PDA

View Full Version : Hindu view of Jesus



ScottMalaysia
06 December 2007, 10:57 AM
What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.

sarabhanga
07 December 2007, 03:20 AM
Namaste Scott,

You could try searching this forum for the term "Jesus", and you should find a wide range of views already submitted. ;)

sarabhanga
10 December 2007, 05:48 PM
What is the general Hindu view of Jesus?

Namaste Scott,

Perhaps this summary of my own comments will help :)

Devotees of the enlightened teacher known as Jesus are essentially the same as devotees of any Hindu Guru, who is considered as a veritable God by his/her own followers.

Christians should remember that their Guru was but one in an endless succession of true Gurus and Avataras ~ as did the orthodox Syrian Fathers, at Nicea, when they voted AGAINST the proposition that Jesus was a God and not just a truly inspired human Guru.

Jesus Christ (iSu kRSTis) is a personification of Isha kRSNa, naranArAyaNa, the nArAyaNa, the kAlanara, and the avadhUta dattatreya.

iSu (“the arrow”) or Isha is surely sAdhu, and nArAyaNa (“the son of man”) is the perfect indu.

iSu is a personification of the IshopaniSad, and his 12 disciples are personifications of the 12 lines of the mANDukyopaniSad.

And nara-nArAyaNa svAhA is a likely source for the last words of Jesus.

nara (God the Father) nArAyaNa (the Son of Man) svAhA (my own self has been forsaken).

My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?

Jesus not only glorified nArAyaNa, but “son of man” is the name that Jesus most often calls himself in the Bible.

nArAyaNa is a regular patronymic form of nara ~ that is, nArAyaNa can be simply translated as “son of man”.

And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but nArAyaNa hath not where to lay his head. [Matt.8.20, Luke.9.58]

But that ye may know that nArAyaNa hath power on earth to forgive sins. [Matt.9.6, Mark.2.10]

For nArAyaNa is Lord even of the sabbath. [Matt.12.8, Mark.2.28]

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is nArAyaNa. [Matt.13.37]

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, nArAyaNa, am? [Matt.16.13]

For nArAyaNa shall come in the glory of nara, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. [Matt.16.27]

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see nArAyaNa coming in his kingdom. [Matt.16.28]

For nArAyaNa is come to save that which was lost. [Matt.18.11]

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of nArAyaNa be. [Matt.24.27]

And then shall they see nArAyaNa coming in the clouds with great power and glory. [Mark.13.26, Luke.21.27]

For nArAyaNa is as nara taking a far journey, who left his house. [Mark.13.34]

nArAyaNa indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom nArAyaNa is betrayed! [Mark.14.21, Luke.22.22]

And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, nArAyaNa is betrayed into the hands of mortals. [Mark.14.41]

And Jesus said, ahaM: and ye shall see nArAyaNa sitting on the right hand of shakti, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [Mark.14.62]

Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for nArAyaNa shall be delivered into the hands of men. [Luke.9.44]

For nArAyaNa is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. [Luke.9.56]

Be ye therefore ready also: for nArAyaNa cometh at an hour when ye think not. [Luke.12.40]

For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also nArAyaNa be in his day. [Luke.17.24]

And as it was in the days of nara, so shall it be also in the days of nArAyaNa. [Luke.17.26]

Even thus shall it be in the day when nArAyaNa is revealed. [Luke.17.30]

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when nArAyaNa cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [Luke.18.8]

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to AjñAcakra, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning nArAyaNa shall be accomplished. [Luke.18.31]

For nArAyaNa is come to seek and to save that which was lost. [Luke.19.10]

Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before nArAyaNa. [Luke.21.36]

Hereafter shall nArAyaNa sit on the right hand of the shakti of God. [Luke.22.69]

Saying, nArAyaNa must be delivered into the hands of mortal men, and be divided. [Luke.24.7]

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the devAs ascending and descending upon nArAyaNa. [John.1.51]

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even as the nArAyaNa which is in heaven. [John.3.13]

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is nArAyaNa. [John.5.27]

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which nArAyaNa shall give unto you: for him hath nara sealed. [John.6.27]

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye that partake of nArAyaNa and his rAsa, ye have no life in you. [John.6.53]

What and if ye shall see nArAyaNa ascend up where he was before? [John.6.62]

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up nArAyaNa, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as nara hath taught me, I speak these things. [John.8.28]

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that nArAyaNa should be glorified. [John.12.23]

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that kRSNa abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, the nArAyaNa must be lifted up? Who is this nArAyaNa? [John.12.34]

Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is nArAyaNa glorified, and nara is glorified in him. [John.13.31]

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and nArAyaNa standing with nara. [Acts.7.56]

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is nara, that thou art mindful of him? or nArAyaNa, that thou visitest him? [Heb.2.6]

And in the midst of the seven tongues of agni, one like unto nArAyaNa, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt with a golden cakra. [Rev.1.13]

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto nArAyaNa, having on his head a golden crown. [Rev.14.14]

nara = brahma = bRMhan
nArAyaNa = brahmA = abRMham

He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction, overcomes death by destruction, and obtains immortality through the true cause.

The penultimate words of the Isha provide the theme for Ishus’ crucifixion.

It is said that, as the mortal life of iSus kRSTi (“Jesus Christ”) was ending, he uttered the words of an ancient psalm:

My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?

And, likewise, the Isha upaniSad closes with the prayers of a dying man:

My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.

And the sage is quoting the last lines from the ancient Yajurveda (“sacrificial revelation”).

My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.
By goodly path lead us to riches, Agni, thou God who knowest all our works and wisdom.
Remove the sin that makes us stray and wander: most ample adoration will we bring thee.
The Real’s face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light.
The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I.
OM! Heaven! Brahma!

Isha kRSNa was born among the pastoral yAdava clan, and
iSus kRSTis was born among the agrarian kRSTayas.

kRSTi refers to a member of the pañca kRSTayas ~ the five Aryan tribes, or (more generally) the inhabitants of cultivated lands.

And iSus (ray of light) is cognate with indu (drop of light); and iSus kRSTis was an indu, for sure.

YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

When Jesus says “I and my Father are One”, he is speaking of his essential nature, his own AtmA ~ the spirit of the Son is the same spirit of Father.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

And from the perspective of a ray of light, there is no difference between its self and its source (that apparent separation being imposed only by outside observers).

Jesus experienced samAdhi and had knowledge of advaita.

“Behold the Man whose name is the Branch” ~ and behold the rudra whose name is sthANu !

The “Passion of Christ Jesus” is simply derived from the tapas kRSTeSu, and the kRSTayas have long praised agni (and thus also the rudra sthANu) as rAjA kRSTInAm.

Nazareth is the yoni, Bethlehem (the “house of bread”) is the navel, and the “twin city” of Yerushalayim (Yeru-Shalem) is the two-petalled AjñAcakra (the “control centre”, the ancient hub of command and local authority). And the life of Jesus is a tale of yoga sAdhana and final samAdhi, which does not require any particular geographical location or historical figure.

nara = shiva (Jehovah) = shani = sattva
nArAyaNa = iSu (Jesus) = savitR = rajas
nAra = yudha (Judas) = shukra = tamas

Three characters are required to complete the drama, but in truth there is only One ~ when it is also understood that Judas and Jesus are one and the same, the Christian story makes a lot more sense!

The Gita was surely composed in India some centuries before its fame spread to the Middle East and there inspired the kRSTayas (farmers, cultivators, or merely inhabitants of the land) to rise against the prevailing religious authorities and eventually to the establishment of their “new” doctrine as a supposedly independent religion.

In order to maintain their presumed authority, Christianity has been compelled to paint Lord Krishna as the exact image of its own Satan, as the devilish truth that should never be seen by faithful Christians, lest they realize that Jesus Christ was just one of an endless succession of Hindu Saints and that the Bible was compiled and derived from the far greater corpus of Sanskrit literature and age-old Hindu traditions.

All Christians would agree that Adam and Noah and Abrahm and Moses and John (the Baptist) and Jesus and John (the Apostle), all attained first-hand knowledge of God by direct experience. Indeed, all of the Prophets and Saints (by definition) must possess such divine Knowledge.

The Mandaeans (also Sabaeans or Nasoraeans) are Gnostics who lived long before Jesus Christ and still exist today (mainly in Iraq and Iran). The Mandae consider both Moses and Jesus as heretics, whose innovations led to the establishment of Judaism and Christianity as distinct religions. The Mandae (Sabae, Nasorae) are followers of John the (Gnostic) Baptist, as was Jesus himself before his own Samadhi (when his Gnosis was finally confirmed).

Moses was surely Gnostic ~ eyeh asher eyeh ~ and so too was John ~ ego eimi ho on.

I am that ‘I am’.

The Trinity comprises the Father (puruSa or brahma), the Son (nArAyaNa or viSNu), and the Holy Spirit (shiva, i.e. Grace).

aham brahma asmi ~ Yajus

ego eimi ho on ~ Exodus

I am that eternal Being ~ I am that Brahman

I am the very essence of ‘I am’ = I am Existence, itself = I am (I am) Brahman.

eyeh asher eyeh !

When Jesus says ‘I am’ ...

ego eimi ho on (I am that Being I am) = ahaM brahma asmi (I am [that] Brahman I am)

I am the every essence of ‘I am’ = I am Existence, itself = I am (I am) Brahman.

And anyone who wants to recall the triple crucifixion on “skull rock” only needs to apply the tripuNDra.

Haridas
10 December 2007, 08:17 PM
What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.

Namaste.
There is no "official stance" on anything in Hinduism, much less an "official stance" about Jesus. Many Hindus (especially those living in and/or born i the West) say that Jesus was a great sage of the Judah Province of Rome. Some believe he was an Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Some don't believe that he even existed.

Bob G
12 December 2007, 10:49 AM
Hello Scott,

I think the "Orthodox" Hindu view is to basically let Christianity be. (in other words Orthodox Hindus are very involved with and busy being -that- and thus tend to not get involved with all sorts of speculations or comparisons concerning Christianity or other peoples religions)

On the other hand there are many groups that are more or less quasi-Hindu, a famous one being that of Swami Yogananda who happens to really get into making serious correlations between Christianity and various spiritual aspects that have relationships to forms of Yoga and Hinduism. The book, "Autobiography of Yogi" goes deeply into that area.

I think one problem is that different religions are of different paths, and at some point one would have to choose between them or remain in a world of correlating concepts about them. (which is not really the point of either of the paths)

Om

devisarada
12 December 2007, 10:24 PM
Namaskar,Bob G

I tend to agree with you. Sanatan Dharm and Christianity are two distinctily separate paths. Each way of life generates different feelings. As a former Christian who has tried in the past to maintain a foot in both camps, I have come to realize that the two are incompatible. That is not to say that we should not accept and respect on another, but clearly there is no Sanatanist view on Jesus, even though one can draw certain parallels.

To try to draw correlations is simply to invite confusion. Committ to one path!

yajvan
12 December 2007, 11:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Hello Scott,

I think the "Orthodox" Hindu view is to basically let Christianity be.
Om


Namste BG,
We have no pope for giving or ordaining a single view....perhaps this is a our blessing.

Let me offer the following. This may help this post and future ones.

Re: Orthodox and Unorthodox - maybe we can give a definition here so we have some guidance on these words and make them relevant.

āstika or आस्तिक which means there is or exists;
nāstika or na+ astika नास्तिक or it is not so and this word nāstika नास्तिक is not believing, or atheistical.

So what does this mean? astika there exists , or a regard that the Vedas as infallible, the final word, with out doubt. Hence this is called Orthodox e.g. there exists the Vedas as the foundation of infallible truth.

nastika does not regard the Vedas as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox.

So, what is considered orthodox ? Which schools that is? It is the 6 systems of Indian philosophy. We know them as Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vaisesika.

And what is considered Unorthodox? ( this does not mean 'bad'). We have Jaina, Carvaka , and Buddhist.

Now when we say Hinduism, my question to you is which one?
Vaishnava , Shaiva , Shakta , etc. One size does not fit all.. there are various views of the Lord.

Leaders of Satyam
We do have various Shankaracharya's to the north, south east and west. These locations are called mutts or maths. Adi (the first) Shankaracharya² established the mutts:
Jyothir Mutt at Badrinath in northern India; Sarada Mutt at Sringeri in southern India ; Govardhan Mutt at Jaganath Puri in eastern India and Kalika Mutt at Dwarka in western India.
Later, Kanchi, from where he began his Bharatdarshan, too was declared a mutt, making it the fifth center of spiritual advancement.

The mutts were given unto the guidance of Shankaracharyas, realized Beings, established in Brahman. Yet one would say they do not reign over the all the sects or schools mentioned.

There is no one view, yet we are blessed as simple people that follow Sanatana Dharma or Arsa¹ Dharma ( the dharma of the rishis). There is a high tolerance and acceptance for other spiritual paths and their leaders and āchāryas (guides, gurus, preceptors, etc). Hence a 'standard view' of the Lord, much less Jesus the Christ is a discussion point.

Hope this assists some what...


pranams


1. Arsa or आर्ष means relating or belonging to or derived from; sacred descent from; the derivation from; And the sacred decent here is from the rishis, the seers of satyam - truth.
2.More on Shankaracharya’s Monastic Centers see http://hinduism.about.com/od/gurussaints/p/adishankara.htm as a reference.

Bob G
13 December 2007, 04:27 AM
Hello Yajvan,

Thanks, I think you expound well on further information & or points; although I tend to shy away from rhetorical like formats or exchanges when one could just make a statement that covers the same.

300

Good day

Om

Bob G
13 December 2007, 04:38 AM
Namaste Devisarada,

Agreed, and well said.

That looks like one heck of a prize bull :-)

Good day.

Om

yajvan
13 December 2007, 08:19 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Hello Yajvan,

Thanks, I think you expound well on further information & or points; although I tend to shy away from rhetorical like formats or exchanges when one could just make a statement that covers the same.
Good day
Om

Namaste BG,
I see your point. Pure statements on HDF without the audit trail, albiet efficient perhaps, has always raised additional questions.

My notion of offering a bit more is for the next question that was not requested, perhaps not even by you. I have found that the inquisitive mind takes in the info, ponders and then thinks ' but what about this?'.
My Post was answering 'but what about this?'. And the first question is 'where did this come from?'


pranams,

sarabhanga
14 December 2007, 06:17 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

As christmas approaches, I suppose the time is ripe for consideration of who is “nasty” (nAstika) and who is “nice” (Astika); but in truth that is a judgment only a great shAnta can make. ;)

An Astika is “believing, pious, or faithful”, and especially “one who believes in the existence of god”.

And a nAstika is “unbelieving, atheistic, or unfaithful”, and thus “an unbeliever, atheist, or infidel”.

Only cArvAka is entirely nAstika, while bauddha denies the possibility of unchanging eternity (and thus also the basis for vaidika authority) but not necessarily the existence of god, and jaina certainly doesn’t deny the existence of god (only the ultimate authority of the veda and brAhmaNa).

Orthodox, however, generally means “according to the doctrines of scripture”, and as soon as this idea is connected with Astika the concept changes from believing in the existence of god to believing in the authority of the veda and the brAhmaNa.

Religion was anciently derived from the phrase rem legere (“to choose that which is right”), but it has come to mean religare (“obligation to the established rule”); and similarly Astika has developed from simply “faithful to god” into “faithful to a particular revelation of god”.

The strict brAhmaNa opinion is that only brAhmaNa vidyA is truly Astika, while kshatriya vidyA (jaina and bauddha), and all else, is nAstika unless informed by and in accord with brAhmaNa revelations. But it seems wrong to define bauddha and especially jaina dharma as “faithless” or “infidel”.

bauddha dharma depends on the mahat (buddhi) of prakRti (mAyA, the mother of gautama) and the individual jIva, but ignores nirguNa brahma as shUnya.

And jaina dharma arises from the AdinAtha puruSaRSabha (the first incarnation of shiva, the virile bull man remembered as nandi) and unites the verities of sAMkhya in a paramparA of 24 incarnations.

The cosmology of sAMkhya does not depend on the existence of any deity that can be worshipped, although it does not deny the existence of brahma (as the infinite sum of every individual puruSa). And both bauddha and jaina have followed the lead of sAMkhya and focused their attention on divine incarnations (and reincarnation) rather than on the incomprehensible, inactive, invisible and anonymous whole that exists beyond manifest creation. And in this sense, the jaina and bauddha preoccupation with divine incarnation and incarnate divinity is not different from the vaiSNava preoccupation with nArAyaNa at the expense of nara (or christian devotion to the explicit son of man rather than to his implicit father).

You have given the orthodox brAhmaNa position, but nAstika is a divisive term that should be applied with care.

yajvan
14 December 2007, 07:02 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

You have given the orthodox brAhmaNa position, but nAstika is a divisive term that should be applied with care.

Namste sarabhanga.

you are correct and care was given, with absense of malice.

As noted, nāstika or na+ astika नास्तिक or it is not so and this word nāstika नास्तिक is not believing, or atheistical. So , from a 'clinical' POV this is how it was offered and applied. e.g. that the veda is not the final word, and is how my post reads.



That said, I can see how one can take it to the next level of infidel and ruffle feathers.

FYI only - 'infidel' is on my top 10 list of words that need to be removed from the planet. There are several more I find detestable and do not even choose to have my fingers spell out these words nor give my mind the opportunity to think of them... oooopps one just slipped into my head , excuse me while I go work on its extraction.:duel:




pranams,

sarabhanga
14 December 2007, 09:44 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

Not believing in God and not believing in the brAhmaNa are really two different things (unless of course one is a brAhmaNa). ;)

And nAstika is exactly translated as " infidel " ~ unfaithful (as one with infidelity) ~ i.e. unfaithful to the brAhmaNa and their interpretation of the veda ~ but NOT necessarily atheist. Also " nasty " (originally meaning strange or astray) is derived from nAstika, so the connotations in english are clear.

yajvan
14 December 2007, 11:33 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste sarabhanga,

you wrote

Not believing in God and not believing in the brAhmaNa are really two different things (unless of course one is a brAhmaNa).
I comprehend the differences but miss its application to the conversation. I am sure I am missing something.

Also -
great pains where taken for the following:


And a nAstika is "unbelieving, atheistic, or unfaithful", and thus "an unbeliever, atheist, or infidel".

Hence nAstika is rooted in न = "no , it is not so" + आस्तिक = "there is or exists " and that how it was applied & called out by using its roots to do the work.

Hence one can then come to the conclusion that one is the infidel ( ouch! I dis-like that word ) due to this condition. That has been my orientation, yet I appreciate the augmented knowledge you offer.

The reason I wish to pursue this, I find great value in using the roots of meanings behind the words and the core application, as do you, and think they add value to a post when defined in a post accordingly.

I cannot help but think of the conversation between King Janasruti¹ and the cartman Raikva, where he calls the King a sudra upon meeting him for the first time.
Now was he thinking this King is of the working class in the Varna system, and perhaps said condescendingly? Absolutely not. He addressed him as sudra as he recognized his condition, 'shuchAt dravanam' a person who is in suffering/mourning/pain. The root of where sudra word begins.

Raikva allowed the word that may by some be inappropriate, yet was used accordingly, to do the work for him...And the King took no issue, in fact he brought him 1000 cows, pearls, a chariot , etc. for his wisdom he wished the cart-man to expound.

Like that, I hope to be so wise in the choice and use of the words I offer...

I am aways open to be corrected and agumented as the situation occurs,yet if we are parsing hairs on this matter I will leave it to the barber :)


pranams,


1. Chandogya Upanishad Chapt 4 sloka 3
tam u ha parah pratyuvAcAha hAre tvA SUdra tavaiva saha gobhir ...

sarabhanga
15 December 2007, 12:51 AM
I comprehend the differences but miss its application to the conversation.

You have clearly written that the Jaina and Bauddha faiths are atheistic (i.e. not believing in God) and I have been trying to show that this is perhaps not entirely true, and also that some faiths (normally considered Astika) such as sAMkhya and even vaiSNava could be argued as "godless" in exactly the same way!

yajvan
15 December 2007, 10:07 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

You have clearly written that the Jaina and Bauddha faiths are atheistic (i.e. not believing in God) and I have been trying to show that this is perhaps not entirely true, and also that some faiths (normally considered Astika) such as sAMkhya and even vaiSNava could be argued as "godless" in exactly the same way!


Namaste sarabhanga,

Now I see your point and the reason for my confusion, because of the following ...
I wrote, chose and defined that Unorthodox does not regard the Vedas as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox. I purposelfully and mindfully left out any references to God and only focused on recogntion of the Vedas for the same reason you have cited i.e. not believing in God ...this is perhaps not entirely true ( yes, I concur)

Again, now I see your point.



Reference only from the orginal post:

So what does this mean? astika there exists , or a regard that the Vedas as infallible, the final word, with out doubt. Hence this is called Orthodox e.g. there exists the Vedas as the foundation of infallible truth.

nastika does not regard the Vedas as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox.

So, what is considered orthodox ? Which schools that is? It is the 6 systems of Indian philosophy. We know them as Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vaisesika.
And what is considered Unorthodox? ( this does not mean 'bad'). We have Jaina, Carvaka , and Buddhist.



pranams,

Sagefrakrobatik
31 December 2007, 08:10 AM
There is a book i had came across while at Borders that i thought might be of interest. It is called

The gospel of John in light of Indian Mysticism.

jaggin
07 February 2008, 10:10 AM
What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.

If Hindus accept the concept of God incarnating and accepts the testimony of those who say they are incarnations of God, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't accept the testimony of Jesus that He is an incarnation of God.

Granted there are some kooks out there who make the claim and don't fit the bill but if a person knows God, he should be able to tell the difference.

TatTvamAsi
07 February 2008, 09:46 PM
What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.

The general "Hindu" view of Jesus is that he was a jew that came to India when he was 12-13 to study Vedas and Vedanta and learned yoga. After that, he started trying to teach mlecchas about the philosophy of the Vedas for which he was admonished (read: he wanted to teach the Vedas to other sUdras because he thought everyone should learn/read it :rolleyes:). He went back to the ME when he was ~30 years old and then after the crucifixion, he came back to India with the help of his 'disciples' and lived there till his last days. He is buried in Kashmir.

On the philosophical aspect, Jesus pretty much had nothing new to espouse as he was just repeating what he had learned in India. In fact, many verses in the bible were directly taken from the Gita and other Hindu scriptures. Some people, Indians, claim that he might have reached the first level of unity consciousness. Through this he may have acquired some siddhis and therefore he showed them off to the illiterate (still) public in the ME. They had no clue as to how a normal human being could perform 'miracles' and therefore jumped to conclusions that he was of divine origin blah blah blah.. etc.

Jesus may have at best reached kevala nirvikalpa and definitely not samadhi as anyone who has really realized the Self will not go around preaching and engage in polemics. In the West he was probably the first one to have reached a level beyond the three normal states of waking, dreaming, deep sleep. However, he was NOT an incarnation of a Supreme Being like Krishna. It is ridiculous to even compare the two. The '3 wise men' mentioned in the bible were from India, where else (;)), and must have prophecied his relatively higher level of consciousness; hence visiting him and giving gifts etc.

Throughout history, especially in India, even today, there are many human beings who are highly developed spiritually and even in samadhi, much higher than Christ ever was. There are even more people around the world with experiences of spontaneous expansion of consciousness (i.e Fritjof Capra etc.). Therefore, to label them as 'incarnations' etc. is just silly and simply wrong.

Subham.

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 11:51 PM
Jesus may have at best reached kevala nirvikalpa and definitely not samadhi as anyone who has really realized the Self will not go around preaching and engage in polemics.

If kevala nirvikalpa (“unwavering abstraction” or “absolute unity of spirit”) is pratyAhAra, then it is the “last supper”, before the final communion of saMyama and samAdhi (which is the crucifixion). And after that ultimate tapasya of kRSTi (“passion of christ”) there was no preaching and certainly no engaging in polemics.

Bob G
10 February 2008, 12:06 AM
I suggest reading (if one hasn't already?) "Autobiography of a Yogi" for further comparisons and or information regarding a Yogi's view Jesus.

indianx
10 February 2008, 12:46 AM
I'm not sure if there is a general Hindu view of Jesus. For example, personally speaking, it really doesn't affect how I practice my religion, so I'm not particularly concerned with it, which probably goes for most Hindus. But, I have heard some say that he could be compared to a yogi, to the extent of some of his spiritual insights.

devotee
10 February 2008, 04:50 AM
Jesus was certainly an enlightened being. He appears to have achieved the stage where God & the devotee find one-ness. That is why he said, " I and my father are same. He who has seen me has seen my father." From Hindu point of view this statement may not appear a big issue because one-ness has been liberally ingrained in the psyche of a religious Hindu & it is not an alien concept which can raise an eyebrow. However, this was completely unthinkable in a Jewish social environment. That is why people initially thought that he perhaps was not in his sound mental condition. Declaring One-ness with God was akin to blsphemy of the highest order.

I don't fully endorse the view that he learnt Advait in India but there are some theories which give rise to such speculation. However, to me it apears doubtful keeping in mind that it was extremely difficult to travel such long distances (sea-route was not developed at time) in that period. Moreover, it was highly improbable that he would have come alone & there was no record kept.

sarabhanga
10 February 2008, 07:10 AM
To me it apears doubtful, keeping in mind that it was extremely difficult to travel such long distances (sea-route was not developed at time) in that period. Moreover, it was highly improbable that he would have come alone & there was no record kept.

Namaste Devotee,

The sea route was well known to navigators of the time!

There were agricultural settlements using sun-dried clay bricks (iSTakA) in Balochistan (western Pakistan) from about 7,000 BC. And the first agricultural irrigation systems were developed in Mesopotamia in about 5,500 BC. But similar methods were very successfully applied in the Sarasvati-Sindhu region, skillfully controlling the life-giving waters with dams and channels, greatly increasing the harvest and enabling the establishment of urban civilization (c. 3,600 BC) which was flourishing over a wide area by 3,000 BC. Sails and wheels seem to have been invented in the Middle East (c. 3,500 BC), and by 3,000 BC the maritime trade between India and the Middle East was well established (with the Sarasvati navigable all the way to Ropar, near Chandigarh). And around 2,350 BC the major revenue-source for Harappa was its export trade to Sumer and Akkad!

The sea route to the ports of Dwarka (Gujarat) and Sopara (Sofale, just north of Mumbai) was well known from very ancient times and, by the time of Christ, the port of Muziris (modern Kodungullur on the Malabar Coast of Kerala) was also well known.

sarabhanga
14 February 2008, 12:37 AM
The sea route was well known to navigators of the time.


And after the safe return of Alexander’s fleet (commanded by Nearchus, whose record of the voyage was later used by the Roman historian Arrian to compose his famous “Indika”) from the Indus back to the Euphrates in 324 BC even the Greeks had no doubt about the sea-route. And by the time of Christ even Rome must have been aware of the possibility of a quick passage to India from Arabia.

atanu
23 February 2008, 07:43 AM
Jesus was certainly an enlightened being. He appears to have achieved the stage where God & the devotee find one-ness. That is why he said, " I and my father are same. He who has seen me has seen my father." From Hindu point of view this statement may not appear a big issue because ------

Namaste Devotee,

Your view is a good view. Yet, the great Advaita master taught the following:

Adi Sankaracharya's
Maneeshaa Panchakam
Translated by S. N. Sastri

Introduction

In this work consisting of just five verses Sri Sankara has brought out succinctly the essence of Advaita Vedanta. One day Sri Sankara was walking towards the temple of Lord Viswanatha in Varanasi along with his disciples. It so happened that a sweeper was walking towards him on the same street. Sri Sankara asked the sweeper to move away from his path. The sweeper then asked him some questions which form the substance of two verses which are a prelude to the main work. ---

According to tradition, the sweeper was none other than Lord Siva Himself in that form. -----

The sweeper’s questions:--
1. O great among the twice-born! What is it that you want to move away by saying, ”Go, go”? Do you want the body made up of food to move away from another body made up of food? Or do you want consciousness to move away from consciousness?

2. Is there any difference between the reflection of the sun in the waters of the Ganga and its reflection in the water in a ditch in the quarters of the outcastes? Or between the space in a gold pot and in a mud pot? What is this illusion of difference in the form, “This is a Brahmana and this is an outcaste” in the indwelling self which is the ripple-free ocean of bliss and pure consciousness?

Sri Sankara’s answers:--

1.If a person has attained the firm knowledge that he is not an object of perception, but is that pure consciousness which shines clearly in the states of waking, dream and deep sleep, and which, as the witness of the whole universe, dwells in all bodies from that of the Creator Brahma to that of the ant, then he is my Guru, irrespective of whether he is an outcaste or a Brahmana. This is my conviction.

2. “I am Brahman (pure consciousness). It is pure consciousness that appears as this universe. All this is only something conjured up by me because of avidya (nescience) which is composed of the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas)”. One who has attained this definite realization about Brahman which is bliss itself, eternal, supreme and pure, is my Guru, whether he is an outcaste or a Brahmana.

3. Having come to the definite conclusion, under the instruction of his Guru, that the entire universe is always perishable, he who, with a calm and pure mind constantly meditates on Brahman, and who has burnt his past and future sins in the fire of knowledge, submits his present body to the operation of his praarabdha karma. This is my conviction.

4. The Self or pure consciousness is experienced clearly within by animals, men, and gods as ‘I’. It is by the reflection of this pure consciousness that the mind, senses and body, which are all insentient, appear to be sentient. External objects are perceived only because of this consciousness. This Self is, however, concealed by the very mind, senses and body which are illumined by it, just as the sun is concealed by clouds. The yogi who, with a calm mind, always meditates on this Self is my Guru. This is my conviction.

5. The Self, which is Brahman, is the eternal ocean of supreme bliss. A minute fraction of that bliss is enough to satisfy Indra and other gods. By meditating on the Self with a perfectly calm mind the sage experiences fulfillment. The person whose mind has become identified with this Self is not a mere knower of Brahman, but Brahman itself. Such a person, whoever he may be, is one whose feet are fit to be worshipped by Indra himself. This is my definite conviction.
------------------------

Contrast it with Jesus' teaching: '---- cast ye not pearls before swine.’

Expressions are perhaps of very different kind. I have some reservation as whether one who is same as father (God) will use such expression?


Regards,

Om

sarabhanga
23 February 2008, 09:57 AM
Jesus' teaching: '---- cast ye not pearls before swine.’

I have some reservation as whether one who is same as father (God) will use such expression?

It is amazing how much mischief can be caused by taking a line completely out of context.

‘Don’t cast pearls before swine.’ ‘Don’t play music to a cow.’ ‘Don’t throw gold coins to a cat.’ ‘Don’t expect a monkey to appreciate ginger.’ ‘Honey isn’t made for a donkey’s mouth.’ The meaning is exactly the same.

According to the gospel of matthew: ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’

According to the muNDakopaniSad: ‘This is declared by the Rg verse: Let one teach this knowledge of brahma to those only who perform the karma enjoined, who are versed in the vedAs, and firmly established in brahmA, who, endowed with full faith, offer oblations themselves to the fire called ekarSi, and who perform the shirovrata according to the rule.’

And according to the shvetAshvataropaniSad: ‘This highest secret in the vedAnta, expounded in a former age, should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a worthy son, nor to an unworthy disciple.’

Can you please explain the essential difference between ‘this should not be given to one who is unworthy’ (which is the standard hindu tradition) and ‘that which is holy should not be thrown to the dogs’ or ‘cast not your pearls before swine’ (as advised by christian tradition)???

devotee
23 February 2008, 10:20 AM
[quote=atanu;21208]Contrast it with Jesus' teaching: '---- cast ye not pearls before swine.’

Expressions are perhaps of very different kind. I have some reservation as whether one who is same as father (God) will use such expression?/quote]

Namaste Atanu,




The full text is :
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6Before I tell you my views, will you please tell me why Lord Krishna says so in B. Gita :

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-67-01.gif

---> "You should never disclose this (Jnan) to one devoid of austerities, nor to one who is not a devotee, nor to one who is averse to spiritual pursuits & never anyone who is envious to Me."

The dose of pure knowledge must match the capability to grasp otherwise there will be more damage than anything good intended. Remember what they did to Jesus when he called himself "Son Of God" ... what would have happened if he would have openly declared, "Aham Brahmasmi" or "Thou Art That" ?

Regards

suresh
23 February 2008, 11:15 AM
[quote=atanu;21208]Contrast it with Jesus' teaching: '---- cast ye not pearls before swine.’

Expressions are perhaps of very different kind. I have some reservation as whether one who is same as father (God) will use such expression?/quote]

Namaste Atanu,




The full text is :
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6Before I tell you my views, will you please tell me why Lord Krishna says so in B. Gita :

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-67-01.gif

---> "You should never disclose this (Jnan) to one devoid of austerities, nor to one who is not a devotee, nor to one who is averse to spiritual pursuits & never anyone who is envious to Me."

The dose of pure knowledge must match the capability to grasp otherwise there will be more damage than anything good intended. Remember what they did to Jesus when he called himself "Son Of God" ... what would have happened if he would have openly declared, "Aham Brahmasmi" or "Thou Art That" ?

Regards

It always depends on the context. You can say these things out of concern that knowledge could fall into wrong hands, as Krishna has done. Or, you may say the exact same thing out of arrogance. In Jesus' case, it seems to be the latter, because there are many occasions where he's referred to gentiles (and those refusing to accept his divinity) in the most vulgar terms. Based on this context, one really wonders whether the comparison is fair or accurate.

atanu
23 February 2008, 12:27 PM
[quote=atanu;21208]Contrast it with Jesus' teaching: '---- cast ye not pearls before swine.’

Expressions are perhaps of very different kind. I have some reservation as whether one who is same as father (God) will use such expression?/quote]

Namaste Atanu,

The full text is :"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Before I tell you my views, will you please tell me why Lord Krishna says so in B. Gita :
---> "You should never disclose this (Jnan) to one devoid of austerities, nor to one who is not a devotee, nor to one who is averse to spiritual pursuits & never anyone who is envious to Me."
----
Remember what they did to Jesus when he called himself "Son Of God" ... what would have happened if he would have openly declared, "Aham Brahmasmi" or "Thou Art That" ?

Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Hehe. You have a pointer there (the red letters above). Here the following is apt:

shvetAshvataropaniSad: ‘This highest secret in the vedAnta, expounded in a former age, should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a worthy son, nor to an unworthy disciple.’

And that is the point I am making. When Jesus says "I and my father are same", it is nothing short of 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Your citation of exact Gita verse is what I wanted, just to let a comparison occur.

A man cannot cast pearls to a swine or a dog. And a man calling another man dog or swine, is not proper by any Hindu Shastra (at least as far as I know). No Hindu Guru may actually approve of it, irrespective of the context. The Gita verse is ample evidence. And Lord is known as humblest of the humble.

I personally am now of the opinion that crucifixion alone is symbolic of final death of ego and prior to that the ego was. YMMV.

Om. Regards.

Om

sarabhanga
23 February 2008, 09:21 PM
A man cannot cast pearls to a swine or a dog. And a man calling another man dog or swine, is not proper by any Hindu Shastra (at least as far as I know). No Hindu Guru may actually approve of it, irrespective of the context.

nAprashAntAya dAtavyaM na aputrAya ashiSyAya vA punaH

The highest secret of vedAnta is a veritable pearl, which should not be taught to “an untrue son” (thus, not to a “bastard child” or a “mongrel”, and hence not to a “dog”). And neither should it be taught to “a person or thing not deserving to be taught or not capable of being instructed” (thus, not to a “donkey” or a “monkey” or a “cat” or a “cow” or a “pig”).

Since only an idiot would even contemplate teaching vedAnta to any one of these animals, the words are surely metaphorical and referring to human communication, indicating simply anyone who is incapable or unprepared for properly appreciating or digesting the pearl of wisdom. The veda refers to wisdom that should only be given to a tyAgin (vAnaprastha), and the upaniSad is referring to wisdom that should only be given to a sannyAsin, and in each case the meaning is the same ~ don’t give the post-graduate instruction to the undergraduates, for they are (as yet) unfit to properly comprehend it, and in their hands the true significance will be lost. And it is fruitless to caste such pearls of wisdom to those who are not prepared (i.e. to the “unwashed”, who are without the appropriate saMskAra) for it.

Any difference between the biblical statement and the vedAntika statement is only in your mind.

And regarding my own use of the phrase ~ it is futile to give the ultimate wisdom of sannyAsa to those who are not prepared for sannyAsa ~ it is useless to suggest the common origin and aims of apparently diverse dharmas to those whose passionate support of one side over another makes them blind to the very possibility ~ and it is clearly unwise to cast appropriate metaphors before those who take everything literally!

devotee
23 February 2008, 11:03 PM
When Jesus says "I and my father are same", it is nothing short of 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Your citation of exact Gita verse is what I wanted, just to let a comparison occur.

A man cannot cast pearls to a swine or a dog. And a man calling another man dog or swine, is not proper by any Hindu Shastra (at least as far as I know). No Hindu Guru may actually approve of it, irrespective of the context. The Gita verse is ample evidence. And Lord is known as humblest of the humble.


Namaste Atanu,

You are right when you say that "I and my father are same" is nothing sort of "Aham Brahmasmi''. However, please bear in mind that this is the interpretation of an Advaitin, a common Christian sees the same in a slightly different way. There is a subtle difference .... it is slightly short of open declaration. In fact, in Gita also this subtle difference (leading to confusion to some) has been maintained (though in the opposite way). That is why where you see pure Non-duality some on this forum ( e.g. the ISKCON followers ) don't. And this subtle difference is kept deliberately because both Jesus & Lord Krishna are equally compassionate to both types of disciples i.e. those who can actually grasp Non-duality & those who cannot.

Jesus says, "don't cast to dogs what you consider holy", so he intends dog only by the word "dog" & not people ( "dog" is used with "holy"). Again, he says, "don't cast your pearls to swine" ===> When you are changing pearls with "words of wisdom" then you must change "swine" with people. We must do both the changes simultaneously to be fair to Jesus.

Actually, your objection is more to use of words like dog & swine which in your understanding is undermining the divinity of man & I must admit that is not out of place. But aren't we trying to see things from our conditioned (shall we say, Hindu way ?) perspective ? The meaning of a word is never absolute ... it keeps changing with the change in context, environment, the intention of the speaker & the level of understanding between the speaker & the audience. So, IMO, judging Jesus just by choice of a few words in a particular context will not be correct.

Regards

atanu
24 February 2008, 01:44 AM
Namaste Devotee,


Namaste Atanu,

You are right when you say that "I and my father are same" is nothing sort of "Aham Brahmasmi''. ----


Yes. The distinction is as per one's understanding and conditioning.


Jesus says, "don't cast to dogs what you consider holy", so he intends dog only by the word "dog" & not people ( "dog" is used with "holy"). Again, he says, "don't cast your pearls to swine" ===> When you are changing pearls with "words of wisdom" then you must change "swine" with people. We must do both the changes simultaneously to be fair to Jesus.

If you interpret it this way, then you should not have compared with Gita verse at all. Who will ever attempt to cast wisdom to dogs?

"You should never disclose this (Jnan) to one devoid of austerities, nor to one who is not a devotee, nor to one who is averse to spiritual pursuits & never anyone who is envious to Me."

Do you see the problem? Suresh correctly pointed out the mismatch.



Actually, your objection is more to use of words like dog & swine which in your understanding is undermining the divinity of man & I must admit that is not out of place. But aren't we trying to see things from our conditioned (shall we say, Hindu way ?) perspective ?

Surely, it is my conditioned view. While speaking or making rational analysis, I use the mind.

I am not denying divinity of Jesus, yet the purity of places and times vary.

Regards.

Om

sarabhanga
24 February 2008, 02:23 AM
Who will ever attempt to cast wisdom to dogs?

Namaste Atanu,

Perhaps the explanation has been modified to allow for the promotion of christianity among non-christians. So that the message (or half of it) can only be interpreted in a strictly literal sense ~ you can give the bible to non-christians, just don't give it to actual dogs. Surely, the sermon on the mount was dealing with more lofty issues than the particular unworthiness of canines for receiving the sacrament. :rolleyes:

atanu
24 February 2008, 03:42 AM
Namaste Atanu,
-So, IMO, judging Jesus just by choice of a few words in a particular context will not be correct.
Regards

Namaste Devotee,

I am not directly judging Jesus. How can I do so? I am only commenting on the saying, its usage, and the difference of emphasis.

As has been pointed out, dogs and pigs are not dogs and pigs but these terms refer to humans who are like dogs ang pigs, since they cannot understand the pearls of wisdom of divine Jesus and Jesus by own admission is not different from the father in heaven.

Lord Krishna or Upanishads say "do not impart the knowledge to the unripe" -- that is keep silent. Additionally, Lord says: a) "Arjuna, know that you are not the doer" and b) I hurl the asuras to hell.

Both say the same thing yet there is a sea of difference in emphasis. Let us be rational and fair.

Regards,

Om

devotee
24 February 2008, 04:51 AM
If you interpret it this way, then you should not have compared with Gita verse at all. Who will ever attempt to cast wisdom to dogs?

Namaste Atanu,

You misunderstood what I intended to say. This line was important : "When you are changing "pearls" with "words of wisdom" then you must change "swine" with "people" (in the statement). We must do both the changes simultaneously to be fair to Jesus."


Both say the same thing yet there is a sea of difference in emphasis.

Yes, I agree. However, what I intend to say that it may not be attributed to Jesus's status as unenlightened. The Bible came after the Laws of Moses & also the Ten Commandments. IMO, Laws of Moses & also some of the commandments are full of brutality & depicts God as a terrible tyrant .... who also appears to suffer from a sense of insecurity (I am a Jealous God etc.). That combined with Deuteronomy-13 fills a person with so much terrible fear that one cannot think of any other God (read, in name & form), let alone Non-duality & declaring anything like "Aham Brahmasmi". Yet, this Man not only proclaimed that "He was the Son of God" but also later on proclaimed that " I and My Father are same". In fact, in his sermon on the Mount he advises his disciples to follow only chosen commandments & not all :



17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbour as yourself."


In fact, he also clarifies that "Son of God" is a state in spirituality ( i.e. it is a metaphor) & anyone can attain that :

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
.......
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

----------------------------------

Please read the above with the following :
Deuteronomy 13

13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them,

13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. 13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

--------------------------------------
Jesus changed that concept of a tyrant God. The terrible face of the tyrant God changed into a benign & loving God. ... and he did so fully knowing that the laws of Deuteronomy 13 prescribes a terrible death for him !

Such fearlessness is impossible in duality, imho.

Regards

suresh
24 February 2008, 05:17 AM
Just because Jesus said, "I and my father are one," it doesn't make him an advaitin, nor is this statement similar to 'aham Brahmasmi.' Even dictators and megalomaniacs often think they're god, that doesn't mean they're practicing advaita, or that they've realized oneness with Brahman.;)

Jesus has said extremely vulgar things about unbelievers and gentiles, so it's unlikely that he was speaking these words with any advaitic realization. It's extremely foolish to believe that this person, who may or may not have existed, was teaching advaita, or that he had any basic spiritual realization at all. Instead of harping on sermon on the mount (which could've been tampered with a hundred times), if we look at his sayings in totality, he only strikes me as a megalomaniac with a bad attitude toward unbelievers. A good case study for psychiatrists.:D

So let's not be hasty and see similarities, when there are one. Hitler thought he was god, our rshis came up with 'aham Brahmasmi.' So what next? Hitler's National Socialism was another form of advaita?;) Please....

atanu
24 February 2008, 05:33 AM
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
------
---------- for He causes His son to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
----------------------------------
-Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Thanks for all the citations. Will it be son or sun above? And will it be 'He causes His son to rise above evil and good'?

Regards

Om

atanu
24 February 2008, 06:25 AM
----
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; -Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Again, if you read the above, it is not slaying of a man called Jesus. But it is about slaying the false belief in other god, which one has not seen as the truth but only in heresy, by the sword of enquiry.

IMO, masters know of this as Neti-Neti.

--------------------
I am talking about this alone. Can or should a man term another canine, when God alone hurls the Asuras to Hell?

Regards.
Om

devotee
24 February 2008, 09:30 AM
Will it be son or sun above? And will it be 'He causes His son to rise above evil and good'?


Namaste Atanu,

It is Sun & not son. IMO, the meaning is that God is equally compassionate to both evil & good ( in giving sunshine or the rains). Therefore, we also should learn to love even our enemies.


it is not slaying of a man called Jesus. But it is about slaying the false belief in other god, which one has not seen as the truth but only in heresy, by the sword of enquiry.

Now that is a true Advaitin's interpretation ! I love that !! :)

Regards

atanu
24 February 2008, 12:08 PM
Namaste Atanu,

It is Sun & not son. IMO, the meaning is that God is equally compassionate to both evil & good ( in giving sunshine or the rains). Therefore, we also should learn to love even our enemies.


Namaste Devotee,

Yes, it is so. You say it nicely and it is indeed nice. And equally nice is, "13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;" 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, ---

Regards,

Om

atanu
25 February 2008, 07:29 AM
Just because Jesus said, "I and my father are one," it doesn't make him an advaitin, nor is this statement similar to 'aham Brahmasmi.' -.:D
....

Namaste Suresh,

I am inclined towards your above view (perhaps in a much more muted fashion) for the reasons that it is not alone the statement "I and my father are one", but a host of other statements in combination indicate otherwise. At least that there is a major difference in the matter of emphasis is not untrue. Or that may reflect the later teachers as well.

Anyway, what is this of any interest to us?

Om

atanu
27 February 2008, 12:01 AM
Namaste Atanu,

-
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. ---
Regards


This is pure Gold. This is Vedanta.

Shivam Shivam

sarabhanga
27 February 2008, 03:00 AM
Just because Jesus said, "I and my father are one," it doesn't make him an advaitin. Even dictators and megalomaniacs often think they're god, that doesn't mean they're practicing advaita.

Jesus has said extremely vulgar things about unbelievers and gentiles, so it's unlikely that he was speaking these words with any advaitic realization.

It's extremely foolish to believe that this person, who may or may not have existed, was teaching advaita, or that he had any basic spiritual realization at all. Instead of harping on sermon on the mount (which could've been tampered with a hundred times), if we look at his sayings in totality, he only strikes me as a megalomaniac with a bad attitude toward unbelievers. A good case study for psychiatrists.

Hitler thought he was god.

Namaste Suresh,

What exactly has Jesus himself (not any of his commentators, nor the old testament) said about unbelievers and gentiles, which you find to be "extremely vulgar" ?

And what exactly has Jesus himself said which denies advaitam ?

And if we look at the sayings of Jesus (once again, the sayings attributed to Jesus himself) in totality, what recurrent features tend to suggest a bad attitude or psychiatric disorder ?

sarabhanga
27 February 2008, 03:25 AM
This is Vedanta.

Namaste Atanu,

The old testament is more like the veda and smRti texts (especially manu), and the new testament is more like the vedAnta and sUtra texts (especially patañjali).

sarabhanga
02 March 2008, 08:55 AM
In his sermon on the mount he advises his disciples to follow only chosen commandments & not all




ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH
shaucasaMtoSatapaHsvAdhyAyeshvarapraNidhAnAni niyamAH


yama ~ restraint ~ surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life ~ thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself


ahiMsA ~ harmlessness ~ thou shalt not kill ~ cause no bloodshed ~ thou shalt do no murder ~ blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth
satyA ~ truthfulness ~ thou shalt not bear false witness ~ establish justice ~ blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy
asteya ~ not stealing ~ thou shalt not steal ~ commit no robbery
brahmacarya ~ chastity ~ thou shalt not commit adultery ~ commit no sexual immorality
aparigrahA ~ poverty ~ thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s property ~ cut no flesh from a living animal ~ blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven


niyama ~ observance ~ and I will dwell in the house of the lord for ever ~ thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind


shauca ~ purity ~ thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain ~ commit no blasphemy ~ swear not at all ~ blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see god
saMtoSa ~ contentment ~ thou shalt have no other gods before me ~ blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of god
tapas ~ austerity ~ remember the sabbath day to keep it holy ~ blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled
svAdhyAya ~ wisdom ~ honour thy father and thy mother ~ blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted
IshvarapraNidhAnAni ~ devotion to god ~ thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image ~ turn ye not unto idols ~ blessed are, ye for my sake

TatTvamAsi
06 March 2008, 04:16 AM
Namaste Atanu,

The old testament is more like the veda and smRti texts (especially manu), and the new testament is more like the vedAnta and sUtra texts (especially patañjali).

Namaste Sarabhanga,

After learning Vedanta in India, Jesus did really throw pearl before swine! As the people in the ME couldn't understand any of the principles he regurgitated. Furthermore, I highly doubt he spoke from self-experience; much like 99% of the people today! :rolleyes:

And nowadays we have swine like that Michael Witzel reading and desecrating the Vedas so what else is to be expected in the Kali Yuga? Only dvija Brahmanas are supposed to read them!

Subham.