Is it Possible to be a Hindu Follower of Christ? - Christian Post [Archive]

View Full Version : Is it Possible to be a Hindu Follower of Christ? - Christian Post

HDFNewsBot

06 October 2007, 04:46 PM

nomar

07 October 2007, 08:33 AM

More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/1-0&fd=R&url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071006/29601_Is_it_Possible_to_be_a_Hindu_Follower_of_Christ%253F.htm&cid=0&ei=MQIIR6GYD4z2qgP5v9m3CA)

No it's not, this is just more scum missionary propaganda. Is it bassible to be a christian worshipping Lord Krishna, is it possible to be a muslim worshipping anything thats not "Allah". This is complete bullshit and the same c r a p missionaries use to exploit poor Hindus in India and it doesn't belong here.

http://www.christianaggression.org/

Eastern Mind

07 October 2007, 09:47 AM

saidevo

07 October 2007, 09:47 AM

The best and only way to defend such vilifying attempts is for us to teach Hinduism at the grassroot levels. If this level is armed with knowledge, it will form the soldier-level defence of Hindu Dharma.

In practical terms, teaching Hinduism could start with the women and children of the poor class who send their children to corporation schools. Quiz shows and competitions with attractive prizes and cash incentives such as offer to meet educational expenses can go a long way. For the learned children and youth, a comprehensive Website in vernacular with interactive participation may be a good idea.

In the seventies and eighties at least our Tamil film producers like APN and Devar released Hindu religious films such as Tiruvilaiyadal, Deivam etc. These days the filmy filth just uses revered Hindu names such as 'Kakka Kakka', 'Pithamahan', 'Malaikottai', 'Tiruvilaiyadal Arambum' as movie titles for their filty content.

Our computer-savvy youth must be encouraged with funding projects of multimedia animations of the type Hanuman, Krishna etc., comic books and games with Hindu themes. These products might be sold at affordable prices initially and offered free to download over the Internet after a year.

Agnideva

07 October 2007, 10:12 AM

Is it possible to be Hindu and Christian at the same time? No. Or at least not without giving up certain central beliefs of both systems, in which case it is neither Hinduism nor Christianity. It is a self-serving religion.

The "Krista Bhakta" in the article says: "Probably the best way to say it is someone that is born to Hindu parents is a Hindu and you can have any beliefs you want." Is this true? No. Hindu is not a person who believes anything one wants. Anything goes is not Hinduism. Just because one is born of Hindu parents does not make one a Hindu. It is belief in and practice of one of the various sects of Hinduism that makes a Hindu, not birth or ethnicity.

OM Shanti,
A.

Kaos

07 October 2007, 10:30 AM

I agree, Agnideva.
Nowadays, particularly in Western circles, it is becoming to popular to pick and choose, mix and match certain religions according to one's one whims, or according to what religion is the flavor of the month.

Some claim to be both Christian and Buddhists, etc., which is only possible on a superficial level.

At the core of the teachings, on a deeper level, it is not possible to be both.

For example, perhaps, one can superficially claim that one is both "Christian and Buddhist" .

But on a deeper level, there is no "Zen Christian".

Eastern Mind

07 October 2007, 11:24 AM

Saidevo: I totally agree with you. Your post focussed on solutions, not the problem. We all know the problem. Well, let's top whining about it and start action as a solution, if even in a small way. For example, if you see a Christian missionary at your Hindu neighbour's house, why not go over there right away, and start a discussion.. try to erase that immediate memory of that which they just experienced. If the Christian offers a big meal, then you offer a bigger meal. We could all try to make Hinduism more fun for the children. Unless you're at the point in life where you can really feel the energy or actually read scripture and enjoy it, then what does Hinduism have to offer? Aum Namasivaya

Arjuna

07 October 2007, 01:15 PM

What utter nonsense. Take the two basic tenets on death, for example. (We could list another 100 or so conflicting beliefs) On one hand we have reincarnation, earning merit throughout this life, hoping for a better life. On the other hand, we have "heaven or hell, which will it be?'' There is no middle ground here. When a person's mind attempts to hold both views, there is only one state - confusion. Why in the world would anyone want to take a confusion pill. That's like taking a headache pill. (Not to erase the headache, but to give yourself one.)

The problem isn't that simple as it seems to be to some.

Not all Hindus necessarily accept idea of reincarnation (which is BTW absent in Vedas) and not all christians reject it.
Of course official Christianity is much more rigid in its doctrines due to existance of Church institute, but who said that christian must mean Roman catholic chistian (protestant, nestorian or whatsoever) and not gnostic one? Jewish Kabbalah does accept reincarnation doctrine and it has the concept of Messiah (in greek, Christ). Nothing stops christian to accept a similar model.

It is better to raise a question, who is Hindu? Is there any clear definition? I doubt that. Any suggestions?

Eastern Mind

07 October 2007, 06:46 PM

Arjuna: Sorry if I didn't include the non-mainstream Christians or Hindus. I was just talking of mainstream beliefs, that would be common to 80 - 90 % of the religion. (Probably less in Hinduism, as we are more diverse, I believe. Other points of conflict: (not just between Christianity and Hinduism, but east and west)
1) East - the universe exists in endless cycles of yugas, creation, preservation, dissolution
West - The world was created by God and at one point will be destroyed by him
2) East - There is but one true God.
West - there is but one true God and religion.
3. East - Proof of God lies in direct communion
West - Proof of God lies in the person of His prophet
4. E - There is no intrinsic evil, just anava, karma, and maya
W- There is evil , led by Satan and his army
There are many others. I still maintain that trying to be both is going to be confusing. Of course you are also correct, that for some, who can read and think deeper, interpret the scriptures differently, then there may be a meeting ground. For example, its pretty easy to understand "Thou shalt not kill" as a pure statement of ahimsa, but trust me that's not how the majority of Christians interpret it. Their interpretation is that animals were given to man by God to eat.
Aum Namashivaya

Arjuna

08 October 2007, 03:20 AM

Other points of conflict: (not just between Christianity and Hinduism, but east and west)
1) East - the universe exists in endless cycles of yugas, creation, preservation, dissolution
West - The world was created by God and at one point will be destroyed by him

What do U mean by "West"? In Greek philosophy, Judaism and Sufism there are theories of emanation of the world from God which are similar to Hindu views.
And are U sure that ALL Hindus believe is "endless cycles"? I am not quite sure this doctrine existed in Vedic times and is reflected in Vedic texts...

2) East - There is but one true God.
West - there is but one true God and religion.

Both Judaism and Islam admit that all other monotheistic religions are true and can lead to God (though of course they are seen as inferior). This is similar to Hindu views. Most if not all Hindu traditions see themselves as superior to all other traditions, Hindu or not.

3. East - Proof of God lies in direct communion
West - Proof of God lies in the person of His prophet

None of "western" religions rejects direct communion and most Hindu traditions have their own prophets (starting from Vedic Rishis).

4. E - There is no intrinsic evil, just anava, karma, and maya
W- There is evil , led by Satan and his army

In Judaism and Islam satan is not an opposing "anti-God" figure, but servant of God who has his specific job to do. Christian view of satan was influenced by Zoroastrism, which was an early derivation of Vedic religion.

There are many others. I still maintain that trying to be both is going to be confusing.

Can one be Pashupata-shaiva and Shri-vaishnava at the same time? Can one be Vedantic sannyasin and an adept of Kaula-marga?
What i want to say, there is hardly any one thing called "Hinduism". There are numerous traditions under one brand (invented by muslims), which can hold very different views and adhere to different methods.
If we put Christianity or Judaism into Hindu cultural context, there would be no essential reason not to include them in Hinduism as well :).
Vedas never say Krishna is supreme God, Vedas do not promote vegetarianism, Vedas do not advertise bhakti-mArga and Hari-sankIrtana, Vedas aren't written in Bengali – but Gaudiya-vaishnavas are still Hindus despite of the fact that all their practices and beliefs have nothing to do with Vedas (which they consider to be smth inferior)! Then why a person believing in Jesus Christ and having Gospel as his scripture cannot be a Hindu? :)

For example, its pretty easy to understand "Thou shalt not kill" as a pure statement of ahimsa, but trust me that's not how the majority of Christians interpret it. Their interpretation is that animals were given to man by God to eat.

Many Hindus (including brahmanas) eat meat as well, though they have similar prescription of non-killing. In Vedic cult animal sacrifices were an essential part, same is true (though not to a same degree) in regard of Agamic traditions. Brihadaranyaka-upanishad at one place suggests eating calf-meat.
At the same time some Jewish and Christian sects were vegetarian.

sm78

08 October 2007, 03:43 AM

> Lets dwell in the present.
> Lets define Christianity by 95% of the major beliefs and churches (Catholics, Baptists, Protestant etc.) and not by an obscure minority group somewhere.
> Lets define Hindu by the 4 broad sects of Smarta, Vaishnava, Saiva and Shakta as so very well characterized by Subramuniyaswami. Lets us look for the moment at vedas through the lens of these 4 sects and not by individual interpretations...it will divert the topic as we are talking about present hindus.

My answer is emphatic No.

sm78

08 October 2007, 03:49 AM

Then why a person believing in Jesus Christ and having Gospel as his scripture cannot be a Hindu? :)

I wud be over joyed if people in the world who believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the 4 gospels as scripture start calling themselves Hindu's!!! ;)

But I guess, the question being asked is can/should a hindu (due whatever 1001 weird reasons for being known as so) believe Jesus Christ as saviour and gospel as scripture.

Again, my answer is emphatic No.

Arjuna

08 October 2007, 04:45 AM

I wud be over joyed if people in the world who believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the 4 gospels as scripture start calling themselves Hindu's!!! ;)
But I guess, the question being asked is can/should a hindu (due whatever 1001 weird reasons for being known as so) believe Jesus Christ as saviour and gospel as scripture.
Again, my answer is emphatic No.

From the point of view of orthodox Christianity, a christian cannot be a hindu at the same time and vice versa.

But i cannot understand why it should be so from Hindu point of view. Finally, Hinduism in practice is social identity and not religios. If one accepts Hindu mode of life, what is the difference whether he believes in Jesus Christ + Gospels, Chaitanya + his Charitamritas, Haidakhan Baba + Sadashiva-charitamrita or Sai Baba + Sai-charitra?

Eastern Mind

08 October 2007, 07:39 AM

Arjuna: This will probably be my last post on this subject. At some point in discussion, we will have to agree to disagree. In my earlier posts, by 'west' I meant Abrahamic. Sorry for any confusion. I live in the west, amongst the Abrahamics (Christian) mostly. I have, by observation, not by reading, seen the mixing first hand. I know personally 3 divorces that happened primarily from inter-faith marriage disputes. I have seen many 'western' families have great emotional suffering when a child had to from their personal karmas and understandings take on an eastern point of view. I can only assume from my readings that the same is true in the east, that moving into Abrahamic religions by Hindus or Buddhists leads to personal problems, and undermines family harmony. (This mental suffering that went on includes my own situation, but not to the same degree as others I have observed) I have no real idea as to my 'social identity'. I am a WASH. (White Anglo Saxon Hindu, my definition). From other Hindus, its more (one of the white guys at the temple) From the westerners I work with its 'that weird Hindu guy' sometimes, but more often just as a person, not a social identity at all. For me, then, Hinduism is a religion, not a social identity. I think whoever said "East is East, and West is West, ne'er the two shall meet" was spot on. I still remember too well the story of the Catholic priest in Sri Lanka regarding the young Hindus in his Catholic school who was quoted "They may never become Catholic, but they'll never be good Hindus." To summarise, my personal beliefs on all this come from my own observations, not from comparative religious study. Your ideas as well must come from your own experiences, and obviously, they are quite different from mine, which is fine by me. To each his own. Aum Namasivaya

Kaos

08 October 2007, 08:43 AM

Technically and strictly speaking, one cannot be a Christian and a Hindu or even a Buddhist at the same time.

Christianity is strictly a monotheistic religion. The Christian First Commandment states "I am the lord thy God, tho shat not have any other gods before me."

This does not apply to Hinduism, where one can be polytheistic.

Christians believe in a Creator God and the existence of a soul.
Buddhists do not accept a creator god and deny the existence of a soul.

SHIVAJI

08 October 2007, 11:08 AM

The problem isn't that simple as it seems to be to some.

Not all Hindus necessarily accept idea of reincarnation (which is BTW absent in Vedas) and not all christians reject it.

The teaching of reincarnation is present in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.
Swami Dayananda Saraswati ,who created the Arya Samaj,devoted to the spread of Vedic teachings to everyone believed in and taught reincarnation as well.

Bhagavan Buddha , Mahavira and Guru Nanak of the other dharmic religions Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also taught reincarnation. ( Buddha taught that it is the character that reincarnates and not the soul ).

SHIVAJI

08 October 2007, 11:22 AM

What do U mean by "West"? In Greek philosophy, Judaism and Sufism there are theories of emanation of the world from God which are similar to Hindu views.
And are U sure that ALL Hindus believe is "endless cycles"? I am not quite sure this doctrine existed in Vedic times and is reflected in Vedic texts...
.

But is there the concept of nirvana or moksha or enlightenment.

Hinduism does teach about endless cycles.

Both Judaism and Islam admit that all other monotheistic religions are true and can lead to God (though of course they are seen as inferior). This is similar to Hindu views. Most if not all Hindu traditions see themselves as superior to all other traditions, Hindu or not.
.

Hinduism teaches that all paths lead to the divine.

Study Ramakrishna , Yogananda, Shirdi Sai BAba if you have any doubts in this.

In Judaism and Islam satan is not an opposing "anti-God" figure, but servant of God who has his specific job to do. Christian view of satan was influenced by Zoroastrism, which was an early derivation of Vedic religion.
.

Satan , "servant of God " !!!!!!!

Can one be Pashupata-shaiva and Shri-vaishnava at the same time? Can one be Vedantic sannyasin and an adept of Kaula-marga?

.

Yes , and even more if needed.

I am a Vaishnava, a shaivite, a Shakta , a vedantist , and a tantrik.

What i want to say, there is hardly any one thing called "Hinduism". There are numerous traditions under one brand (invented by muslims), which can hold very different views and adhere to different methods.
.

Hinduism is nothing but sanatana dharma, and all the different branches of the sanatana dharma is devoted to help one to evolve in righteousness and sattva and attain enlightenment or nirvana or moksha in the end .

You still have a lot to learn.

Many Hindus (including brahmanas) eat meat as well, though they have similar prescription of non-killing. In Vedic cult animal sacrifices were an essential part, same is true (though not to a same degree) in regard of Agamic traditions. Brihadaranyaka-upanishad at one place suggests eating calf-meat.
At the same time some Jewish and Christian sects were vegetarian.

Vegetarianism is stressed in hinduism as well .

And for being sattvic and spiritual , vegetarianism is essential.

Meat eating helps one to be rajasic ,which increases the charecterestics of action, restlessness , desire .

Please understand the goals of Hinduism or the sanatana dharma before commenting on what is hinduism.

Arjuna

08 October 2007, 11:57 AM

Technically and strictly speaking, one cannot be a Christian and a Hindu or even a Buddhist at the same time.

I still await hearing a clear definition of "Hinduism". For the matter of fact this word is not originally "Hindu" but was invented by Muslims.
It would be interesting to know if before Islamic invasion there existed any kind of grouping brand name of this kind. For example Puranas (Kurma- and some other) when criticizing "heretics" group Buddhists and Jainas together with Kapalikas, Pancharatrins and adherents of other sects as veda-bAhya. At the same time Buddhism and Jainism are normally regarded to be separate religions. The reason seem to be obviously social and has little or nothing to do with doctrines and practices.
It is useless to talk abt "being Christian and Hindu" unless we define both. I see no problem with defining who is Christian – and all "adhikAra" for this can be easily suited into pattern of "Hinduism" as we practically see it. But what is "Hindutva"?
There is quite old term "Sanatana-dharma" (mentioned in Gita i believe) which is commonly identified with "Hinduism". But what is the ground of such identification? And why we should assign all modern "Hindu" sects to Sanatana-dharma in its initial sense, whatever it may be?

(Actually, I am much interested to listen to Sarabhanga's view on this point.)

Christianity is strictly a monotheistic religion. The Christian First Commandment states "I am the lord thy God, tho shat not have any other gods before me."
This does not apply to Hinduism, where one can be polytheistic.

There are strictly monotheistic Hindu schools, and their monotheism doesn't prevent them from being considered "Hindu".

Kaos

08 October 2007, 12:04 PM

There are strictly monotheistic Hindu schools, and their monotheism doesn't prevent them from being considered "Hindu".

Exactly, Hinduism has a more relaxed and broader worldview as compared to Christianity. A Hindu can be a monotheist or polytheist.

Arjuna

08 October 2007, 12:22 PM

But is there the concept of nirvana or moksha or enlightenment.

Yes of course ;)
Is it necessary to explain to U the fact that "nirvana" or "moksha" is understood differently in various "Hindu" traditions? For a Vaishnava the aim may be to go to Vaikuntha (similar to abrahamic idea of paradise), while for Kashmiri Shaiva it is non-dual realisation of God-nature (similar to ideas of Sufi mysticism and some medieval Christian mystics).

Hinduism teaches that all paths lead to the divine.
Study Ramakrishna , Yogananda, Shirdi Sai BAba if you have any doubts in this.

Wow, really? I know that many Hindu texts say that adherents of certain Hindu (!) traditions go to hell. And what U mean by divine? Vedanta doesn't teach that one reaches Moksha by ritual practice of Purva-mimansa or by Hari-sankirtana. And monistic Shaivism clearly rejects any possibility of dualistic systems to lead to the highest realisation of Shivatva. Need any more examples?
It would be better if U take pain to read Hindu scriptures before speaking about Hinduism – and not only recent popular gurus.

By the way, there is a story of Ramakrishna being Christian and Muslim for short periods. Did he stop being Hindu that time?

Satan , "servant of God " !!!!!!!
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read over here.

Thank U :)
Eventhough, there is such a view. And it is quite well based upon Tanach and Kur'an respectively. I have no desire of posting textual references to Bible etc. here; if anyone wishes to check, it isn't hard to find these.

I am a Vaishnava, a shaivite, a Shakta , a vedantist , and a tantrik.

Astonishing :)
Could U please say what U mean by these?

What i actually meant to say (and what U obviously missed) is that there are Hindu traditions which are incompatible by doctrines or/and practices. One cannot practice mahAvrata of Kapalikas and continue to be follower of Shri-vaishnavism, just for example. One cannot take dualistic Sankhya doctrine as true and at the same time doctrine of Tantric Advaita. Etc.

You still have a lot to learn.

No doubt. But does Ur statement imply U are sarvajna? ;)

Vegetarianism is stressed in hinduism as well .
And for being sattvic and spiritual , vegetarianism is essential.

Really? But Vedas and Brahmanas have animal sacrifices which include meat consumption. Early Upanishads do not teach vegetarianism but mention eating meat. Several Agamic traditions have ritual usage of meat as part of sadhana. And some schools say there is no difference if one is vegetarian or not.

SHIVAJI

09 October 2007, 12:24 AM

Yes of course ;)
Is it necessary to explain to U the fact that "nirvana" or "moksha" is understood differently in various "Hindu" traditions? For a Vaishnava the aim may be to go to Vaikuntha (similar to abrahamic idea of paradise), while for Kashmiri Shaiva it is non-dual realisation of God-nature (similar to ideas of Sufi mysticism and some medieval Christian mystics).

The ideal of the Vaishnavas is the same as to become one with Lord Krishna, that is to become one with the Lord or Brahman itself and salvation from the cycle of birth and rebirth, which is the aim of Bhakti Yoga.

And the aim of Kashimiri Shaivism is again nirvana, where one attains moksha from the cycle of birth and rebirth and becomes one with Brahman. This is the aim of jnana yoga.

The goals of jnana yoga and bhakti yoga are one and the same .

You still have not understood the essence of sanatana dharma, my friend.

Wow, really? I know that many Hindu texts say that adherents of certain Hindu (!) traditions go to hell. And what U mean by divine? Vedanta doesn't teach that one reaches Moksha by ritual practice of Purva-mimansa or by Hari-sankirtana. And monistic Shaivism clearly rejects any possibility of dualistic systems to lead to the highest realisation of Shivatva. Need any more examples?
It would be better if U take pain to read Hindu scriptures before speaking about Hinduism – and not only recent popular gurus.

The vedas themselves state ...

Truth is one; sages call it by various names.

---- Rig Veda

The goal of bhakti yoga, raja yoga, jnana yoga and karma yoga , as taught by Krishna, Ramakrishna , Swami Vivekananda all leads to the same goal , i.e moksha or nirvana or enlightenment.

Every path in hinduism is tailor made according to the aptitudes and intrinsic qualities in an individual , and the individual is free to choose the system which suits him most to attain his goal of nirvana or enlightenment.

Your problem is that of many pseudo-spiritual seekers, who are more interested in the banana skin , and compile many theories about it, forgetting that the banana fruit is the most important thing.

By the way, there is a story of Ramakrishna being Christian and Muslim for short periods. Did he stop being Hindu that time?.

Not at all.

Same thing was emphasized by Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai baba and other masters.

All paths lead to the same goal.

However there is indeed a unique individuality for Hinduism, and we should keep that intact.

The universality and broad mindedness that hinduism has , which manifests in its acceptance of all other religions as relevant and good , is not at all found in any other religion .

Hinduism should keep on assimilating the best out of other religions and cultures into its own fold, but its charecterestic individuality should be kept intact and should not be corrupted.

Thank U :)
Eventhough, there is such a view. And it is quite well based upon Tanach and Kur'an respectively. I have no desire of posting textual references to Bible etc. here; if anyone wishes to check, it isn't hard to find these.
.

Dude, the christians and muslims both abhor Satan.

During Haj, there is a place where muslims throw stones at a figure they consider as Satan as part of their rituals.

Is this the way to treat "Gods servant ".

And from my own experiences with Christian and Muslim friends, they treat poor Satan with great contempt and consider him as evil.

Astonishing :)
Could U please say what U mean by these? .

It means that I worship Vishnu and his avatars Narasimha, RAma and Krishna, I am also a worshipper of Shiva, a worshipper of the Divine Mother and indulges in tantra as well ( according to the teachings of ramakrishna ), and am also a worshipper of the impersonal Lord Brahman .

Ramakrishna combined all the above traits in himself. And so did other masters like Sree Narayana Guru, Paramahamsa Yogananda , Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba , Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and many others as well.

Swami Vivekananda and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Ramakrishna also adviced come a karma yogi, jnana yogi, raja yogi and bhakta yogi all in one, as this will result in the harmonious development of hand, head and heart.

What i actually meant to say (and what U obviously missed) is that there are Hindu traditions which are incompatible by doctrines or/and practices. One cannot practice mahAvrata of Kapalikas and continue to be follower of Shri-vaishnavism, just for example. One cannot take dualistic Sankhya doctrine as true and at the same time doctrine of Tantric Advaita. Etc.
.

And why focus on the dissimilarities. Take what you want , as is compatible with your system and aptitudes , and go for nirvana with passion and enthusiasm.

As RAmakrishna himself said ," A true lover of God makes his own rules ."

No doubt. But does Ur statement imply U are sarvajna? ;).

Well, I believe I am well-read, and with the Lords grace, I have spent time with enlightened masters, and they have helped me a lot.

No amount of booklearning could measure up to what I learned from these masters from a short period of time.

The knowledge and love I received from these great souls , I will always treasure.

Really? But Vedas and Brahmanas have animal sacrifices which include meat consumption. Early Upanishads do not teach vegetarianism but mention eating meat. Several Agamic traditions have ritual usage of meat as part of sadhana. And some schools say there is no difference if one is vegetarian or not.

And why focus on all these trivialities.

If you want to be spiritual and sattvic , go and eat fresh vegetarian food always.

If you want to increase your rajas and qualities of action and enterprise, go and eat non-vegetarian food.

This is what the masters have taught.

Focussing on these and that illogical trivialities, is the reason why Swavi Vivekananda has stated that our religion has become "confined to the kitchen."

satay

09 October 2007, 08:54 AM

Admin Note

Namaskar!

Please note that personal attacks or name calling is against the rules of HDF. For more information on rules of this site please click on FAQ section on the top tool bar or pm me if you have any questions about any of the rules.

Thanks,

satay

09 October 2007, 09:29 AM

satay

09 October 2007, 09:39 AM

Namaste Arjuna,

Not all Hindus necessarily accept idea of reincarnation (which is BTW absent in Vedas)

I wasn't aware of this. Could you please tell me which sects/groups don't accept the idea of reincarnation in Hinduism? I am just curious...

Arjuna

09 October 2007, 04:11 PM

I wasn't aware of this. Could you please tell me which sects/groups don't accept the idea of reincarnation in Hinduism? I am just curious...

Some followers of Advaita. I have seen this in Nisargadatta's teachings for example.
Also it isn't a fact that in Vedic times reincarnation was established and spread teaching. And view of Buddha was borrowed from Hindu shramanas and not invented out of nowhere.

Kaos

09 October 2007, 05:36 PM

Namaste Arjuna,

I wasn't aware of this. Could you please tell me which sects/groups don't accept the idea of reincarnation in Hinduism? I am just curious...

Namaste Satay and all,

It is written in the Bhagavad Gita 2.20 :

For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Reincarnation exists only so long as there is avidya.

yudhamanyu

09 October 2007, 11:12 PM

Some followers of Advaita. I have seen this in Nisargadatta's teachings for example.
Also it isn't a fact that in Vedic times reincarnation was established and spread teaching. And view of Buddha was borrowed from Hindu shramanas and not invented out of nowhere.

Maybe some followers of Advaita, but Shankaracharya, the Hindu sage who established the Advaita Vedanta himself believed in reincarnation and had spoken about it.

There are different opinions in Hinduism, due to the liberalism and freedom of thought that is a hall mark of hinduism.

But that should not be allowed to dilute the original substance of hinduism.

Reincarnation is indeed a fundamental principle and teaching of Hinduism.

Baobobtree

09 October 2007, 11:39 PM

Regarding on whether or not someone can be a Hindu and a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, I do believe such is possible. However, the so called "Krista Bhakta" sect is nothing more then repackaged Christianity, and marketing tool used by Christian missionaries. I would think a Hindu who worships Jesus would still have to worship Gods native to the Hindu tradition (eg: Krishna, Kali, Vishnu, Ganesha etc.), and believe in the authority of the Vedas to be a Hindu (basically they could be Hindus who worship Jesus, but they'd have to comprise much of the beliefs and practices found in Christianity, and probably couldn't call themselves Hindu-Christians).

I know Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, one of the most prominent teachers of Kriya Yoga, was a devotee of Jesus, but at the same time he was also a devotee of Krishna, and believed in reincarnation.

I don�t see what a dead (or resurrected) Jesus has to offer to Hindus that the Hindus saints (dead or living) can�t� or haven't already One could use this same argument to try and discourage people from venerating say Baba Lokenath, yet promote the veneration of Sai Baba of Shirdi.

yudhamanyu

10 October 2007, 12:16 AM

Is it Possible to be a Hindu Follower of Christ? (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/1-0&fd=R&url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071006/29601_Is_it_Possible_to_be_a_Hindu_Follower_of_Christ%253F.htm&cid=0&ei=MQIIR6GYD4z2qgP5v9m3CA)
Christian Post - 5 hours ago
Throughout the conference, speakers addressed the common misconception that Hinduism is a uniform religion when in fact it is more of an umbrella identity ...

More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/1-0&fd=R&url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071006/29601_Is_it_Possible_to_be_a_Hindu_Follower_of_Christ%253F.htm&cid=0&ei=MQIIR6GYD4z2qgP5v9m3CA)

Well, well, well an another typical christian fundie propaganda tool.

How much I have seen it.

Reminds me of the time when I visited the Public Library in my town to meet some friends. There was a christian procession going on in the hall joined to the public library.

When I went over there, I found some pamphlets, termed as OPERATION AGAPE , where a certain christian organisation had its goal in converting sikhs and punjab to christianity. The pamphlet also ironically stated that the sikhs are living in darkness.

With respect to the sikhs, let me state that they are a very noble and chivalrous people, boasting of great sages like Guru Nanak, Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Govind Singh.

Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism, with belief in the hindu teachings of omkaar, reincarnation, karma and moksha or salvation from the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Guru Govind Singh organised the Khalsa , to protect innocent people ,both hindus and sikhs, from the islamic terrorism of Aurangzeb at that time.

His father , Guru Teg Bahadur sacrificed his own life for the sake of the Hindus who were being persecuted by Aurangzeb.

Swami Vivekananda has himself stated that each and every Hindu should become a Guru Govind Singh for the sake of national regeneration of Hindu society and India.

The Sikhs are perceived as an industrious , honest and enterprising and noble people .

However even then this christian organisation, which has its roots in the west, was stating in the pamphlet that punjab and the sikhs are living in darkness.

What a bunch of morons.

You can see the sheer idiocy and hypocrisy of the christian fundies just from this itself.

They have no respect at all for other cultures or religions, even though their own religion has not done anything worthwhile in the region of spirituality, and is constantly derided by scientists and philosophers and intellectuals.

Still they keep on with their spiritual pollution in the name of Jesus Christ and God.

However , the biggest irony is the fact that Jesus Christ himself was a Hindu-Buddhist and a Dharmika.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1163

From an objective study of facts , it is quite clear that Jesus had been in India during the ages of 18 to 30.

There is tremondous similarities between the religion that Jesus taught and the Dharmic religions of India, Hinduism and Buddhism.

Anyone can easily see the teachings of non-violence, chastity, and unconditional love, and renunciation, all foreign to the semitic psyche, are there in Hinduism and Buddhism for milleniums.

What Jesus attempted was a hybridisation of Hinduism with Judaism, incorporating the hindu teachings of non-violence, ( "If someone hits your right cheek, show your left cheek " ) , renunciation (�If someone wants to sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.� )

He himself epitomised the Hindu teaching of monism , when he stated thus, " I and my Father are one ", which reminds us of

Aham Brahmasmi ---- I am He.

Tatvamasi ----- Thou art THAT

The theraputae , an ancient christian sect in the early centuries of christianity also believed in reincarnation, as did Origen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

In the 6th century, in the year 553 A. D., the 2nd Council of Constantinople officially declared reincarnation a heresy and the doctrine of reincarnation was officially banished by the Christian Church. It was banished for no other reason than it was considered to be too much of an influence from the East.

The doctrines of Origen were repeatedly rejected and finally condemned by Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

Also it is a fact that the romans involved in a lot of editing, adding and deleting while creating a tailormade christianity suited to their needs.

I have read in Dan Brown's books that december 25 or christmas day, or the birthday of Christ, was actually a roman fertility festival. Many other so called pagan festivals of the romans were incorporated into christianity after they adopted it.

Hence what we have in our midst is a very corrupted and diluted christianity, far removed from the teachings of Christ.

What has happened indeed is a great tragedy.

While Jesus taught strict non-violence , and even commanded Peter to sheathe his sword when the romans came to arrest him, the same religion which he taught, through its corrupted nature, became imperialistic , fascist and perpetrated ironically the bloodiest massacres and carnages on earth along with the islamic jihads.

It also greatly destroyed the cultural vitality of europe and plunged through its superstitions, europe into the Dark Ages.

A christian professor , in a seminar in India, stated that the greeks , after being converted to christianity, were not the same again, and lost their great cultural output and vitality .

This is the reason why it is stated, " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

yudhamanyu

11 October 2007, 12:26 PM

Every path in hinduism is tailor made according to the aptitudes and intrinsic qualities in an individual , and the individual is free to choose the system which suits him most to attain his goal of nirvana or enlightenment.

Your problem is that of many pseudo-spiritual seekers, who are more interested in the banana skin , and compile many theories about it, forgetting that the banana fruit is the most important thing.

And why focus on the dissimilarities. Take what you want , as is compatible with your system and aptitudes , and go for nirvana with passion and enthusiasm.

As RAmakrishna himself said ," A true lover of God makes his own rules ."

Well said.

I can't understand why Hindus keep on going through all the traditions and making a mountain out of a molehill ( read trivial and silly stuff.)

It is so ridiculous and pathetic .

The important thing is to have a strong, logical and rational mind, and adopt that path which is in tune with ones aptitudes and talents , and then follow that path with full steam ahead , in order to attain enlightenment or a state of high spirituality , peace and bliss.

Also it is important to foster a logical and rational mindset in the Hindu psyche , as is taught and emphasized by the Rishis, Krishna, Buddha, Vedic philosophy and the Hindu enlightened masters.

This will help us to get rid of the crippling superstitions and idiotic prejudices which has done a lot of harm to religion.

Here is a thread of mine in Vaada and Nyaya : Hindu logic and reasoning.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1809

satay

11 October 2007, 02:06 PM

namaste Y,

The important thing is to have a strong, logical and rational mind, and adopt that path which is in tune with ones aptitudes and talents , and then follow that path with full steam ahead , in order to attain enlightenment or a state of high spirituality , peace and bliss.

What about those of us who don't have a strong logical and rational mind or worse yet don't have a mind. For example, there are many many many people in this world that are mentally handicapped. What about those? How should they choose their path?

Znanna

11 October 2007, 09:50 PM

satay

11 October 2007, 10:36 PM

Not from a generally accepted Christian or Hindu point of view, IMO.

If one is a "follower of Christ" what does that mean, anyways?

How does one follow an avatar? That makes no sense to me in either respect.

ZN

hmmm... follower of christ meaning following the teachings of christ as outlined by him in the bible.

yudhamanyu

12 October 2007, 01:26 AM

namaste Y,

What about those of us who don't have a strong logical and rational mind or worse yet don't have a mind.

Those without a strong , logical and rational mind should develop one, as per the teachings of Vashista, Krishna , Buddha , Vivekananda and the other HIndu enlightened masters.

It is ones duty to do so.

AS per the "don't have a mind " could u give an example of such a one.

For example, there are many many many people in this world that are mentally handicapped. What about those? How should they choose their path?

Well, I have never heard of a mentally handicapped person who has become enlightened.

I think , in such a case, one ought to make a study of his aptitudes and the degree of his mental handicap.

And based on his sense of understanding concepts, we should then teach him accordingly such stuff, so that spiritual growth is possible in him according to his potential.

And God indeed can make heroes out of stones and rocks as well.

Kalidasa was an idiot to begin with, but later on with the grace of Kali, he went on to become Indias greatest poet and dramatist.

I believe that attitudes are more important than facts.

You never know what handicapped people can do, given the right stimulus, because the same God or Brahman is present within them as well .

Arjuna

17 October 2007, 06:20 AM

I wasn't aware of this. Could you please tell me which sects/groups don't accept the idea of reincarnation in Hinduism? I am just curious...

Just came to know that one of versions of Sankhya mentioned in Mahabharata rejected reincarnation. And Sankhya is regarded as an orthodox Hindu system.

Arjuna

17 October 2007, 06:42 AM

The ideal of the Vaishnavas is the same as to become one with Lord Krishna, that is to become one with the Lord or Brahman itself and salvation from the cycle of birth and rebirth, which is the aim of Bhakti Yoga.

For example, ideal of Gaudiya-vaishnavas (excluding Tantric sahajiyas) is NOT to "become one with Krishna." Also Brahman is not seen as identical with Bhagavan.
If U prefer advaita philosophy it doesn't mean that every Hindu also prefers it! Before making groundless generalizations it would be useful to get at least some idea of theology in various Hindu schools.

The goals of jnana yoga and bhakti yoga are one and the same.

Personally i agree with this, but this is not the view of all Hindu traditions.

Moreover, goals of dualistic Sankhya and Patanjala-yoga is verily DIFFERENT from the goal of Kashmir Shaivism or Pancharatra.

The vedas themselves state ...
Truth is one; sages call it by various names.
---- Rig Veda

But Vedas do not say that whatever nonsense one chooses to believe in it gonna be equal to Shruti and soteriologically helpful.

All paths lead to the same goal.

U mean to say that there is no practical difference at all? ;)

Basically this is a common misconception which has it's roots in so called New Age culture and not in Hinduism as such. No Shastra says that "do whatever U wish and U gonna achieve same result."

And even if we accept that Ur statement is correct then we come to the conclusion that either founders and adepts of different darshanas were liars or they had no practical experience of what they spoke - since many of darshanas do promote DIFFERENT goals.

and am also a worshipper of the impersonal Lord Brahman.

Sounds nice... :D

If you want to be spiritual and sattvic , go and eat fresh vegetarian food always.

Supposedly Vedic Rishis, Sri Krishna, Agamic Shaiva masters and all tibetan Siddhas were tamasic and devoid of spirituality... :D

sm78

17 October 2007, 07:30 AM

The vedas themselves state ...
Truth is one; sages call it by various names.
---- Rig Veda
But Vedas do not say that whatever nonsense one chooses to believe in it gonna be equal to Shruti and soteriologically helpful.

True, the problem is with all the nonsense we attribute to the vedas without even attempting to study the vedas. I have been guilty of the same in many occations.

However the above one is the most abused vedic phrase.