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

[Jaskaran Singh]

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

You stated that Jesus is irrelevant to Hindus, not irrelevant to Hinduism. As it was written, it refers to his state of being, or Jesus as a whole (without qualifiers) is irrelevant to the majority of a certain group of people. I stated that if you consider me a part of that majority, then I don't agree (hence I stated "speak for yourself"). It's so fun messing with you. :hug:

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

Yes, and don't forget to distribute the prasAdam, it would be like a Eucharistic communion wafer.

 

[Poeticus]

You stated that Jesus is irrelevant to Hindus, not irrelevant to Hinduism. As it was written, it refers to his state of being, or Jesus as a whole (without qualifiers) is irrelevant to the majority of a certain group of people. I stated that if you consider me a part of that majority, then I don't agree (hence I stated "speak for yourself"). It's so fun messing with you. :hug:

You aren't messing with me, Jas.
You are exfoliating on the absurdity
of how you view irrelevancy.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

You aren't messing with me, Jas.
You are exfoliating on the absurdity
of how you view irrelevancy.​

If I view someone's being, actions, etc. as entirely irrelevant, then yes, that equates with worthlessness. However, the reverse isn't necessarily true. You must posit an alternative argument in order for me to consider your claim. Merely stating that my view is absurd is little more than an ad hominem. By induction, if one requires some degree of overall relevance in being in order to be "of worth" to that individual, then my conclusion naturally makes sense. BTW, nice "couplet"...

 

[Poeticus]

If I view someone's being, actions, etc. as entirely irrelevant, then yes that equates with worthlessness...

That's where your confusion arises
from, Jas.​

Irrelevancy =/= worthlessness.​

If I need a pen to write this paragraph
and someone gives me a pencil, that pencil
is worthless, but it is still relevant since it
is a utensil for writing. The relevancy is
there. But, if someone gave me an Xbox
controller, then that controller is irrelevant,
out of place, inapposite, unconnected,
inapplicable. This isn't even a matter of
semantics. You are conflating the two
unnecessarily. And, ironically, are asking me
to provide you a basis for my statements
when your conflation is - no pun intended -
irrelevant.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

That's where your confusion arises
from, Jas.​

Irrelevancy =/= worthlessness.​

If I need a pen to write this paragraph
and someone gives me a pencil, that pencil
is worthless, but it is still relevant since it
is a utensil for writing. The relevancy is
there. But, if someone gave me an Xbox
controller, then that controller is irrelevant,
out of place, inapposite, unconnected,
inapplicable. This isn't even a matter of
semantics. You are conflating the two
unnecessarily. And, ironically, are asking me
to provide you a basis for my statements
when your conflation is - no pun intended -
irrelevant.​

Please give a better explanation for you claim, because:

1) The pencil does possess a certain degree of worth to you, for if you did not possess it or any other writing utensil, you would be unable to write (in general).

2) The Xbox controller still has a certain degree of relevance, as in the case that one does have an Xbox system and monitor, it can be put to use. Hence, its being in itself is still relevant, although perhaps not in a particular scenario. However, such a qualification was not present in your original statement (as I explained multiple times). Merely using four different synonyms doesn't add support to your argument.

If I were to say that you are irrelevant to me (without any qualifiers), I would be saying that you are pretty much worthless to me.

 

[Poeticus]

Please give a better explanation for you claim, because:
1) The pencil does possess a certain degree of worth to you, for if you did not possess it or any other writing utensil, you would be unable to write.
2) The Xbox controller still has a certain degree of relevance, as in the case that one does have an Xbox system and monitor, it can be put to use. Hence, its being in itself is still relevant, although perhaps not in a particular scenario. However, such a qualification was not present in your original statement (as I explained multiple times). Merely using four different synonyms doesn't add support to your argument.

​

 

[Poeticus]

To the best of my recollection,
a majority of Hindus, either
orthodox or not, find the mere
question to be irrelevant. What
still perplexes me is why was this
thread in the comparative rel.
section and not where it belongs,
in the HinduDIR? If you want to
know how Hindus view Jesus,
it should belong in the HinduDIR -
wherein...the majority will clearly
say....he's quite irrelevant.​

However, such a qualification was not present in your original statement (as I explained multiple times). Merely using four different synonyms doesn't add support to your argument.

If I were to say that you are irrelevant to me (without any qualifiers), I would be saying that you are pretty much worthless to me.

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.

What part of "the mere question is irrelevant"
do you not understand? Re-read Vinayaka's post.
It really shouldn't be this difficult, Jaskaran.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

​

Stating that Christ is irrelevant to Hindu practice is different from saying that he's irrelevant to Hindus. Ask anyone and they would confirm that this is true. The former places a certain condition, whereas the latter is with regards to state of being (and thereby relates to value or importance rather than purpose).

 

[Poeticus]

Stating that Christ is irrelevant to Hindu practice is different from saying that he's irrelevant to Hindus. Ask anyone and they would confirm that this is true. The former places a certain condition, whereas the latter is with regards to state of being.

A majority of Hindus find Jesus to be
irrelevant to their practice, and they
find him to be irrelevant, as Hindus
themselves. Since you are not of this
majority, the "original statement" does
not even apply to you. It doesn't get
anymore difficult than this, Jas.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

A majority of Hindus find Jesus to be
irrelevant to their practice, and they
find him to be irrelevant, as Hindus
themselves. Since you are not of this
majority, the "original statement" does
not even apply to you. It doesn't get
anymore difficult than this, Jas.​

That's why I indicated that "if you consider me to be part of that majority" (see post 222), I don't agree.

 

[Vinayaka]

Indeed, Jas, you would be in the minority. By inference, if we conclude that the majority of Hindus consider Jesus irrelevant to themselves, and their practice, then it logically follows that a minority of Hindus consider him relevant. Nobody ever said, 'All Hindus consider Jesus to be irrelevant," or "All Hindus should consider Jesus irrelevant."

It is a free country, after all, and one can can practise any faith or combination of faiths they wish too, and that's clear by the nature of this forum. In this particular regard, the degree of relevancy changes with the individual. For me it is 100% irrelevant.

Hindu/Christian syncretics are in there from 80/20 to 20/80 range maybe,and then, on the other end of the scale, one should probably consider themselves a Christian. But once again, that is up to the individual. It is a free country.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste to Non-Hindus reading this thread

In my 50 years of Hinduism in this life, I have honestly never heard a fellow Hindu refer to Jesus as a Preta (I will get to the translation of this word in a minute).

This could be in part due to hardly any discussions between Hindus dwell on Jesus or the subject matter of this post, so it could be some Hindus think this but because there is no dialog happening on Jesus as I recall, this matter of thinking Jesus is a Preta has never come up in my life even though JS has mentioned it - which makes me think in general this is an obscure if not aberrant idea.

I have heard ISKCON devotees use the term pretas (but not in context of Jesus), generally it is a negative term, and I have seen Chinese Buddhist works use the term which sometimes gets translated as "hungry ghost". I am not sure I agree with this translation, but in general I see a wandering after-life form that is undergoing some sort of suffering, but it can in some context refer to any deceased person which eventually will happen to all of us as far as the lifespan of our current body.

In some villages, pretas have almost supernatural powers, albeit still ghostly.

Personally, as a Hindu, I do not believe Jesus was or is pretas. But this does not mean "ghost" to me, for me a more proper term for ghosts is bhutas. Pretas is a subtile body (which we have like a sheath over us) which can be invoked out by some priests during death rituals that will voluntarily travel to Yamaraj instead of the other way around, but may "stop here and there" on the way (but this is not a ghost or bhuta).

I do not think Jesus was or is a bhuta either, again as a Hindu I have not heard such a belief of Jesus as a Preta and I am pretty sure it is not in Hinduism.

However, some Sri Lankan Buddhists may think this. In the 18th Century there were a set of 74 palm-leaf folios consisting of 3 tales discovered, probably authored at that time of Buddhist-Christian encounters, the tales are Buddhist of which one tells of a Carpenter Preta (e.g. Jesus). This Nazarin was sent by Mara and has powers. However, there are words also linking this "Preta" to Krishna or Krishnaya the Hindu avatar and not just Jesus.

I suspect JS has some knowledge of these folios, which are actually not only a Buddhist view of Catholic Jesus in negative light, but also an attack on Hinduism and Krishna and sort of presents an idea that the Nazarin (Jesus) and Krishnaya are "the same" trickster from Mara.

Just saying ... this isn't Hinduism, in fact it is Buddhist and is in fact tales or belief that attack Hinduism and Christianity together.

There has been some synchronicity between Hinduism and some Buddhism in Sri Lanka (Ceylon), not coming from Buddhists but from Hindus, in the 18th and 19th Centuries. For example, some Hindu Temples in Lanka have Buddhist priests doing the puja. So to be fair, some Tamil Hindus may have also adopted a bit of the Jesus Preta idea too, but I find no hard evidence of this, it is not Hindu and is both a negative depiction of Jesus and Krishna. But this does not seem to exist today among Ceylonese Hindus at all, and is a "dead fairy tale".

Also, it may not be a wise idea for Hindus to adopt an outdated defunct Buddhist agenda aimed at attacking Hindus and Christians both.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste to Non-Hindus reading this thread

In my 50 years of Hinduism in this life, I have honestly never heard a fellow Hindu refer to Jesus as a Preta (I will get to the translation of this word in a minute).

This could be in part due to hardly any discussions between Hindus dwell on Jesus or the subject matter of this post, so it could be some Hindus think this but because there is no dialog happening on Jesus as I recall, this matter of thinking Jesus is a Preta has never come up in my life even though JS has mentioned it - which makes me think in general this is an obscure if not aberrant idea.

I have heard ISKCON devotees use the term pretas (but not in context of Jesus), generally it is a negative term, and I have seen Chinese Buddhist works use the term which sometimes gets translated as "hungry ghost". I am not sure I agree with this translation, but in general I see a wandering after-life form that is undergoing some sort of suffering, but it can in some context refer to any deceased person which eventually will happen to all of us as far as the lifespan of our current body.

In some villages, pretas have almost supernatural powers, albeit still ghostly.

Personally, as a Hindu, I do not believe Jesus was or is pretas. But this does not mean "ghost" to me, for me a more proper term for ghosts is bhutas. Pretas is a subtile body (which we have like a sheath over us) which can be invoked out by some priests during death rituals that will voluntarily travel to Yamaraj instead of the other way around, but may "stop here and there" on the way (but this is not a ghost or bhuta).

I do not think Jesus was or is a bhuta either, again as a Hindu I have not heard such a belief of Jesus as a Preta and I am pretty sure it is not in Hinduism.

However, some Sri Lankan Buddhists may think this. In the 18th Century there were a set of 74 palm-leaf folios consisting of 3 tales discovered, probably authored at that time of Buddhist-Christian encounters, the tales are Buddhist of which one tells of a Carpenter Preta (e.g. Jesus). This Nazarin was sent by Mara and has powers. However, there are words also linking this "Preta" to Krishna or Krishnaya the Hindu avatar and not just Jesus.

I suspect JS has some knowledge of these folios, which are actually not only a Buddhist view of Catholic Jesus in negative light, but also an attack on Hinduism and Krishna and sort of presents an idea that the Nazarin (Jesus) and Krishnaya are "the same" trickster from Mara.

Just saying ... this isn't Hinduism, in fact it is Buddhist and is in fact tales or belief that attack Hinduism and Christianity together.

There has been some synchronicity between Hinduism and some Buddhism in Sri Lanka (Ceylon), not coming from Buddhists but from Hindus, in the 18th and 19th Centuries. For example, some Hindu Temples in Lanka have Buddhist priests doing the puja. So to be fair, some Tamil Hindus may have also adopted a bit of the Jesus Preta idea too, but I find no hard evidence of this, it is not Hindu and is both a negative depiction of Jesus and Krishna. But this does not seem to exist today among Ceylonese Hindus at all, and is a "dead fairy tale".

Also, it may not be a wise idea for Hindus to adopt an outdated defunct Buddhist agenda aimed at attacking Hindus and Christians both.

Om Namah Sivaya

You are totally overthinking things, my view of Jesus being a preta comes from the story of Jesus' "resurrection," not from some bauddha AkhyAnam-s. I don't believe Jesus to be supreme lord or savior or what not, but I do accept he had special powers (not aShTasiddhayaH, but jIvan-mR^ityu shakti, like with the healing of the leper); therefore, I'm of the view he was a preta/pishAcha/bhUta. However, you did pique my interest; I just looked up what you're talking about and I now want to read these Carpenter Heretic texts just for the h**k of it.

Edit: From what I've read, it seems to be a very strange, anti-Catholic tale which seems to refer to Portuguese as outcasts and Jesus as a drunkard. It doesn't really seem very interesting.

 

[atanu]

The above is an individual's view. It is not the view of general Hindus or of Hindu masters.

It is true that Buddha or Jesus are irrelevant for most Hindus, since their teachings are contained within schools of Sanatana dharma. Some people adorn their altar with murtis or pictures. For example I have small wooden Buddha idol, gifted to me by someone, in my altar. I know of no Hindu master who has spoken ill of them.

As noted elsewhere Gurus teach that it is the Param Atman/Ishwara who alone is the guide towards mitigation of suffering.

Shri Rudram 2.3

namaH saspiJNjarAya tvishhImate pathInAM pataye namaH || 3 ||

Obeisances to Lord who is yellow and red colored (golden colored), (saspiJNjarAya), who is radiant, (tvishhImate), and who is the Lord of the paths (pathInAM pataye).

namo bhavasya hetyai jagatAM pataye namaH || 6 ||

Salutations to the destroyer of ignorance/saMsAra (bhavasya hetyai) and salutations to the Lord of the worlds (jagatAM pataye).

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

The above is an individual's view. It is not the view of general Hindus or of Hindu masters.

It is true that Buddha or Jesus are irrelevant for most Hindus, since their teachings are contained within schools of Sanatana dharma. Some people adorn their altar with murtis or pictures. For example I have small wooden Buddha idol, gifted to me by someone, in my altar. I know of no Hindu master who has spoken ill of them.

As noted elsewhere Gurus teach that it is the Param Atman/Ishwara who alone is the guide towards mitigation of suffering.

I believe that buddha is an avatAra of bhagavAn, so could you please show me where you believe I have spoken "ill" of buddha? I don't remember ever having done so. Also, if you believe that me calling Jesus a preta is speaking ill of him, then that's your opinion. However, I do believe that he was somewhat of a troublemaker during his lifetime.

This is what his most dear apostle (Paul) says in his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Before you claim that Paul's views don't represent that of Jesus, it is worth pointing out that the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the earliest source for biblical information about Jesus, predating the Gospel of Mark by 40 years. The above verse is likely very similar to the views accepted by Jesus (this is also reflected in the views of the "Judaizing" Evyonim).

Anyway, according to the shAstra-s someone who would prohibit mUrtipUjA is classified as a bhAgavatadveShI; think of how much worse it would be to compare someone who engages in it to a drunkard and thief, adulterer, etc?

You and many Hindus are free to consider someone who condemns you to eternal hellfire to be enlightened or divine, but don't try to act as if my views do not have a shAstrik basis.

 

[Devin Rose]

Depends on what sect of Hinduism you are... I am neo-Pagan but most like hinduism or jainism.
1) Because Hinduism views every religion as a different path towards the same goal, they respect other religions.
2) If you are mono-eccentric you accept every god/goddess as a form of one God. If you are pantheistic or polytheistic, you believe in multiple, individual gods/goddesses. So a Hindu could worship Jesus theoretically, accepting him mono-eccentrically or polytheistically.

 

[Vinayaka]

1) Because Hinduism views every religion as a different path towards the same goal, they respect other religions.

I respect all religions. That part is true. But not for a moment do I believe they all lead to the same goal. One just has to go and ask the members of the religions themselves, "What is the goal of your religion?" and you will easily see what I mean. That idea is a universalist belief, and some universalist leaning Hindus do believe this, granted. But mostly that comes from projecting your own goal onto others.

Respect is another story. I respect humanity, and every sincere religious effort. That's far different than saying they're all the same, or have the same goal. Even the (ultimate) goal within Hinduism itself varies. We all call it moksha, but have differing definitions of what moksha means.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, let's see:

• Buddhism: the end of suffering and the attainment of bliss (God or no God); the end of samsara.
  
• Christianity: the end of suffering and union with or being in the presence of God, i.e. 'salvation' from sin (Christianity is not monolithic and has differing views).
  
• Hinduism: Self-knowledge, union with Brahman, being in the presence and service of God, depending on the sect; the end of samsara (not unlike the end of worldly suffering and sin).
  
• Islam: Being in the presence of God, freedom from sins of the world.
  
• Judaism: Being in the presence of God, freedom from sins of the world.
  
• Jainism, Sikhism, Baha'i Faith, Zoroastrianism: I'll go out on a limb and say their goal is attainment of God and freedom from the suffering and sins of the world.
  
• Taoism: Immortality after death, union and harmony with the Tao.
  
• Paganism: too varied to enumerate, but I daresay, the attainment of happiness via the graces of the gods.

These goals seem pretty much the same to me. The only difference between the dharmic and Abrahamic religions is that the Abrahamic religions don't generally subscribe to rebirth/reincarnation (some hint at it). However, the dharmic and Abrahamic religions both have the concept of reward and retribution for sin. The dharmic religions call it karma. Modern manstream Christianity does not believe in a literal Hell; Judaism does not believe in a Hell at all; Islam believes Hell is more like a purgatory state, not unlike Naraka. To say they don't seek the same goal is too sweeping a statement. This comes from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the basic and core tenets of most major religions. "All roads lead to Rome" as the saying goes, is not without truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

In 1993, the publishers of Christianity Today and of Hinduism Today did a joint point-counterpoint. on 9 basic beliefs. It was a couple years in the making, as there was considerable dialogue. But it does highlight some key differences.

In the followup article, in Christianity Today, the idea was to prepare Christians with some knowledge of the 'enemy' before setting out to proseletyse. For Hinduism, it was to reiterate that there are essential differences and harness the trend of swaying universalism thinking where all religions are the same.

Here's a link, scroll down a bit to see the comparison. What most Hindus believe

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course there are differences in the practices of religions, but the question is, are the goals similar. There are contradictory differences in practices and beliefs even within Hinduism and Buddhism, as represented in the slugfest known as the Hinduism DIR with its invective.

Proselytization and evangelism is only a small percentage of Christian practice, but it gets the most press. 99% of individual Christians do not follow the "go make disciples of all nations" injunction. Even the Roman Catholic Church does not have the influence it once did, to the point that there is an advertising campaign "Come Home", as well as priests and nuns leaving their minitries in droves. One cannot believe everything one reads in fringe publications. Christianity Today does not represent Christianity as a whole, or even in a small part:

Christianity Today magazine has a print circulation of 130,000 and readership of 260,000,[1] as well as a website at ChristianityToday.com.[2] The founder, Billy Graham, stated that he wanted to "plant the evangelical flag in the middle-of-the-road, taking the conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems".[3] Christianity Today - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even point #9 "Hindus believe that no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding" is not rejected by most Christians, despite what the evangelicals claim. Talk to any random number of Christians (except in the Bible Belt) and you will find an attitude of "whatever works for you as a believer". I know this from personal experience, having been raised Christian, and most of my family, friends and acquaintances being Christian. They don't believe that if you don't believe in Jesus you will go to Hell, because as I said, many if not most Christians today do not believe in a literal Hell. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches certainly don't.