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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Burchfam said:This is what the Oera Linda Book tells us. Also that he was born in Kashmir in 594 BC.
stimpy said:Then the Oera Linda book is wrong.
Popeyesays said:It's not really a matter of opinion. Krshna was alive centuries and centuries before Buddha OR Jesus. So it's hard to make them the same PERSON. The same Spirit, occupying different persons in different bodies, sure, I believe that.
I thought Famists considered males incapable of spiritual interests, so why would a Famist be interested in the spiritual teachings of men?
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays said:It's not really a matter of opinion. Krshna was alive centuries and centuries before Buddha OR Jesus. So it's hard to make them the same PERSON. The same Spirit, occupying different persons in different bodies, sure, I believe that.
Hema said:Well, I believe that they are all manifestations of one God - just in different time periods. Just as God who is Spirit is manifested in all living creatures.
As do I; of course there is no way of knowing, but the idea is quite 'viable'.Popeyesays said:It's not really a matter of opinion. Krshna was alive centuries and centuries before Buddha OR Jesus. So it's hard to make them the same PERSON. The same Spirit, occupying different persons in different bodies, sure, I believe that.
Hema said:I agree with you. That is also a Hindu concept. We believe in one God who is manifested as different avatars throughout the course of time to reinforce righteous living.
Burchfam said:Jesus is mentioned in the Oera Linda Book as a great teacher, whose teachings were distorted by the church. It says nothing of what those teachings were though. Perhaps they were intended to help men in some way.
Hi Michel, namaste.michel said:I have never heard the term 'avatar' used in that way before - but,as I said above, I am quite prepared to believe that; a "Teacher" who incarnated at various times.............
Popeyesays said:Ab-so-LOOT-lee as Sylvester Stallone would say. Baha`i's use the phrase Manifestation of God in just that sense, I believe the Hindu term is 'avatar', right? The avatar and the Godhead are the same thing in one sense, though the avatar is not truly the Godhead in another sense. Am I right?
Regards,
Scott
Hema, I totally agree about jiiva atman and Param Atman. That is how I view our relationship with the Divine.Hema said:Correct - the Hindu term is Avatar. Hinduism states that God is manifested in every aspect of creation. In fact, he is even manifested in each one of us. He is still one but yet he exists in all things. Yes, the avatar and Godhead are one. Each one of us is Jeeva Atman or an Individual Soul. God is the Param Atman or Super Soul.
That is true. But once the drop of water is returned to the ocean it no longer exists as that drop of water. Other drops of water may be created that contain the same water molecules as that drop once contained but it is not the same drop. The concept of that drop existing at all is only due to its separation from the ocean. Hence, ultimately, there is no individual soul - that's just a temporary thing - only Atman.Hema said:This relationship can be likened to a drop of water taken from the ocean. The drop of water is like me and you - representing the individual soul and God is like the ocean. The drop of water has the same properties as water from the ocean...
lilithu said:However, I'm unclear on why you bring this into the discussion about avatars. My understanding is that an avatar is not just the manifestation of God in creation, but the incarnation of God. Wouldn't you say that there is a difference between Krishna and little ol' us? Or would you say that we are all avatars of God?.
lilithu said:That is true. But once the drop of water is returned to the ocean it no longer exists as that drop of water. Other drops of water may be created that contain the same water molecules as that drop once contained but it is not the same drop. The concept of that drop existing at all is only due to its separation from the ocean. Hence, ultimately, there is no individual soul - that's just a temporary thing - only Atman.
akshar said:I must disagree here saying that i think that jeses was not an avatar of god. Only a very great great man who was very close to god, and all those miracles he learned those powers from rishis (sages) in the Himalayas. Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu bhagawan (god) Yet i do not understand how an avatar of hinduism made a sect out of it, well not a sect but some kind of off shoot.
akshar said:He was a great man i agree 100% Even there own followers say he was the son of god/prophet. That for me cannot be true as god is a celibate, god has no real children, as god for me in neither male or female, no god is to me.
Yes, that is how the Buddha began. Zen believes that we are all Buddha. We've just forgotten and must remember.Hema said:An Avatar to me is a powerful manifestation of God - one who is put on earth to reinforce righteousness. Many of us do not have the power to do that. However, Swami Vivekananda said that we are all potentially divine, only to awake the divinity within. Isn't this how the Buddha began? He began as an ordinary person who tapped into his divinity and became an evolved soul.
But there is a difference in believing that an avatar is put on earth to reinforce the Dhamma and believing that we are all potentially divine and only need to awaken the divinity within. The former presumes that someone is doing the putting whereas the latter does not.Hema said:If you ask whether we have potential to become avatars, I honestly don't know. I think an avatar is put on earth especially to reinforce Dharma or righteousness living.
lilithu said:But there is a difference in believing that an avatar is put on earth to reinforce the Dhamma and believing that we are all potentially divine and only need to awaken the divinity within. The former presumes that someone is doing the putting whereas the latter does not.