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

[Jainarayan]

The anger that one sees is not against Jesus and his teaching. But the anger is usually against the churchianity and their anti Christ methods.

That, I can agree with. It occurs in the US also, especially against the RCC. To the point that the RCC launched a "Come Home" advertising campaign.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Obviously, as a Hindu, I spend my "God as form" activities with Hindu Devatas, and am in good relations with many of them. In my path, I put a lot of emphasis on Kashi (Varanasi) where "all the Gods have come". The number in my path is 330 million "Gods" (since this is not a Hindu DIR, I am using general terms). Just as there is an advantage of memory capability regarding remembering the names of business partners, friends and relatives, associates, and this ability is a "science" of its own, I hope to one day know all the names and associated "faces" of all 330 million "Gods" but this will not be achieved in this life, it may take many lives (and some names are the same Devata since many have many names, or 108 names or 1008 names, or even nick-names). I am in no particular rush to Moksha, but that may happen anyway.

But in regards to Jesus, Mahavira and Buddha, I have no problem with them at all. Especially Mahavira, I am a huge admirer, and as my Mother loved Buddha so I like Siddhartha a lot who was born a Hindu actually.

Jesus, why would I hate? I do not. What a wonder if Jesus would speak in person here in California, I would definetly drive to L.A. to hear, not trying to sound smarty pants, I am serious. But I do not know much about Christianity, like I know for example Jainism and (Indian) Buddhism.

As far as avatars, Shiva does not have avatars (incarnations), but rather has manifestations and emanations. I don't want to get "technical", but Vishnu has incarnations, not Shiva or Brahma, nor Devi.

Jesus was not an incarnation. Mahavira was a self-realized arhant. Buddha was a self-realized Hindu reformer and influenced by Jainism. Krishna was an incarnation, but also a Hindu reformer regarding rituals to Vedic Gods. So that is my "skull bearer" Saiva perspective.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Vinayaka]

Jesus, why would I hate? I do not.
Om Namah Sivaya

Me neither, although accusations do come my way. Reminds me of this thread I started in an attempt to clarify my position.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/141955-when-neutral-becomes-negative.html

 

[Jainarayan]

Speak for yourself, I am of the opinion that one should extend love to all beings, even preta-s (like Jesus).

You do realize of course, that you offend a host of Christians including at least one mod., by your descriptions of their God as a "hungry ghost" or a zombie, do you not?

 

[Poeticus]

Speak for yourself, I am of the opinion that one should extend love to all beings, even preta-s (like Jesus). No one is "irrelevant" in Hinduism, this is why it is said "samA eva hyataH sarve vaiShamyaM bhrAntisambhavam." How can you blame/admonish the demons for their faults or try to diminish their importance when that is their natural disposition/svabhAva (asurAdestathA doShA nityAH svAbhAvikAH api)? After all, those faults too are created by Ishvar (jIvAsteShAM tu ye doShAsta upAdhikRitA matAH cheshvaratasteShAM na ki~nchit svat eva tu), right?

Q: How do Hindus view Jesus?

A: I, personally, view Jesus to
be irrelevant to yajna-dharma.

Is that better, Mr. Everything-Pricks-My-Bones?​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

You do realize of course, that you offend a host of Christians including at least one mod., by your descriptions of their God as a "hungry ghost" or a zombie, do you not?

What is offended, their mind or their soul? Paul offends me when he compares things like idol worship and homosexuality to murder; should I now go file a complain to the 2.1 Billion Christians and inform them that they need to change their scripture? Regardless, Christians can pray to Jesus, I'll pray for him. I don't see the problem.

 

[Poeticus]

What is offended, their mind or their soul? Paul offends me when he compares things like idol worship and homosexuality to murder; should I now go file a complain to the 2.1 Billion Christians and inform them that they need to change their scripture? Regardless, Christians can pray to Jesus, I'll pray for him. I don't see the problem.

You forgot the "t" in
"complain". It should
have a "t"....it should
be "complaint", not
"complain". Plus, it is
better to have a colon
after "offended". There
should be a semicolon
after "Jesus".​

 

[Jainarayan]

What is offended, their mind or their soul? Paul offends me when he compares things like idol worship and homosexuality to murder; should I go file a complain to the 2.1 Billion Christians and inform them that they need to change their scripture? Regardless, Christians can pray to Jesus, I'll pray for him. I don't see the problem.

Are you homosexual or an idol worshiper? Sorry, not even a good attempt at a comparison.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Q: How do Hindus view Jesus?

A: I, personally, view Jesus to
be irrelevant to yajna-dharma.​

But yaj~nadharma isn't all there is in Hinduism, right? Perhaps you may not feel it necessary to think of him, but it's rude to call a jIva entirely irrelevant. Semantics, I know.

 

[Poeticus]

But yaj~nadharma isn't all there is in Hinduism, right? Perhaps you may not feel it necessary to think of him, but it's rude to call a jIva entirely irrelevant. Semantics, I know.

It being a matter of rudeness is
entirely subjective. Furthermore,
no one is saying that yajna-dharma
is all there is to Hinduism(s). Even
Jainarayan, a Jesusismist, will
agree that he is irrelevant to many
Hindus, and understandably so.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

You forgot the "t" in
"complain". It should
have a "t"....it should
be "complaint", not
"complain". Plus, it is
better to have a colon
after "offended". There
should be a semicolon
after "Jesus".​

The first is a typo, the second is just your stylistic preference, and the last is indeed a grammar mistake on my part.

It being a matter of rudeness is
entirely subjective.​

So you wouldn't mind if I called you worthless or irrelevant?

Furthermore,
no one is saying that yajna-dharma
is all there is to Hinduism(s).​

I never said you did....

Even
Jainarayan, a Jesusismist, will
agree that he is irrelevant to many
Hindus, and understandably so.​

Irrelevant in which sense?​

​

​

Are you homosexual or an idol worshiper? Sorry, not even a good attempt at a comparison.

I am an idol worshipper in the views of Paul and Jesus, most certainly.
​

​

​

​

​

 

[Poeticus]

So you wouldn't mind if I called you worthless or irrelevant?

I never said you did....

Irrelevant in which sense?

Worthlessness and irrelevance
are different. You are conflating
the two unnecessarily.

Irrelevant in the sense that he
is not an avatar, a God, or
anything related, in my view.

For many Hindus, this seems to
be the case.​

 

[Jainarayan]

a Jesusismist

Well, now that's one I haven't used yet. Or I could go the way of the hermit or sannyasin and be known as Supercallousedfragilemysticplaguedwithbromhidrosis.

agree that he is irrelevant to many
Hindus, and understandably so.

Agreed, and that's as it should be.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am an idol worshipper in the views of Paul and Jesus, most certainly.

But they are irrelevant to you.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Worthlessness and irrelevance
are different. You are conflating
the two unnecessarily.

Irrelevant in the sense that he
is not an avatar, a God, or
anything related, in my view.

For many Hindus, this seems to
be the case.​

Does one need to be a God or an avatAra to be "relevant"? You stated that Jesus is viewed as irrelevant. This is stating that his being itself is irrelevant, which logically equates to worthlessness.

But they are irrelevant to you.

Their beliefs are irrelevant to me (just as my beliefs should be irrelevant to a Christian ), but they themselves are not irrelevant to me. I can disregard an individual's beliefs, but I'm not going to diminish them in regard to my sAdhana.

 

[Vinayaka]

Since it seems to me the word irrelevant is causing some humour, I might as well throw my irrelevant two-bits into the discussion.

Nothing, in the big picture is irrelevant to anyone. We're all interconnected, and we all share this beautiful blue fire planet. What each individual dwelling here does impacts each other individual in some way, whether it is large or small.

If my neighbour is a Christian and he lovingly lends me his chainsaw, because he's following his understanding of Christianity's 'Be a good neighbour' then great. But I'll happily lend him something based on the teachings of the Tirukural, or my own sense of humanity.

But irrelevant also means, 'do not need', no? If a second neighbour comes by and offers me another chainsaw, that's quite irrelevant to me. Doesn't mean I hate him for it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Their beliefs are irrelevant to me (just as my beliefs should be irrelevant to a Christian ), but they themselves are not irrelevant to me. I can disregard an individual's beliefs, but I'm not going to diminish them in regard to my sAdhana.

But you didn't express your beliefs, you used a pejorative in reference to their God.

Please don't

 

[Poeticus]

...which logically equates to worthlessness.

You have an odd sense
of what constitutes as
irrelevant.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But you didn't express your beliefs, you used a pejorative in reference to their God.

Please don't

To the contrary, you're hurting the feelings of preta-s. What if they're reading this thread?
My belief is that Jesus is a preta, and I stated that very clearly.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'll leave some food out for them on July 27, the Hungry Ghost Festival.