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

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I tend to think of Hinduism as a language... and as something quite unlike the Abrahamic Faiths.

 

[Sees]

Personally, I tend to think of Hinduism as a language... and as something quite unlike the Abrahamic Faiths.

It's a way of life, life-traditions, a language in that sense of expression.

This world where assimilation into a vague mass is raised on a pedestal confuses the issue

Must...become...robots....all the same...no heroes...all vanilla

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an interesting topic in and of itself. How come there is so much pressure into homogeneization and assimilation?

 

[Sees]

That is an interesting topic in and of itself. How come there is so much pressure into homogeneization and assimilation?

There is a huuuuge topic. Much to do with control, fear, misery loving company...but not all. I dealt with similar concepts in the military when fixing foreign places.

 

[Sees]

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.

I finally got to finish the article

Many good points inside. The point that extreme universalism really is to make things One way and does indeed lead to intolerance, especially. Too much fear of plurality and differences caused by ignorance. Truth or Truths, freedom, life itself is safeguarded and better elucidated by many different traditions, cultures, paths, etc.

The best way I can show respect, love, understanding for ones not my own is definitely Not by blending mine into theirs or theirs into mine. Which is what the Jesus as Avatar idea is about in the end right?

Saying that - my father and I are One = a realized guru or especially Avatar is like saying turning on a car = NASCAR driver?? Quote mining the New Testament for things that seemingly match up with what gurus say....doesn't give any meaning to Jesus understanding or the writers, editors, tradition keepers' understanding of oneness, of who or what the Father is, and on and on.

Of course extreme universalist will think they got Jesus figured out and all the Hindu traditions as well...and oh yes, they are peas in a pod. The billions of Christians and billions of Hindus just happen to be blind to this.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

in the Bhagavad Gita Krsna clearly states .....

http://vedabase.net/y/yada



yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjami aham
http://vedabase.net/b/bharata
http://vedabase.net/a/abhyutthanam
​

When ever and where ever there is a decline in religious practice , O descendant of bharata , and a predominant rise of irreligion , at that time I descend Myself .
BG v..4 ch..7

allthough 'srjami' here is translated as decend , Srjami can be taken as manifest , or emit , therefore one could say appear ....

the lord is saying ....where ever there is irriligion I appear ....
He dosent say how he appears he just says I appear ....
He may appear as an avatar , he may appear as a hidden avatar ,
He may appear as an inspirational vision
He may appear in the heart of the sadhaka


so how we veiw the teachers and prophets of other religions is a matter for personal contemplation .
but for any hindu to acknowledge jesus as an avatar or an incarnation , emination .... what ever conclusion they might come to , dosent nececarily mean that they accept jesus as a teacher or that they wish to follow any elements of the christian path except for those aspects that are universaly accepted by all ...thou shalt not kill ...agreed and in my mind Hinduism takes Ahimsa one or two steps further ,

however by saying this it does not mean that I accept the bible , personaly I belive it to be incomplete , and I am not happy to beleive it to be fully representational of gods word or gods will , and has over time been subject to missinturpretation ..

so on reflection I dont think we need a definitive answer this question , it is not a yes or no question it is a question for contemplation , if any swami wishes to refer to jesus as an avatar it is on the strength of his questioning that he does so .

this does not however suggest that any syncronisation is needed between Hinduism and Christianity there are only points where our practices concur that can be accknowledged , ... to think that this weakens Hinduism is obsurd it just proves its openmindedness and its recignition of Dharma .

what does weaken Hiinduism is failure to contemplate its tenents .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some do. Quite a few do in fact. Others make him exclusive that only he was that. The complaint with the institution is that they take Jesus who teaches us to be that in ourselves, and says, "No, only he was that. You will always need intercession on your behalf". I do not believe that was at all what Jesus taught.

Now, whose word should I take? Yours or that of the Gospel writers?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." That is a very broad brush. All prophets and prophetesses of Judaism, the religion that he was born in, condemned in one grand stroke. The sheep did listened to them. The sheep did not much listen to Jesus. They listened only when Constantine came around.

For others, like inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, he willed a fate worse than Sodom.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Hindu Gods and Goddesses are for Hindus. Other Gods are taking care of other people who need Gods or Goddesses. Some might not need them at all (the Buddhists, or those of the Far-East). We do not interfere in other peoples' business nor like interference in our business. (Who said there is one God for all people? There are many. We have at least a few hundred. You see, it is a total mismatch. What would Jesus say when confronted with all his uncles and aunts?)

 

[LuisDantas]

Hindu Gods and Goddesses are for Hindus. Other Gods are taking care of other people who need Gods or Goddesses. Some might not need them at all (the Buddhists, or those of the Far-East). We do not interfere in other peoples' business nor like interference in our business. (Who said there is one God for all people? There are many. We have at least a few hundred)

That is something that the Abrahamic Faiths attempted to overcome and, IMO, have pretty much failed at - with the aggravation of also failing to realize that and therefore not knowing how to deal with the consequences.

Historically, religion is - or at least was for a very long time - part of the identity of a community, and it was plenty accepted that other communities would of course have different beliefs, different gods and different religions. That was hardly a surprise or a problem, any more than it is a problem that people talk various different languages and therefore don't always understand each other.

Hinduism is in an unique position in that it is better suited to reach most people than the Abrahamic Faiths, with their theocentric approach, can ever be. But it does not need to convince people that their beliefs are wrong, so it does not really attempt to (at least not to a comparable degree).

Basically, it makes a better Abrahamic Faith than the Abrahamic Faiths, despite not particularly wanting to.

Yet the Abrahamic Faiths, or at least large segments of the leaders of Christianity, the Islamic world, and arguably the Bahai Faith, are somewhat out of a choice; their own belief tenets keep pressuring them to some degree to try and convince others that their beliefs are wrong and must be substituted by their own allegedly "truer, more universal" doctrines.

It is a grave defect disguised as a virtue. The bluntly stated truth is that only a tiny percentage of Abrahamists have anything close to the religious wisdom needed to proselitise in a respectful manner, let alone a healthy one. They fail disastrously not only at promoting their own faiths, but also at protecting them from the pitfalls and poisons that may come (and often do) with the mindsets that the idea of proselitism encourage.

In short, I do not blame the Abrahamic Faiths for being all-out monotheistic, nor for wanting to be universal. But I sure do blame them for failing to be up to the task and wanting to deal with that by claiming that everyone else is wrong instead of by improving their doctrine and practice and graciously accepting that universal adoption of their beliefs in quite simply not something that they have earned yet.

Heck, often enough the Abrahamic Faiths seem to take it as a matter of pride that they do not really want to improve.

 

[Windwalker]

Now, whose word should I take? Yours or that of the Gospel writers?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

You do realize that all verses of all scriptures, Christian and Hindu, are interpreted in different lights and can in fact being taken in contradictory, and completely opposite meanings? I believe your interpretation that this means an exclusion of other religious teachers is an interpretation influenced by those who choose to use it that way to say everyone else but themselves is lost. I don't read it that way myself.

Here's a really great thread that was started here on this verse you should explore to see just how not exclusionary this verse means, and how much differences in views exist regarding it, rather than meaning just the one interpretation you are seizing upon here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/147549-jesus-said-him-i-am-way.html

I enjoy Jainaryan's response in post 2, citing that Krishna said the same thing. My response in post 14 shows my thoughts to it, which you can use as a response to your bringing it up here where I said,

"It's tricky to wrap ones mind around, especially in light of traditional doctrines, but when Jesus speaks thus he is speaking as that realized incarnation, not a separate self, a separate egoic "Jesus", but rather as "the express image of God". When that place of nondual realization occurs, it is to say that in our humanity the only way to union with God is to become that ourselves. "I am the Way", is to become Christ ourselves. Then I or you will say "I am the Way" as well, not in our separate ego-self, but our divine Identity. "I and my Father are One,".... "I pray they may be one even as we are one". "​

In other words, if I myself am speaking from that place of Divine Identity, I can say too, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", because that Truth in us, Is, and there is no other but that Light.

"All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." That is a very broad brush. All prophets and prophetesses of Judaism, the religion that he was born in, condemned in one grand stroke.

This doesn't take much effort at all to correct your thinking on this. Clearly he was not suggest ALL teachers before him were thieves and robbers, as he cites many prophets and teachers before him as speaking truth throughout the Gospels. Context would suggest he meant those claiming exclusive truths speaking from their own narcissistic, ego-aggrandizing prophets and gurus who fleece others for personal gain, exploiting the desire for Truth in those who seek God for themselves. Think in terms of the Televangelists who get you to send in money promising you the riches of God's kingdom for your act of faith in giving them money. Thieves and robbers.

What he is saying in this verse really has to do with those who do not go astray in listening to these charlatans. They are listening to God in their own hearts and not falling into the trap of responding simply to appearances, seeking for a shortcut to Nirvana because they are focused on their own fears and wants for their own sake. "The sheep did not listen". It's an admonishment to keep your heart true, to keep your sight on the goal which is God, and not on yourself where you can fall prey to these who promise truth to you and deliver only sand. It's not a criticism of other teachers. "My sheep hear my voice and they enter". It seems pretty clear to me. Those who listen to God will know Truth, they will enter into Knowledge.

The sheep did listened to them. The sheep did not much listen to Jesus. They listened only when Constantine came around.

The sheep did not listen to them, as Jesus says there. You seem to be arbitrarily assigning the meaning of the term "sheep" here to whomever you please, thus destroying the meaning of the very verse you were quoting.

The formation of the early church and the role of Constantine is a hugely involved subject I'd be happy to have with you in another thread. Suffice to say, it's hardly anything like the broad-brush sweeping stroke you are making here.

For others, like inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, He willed a fate worse than Sodom.

Someone mentioned quote mining. I see that happening here.

 

[Windwalker]

Yet the Abrahamic Faiths, or at least large segments of the leaders of Christianity, the Islamic world, and arguably the Bahai Faith, are somewhat out of a choice; their own belief tenets keep pressuring them to some degree to try and convince others that their beliefs are wrong and must be substituted by their own allegedly "truer, more universal" doctrines.

It is a grave defect disguised as a virtue. The bluntly stated truth is that only a tiny percentage of Abrahamists have anything close to the religious wisdom needed to proselitise in a respectful manner, let alone a healthy one. They fail disastrously not only at promoting their own faiths, but also at protecting them from the pitfalls and poisons that may come (and often do) with the mindsets that the idea of proselitism encourage.

Beautifully said. I fully agree. Engrave it in bronze and hang it as a plaque. This where the Wisdom of the East can benefit the mentality of the West in how they have taken their religion and made it into this.

 

[idav]

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.

To me it is not about merging faiths. There are differences for a reason. My question is the view approached when anyone claims to be of god. Jesus is one such claiming and there are many. Often times, unlike the dharma religions, Christians automatically demonize anything not Jesus. Jesus himself was more inclusive. Would a Hindu automatically say Jesus was a demon or approach more openly? I don't know if Jesus is an avatar but I wonder about the connection with god which is believed to be real.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, Hindu view would be open. They would not agree to make Jesus or anybody else into an avatara. Avataras are listed in the books and are not negotiable (therefore, sorry), otherwise personally I would have liked Mahavira to be an avatara. But hindus may accept one from another fold as a Mahatma, Maharshi, if he/she was good enough.

 

[Jainarayan]

Personally, I tend to think of Hinduism as a language... and as something quite unlike the Abrahamic Faiths.

The Abrahamic Faiths, if practiced as they should be, should be a way of life not unlike Buddhism's or Hinduism's basic tenets. At their cores, the Abrahamic Faiths stress compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, friendship, generosity... in a word, mettā. It's strange that Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains see this, but Hindus, at least the Hindus here, seemingly, do not. Too many Christians don't see it either, unfortunately; they are not above reproach either.

 

[Jainarayan]

the lord is saying ....where ever there is irriligion I appear ....
He dosent say how he appears he just says I appear ....
He may appear as an avatar , he may appear as a hidden avatar ,
He may appear as an inspirational vision
He may appear in the heart of the sadhaka


so how we veiw the teachers and prophets of other religions is a matter for personal contemplation .
but for any hindu to acknowledge jesus as an avatar or an incarnation , emination .... what ever conclusion they might come to , dosent nececarily mean that they accept jesus as a teacher or that they wish to follow any elements of the christian path except for those aspects that are universaly accepted by all ...thou shalt not kill ...agreed and in my mind Hinduism takes Ahimsa one or two steps further

This is spot on. Krishna also says in Bhagavad Gita 4.11 "O Partha! Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path." So what path(s) is he talking about? He doesn't specify. Imo he is saying that people worship and follow him in their own way without knowing they worship him. And he repeatedly states he is God.

I also use the quotes "jāki rahi bhāvanā jaisi prabhu mūrat dekhi tin taisi." and "ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti". Vedic purists may say that RV 10.164.46 refers only to the Vedic deities. But if the Vedas are universal and there is only one God, then those who protest or deny this talk out of both sides of their mouths... let's do the math. Writers, saints, gurus, and yogis far more enlightened, educated and advanced than any poster here have said all this for centuries and millennia.

 

[Jainarayan]

Now, whose word should I take? Yours or that of the Gospel writers?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." That is a very broad brush. All prophets and prophetesses of Judaism, the religion that he was born in, condemned in one grand stroke. The sheep did listened to them. The sheep did not much listen to Jesus. They listened only when Constantine came around.

For others, like inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, he willed a fate worse than Sodom.

You too have missed the point that Jesus spoke in metaphor and hyperbole because he was speaking to a particular audience at a particular time with a particular mindset. Did it occur to you that he was saying that no one could know what God truly was if they did not learn it from Jesus, who was enlightened as to what God is? No, I did not think so. People must stop reading what they want in the gospels and spouting selected phrases without knowing the context. Especially those who have never been, or studied Christianity. It's arrogant and presumptuous. How much of the Vedas and Shastras are taken literally? And how much of them elicit a "you've got to be kidding me" response to some verses?

 

[Windwalker]

The Abrahamic Faiths, if practiced as they should be, should be a way of life not unlike Buddhism's or Hinduism's basic tenets. At their cores, the Abrahamic Faiths stress compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, friendship, generosity... in a word, mettā. It's strange that Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains see this, but Hindus, at least the Hindus here, seemingly, do not. Too many Christians don't see it either, unfortunately; they are not above reproach either.

Exactly as I see it. Well stated.

 

[Jainarayan]

What in the 3 synoptic gospels even seemingly resembles Hindu dharma?

Seemingly very little, except for Mark 12: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Similarly Matthew 22:

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And of course Matthew 7:1-2 reflecting compassion: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[Windwalker]

Seemingly very little, except for Mark 12: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Similarly Matthew 22:

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And of course Matthew 7:1-2 reflecting compassion: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And then he summarized this by saying "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets," which means the entirety of religious practice is either fulfilled, or failed on those two injunctions. Why? Because love works no ill. If one first loves God and is filled with God, then they will naturally do no harm to another. They will not bicker who has the right beliefs, because Love is the fulfillment of the nature of God in the world. If one fails to attune and align their heart with God, they then become the source of their own righteousness, coming from the ego, and will fail to fulfill the law, because they do not have the Source of Love within them as the center, and are acting instead out of their heads, our of their ideas of what is truth.

 

[idav]

Seemingly very little, except for Mark 12: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Similarly Matthew 22:

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And of course Matthew 7:1-2 reflecting compassion: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Seemingly little except for the core of his teachings?