PDA

View Full Version : Anger crisis with Jesus



rcscwc
12 February 2010, 09:05 PM
Anger crisis with Jesus




BG 7.56 The sage, whose mind remains unperturbed in sorrows, whose thirst for pleasures has altogether disappeared, and who is free from passion, fear and anger, is called stable of mind.




BG 2.63 From anger arises infatuation; from infatuation, confusion of memory; from confusion of memory, loss of reason; and from loss of reason one goes to complete ruin.
Control of anger is very important, not only in civil life but for spiritual pursuit too.

Cursing the fig tree.

Every fruit or flower is seasonal. If they don't ripen till their appropriate season, it is a sheer instability of mind to get cut up if you don't get them out of season. It would be sign of instability of mind to actually CURSE at the tree for just doing what nature is directing it to do, especially if you're the supposed Lord of mother nature itself. But in that case, you would actually make it laden with fruit and flowers.

In Galatians 5:12, got so angry at anyone advocating circumcision that he wished they'd maybe slip with their knives in the ceremony and cut off more than just the foreskin! An apt follower of a an angry prophet.

Rampage in the temple.

Jesus got pissed off to the point of beating and driving pilgrims out of the temple. He whipped them and overthrowing their business desks of the service providers (Gospel of John, 2: 14-17). Imagine if someone today were to walk into your church, pull out a bullwhip, and start whipping each and everybody, sparing not even the little ones and throwing all the furniture around, screaming and shouting about this not being your house. He'd be locked up for assault and battery and be forced to attend several months of Anger Management clinic!

Only had JC got someone to teach him preserve equanimity and mental balance. Only had someone taught him to rein in his unreasonable desires.

satay
13 February 2010, 12:02 AM
namaskar,


Only had JC got someone to teach him preserve equanimity and mental balance. Only had someone taught him to rein in his unreasonable desires.

This is why I don't get when some swamis say that jesus is son of krishna or is krishna or is god etc. etc. Not sure why we must even entertain the idea of accepting junk from barbaric alien cults and insert it into vedantic worldview.

sanjaya
13 February 2010, 04:07 AM
Hi Rcscwc. I think at least two out of your three examples are indeed instances of anger. I just want to mention what the Christian perspective would be on the first one, not because I have any desire to defend Christianity, but because our arguments against Christianity have to be as airtight as possible. They've got some smart theologians who will pick apart any anti-Biblical argument over even the slightest fallacy, and we want to avoid this.

As far as the fig tree goes, the cursing of it actually carries some symbolic meaning. The fig tree represents the nation of Israel. Israel is likened to a tree because like the tree, it started out as a small seedling, the patriarch Abraham. Over time it blossomed into a large tree, which corresponds to the entire nation in Jesus' time. But just when the tree is about to bloom, Jesus cursed it to death. This symbolizes that when Israel consists of a vast number of people, God will curse them for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This corresponds to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So a Christian will tell you that Jesus cursed the fig tree to teach his disciples not to disbelieve like the rest of the Jews, but to believe in him.

As to your other two examples, yes, I think these are basically examples of anger. Christians would say that it's "righteous anger." Granted, Jesus at least was angry because people were conducting disreputable business in God's temple. It would be sort of like a bunch of people dealing drugs in a Hindu temple. I don't know the extent of Jesus' anger and violence. Personally I do consider him to be an incarnation of God, intended for Westerners. Paul's outburst, on the other hand, does indeed seem truly unwarranted. I will say unequivocally that I don't think it's ever OK to harm people in the name of any religion. Christianity has a long history of violence, and I think this is because the Christian religion doesn't place any emphasis on non-violence.

Ekanta
13 February 2010, 04:41 AM
Namaste all.
This is how I interpret it. Both stories of Jesus carries a lot of meaning. Christians often try to interpret these stories to justify Jesus as Messias or in relation to the history of the jews [kind of like Hare Krishna tries to make Vishnu supreme]. Personally I dont think thats the case very often. Its rather about spiritual laws and the inner path.

Cursing the fig tree (effect of not doing ones duty)
“Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.”

The tree is not doing its duty (sva-dharma) hence its cursed (bad karma). That goes for everyone.

Cleansing the temple (temple can be both physical & the mind-complex)
“In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"”

He was not driving out pilgrims! The temple (heart or physical) had been made into a worldly market (filled with desires). It was filled with money exchangers and business men (demons). The temple should not be such a place right? If Jesus would not have done it (live up to his words) he would certainly be fake in action.
Was he angry? At least he appeared angry. Narasimha appeared angry to Hiranyakasipu but peaceful to Prahlada. By that we dont infer that Narasimha had an "unstable mind", do we?

Yoga is not only "Stable of mind", it also means doing appropriate action.

“Evenness of mind [samatvaṃ] is called Yoga.” (BhG 2.48)
“Yoga is skill in action [karmasu].” (BhG 2.50)

Im not making christianity into hindusim... but Jesus can be understood if there is a wish.

rcscwc
13 February 2010, 04:48 AM
Sanjay

I am aware of these arguments. But anger is anger and has been condemned in BG. But here in the bible it is GLORIFIED!! Biblegod is angry and is always angry.

Jeremiah 17:4
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.
Malachi 1:4
The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.


Can you imagine Krishna doing such an act of anger? What would He do the said fig tree? He would make it bloom and be laden with fruits even out of season.

ScottMalaysia
13 February 2010, 04:59 AM
Can you imagine Krishna doing such an act of anger? What would He do the said fig tree? He would make it bloom and be laden with fruits even out of season.

No, but Indra might. Remember what He did when He saw the villagers giving His sacrifice to Govardhana Hill? 7 days of torrential rain over Vrindavan. And that was because He was angry.

Eastern Mind
13 February 2010, 07:14 AM
Vannakkam all:

I could care less if Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Indra, Gandhi, Hilary Clinton, or anyone else here on HDF gets or ever got angry. (or ever existed for that matter) There is only one person that is of concern for me re anger, and that is myself.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
13 February 2010, 07:37 AM
namaste Ekanta.



The tree is not doing its duty (sva-dharma) hence its cursed (bad karma). That goes for everyone.
...
Im not making christianity into hindusim... but Jesus can be understood if there is a wish.


Mark 11:13 adds "it was not the time for figs." So, was it the svadharma of the fig tree to bear fruits throughout the year? Was Jesus stupid not to know it? So, the explanation is symbolical but not in the Hindu way. The Christian explanation is on the lines: "This was an object lesson against the ostentatious religious exhibitionism of the Jewish leaders and the abominable absence of love and commitment to God." (http://freebiblecommentary.org/written_nt.htm)

Ekanta
13 February 2010, 08:32 AM
Namaste Saidevo...
OK so its not season (different gospels... give different versions)

But the meaning would still be kind of the same. It doesnt bear fruit = it doesnt follow the righteous path (dharma) which yealds fruit, aka:

"This was an object lesson against the ostentatious religious exhibitionism of the Jewish leaders and the abominable absence of love and commitment to God."

Let me ask you all here a few questions:

Would you say there is no connection at all to "sanatana dharma"?
Has there in the history of Bharat never been any cut down of a "fig tree"?
Why this eternal anti-christianity propaganda? Do you think you will turn into christians if you give Jesus the slightest credit?
Or is it because you are afraid the youth of India will convert to Christianity?
Why this eternal "it has nothing to do with sanatana dharma"-propaganda?
Why is there a christian forum at all? Is it just to bash christianity? If so I think its better to shut it down completely.

saidevo
13 February 2010, 09:26 AM
namaste Ekanta.

The answer to your questions is met with another simple set of questions:

When Christians themselves are not prepared to think out of the box of their dogma, what does a Hindu gain by thinking about/interpreting/extrapolating their texts using Hindu religious concepts? Is it to try the impossible task of educating the Christian clergy and laity?

Does the Hindu gain a better understanding of his own scriptures in the light of such interpretation of the Bible and Quran? Or is it just to reassure himself that religiously and spiritually a Hindu is on par with a follower of the Abrahamic religion at all levels, when the reverse is not true for them?

Is such reassurance necessary because the overseas Hindu lives among majority Christians in order that the latter don't misunderstand his religion and make fun ot its concepts (which they anyway do)?

When would a Hindu understand that his unnecessary adventure of extrapolation has the potential of misguiding his fellow Hindus, specially the young people living abroad and in India? I hope you noticed that HDF is a public forum and at any time the number of guests viewing the posts is about 10 times more than the members logging in. The google search with the text "hindu dharma forums" yields 91,500 links as of now.

In my understanding, the Christianity forum is to show the Hindus the right perspective they need to have about that religion by a critical study of their concepts and dogma vis-a-vis those of Hinduism, and not to think the Hindu way about Christian scriptures and extrapolate them.

Even if it is not that way, I would only prefer to do it that way, so far as my posts are concerned. In my stong opinion, if I want to compare some text in the Bible to some other text in the Hindu scriptures where I feel a similarity exists, I would of course post 'my suggestion' but at the same time indicate their official interpretation. If we can dig up our texts and theirs for a comparison, why not also dig up their official interpretation and post it, and indicate how inept it is where it is actually so, so that a novice Hindu reader who finds no time to read the Bible or his own Hindu texts, is not misguided.

By imposing Hindu interpretations on Christian texts, we only misguide our fellow Hindus who tend to presume that our interpretation is the right one.

There is no point in turning emotional. For that matter your statement: "It doesnt bear fruit = it doesnt follow the righteous path (dharma) which yealds fruit." is incorrect. The svadharma of a fig tree is to grow as destined for it and bear fruits only at the time it is due. It does not get any bad karma by not bearing fruits when it is not required of it, so there is no need to cut it or curse it, and thus your equation is wrong. Not that you don't know it, but that your over-enthusiasm for comparision overshoots it.

SanAtana Dharma is of course eternal and pre-existed in some form in the very lands where the Abrahamic religions rule over today, but we as Hindus have got other pressing issues such as having a right perspective (which is the traditional one) about our religion vis-a-vis the other religions and groom our fellow Hindus to that perspective.

Ekanta
13 February 2010, 09:58 AM
In my understanding, the Christianity forum is to show the Hindus the right perspective they need to have about that religion by a critical study of their concepts and dogma vis-a-vis those of Hinduism, and not to think the Hindu way about Christian scriptures and extrapolate them.
OK.


In my stong opinion, if I want to compare some text in the Bible to some other text in the Hindu scriptures where I feel a similarity exists, I would of course post 'my suggestion' but at the same time indicate their official interpretation. If we can dig up our texts and theirs for a comparison, why not also dig up their official interpretation and post it, and indicate how inept it is where it is actually so, so that a novice Hindu reader who is not much read in his texts is not misguided.
OK, I just dont personally care much about "their official interpretation". But your argument is still good.



There is no point in turning emotional. For that matter your statement: "It doesnt bear fruit = it doesnt follow the righteous path (dharma) which yealds fruit." is incorrect. The svadharma of a fig tree is to grow as destined for it and bear fruits only at the time it is due. It does not get any bad karma by not bearing fruits when it is not required of it, so there is no need to cut it or curse it, and thus your equation is wrong. Not that you don't know it, but that your over-enthusiasm for comparision overshoots it.
Well, at this point I didnt talk about a specific tree anymore, more about not yealding fruit, be it Israel or Bin Ladin.
(and ok, I was a bit "over-enthusiastic" before, without cross checking a few times more before posting)


SanAtana Dharma is of course eternal and pre-existed in some form in the very lands where the Abrahamic religions rule over today, but we as Hindus have got other pressing issues such as having a right perspective (which is the traditional one) about our religion vis-a-vis the other religions and groom our fellow Hindus to that perspective.
I dont have that same experience in my country/other (non-specific / non-one-religious) forums [hinduism being attacked] and thus the thought never occurred to me.
There are more viewers than writers here, yes. And you might be right about: "we as Hindus have got other pressing issues such as having a right perspective". But I also worry a bit about what impression these viewers will get about "sanatana dharma" when Abrahamic religions seem to be mostly attacked here.

saidevo
13 February 2010, 11:00 AM
namaste Ekanta.

Well, we agree to disagree where it is required. IMO, critically examining the Abrahamic religious scriptures is different from attacking them or their prophets, so there is little chance of the Hindu viewers getting any wrong impression about its repercussions on Sanatana Dharma.

When I say that there is no conclusive historical proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, it is not attacking him, but stating a critical perception which is also the perception of many Christian scholars. When I say the teachings of the Bible fall far short of the teachings of the Upanishads, again it is only a critical view, not an attack on the Bible. Only when I say about some Bible text something such as, "See, this is the same as what our scriptures say", if I don't also mention the Christian view of it, I give a wrong picture to a Hindu viewer.

This IMO is what we need to do in the forums on Abrahamic religions: try to critically explain the physical, religious and philosophical reality of their scriptures vis-a-vis ours.

Mohini Shakti Devi
13 February 2010, 12:30 PM
Sanjay
Can you imagine Krishna doing such an act of anger? What would He do the said fig tree? He would make it bloom and be laden with fruits even out of season.

You may be 100% wrong on this one ---let us know what you think.

So Krsna is equi-minded as any good yogi worth his salt, especially when involved with court intrigue and even protecting his Honor on behalf of his wife, Rukmini?

See Krsna use his sudarshan chakra weapon against Shisupal while in dispute over Rukmini's desired choice of Husband, Krsna.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=515&d=1266087132

satay
13 February 2010, 12:37 PM
Pranam Ekanta,

I appreciate your posts and your worry or concern is valid. However,we are not 'attacking' abrahmic religions, though I have seen christians and muslims register on HDF and then attack Hinduism. Some even try to pretend to be hindus.

Does their behaviour not worry you? What type of impression do they leave with us hindus of their abrharmic religion if they come in disguise and attack us? or perhaps you are okay with it because that's what their religion teaches them? Are you saying that hindus shouldn't defend attacks on their religion or critically examine the claims about 'truth' of other religions? Are all hindus obligated to accept the integration of alien scriptures into vedantic viewpoint? I hope not.

Not disagreeing with you just pointing out the other side.


But I also worry a bit about what impression these viewers will get about "sanatana dharma" when Abrahamic religions seem to be mostly attacked here.

satay
13 February 2010, 12:51 PM
namaskar,


You may be 100% wrong on this one


Please elborate.



So does Krsna is equi-minded as any good yogi worth his salt, especially when involved with court intrigue and even protecting his Honor on behalf of his wife,


The sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you wrote it in a hurry?

Mohini Shakti Devi
13 February 2010, 01:33 PM
namaskar,
Please elborate.
The sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you wrote it in a hurry?

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=39600&postcount=13

Let us know what you think. Is this an example of God getting angry?

Ekanta
13 February 2010, 01:54 PM
I have seen christians and muslims register on HDF and then attack Hinduism. Some even try to pretend to be hindus.
Does their behaviour not worry you?
Namaste Satay

Of course. But my impression is that they get banned rather quickly. Perhaps I'm wrong? I didnt mean to come out as one sided.

satay
13 February 2010, 02:54 PM
namaskar,


Namaste Satay

Of course. But my impression is that they get banned rather quickly. Perhaps I'm wrong? I didnt mean to come out as one sided.

Yes, they do get banned as soon as they are discovered. This is because a) I don't have time to reform them and b) I don't think that there is any possibility to reform them due to their karma and c) I don't think we are under any obligation to reform them and make them conform to our rules.
I keep it simple for them. If you don't follow the rules, that means your personal agenda is not in alignment with the forum's agenda so it is better for you and HDF if you get redirected out. Of course when I say 'you' I mean in general and not 'you' ekanta. :)

Jivattatva
13 February 2010, 09:53 PM
Pranams

Just back from U.P. and W.B.

I agree fully with Ekanta on all his posts in this thread. He/She shows a depth of understanding of the esence of the Gita. I also agree with Mohini shakti on her point.

I was reading the avatar thread of rahulg and this thread and I got the feeling that some of the people who posted in the thread have some issues with Christianity and carry their own insecurities with christianity. I don't have any. Afterall as Krishna says in the Gita:

B.G. 4.11 – As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows my path in all respects, O son of Prtha.



Also, I have not seen any aggressive posturings of Christian in this forum because as Satay said he immediately removed the posts.

rcscwc
13 February 2010, 10:56 PM
Cursing the fig tree (effect of not doing ones duty)
“Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.”

The tree is not doing its duty (sva-dharma) hence its cursed (bad karma). That goes for everyone.
It definitely was not the svadharma of the fig tree to give fruits out of season.




Cleansing the temple (temple can be both physical & the mind-complex)
“In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"”


Market place?
Pilgrims came from far off with various currencies. But they had to be converted into legal tenders. This service was necessay, it is now provided by the banks. Should a bank within a temple complex be shut down?

Surely, no pilgrims could be expected bring the sacrificial animals from far off. They had to procured locally, and as near the temple as possible. Don't balk, such sacrifices were OK.


No, but Indra might. Remember what He did when He saw the villagers giving His sacrifice to Govardhana Hill? 7 days of torrential rain over Vrindavan. And that was because He was angry.
But then nobody claims that Indra was Ishwar, which Krishna was.


No, but Indra might. Remember what He did when He saw the villagers giving His sacrifice to Govardhana Hill? 7 days of torrential rain over Vrindavan. And that was because He was angry.
But then nobody claims that Indra was Ishwar, which Krishna was.




But the meaning would still be kind of the same. It doesnt bear fruit = it doesnt follow the righteous path (dharma) which yealds fruit, aka:
Not out of season. Not for a tree old too old to bear fruit. Not at the bidding.

Lord Rama prayed the sea to give way. At not getting His way, He was angry and ready to dry it up. But sea reasoned: It is not my dharma to give way by drying myself up. Rama saw the reason!!



Let me ask you all here a few questions:

Would you say there is no connection at all to "sanatana dharma"?
I gave connection above. A contrast.

Has there in the history of Bharat never been any cut down of a "fig tree"?
Did Rama cut it the tree [sea here]? NO.


Why this eternal anti-christianity propaganda? Do you think you will turn into christians if you give Jesus the slightest credit?
First stop the xians. They cast the first stone. Ask them to give a little credit to Hinduism.
Remember, as per bible you are earmarked for eternal hell fires.

You may be 100% wrong on this one ---let us know what you think.

So Krsna is equi-minded as any good yogi worth his salt, especially when involved with court intrigue and even protecting his Honor on behalf of his wife, Rukmini?

See Krsna use his sudarshan chakra weapon against Shisupal while in dispute over Rukmini's desired choice of Husband, Krsna.


Krishna is all about doing all you can for dharma. Once Rukmini desired Him, it was His dharma to protect Her.

Sisupal was not as passive as that fig tree.

jaggin
12 March 2010, 07:00 AM
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=39600&postcount=13

Let us know what you think. Is this an example of God getting angry?

It appears that way to me although I had a little trouble reading the words of the comic.

A non-violent God would appear to me contrary to natural reality. Or doesn't Hinduism believe that nature was created by God?

My understanding is that as intelligent beings we should be able to manage our anger and overcome our natural tendencies.

As enigmatic as the fig tree story is, it still does not reveal that Jesus was angry. I think that is presumed because He cursed it.

On the other hand there are plenty of stories in the Bible of God getting angry and acting on that anger.

rog
24 April 2012, 04:14 PM
Namaste,

I am english, brought up as Church of England going to church nearly every sunday morning.
Then we moved to west africa where I saw a more energetic christianity and also islam and african tribal religion.

As a child my only spiritual realisation was that not all people are the same in some way which has nothing to do with race or professed religion. I saw good loving people and horrible people from every background but I could not understand why some people acted with such hatred and violence instead of love and support.

I got involved with evangelical christianity in my teens but by 19 I was disillusioned and rejected it as false. I often thought about what had drawn me to it so strongly that I called myself a born again christian?

For years I was passionately anti-christian and I loved nothing more than opportunities for debate and to ridicule them.

For the past 25 years I continued to seek truth in the world hoping for a rational path to understand these questions. Much of my reading touched on religion and I realised that the bible is a mixture of history, myth, allegory and some spiritual truth which I attributed to humanity. Most of it was purely material and worldly and therefore full of falsity and delusion.

I always said that christians made me angry because they hijack the concepts of love and forgiveness as their own when in reality it is in all peoples of all faiths and countries.

Since I have become a Hindu it is quite funny how much truth I see in the bible, mostly from Jesus. I suspect he was a great soul but much of his words and accounts of his actions will have been twisted by Roman and wider european influences to produce what we now see as the bible.

So (finally getting to the point!)the accounts of his anger do not ring true to me in light of his teaching on love, forgiveness etc.

Many of the fundamental points he made which are harder to distort by 'story telling' are straight forward Hindu concepts.

ie. "I am the way the truth and the light, no one can reach the father except through me"

Before I was a Hindu I would say, how arrogant and foolish.

Now I think he was a wise sage saying that he had received enlightenment about reality and oneness and that anyone could do this but only by making the same realisations.

I try to see past the layers of delusion and see truth where ever it is.

jaggin
30 June 2012, 08:30 AM
Hi Rcscwc. I think at least two out of your three examples are indeed instances of anger. I just want to mention what the Christian perspective would be on the first one, not because I have any desire to defend Christianity, but because our arguments against Christianity have to be as airtight as possible. They've got some smart theologians who will pick apart any anti-Biblical argument over even the slightest fallacy, and we want to avoid this.

As far as the fig tree goes, the cursing of it actually carries some symbolic meaning. The fig tree represents the nation of Israel. Israel is likened to a tree because like the tree, it started out as a small seedling, the patriarch Abraham. Over time it blossomed into a large tree, which corresponds to the entire nation in Jesus' time. But just when the tree is about to bloom, Jesus cursed it to death. This symbolizes that when Israel consists of a vast number of people, God will curse them for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This corresponds to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So a Christian will tell you that Jesus cursed the fig tree to teach his disciples not to disbelieve like the rest of the Jews, but to believe in him.

As to your other two examples, yes, I think these are basically examples of anger. Christians would say that it's "righteous anger." Granted, Jesus at least was angry because people were conducting disreputable business in God's temple. It would be sort of like a bunch of people dealing drugs in a Hindu temple. I don't know the extent of Jesus' anger and violence. Personally I do consider him to be an incarnation of God, intended for Westerners. Paul's outburst, on the other hand, does indeed seem truly unwarranted. I will say unequivocally that I don't think it's ever OK to harm people in the name of any religion. Christianity has a long history of violence, and I think this is because the Christian religion doesn't place any emphasis on non-violence.

As an incarnation of God, Jesus could be expected to act as God who displays anger in scripture that precedes Jesus. However Jesus made it quite clear that the gospel is to be preached to the whole world and that would include easterners also.

It isn't Christianity that has a history of vioence but those who practice it unworthily that have a history of violence. Itisn't that Christianity is non-vioent but simply does not incorporate vioence that is not from God. Those who practiced Christianity unworthily practiced violence that is not from God.

My belief is that non-violence only works in a perfect world. For instance there is no violence in Heaven and there will be no violence in the New Jerusalem.

jaggin
30 June 2012, 08:40 AM
Namaste,

I am english, brought up as Church of England going to church nearly every sunday morning.
Then we moved to west africa where I saw a more energetic christianity and also islam and african tribal religion.

As a child my only spiritual realisation was that not all people are the same in some way which has nothing to do with race or professed religion. I saw good loving people and horrible people from every background but I could not understand why some people acted with such hatred and violence instead of love and support.

I got involved with evangelical christianity in my teens but by 19 I was disillusioned and rejected it as false. I often thought about what had drawn me to it so strongly that I called myself a born again christian?

For years I was passionately anti-christian and I loved nothing more than opportunities for debate and to ridicule them.

For the past 25 years I continued to seek truth in the world hoping for a rational path to understand these questions. Much of my reading touched on religion and I realised that the bible is a mixture of history, myth, allegory and some spiritual truth which I attributed to humanity. Most of it was purely material and worldly and therefore full of falsity and delusion.

I always said that christians made me angry because they hijack the concepts of love and forgiveness as their own when in reality it is in all peoples of all faiths and countries.

Since I have become a Hindu it is quite funny how much truth I see in the bible, mostly from Jesus. I suspect he was a great soul but much of his words and accounts of his actions will have been twisted by Roman and wider european influences to produce what we now see as the bible.

So (finally getting to the point!)the accounts of his anger do not ring true to me in light of his teaching on love, forgiveness etc.

Many of the fundamental points he made which are harder to distort by 'story telling' are straight forward Hindu concepts.

ie. "I am the way the truth and the light, no one can reach the father except through me"

Before I was a Hindu I would say, how arrogant and foolish.

Now I think he was a wise sage saying that he had received enlightenment about reality and oneness and that anyone could do this but only by making the same realisations.

I try to see past the layers of delusion and see truth where ever it is.

No one ever gets more angry than a person who loves. To say contrary is to see love as some kind of romantic non-sense.

Now you are just in much in error about Jesus as you were before.

Seeker
30 June 2012, 01:17 PM
No one ever gets more angry than a person who loves.

Usually these kind of phrases are used in abusive relations.




Now you are just in much in error about Jesus as you were before.

Bother to elaborate?

realdemigod
01 July 2012, 09:28 AM
Jesus (if you believe he existed) was a son of God not God.. so he was a normal person and it's fairly ok on his part to become angry except for someone enlightened like Buddha who was full of compassion and love for all life forms on earth :)

PARAM
01 July 2012, 11:11 AM
Anything shown in comics, television serials or movies based on Dharma Grantham are heavily edited with the choice of editors to what to put and what to not. These are scripted by those who use Dharma Grantham for entertainment of their choice instead of enlightenment as they are.

Krishna was never angry, but he was a King and a Justice, and he punished the wrong doers who were willfully doing wrong, nobody was exempted from even-handed justice of Krishna, fair justice is not anger. Krishna's life is full of anti-Krishna incidents but not a single time he lose his cool, he only worked to teach others with his strictness and not any anger.


Jesus can't be same, he was angry when he was able to, and did nothing when he was unable to, he is no match of Prabhu or Ishwar ka putra

Spiritualseeker
01 July 2012, 12:32 PM
Namaste,

I also question if Jesus ever existed, but I do not accept the literalist christian interpretation. The Gnostics were the original orthodox christians. The Christians we see today that are very far right are a perversion. The Gospel of Thomas speaks of the Oneness of Christ with all. It also speaks of Christ Marriage with the divine mother. This is Shiva and Shakti. This was the intent of the Gnostic christians, that is why they accepted the Pagan Greeks who followed the mystery traditions of Dionysus, Mithras, and Bacchus. There were pagans who were allowed to be initiated into the Gnostic Christian mysteries and Gnostic Christians were allowed to be initiated into the Pagan mysteries. So they were not warring with each other and they also preached much about Ahimsa. Some of the Gnostic Christians were vegetarian. It is only the far right that the Roman version of Christianity became with the rise of Constantine who was a mad man, this far right teaching is what is causing all this hardship on this planet. It gave us the dark ages (so now we are 300 years behind in our sciences) and it continues to oppress us today around the world through politics.

Please do not mistake Jesus for what the fools say, but look deep at the Gnostic Christ and then we can see that it is not so bad to say that Christ was enlightened.

Om Namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
01 July 2012, 12:46 PM
For Hindus, Jesus will always remain irrelevant, historic or not, gnostic or otherwise. People just say that the Gnostic Jesus is the true Jesus, because it suits their modern idea of spirituality better. Even if there are a few elements in gnostic Christianity similar to Hinduism, we have no use of them. Two buckets of milk may be the same, but if a dog has drunk from one bucket, we wouldn't want to drink from it.

Shuddhasattva
01 July 2012, 01:08 PM
Namaste

And if the dog is Yamadharma?

Are you meaning to say that any and all Hindus who believe the gnostic version of Jesus as revealed in the ancient, not modern, Nag Hammadi scriptures, and subscribe to the "Jesus in India" hypothesis are not real Hindus?

For the record, I don't do upasana of Jesus, I don't regard him as a viable ishta devata, at least for myself, I haven't any pictures of him, etc. He is more or less irrelevant to my practice and philosophy in the context of Hinduism, although I find the gnostic philosophy & cosmology almost completely in accord with the Hindu philosophies I subscribe to.

Further, the Sanatana Dharma is not so by virtue of being confined to any particular culture or limited claim to truth. It is whatever is true and spiritually efficacious in any time, place, and culture in union with that which is true at all times. Yes, by far its most potent manifestation was nursed by the sacred rivers of Bharat, but in my opinion, Abrahamism represents one of the biggest threats to both Sanatana Dharma's expression anywhere and everywhere, as well as humanity itself, and it cannot be overcome by either violence or argument.

The answer, in my opinion, is assimilating them in their mystical, esoteric forms - Gnosticism in Christianity for instance, which are almost entirely in agreement with the Hindu philosophies. If Jesus is put on equal footing with a myriad of Hindu sages, and an alternate historicity that involves India and yoga is revealed, this does nothing to weaken Hinduism, but everything to suborn Christianity and subsume it into the Sanatana Dharma through the gnostic path.

It is not that Jesus adds anything significant to Hinduism, it is that the eternal dharma is the birthright of every human being, though they have been deprived of it by millenia of falsehood. In order to spread this fire across the earth, we have to realistically work with people, and societies, where they are at.

Namaste

Sahasranama
01 July 2012, 01:36 PM
Namaste

And if the dog is Yamadharma?

Are you meaning to say that any and all Hindus who believe the gnostic version of Jesus as revealed in the ancient, not modern, Nag Hammadi scriptures, and subscribe to the "Jesus in India" hypothesis are not real Hindus?

Namaste

The dog is not yama.

There is no historical record of Jesus going to India, these stories were made up by later Christians who visited India and wanted to make link between India and Jeebus to convince Indians to convert to Christianity. And of course, anyone who beliefs in or worships Jeebus, gnostic or otherwise, cannot be a real Hindu. If someone wants to study the Nag Hammadi texts and look for similarities, because they have too much time on their hands, that is absolutely fine. But as soon as people start calling Jeebus a realized yogi or an avatara, they are perverting Hindu Dharma and twisting historical facts.

Shuddhasattva
01 July 2012, 01:43 PM
Namaste



There is no historical record of Jesus going to India, these stories were made up by later Christians who visited India and wanted to make link between India and Jeebus to convince Indians to convert to Christianity. Would it make sense for Hindus to try to convert Abrahamics by alleging that Sri Krishna was somehow some kind of minor prophet? Does one make the primary figure of one's religion a minor figure in another to convert them? I can't see the logic there.

There is historical record - in India, in Islamic accounts, in Buddhist accounts, in the Acta Thomae - and, by the way, it's a historical fact that Thomas went to India (and in the Acta Thomae is a passage strongly suggesting if not explicitly saying that Jesus was with him), and even a Chinese record. Also physical evidence in Muree, Pakistan, the Rozabal in Srinagar and the Throne of Solomon nearby, as well as the presence of the Beni Israel people in J&K, and corresponding linguistic evidence.


And of course, anyone who beliefs in or worships Jeebus, gnostic or otherwise, cannot be a real Hindu.
Why not please? If Jesus is an accomplished yogi, then I would think he is worthy of worship. I personally don't worship him, but are people wrong to worship say... Shirdi Sai Baba?

Hm, let me ask for that matter: are people who worship Sathya Sai Baba (I regard him as a fake) fake Hindus?


If someone wants to study the Nag Hammadi texts and look for similarities, because they have too much time on their hands, that is absolutely fine.
But as soon as people start calling Jeebus a realized yogi or an avatara,
they are perverting Hindu Dharma and twisting historical facts.If the sentiments expressed in the gnostic texts are not those of a realized yogi, I do not know how to recognize such.


Namaste

Sahasranama
01 July 2012, 01:50 PM
Namaste



Would it make sense for Hindus to try to convert Abrahamics by alleging that Sri Krishna was somehow some kind of minor prophet? Does one make the primary figure of one's religion a minor figure in another to convert them? I can't see the logic there.I never said that the Christians who made up this story were behaving logically.


There is historical record - in India, in Islamic accounts, in the Acta Thomae - and, by the way, it's a historical fact that Thomas went to India (and in the Acta Thomae is a passage strongly suggesting if not explicitly saying that Jesus was with him), and even a Chinese record.No, these are not historical. I suggest you do a little bit more research, you can start here: http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/about-us/the-ishwar-sharan-interview-with-rajeev-srinivasan/


Why not please? If Jesus is an accomplished yogi, then I would think he is worthy of worship. I personally don't worship him, but are people wrong to worship say... Shirdi Sai Baba?

Hm, let me ask for that matter: are people who worship Sathya Sai Baba (I regard him as a fake) fake Hindus? Please, don't get me started about Sai Baba.


If the sentiments expressed in the gnostic texts are not those of a realized yogi, I do not know how to recognize such.
NamasteNo worries, not everyone can recognize a realized yogi and many people fall trap following fake yogis.

Even if you thought that these statements were made by a "real yogi," it would be fallacious to conclude that therefore they must have been uttered by the true Jesus.

Twilightdance
01 July 2012, 01:55 PM
Further, the Sanatana Dharma is not so by virtue of being confined to any particular culture or limited claim to truth.

Certainly not, but if we want to look for universal archetypes of spiritual truth we should also do it from outside the box of Hinduism [sanatana dharma is a nice universal name, but the truth is that this culture is very indic]. And if we look for universal archetypes I believe there are more interesting things than those involving the Jeebus ghost. Why not Norse Gods who share some similarities with Vedic Gods, why not study Voodoo along with tantra, Tao with Yoga? And if Abhrahamism is our interest, I believe the spiritual offshoots in Judaism will be much more true than Jeebus spirituality.

But the truth is we do a very poor job of even showing good understanding of the things which we are most familiar with, all our lives. What chance is there to do correct assessment and understanding of things which are in entirely different cultures? Plus when we do this, one should analyse why the Jeebus ghost gets more attention than the Norse God Thor [except to Stan Lee], surely the later is a much more inspiring character.

Stormbringer, who binds the giants in chains of fear
Red Fury, who laughs with joy as hammer falls
You are the father they tried to blanket with mist
But your song of thunder shattered their chains of lies
And now I have found you , I have come home

Shuddhasattva
01 July 2012, 02:05 PM
Certainly not, but if we want to look for universal archetypes of spiritual truth we should also do it from outside the box of Hinduism [sanatana dharma is a nice universal name, but the truth is that this culture is very indic]. And if we look for universal archetypes I believe there are more interesting things than those involving the Jeebus ghost. Why not Norse Gods who share some similarities with Vedic Gods, why not study Voodoo along with tantra, Tao with Yoga? And if Abhrahamism is our interest, I believe the spiritual offshoots in Judaism will be much more true than Jeebus spirituality.

But the truth is we do a very poor job of even showing good understanding of the things which we are most familiar with, all our lives. What chance is there to do correct assessment and understanding of things which are in entirely different cultures? Plus when we do this, one should analyse why the Jeebus ghost gets more attention than the Norse God Thor [except to Stan Lee], surely the later is a much more inspiring character.

Stormbringer, who binds the giants in chains of fear
Red Fury, who laughs with joy as hammer falls
You are the father they tried to blanket with mist
But your song of thunder shattered their chains of lies
And now I have found you , I have come home

Namaste

In my reading of the Eddas, I found the Norse religion to be rather like the Greek, with no real discernible esoteric meaning - if you can explain the same to me, I would be interested in learning more. The epics were... morally shallow to say the least.

Voodoo I didn't find to have anything truly comparable. Tao, I agree with - I see nothing but benefit resulting from the study of the Tao, perhaps primarily the study of chance that is rather lacking from the, in my opinion, overly deterministic view usually expressed in the Hindu context. Most everything else runs quite parallel. Another Chinese philosophy I would consider of interest is Mohism.

I agree with you about the mystical offshoot of Judaism - I am aware of only Qabbalah, are there others?, as well as Sufism of Islam. In my opinion, Sanatana Dharma should use these esoteric philosophies, which are not really in-line at all with the Abrahamic view, to subvert their Abrahamic parents, and bring people into the dharma.

May I ask if you have read any of the gnostic texts?

Here is a sample from the Apocryphon of John:


The One rules all. Nothing has authority over it.
It is the God.
It is Father of everything,
Holy One
The invisible one over everything.
It is uncontaminated
Pure light no eye can bear to look within. The One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.
Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.
It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.
The One is without boundaries
Nothing exists outside of it to border it
The One cannot be investigated
Nothing exists apart from it to investigate it
The One cannot be measured
Nothing exists external to it to measure it
The One cannot be seen
For no one can envision it
The One is eternal
For it exists forever
The One is inconceivable
For no one can comprehend it
The One is indescribable
For no one can put any words to it.
The One is infinite light
Purity
Holiness
Stainless,
The One is incomprehensible
Perfectly free from corruption.
Not “perfect”
Not “blessed”
Not “divine”
But superior to such concepts.
Neither physical nor unphysical
Neither immense nor infinitesimal
It is impossible to specify in quantity or quality
For it is beyond knowledge.
The One is not a being among other beings
It is vastly superior
But it is not “superior.”
It is outside of realms of being and time
For whatever is within realms of being was created
And whatever is within time had time allotted to it
The One receives nothing from anything.
It simply apprehends itself in its own perfect light
The One is majestic.
The One is measureless majesty
Chief of all Realms
Producing all realms
Light
Producing light
Life
Producing life
Blessedness
Producing blessedness
Knowledge
Producing knowledge
Good
Producing goodness
Mercy
Producing mercy
Generous
Producing generosity

It gives forth light beyond measure, beyond comprehension.
[What can I say?]
His realm is eternal, peaceful, silent, resting, before everything.
He is the head of every realm sustaining each of them through goodness.

The Origin of Reality
[We would know nothing of the ineffable
And nothing of the immeasurable
Without the help of the one who comes forth
from the One who is the Father.
He alone has informed us.]

The Father is surrounded by light.
He apprehends himself in that light
[which is the pure spring of the water of life
that sustains all realms].
He is conscious of his image everywhere around him,
Perceiving his image in this spring of Spirit
Pouring forth from himself.
He is enamored of the image he sees in the light-water,
The spring of pure light-water enveloping him.
His self-aware thought (ennoia) came into being.
Appearing to him in the effulgence of his light.
She stood before him.
This, then, is the first of the powers, prior to everything.
Arising out of the mind of the Father
The Providence (pronoia) of everything.
Her light reflects His light.
She is from His image in His light
Perfect in power
Image of the invisible perfect Virgin Spirit.
She is the initial power
glory of Barbelo
glorious among the realms
glory of revelation
She gave glory to the Virgin Spirit
She praised Him
For she arose from Him.
[This, the first Thought, is the Spirit’s image]
She is the universal womb
She is before everything
She is:
Mother-Father
First Man
Holy Spirit
Thrice Male
Thrice Powerful
Thrice Named
Androgynous eternal realm
First to arise among the invisible realms.
She, Barbelo, asked the virgin Spirit for foreknowledge (prognosis).
The Spirit agreed.
Foreknowledge came forth and stood by Providence
[This one came through the Invisible Virgin Spirit’s Thought.]
Foreknowledge gave glory to the Spirit
And to Barbelo, the Spirit’s perfect power,
For She was the reason that it had come into being.

[I]Primary Structures of the Divine Mind
She, Barbelo, asked the virgin Spirit for Incorruptibility
The Spirit agreed.
Incorruptibility came forth and stood by Thought and Foreknowledge.
Incorruptibility gave glory to the Invisible Virgin Spirit
And to Barbelo,
For She was the reason that it had come into being.
She asked for everlasting Life.
The Spirit agreed
Everlasting life came forth and they all stood together.
They gave glory to the invisible Spirit
And to Barbelo,
For She was the reason that it had come into being.
She asked for Truth.
The Spirit agreed
Truth came forth and they all stood together.
They gave glory to the invisible Spirit
And to Barbelo,
For She was the reason that it had come into being.
This is the fivefold realm of the Father:
The First Man who is
The Image of the Invisible Spirit who is
Providence who is
Barbelo who is
Thought.
And
Foreknowledge - Incorruptibility - Life Everlasting - Truth
[These are an androgynous fivefold realm - therefore it is a realm of ten - of the Father.]

*[Stevan Davies translation]
Should we dismiss the truth of this merely because it was not written in Sanskrit?

Namaste

McKitty
01 July 2012, 02:14 PM
Certainly not, but if we want to look for universal archetypes of spiritual truth we should also do it from outside the box of Hinduism [sanatana dharma is a nice universal name, but the truth is that this culture is very indic]. And if we look for universal archetypes I believe there are more interesting things than those involving the Jeebus ghost. Why not Norse Gods who share some similarities with Vedic Gods, why not study Voodoo along with tantra, Tao with Yoga? And if Abhrahamism is our interest, I believe the spiritual offshoots in Judaism will be much more true than Jeebus spirituality.




Hello,

I studied a man named Joseph Campbell, I strongly recommand his books, like "the hero with thousand faces"

This man studied many cultures and many religions, not in a "new age" view, but in a serious study and with a real will to understand. He came to the conclusion that, in fact, in every culture and religion, it's the symbol that is important. And that if we think with symbols, we see that every culture is linked by them...
But ! In most religion, those symbols have been transformed, other symbols came wrongly assimilated with others, or covered with stories or people wrong.

One of the exemple is Death. As seen in western countries in general, the firgure of death is a hooded squeleton with a scythe. With chritianity, this depiction of Death was made to inspire fear, madness, in many paintings and sculpting in churches. So, Death is only something to fear, not to think about.

But if you look in the symbols, for exemple the scythe. It's not a weapon, it's a tool. A tool used to equalize, that cut everything at the same height: it is mean to remind us that, before Death, every man and woman, despite his money, appearance and rank, are equal before Death.
But it's also a tool to reap the weat, the nourishment, thus it can say that in the end, we are the fruit of what we sow in our life.


Those symbols got deformed, you can clearly see it in abrahamic religions (less in muslim, more in christianty) as paganism used those symbols to create a link, to easy the initiation to a god/godess, to, at the first gaze, know the attribute, the identity, the role of a God/Godess.

It really, for me, look like the mudras and ornements of Hindu Gods and Godesses.

Follower of Thor only wear the symbol of the hammer. The hammer is a tool to build, but were also used as a weapon during war !

Sadly symbols got deformed...In christianism mainly. But looking close to their meaning and see that everything is really linked, it's the tongue of the human subcounscious.


Aum~

Twilightdance
02 July 2012, 02:24 AM
Namaste

In my reading of the Eddas, I found the Norse religion to be rather like the Greek, with no real discernible esoteric meaning
My own take is that vast section of the vedic samhitas have little "esoteric" in them , I don't see too much difference in praise of Thor's valor to Indra's.


Voodoo I didn't find to have anything truly comparable. I don't agree, much of what we call shat-karmas might have better and more potent alternative in voodoo, or the issue of direct communion with dieties, possession etc which are integral part of kaula tantra is seen in voodoo. Same with amazonian shamanism. From what little I have read, during initiation one is put into a direct communion with the Gods to receive direct instruction. In Tantra's such methods is highly desirable also, but is only available to Siddhas, it seems. Direct initiation by Yoginis is left as a high possibility but there is nothing practical on how it is achieved.


Tao, I agree with - I see nothing but benefit resulting from the study of the Tao, perhaps primarily the study of chance that is rather lacking from the, in my opinion, overly deterministic view usually expressed in the Hindu context. Most everything else runs quite parallel. Another Chinese philosophy I would consider of interest is Mohism.
Fully agree.


I agree with you about the mystical offshoot of Judaism - I am aware of only Qabbalah, are there others?, as well as Sufism of Islam. In my opinion, Sanatana Dharma should use these esoteric philosophies, which are not really in-line at all with the Abrahamic view, to subvert their Abrahamic parents, and bring people into the dharma.

But history shows that its been the other way round. As an example, Sufism were the early heralds of the oncoming Islamic onslaught. Sufi history is full blood and the most fearless destructive warriors of Islamic Jehad were often their mystic band of sufi warriors. Sufi "Saints" have always been one of the biggest conversion agents for Islam.

From mysticsm p.o.v why only Sufi, I believe there is a lot within the Ismaili sects of Islam which may be more interesting than Sunni Sufism. May be more practical and actual techniques than just inspired poetry.

But as History shows, they cannot be used to subvert mainstream Islam because these sects have themselves subverted and accepted the core of Islam. What doesn't tie with Islam they hide using taqiyya system. They have been agents of Islam for well over 1000 years and have been integral to the Islamic mission for world dominance and the mission to replace humanity in humans with wholesale barbarism. All the inspired poetry did not find any problems with Muhammad's wet dream conception of Islamic heaven, his pedophilia, he butchery - instead they proverbially they did a [B]"I jump in it".

But if you insist, then Good luck to you. But you have to understand why Hindu's [and I am not a Hindu in the true sense of religion] don't find it particularly appealing.



May I ask if you have read any of the gnostic texts? No, and no thanks.



Here is a sample from the Apocryphon of John:
Ok. But poetry does not appeal me unless those of valor and bravery or something practical. I don't read the Upanishads and have discarded Vedanta for same reasons. Not ideal may be - but just a personal preference. So given your preview probably I won't find this Gnostic Christianity very interesting anyway. Kashmir Shaivism already provides enough Gnosis.


Should we dismiss the truth of this merely because it was not written in Sanskrit?

Namaste

Surely not. I will personally focus on things not found adequately in Hinduism. From that regard Tao tops the list to my knowledge. And inspired poetry is the last - but that's personal preference. But my other main point, "Can we actually do it, since we misunderstand things right before our eyes all our lives?" needs to be stressed again. Can we actually fully understand the deeper implication of Gnostic Christianity when we struggle to understand our own culture properly?

But problem with Mystical Islam [I am not sure about Mystical Christianity] is by submitting themselves to the barbarism and becoming their aggressive agents they offer some nectar [i personally didn't like it anyway as I have said] laced in huge dose of poison. Since I am not shiva nor the proverbial swan, I refuse the drink. World doesn't loose its appeal if I keep aside the Abrahamic mysticism out of sight.

Yes, if a turkish darbesh comes and really denounces Islam first - we may benefit from the knowledge, but not before that.