
Sai Baba -> Krishna himself
2) If scriptural references are sought, then even the Buddha falls short of qualifying as he is not mentioned in quite a few avatar lists. He was probably avatarized during the end of the Gupta period, nearly a thousand years after he lived.
* Though the common belief is Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Some sections of Vaishnavas in North East India, hold that Krishna is the original and the source of Vishnu. Though, this position does not find support in well known scriptures, it may actually be a remnant of an ancient Krishna culture, who was eventually mapped to the Vedic Vishnu, along with Rama.
1) If mere sentiment will suffice, then any Guru in India who managed to find a decent following is an avatar. Some of the better known avatars,
Shankara -> Avatar of Shiva
Ramanuja -> Avatar of Adi Sesha
Madhva -> Avatar of Vayu
Chaitanya -> Avatar of Krishna*
Swami Narayan -> Narayana himself
Sai Baba -> Krishna himself
2) If scriptural references are sought, then even the Buddha falls short of qualifying as he is not mentioned in quite a few avatar lists. He was probably avatarized during the end of the Gupta period, nearly a thousand years after he lived.
* Though the common belief is Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Some sections of Vaishnavas in North East India, hold that Krishna is the original and the source of Vishnu. Though, this position does not find support in well known scriptures, it may actually be a remnant of an ancient Krishna culture, who was eventually mapped to the Vedic Vishnu, along with Rama.
magalaan
Member
Of course we can only speculate.
Studying Jewish and Christians history I found the Jews originally worshiped a foursome mayor Gods. The father God: El, the Son Jahweh (JHWH), the mother Goddess and the daughter Goddess and also many minor Gods called the Elohim (the Lords)
The fatherGod El would be close to Purusha and the mother Goddess to Prakriti. Son and daugther God were also married. The son God JHWH from description seems closest to Bramhaa. He is above all the Creator God. There is much resemblance, most importantly how they are worshiped or rather not worshiped. Like Brahmaa JHWH may not be worshiped in any form (make no image!). Also very remarkable is that JHWH is jealous God. We have in Hinduism a story of Brahmaa becomming jealous of Vishnu and Shiva and refusing to do his duty and wandering of to another universe, so another Brahmaa was imported from another universe. JHWH is still very jealous of other Gods, that is why Jews (and later Christians) were actively conversing people. The Jews believed they were even punished for others not worshiping JHWH. That is how Chrianity and also Islam came in to being.
Jesus is the Son of JHWH. So who is he? My guess is that he is the most important creation of JHWH, the Sun. I think the Son and daughter God are Sun and Moon.
The Sun God was normally the Son of God. For instance Apollo was the Son of Zeus and the Son God. Jesus probably was the avatar of the Sun God. The evidence is overwhelming. He is called the light of the world (literally). He wears a crown of thorns (actually rays, a corona). He dies for 3 days on 25 decemberand then revives. This story exists in all Sun cults and refers to the fact that the Sun gets lower and lower (days become shorter and darker) and then for 3 days stays at his lowest point (The Sun was considered dead in the Sun cult). Then after 3 days he revives. Many the other elements: like born of a Virgin, being crucified, heaving 12 disciples, even a last supper all go back to earlier Sun cults like the Mytras cult.
So who was Jesus? He was the reincarnation of the Sun God. It was believed that when the Sun entered a new house in the sky (star constellation) he would initiate a new eon, a new era. In the year 0, the Year Jesus is supposed to be born, the Sun entered the constellation of Fish. And what is the sign of Jesus? Indeed Fish! And he is accompanied by fishermen, he does wonders with fish and he is called a fisher of men (conversion). Even the pope's hat is shaped like a fish.
The previous constellation was Ares, Ram. And we see the Jews were all herdsman and sheep play a mayor part. They sacrificed Sheep, That is why Jesus too is called a scrafice to God, the lamb of God. And by the way: sheep do not stand for peace. Ram or Ares (Greek God of war) was a warrior God. The Ram was seen as a fierce an aggressive symbol. This era followed the era and constellation of Bull. That is why the Jews were told by Moses to stop worshiping the Bull when the Sun entered Ram.
So Jesus is the beginning of a new era of the Sun, fish. That is why we read that Jesus resides in the heavens, just like Sun does. The Bible even mentions that Jesus era will come to an end, and says people should follow the water-carrier (this is the next constellation aquarius). So the sun sends his avatar to earth to announce a new era. It also explains why Jesus is so exceptionally forgiving. Even in the Ramayana we can read that the Sun forgives all people and shines on the good and the bad (A story Jesus tell too!). The Sun can be divine light, but the Sun will also burn people (Hell).
It is even suggested by a recent Italian scholar that Jesus Christ was actually Julia Caesar, the first Roman Empire who was known for his extreme forgiveness and concern for common people and who was also worshiped as the "Sol invictus" (The invincible Sun). Many sayings of Jesus are from Caesar. Caesar who tried to free common people but was brutally murdered by high councilmen. It seams that when the story was set in a Jewish setting Senators became High Priest. There are many indications for this.
To me Christianity makes the impression of many cults combined in one. It started out as Jewish cult revolting to the Pharisees (= Actually Persian Farsi priest that came to enforce monotheism). This fanatical and rebellious Jewish cult (Nazarenes or Zealots) was merged with the Sun cults (Mytrass, Apollo, Dyoniseus etc) and the Gnostic teaching of Plato and the emperor cult of Ceasar. Because of this merger Christianity has trinitarian God (Father, Son and Spirit) The father God being JHWH, the Jewish God. The Son God being both the Sun God and Ceasar, and the Spirit being the Gnostic idea of the Divine.
Julius Ceasar (JC) saw himself as an avatar of the Sun God, and Jesus has all the traits of the Sun God. In Jewish monotheism the Sun and Moon as material beings were no longer allowed to be worshiped, so it became hidden. But in the old days the Sun had become the prime God, and the Sun cults the most important cults. Of all material beings the Sun is most influential. Nothing on earth can live without the energy of the Sun. Plants and animals seek her light. All harvests and crops follow the seasons of the Sun. That is why in Egypt Ra, the sun God became the only God for some time. Monotheism was created through the sheer dominance of the Sun cult and her priesthood.
The Sun is a dominator. It dominates the sky, the heavens. The Sun being the king in heaven rules also over earth. But on earth he appoints a replacement (pope). And he appointed the kings. Totalitarian leaders often identified with the Sun. (Chinese emperors, Pharaohs, Louis 14th called the Sun King etc.)
Did a wise man like Jesus walk the soil of Israel? I can not tell. The Jews certainly did not seem to have noticed him. Strangely enough he only becomes known 3 years before his death and his life story resembles Sun Gods like Mytrass in great detail. His life and his sayings to me seem to be a patchwork of elements of different cults in the Roman empire.
And why did previous Sun God Avatars walk the earth with twelve disciples like Mytrass in Persia. It seems that these stories come up when Alexander the Great had visited India, and this let Buddhist monks to follow. Jesus and his disciples and people following him does not belong to the Jewish tradition. Jewish Prophets were typically loners, hermit. Jesus It reminds much more of Buddha.
Also we have to remember that the Bible was created 350 years after Jesus supposed birth on the order of the emperor who was fed up with religious differences tearing the empire apart. There was heavy political involvement in this. The Gospels were not written by the disciples of Jesus. The existence of the disciples, even the narrator Paul (who wrote 80% and was not even a disciple) is unproven. Paul too seems to be a mix of earlier characters.
I personally think these stories were understood very differently when they were written, composed. They were allegories to the Sun and the Divine, rather than a lifestory. But they became taken more literal as time went by. To the point that nowadays people believe a person Jesus walked the land of Israel and did and said exactly what is described in the Bible. This is something that no Christian scientist no longer believe.
Much the same can of course be said of Krishna. How much of it is history and how much of it is allegorical tales that became history? Which by the way does not say anything about the spiritual nature of Krishna and Jesus. It says a lot of the times we live in that people want to seek proof only in material existence.
I personally would not find it a strange idea that Jesus Christ was Julius Caesar who was an avatar of the Sun. Caesar was conquerer and is this not still the true nature of Christianity? Even after 2000 years it still wants to conquer everything. It still wants to bring all souls to Jesus in "heaven". And is that so strange as science tells us that earth and every thing on it was born out of the Sun. Is the Son not the material creator of all bodies on this earth? Did he not make us out of clay? Is his Light not captured by this world? Is this light not what energizes every thing on this world? Is this light, this spirit not seeking to escape again? Is the result not suffering? An avatar is an incarnation of the soul of a Deva, it is not incarnation of the Brahman. The Brahman already is in all. No avatar is distinct because it is the incarnation of a distinct principle, a Deva. Jesus is symbol of suffering, hope and comfort. That is what he offers to his worshipers. Because the Sun is grand material being seeking to free itself from the clusters of matter to join his father.
When the Sun cults rose to power, older cults were rejected even attacked. The Sun dominates the sky and as a God was considered a dominator too. No other Gods were to be worshiped. The Sun cult had only male priests that eradicated the influence of worship of mother Nature and the Goddesses and women in general. That is how heaven and earth, creator and creation became separated. Earth and Nature became the prison of the mind. The mind had to be set free from this prison. No more worship in the material, only the spirit. Women became a danger to man, bonding man to the material, by fatal attraction. And so we see Jesus (who has no wife!) freely choose to be tortured to free his spirit from his body. And his example is that suffering makes man free. And that is why his followers were his torture device around their neck as symbol of freedom.
Last edited:
magalaan
Member
The principle you worship is the principle that will become strong in you. Christians have worshiped suffering, and indeed it brought them a great deal of suffering and they brought a great deal of suffering to others. This path may free you, but it is a very hard and difficult path. But it is the path that connected well to the warrior cultures of the Romans and the Germans. Because battle is all about heroism. And heroism is all about suffering. You can only become a hero through immense suffering, by greatest sacrifice for the common good. Soldiers easily identify with Jesus, they recognize his heroism in his embrace of suffering. The highest ideal for a warrior is to give his life! The Romans heralded that and so did the Germanic people. To die on the battlefield was the goal, to die in bed was a awful thought. Not much has changed in Western culture, we only have to look at a film like Gladiator and the immense popularity of shooting games to understand how deep these ideals are still embedded. And their highest form is Jesus the man who makes his life into a sacrifice. He absolves all murderers from their sins. He understands suffering and heroism. He is the embodiment of both. For him people will go to war, in his name.
So Jesus is the Sun, the embodiment of both suffering and hope (light) and comfort (warmth). His father is Jahweh, (God of creation, Brahma). His grandfather El is forgotton. Because the Father and grandfather God in Judaism were merged into one. The Persian priests, the Farsi (pharisees), enforced monotheism. There was only one good God, but he also had a adversary, this became Satan (means adversary),or the Devil.
There is no real concept of the Brahman in monotheism, because all the male God concepts were merged into one and the female God concepts were rejected as inferior (Nature). That is why monotheism became the driving force of the destruction of nature. In monotheism it is all about mind over matter, Spirit over body. The Brahman or pure consciousness is not discovered. Mind wants to free itself from the chains of matter, nature, and this way the mind hopes to attain eternity. To live forever. That is the promise Jesus gives. Free yourself from earthly clusters and become pure light again and you can live with me in the heavens. That is why the souls are often depicted as little flames seeking contact with the big fire. Let the light beams return to the Sun in heaven.
There is no concept of the Brahman. There is a battle of Mind against matter, good against evil, male against female, spirit against nature. It has become battle of religion. It has become a cosmic battle. People are forced to choose sides. Like Jesus says: you are either with us or against us. He even says: Who does not hate his father, his mother, his brother, his sister even his child can not follow me. With this he means, you have to totally separate yourself form all earthly bounds, of which family ties are of course the strongest and therefor the worst. That is why we see his strongest followers marry him in stead of women and men.
Buddha found out this is foolishness, he too tried to starve his body, but it did not serve him one bit, he says. That is when he decided to sit under the bodi tree and not rise until the enlightenment was a fact. But in Christianity the strive for the ultimate freedom is still a fight. A fight against evil, a fight against matter. As the Christians say: The mind is strong, but the flesh is weak. The flesh must be tortured to let the mind free. During the middle ages people were tortured in the belief that this was the best way to set the mind free. There is no consciousness of the Brahman, there is awareness of suffering and a deep desire to be free.
In Christianity there is an echo of Buddhism. Buddha too was obsessed with overcoming suffering. Buddha too wanted to be a doctor to heal the people. Buddhism like later monotheism too is movement that wanted to purify religion. Buddhism too had this zeal to convert people to free them of their suffering. Buddha to send his disciples into the world to free people.
That is what I like about Hinduism. Hinduism does not exist, it is a living tradition, an endless stream of guru's and ever evolving ideas. It does not restrict you to any path or idea. I think this is the sin of the Buddha, to want to spread a path to people, rather than letting people discover their own path. And as we read in Hindu literature, whenever the greatest sages make the smallest mistake, they create enormous disaster for humanity. Many of the great disasters described begin with small mistakes of sages.
In Hinduism too we find the idea of people, avatars of Deva's, trying to save the world. That is not new. But Buddha started to spread his way, his teaching to the people, that was new. They say Buddha did it out of compassion, but I think it was a mistake. It is not a mistake to pass ones knowledge to disciples who found their way to you, but it is wrong to send them into the world to spread the knowledge. Where is the wisdom that the apprentice will find the teacher, and not the other way round? it is gone. All over the world we find people that put themselves on a pedestal and want to spread wisdom and it has become a commercial activity that blinds people rather than enlightens them. I wonder if it all started with Buddha. Maybe Jesus is an echo of Buddha too.
So Jesus is the Sun, the embodiment of both suffering and hope (light) and comfort (warmth). His father is Jahweh, (God of creation, Brahma). His grandfather El is forgotton. Because the Father and grandfather God in Judaism were merged into one. The Persian priests, the Farsi (pharisees), enforced monotheism. There was only one good God, but he also had a adversary, this became Satan (means adversary),or the Devil.
There is no real concept of the Brahman in monotheism, because all the male God concepts were merged into one and the female God concepts were rejected as inferior (Nature). That is why monotheism became the driving force of the destruction of nature. In monotheism it is all about mind over matter, Spirit over body. The Brahman or pure consciousness is not discovered. Mind wants to free itself from the chains of matter, nature, and this way the mind hopes to attain eternity. To live forever. That is the promise Jesus gives. Free yourself from earthly clusters and become pure light again and you can live with me in the heavens. That is why the souls are often depicted as little flames seeking contact with the big fire. Let the light beams return to the Sun in heaven.
There is no concept of the Brahman. There is a battle of Mind against matter, good against evil, male against female, spirit against nature. It has become battle of religion. It has become a cosmic battle. People are forced to choose sides. Like Jesus says: you are either with us or against us. He even says: Who does not hate his father, his mother, his brother, his sister even his child can not follow me. With this he means, you have to totally separate yourself form all earthly bounds, of which family ties are of course the strongest and therefor the worst. That is why we see his strongest followers marry him in stead of women and men.
Buddha found out this is foolishness, he too tried to starve his body, but it did not serve him one bit, he says. That is when he decided to sit under the bodi tree and not rise until the enlightenment was a fact. But in Christianity the strive for the ultimate freedom is still a fight. A fight against evil, a fight against matter. As the Christians say: The mind is strong, but the flesh is weak. The flesh must be tortured to let the mind free. During the middle ages people were tortured in the belief that this was the best way to set the mind free. There is no consciousness of the Brahman, there is awareness of suffering and a deep desire to be free.
In Christianity there is an echo of Buddhism. Buddha too was obsessed with overcoming suffering. Buddha too wanted to be a doctor to heal the people. Buddhism like later monotheism too is movement that wanted to purify religion. Buddhism too had this zeal to convert people to free them of their suffering. Buddha to send his disciples into the world to free people.
That is what I like about Hinduism. Hinduism does not exist, it is a living tradition, an endless stream of guru's and ever evolving ideas. It does not restrict you to any path or idea. I think this is the sin of the Buddha, to want to spread a path to people, rather than letting people discover their own path. And as we read in Hindu literature, whenever the greatest sages make the smallest mistake, they create enormous disaster for humanity. Many of the great disasters described begin with small mistakes of sages.
In Hinduism too we find the idea of people, avatars of Deva's, trying to save the world. That is not new. But Buddha started to spread his way, his teaching to the people, that was new. They say Buddha did it out of compassion, but I think it was a mistake. It is not a mistake to pass ones knowledge to disciples who found their way to you, but it is wrong to send them into the world to spread the knowledge. Where is the wisdom that the apprentice will find the teacher, and not the other way round? it is gone. All over the world we find people that put themselves on a pedestal and want to spread wisdom and it has become a commercial activity that blinds people rather than enlightens them. I wonder if it all started with Buddha. Maybe Jesus is an echo of Buddha too.
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I like to think of Jesus as an Avatar.
ZoyaHayat
Divine Female Power
Heya Proud 2B Gay
...I personally feel Sri Jesus Ji was/is an Avatar(form) of God...
Now i personally see Allah,Aum,Onkar,Jehovah etc as One-the ultimate Truth...
So,to me yes Sri Jesus Ji was/is an Avatar of God...you can call God whatever you like in whatever your language-as to me,they all mean the same One Truth
...xxx
Arav
Jain
Heya Proud 2B Gay
I personally feel Sri Jesus Ji was/is an Avatar(form) of God...
Now i personally see Allah,Aum,Onkar,Jehovah etc as One-the ultimate Truth...
So,to me yes Sri Jesus Ji was/is an Avatar of God...you can call God whatever you like in whatever your language-as to me,they all mean the same One Truth
xxx
This is exactly how I see it. I see no point is saying that Sri Sankara and Sri Krishna are avatars of two different Gods. Shiva and Vishnu are one to me, and therefore all avatars are avatars of the one God, Brahman.
magalaan
Member
That is not an avatar. If that was an avatar we are all avatars of the Brahman. Tat Tvam Asi
This kind of syncretic thinking has little to do with Sanatan Dharm but the desire of Westerners to create a universal religion in which Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Vishnu are all made in to one. Gods are beings like humans. They should not be mistaken for the Brahman.
Once we walked with the Gods ourselves. We had no physical body, we were spiritual entities. Then through desire we developed this body and became entrapped in this world. We do not remember this. We are sucked into the experience this world has to offer. It totally absorbs our mind. In this state we long and we suffer, and we do not know why.
To free ourselves we need some assistance, the avatars provide this. Avatars are the most pure spiritual beings that take on a body, not to experience this world of forms, but to help beings escape from it. Often we read that avatars carnate in more than one body at the same time.
Avatars do not come randomly, they come with a mission. When times become hard (people have become very ignorant), they help people to find a new direction.
From Hindu perspective Jesus at best is a God, a Deva. He is not the Brahman. The same with Krishna, or Siva. But followers will worship Brahman in Jesus, Krishna and Siva. We have to make this distinction. In Abramism this distinction is totally lost. The consequence is that people start attributing all kind of properties to the Brahman. But the Brahman has no properties. Properties only apply to the manifestations of the Brahman.
Deva's have properties. Avatars display these properties. They help human beings to realize these properties and to purify themselves. Deva's are givers, they are helpers. They give you anything your heart truly desires. But what good is it, if your heart is full of selfish desires?
Some people like to create a unified religion through the concept of Oneness. But looking at history syncretic religions did more harm than good. They tried to destroy the traditions they tried to unite in their attempt to purify, and they were the most repressive of all.
This is not the Hindu way. The Hindu way is one of respect for different thought. In stead of trying to bring is it all together, respect it for its uniqueness, respect it as different, separate paths. Jesus is not Krishna, his message is a totally different one. His path is very different one. Christians do not consider him an avatar, but the only person equal to God (Brahman), but they do not see human beings to be equal to God, only Jesus.
This is totally different tradition. It is meant for a totally different kind of person. Yes we may look all the same on the outside, we may all call ourselves human, we may all be manifestations of the Brahman, but still we can have a different nature. This desire to be one only makes people blind. It is superficial.
Here I see people writing monumental wisdom about Self and Brahman. What does it mean? Nothing. It means nothing, you go in any bookstore and buy books that tell these things. You can study them and replicate the ideas in them. What does it mean? Nothing.
The West had this tradition that you are what you believe. It is all about believing the right things. Believing the right thing makes people feel good and often better than others. It you start preaching them to others you feel even better. You become the Lords instrument, you may convince yourself.
But it means nothing. It is only superficial. The mind wears ideas like the body wears clothes. Real knowledge comes from the heart. It can not be acquired through reading. If you have no personal experience, you are only a theoreticist.
Science and Religion has become the playground of theoreticists. People that love to handle abstract notions and explain experiences through them, rather than study experiences in their own respect. Theoreticists that do not have personal experience with Deva's, start to teach they are all the same.
"Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, Shiva", all the same. People think they show an exceptional broadmindedness by saying these kind of things. Let us overcome the differences. Let us create oneness. Sure for an enlightened one all differences disappear, but to that you must first arrive at this perspective. To use the perspective of the enlightened one without being enlightened is simply pretense. It is like all those people that preach believing they carry the spirit of Jesus, while they show nothing of his greatness. They only have the words. Words mean nothing, the mind wears them like clothes, clinging on the ones it likes best.
If you want to believe Brahman is the same as the Deva's than that is simply Western thought superimposed on Eastern religion. For in Hinduism their is a clear distinction between Deva's and the Brahman. The fact that people worship Brahman in different Deva's does not change this. They can worship the Brahman in movie star too. It does not make the movie star the Brahman, only an aspect of the Brahman. The Brahman we use as a indication of the totality. We should not pollute thinking by confusing aspects of the Brahman with the Brahman.
Jesus is only an aspect of the Brahman. To me Jesus means nothing. To his followers he is a savior. But even in Christianity he is not all, for Abramists make a clear distinction between creator and creation. Lets respect both traditions by NOT confusing ideas. Lets not create a universal syncretic religion, lets respect different traditions in their own right.
It is not a noble thing to create oneness by denying differences. Respect demands that we start to see oneness in the differences. We accept the differences! We accept them as the endless different ways in which the Brahman manifest itself. No they are not the same! They are different aspects of the same.
Shiva is NOT Vishnu. But both worship of Shiva and Vishnu leads to the Brahman. But they are different paths. They represent different principles. To say they are the same to you only shows ignorance of the differences, not proof of enlightenment.
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Folks like Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo, Anandamayi Ma and Ramana Maharshi are the one's also taught these types of ideals to the Westerners like Aldous Huxley. Don't blame us for them.
Friend Magalaan,
I disagree with your above post that implies that only the "impersonal" is the Supreme Brahman and the Avatars are just "highly advanced souls".
I will give you one example. Sri Krishna has minced no words in the BG in saying that HE is the Supreme. Further, he says that "Janma karma cha divya me yo veti tattvataha...."- meaning the one who knows His "birth" (He is Ajanma- unborn- inspite of taking "birth" because His "birth" is not a forced birth due to karmas- it is out if His free will) and His karmas (called leelas as HE is not bound by the karmas) as Divine, knows Him in Tattva and THAT is the true Jnana which grants Moksha. Other Avatars have said to the same effect too - e.g Lord Rama, Rishabhdevji. Hence, what I want to convey is that the Brahman of Upanishads is the SAME Lord Krishna (or any of the Avatars.)
If you do not believe the BG, I can post quotes from the Upanishads too which imply that the Supreme God has a form.
Having said that about the formless Brahman and the Brahman with form, I have already said in my earlier post that I consider Jesus as a Saint and not an Avatar. I am not negating him as an Avatar, but due to my strong "Swaroop-Nishtha" and possibly due to some ignorance about Jesus, he does not come as an Avatar in my mind. There are characteristics of an Avatar as per Srimad Bhagvatam and may be someone who knows enough about Jesus can compare him to that and let us know- it is in 1.16.26 to 28. The characteristics of a Saint are in 11.11.29 to 33. Below is the link to Srimad Bhagvatam.
http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/contents.html
Regards,
I disagree with your above post that implies that only the "impersonal" is the Supreme Brahman and the Avatars are just "highly advanced souls".
I will give you one example. Sri Krishna has minced no words in the BG in saying that HE is the Supreme. Further, he says that "Janma karma cha divya me yo veti tattvataha...."- meaning the one who knows His "birth" (He is Ajanma- unborn- inspite of taking "birth" because His "birth" is not a forced birth due to karmas- it is out if His free will) and His karmas (called leelas as HE is not bound by the karmas) as Divine, knows Him in Tattva and THAT is the true Jnana which grants Moksha. Other Avatars have said to the same effect too - e.g Lord Rama, Rishabhdevji. Hence, what I want to convey is that the Brahman of Upanishads is the SAME Lord Krishna (or any of the Avatars.)
If you do not believe the BG, I can post quotes from the Upanishads too which imply that the Supreme God has a form.
Having said that about the formless Brahman and the Brahman with form, I have already said in my earlier post that I consider Jesus as a Saint and not an Avatar. I am not negating him as an Avatar, but due to my strong "Swaroop-Nishtha" and possibly due to some ignorance about Jesus, he does not come as an Avatar in my mind. There are characteristics of an Avatar as per Srimad Bhagvatam and may be someone who knows enough about Jesus can compare him to that and let us know- it is in 1.16.26 to 28. The characteristics of a Saint are in 11.11.29 to 33. Below is the link to Srimad Bhagvatam.
http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/contents.html
Regards,
Last edited:
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
:bow:
With reference to your saintly list - Jesus surely fits the bill!
According to the gaudiya understanding there are different types of avatars. Some are the Lord directly (Rama, Matsya, Vamana, Narasimha etc) and some (Jesus, Mohammed, Srila Prabhupada etc) are what is known as shaktyavesha avatar meaning they are jiva tattva, but are directly empowered by the Lord for a particular mission.
Last edited:
:bow:
According to the gaudiya understanding there are different types of avatars. Some are the Lord directly, and some (Jesus, Mohammed, Srila Prabhupada etc etc) are what is known as shaktyavesha avatar meaning they are jiva tattva, but are directly empowered by the Lord for a particular mission.
Namaste Atmarama,
I understand what you are saying. But, the followers of Lord Vishnu consider HIM above all the Avatars. The followers of the Avatars- Lord Krishna, Lord Rama in particular, consider them- the Avatars above Lord Vishnu.
In my opinion, the reasons are because of the difference in Upasana of the Bhakta, NOT because the Bhagwan is different. Lord Vishnu is the form in Vaikuntha (Paroksha Upasana) whereas the Avatars are the human (Pratyaksha Upasana). Among the Pratyaksha Upasana, the "Swaroop Nishtha" among the Bhaktas is again responsible for the debate of who is the "Supreme." For example, if you ask Hanumanji, then He will show you Lord Rama as the Supreme and if you ask the Gopis, they will show you Lord Krishna as the Supreme.
Again, in my opinion, there is no difference in the Murthis of the Bhagwan, the apparent difference is due to the Upasana and the States of the Bhakta.
Regards,
Last edited:
magalaan
Member
When these people spoke, they did not proclaim universal truth, they spoke differently to different people in different circumstances, that is what a guru does. He only shows people the next little step in rising consciousness. Speaking to Westerners who are brought up in a tradition that there is only one "God" and only one path to that "God", it is simply to much of a stretch to talk about many Gods. They have been raised in a tradition in which their true God is a jealous God, and all other Gods are false Gods. Not only false Gods but the enemies of their God, and therefor the Devil. They do not make a distinction between Gods and the Divine. These people speak a different language.Folks like Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo, Anandamayi Ma and Ramana Maharshi are the one's also taught these types of ideals to the Westerners like Aldous Huxley. Don't blame us for them.
So what do you expect a rishi to say to Westerners? He will say something they can understand and does not offend them and opens their mind to new ideas.
Quoting rishi's is a dangerous affair, quoting maharishi's even more. Quoting a rishi gives a person the feeling he speaks with the understanding of that rishi. Intellectuals tend to do that, they rely on authority to get authority. They study the words and bring them as if they were the fruits of their own insights. They think insights can be acquired through reading words. They are often fainthearted, their ego can not stand rejection, but written words are safe, they do not talk back. When they quote they make themselves small to get their ideas accepted, a false humbleness. Collecting knowledge of rishi's make them feel rich.
Vivekananda calls these people: The beggars that hand out the treasures of the world.
Last edited:
magalaan
Member
Why do you call me "friend"? What gave you the impression we are friends? I can see the Divine in my enemy, but that does not make him my friend. Have you reached the state of enlightenment, in which all beings have become your friends? In that case, you even surpassed Krishna, who still urged Arjuna to fight his enemies. Then Arjuna was more enlightened than Krishna.
So you call me your friend. But why then do you pretend to quote me, and put words between the quotes that are not my words? Nowhere do I say "highly advanced souls". This is an interpretation of you, that you present as my literal words. And see how this quote is spread.
Who needs enemies with such friends? Intellectuals think that the way to enlightenment is the acquirement of pure knowledge. And they think that to acquire pure knowledge is to read pure sources, like the Bhagavad Gita.
This is a mistake. Only a pure soul can recognize pure knowledge. Acquiring pure knowledge goes by purification of the self. The self not pure will not recognize pure knowledge. That is why it is written: the Veda's fear the man of little knowledge. That may seem strange if the Veda's are the provider of knowledge. The Bhagavad Gita gives the same warning, this is not a book for everyone to read. But intellectuals tend think they are the anointed ones that these books are meant for. They are not, it has nothing to do with intellect, it has to do with purification.
Calling a stranger a friend is a grande gesture. But gestures are pretense. Like quoting the Bhagavad Gita is pretense unless you truly understand what is written. Pure knowledge can only resonate with a pure heart.
You say: "the Brahman of Upanishads is the SAME Lord Krishna".
Really?
So you say "he" is "the one who knows His 'birth'"
Really?
There is a saying: "No man ever complained about understanding or feeling too little." Levels of consciousness provide different levels of understanding. It is impossible to understand something from a higher level of consciousness then is your own. You can read as many books a you like, it will only create a false illusion of understanding.
At every level we think we understand. But we do not have the consciousness with which these books were written. And we will not likely get there if we do not question our own understanding. That is why discussions are a waste of time if you seek higher understanding. People dig their manholes and start firing arguments at each other. In the process the learn how to secure their ideas.
The concept of a guru is the opposite. The Guru becomes Bhagwan. Nothing is questioned, one unconditionally accepts that he has a superior consciousness. If not, why bother to ask him to be your guru? A guru allows you to discover truth step by step, he will not give you conclusions. This is the opposite of reading the Bhagavad Gita.
People read those books and present the final conclusions, without ever having reached these conclusions themselves. Then they become hollow and start calling strangers friends. I am very curious if I am still your friend. Does it feel like I am your friend?
Last edited: