PDA

View Full Version : The Hindu Jesus?



Abominable Snowman
06 November 2009, 07:16 PM
Namaste.

So I bought Paramahansa Yogananda's Metaphysical Meditations today in my effort to strengthen, lengthen and intensify my meditative practice (along with a few other books) and I ran across the "Christmas Meditation," section which makes a lot of mention of Jesus. I also own The Second Coming of Christ however I got it as a birthingday gift one year and sad to say, haven't gotten to it yet. Also, I seem to remember coming across a book entitled the Yoga of Jesus. What I want to know is why is Jesus metioned so much by Hindus? What is his significance? I don't doubt that he may have been a wise man who was tragically killed by my people but I am getting the since that he holds some special place as teacher within the Hindu community that I (strangely) don't know about. Can someone fill me in? I know next to nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. Infact my family is Jewish (read: Orthodox) and that's how I was raised, so you can kind of see why I'm in the dark about the man. Thanks folks.

Eastern Mind
06 November 2009, 08:44 PM
Jesus is mentioned by the Hindus because of modern Christian proseltysing and Christian propaganda, not because there is any mention of him in any ancient text. Hindus have become aware of him only fairly recently except for maybe a few very small pockets here and there.

Personally, I don't believe he existed any more than Luke Skywalker, and I could care even less. Ignorant people clouded by anava need a religion that suits them, and they invented it by writing and collecting some vague and obscure stories and labelling them something. You will get other viewpoints.

Aum Namasivaya

Abominable Snowman
06 November 2009, 10:44 PM
Jesus is mentioned by the Hindus because of modern Christian proseltysing and Christian propaganda, not because there is any mention of him in any ancient text. Hindus have become aware of him only fairly recently except for maybe a few very small pockets here and there.

Personally, I don't believe he existed any more than Luke Skywalker, and I could care even less. Ignorant people clouded by anava need a religion that suits them, and they invented it by writing and collecting some vague and obscure stories and labelling them something. You will get other viewpoints.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste.

You see these were my intial impressions and to be perfectly honest aside from Revelation I can't say I have ever read any of the gospels and due to this I thought maybe perhaps there was more to it. I knew full well that Jesus wasn' mentioned in any of the scriptures and I also assumed due to colonialization and as you said Christian proselytizing that is how Jesus came to India. Have you read any of the works I mentioned? If so, what do you think of them? From first glance without reading it, I would guess that it's all a bunch of rubbish, especially considering the section is called "xmas meditations." But wisdom can from anywhere, I could be wrong.

Aum Namah Shivaya.

Eastern Mind
07 November 2009, 07:36 AM
AS: I have never read any of those books, nor any part of the Bible. Once in a blue moon while travelling in the west and staying at a hotel, I open the Bible at a random page, just to reconfirm my pre-existing belief. Usually about 2 lines does the trick. I don't read much. I guess I'm just an ignorant old man. I just have no interest whatsoever exploring anything to do with Christianity. When you're eating on a large beautifully perfect ripe mango, why would you want to chew on a tiny half-rotten raisin? Makes no sense.

But hey, if you want to try this for awhile, I guess there's nothing stopping you.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
07 November 2009, 11:23 AM
=What I want to know is why is Jesus metioned so much by Hindus? What is his significance? I don't doubt that he may have been a wise man who was tragically killed by my people but I am getting the since that he holds some special place as teacher within the Hindu community that I (strangely) don't know about.

Eastern Mind has hit the nail square on the head.

Jesus is mentioned by Hindus because of Christian influences, both in the West and in India. Missionaries are being sent to India to convert the Hindus, and Hindus in the West (especially Indian exchange students) are being targeted for conversion to Christianity. The tactic of "friendship evangelism" where Christians become friends with Hindu students on university campuses is becoming common (it is mentioned in the latest edition of Hinduism Today (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5031)). Because of this, Hindu writers mention Jesus in an attempt to possibly educate Hindus about the real, historical Jesus, not the Jesus that the Christians present.

I myself accept Jesus as an incarnation of God, and His Holy Mother Mary as a form of Goddess Durga.

sanjaya
07 November 2009, 12:26 PM
Eastern Mind has hit the nail square on the head.

Jesus is mentioned by Hindus because of Christian influences, both in the West and in India. Missionaries are being sent to India to convert the Hindus, and Hindus in the West (especially Indian exchange students) are being targeted for conversion to Christianity. The tactic of "friendship evangelism" where Christians become friends with Hindu students on university campuses is becoming common (it is mentioned in the latest edition of Hinduism Today (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5031)). Because of this, Hindu writers mention Jesus in an attempt to possibly educate Hindus about the real, historical Jesus, not the Jesus that the Christians present.

I myself accept Jesus as an incarnation of God, and His Holy Mother Mary as a form of Goddess Durga.

Heh, I also noticed the "friendship evangelism" when I was in college. Strangely, I didn't get as many people trying to befriend me this way as I thought I would. You'd think being an (ethnically) Indian student on a college campus would make one a popular target, but I guess once I started talking they could tell I was American, and lost interest. I've been to a church several times, and they do emphasize the friendship evangelism technique quite often, not just with Indians, but with everyone. I do have to give them some credit and note that they're not being entirely disingenuous. Remember, these people believe that we're going to spend an eternity in hell if we don't assent to the doctrines of their faith, and they're doing the best they can to keep us out. At the same time, the friendships they form with us are based on wanting to convert us, and they often lose interest when they see that we've no intention of doing so. It's a complicated issue. For what it's worth, I've noticed that most Christian evangelism strategies are designed for atheistic cultural Christians, and a few are designed for Muslims. They often don't know what to do with a Hindu. Many times Christians will waste their time trying to convince Hindus that God exists, not being aware that we already believe in God (or that so many of us are even monotheists!). Then they'll move on to the Ten Commandments (the idea is that if you violate even one commandment once in your life, you are a sinner deserving of hell). But they then notice that the Ten Commandments don't hold the same authority for a Hindu that they would for a cultural Christian who grew up in church hearing them. They're often surprised to find out that we aren't sinners who go around living licentious lifestyles. I've even heard of Christians who started to question evangelical Christianity because of their encounters with Hindus.

Regarding Jesus: I've read the entire Bible (more than once, it's an interesting book), and there's a lot of good stuff in there. Sure, there's all that stuff about God's people killing millions of heathens. But Jesus does teach about the importance of treating other people with love and respect, and I'm convinced that many Westerners are better people because of Christianity. Of course, Jesus also taught about the eternal condemnation doctrine (the Bible mentions hell thirteen times, twelve mentions are from Christ), and it is this doctrine that fuels the missionary zeal. I certainly believe that Hinduism is the best way to achieve moksha, and that of all religions it contains the most truth. However, I also recognize that Hinduism is characteristically Indian, just as the Bible has a Western character. I wouldn't want to force a Westerner to convert to Hinduism and accept Indian culture anymore than I would want to be a Christian and give up my Indian culture (though I am always pleased to meet Western Hindus, who are usually more knowledgable about my religion than I am). I don't believe that God cares about Indians more than anyone else, so I suppose it's possible that Christianity is God's way of making spirituality accessible to Westerners as well. After all, Krishna says that those who worship other gods are really worshiping him, and so a Westerner could be a good person by simply following Jesus' teachings.

I have no trouble accepting Jesus as an incarnation of God. Indeed, his teachings are especially valuable because he casts moral and spiritual teachings in a Western way of thinking, and this can help Hindus when communicating with the West. However, going with Eastern Mind's mango analogy, we already have a vast library of spiritual knowledge in the Hindu Scriptures. And in addition to that, we have living saints and gurus; this is absent in evangelical Christianity. Just as Jesus performed miracles and preached an important message in the first century, as late as the nineteenth century we have people like Shirdi Sai Baba, who also did many recorded miracles and taught important spiritual truths. I do believe that the Bible is worth reading in one's free time, but when we have the vast reservoir of Hindu spiritual knowledge, I don't see why any Hindu would spend terribly much time looking at Christianity.

I hope at least some of that made sense.

Abominable Snowman
07 November 2009, 03:48 PM
Thanks for the responses, note I have no interest in Jesus really or any of that, I just wanted to know why exactly he seemed to keep popping up and if perhaps I'm missing something.

Eastern Mind
07 November 2009, 04:12 PM
perhaps I'm missing something.

Nope.

Aum

Abominable Snowman
07 November 2009, 05:29 PM
Nope.

Aum

:D

10-4.

TatTvamAsi
07 November 2009, 07:12 PM
Think of it like a white person trying to fit in with the blacks in a ghetto. They try to talk like them, walk like them etc. Likewise, Hindus like Yogananda and Mahesh Yogi who came to the west had to speak in the language of the west. They had to talk about jeebus the charlatan otherwise they would have been hanged from the closest tree.

this whole gibberish about 'christ consciousness' was to basically ease the needle inside the 'devotees' who came to Yogananda et al. If they came and first said that he was a charlatan who learnt everything from Hindus in India and then was driven out for sullying the Shastras, as stated before, they would have been shot and then run over for good measure.

What better way to get you interested and adopt a philosophy than to take an (albeit fake one) example from your own brood? It was much easier for westerners to find commonality with that dead jew on a stick than an image of Kali with skulls around her neck portraying the annihiliation of the ego. The latter is too complex to understand for mlecchas.

next.



Namaste.

So I bought Paramahansa Yogananda's Metaphysical Meditations today in my effort to strengthen, lengthen and intensify my meditative practice (along with a few other books) and I ran across the "Christmas Meditation," section which makes a lot of mention of Jesus. I also own The Second Coming of Christ however I got it as a birthingday gift one year and sad to say, haven't gotten to it yet. Also, I seem to remember coming across a book entitled the Yoga of Jesus. What I want to know is why is Jesus metioned so much by Hindus? What is his significance? I don't doubt that he may have been a wise man who was tragically killed by my people but I am getting the since that he holds some special place as teacher within the Hindu community that I (strangely) don't know about. Can someone fill me in? I know next to nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. Infact my family is Jewish (read: Orthodox) and that's how I was raised, so you can kind of see why I'm in the dark about the man. Thanks folks.

Spiritualseeker
07 November 2009, 08:49 PM
Paramhansa Yogananda accepts Jesus as a God Realized man. Basically he goes through the works of Jesus to show that much of what Jesus says is Sanatana Dharma. Since after alll Sanatana Dharma are eternal truths. So Yogananda goes on in many works to explain how christians mistake the words of jesus for being literal or lacking spirituality. I really do think Jesus existed and I think he really was a Yogi. There is some evidence though it can be argued that Jesus did travel to India. There is even a History Channel documentary on it. But it is all speculation since all the evidence is not 100percent solid. But I think Yogananda has a point. Jesus to Yogananda did not preach that you must believe in Jesus or burn in hell. But that jesus was a great spiritual teacher that realized God and shared that spiritual extacy as best he could to the capacity of the people he preached to.

OM
-juan

sunyata07
08 November 2009, 11:23 AM
Namaste AS,

Not too sure why Jesus is mentioned so often by Hindus. My guess is it could be a way of religious integration. Like SS pointed out, there's been a few studies trying to document the historic Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible covers his life from the time he was born to his early childhood, and then there's a kind of "gap" until he's about thirty. They think during this period he travelled east and learned the wisdom of the sages in India. Some are saying he headed a little more north than that and was taught by Tibetan Buddhist monks. The evidence is sketchy, not to mention extremely controversial. Other groups have taken it a step further and have actually gone to equate Jesus Christ with Sri Krishna! As you can imagine, this is even more controversial than suggesting Jesus learned about the Vedas from great rishis. There would be uproar in the Vatican if that suggestion ever really took off. Although frankly, Jesus and Krishna being the same person doesn't sound that crazy to me. The similarities and their teachings are really quite striking sometimes. But again, that's just me.

I may be biased in saying this coming from a Christian background, but in part, I do believe Jesus was an actual figure in human history, just as I believe Krishna was also an actual figure and not just a human representation of God as man.

However... I'd make a point that knowing Christianity's tactics, this type of religious integration has been horribly abused in the past and much of it has become a way of subtle proselytisation - perhaps, in a sense, the worst type of conversion of all. The insidious manner in which people are exposed to Jesus mean that eventually when Hindus acknowledge Christ legitimately as the Son of God, there is a danger for their Christian evangelist friends to suggest to them to go the whole hog and convert to Christianity, and if Hindus are not strong enough in their belief, they just might do that.

That said, like ScottMalaysia, I still believe Jesus was a real incarnation of God the Father, just as Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. To me, the differences are only seen on the surface. Even back in Bible school (yes, I had to go it once upon a time), I preferred the way Jesus treated sinners than God did. He emphasised compassion and tolerance, which was a huge break from stoning and being struck down dead by God in the Bible's Old Testament. I don't mind Jesus, but his followers can be downright nuts. The way I see it, the Christian evangelists clearly haven't learned a thing he taught them. They are taking the words from the Bible verbatim and fail to understanding the meaning of true love for one's neighbour which was what he was all about.

TatTvamAsi
08 November 2009, 12:30 PM
You see, the statement below emphasizes the dichotomy between the Abrahamic faiths and Hinduism clearly. If some archeologist(s) were to find irrefutable evidence that a "person" by the name of Krishna never existed, it has no bearing whatsoever on Hinduism or the validity of Sanatana Dharma! On the other hand, if there is irrefutable evidence for jesus' non-existence, which several people claim, the whole religion of christianity is shattered! Shows you how weak the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths truly are!

Also, equating jesus to Krishna is a tremendous insult to Hindus worldwide.



I may be biased in saying this coming from a Christian background, but in part, I do believe Jesus was an actual figure in human history, just as I believe Krishna was also an actual figure and not just a human representation of God as man.

sunyata07
08 November 2009, 02:40 PM
Also, equating jesus to Krishna is a tremendous insult to Hindus worldwide.


Namaste TTA,

I understand. I was trying to make a point in my last post about why the mention of Jesus is so prevalent today in Hinduism. It doesn't change the fact that some people do geuinely believe it. To show you the other side of the coin, I know some of Christians who, if you were to even suggest to them that Krishna is the Christ of the Hindu world, many of them would take offence. A lot of them will vehemently make arguments about how Christ cannot be Krishna because he is greater than him, setting off the whole "my god is better than your god" debate again. And from there it's just the same old, tired game that's being played time and again.

amra
08 November 2009, 03:21 PM
It is interesting to see how people disagree and ridicule Christianity and then use the ideas created in the european consciousness i.e. that of historicity, without blinking an eyelid. To reduce religious figures to mere instance in a temporal series of events is akin to obliterating any meaning this figure may have for people today. To tell a Raam Bhakta that his Raam was a person who lived X amount of years ago in Ayodhya is like trying to destroy his Bhakti. Raam and Krishna are present eternally now, they are as we speak enjoying their lila. Any Bhakta who wishes to access this eternal now has the possibility of doing so. The same with Jesus he is only alive if people worship him, if people stop then he dies. The same with Krishna and Raam the day their worshippers are no more then they cannot enjoy their sport. So whether a figure is historic or not makes not a bit of difference. It makes me laugh when some modern Hindus try to suck up to europeans by trying to prove the Raam and Krishna were actual historic figures and then try to ridicule christianity by saying Jesus was not a historic figure - like it matters. Linear time is only one very narrow way of viewing time. Their are many other dimensions of time and flows of time. Something ancient hindus realised and something that seems to have escaped the modern degraded type

sanjaya
08 November 2009, 08:21 PM
Namaste AS,

Not too sure why Jesus is mentioned so often by Hindus. My guess is it could be a way of religious integration. Like SS pointed out, there's been a few studies trying to document the historic Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible covers his life from the time he was born to his early childhood, and then there's a kind of "gap" until he's about thirty. They think during this period he travelled east and learned the wisdom of the sages in India. Some are saying he headed a little more north than that and was taught by Tibetan Buddhist monks. The evidence is sketchy, not to mention extremely controversial. Other groups have taken it a step further and have actually gone to equate Jesus Christ with Sri Krishna! As you can imagine, this is even more controversial than suggesting Jesus learned about the Vedas from great rishis. There would be uproar in the Vatican if that suggestion ever really took off. Although frankly, Jesus and Krishna being the same person doesn't sound that crazy to me. The similarities and their teachings are really quite striking sometimes. But again, that's just me.

I may be biased in saying this coming from a Christian background, but in part, I do believe Jesus was an actual figure in human history, just as I believe Krishna was also an actual figure and not just a human representation of God as man.

However... I'd make a point that knowing Christianity's tactics, this type of religious integration has been horribly abused in the past and much of it has become a way of subtle proselytisation - perhaps, in a sense, the worst type of conversion of all. The insidious manner in which people are exposed to Jesus mean that eventually when Hindus acknowledge Christ legitimately as the Son of God, there is a danger for their Christian evangelist friends to suggest to them to go the whole hog and convert to Christianity, and if Hindus are not strong enough in their belief, they just might do that.

That said, like ScottMalaysia, I still believe Jesus was a real incarnation of God the Father, just as Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. To me, the differences are only seen on the surface. Even back in Bible school (yes, I had to go it once upon a time), I preferred the way Jesus treated sinners than God did. He emphasised compassion and tolerance, which was a huge break from stoning and being struck down dead by God in the Bible's Old Testament. I don't mind Jesus, but his followers can be downright nuts. The way I see it, the Christian evangelists clearly haven't learned a thing he taught them. They are taking the words from the Bible verbatim and fail to understanding the meaning of true love for one's neighbour which was what he was all about.

Hi Sunyata. I'm probably equally biased (though in the opposite direction) coming from a purely Hindu background. I mean no offense to Christianity at all, but I think we'd be going quite a bit too far in equating Jesus Christ with Sri Krishna. The teachings of these two persons are very different. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is similar to Hindu teaching. But Jesus' teaching on eternal condemnation is not (although it's noteworthy that only the Gospel of John connects condemnation with failure to believe in a doctrine). Not to mention that Jesus' teachings are intended for a Western audience, whereas the things Krishna teaches in the Mahabharatha make more sense in an Eastern context. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd be most interested to hear about the similarities you see between Hindu and Christian teachings. Do you have any thoughts on how the doctrine of eternal condemnation can be reconciled with the Hindu belief in reincarnation and karma?


It is interesting to see how people disagree and ridicule Christianity and then use the ideas created in the european consciousness i.e. that of historicity, without blinking an eyelid. To reduce religious figures to mere instance in a temporal series of events is akin to obliterating any meaning this figure may have for people today. To tell a Raam Bhakta that his Raam was a person who lived X amount of years ago in Ayodhya is like trying to destroy his Bhakti. Raam and Krishna are present eternally now, they are as we speak enjoying their lila. Any Bhakta who wishes to access this eternal now has the possibility of doing so. The same with Jesus he is only alive if people worship him, if people stop then he dies. The same with Krishna and Raam the day their worshippers are no more then they cannot enjoy their sport. So whether a figure is historic or not makes not a bit of difference. It makes me laugh when some modern Hindus try to suck up to europeans by trying to prove the Raam and Krishna were actual historic figures and then try to ridicule christianity by saying Jesus was not a historic figure - like it matters. Linear time is only one very narrow way of viewing time. Their are many other dimensions of time and flows of time. Something ancient hindus realised and something that seems to have escaped the modern degraded type

I agree. However, it may be that we sometimes downplay historicity a bit too much. I remember reading in the Sri Sai Satcharita, a book about Shirdi Sai Baba's teachings, that he addressed the historicity of the Ramayana. Someone asked him if the Ramayana had really happened. He said "yes," and elaborated on how he was present during that time, and witnessed all of the monkeys gathered on the shore across from Lanka, ready to go to war with Ravana. Maybe historicity isn't entirely irrelevant.

saidevo
10 November 2009, 03:23 AM
Hindus need to read about and discuss Jesus for their own safety from the scheming missionaries who have gone to the extent of 'inculturaization' of Jesus and the church and friendship evangelism. Here are the links to the Sanskrit translation of the Bible made during the collonial days by missionaries:

dharma granthaH: Bible in skt v1 |
http://www.archive.org/download/holybibleinsansc00gill/holybibleinsansc00gill.pdf
2 |
http://www.archive.org/download/holybibleinsansc02weng/holybibleinsansc02weng.pdf
3 |
http://www.archive.org/download/holybibleinsansc03weng/holybibleinsansc03weng.pdf
4 |
http://www.archive.org/download/holybibleinsansc04weng/holybibleinsansc04weng.pdf

nUtana dharma niyamasya: NT in skt |
http://www.archive.org/download/dharmmapustakasy00brit/dharmmapustakasy00brit.pdf

Here is a collection of the entire King James Bible as text files:

King James Bible p1 |
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/2/items/newetextofbible00030gut/bible11.txt
2 |
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/2/items/newetextofbible00030gut/bible12.txt
3 |
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/2/items/newetextofbible00030gut/bible13.txt

rainycity
10 November 2009, 04:27 AM
I wouldn't put much stock in yogananda's books like Autobiography of a Yogi. Some of his other books look useful, but the claims of SRF and Autobiography of a Yogi are fantasy. He was a fraud in my opinion.

As for the claims that Jesus travelled to india and studied indian spirituality, the evidence of a historical Jesus (at least one that paralells the Jesus of the gospels) is sketchy as it is.

Abominable Snowman
10 November 2009, 09:26 AM
I wouldn't put much stock in yogananda's books like Autobiography of a Yogi. Some of his other books look useful, but the claims of SRF and Autobiography of a Yogi are fantasy. He was a fraud in my opinion.

I'm starting to get this opinion luckily I only spent 3 USD on Metaphysical Meditations and recieved The Second Coming of Christ as a gift.

Harjas Kaur
10 November 2009, 10:49 AM
As for the claims that Jesus travelled to india and studied indian spirituality, the evidence of a historical Jesus (at least one that paralells the Jesus of the gospels) is sketchy as it is.There was a Jesus who traveled thru India and Tibet. Tibetan Lamas even have scriptures of him. The problem lies with the mainstream Christian suppression and the truly mythologized history.

As to an actual original Jesus, yes that part is sketchy. Certainly a case can be made for Jesus being a Nazirite and a Nazarene, meaning he was from the Qumran community of Essenes. It explains much. in the Catholic version of the Bible which contains the Apocrypha, there is the story of the Macabees. Apparently the Maccabeans were hero brothers who preserved the kosher nature of Jewish teaching from corruption of the Greeks. The Greeks had conquered Israel and were trying to get them to build a gymnasium and eat pork meat and practice Greek religion in exchange for education and social status. At this time the High Priest and King compromised with the Greeks, so the Maccabee's made themselves the High Priest and King.

In the Qumran Community is a lot of scripture dealing with the False High Priest and the False unanointed King. In the gospels a case is made where Jesus is made out to be the direct lineage of the true King, and with his cousin John the Baptist the bloodlines of the true High Priest (Tzadokite lineage). The Qumran community scriptures talk about restoration of a righteous King and a righteous priest whose role Jesus and John the Baptist may have been trying to play. John was killed and you can see the Apostle Paul trying to make a case for Jesus as sole personality being both the true King of David lineage and also being the true High Priest. So the original Jesus was likely from this breakaway sect of extremely religious Essenes that didn't recognize the authority of the High Priest and King in power at the time as they would be illegitimate descendants of the Maccabees. That explains why they are having a big fight in the gospels and killed John the Baptist and later Jesus. As recognized heirs of a bloodline (true or not because that bloodline is shaky) they would have been a threat for revolution and usurpation of power which explains the zealot movement.


Reliable historical data show that the high-priesthood remained in the hands of the Zadokites from this time until the rise of the Maccabees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees), in about 167 BC... Either Zadok himself or his grandson was the ruler of the Aaronites (I Chron. xxvii. 17), and Jerusha, the mother of Jotham, is apparently termed the daughter of Zadok to emphasize her noble lineage, since her father may have been a descendant of the first Zadok (II Kings xv. 33; II Chron. xxvii. 1). A Zadok is also mentioned in the genealogy of Joseph, the father of Jesus (Matt. i. 14).G. S. Kr. It is believed that the Sadducees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees) (Hebrew "Tzedukim") derived the name of their faction from Zadok. A Rabbi Zadok is also mentioned as saved in Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) (Bavli Gittin 56B) by Yohanan ben Zakkai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yohanan_ben_Zakkai), when he makes his deal with Vespasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian). Many see this Rabbi Zadok as the correct descendant of the high priest clan.

The house of Zadok occupied the high priesthood through much of the Second Temple's time, from Jehoshua ben Jehozadak after the Exile, down to Simon II (much praised in Ben Sira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sira) 50), his eldest son Onias III, and his usurping second son Jason (or Jehoshua), who introduced the programme of Hellenization that eventually let to the Maccabean Revolt. Josephus records that Onias IV went to Leontopolis in the Egyptian nome of Heliopolis with a significant following, and for lending military support to the Ptolemaic Pharaoh was given land to build a temple to rival the Temple in Jerusalem Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) suggest a central role for 'the sons of Zadok the Priests' within the community; the 'Teacher of Righteousness' (Moreh Zedek) named as founder may point to a Zadokite.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadok_%28High_Priest%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadok_%28High_Priest%29)But the Jesus who definitely traveled through India and Tibet was at a much later date, between 3rd and 4th centuries AD, or after the death of the original. And this Jesus was also called Mani. He was the leader of the Gnostic sect Manicheans, of whom Saint Augustine once belonged.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/233012397_593984c0b4.jpg
The Uighurs, Huns, and Mughals have Caucasian racial admixture which indeed is ancient. It's related to these unusual Celtic (often blonde and red-haired) mummies found in China known as Tocharians. They who fled persecutions in Western Europe, having nothing to do with any "Aryan invasions." They were a variant of Buddhist and Gnostic Christian and wrote in Brahmi script. The Tibetan Buddhists still have scriptures which their lamas recorded from meetings with these people. Gnostic Christianity was unlike modern Christianity and believed in reincarnation, devatay, etc. Bhang and objects of Shamanistic practice have been found with these mummies. So a Vedic-Buddhist religious influence exists as well as association with Tantrism. This puts them squarely into a Sanatan category per heritage and belief structure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks.jpeg/200px-Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks.jpeg
Tocharian man with Buddhist monks in China.


"the relationship between the two being similar to that between Classical Chinese and Mandarin. It must be noted however that the lack of a secular corpus in Tocharian A is by no means definite, due to the fragmentary preservation of Tocharian texts in general.

Most of the script in Tocharian was a derivative of the Brahmi alphabetic syllabary (abugida) and is referred to as slanting Brahmi, However a smaller amount was written in the Manichaean script in which Manichaean texts were recorded. It soon became apparent that a large proportion of the manuscripts were translations of known Buddhist works in Sanskrit and some of them were even bilingual, facilitating decipherment of the new language. Besides the Buddhist and Manichaean religious texts, there were also monastery correspondence and accounts, commercial documents, caravan permits, and medical and magical texts, and one love poem. Many Tocharians embraced Manichaean dualism or Buddhism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages
"Common Brahmi, Devanagri and Tocharian Alphabets
Tusharas or Tocharians are Indo European people found settled in ancient times in current Xinjiang NW Autonomous part of China, located in Tarim_basin, SW of Mongolia and North of Tibet. Historians have found mummies of IE origin in this place but now the population looks Mongoloids, as Mongols, Huns, and Kushans ruled over this place. Kushans who ruled India, were supposedly related to Tocharians...

Also Shaivism and Tantra came from A-sur(y)as as per the book referenced in the posting, and we all know that Tantra and Shaivism had a strong presence in Kashmir, Tibet and Mongolia, where Hindu Idols have been found. So is it possible that the Huns got their name from this background? It was a very common practice for Christian Roman Empire to call the Proto Indo Europeans as Pagans and Barbarians, before they were conquered and converted. That is why you see this epithet given to Atilla, Huns and Germans!

Anyway, coming to the main topic, the Devanagari Alphabet sounds are same as Tachurian, and the script is based on Brahmi and looks somewhat closer to Tibetan, Nepalase and Bengali scripts in some letters! We can now see why the relic remains of animal sacrifice in worships, which is from the "Tamas" or "Black" version of Tantra, is to be seen in Tibet, Nepal, Assam and Bengal." http://common-brahmi-and-phoenician-script.blogspot.com/2007/08/common-brahmi-devanagri-and-tocharian.htmlThe Christianity that emerges from the existing Bible is a result of writing of the Apostle Paul who never met Jesus, and who was educated as a Greek and not really educated as a Jew. So the Christian message is very dissociated from Judaism. I mean how do you get from Mikva to baptism? How do you get from "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu" and become God incarnate as a literal son conceived by a virgin and part of a Trinity? It's just a completely "paganized" and corrupted interpretation of Judaism. There were literally hundreds of spurious gospels and writings from sects that were destroyed. As a religion it's highly edited to favor the most extremist sects who unleashed "Abrahamic intolerance" all over the world. But I don't believe that's the only version of Jesus. Saints and seers have been encountering a powerful being of Light for thousands of years, so I don't discard that either. I just don't happen to think it's exactly the same Jewish Tzadokite Rabbi. I think beings of light, devas take whatever form they can approach us with to draw us closer to Supreme Reality.


"The Tocharians, living along the Silk Road, had contacts with the Chinese, Persians, Indian and Turkic tribes. They might be the same as, or were related to, the Indo-European Yuezhi who fled from their settlements in the eastern Tarim Basin after attacks by the Xiongnu in the 2nd century BC (Shiji Chinese historical Chronicles, Chap. 123) and expanded south to Bactria and northern India to form the Kushan Empire.

The Tocharians who remained in the Tarim Basin adopted Buddhism, which, like their alphabet, came from northern India in the first century of the 1st millennium, through the proselytism of Kushan monks. The Kushans and the Tocharians seem to have played a part in the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism to China.[citation needed] Many apparently also practised some variant of Manichaeanism...

Sanskrit literature in numerous instances refers to the Tocharians as Tukhāra (also Tuṣāra, Tuḥkhāra, Tukkhāra).

The Atharavaveda-Parishishta[7] associates them with the Sakas, Greeks and Bactrians.[8] It also juxtaposes the Kambojas with the Bactrians.[9] This shows they probably were neighbors in the Transoxian region. The Rishikas are said to be same people as the Yuezhi.[10] The Kushanas or Kanishkas are also the same people.[11]

M. A. Stein proposed that the Tukharas were the same as the Yuezhi.[12] P. C. Bagchi holds that the Yuezhi, Tocharioi and Tushara were identical.[13].

The Parama Kambojas of the Trans-Pamirs, mentioned in the Mahabharata are said to be related to the Rishikas [14] who are placed in Sakadvipa (or Scythia).[15] B. N. Puri takes the Kambojas to be a branch of the Tukharas.[16] Some scholars state that the Kambojas were a branch of the Yuezhi.[17]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TochariansWell anyway, Yogananda is a good teacher but definitely he brought a message to western Chritstians. I actually have some Bengali Indian friends who are his chelas and they're very sweet people. One thing about Yogananda, he did dumb down his kriya techniques for the Westerners, but some of his disciples learned the higher levels. I'm not sure if Yogananda himself learned the highest kriya from Swami Sri Yukteswar because I read that he taught that to only one disciple and that person wasn't Yogananda.

But I wouldn't completely disregard Yogananda's message as worthless. his kriya yoga is authentic. It's not for everybody. But it's for some people. At least SRF aren't missionaries like some of the aggressive Iskcon people.

This is the Guru lineage Yogananda came from but it's without Yogananda and they have a good reputation if anybody's interested in Kriya yoga without SRF or Yogananda.
http://yoganiketan.net/

Lailaphetes
10 November 2009, 04:03 PM
I've never heard of a "Hindu" Jesus. And I've never heard of Jesus traveling to India. Are a lot of people getting confused with St. Thomas the Apostle? He supposedly traveled to India sometime after Jesus' resurrection, but my New Testament knowledge is fuzzy at the moment. I know St. Thomas is popular in the Orthodox churches in India.

As some people point out, I don't consider Jesus and Sri Krsna as "the same." Jesus happens to be an incarnation of God born in the middle east, whereas Krsna took his birth in India. Jesus was considered the messiah to the Jewish people(and the Gentiles later on). Therefore, he would be considered the Son of God known only to the Jewish people at that time. I highly doubt most middle eastern Jews knew anything about India and her said deities.

But feel free to disagree. I'm just throwing that out there. One thing I can't understand, is why so many find Christians as evil, distrustful, and bigoted. Unfortunately, I have no control of what any of the Christian priests do in India. Not all Christians are out to destroy peoples' lives...I certainly am not one of them. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is found in every religion, every government, every human being. Evangelicals(and perhaps the Roman Catholic Church) try to get anyone, even other Christians! I was already approached by some evangelicals this year and they tried to get me to come to their "non-denominational" church.

In this case, they asked nicely. That isn't always the case of course. Not all Christians are out to convert Hindus! What is wrong with having non-Hindu friends? I have plenty of friends from all different belief backgrounds.

That is my two cents for the day.

Harjas Kaur
10 November 2009, 05:14 PM
What I wrote was: "But the Jesus who definitely traveled through India and Tibet was at a much later date, between 3rd and 4th centuries AD, or after the death of the original. And this Jesus was also called Mani. He was the leader of the Gnostic sect Manicheans, of whom Saint Augustine once belonged."And then I put a bunch of links showing the caucasian groups of Tocharians who traveled through India, Tibet, Hiamalyas and China as being both Buddhist and Manichean.

Not all Christians are out to convert Hindus!Well, the biggest problems are a huge, foreign based billion dollar effort, no doubt with American CIA backing, to mass convert disenfranchised population of India, to secure a vote bank and manipulate Indian politics.

These shrills having no scruples out and out defraud the people with faked miracles. They break up families, divide villages, offend Christian sentiments by breaking murthis and abusing sentiments of Hindu religion in countless ways. And when this is repeated by thousands and thousands, you are witnessing a hostile form of cultural genocide, aided and abetted by negligence of the state itself and so it has an anti-nationalist agenda. Now what would you call it? Can you deny that in America for example, aggressive Christian fundamentalism has had powerful effects on influencing politics and even the Presidency and hence public policy begins to be dictated?

Is there a reason a foreign government spends billions of dollars to convert beliefs of people as if it hasn't been doing this with colonial mentality all over the world? And what has been the result? Tribes defrauded by large corporate business interests, loss of tribal lands, loss of language, culture, rupture of families. Is there something beneficial missionaries have done for American Indian tribes for example? And are you aware of the Canadian Missionary school scandalsresulting in beatings, rapes, pedophilia rings, forced abortions and murdered indigenous children which resulted in the largest settlement in Canadian history?

UNREPENTANT: Kevin Annett and Canada's Genocide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwSCPhqlSE

Now, this isn't just some movement of nice, neighborly Christians. This is a massive campaign with political overtones not unlike the Jesus Camp and Samaritan's Purse scandals targeting children in missionary schools against their parents wishes and indoctrinating them with anti-Hindu and pro-American ideology, like what was seen with missionaries in Iraq to obtain loyalties and intelligence. And all it did was get those Iraqis targeted and killed as collaborators.

Bush's Conversion Agenda for India: Preparing for the harvest ...
http://www.christianaggression.org/features_bush.php

Ask Jews for Judaism what they feel about Christians who dress up like orthodox Jews, pretend to be Jewish simply so they can evangelize orthodox Jews? Then you will understand resentment over Catholic religious orders which call themselves "ashrams," whose priests wear kesri/saffron color robes in imitation of sadhus. Then there are cases where entire villages have become converted and begin to agitate the local population of Hindus by putting crucifixes everywhere and huge signs in most aggressive missionary campaign ever seen.

CHRISTIANS FORCE THEIR RELIGION ON HINDOUS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gab-X5sQArM

Christian Missionary attack on India (part 2 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvdtzk1pbo


Swami Vivekananda also mentions this at one place along with many other calumnies heaped over Hinduism and Hindu civilization by the designing Christian Missionaries. Here is an excerpt of that, “What is meant by those pictures in the school-books for children where the Hindu mother is painted as throwing her children to the crocodiles in the Ganga? The mother is black, but the baby is painted white, to arouse more sympathy, and get more money. What is meant by those pictures, which painted a man burning his wife at a stake with his own hands, so that she may become a ghost and torment the husband’s enemy? What is meant by the pictures of huge cars crushing over human beings? I have heard one of these gentlemen preach in Memphis that, in every village of India, there is a pond of the bones of little babies…
What have the Hindus done to these disciples of Christ that every Christian child is taught to call the Hindus ‘vile’ and ‘wretched’ and the most horrible demons on earth?” ~Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works, Vol. IV (1945 ed.) http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1143494697&type=articles

sunyata07
10 November 2009, 05:36 PM
Hi Sunyata. I'm probably equally biased (though in the opposite direction) coming from a purely Hindu background. I mean no offense to Christianity at all, but I think we'd be going quite a bit too far in equating Jesus Christ with Sri Krishna. The teachings of these two persons are very different. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is similar to Hindu teaching. But Jesus' teaching on eternal condemnation is not (although it's noteworthy that only the Gospel of John connects condemnation with failure to believe in a doctrine). Not to mention that Jesus' teachings are intended for a Western audience, whereas the things Krishna teaches in the Mahabharatha make more sense in an Eastern context. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd be most interested to hear about the similarities you see between Hindu and Christian teachings. Do you have any thoughts on how the doctrine of eternal condemnation can be reconciled with the Hindu belief in reincarnation and karma?


Namaste Sanjaya,

No offence taken at all. I like having these discussions. It gives me a chance to listen to other people and reconsider my opinions. First off, I will admit that it probably is going a bit extreme in saying Jesus and Krishna are one and the same individual, but I did want to let the forum know that there are people who would see them as being the same personage, or at least have speculated on the nature of their being the same. As for myself, while I will not say for definite that I personally believe Jesus and Krishna to be the same man, I can see how they are almost serving the same roles of God as man in the West and East, respectively. That is what I meant, I think, in saying I felt they were the same. It is just a few surface similarities that have piqued my curiosity before. Things like the fact that both of them were of divine birth, foretold many years before, and yet at the same time both were as human. Both could do great things, acts of God, if you will. Both were pursued by evil forces and mostly in vain. And then, there's the etymological resemblance between the name Krishna and the original Greek spelling of Christ, Kristos. There's just some possible cultural echoes there, that's all I'm saying.

But with those simpler comparisons aside, it's their teachings that are most strikingly alike. They emphasised compassion, forgiveness and neighbourly love. Considering the fact that the people Jesus would have been preaching to believed strongly in a power of divine retribution from the God of the Israelites, the gospels in which he appears are far more pacific, with an emphasis on forgivess, tolerance and acceptance than punishment for wrongdoings. Even the most atrocious of people, Jesus readily forgave and accepted. It's one of the reasons I far preferred the New Testament to the Old. I would go into a bit more information about the nature of hell and how some Christians have differing viewpoints on how "eternal" the punishment would be in such a place, but I think it would be veering from the subject at hand here. I've already posted some thoughts on the nature of hell, from a Christian's perspective. Feel free to join there, if you want to talk about it further. I don't think reconciliation of Hindu/Christian sides on how sins and wrongdoings are meted out would be at all that simple, but it does call for some consideration on both sides. To be honest, until rainycity's post on hell, I had no idea hell was ever even mentioned in some Hindu scriptures. http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=34887#post34887



One thing I can't understand, is why so many find Christians as evil, distrustful, and bigoted. Unfortunately, I have no control of what any of the Christian priests do in India. Not all Christians are out to destroy peoples' lives...I certainly am not one of them. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is found in every religion, every government, every human being. Evangelicals(and perhaps the Roman Catholic Church) try to get anyone, even other Christians! I was already approached by some evangelicals this year and they tried to get me to come to their "non-denominational" church.


Namaste Lailaphetes,

I understand your frustration! Actually, it's something of a paradox with me, but I am both annoyed by Christianity and yet I often feel the need to defend it at times. Because the truth is, yes, there are normal Christians. Many of them, in fact. I think it is a small minority that like to stick their noses into other people's and culture's businesses and tell them how to live their lives and what to worship. Unfortunately, this small minority are very loud. And often crass. It's little wonder the rest of the Christians are considered in such poor light.

And - LOL - yes, Christians converting Christians! In what other religion would you find such ludicrousness, I ask you? I can totally empathise. My father is Catholic, and as far as I know, he has no plans to change his religion. And yet, every fortnight we have Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on our door, and before that, it was Mormons. I just... don't get it. :headscratch:

sanjaya
10 November 2009, 05:43 PM
Hello Lailaphetes, good to meet you. Your profile says that you are a Hindu, but this post suggests that you are a Christian. May I ask which it is, simply to better understand your point of view?


I've never heard of a "Hindu" Jesus. And I've never heard of Jesus traveling to India. Are a lot of people getting confused with St. Thomas the Apostle? He supposedly traveled to India sometime after Jesus' resurrection, but my New Testament knowledge is fuzzy at the moment. I know St. Thomas is popular in the Orthodox churches in India.

Actually these are two separate theories. The apostle Thomas is mentioned in the Biblical gospels, however nothing in the Bible tells about what he did after Christ's death and resurrection. The apocryphal book "Acts of St. Thomas" describes his being sold into slavery to serve an Indian king (Jesus himself arranges for Thomas to be sold). He ends up becoming the king's carpenter, uses the king's construction money to give alms to the poor, and thus convinces him to convert to Christianity. The king's name is Gundaphorus, and his existence is confirmed by Indian coins that bear his name and likeness. To this day there are Christians in India who are not the result of Western conversion, but claim that they are the descendants of the original disciples of Thomas. Of course, the Acts of Thomas also contains a lot of material that Christians would find heretical, and is Gnostic in nature. Some people also doubt the Thomas legend. But there's at least a grain of truth to it.

There is a separate legend which suggests that Jesus himself travelled to India before his Galilean ministry. I've done some research into this. The claim was made by a man named Nikolai Notovitch, in the late nineteenth century. His claims are highly dubious. He says he visited some Buddhist monks in India, and copied/translated one of their scrolls describing the visit of "Saint Issa" to India in the first century. However, contemporaries of Notovitch visited the same monks, and they did not confirm his story. It's probably a pure fiction.


As some people point out, I don't consider Jesus and Sri Krsna as "the same." Jesus happens to be an incarnation of God born in the middle east, whereas Krsna took his birth in India. Jesus was considered the messiah to the Jewish people(and the Gentiles later on). Therefore, he would be considered the Son of God known only to the Jewish people at that time. I highly doubt most middle eastern Jews knew anything about India and her said deities.

Esther 1:1 mentions India by name, so the Jews knew about India's existence. How much they knew of Hinduism, I don't know. But there's another problem with the "Jesus is Krishna" theories. Jesus and Krishna teach some fairly divergent concepts. Personally I think the wisdom found in Hinduism is richer than what we see in the Bible; maybe some of Jesus' more advanced teachings were omitted. Again, I can't say for sure. It's not that Jesus isn't a valuable spiritual teacher. But I think his teachings only make sense in a Western context. I don't know why some Hindus want to equate him with Sri Krishna.


But feel free to disagree. I'm just throwing that out there. One thing I can't understand, is why so many find Christians as evil, distrustful, and bigoted. Unfortunately, I have no control of what any of the Christian priests do in India. Not all Christians are out to destroy peoples' lives...I certainly am not one of them. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is found in every religion, every government, every human being. Evangelicals(and perhaps the Roman Catholic Church) try to get anyone, even other Christians! I was already approached by some evangelicals this year and they tried to get me to come to their "non-denominational" church.

It might be because Christians, especially Western Christians, tend to regard Hindus as ignorant, idolatrous pagans who need to be converted by any means possible. While I have great respect for Jesus, even my personal experience with Christianity suggests that it encourages isolationism, arrogance, and anti-intellectualism. And we see these traits among Western Christians.

Having said all of that, let me now share what I think is the positive side of things. I've studied the Bible pretty extensivel, and I'm not sure what it is in the Bible that leads Christians to practice these bad behaviors, but most of what the Bible says is actually pretty good. As you say, hypocrisy knows no bounds. I know of some Christians who would make better Hindus than some of the Hindus I am acquainted with. I doubt there's much of a correlation between the religion that people practice and how nice they are. Most religions teach the basic tenets of human decency.


In this case, they asked nicely. That isn't always the case of course. Not all Christians are out to convert Hindus! What is wrong with having non-Hindu friends? I have plenty of friends from all different belief backgrounds.

Who said anything about not having non-Hindu friends? The vast majority of my friends are not Hindus. It's sort of difficult to avoid, living in the West (not that I avoid making non-Hindu friends at all). Even my Hindu friends have no short supply of non-Hindu friends. I am not aware of any Hindus who deliberately segregate themselves from non-Hindus. If I may make an observation though, I've noticed that most evangelical Christians are isolationists. They tend to spend the majority of their time with only other evangelical Christians. Even when they form friendships with non-Christians, it's for the purpose of "friendship evangelism," which others here have described. It would seem that making friends with non-Christians purely for the purpose of friendship is an alien concept to evangelicals.

Of course, this is not true of all varieties of Christians. And even with evangelicals, I try never to form prejudices, but to judge individuals on their own merits. Sadly most evangelicals I've met have been carbon copies of each other, but I still don't extrapolate on this basis.

sanjaya
10 November 2009, 06:12 PM
Namaste Sanjaya,

No offence taken at all. I like having these discussions. It gives me a chance to listen to other people and reconsider my opinions. First off, I will admit that it probably is going a bit extreme in saying Jesus and Krishna are one and the same individual, but I did want to let the forum know that there are people who would see them as being the same personage, or at least have speculated on the nature of their being the same. As for myself, while I will not say for definite that I personally believe Jesus and Krishna to be the same man, I can see how they are almost serving the same roles of God as man in the West and East, respectively. That is what I meant, I think, in saying I felt they were the same. It is just a few surface similarities that have piqued my curiosity before. Things like the fact that both of them were of divine birth, foretold many years before, and yet at the same time both were as human. Both could do great things, acts of God, if you will. Both were pursued by evil forces and mostly in vain. And then, there's the etymological resemblance between the name Krishna and the original Greek spelling of Christ, Kristos. There's just some possible cultural echoes there, that's all I'm saying.

Thank you for elaborating on your thoughts. I myself fully accept that Jesus is a manifestation of God, intended for Westerners. Unlike Hinduism, where we have many avatars of God coming throughout the centuries (whenever there is an increase in adharma and a decrease in dharma, to quote Sri Krishna), the West only has one. So it is likely that would see similarities between Jesus and at least one other avatar of God.


But with those simpler comparisons aside, it's their teachings that are most strikingly alike. They emphasised compassion, forgiveness and neighbourly love. Considering the fact that the people Jesus would have been preaching to believed strongly in a power of divine retribution from the God of the Israelites, the gospels in which he appears are far more pacific, with an emphasis on forgivess, tolerance and acceptance than punishment for wrongdoings. Even the most atrocious of people, Jesus readily forgave and accepted. It's one of the reasons I far preferred the New Testament to the Old. I would go into a bit more information about the nature of hell and how some Christians have differing viewpoints on how "eternal" the punishment would be in such a place, but I think it would be veering from the subject at hand here. I've already posted some thoughts on the nature of hell, from a Christian's perspective. Feel free to join there, if you want to talk about it further.

Thanks for providing the link, it appears to be an interesting discussion.

Anyway, I agree that the Gospel's teachings are far more pacific than other contemporary writings. Whatever the similarities and differences betwee Hinduism and Christianity, I think that Jesus has many great things to say, and obeying his teachings is an excellent way for Westerners to become closer to God.


I don't think reconciliation of Hindu/Christian sides on how sins and wrongdoings are meted out would be at all that simple, but it does call for some consideration on both sides.

Quite right. Peronally, while do not believe that God will punish anyone for being born into the wrong religion, I am unable to say that "all religions are equally valid" without experiencing cognitive dissonance. Hindu and Christian understandings of sin are different enough that ultimately, one view has to be right and the other wrong. I am thankful though that in Hinduism, we place no emphasis on apologetic arguments or on proving the validity of our religion. I am happy enough to coexist with Christians and let them hold to their doctrine of substitutionary atonement. I don't believe that they are right, but if it leads them to be better people, then I don't think it matters very much. I love to dialog with Christians and have mutual understanding. But at the end of the day we have to agree to disagree with them. And as you seem to also suggest, I think there's a peaceful way to do this.

Harjas Kaur
10 November 2009, 06:29 PM
I myself fully accept that Jesus is a manifestation of God, intended for Westerners. Unlike Hinduism, where we have many avatars of God coming throughout the centuries (whenever there is an increase in adharma and a decrease in dharma, to quote Sri Krishna), the West only has one. So it is likely that would see similarities between Jesus and at least one other avatar of God.I agree that Jesus, whatever his historical origins, has become an actual manifestation of God for the West. I don't believe he is the only avatar though. I just happen to think he's the only "avatar" the Western mainstream Christians have accepted. I think the God is all the time coming in many forms and manifestations some lesser and some greater. I find it entirely likely that Bhagavan Krishna who is antharajamee, the lover and knower of the atma/soul is Presence to people who cry out in distress for guidance and help. I do not think the God distinguishes one atma from the other because one is Hindu and one is Christian. Just as I believe wholeheartedly that Durga Maa does at times speak to people according to their level of understanding and bearing in mind their own distortions, but these sightings of Virgin Mary can only be Devi. It is absolutely real that the God manifests. It is equally real that human beings are all the time messing up what the God is trying to teach.

There's some real interesting research on UFO alien phenomenon, that says an intelligence masks itself in the vision and expectation of the perceiver. But a lot of these UFO contactees come back with religious messages. Does it make sense, except in the Western mind instead of Devas that people perceive superior technological civilizations?

The distortions are only Maya. Beyond all this Maya of forms is the Real Divine and that speaks to everybody and tries to reach out to everybody. So I am not against religion or Christianity or even Islam. Yet I am wide-eyed at the dangers fanatics will interpret from distortions of religion.

Abominable Snowman
10 November 2009, 06:45 PM
I have a question for you HK, how do you find so much information? I'm just curious.

satay
10 November 2009, 06:54 PM
Namaskar,


I have a question for you HK, how do you find so much information? I'm just curious.

Yes, I am also curious about this. You ask a question and you get a colour coded encyclopedia (is that how you spell it?)! :)

Lailaphetes
10 November 2009, 07:18 PM
Hello Lailaphetes, good to meet you. Your profile says that you are a Hindu, but this post suggests that you are a Christian. May I ask which it is, simply to better understand your point of view?


If you want to, you can read my first thread in the Introductions part of the forum. I'd rather not throw another personal introduction into a thread which, really won't contribute anything. And on top of that, I don't feel like typing out a long essay discussing whether I am Hindu or not(let alone who can be "Hindu").

But if that's not good enough, I am stuck in a transition stage so to speak. I am a Roman Catholic(returning to the church as of a few months ago) that has, oddly, been learning about Hinduism for at least 2 years. I am strongly drawn to the Vaisnava(Sri Krsna) sect, but I'm not sure if I consider myself RC or Vaisnava, or even both.

sanjaya
10 November 2009, 07:20 PM
I agree that Jesus, whatever his historical origins, has become an actual manifestation of God for the West. I don't believe he is the only avatar though. I just happen to think he's the only "avatar" the Western mainstream Christians have accepted. I think the God is all the time coming in many forms and manifestations some lesser and some greater. I find it entirely likely that Bhagavan Krishna who is antharajamee, the lover and knower of the atma/soul is Presence to people who cry out in distress for guidance and help. I do not think the God distinguishes one atma from the other because one is Hindu and one is Christian. Just as I believe wholeheartedly that Durga Maa does at times speak to people according to their level of understanding and bearing in mind their own distortions, but these sightings of Virgin Mary can only be Devi. It is absolutely real that the God manifests. It is equally real that human beings are all the time messing up what the God is trying to teach.

...

The distortions are only Maya. Beyond all this Maya of forms is the Real Divine and that speaks to everybody and tries to reach out to everybody. So I am not against religion or Christianity or even Islam. Yet I am wide-eyed at the dangers fanatics will interpret from distortions of religion.

I think this more or less sums up what I believe about Western religion too. Jesus is a great representation of God for Westerners. What the West has turned Christianity into, however, is very dangerous, and I think that Christianity in its modern form (by which I'm referring to the last thousand or so years) is spiritually unhelpful.

DavidC
10 November 2009, 08:13 PM
[...]There is a separate legend which suggests that Jesus himself travelled to India before his Galilean ministry. I've done some research into this. The claim was made by a man named Nikolai Notovitch, in the late nineteenth century. His claims are highly dubious. He says he visited some Buddhist monks in India, and copied/translated one of their scrolls describing the visit of "Saint Issa" to India in the first century. However, contemporaries of Notovitch visited the same monks, and they did not confirm his story. It's probably a pure fiction.[...]

That is interesting. Has the theory been brought up that Yeshua (Jesus) visited India after his 'resurrection?' I have read some theories.


[...]It's not that Jesus isn't a valuable spiritual teacher. But I think his teachings only make sense in a Western context.[...]Western Asia, that is: one really must study Hebrew/Aramaic to understand his figurative language. Judeo-Christian mysticism may have more similarities to East Asian philosophy than Western philosophy (though the Essenes trained some Westerners and studied later ones) and ancient European religions. Of course European religious mythology has more similarities to that of India. Overall Yeshua is an Eastern Master despite that most of his followers are further West. Theosophy or its offshoots had ideas that there is/was an Eastern fellowship of spiritual Masters from the Far to Near East (India & China to Egypt--though Egypt is West of Asia,) but who knows... maybe there was just some cultural contact.

Harjas Kaur
10 November 2009, 08:14 PM
"I have a question for you HK, how do you find so much information? I'm just curious."
"Yes, I am also curious about this. You ask a question and you get a colour coded encyclopedia (is that how you spell it?)! :)"My mind is overheated with rajo gunas and my fingers are in everybody's pies. In one more week I'm visiting my Guru who may put a stop to the drama, so until then I'm posting like no tomorrow.

sanjaya
11 November 2009, 02:33 AM
If you want to, you can read my first thread in the Introductions part of the forum. I'd rather not throw another personal introduction into a thread which, really won't contribute anything. And on top of that, I don't feel like typing out a long essay discussing whether I am Hindu or not(let alone who can be "Hindu").

But if that's not good enough, I am stuck in a transition stage so to speak. I am a Roman Catholic(returning to the church as of a few months ago) that has, oddly, been learning about Hinduism for at least 2 years. I am strongly drawn to the Vaisnava(Sri Krsna) sect, but I'm not sure if I consider myself RC or Vaisnava, or even both.

I've read your introduction thread; you are indeed in an interesting position here. The question of whether non-Indians can convert to Hinduism is an issue that I honestly don't understand myself. But as for your interest in Hinduism, I'm glad to hear that you're interested in learning more about the Dharmic way of life. I don't think any Hindu would ever have a problem with incorporating the teachings of Jesus into your life as well.


TWestern Asia, that is: one really must study Hebrew/Aramaic to understand his figurative language. Judeo-Christian mysticism may have more similarities to East Asian philosophy than Western philosophy (though the Essenes trained some Westerners and studied later ones) and ancient European religions. Of course European religious mythology has more similarities to that of India. Overall Yeshua is an Eastern Master despite that most of his followers are further West. Theosophy or its offshoots had ideas that there is/was an Eastern fellowship of spiritual Masters from the Far to Near East (India & China to Egypt--though Egypt is West of Asia,) but who knows... maybe there was just some cultural contact.

I've read a bit about Judaism. I suppose I can see some similarities between the first century Jewish mystics and Hinduism. Of course, even the mystics (as per my understanding) placed a pretty stron emphasis on God's wrath and vengeance on Gentiles. Not sure that this is compatible with Hindu beliefs, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the Jewish mystics.

Of course, I am aware that Judaism is a very different religion than Christianity, and doesn't have many of the bad traits that are found in the Christian religion. As you seem to be alluding, I would also say that Jesus' teachings have likely been significantly altered by his Christian followers.

DavidC
11 November 2009, 02:57 AM
[...] I suppose I can see some similarities between the first century Jewish mystics and Hinduism.[...]

Anytime anyone is curious about deep Kabbalah or Sufi equivalence to esoteric Dharma I am willing to point it out in the appropriate forum section.


[...]Of course, even the mystics (as per my understanding) placed a pretty strong emphasis on God's wrath and vengeance on Gentiles.[...]Which? Essenes/Nazareans/Therapeutae? Zealots? Pharisees or Sadducees?


Not sure that this is compatible with Hindu beliefs, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the Jewish mystics.

Of course, I am aware that Judaism is a very different religion than Christianity, and doesn't have many of the bad traits that are found in the Christian religion. As you seem to be alluding, I would also say that Jesus' teachings have likely been significantly altered by his Christian followers.Again, which 'Judaism' and 'Christianity?' Even if I was not directly alluding I am glad to have been suspected of it (I have stated/alluded in other threads.)

Another interesting thing is though there may have been two Yeshuas that the story is together based on, people have brought up the point he maybe did not exist as described and that he is based on Old Testament miracles and 'death-rebirth gods.' The idea of the latter type of gods is considered inaccurate lately. However, does India have any? Or, is incarnation - reincarnation - self-sacrifice - liberation understood so well that India did not even need any 'death-rebirth' god? Also do you think this influenced West Asia and Europe? It is in Greek mythology, which some people think mostly influenced the New Testament, but independently of that, some people also think Yeshua's story symbolizes an Eastern idea of the complete cycle of human spiritual development. Of course Dharma does not really need this specific story. The Sikh part of Sanatana Dharma already has the Golden Rule stated in a positive way: something like 'if you think of something for yourself, think of it for your brother.'

Harjas Kaur
11 November 2009, 06:11 AM
"Of course, even the mystics (as per my understanding) placed a pretty stron emphasis on God's wrath and vengeance on Gentiles. Not sure that this is compatible with Hindu beliefs, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the Jewish mystics."
"Which? Essenes/Nazareans/Therapeutae? Zealots? Pharisees or Sadducees?"
I think he is talking about the Jewish mystics in the Bible and not any particular sect. The problem with these scriptural descriptions of God literally punishing the world for it's idol worship and false gods and false prophets is of course realized in Christian history. Passages like these justified uncountable pogroms, crusades, wars and massacres. And yes, it's incompatible with Hindu belief to attack other religions because you think they're wrong or you disagree with them.

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood,
the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried,
"The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"
40 Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!"
They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.~1 Kings chap 18 Bible
1 This is the word the LORD spoke through Jeremiah the prophet concerning
Babylon and the land of the Babylonians 2 "Announce and proclaim among
the nations, lift up a banner and proclaim it; keep nothing back, but say,
'Babylon will be captured;
Bel will be put to shame,
Marduk filled with terror.
Her images will be put to shame
and her idols filled with terror.'
3 A nation from the north will attack her and lay waste her land.
No one will live in it; both men and animals will flee away.
~Jeremiah Chap.50 Bible

satay
11 November 2009, 06:42 AM
sat sri akal,


My mind is overheated with rajo gunas and my fingers are in everybody's pies. In one more week I'm visiting my Guru who may put a stop to the drama, so until then I'm posting like no tomorrow.

To be honest, I hardly ever read your posts as I find them to be too long. You must consider the fact that most people have only a few minutes a day to spend on this type of forum. Most members I suppose spent much less time than even I do here. The logs show about 3 minutes per logged on session on average.

I think that short, to the point, on topic posts are more enjoyable (at least for me). Sometimes, people make short posts but they are off topic and these are pointless as well. So...

Thanks,

Harjas Kaur
11 November 2009, 08:00 AM
Yes, I'm stuck in book-writing mode. Perhaps this can be improved on, haha. :blah:<--my posts!

sanjaya
11 November 2009, 10:52 AM
Which? Essenes/Nazareans/Therapeutae? Zealots? Pharisees or Sadducees?

Well the Pharisees promulgated the hell doctrine, which is probably whyit appears in the New Testament. They also were expecting a messiah who would destroy all of the pagan Romas. But they weren't mystics by most standards. The Saducees did not believe in any sort of afterlife and largely were in league with the Romans (that's how they got control of their temple). I don't know too much about the Nazareans or anything at all about the Therapeutae, but I do know that the Essenes had expectations of a messiah who would rid the world of other religions and establish Jewish monotheism as the one true faith. So I don't know how their beliefs could be reconciled with Hinduism. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, though.

sanjaya
11 November 2009, 12:30 PM
I think he is talking about the Jewish mystics in the Bible and not any particular sect. The problem with these scriptural descriptions of God literally punishing the world for it's idol worship and false gods and false prophets is of course realized in Christian history. Passages like these justified uncountable pogroms, crusades, wars and massacres. And yes, it's incompatible with Hindu belief to attack other religions because you think they're wrong or you disagree with them.

That's really the problem I'm running into here. Modern Jews (actually all Jews through the last two thousand years) have found funny ways to get around these passages, and Judaism today is a very peaceful religion. However, Christians have always had an overly literal lens through which they read the Bible. And as Harjas said, you can see the effects by looking at Christian history. Today, modern evangelicals have tempered their response to the Bible to some extent, and no longer run around burning dissenters. But they've used the same passages to support their political and social agendas, not to mention the missionary campaigns in India.

But we seem to be talking about Jewish mystics at the moment. My point is that many of the Jewish sects in the first century interpreted the Bible with the same literal lens as Christians have. Indeed, Christianity is heavily influenced by some of these sects. It seems to me that many forms of first century Judaism were rather militant. Hinduism, on the other hand, has always been peaceful. India has never invaded other countries, nor did we even expell our Muslim or Christian colonizers by force. Not trying to gain some moral high ground here. But I do think that Hinduism has some important spiritual elements that these Middle Eastern religions are missing.

sunyata07
11 November 2009, 02:59 PM
Hinduism, on the other hand, has always been peaceful. India has never invaded other countries, nor did we even expell our Muslim or Christian colonizers by force. Not trying to gain some moral high ground here. But I do think that Hinduism has some important spiritual elements that these Middle Eastern religions are missing.


Namaste Sanjaya.

The funny thing is I don't feel you are in any way setting up a moral plinth for Hinduism to somehow "rise" above other religions. The word religion does not even do justice to what it encompasses, anyway. I much prefer its proper term Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Law, Truth and Way. What need for the title "religion", which in these days connote so many negative qualities in the Western world? I find that is the true beauty of Sanatana Dharma - because it is simply the universal truth, it is found in every religion, which explains its tolerance for other faiths.

A true Hindu recognises God's presence everywhere, even in the religions that insults or attacks his own beliefs. It recognises the unity that exists in diversity, and some of the scriptures even seem to revel in it as being an essential part of our existence (e.g., Shvetashvatara Upanishad)! It has a spiritual equanimity that allows it to recognise not just the eternal law, Dharma, but also Svadharma, the individual's own duty or personal way. The Bhagavad Gita even says in one of the early chapters "competition in another's dharma breeds fear and insecurity" (B.G. 3:35), and that it is far better for a person to discover his own personal way and to let that spiritual practice flourish than for him to tie himself to one that feels alien to him. Can you imagine that? The Gita is probably one of the truly unique holy scriptures in the world that it would actually tell its readers who are not Hindu "go your own path, and go with all your heart". Such beneficence and consideration for the welfare of people from different faiths! Few other spiritual teachings can show the same nobility of mind to know that there is One in Many, and not worry about what his Christian or Muslim neighbour is worshipping, and whether he is doing it properly!

The Western religions like Christianity and Islam seem to rely on having to persuade you to listen to them. But for a few, rare denominations, many of them have an "all or nothing" approach to their faith, in that their scriptures are unidirectional, rigid and infallible. The former two characteristics are more likely due to the original, ritualistic aspects of its creed, but the former creates a problem in that it assumes nothing else can be true, and it cannot be challenged. To challenge it is to be a heathen, an idolater, an infidel. These people cannot be tolerated by these religions, who seem bent on having their followers as unquestionably loyal to their God. Whereas questions, hesitations and qualms are all encouraged to be shared in the East, quest for knowledge is frowned upon in the West. This must be the reason Hinduism has survived for so many thousands of years and is still in practice today. I find it, along with other Eastern traditions like Buddhism and so on, have the capacity to endure not because they rely on an external force (missionaries and evangelists) to spread its message, but because it relies on an internal one (the individual). Eastern religions, to me, seem put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of its followers. You have to make the discoveries yourself. You have to pursue the Truth. No one else will (or can) do it for you. It is your personal journey to God or discovering your Real Nature that can ultimately instil a far greater sense of devotion, fulfilment and joy in your heart.

Abominable Snowman
11 November 2009, 04:52 PM
My mind is overheated with rajo gunas and my fingers are in everybody's pies. In one more week I'm visiting my Guru who may put a stop to the drama, so until then I'm posting like no tomorrow.

That didn't really answer my question.