Jesus and Hinduism

[Vinayaka]

My POV is that Jesus has nothing to do with Hinduism, just as who is the president of Bulgaria has little to do with the politics of Japan. Its basically irrelevant to Sanatana Dharma.

That is not to say that I don't respect Christians, and the freedom of religion we have in the west. To each his own and thank goodness for that. It is a free country after all.

The neo-Hindu (couldn't think of a better term, sorry) or convert or even born Hindu in india where Christianity has been present for awhile has the Christ figure as a given, in the subconscious minds. Here in the west, the prevailing religion is Christianity, there is no denying that. But why is it necessary to put a picture of Christ up there along with the Hindu deities on a Hindu shrine? You don't see pictures of Krishna in Christian churches. Aren't our Gods enough? Do we need more? Is there something lacking within Sanatana Dharma that we have to add alien belief systems to make it whole?

I believe the only reason this happens is that Hindus tend to be awfully nice, all-encompassing, or naive. Look what happened to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and elsewhere. Is there no lesson to be learned from that.

Its one thing to respect people, but totally another to become syncretic.

I know I am pretty much alone on these forums in this view, and perhaps I'm just expressing my disappointment in my brethen when things like pictures of saints of another religion pop up in the Hinduism thread. If I wanted to see that, I could look elsewhere.

 

[Jainarayan]

But why is it necessary to put a picture of Christ up there along with the Hindu deities on a Hindu shrine?

It's not.

You don't see pictures of Krishna in Christian churches.

True, you don't and won't, any more than you will see Buddha or Guanyin or Budai in a Christian church.

Aren't our Gods enough?

Yes, more than enough.

Do we need more? Is there something lacking within Sanatana Dharma that we have to add alien belief systems to make it whole?

A qualified "no" (my next paragraphs).

Its one thing to respect people, but totally another to become syncretic.

I know I am pretty much alone on these forums in this view, and perhaps I'm just expressing my disappointment in my brethen when things like pictures of saints of another religion pop up in the Hinduism thread. If I wanted to see that, I could look elsewhere.

You're not alone. I concur with you (agree for different reasons).

I think Jesus, and I have a feeling a man did exist who taught what he did, was at the very least an enlightened being, sent by God, I think what Jesus had to say is a re-telling to a particular people at a particular time, in a particular place, for a particular reason, of what Krishna taught. I can't stress enough that Jesus was meant for the Jewish people and sent to them. I don't believe Jesus was sent for the benefit of Hindus. I believe he was sent to reform the old Jewish traditions that got out of hand and became mindlessly ritualistic, forgetting God, and that the rituals were not an end in themselves.

I keep referring to The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. It's a very good insight into what Jesus actually meant in his teachings that Christians miss and don't understand. Now, If you take out the name 'Jesus' from the book, I think it can augment any religious belief, though not to the extent of making Jesus part of the Hindu pantheon, or any other religious system.

Sri Krishna taught us to think of Him always, to meditate on Him, to be devoted to Him. Of course, this is if one is Vaishnava. But I think a Vaishnava, at least, could benefit from more of the 'how' to reach God and be devoted to Him. So to that end, Jesus is not totally irrelevant to any human of any belief. He can be respected and honored and venerated along with any sage or great teacher or acharya, but as a god? I don't believe so.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

My belief is that Jesus was a pure devotee of the Lord. He was a Vaishanava.

He taught religion according to time place and circumstance, for a particular set of people.

A Vaishanava can come in any caste, country, religion or place and teach the Holy message of Supreme Lord.

I believe, a Vaishanava is a pure devotee, only who is qualified, to teach 'how' to reach God.

Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad Gītā says:

"tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaḿ
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ"​

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.[B.G. 4.34]

 

[Vinayaka]

@Jainarayan: In fairness to you as a friend, I went and read 'The Sermon on the Mount' although I never read scripture from other faiths. I found it quite universal except for the last verse, where it says 'forgive my wrong actions' which is very Christian, in my limited understanding of Christianity. In Hinduism, as you know, God cannot just go and forgive our sins (wrong actions) , nor would we ever pray for this to happen. Our equivalent is karma, and we have no understanding of sin.

I must say that for the last 2 years or so, from reading your posts, you have come a long way. Actually getting to a Hindu temple was a huge step for you, and gives you a much better understanding of our religion. I'm pretty sure, or at least I'm hoping, there will be no 'Icon' (often what Jesus is called in Hindu India) shrine in that beautiful temple.

@ Vrindivana Das .. not at all surprising, although I've never heard that idea before.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste, I respectfully disagree, and this is why:


It isn't about Hinduism needing the contribution from Christianity, whether post-Roman Christianity or the original gnostic Christianities. It's about whether Christianity actually descended more from the Sanatana Dharma than Abrahamism.

Abrahamic religions, including the distorted form of Christianity taken up and enforced by the Romans, are responsible for the destruction of many civilizations and their religions, many of them so thoroughly destroyed we have little to no record of them.

The Dharmic religions, and Taoism, are the only religions left standing with any strength or continuity.

Zoroastrianism was slain. The pagan religions were long buried, now dug up for their bones and ashes by the neopagans.

Let me put it to you this way:
As Abrahamic religions are such a threat to the Sanatana Dharma, wouldn't it be good if there were a way to absorb Abrahamic religions into the Sanatana Dharma and thus help the peace?

I truly believe that Abrahamism is an evil taint upon the truth, that Abraham was misled by a demonic entity, and set his tribe on a collision with everyone else through the anti-idolatrous and henotheistic views adopted. Subsequent leaders like Moses did not help the situation. Jesus, in my opinion, was seeking to deliver people from the evil religion of the Old Testament, into a New Testament - he was hijacking Abrahamism with Indic philosophy and praxis.

It's not about incorporating other gods, it's about incorporating other people into what is right and true, for their benefit, for the benefit of Hindus who might otherwise be objects of their misdirected zealousness, for the benefit of all.

It's an established fact that Thomas, one of the 12 apostles, journeyed to India. The Acta Thomae contains a passage highly suggestive of Jesus going with him.

A figure remarkably similar to Jesus is found in the Bhavishya Purana. Some have alleged that this is somehow a British interpolation, as if the British, or Christians would gain anything by putting their primary figure on equal footing with any number of minor Hindu sages. Such a thing would be anathema to them, to say nothing of the heretical things he is supposed to have said.


But in the Abrahamic religions lies the seeds of return to the Eternal Law.

This law and truth is universal to all people.

Is what makes Sanatana Dharma a superior religion the nama and rupa of its deities? Of course not. This is divinity clothed in a culturally appropriate, though culturally bound guise, whose dhyan leads into transcendence of these names and forms.

Within the Abrahamic religions there exist(ed) esoteric, mystical philosophies and practice closely aligned with the tenets of Hinduism - gnosticism in Christianity, and some strains of meditation asi n the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Sufism in Islam, and Kabbalah in Judaism.

All of these can be incorporated without contradiction into the Sanatana Dharma if a superior example is set, a higher philosophy, a more complete theology, but compatible with where they're at, using the mystical strains of their own traditions as guides. In my opinion, this may be seen as an analog to satyagraha on a religious rather than political level.

If Christians can come to this philosophical core through following Jesus within a Sanatana Dharmi context, I see much more hope for reconciliation and reunion within the "one true religion" not constricted to any culture, continent or subcontinent.

Many can come and do come to Santana Dharma without the involvement of Jesus at all. Great. But let us keep the door open for those who do.

Hinduism offers a practicable, replicable path to higher states of consciousness, it's a religion that puts you in the driver's seat on the road of grace. Christianity can benefit so much from this. The people of the world need a spiritual practice, not merely a dead system of beliefs.

Who else will offer it to them if not the eternal truth?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

In Hinduism, as you know, God cannot just go and forgive our sins (wrong actions) , nor would we ever pray for this to happen. Our equivalent is karma, and we have no understanding of sin.

Karma is divided into punya (merit) and papa (sin). Grace washes karma away. I don't see a contradiction here, at least with the understanding that most sects have.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

I suggest this to understand more about Gnostic Christianity, arguably the original Christianity:

The Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John)

 

[Vinayaka]

Namaste

I suggest this to understand more about Gnostic Christianity, arguably the original Christianity:

The Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John)

Seems to me you're in the wrong faith. Maybe you should reconsider.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Seems to me you're in the wrong faith. Maybe you should reconsider.

Seems to me that you don't know how to distinguish your faith, supposedly in an unmanifest, all inclusive reality, with that of other faiths, because you don't learn anything about them, and as a consequence their existence represents a threat to you rather than an opportunity to help such a rewarding faith spread.

A good knowledge of gnosticism will only strengthen one's shraddha in the Sanatana Dharma.

This is just straight xenophobia, not any rational critique of rational, rather than univeralist, syncretism.

It might also help if you actually read my posts.

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree because I don't buy into what I refer to as "club-style religion", that is, following a religion while blocking out any and all aspects from other religions with the intent of remaining somehow "pure". I don't follow that because I have seen that, throughout history, religions change and adapt and incorporate; even modern Christianity is a combination of its native Judaism, with Greco-Roman religion/philosophy, and a touch of Eastern philosophy for good measure. Yet Judaism itself grew out of Native Canaanite polytheism, as Islam (apparently) grew out of a combination of Native Arabian polytheism and Abrahamic mythological concepts. Early Germanic religions likely had a God called Tiwaz (Norse "Tir") as its Supreme Deity (likely the same Dyaus-Pita of our Vedas), but who was gradually replaced by "Wodanaz" (Norse "Odin") in that role.

As for our religion, it seems that Varuna, the All-Seeing Judge, whose eye is the Sun by day and the Stars by night (who is also, incidentally, the same Ahura-Mazda of Zoroastrianism) was the original Supreme Deity in the early Vedic religion, together with the Friend of Mankind Mitra. However, over time, Indra gradually took that title of Supreme God as he gained in popularity. Nowadays, neither of them are widely worshiped, supplanted by Gods that either barely make direct appearances in the Vedas, or don't appear at all. (I'm talking about a gross reading, not a subtle reading, BTW.) Yet I've read that it's possible that in the earliest form of the Vedic religion, the Supreme was actually Aditi, the Unbound All-Mother.

While I understand the fear of losing one's religion based on the historical fact of tribal people losing their beliefs, that occurred because of imperialism, not syncreticism. Native Americans by and large lost huge chunks of their religions because Christianity was forced upon them, to the point where up until recently, boarding schools deliberately tried to eradicate all Native practices from the students. I don't think there's any risk of the same thing happening in Hinduism, as far as I can see.

Point is, I don't really see the point in trying to lock any religion up from any perceived outside influences; such a thing would be an exercise in futility. Japan tried that once, and, well... it didn't work, to say the least. (BTW, speaking of Japan, the current form of Shintoism is also largely Buddhist, and has been so for centuries.)

All that said, I do understand in feeling uncomfortable in bringing foreign religions into one's own native one. After all, Vinayaka, you mentioned the loss of Native American and Native Australian religion... that's nothing. My people, the Celts, literally have nothing left of our Native ways, thanks to Rome. Even the shadows of what remained in Ireland, which was mercifully spared Rome's conquest, was eventually mostly discarded when Christianity came in, only a few legends and small blurbs of who our Gods were surviving. In popular consciousness, all people can remember of Celtic practices is the Wickerman ritual, which features human sacrifice. Modern revivalists can only guess what they might have been, and often get it completely wrong. But, again, this was because of imperialism, not syncreticism. Before Caesar ruined it all, the Greco-Roman religions actually shared at least one God with the Celts: the Horned God (called Pan in the Greek religion.) Don't forget that while Europe is more or less united these days, back then, Greece and Italy were as culturally foreign to the Celtic Nations as Arabia is to India.

Anyway, the point of all this rambling is that throughout history, religions shared concepts, gods, and philosophies all the time. Therefore, I see no reason why a Hindu who, for whatever reason, has a connection with Jesus, cannot have him as a personal God or Saint. After all, sure Hinduism has hundreds of thousands of Gods, but lets be honest: how many of us can name, off the top of our heads, all of them and their relationships to one another?

 

[Jainarayan]

I found it quite universal except for the last verse, where it says 'forgive my wrong actions' which is very Christian, in my limited understanding of Christianity. In Hinduism, as you know, God cannot just go and forgive our sins (wrong actions) , nor would we ever pray for this to happen. Our equivalent is karma, and we have no understanding of sin.

That's very true, sin and forgiveness in the everyday context is a very Abrahamic concept on the whole. The word 'sin' comes from a word meaning 'to miss the mark', not perfect as God is perfect; it didn't originally mean an offense. That was tacked on later through corruptions by translations and agenda of the power-holders, i.e. church fathers.

Also keep in mind that the book isn't a treatise on Hindu scriptures based on Christianity, but a treatise on Christianity based on Hindu scriptures. That is, I think it's aimed directly at those who take at face value, and literally, Jesus's teachings in light of what we believe is the way it should be, i.e. the Hindu view of God, searching for and attaining God.

Sin is a word used throughout the Bhagavad Gita, most likely in reference to not doing what is right. The word paapam is used in the Bhagavad Gita in a number of places. So, in my understanding, sin is really not an alien concept to Hinduism. If that is the case, it cannot have been influenced by Christianity because the Bhagavad Gita predates Christianity.

36. What joy can there be for us by killing these sons of Dhritarashtra? Though they are murderous villains, only sin will accrue to us by killing them.

37. Therefore, O Madhava! it is not befitting that we kill our relations, the sons of Dhritarashtra. How could one be happy by the slaughter of one's own kinsmen?

38-39. O Janardana! Even if these people, with their intelligence overpowered by greed, do not see any evil in the decay of families and any sin in the persecution of friends, why should not we, who are aware of the evil of such decay of families, learn to desist from that sin?

Bhagavad Gita 1.36-39

33. If you do not take part in this righteous war, you will incur sin, besides failing in your duty and forfeiting your reputation.

38. Treating alike pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, be ready for battle. Thus you will not incur any sin.

Bhagavad Gita 2.33, 38

3. In times of yore a twofold spiritual path was taught by me, O sinless one - that of knowledge for Samkhyas (who are pure contemplatives), and that of action for Yogis (who combine detached work with devotion).

Bhagavad Gita 3.3

1. Thy instructions on the grand Mystery, the highest spiritual Truth, imparted to me out of Thy abounding grace, have dispelled my delusion.

Bhagavad Gita 11.1

31. Deign to tell me who Thou art with this awe-inspiring form. To Thee, O Supreme Lord, my salutation, and also my prayers for Thy grace. I wish to know more about Thee, the Primal Being, as also of Thy purpose here, of which I am in ignorance.

Bhagavad Gita 11.31

The point, without milking it dry, is that there are numerous references to sin, forgiveness and grace sprinkled throughout the Bhagavad Gita. I think the words sin and forgiveness have taken on a colloquial quality, i.e. 'dumbed down' on the one hand, and used as a club by Abrahamic religions, on the other hand.

Moreover, there is a Hindu prayer:

"O Lord, kindly forgive my wrong actions done knowingly or unknowingly; either through my organs of action, or through my organs of perception, or by my mind, Glory unto Thee O Lord who is the ocean of kindness".

What the source of this and what is it influenced by is, I don't know. But it can be found in many a Hindu prayer book.

I must say that for the last 2 years or so, from reading your posts, you have come a long way. Actually getting to a Hindu temple was a huge step for you, and gives you a much better understanding of our religion.

Thanks.

There was a time when I was 80% Christian and 20% Hindu, accepting the Hindu gods as secondary to Jesus, whom I considered my ishtadevata. Now that's changed to the position I explained above; he is just a wise teacher, not God, a god, or the son of God.

I'm pretty sure, or at least I'm hoping, there will be no 'Icon' (often what Jesus is called in Hindu India) shrine in that beautiful temple.

Not to worry, there isn't. I don't even have Buddha or Guanyin on the altar. That's not to say, however, that there are not Christian saints, Virgin Marys and Jesuses all over the house, because my partner is Roman Catholic. But we don't step on each others' beliefs or 'shrines', or mix and match. Though he is fascinated by the stories and images.

 

[Jainarayan]

It isn't about Hinduism needing the contribution from Christianity, ... It's about whether Christianity actually descended more from the Sanatana Dharma than Abrahamism.

[snipped for space]

Within the Abrahamic religions there exist(ed) esoteric, mystical philosophies and practice closely aligned with the tenets of Hinduism - gnosticism in Christianity, and some strains of meditation asi n the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Sufism in Islam, and Kabbalah in Judaism.

I think Christianity as it was originally 'supposed to be' is far different, more mystical and dharmic than what it is today. Without appealing to the 'Jesus went to India' claims, I think there is an eastern and dharmic philosophy as the substrate in what Jesus wanted to teach. Of course I wasn't there (or maybe I was!? ). However, if Jesus threw all that at the people of Judea, they would have tried to stone him even more than they tried. To that end, unfortunately, I think he fell short of his intentions.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes we have 'sin' as in wrong action, or adharma. But mainly I was referring to the two concepts: original sin, and more importantly, the idea that God can just up and forgive you for it. The second is the one we don't find in SD. Of course, as I'm finding out, I'm often wrong on the subject, or I seem to be told so.

I guess I'm just some beginner, never having studied anything, and have to be 'taught' by those far superior to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

Many Christians reject the idea of original sin; it's not a universal concept in Christianity. In fact, the RCC is the primary proponent. Even the EOC has a different take on it, though I've been away so long I can't recall the exact view. In fact, I don't believe that there is any mention of this doctrine in the NT, with the possible and remote example of John the Baptist. He called people to repent, and be re-born, as did Jesus. I believe it really only meant to turn over a new leaf, to turn to God, not that a sin was washed away. Even Hindus take ritual bathing. Ritual bathing is pretty common across all cultures and religions. I think later writers in the church ran amok with the concept.

 

[Vinayaka]

You see, I know nothing. I think I'll keep it that way. As far as I can tell, I am the only Hindu on these forums who sees Christ as irrelevant. (Not the only person, just the only Hindu) But in the larger Hindu world, I am not at all alone, and I think its just fair to have this POV here. It is only a POV, after all, not a critique of criticism or hatred of all things Christian. As I said before, just as the politics of Peru or Swaziland are irelevant to my vote, so too is this the way I view Christian faith. Being called a hater isn't fun. I don't hate anyone.

If anybody feels the amalgamation, or use of any other faith (Like Riverwolf eloquently spoke) is helpful to them, that's good. All the more power to you. But Hinduism is vast. if I can respect the idea that it works for some, I see no reason why someone can't respect why it doesn't work for me. It might work ... just as if I bought myself another beater car, it might work, but the car I have right now works very well, gets me to wherever I want to go.

I'm out.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

This is the type of thing that makes us different from the rest of the world. Hinduism is not a tree-club for boys. It's a lifestyle that millions have and currently adhere to.

Jesus (if he did exist for one, and as the Bible said he did) was an amazing man and probably one of the most spectacular people to have graced our planet, does he not deserve to be revered?

We must not lower ourselves to the view that so many other religions take. We must be all encompassing and see that there is good in all and we must learn what we can from everybody.

That is the type of thing that makes me very proud to be a Hindu!

 

[Riverwolf]

You see, I know nothing. I think I'll keep it that way. As far as I can tell, I am the only Hindu on these forums who sees Christ as irrelevant. (Not the only person, just the only Hindu) But in the larger Hindu world, I am not at all alone, and I think its just fair to have this POV here. It is only a POV, after all, not a critique of criticism or hatred of all things Christian. As I said before, just as the politics of Peru or Swaziland are irelevant to my vote, so too is this the way I view Christian faith. Being called a hater isn't fun. I don't hate anyone.

If anybody feels the amalgamation, or use of any other faith (Like Riverwolf eloquently spoke) is helpful to them, that's good. All the more power to you. But Hinduism is vast. if I can respect the idea that it works for some, I see no reason why someone can't respect why it doesn't work for me. It might work ... just as if I bought myself another beater car, it might work, but the car I have right now works very well, gets me to wherever I want to go.

I'm out.

Well, I don't think you're a hater. :no:

I fully embrace the idea that the number of denominations and variations of Hinduism is equivalent to the number of practicing Hindus.

I, myself, feel somewhat drawn to the Gods of my ancestral cousins (since those of my ancestors themselves are pretty much forgotten), but just as Christianity is irrelevant to your religion, I might say that, oh... Aztec religion is irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I hate it at all.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, I don't think you're a hater. :no:

I fully embrace the idea that the number of denominations and variations of Hinduism is equivalent to the number of practicing Hindus.

I, myself, feel somewhat drawn to the Gods of my ancestral cousins (since those of my ancestors themselves are pretty much forgotten), but just as Christianity is irrelevant to your religion, I might say that, oh... Aztec religion is irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I hate it at all.

It brightens my day to read that someone finally got the initial point. Nandri.

 

[Jainarayan]

Being called a hater isn't fun. I don't hate anyone.

Well, I don't think you're a hater. :no:

I didn't detect any hatred either, just a quest to understand something and offer a personal perspective. It's easier to understand, however, when you've been on both sides of the fence. I was raised Roman Catholic and spent > 2/3 of my life as a Christian. Not everyone is in that position; I like to think I have a unique perspective. I know what Christianity is, what it is not, and what it should be (OK, that part is my opinion).

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am the only Hindu on these forums who sees Christ as irrelevant.

I can see how you think Christ is of no importance to you. Probably even today, many Hindu's really have no understanding of who he is or even care to know.

If anybody feels the amalgamation, or use of any other faith (Like Riverwolf eloquently spoke) is helpful to them, that's good. All the more power to you. But Hinduism is vast. if I can respect the idea that it works for some, I see no reason why someone can't respect why it doesn't work for me. It might work ... just as if I bought myself another beater car, it might work, but the car I have right now works very well, gets me to wherever I want to go.

I Also don't feel an amalgamation of different faiths is helpful to me. I do enjoy reading vastly different views and finding common ground. I have great respect for the ethics of Christ, at the same time, I acknowledge that I tend to Hinduize Christ. Since I am not a scholar I don't have a problem with doing it. I am trying to find the truth not stay consistent with Christian thinkers of the past. I do however find the Church father Origen to be a great mind and very close to Hinduism. It is to bad his followers were were declared anathema in the 6th century. See thats what so great about Hinduism. That kind of thing just can't happen.