• 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!

Would you like to contribute to a text about how Hinduism views Jesus (and perhaps others)?

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Luis may not have intended it, but he cannot escape it once he started it.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum,
which art exalted unto heaven,
shalt be brought down to hell:
for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

Metaphor and hyperbole. Jesus's teachings were replete with metaphor and hyperbole, because that's what the people of the time and place understood. He was not being literal. Those who have never been Christian, or studied Christianity in depth should not be commentating on it as if they know what they are talking about, yet they do. Similarly, a Christian who has never been Hindu or studied Hinduism should not commentate on it as if they know what they are talking about. It's as simple as that.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
This of course simply reflects your poor understanding of what it actually says, and why. It does in fact teach universal love, but often in the context of railing against the established religious institutions which throttled and suffocated it in people by way of contrast in their rigidity of beliefs and practices, seeking to keep their religion "pure", as it were. But that's another discussion for another thread.

You realize you are :banghead3 because that's not what they want to see or believe.

With those who are speaking on it, strong is the ignorance of Christianity. :yoda:
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You realize you are :banghead3 because that's not what they want to see or believe.

With those who are speaking on it, strong is the ignorance of Christianity. :yoda:
I'm happy to dissuade others of their delusions, including Christians. How will they reconsider if no one shows another light to understanding?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm happy to dissuade others of their delusions, including Christians. How will they reconsider if no one shows another light to understanding?

I agree with you... I'm just saying that sometimes it seems like banging your head against a brick wall. However! if even one lurker thinks to themselves "hmm... let me look into this further", then it's indeed worth it. ;)
 

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
I thought I would share a few quotes that are relevant to the discussion from Swami Sivananda's All About Hinduism.

1. Swami Sivananda says in his section about the Srimad Bhagavata Purana (the chronicle of the various Avataras of Lord Vishnu) that Buddha (the founder of Buddhism) is one of the 10 Avataras. So Luis, it is definitely fair to say that a significant amount of Hindu's consider Buddha to be an Avatar of Lord Vishnu.

2. In the discussion of Jesus/Christianity or other religions which we have touched upon, Swami Sivananda says the following about "Dharma in other religions"

All other religions also lay stress on Dharma. Buddhism, Janism, Christianity, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam are all remarkably alive to its value. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Swedenborg and Spinoza are all striking examples in the interesting history of Western philosophy for the high pedastool on which they have placed morality, duty, and righteousness, and adored them all as the only means to the attainment of the goal of life. Each religion lays greater stress on certain aspects of Dharma.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree with you... I'm just saying that sometimes it seems like banging your head against a brick wall. However! if even one lurker thinks to themselves "hmm... let me look into this further", then it's indeed worth it. ;)
People will see things through the set of lenses they are conditioned to look through. And those lenses may be exactly what they need for where they are at. But at a certain point, other lenses become more appropriate. But if there is no other perspectives to consider, it makes it hard to take off the old glasses and put one the new one. The transition becomes more challenging, as there are no other voices to hear but the faint whispers of your own newly emerging one. I've learned, somewhat, to not be frustrated when someone doesn't get what is being said (not just disagreeing, but not seeing it at all), because we are only able to see what fits our current general framework of reality. As Emerson said so perfectly, "What we are, that only can we see". And that's not a criticism, but just an understanding of how these things work.

The analogy I like to use best is that of the mountain of the world. We are all living on that mountain on different sides of it, and at different elevations. Villages and social orders and customs and religious practices all are developed to adapt to that environment and its unique cultures. They help translate the experience of that world to the people who participate in it. To directly compare one village to another on the other side of this world-mountain, you will see vastly different adaptations and subsequent customs and languages and symbols used.

But as someone is drawn by an attraction to the Summit looming above them, they will launch off alone, or with a small group of other Summit lovers on a path up the side of the mountain and away from the normalized customs and traditions of their village. They find a new environment along the way, with new terrain and a new atmosphere. And they learn to adapt to living there, bringing with them what they learned in their village earlier, to a new way of integrating the new environment, at a new altitude.

Then in time, they are pulled upward further to know what that Summit is that has called to them and drawn them all their lives. They go up to a new altitude, and a new adaptation, and new understanding, and a new perspective of the world from that vantage point, seeing their home village with warm thoughts from the heights they are now at in mainly solitude.

And again, they move upward. And as they scale the Summit, they see other fellow travelers coming up from the other sides of the world-mountain, from their villages, with their customs and symbols in tow. And they see each other. And they recognize in each other that same deep desire that has brought them together at the Summit, and they understand it is not the clothing and the customs and the traditions they carry with them on their assent up the mountain, but it is that same energy that radiates in them that makes them on that same path, and on the same mountain.

And then they scale together from opposite sides, and stand together at its peak, seeing each other face to face, and all looking up together and gazing at the Single Bright Moon above them, glowing together in its Radiance.

See my signature below.

Those who see only differences, are in the village on their path. And there is Truth and value in that for them.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Outstanding. It gives me something to think about too.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
The odd part is some people who want Hindu traditions to be so watered-down and new-agey even though they have no desire to actually label themselves Hindu or live by the traditions.

:shrug:

It's taking the beautiful tolerance and free expression out of boundaries of reason, off to a realm of meaningless inclusiveness that retains no identity and ceases to be a foundation of "paths." Chaotic free-for-all doesn't need to devour noble traditions just so drifters can find a fitting home for "whatever I like" religion.

Long live real Hinduism traditions, I say. They are my path's beloved cousins.
I agree with you completely. To some extent, this concept of "all paths lead to the same goal" was merely fabricated and is not authentically Hindu (scripturally, that is). Why else would Adi sha~Nkara go through the trouble of trying to spread advaitavedAnta among groups that were bauddha, jaina, mimAMsaka, etc. Why did he go through the trouble to do the chAturmaTha sthApana? Perhaps you might find the following article to be interesting.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree with you completely. To some extent, this concept of "all paths lead to the same goal" was merely fabricated and is not authentically Hindu (scripturally, that is).
Or is a truth realized by those that are not embedded in their cultural perspective, a truth not seen by those who are and considered suspiciously.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
The odd part is some people who want Hindu traditions to be so watered-down and new-agey even though they have no desire to actually label themselves Hindu or live by the traditions.

:shrug:

It's taking the beautiful tolerance and free expression out of boundaries of reason, off to a realm of meaningless inclusiveness that retains no identity and ceases to be a foundation of "paths." Chaotic free-for-all doesn't need to devour noble traditions just so drifters can find a fitting home for "whatever I like" religion.

Long live real Hinduism traditions, I say. They are my path's beloved cousins.

People are looking through their own religious perpective. Religions claim that deities exist and come down to earth. What I find odd is all these god sends are only in particular regions of the world. Why would hindu gods only go to india, is there not a belief that god would attempt to reach all humans on earth, not just a particular region. So if god sent more avatars hinduism may not know about it if it were in say Jerusalem. The point is these religions believe god is very real and trying to help humans. If these gods are here then it shouldnt just be in India. To a hindu, anyone making a claim to be connected with god would presume their connection with god is real unless they think they are lying. You would have to test the person to see if a connection is legit but I wouldnt presume it isnt real just because of the region or just because the person isnt using the gita.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
People are looking through their own religious perpective. Religions claim that deities exist and come down to earth. What I find odd is all these god sends are only in particular regions of the world. Why would hindu gods only go to india, is there not a belief that god would attempt to reach all humans on earth, not just a particular region.

God shows himself in a way meaningful to the believer. God in the form recognizable to a person from India through the lens of Indian culture would make no sense to the Norse; Thor would make no sense to an Indian or to a Jew of first century Judea, but he would be recognizable and make sense to the Norse of 700 CE.

That people refuse to believe and deny, sometimes deliberately based on conversations on this site, that God can manifest, incarnate or appear any way He/She/It wants is the height of hubris; to put limitations on God and determine what God can or cannot be is arrogant in the extreme.
 

Contemplative Cat

energy formation
Sorry that this creates so much karma.

Personally I have the notion that Gnostic Christianity was jesus' guru liniege.
what we call it is irrelevant.
Whethor or not Jesus was Hindu is irrelevant.
But he appears to be a western guru, which appears highly inspirational for many western Hindus who believe in the reality being sat chit Amanda.

I think he probably got ideas from Hinduism, but that doesn't make him a hindu.But why not a yogi.
They have Jain and Buddhist yogis, like yogi milrapa and yogi mahavira.
So obviously Hindus do not get to claim that
a yogi(especially a realized yogi, free of notions) must be Hindu.

Jesus was Jesus, I don't think such a high Guy cares what religion is called.
Hes just one of those walking Scriptures they call saints, mahats.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus was Jesus, I don't think such a high Guy cares what religion is called.
Hes just one of those walking Scriptures they call saints, mahats.
If you were to ask Jesus what religion he was, I'm pretty sure that question is understood as moot. His answer would be, "I am all religions. I am none". What religion is God? If we are one with God, then we would be that same Mind, and same religion. Is God a Hindu? Is God a Christian?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
If you were to ask Jesus what religion he was, I'm pretty sure that question is understood as moot. His answer would be, "I am all religions. I am none". What religion is God? If we are one with God, then we would be that same Mind, and same religion. Is God a Hindu? Is God a Christian?

Which is why I cannot understand the resistance to accepting that all religions are equally valid, particularly to the adherents of those religions. People pay lip service to it, but I believe that's about as far as it goes. It's particularly sad that these same people will say "there's only one God", yet mention God's names as if it were a polytheistic pantheon. People confuse universalism with syncretism, but even if that were not so, if one chooses to syncretize religions, what business is it of anyone else's? Does it take away from another's individual practice or beliefs? This I cannot understand.

"After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all religions have some error in them; [3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one's own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible." - M. K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60.

Gandhi was apparently secure enough in his own faith that whatever anyone else believed was of no consequence to him; that is, it did not threaten him, and he held it to be as valid as his own faith.

Gandhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Contemplative Cat

energy formation
This is why its so depressing to find out many Hindus are so close minded
If you were to ask Jesus what religion he was, I'm pretty sure that question is understood as moot. His answer would be, "I am all religions. I am none". What religion is God? If we are one with God, then we would be that same Mind, and same religion. Is God a Hindu? Is God a Christian?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Traditionalists of any religion are fairly narrow in what they consider valid. Which ironically, would seem to suggest God can be likewise narrowly defined.
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
People are looking through their own religious perpective. Religions claim that deities exist and come down to earth. What I find odd is all these god sends are only in particular regions of the world. Why would hindu gods only go to india, is there not a belief that god would attempt to reach all humans on earth, not just a particular region. So if god sent more avatars hinduism may not know about it if it were in say Jerusalem. The point is these religions believe god is very real and trying to help humans. If these gods are here then it shouldnt just be in India. To a hindu, anyone making a claim to be connected with god would presume their connection with god is real unless they think they are lying. You would have to test the person to see if a connection is legit but I wouldnt presume it isnt real just because of the region or just because the person isnt using the gita.

It's not about limiting the Divine, it's about having identifiable traditions and paths. Separation and distinction doesn't mean discrediting others. What many want is a huge circle to wander around and not a path or a vehicle.

----

Much the same who often think they can read a couple books and do some meditation and now they totally get what Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. is all about...they are realized and awakened gurus and sages in their own minds.

"Really it's this hippy-love spirituality man, God is awareness, which is all there really is, and we are all God in different bodies and forms....I totally get it... This is it!"

This is what some what to say Hinduism is, not even enough to take up a paragraph, a page, a tiny book. So anybody who reflects similar sentiments must be a true guru or even an Avatar?

It is just words from those who think they found the great "path of no path"

Imagine any tradition where people evolve, learn, grow where it becomes a free-for-all for teachings, practices, ways, etc. that seem similar enough. You get a whole bunch of people who barely scratch the surface and think they got it figured out.

If I taught this way to the guys coming through our training program for combat operations would I be doing them real good? Long as the techniques and principles lose enough, wouldn't want to discredit others ideas by not throwing them in? It's naive negligence.

-----

What in the 3 synoptic gospels even seemingly resembles Hindu dharma? A couple verses from John should be enough to consider him an Avatar? What does it benefit the people to add or claim him in other traditions?

If Socrates said some things similar to Buddha should Buddhist temples read his works, start to honor him, consider him a Buddha or Bodhisattva?

Why the fear of distinction and multiplicity? Some seem so focused on vague oneness that they would gladly watch all the beloved, ancient traditions die off. Is it coincidence most never had traditions, path, home truly their own that they felt they belonged?

Make a good case for why people should want the circle of confusion.
 
Top