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

[LuisDantas]

It is my understanding that there is plenty of criticism of Abrahamic Faiths by Hindus, at least in India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, it comes tied with nasty political situations.

Or so I have heard anyway.

 

[Poeticus]

It is my understanding that there is plenty of criticism of Abrahamic Faiths by Hindus, at least in India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, it comes tied with nasty political situations.

Or so I have heard anyway.

Just do a quick google of what is happening right now to Hindus (and to an extent, Buddhists) in Bangladesh. There is a huge secular opposition (made up of many Muslims, BTW) that despise the pro-Islamic parties...the sad part is: their voice rarely makes it to the news.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Not unless you are a literalist. If someone is connected to the Source of Love in themselves, then it matters not one tick whether they call that God or Ground, or Brahman, or Self, or Allah, or Emptiness, etc. They are all doing the same thing.

Why is it religions get so hung up over terms? Is it because they are loving their beliefs first, say in God or in No-God? Loving "God", or That, is beyond beliefs. If it's not, then it's just the ego loving itself.

 

[Windwalker]

I am because so many people make so many authoritative pronouncements without having a whit of knowledge, not even using 'imo' or 'afaik'.

In a word, they look for Truth outside themselves. They seek Answers with a capital A to satisfy the cognitive mind. The cognitive mind is satisfied when we rest in spirit and allow it to quell that substitutionary seeking of the mind for "God". (see my second signature line below)

 

[Jainarayan]

In a word, they look for Truth outside themselves. They seek Answers with a capital A to satisfy the cognitive mind.

And isn't that the antithesis of meditation for self-knowledge and knowledge of God? Ironic. Someone (gee, I wonder who ) said the kingdom of God is within.

 

[Windwalker]

They like their identity and originality, and want to keep it alive and well.

Isn't the goal to get rid of our identities and finding our true Identity? Is the Ultimate a Hindu? Is the Absolute a Buddhist? Is the Christ a Christian?

No. To each of the above.

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.

It should be seen as a traditional view defending its ideas of what constitutes true religion. I see the traditional view as valid, for a traditionalist. I see the progressive view valid, for a progressive. I see Ultimate Truth to embrace these all.

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.

And I agree. Unity only exists with diveristy. Do not mistake Unity, for uniformity. You do understand the difference, don't you?

This seems the entire crux of the argument from the traditionalist viewpoint, that all other views that are not tightly defined as there own, are seen as a "watering down" of truth. But they mistake relative truth for Absolute Truth. I do not believe anyone is saying you cannot hold a traditionalist view. It simply say that to place it as Absolute Truth, denies Absolute Truth, substituting itself for God.

 

[Windwalker]

And isn't that the antithesis of meditation for self-knowledge and knowledge of God? Ironic. Someone (gee, I wonder who ) said the kingdom of God is within.

I believe all the great mystic leaders of what became religions say that exact same thing. Doesn't Hinduism teach this? Didn't Jesus? Didn't the Buddha?

 

[Windwalker]

Interestingly, I just came across this quote from elsewhere that ties nicely into this:

"However we look at it, it all comes down to a few simple points. In your own growth and development, you have the capacity to take self, culture, and nature to increasingly higher, wider, and deeper modes of being, expanding from an isolated identity of “me” to a fuller identity of “us” to an even deeper identity with “all of us”—with all sentient beings everywhere—as your own capacity for Truth and Goodness and Beauty deepens and expands. Ever-greater consciousness with an ever-wider embrace, which is realized in self, embodied in nature, and expressed in culture."

~Ken Wilber
​

That's very nicely put.

 

[Poeticus]

Isn't the goal to get rid of our identities and finding our true Identity? Is the Ultimate a Hindu? Is the Absolute a Buddhist? Is the Christ a Christian?

No. To each of the above.

As I have said many times, the problem arises when you treat "Hinduism" as monolithic. It is only a convenient term for the Hindu conglomeration - which is composed of countless differing belief systems, each different from each other.

So, as per my sect and the initiation I have received, the goal is NOT to get rid of our identities and find our true identity.

It should be seen as a traditional view defending its ideas of what constitutes true religion. I see the traditional view as valid, for a traditionalist. I see the progressive view valid, for a progressive. I see Ultimate Truth to embrace these all.

As per my Hindu sect, the "Ultimate Truth" is death. A shocker, I know. "oh em gee, this dude isn't fitting into the preconceived paradigm that I have of what Hinduism is...oh em gee!!"

Unity only exists with diveristy. Do not mistake Unity, for uniformity. You do understand the difference, don't you?

Why would I not understand the difference? What makes you think otherwise?

Was it not me who said countless times a few weeks back to you, which was a lengthy conversation, BTW, that there can be unity with the diverse?

This seems the entire crux of the argument from the traditionalist viewpoint, that all other views that are not tightly defined as there own, are seen as a "watering down" of truth.

In many cases, it is a "watering down" of the belief system. Do I see anything wrong with it? No. But, am I going to state that it is "watered down"? Why yes. Because, that's what it is.

But they mistake relative truth for Absolute Truth. I do not believe anyone is saying you cannot hold a traditionalist view. It simply say that to place it as Absolute Truth, denies Absolute Truth, substituting itself for God.

Yeah, I'm not really following along because this whole talk about Absolute Truth this and Absolute Truth that is unnecessary. This is why I keep stating that when you are talking about Hindus...it would behoove you to talk about a particular sect and sub-sect.

So, which Hindus are you talking about? The Vaishnavas and their sub-sects? The Shaiva-s and their sub-sects? The Shakta-s and their sub-sects? Etc. etc. etc.

Which is it?

 

[Windwalker]

As I have said many times, the problem arises when you treat "Hinduism" as monolithic. It is only a convenient term for the Hindu conglomeration - which is composed of countless differing belief systems, each different from each other.

Sure. I suppose the exact same thing hold true for Christianity as well, or views of Jesus. When someone says "a Christian", does this mean they all believe identically? I should ask, do you believe it does?

So, as per my sect and the initiation I have received, the goal is NOT to get rid of our identities and find our true identity.

Then I am ignorant, or there is a language issue here. What is Atman to you in your beliefs?

When I say "get rid of one's identity", I don't believe that literally, but figuratively to mean we move beyond the small self, the ego self, to the Self. Is this not the case in your views?

As per my Hindu sect, the "Ultimate Truth" is death. A shocker, I know. "oh em gee, this dude isn't fitting into the preconceived paradigm that I have of what Hinduism is...oh em gee!!"

Minus your unbecoming sarcasm, when you say "death" is the Ultimate Truth, I would agree, metaphorically. It is when we die to the false self we find the True Self. Or do you believe worms eating the physical body is ultimate truth? Explain?

Why would I not understand the difference? What makes you think otherwise?

Because you lead to to believe you see uniformity as the the same thing as unity.

Was it not me who said countless times a few weeks back to you, which was a lengthy conversation, BTW, that there can be unity with the diverse?

But then why are we talking about "watering down" beliefs when we share common truths together? Why this desire for isolation and rejection of non-traditional views?

 

[Sees]

I think we are all looking at different things here...love a/the Higher power/reality/self/ideal, love others...don't be selfish...

This is basic morality, philosophy, spirituality, etc. the devil is in the details. And really if Jesus said love YHWH/The LORD with all your heart...is he talking about something that really goes with Hindu, Buddhist, and various Pagan traditions, etc.? It's 100% understandable that he is working within the traditions of his people and culture. But YHWH doesn't equate to Brahman or much else without much looseness and generalization. I surely wouldn't love YHWH with even half my heart lol

The big factor outside of all the details and what's really being eluded to or transferred is what to do with the words that do seem to resemble other traditions. Practices and day to day life, methods to bring transformation or a stripping away, are very different. Now that you have discovered your message of*unity, live, Self, etc. what you do with it and what is your path? You don't become a hero, guru, sage, wizard, etc. by page one of a mysticism or enlightenment book or website.

This is why a cute, wise saying that seems to show universal ideals or concepts is not much more than a cute, wise saying. You tickled the surface with a feather.....now what? What about the 99.8% of the tradition and path that really represents their understandings and truths and breathes life?

Does it make any sense?

If you personally feel a couple ideas or concepts that are seemingly universally shared are the Truth and the Whole of what matters that is cool but what does it actually got to do with ancient, huge, varied traditions are actually learned, experienced, lived, passed down, etc.?

A big part of this I think is diet-pill religion, spirituality, enlightenment, self-realization, soul development, etc. People think it not only adequate, but truly 'ideal' to try to strip away majority of the teachings and the vehicle/path itself.

It's the difference between a true discipline and life-way vs. a few commandments or words of advice. You are still standing there on one of the first few steps with miles to go.

Will non-Christians agree with Jesus other teachings?

Even those considered most evil, tyrannical, and cruel individuals of the 20th century have some nice, wise words on love and spirituality. Crazy death cult leaders especially.

I don't dislike Jesus but he wasn't that special for me or most non-Christians....there is no reason to associate him at all outside of those traditions and paths or realization headquarters that already do.

 

[Poeticus]

Sure. I suppose the exact same thing hold true for Christianity as well, or views of Jesus. When someone says "a Christian", does this mean they all believe identically? I should ask, do you believe it does?

Unlike the many Christian sects and sub-sects, the Hindu sects and sub-sects are only collective in their notions of the Veda-s. Apart from that...they aren't as similar with each other as the many differing Christian sects and sub-sects are similar in their monotheistic outlooks.

Then I am ignorant, or there is a language issue here. What is Atman to you in your beliefs?

What if I were to tell you that I don't believe in Atman?

When I say "get rid of one's identity", I don't believe that literally, but figuratively to mean we move beyond the small self, the ego self, to the Self. Is this not the case in your views?

Nope.

Minus your unbecoming sarcasm, when you say "death" is the Ultimate Truth, I would agree, metaphorically. It is when we die to the false self we find the True Self. Or do you believe worms eating the physical body is ultimate truth? Explain?

For starters...we don't bury our dead. We cremate. Anyway, to go along with your question...death is the ultimate truth for us mortals because it comes for us all.

Because you lead to to believe you see uniformity as the the same thing as unity.

Incorrect. Please be kind as to go through the old conversation I am speaking about and acknowledge that I stress unity in diversity, not uniformity.

But then why are we talking about "watering down" beliefs when we share common truths together?

I don't see us sharing common truths together. That may be the case with many Hindus you have encountered IRL or on the Net, but, as per my sect, I don't see any common truths between my sect and Christianity and Jesusism.

Why this desire for isolation and rejection of non-traditional views?

Who says I am isolating and rejecting non-traditional views?

I clearly state that I have no problem with any watered down versions. All I state is that I am calling those versions as they are: watered-down.

----------------------------​

But YHWH doesn't equate to Brahman or much else without much looseness and generalization.

Many Hindu theists would say that Brahman is the father of YHWH, or is the God of YHWH.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interestingly, I just came across this quote from elsewhere that ties nicely into this:

"However we look at it, it all comes down to a few simple points. In your own growth and development, you have the capacity to take self, culture, and nature to increasingly higher, wider, and deeper modes of being, expanding from an isolated identity of “me” to a fuller identity of “us” to an even deeper identity with “all of us”—with all sentient beings everywhere—as your own capacity for Truth and Goodness and Beauty deepens and expands. Ever-greater consciousness with an ever-wider embrace, which is realized in self, embodied in nature, and expressed in culture."

~Ken Wilber
​

That's very nicely put.

That is certainly a healthy conception of religion. But I'm not sure it is a very representative one, in the sense that most religious people actually seek that.

 

[Sees]

I'm really curious what extreme universalists think of years in training in unique and specific religious and spiritual traditions/paths is all about?

If we can sum up all of what matters in a forum post or one book or website page, what is the point? Can even a thousand page book share all the truths and mysteries or properly guide people in a path?

Is one or two nights of reading Little Book of Zen or the Bhagavad Gita = to 5, 10, 20 years of living and cultivating a tradition or path?

I think much of it comes down to this. Some think they got the mystery and magic all figured out and they can pluck out the universal core.

When I was a little kid reading dozens of books on philosophy and spirituality I thought my little "ah-ha!" moments meant I had it all figured out as well. This is one of the reasons oral traditions are so important

Do we have many millions of true sages, gurus, masters, etc. living in the world? We definitely have many millions, billions, who think they got it all figured out.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's a marathon not a sprint, as the saying goes. If you think you have it figured out, you certainly don't. We have priests, nuns, monks who spend their lives in contemplation and service to their particular God(s), and after 80 years they could still question themselves. I've mentioned having been Eastern Orthodox; my priest used to say there is an EO saying "The worst sinners think they are the greatest saints, but the greatest saints know they are the worst sinners". I think very few have people ever had it figured out.

 

[Sees]

It's a marathon not a sprint, as the saying goes. If you think you have it figured out, you certainly don't. We have priests, nuns, monks who spend their lives in contemplation and service to their particular God(s), and after 80 years they could still question themselves. I've mentioned having been Eastern Orthodox; my priest used to say there is an EO saying "The worst sinners think they are the greatest saints, but the greatest saints know they are the worst sinners". I think very few have people ever had it figured out.

This is why appreciating and honoring the unique and diverse traditions/paths are important, in my opinion.

Let alone the concept of "emptying your cup" if you want to truly learn and evolve. When I give classes on low-light/no-light tactics there are always guys who want to hold on to only what they have learned and developed so far. First they have to intentionally wipe the slate clean, empty their cup, and later they can play with synchronization if they wish. The ones who don't usually suffer/fail on night two and can't keep up.

 

[Jainarayan]

Let alone the concept of "emptying your cup" if you want to truly learn and evolve.

Ah! The empty cup Zen story...

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

[Contemplative Cat]

IN Gnostic teachings they say Yahweh is the devil, an imposter of the one true God, the Monad.
The Monad is the true reality behind all phenomena.

This is truelly were Gnostic teaching and Vedanta teaching clash.
The Gnostics are totally intolerant of idols(They are imposters!)
While Vedantist use deities as ritual aids & "personalities of God". & see deities as useful.

But no, Yahweh is a Babylonian deity, Not Brahman.

The Monad or the unknowable God is Brahman.
most Gnostics were dualists(like sankya yoga) but valitinian gnostics were absolute monists(nondualist)

Modern Christinity has little to offer, but esoteric forms of christinity have mny lessons to teach.
The Christianity described by Gnostics is very similar to Yoga.
Not to be confused with the story told by most modern churches.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

praNAm,

IN Gnostic teachings they say Yahweh is the devil, an imposter of the one true God, the Monad.
The Monad is the true reality behind all phenomena.

Yeah, and the quetzalcoatl is the foundation for all that exists, LOL. oM namo quetzalcoatlAya... Ooh, I can already feel the vairAgyam coming, hehe.

This is truelly were Gnostic teaching and Vedanta teaching clash.

Clash? Meh, I'm a vedAntI and I don't even care about Gnosticism or gnostic belief, so how can I clash with something I'm ambivalent to?

The Gnostics are totally intolerant of idols(They are imposters!)
While Vedantist use deities as ritual aids & "personalities of God". & see deities as useful.

That's okay, the gnostic considers mUrti-s to be imposters and I consider Jesus to be one of the biggest FRAUDS and JOKERS to have ever existed, I'm glad to see that the feeling is mutual.

But no, Yahweh is a Babylonian deity, Not Brahman.

These Gnostics clearly had no grasp of historical reality, then. YHWH/HaShem/Elohim/"God of Israel" was the hyper militarized form of a Canaanite and/or Proto-Levantine deity, not a Babylonian deity and Jesus, if he existed at all, likely worshipped this deity and if we go by the Gospels, considered him as his father.

The Monad or the unknowable God is Brahman.
most Gnostics were dualists(like sankya yoga) but valitinian gnostics were absolute monists(nondualist)

If Gnostics were advaitI-s in the traditional sense, then my a** is a naiyAyika (lol). Anyway, if the followers of this "monad" consider mUrti-s or vigraha-s to be imposters, then clearly this "monad" is no different from a jealous, angry god like HaShem and I find it insulting to compare this "deity" with brahma. shrI viShNu is the supreme lord IMO, not some made-up "monad" deity from some heretical cult.

Modern Christinity has little to offer, but esoteric forms of christinity have mny lessons to teach.

Truly only a heretical cult can teach me something as "enlightening" as
"Let Mary go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life." Also, how can Gnosticism be considered Christian if Yahweh is considered "the devil", unless of course they consider their prophet/moral teacher to be the son of a devil/imposter. Dang, even Marcionites weren't quite THAT against Judaism (as to compare the Hebrew God to the devil).
Edit: I did some research, and it seems that monad was a term originally used by the Pythagoreans, who themselves were considered by the ancient Hellenes as a fanatical cult which murdered people for the strangest reasons (such as mathematical disagreements). I guess I shouldn't worship this mon-whatever, lest I too become like the Pythagoras followers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. death is the ultimate truth for us mortals because it comes for us all.

What is death, MaitraVarunih?