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

[Aupmanyav]

Very little, if any, of either Jesus's or the Buddha's teachings were in condemnation of evils, but rather what to do for good.

That said, I don't believe Luis intended this thread to get into the merits or evils of the bible, or the bible at all, especially bashing it.

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."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Someone said Hindus accept Buddha as an avatar. This is simply not true. If added, it should read that only some Hindus do that. Many Hindus (like me) don't even have the avatar concept in their philosophy, so it follows Buddha would not be an avatar. This is a Vaishnava concept, primarily.

Though nobody might have done a poll on this, but IMHO, most hindus do consider Buddha as the ninth avatara of Vishnu. Of course, I am not talking of initiated Shaivas like you. My family also is Shaiva, of a general type. This acceptance is there in SrimadBhagawatham.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, everybody, everything, is Brahman. Even sh** is. So what is wrong with Jesus being Brahman, or Hitler, Stalin, and Osama being Brahman. But, then, nobody has a special right over it. Even an 'asinus' is Brahman. What is not? That is at the absolute level of reality, 'Parmarthika'.

But then, there is a lower level of reality in which all the Jesuses, you, me, religions, conflicts exist. We cannot deny that reality, which Sankara named as 'Vyavaharika' (pragmatic, practical). So, at the 'Vyavaharika' level, Jesus is not an 'avatara', because accepting this would make Hinduism weaker and would cause the Christians to make bigger inroads in the Hindu polity, which is already under threat with a non-Hindu woman holding reins in India at present (and is likely to loose it in June).

 

[Kalidas]

I too find it ironic that the very same Hindus who say it is diverse, vast, encompasses so many beliefs, tolerates and welcomes all, etc. are the same ones who are the first to howl when something doesn't meet their criteria of what comprises this vast all-encompassing religion. Eta: especially when Hinduism itself is a syncretization and outgrowth of pastoral, tribal local and Proto-Indoeuropean religions.

This is where I stand on the whole thing in an attempt to be open(which.probably is more of a tie to me being liberal then.being a Hindu) and excepting yet trying to hold on to tradition. If someone or a group wants Jesus to be a part if their Hinduism so be it, Its your journey to enlightenment not mine, so do what helps you. But understand this is not aa normally accepted Hindu concept. So I will not judge yoi for it but I will not agree it is "right". So I am tolerant of it, but not agreeance of it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

I do not think, it does. Yes, everybody, everything, is Brahman. ........ So what is wrong with Jesus being Brahman, or Hitler, Stalin, and Osama being Brahman. But, then, nobody has a special right over it. ......

accpting that there are many veiws here , and what exactly constitutes hinduism ??? hinduism is a blanket term for many different traditions ....

but I must agree with Aupmanyav , that everything is Brahman ....so to my mind when a hindu of any tradition sees it within his heart to acknowledge jesus he is acting from a point of wisdom ....accepting jesus as an enination of god is putting things into perspective , .....jesus as one of many as opposed to the christian veiw of jesus as the only savior of mankind !

look at the problems caused in india by christian proselatising , where by countless hindus are persuaded to abandon their own cultural religion in favor of the 'one true religion' veiw of christianity ...if every native hindu were allowed by their own fellow hindus to accept jesus as one of many eminations of the supreme , then they would automaticaly realise that jesus is the savior of christians just as buddha is the savior of buddhists ....so ...thank you , thank you , but we have our own traditions our own saviors ... what need do we have of Jesus .... jesus is fine for you , he was a good teacher , but we also have our own good teachers , infact we have many ...


christianity in its one savior only beleif is verging on devisive and has caused much dammage throughout the world ,...... by accepting jesus as one of many eminations(for want of a better word) ....hindus are behaving more wisely than christians who hold the one savior only attitude, (which is naive to say the least).

But then, there is a lower level of reality in which all the Jesuses, you, me, religions, conflicts exist. We cannot deny that reality, which Sankara named as 'Vyavaharika' (pragmatic, practical). So, at the 'Vyavaharika' level, Jesus is not an 'avatara', because accepting this would make Hinduism weaker and would cause the Christians to make bigger inroads in the Hindu polity, which is already under threat with a non-Hindu woman holding reins in India at present (and soon is likely to loose it in June).

on the contrary I think accepting jesus could potentialy make hinduism stronger ,
as he becomes one of many , to be revered by some , but not to be revered to the exclusion of hindu gods and not to the exclusion of hindu culture .

personaly I accept jesus for his good works and all points where he concurs with Dharma , but he is un important to me he is just one of many . I would not wish to be dissrepectfull of any religious teacher . .... but I have my own system .

Originally Posted by Jainarayan
I too find it ironic that the very same Hindus who say it is diverse, vast, encompasses so many beliefs, tolerates and welcomes all, etc. are the same ones who are the first to howl when something doesn't meet their criteria of what comprises this vast all-encompassing religion.

unfortunately I have to agree with Jainarayan , here too !

we have to be very carefull that we do not enter into the realms of hypocracy ....

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

This is just my opinion as a vaiShNava, no more no less. I do not speak for all vaiShNava-s or bhAgavata-s, let alone all Hindus. However, in my honest opinion, Jesus was not realized and he and his disciple paul were to the contrary bhaktadveShI-s who resented devotion and mocked actions similar to that of taking prasAdam ("Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled". -1 Corinthians 8:7). To consider him (Jesus) an avatAra of bhagavAn would be somewhat blasphemous from my perspective. Some of the material he preached may have been in accord with the shAstra-s, some of it may not have been. However, a hater of devotion to shrI nArAyaNa (like Jesus was) is not even on par with an exceptional devotee, let alone bhagavAn himself. shrI kR^iShNa states in the gItA that he is dear to his devotees regardless of his/her/its standing, a sort of ambivalence (udAsInavadAsInamasaktam, lit. indifferently situated and unattached); this means that even a tree who has devotional tendencies and acknolwedges some degree of dependence on bhagavAn is greater than a human that considers himself to be supreme (like Jesus). Even shiva/rudra, the greatest of the deva-s and sarveshvaraH (the lord of all), emerges from nArAyaNa/mahAviShNu/kR^iShNa. Worship and adoration of shrI kR^iShNa is also the eventual object of meditation and j~nAna yogam, and this is futher substantiated by shrI madhvAchArya's quote from the varAhapurANam of shrIvedavyAsa, when he states "mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH param utkarShe tu tadanyatra tAtparyaM syAt avAntaram," which indicates that the main purport (mukhya tAtparyam) of all the veda-s (sarvavedAnAM) is that the husband of shrI/lakShmI (shrIpateH) is supreme (param).

TL DR version: I personally don't think Jesus was the supreme lord (which would be necessary if one is truly an avatAra of viShNu bhagavAn).

Edit: Oh yes, and regarding gautama buddha I do believe that he was an avatAra (not the ninth of the dashAvatAra like some Hindu-s believe, but nonetheless an avatAra). The same applies to the founder of jaina dharma, R^iShabha. This is because of the reason mentioned above by aupamanyava (i.e. based on the pramANa of the bhAgavatam). I can't say about other revered figures like the later jaina tIrtha~Nkara-s such mahAvIra, neminAtha, etc. or revered bauddha figures like shAnavAsa, k****igarbha, nAgArjuna, avalokiteshvara, ma~njushrI, padmasambhava, etc., perhaps or perhaps not.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I do not think, it does. Yes, everybody, everything, is Brahman. Even sh** is. So what is wrong with Jesus being Brahman, or Hitler, Stalin, and Osama being Brahman. But, then, nobody has a special right over it. Even an 'asinus' is Brahman. What is not? That is at the absolute level of reality, 'Parmarthika'.

Because, I belong to the school of 'everything isn't Brahman...only Brahman is Brahman'...yup, the 'neti neti' brigade.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

If someone or a group wants Jesus to be a part if their Hinduism so be it, Its your journey to enlightenment not mine, so do what helps you.

You see, the problem is that Christians and Muslims have a bug. They want all to become like them (Emperor's new clothes). The Dharmic religions do not have this bug. And when they have the numbers, they want a country of their own. A demographic invasion. India has faced this in partition and in our dealing with Naga people. It may be someone else's spiritual journey (hardly. One does not advance spiritually by accepting such retrograde religions as Christianity and Islam, who would not accept big-bang and evolution), but it is breaking up of my country. That is why I would not want it.

ps - I have edited my post above a little. What I was saying did not really relate to what NYK was saying.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. personaly I accept jesus for his good works and all points where he concurs with Dharma, ..

And what good works? Bringing Lazarus back to life? He demanded a price for it. 'Woman, do you believe that I am the son of God'. His good works were only for those people. For others, he had curses (he did not have any other power. Though he would have liked to burn the cities and kill all its inhabitants (that is what his curses said and more). Moses and Mohammad had that power and did exactly the same, saving the virgins for their soldiers). Worship no other God but MY Father! Can such a person be a Hindu Avatara.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jesus knew a lot of the same philosophies of Hinduism.

I do not think so. If he knew something of Hinduism and Buddhism, his teachings would have been very different.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if the gods are manifestations of Brahman, and Jesus is the manifestation of God.. are they not all God?

An advaitist would accept it, but say that you too are that (Tat twam asi). So is the stone in the river. What is so special about Jesus? Why should anybody be put on a special pedestal?

 

[Windwalker]

And what good works? Bringing Lazarus back to life? He demanded a price for it. 'Woman, do you believe that I am the son of God'. His good works were only for those people. For others, he had curses (he did not have any other power. Though he would have liked to burn the cities and kill all its inhabitants (that is what his curses said and more). Moses and Mohammad had that power and did exactly the same, saving the virgins for their soldiers). Worship no other God but MY Father! Can such a person be a Hindu Avatara.

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.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see no reason that people who identify as Hindus cannot adopt another figure from another culture and integrated it into their own beliefs and practices, which in time becomes a tradition itself. In time, that becomes "Hinduism", and then those 2000 years from now would argue that not having that figure was a violation of what Hinduism is. Bottom line is, traditionalists romanticize the past as a fixed set of beliefs, whereas they were novel then too.

I see your point but with 13 million Christian websites trying to demonize Hinduism, I do not think that is going to happen. Hinduism already has problems with people who say their way is the only correct way. We would perhaps not like to compound our problems.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since in hinduism, god incarnations are possible, not just in india.

As per the record and prophesies, they happen only in India.

I am saying that you don't need to be of the Hindu race to be Hindu-like.

What is a Hindu race? We are already a mix of many races.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Honestly, I just think it's reached the point where Hindus have said 'to each, their own' and I also see that as being very beneficial.

For a long time, Hinduism has been tolerant, incorporating, submissive...then infiltrated and dominated by those with their own religious agendas within Hinduism.

Hindus need solidarity and to solidify their own faith, in the attempts to move away from a very oppressive and subjugated history.

Not so long ago, there was the British, before that, the Muslims (who still hold most of the political sway in India today).

Hindus/Indians need to find their own identity without compromising the purity of a very pure religion. Hindus don't need it and most often, it just reminds them of times in history that they would rather forget and move on from.

The only way Hindus are going to move on from this, is to be firm and grounded within their own faith, which doesn't include anything foreign or alien to Sanatana Dharma.

While ever Hindus continue to be submissive and accepting, they are easily dominated, because that is a weakness others can exploit to their advantage.

So, Hindus are 'plugging the holes' now and better late than never.

Also, any reformation or restructuring of the religious system in India, starts with their womenfolk. If Hindu women become a strong, representative force in society, the men will follow.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Sees]

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.



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.

 

[Windwalker]

I see your point but with 13 million Christian websites trying to demonize Hinduism, I do not think that is going to happen. Hinduism already has problems with people who say their way is the only correct way. We would perhaps not like to compound our problems.

I didn't say I thought their understanding was all that great either.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. it seems they have very similar goals in mind which is to become one with god as an incarnation or simply by having a deep spiritual connection with existence.

Do the christians believe that humans become one with the God in Hindu sense? Is that what Jesus was teaching that?

 

[Maya3]

I think it is Hinduisms strength to be inclusive. I think that one of the reasons other faiths fail in our modern globalized world is because they keep insisting that their particular religion is the only right one. Even goes so far as to put up advertisements along highways that says: "Contact our church to learn about TRUTH" Honestly it´s just silly, if anything it is a turn off, and that place would be the last place I would look for religion.
It is our strength that we can say that, sure if you like Thor, Jesus, Muhammed, or a Tree that is great. What a wonderful way to connect to God.

but I must agree with Aupmanyav , that everything is Brahman ....so to my mind when a hindu of any tradition sees it within his heart to acknowledge jesus he is acting from a point of wisdom ....accepting jesus as an enination of god is putting things into perspective , .....jesus as one of many as opposed to the christian veiw of jesus as the only savior of mankind !

look at the problems caused in india by christian proselatising , where by countless hindus are persuaded to abandon their own cultural religion in favor of the 'one true religion' veiw of christianity ...if every native hindu were allowed by their own fellow hindus to accept jesus as one of many eminations of the supreme , then they would automaticaly realise that jesus is the savior of christians just as buddha is the savior of buddhists ....so ...thank you , thank you , but we have our own traditions our own saviors ... what need do we have of Jesus .... jesus is fine for you , he was a good teacher , but we also have our own good teachers , infact we have many ...

Exactly, well said.

I also think that it is important to explain that whereas it is fine for people to incorporate whatever belief system they have with their new Hindu faith, we should also be clear that Hinduism does not have a belief in Jesus. We do not believe that we need saving, we do not believe that our bodies are going to come back up on judgment day and walk around, even if it has been dead and decayed for hundreds of years. Our own theology is very, very different from teachings like this. We do not believe that there is a devil, that we are born sinful and all those things that Christians like to point out.
We don't believe that because a man got tortured to death 2000 years ago it somehow has something to do with us.

An advaitist would accept it, but say that you too are that (Tat twam asi). So is the stone in the river. What is so special about Jesus? Why should anybody be put on a special pedestal?

Exactly.
If Jesus was enlightened then that was great, he would have understood this and that is really nice.
But now it is my turn to try, maybe I will in this lifetime, maybe in another 100.

Maya

 

[Windwalker]

Do the christians believe that humans become one with the God in Hindu sense? Is that what Jesus was teaching that?

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.