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

[Jainarayan]

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 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.

Seemingly little except for the core of his teachings?

Indeed. :yes: As I repeatedly say, people (including Christians) cherry-pick what they want from his teachings to "prove" their point without knowing what the teachings really are and their purpose. That's why I said 'seemingly'... it's a surface view. His teachings cannot be taken at face value, and out of context.

 

[Windwalker]

Indeed. :yes: As I repeatedly say, people (including Christians) cherry-pick what they want from his teachings to "prove" their point without knowing what the teachings really are and their purpose. That's why I said 'seemingly'... it's a surface view. His teachings cannot be taken at face value, and out of context.

Back in my younger years I had a desire to be a minister, and in part of my training in a religious college I had to put together a sermon to present to the student body. That passage, the two great commandments, was what I was drawn to speak upon. In my research into it over the next couple weeks, I discovered that this passage when realized within someone, would negate the need for any of all the rest of what the religion was offering by way of teachings. I said to myself, "No other sermon ever need be preached again". And indeed that is true.

Jesus' perception of religion, in my perception, is as a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is not about preserving the true doctrines and teachings of the tradition, but in fulfilling them in Love, and thus transcending them. And isn't this the hope and aspiration of all great founders of all religions? And isn't it those who don't realize that in themselves, who take the teachings of this and turn them into religious doctrines that one must "keep pure, and not water down," etc.?

I eventually left them because I needed more than religion to fulfill that truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. :yes: As I repeatedly say, people (including Christians) cherry-pick what they want from his teachings to "prove" their point without knowing what the teachings really are and their purpose. That's why I said 'seemingly'... it's a surface view. His teachings cannot be taken at face value, and out of context.

On the other hand "cherry-picking" is part of one's religious responsibility in the first place; it just happens that Dharmic faiths make that a bit easier to remember than the Abrahamic ones do.

No one should attempt to hide their responsibility behind religious tradition. And that, IMO, is what Dharma is all about.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

"I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through word, THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE; EVEN AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME,& I IN THEE, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 20-21

he heals the sick fights demons and Re established dharma.

Matthew in particular is Jesus satsang. But to truly realize similarities to yoga, one must look up lost Gospels.
The Gospel of Mary magdaline describes the kundalini trip.
The Gospel of Thomas a sayings Gospel that teaches panentheism that is very similar to advaita.

The secret book of john scribes Christ(the monad) which is essentially Brahman, very similar to advaita.

The Gospel of Philip, describing the Christ Monad, & presenting a willful disconnect from the Hebrew community.

 

[Jainarayan]

Back in my younger years I had a desire to be a minister, and in part of my training in a religious college I had to put together a sermon to present to the student body. That passage, the two great commandments, was what I was drawn to speak upon. In my research into it over the next couple weeks, I discovered that this passage when realized within someone, would negate the need for any of all the rest of what the religion was offering by way of teachings. I said to myself, "No other sermon ever need be preached again". And indeed that is true.

Jesus' perception of religion, in my perception, is as a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is not about preserving the true doctrines and teachings of the tradition, but in fulfilling them in Love, and thus transcending them. And isn't this the hope and aspiration of all great founders of all religions? And isn't it those who don't realize that in themselves, who take the teachings of this and turn them into religious doctrines that one must "keep pure, and not water down," etc.?

I eventually left them because I needed more than religion to fulfill that truth.

Beautiful, and so true. When I was Eastern Orthodox my priest used to rail against rituals and religion being ends in themselves. One comment he used frequently when it was a fasting time, e.g. Great Lent, "Remember, God does not need the fast, man does".

 

[Contemplative Cat]

This will only mean something to meditation people;
"The people who sat in darkness, have seen a great light.
& for those who sat in the region &shadow of death. Light has dawned."
-matthew 4:16

 

[Jainarayan]

On the other hand "cherry-picking" is part of one's religious responsibility in the first place; it just happens that Dharmic faiths make that a bit easier to remember than the Abrahamic ones do.

No one should attempt to hide their responsibility behind religious tradition. And that, IMO, is what Dharma is all about.

For sure... and there is a difference between discerning truths, interpreting and the cherry-picking I'm referring to, to cast a particular religion or belief system in a negative light. That's the cherry-picking I'm against. The Dharmic faiths certainly do allow for a long stretch more latitude in interpretation.

 

[Windwalker]

Wisely understanding contexts and appropriately applying, or disregarding passages due to being cultural artifacts is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is intellectually dishonest, it selective says this is good here, while glossing over, ignoring, or mangling an interpretation of something that contradicts it over there. Understanding historical and cultural contexts and saying a previous view is outdated or wrong, is not in anyway cherry picking as it accepts it contradictions, and understands why they are, not ignore it saying it's all good and should be believed in.

People misuse the term cherry picking all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

 

[Poeticus]

No one should attempt to hide their responsibility behind religious tradition. And that, IMO, is what Dharma is all about.

Bingo was his name-o!

ps - Luis, have you come across a definitive text insofar that can be used as a sticky for the HinduDIR? Or, has your wonderful and well-intentioned thread been...oh, I don't know...hijacked?

"I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through word, THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE; EVEN AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME,& I IN THEE, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 20-21

he heals the sick fights demons and Re established dharma.

Matthew in particular is Jesus satsang. But to truly realize similarities to yoga, one must look up lost Gospels.
The Gospel of Mary magdaline describes the kundalini trip.
The Gospel of Thomas a sayings Gospel that teaches panentheism that is very similar to advaita.

The secret book of john scribes Christ(the monad) which is essentially Brahman, very similar to advaita.

The Gospel of Philip, describing the Christ Monad, & presenting a willful disconnect from the Hebrew community.

Lmao. The above is no different than when a couple of Hindus were misappropriating Buddhism just last month (December 2013 was a rough month for the Buddhists of RF, as per my evaluation - go through the threads from that month to see for yourself) - which derived the ire of very knowledgeable Buddhists that did not approve of such misappropriation and valiantly debated vigorously to keep their distinct identity in and of it self.

There will be superficial commonalities; but, at the string-theory level...there are chaotically different variations. The former should be acknowledged; but, the latter should be well respected. From here, moving on should do the trick. Just for kicks and giggles, I could try the same experiment and make a thread in the ChristianDIR on how they view the many-armed Goddess Kālī and watch the poo-flinging start. Contrast that guess with how Punk'd has been received in the HinduDIR. He has been treated well and almost all of his questions have been answered progressively and maturely.

"Jesus satsang"? Sure, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Windwalker]

Lmao. The above is no different than when a couple of Hindus were misappropriating Buddhism just last month (December 2013 was a rough month for the Buddhists of RF, as per my evaluation - go through the threads from that month to see for yourself) - which derived the ire of very knowledgeable Buddhists that did not approve of such misappropriation and valiantly debated vigorously to keep their distinct identity in and of it self.

Which is why it can be subtitled, "This isn't traditional Buddhism, but is anyone actually claiming it is?" Why then such ire?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Did you ever look at them? Or did you just type without thinking first.
You notions and dogma rival that of mainstream Christians, it is a shame. Hinduism has so mny good lessons that were missed.
Bhagavad gita (the whole book) is good one with many lessons. Or maybe purusra sukta. Or the yoga vasistha.

I'm not sure you know much except that you are somehow the authority

 

[Aupmanyav]

Socrates will certainly qualify for a title of Maharshi and many other Greek philosophers too. After all, Yavanas, 'Ionians', are our sister tribe.

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.

And which should be thy God? My Father.

If one first loves God and is filled with God, then they will naturally do no harm to another. .. they then become the source of their own righteousness, coming from the ego, and will fail to fulfill the law, ..

We have seen that, from both, Christians and Muslims. And what if someone does not believe in existence of God? Kafir? That is unfair to many righteous atheists.

 

[Jainarayan]

Which is why it can be subtitled, "This isn't traditional Buddhism, but is anyone actually claiming it is?" Why then such ire?

Importantly, we have to ask "just what is traditional Buddhism anyway?" Is Vajrayana, with its multiplicity of yidams traditional Buddhism? Is Benzaiten (Saraswati in Japanese Buddhism) and Vinayaka in Shingon and Tibetan Buddhism traditional Buddhism? The Buddha never spoke about them afaik, but millions of people venerate and worship them and still call themselves Buddhists. I am because so many people make so many authoritative pronouncements without having a whit of knowledge, not even using 'imo' or 'afaik'.

 

[Poeticus]

Which is why it can be subtitled, "This isn't traditional Buddhism, but is anyone actually claiming it is?" Why then such ire?

Maybe it had to do with something they perceived to be, Buddhically (yeah, I know...'tis an awesome word I just created), incorrect. They like their identity and originality, and want to keep it alive and well.

I say, let them. They got every right to address whatever it is they feel that is needed to be addressed. Doing so, in no way should be seen as traditional-drivel.

I'll give you an outlandish analogy:

If the whole world was one ethnicity...there would be no Brad Pitts, Denzel Washingtons, Donnie Yens, Amitabh Bachchans, etc. etc. etc.

And I, for one, would like to see the diversity of the human species stay alive. Similarly, I like to see the original facets of religious groups stay alive as well.

Did you ever look at them? Or did you just type without thinking first.
You notions and dogma rival that of mainstream Christians, it is a shame. Hinduism has so mny good lessons that were missed.
Bhagavad gita (the whole book) is good one with many lessons. Or maybe purusra sukta. Or the yoga vasistha.

I'm not sure you know much except that you are somehow the authority

There is too much straw in that man you have put up. I await a progressive response -- if you are able to provide it with constructive feedback.

-----------------------------------​

If anyone is wondering where I stand on the person known as Jeshua N'zareth:

'Twas a cool cat. But, I don't think he was divine.​

 

[Jainarayan]

And which should be thy God? My Father.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48. The bold is mine.

Does your cherry-picking and lack of knowledge of this subject know no bounds?

 

[LuisDantas]

Bingo was his name-o!

ps - Luis, have you come across a definitive text insofar that can be used as a sticky for the HinduDIR? Or, has your wonderful and well-intentioned thread been...oh, I don't know...hijacked?

I'm still in observer mode. It seemed to be appropriate so far, since after all I am not even a Hindu.

I'm slightly surprised that no Hindu proposed to take from me yet, actually.

 

[Zelophehad]

So glad to see Hindus in this thread so critical of the Abrahamic religions. It's refreshing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wisely understanding contexts and appropriately applying, or disregarding passages due to being cultural artifacts is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is intellectually dishonest, it selective says this is good here, while glossing over, ignoring, or mangling an interpretation of something that contradicts it over there. Understanding historical and cultural contexts and saying a previous view is outdated or wrong, is not in anyway cherry picking as it accepts it contradictions, and understands why they are, not ignore it saying it's all good and should be believed in.

People misuse the term cherry picking all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

While I agree, I also feel that it is crucial that every adherent understands and accepts that it is one's personal duty to tell one from the other.

 

[Poeticus]

I'm slightly surprised that no Hindu proposed to take from me yet, actually.

How about this?

Jesus was a cool dude; but, many Hindus do not see him as divine. And, many find him to be irrelevant.​

 

[Jainarayan]

So glad to see Hindus in this thread so critical of the Abrahamic religions. It's refreshing.

Don't get out much do you?