PDA

View Full Version : Jesus; God-realised or Avatar?



Paris-Izi
09 June 2010, 10:25 AM
Namaste.

Was Jesus spiritually developed beyond that of God-realisation? Not to say that God-realisation isn't the ultimate level that we all should be aiming for or anything, but don't Christians refer to Jesus as literally being the incarnation of God on earth. My understanding that these two states are different from one another. What do people think about this?

Avazjan
10 June 2010, 04:00 AM
What people think about something like this usually isn't relevant to the truth. Who Jesus was, and what he was about, has been devoured by the passage of time. What Christianity identifies as his teachings today, and its account of his life, is woefully inaccurate.

For my part, I'll opine that Jesus fully realized God, and had incarnated specifically to fulfill that purpose, and was thus essentially an avatar.

This isn't very important to Hindus today because Jesus is not really known to people outside of Kashmir, and even there most of his legacy has been obliterated.

Some people come up with all sorts of elaborate classification schemes for avatars hinging on how 'direct' an avatar is, but I do not think that is necessary.

Eastern Mind
10 June 2010, 06:50 AM
Vannakkam:

This is like saying, do you want to die by gun or hanging? There are more than two choices.

I choose Jesus didn't exist, was created by someone's imagination. Something like Harry Potter. There just is no proof for the myth.

That is not to say this Abrahamic faith has a few decent followers.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
10 June 2010, 07:32 AM
Jesus is a delusion.

Kumar_Das
10 June 2010, 10:49 AM
I find Jesus as a waste of my time altogether and even though initially Hindus have had a sympathetic view of Christians e.g. Gandhiji and the Malayalees giving shelter to St.Thomas etc

I think the European colonization and the countless missionaries ever since then have spread so much of false propaganda to demonize Hinduism as they have throughout history of all "pagan" religions.

like how Vishnu is satanic for sleeping on a bed of snakes.:rolleyes:

The xtians failed miserably in India trying to work their trickery on how we need Christ to save our sinful souls.

They only ended up converting some untouchables and mainly the previously shamanist North East Indians.

Today their game is up, so they are playing their cards differently by saying Vishnu is the "Cosmic Christ" or that Jesus was a yogi or an advaitin and all sorts of nonsense.

My advise is, dont burden yourself with unnecessary baggage.

I used to date a chinese girl who was xtian and she was really into her religion. So I was curious and decided to find out all about xtianity.

So I decided to visit a church. I asked the people around there and they asked me to come for a meeting or something for a speech by the pastor.

And the pastor drew comparison with Hinduism by calling Hindus as "idolators" and saying how we are worshipping animals (at that time he flashed a picture of Lord Ganesha).

There was a xtian man whom I spoke to and he said that Hindus were worshipping false gods and he said satan has influenced them by pointing out the yali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yali_(Hindu_mythology) as a demoniac creature just because it has tusks and sharp teeth.:rolleyes:

It was really a torture for me just visiting a church and observing the xtian worship.

After awhile I was like screw this, and I decided to never ever go there back again.

This happened a long time ago, so the details are fuzzy.

I consider xtians to be trinitarian polytheists of the most nonsensical sort masquerading as monotheists and having the audacity to label everyone else as heretics/heathens/infidels/pagans.

They pick and choose their idol, a single one, one time one shot solution for everything, some randomn man nailed to a cross.

Just doesnt make sense to me, sorry.

The bible to me is intellectually deficient spiritual defecation compiled into a single book.

I'm just very sad for Westerners that their entire history has been overshadowed by this worthless steaming pile of crock. Had they been left to themselves they would have been far more advanced than what they already are.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of jesus.

The christian deity has got a multiple personality disorder, he is father in the heavens, son walking on earth and holy ghost that possesses you once in a while.

The muslim deity on the other hand is a jealous, short-tempered, self centered complex ridden joker.

abrahamic gods always make alot of noise with false promises, exaggerated claims and vicious threats but make little sense or logic.

If you ask me they need to have an appointment with a mental health practioner asap to sorts their issues out. We need them to come out clean once and for all.

They have caused more violence and ignorance than any other thing on the face of this planet.

Satan seems to be the good guy here by leading people away from these hysterical lunatics.

If there is a God who would create you, just so you would worship him and is fully responsible for the way everything turns out to be including even the unbelievers but would send you to burn in hell if you do not oblige to worshipping him.

It means this God created you, just to have you burn and suffer in the end. What a sadistic creature.

Alise
10 June 2010, 12:54 PM
Namaste,

As ex-Christian I must say, that right now I don't believe that Jesus existed. Even if there were Yeshuas around that time, none was like the one in the Bible. As bible was written after death of the Jesus there is a lot of mistakes, if it isn't a fairy tale (I didn't mean to use that word). There is no proof besides gospels, that Jesus the miracle man existed.
Basically when I left Christianity I said that there are many people in modern times who have these powers of healing & looking in future or so (I watched russian show where one woman called herself witch, this show was about testing powers with real skeptics, but she was finalist) but none of these people call themself God incarnations or sons/daughters of God. If they would, people would think they are really insane.

Search on Google 'Jesus didn't exist' and you will find a lot of information.

But on last note: I have nothing against Jesus Christ as person, but I strongly dislike Christianity.


Have a nice day,
~Alice

P.S. Please let me know, if I accidently break any rule of HDF.

yajvan
11 June 2010, 09:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Many have offered their opinions above and I respect your POV. I am not here to dis-prove any ones post but to offer my assessment that Jesus the Christ did in fact exist.

What do I base my assessment on? The test of time. Jesus remains a central figure in Christianity for 2000 years. Now do I think Jesus is the son of God - yes, but so are we all. I am all for any/all positive influence in our society. I do not have to dislike Jesus or Christianity to be more firm in sanātana dharma.

Christianity offers value for certain people at a point in their evolution to fullness ( brahman). I cannot fault them even if they fault me.
There is no doubt differences in this world - some we like, others not so much. But as one grows one begins to see the differences also come from the same place.
Like a tree, so many branches, and leafs, and bark and roots, yet they are all the expression of the sap. The sap becomes the flower, the smell, the bud, bark, branch, etc. All different expressions of the same sap that works behind the scenes. as does brahman , become all that is in this Universe, even Christians.

If for some reason Christians erk you in some way, consider this from the mahābhārata , śanti parvan:

What wonder is there that a person destitute of wisdom do many improper acts (act in a certain way out side of dharma) ; knowing this a person of real wisdom never gets angry with others when they become guilty of folly ....
praṇām

references
My additional views ( not to convince but to offer my POV): http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876)

atanu
11 June 2010, 11:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Many have offered their opinions above and I respect your POV. I am not here to dis-prove any ones post but to offer my assessment that Jesus the Christ did in fact exist.

What do I base my assessment on? The test of time. Jesus remains a central figure in Christianity for 2000 years. Now do I think Jesus is the son of God - yes, but so are we all. I am all for any/all positive influence in our society. I do not have to dislike Jesus or Christianity to be more firm in sanātana dharma.

Christianity offers value for certain people at a point in their evolution to fullness ( brahman). I cannot fault them even if they fault me.
There is no doubt differences in this world - some we like, others not so much. But as one grows one begins to see the differences also come from the same place.
Like a tree, so many branches, and leafs, and bark and roots, yet they are all the expression of the sap. The sap becomes the flower, the smell, the bud, bark, branch, etc. All different expressions of the same sap that works behind the scenes. as does brahman , become all that is in this Universe, even Christians.

If for some reason Christians erk you in some way, consider this from the mahābhārata , śanti parvan:

What wonder is there that a person destitute of wisdom do many improper acts (act in a certain way out side of dharma) ; knowing this a person of real wisdom never gets angry with others when they become guilty of folly ....
praṇām

references
My additional views ( not to convince but to offer my POV): http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876)


Pranam Yajvanji


The Self We Share
Rumi


Thirst is angry with water. Hunger bitter
with bread.

The cave wants nothing to do with the sun.


This is dumb, the self- defeating way
we've been.

A gold mine is calling us into its temple.
Instead, we bend and keep picking up rocks
from the ground.

Every thing has a shine like gold,
but we should turn to the source!

The origin is what we truly are. I add a little
vinegar to the honey I give.

The bite of scolding makes ecstasy more familiar.

But look, fish, you're already in the ocean:
just swimming there makes you friends with
glory.

What are these grudges about? You are Benjamin.
Joseph has put a gold cup in your grain sack and
accused you of being a thief.

Now he draws you aside and says,
"You are my brother. I

am a prayer. You're the amen."

We move in eternal regions, yet
worry about property here.

This is the prayer of each:

You are the source of my life.
You separate essence from mud.

You honor my soul. You bring rivers from the
mountain springs. You brighten my eyes.

The wine you offer takes me out of myself into
the self we share. Doing that is religion.

Om Namah Shivaya

Kumar_Das
12 June 2010, 12:53 AM
Yajvanji and Atanuji you have beautifully articulated the religion of the mlecchas who will do whatever it takes to demonize us by declaring themselves exclusively as true and the rest dim in darkness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3ElGdC2fU

Your acceptance of even the most coldhearted hatemongers towards us astounds me.

MahaHrada
12 June 2010, 04:49 AM
Your acceptance of even the most coldhearted hatemongers towards us astounds me.

Nothing astonishing about that. The demarcations between Hinduism Islam and Christianity become more and more blurred. This is very dangerous for the future of mankind, not only of India. Imagine the damage should Hinduism really decide to become an ally of the desert dogmas. In the future a distorted narrow minded monotheistic Hinduism could combine forces with an islamic anti capitalistic communism or socialism and orthodox christianity, into an union against the atheistic liberal west, such an interfaith alliance between some Hindus, Christians, Muslims and even buddhists , is already shaping up because some extremists in all these religions already share certain oppressive narrow minded so called "moral" or religious concepts. The uprise of a common "divine" sharia law would cause the downfall of our freedom, ethics and humanism and could usher in a global conflict and a new dark age worldwide.

"Monotheistic Hinduism" is a great danger, that should not be underestimated. Hindus must stay liberal, open minded and respect diversity, and a Hindu should never bow or even acknowledge the existance of an universal divine law of a judgemental monotheistic God aspiring to extend some sort of governmental dominion over society, like the "sharia law" concept, but stick to Yamas and Niyamas only according to desha, kala and adhikari.

An apt title of that variety of modern Hinduism that beliefs all path lead to the same goal and there is only one "God" would be "Monotheistic Hinduism"

The belief in a superior single "God" both imaginend to be a benign father and stern judge in one person, that has created the world and humans and still organises and oversees it watching over every individuals sins and virtues punishing and rewarding him according to whether he strictly adheres to a divine, egalitarian and universal law, is the basic superstition that is needed to erect the whole superstructure of an oppressive religious, political and societal system.

I like to refer you to my posting in another thread where i already expressed my growing impatience with this evil masquerading as good.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=45512&postcount=45

jaggin
12 June 2010, 07:17 AM
Namaste.

Was Jesus spiritually developed beyond that of God-realisation? Not to say that God-realisation isn't the ultimate level that we all should be aiming for or anything, but don't Christians refer to Jesus as literally being the incarnation of God on earth. My understanding that these two states are different from one another. What do people think about this?

Jesus definitely described Himself as an incarnation of God. He has the Word of God in His mouth, miracles and prophecy fulfilled to back up His claim. And foremost He has the resurrection of Himself which appears to be unique since all other resurrections are of other people.

yajvan
12 June 2010, 10:15 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Yajvanji and Atanuji you have beautifully articulated the religion of the mlecchas who will do whatever it takes to demonize us by declaring themselves exclusively as true and the rest dim in darkness.

I do not see from your eyes so I cannot comment on what have said. I do not feel demonized or threatened at all. My faith/beliefs (śraddha) and intent is not diminished by another's POV or religion. How are you feeling this so I can understand your POV?

I wrote

I cannot fault them even if they fault me. If I do, I take on their sins - so say the wise.


There's no doubt differences in the world's religions. Yet in the end, it is how people comprehend and act on their religion that is at issue ( as I see it). Then we have a whole different conversation at hand.

praṇām

atanu
12 June 2010, 11:51 AM
Yajvanji and Atanuji you have beautifully articulated the religion of the mlecchas who will do whatever it takes to demonize us by declaring themselves exclusively as true and the rest dim in darkness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3ElGdC2fU

Your acceptance of even the most coldhearted hatemongers towards us astounds me.

Namaste dear Kumar_Das

Does not exclusivity see exclusivity? For the inclusive there is only "All is Shiva".

One can take side of Day thinking that Night is cruel who kills Day. Another can take side of Night believing that Day is cruel who kills Night. Another, who is intent on Moksha will see Time alone incarnating as Day and Night.

To me, the main question is the aim and the purpose of this existence. Whether one wishes to incarnate and take up and switch sides every birth or whether one wants moksha? Because warring exclusive groups have been eternal and will be so whether one bemoans it or not.

But, friend, the above is my view alone. I do not have any problem with your view also.

By the way, mleccha does not mean anything evil. mleccha indicates one who is ignorant of Sanskrit. I am a mleccha by this understanding.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Riverwolf
12 June 2010, 12:41 PM
One can take side of Day thinking that Night is cruel who kills Day. Another can take side of Night believing that Day is cruel who kills Night. Another, who is intent on Moksha will see Time alone incarnating as Day and Night.


Wise words, indeed.

One thing I'm seeing here is a direct association of Jesus with his fundamentalist followers, who actually only make up a minority of Christianity. The condemnation I'm seeing of Jesus and Christianity here is likely identical to a condemnation of Hinduism that some Christians are partaking in on a forum of their own. In their minds, we're serving Satan and his demons. I was never a huge fan of parochialism.

I see them as worshiping God in another way, with Jesus as their Ishtadeva. I consider Jesus to be an avatar.

Paris-Izi
12 June 2010, 12:56 PM
Namaste First, thank you everyone for the large response to this question. If I may suggest that for a moment we disregard the importance of whether in actual fact Jesus existed or not, for the purpose of inquiry (i.e. let us assume that the Bible is indeed factual). Then assuming this, what image does the Bible actually conjure of Jesus? A relevant question I feel, is if there is anywhere in the Bible where Jesus himself states that the only way to God is through him. Is Jesus written as having said this? I believe that if Jesus is God-realized, then he would not say that the only way to God is through him, although he may say that one way to God is through him.

Riverwolf
12 June 2010, 10:43 PM
Namaste First, thank you everyone for the large response to this question. If I may suggest that for a moment we disregard the importance of whether in actual fact Jesus existed or not, for the purpose of inquiry (i.e. let us assume that the Bible is indeed factual). Then assuming this, what image does the Bible actually conjure of Jesus? A relevant question I feel, is if there is anywhere in the Bible where Jesus himself states that the only way to God is through him. Is Jesus written as having said this? I believe that if Jesus is God-realized, then he would not say that the only way to God is through him, although he may say that one way to God is through him.

John 14:6-7 (NJB):
"I am the Way; I am Truth and Life.
No one can come to the Father except through me.
If you know me, you will know my Father too.
From this moment you know him and have seen him."

It should be remembered that there are four different accounts in the canonical New Testament of Jesus's life and teachings, each painting a different picture of him. Three of them paint roughly the same picture (Matthew, Mark, and Luke: the so-called "synoptic gospels"), with the fourth, the Gospel of John, painting a more metaphysical and mystical picture of Jesus. (I've heard that John's gospel was almost not included in the canon.)

Not to mention, there's all the non-canonical gospels and accounts.

Taken together, all the gospels contradict each other on several details.

It should also be remembered that the gospels were written decades after Jesus's supposed death, which doesn't do well for the writers' memories. It's pretty much certain that there are several details that aren't 100% accurate to what Jesus taught. It's possible that Jesus said something to the effect of: "I am showing the way to the Father," and "John" (the names associated with the gospels were added later; the actual writers were anonymous) remembered it as, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

Now, John's Gospel is primarily the one that paints Jesus as an avatar; it's the only one as far as I know where Jesus actually claims equality with God.

John 10:30:
"The Father and I are one."

However, the other gospels paint Jesus more as God-realized:

Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19:
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

TatTvamAsi
13 June 2010, 12:53 PM
jesus was a charlatan par excellence. his visit to India during the ages of 12 and 29 is deliberately hidden by these christians...

he learnt yoga under the Hindu/Buddhist gurus and even travelled up to Puri Jagannath in Orissa.

Of course, a lot of people say he never existed. Perhaps that is true. If he did exist, however, he certainly learnt philosophy in India. Of that, there is no doubt.

It's funny how some of our members conveniently don't mention that. :rolleyes:

And, the proof that he was no saint is that he didn't foresee the chaos, murder, and confusion his followers would commit in his name. No person who is the cause of such destruction can ever be termed a "saint". No Hindu saint was the reason for pogroms in the name of religion like christianity and islam are. That is most certainly why christians and muslims are subhuman asuras.

TatTvamAsi
13 June 2010, 01:17 PM
I do not feel demonized or threatened at all. My faith/beliefs (śraddha) and intent is not diminished by another's POV or religion. How are you feeling this so I can understand your POV?

Namaste Yajvan,

With due respect, you have never been at the receiving end of these asuras' conversion tactics or denigrations. Thus, you are not qualified to make such statements. I know you say "you" do not feel demonized, but that is because you are a westerner. You are not an Indian in India being tricked, coerced, and attacked by these scum.

Using our Hindu philosophy to give credence to these vermin is dangerous for us Indians/Hindus. Yes, their nonsensical belief in a charlatan corpse and/or a pedophile murderer (muhammad) has no bearing on our philosophy. However, when they use force and/or subterfuge to undermine our way of life, we have every right to be assertive and retaliate to protect ourselves.

christianity, islam, and judaism have been at the forefront of destruction, mayhem, genocide for the past 3000+ years. There is not a SINGLE IOTA of true philosophy in their "religions" that is of benefit to anyone, let alone Hindus. If any such "pearls of wisdom" can be found in them, they are found in Hindu philosophy which predates them by thousands of years. Thus, these abrahamic faiths are absolutely useless and are quite dangerous to the peace and stability of the world at large.

The onset of these abrahamic cults in India has seen nothing but conflict with us Hindus. Despite their trickery, violence, both physically and culturally, Hinduism is the beacon of spirituality and thus shines iridescently. Why? Because it is the TRUTH. It is Sanatana Dharma.

If you read a little history about India, you will understand what terrible calamities have befallen Hindus at the hands of these christians & muslims, and now, jewish "authors" who claim to be experts on Hinduism who attack us with the pen.

When Portugal took over present-day Goa, they destroyed EVERY TEMPLE there. Demolished to smithereens and built churches on top of them. Every Brahmin priest was hanged on the beaches. Goa is almost entirely christian now. Do you know what Goa is popular for now? Tourism - a euphemism for foreigners to indulge in drugs, prostitution, and pedophilia. Hindu temples are routinely vandalized there (some where rebuilt after the portugese bastards were kicked out by the Indian Army).

With islam, I don't even need to describe the damage they have caused world over; especially in India.

As Hindus, we must maintain the fact that jesus, if he ever existed, if of ZERO IMPORTANCE and is as significant as a housefly. If you think otherwise, you are opening the door for conversions and other forms of violence. Thinking that he was an important figure and was a saint is the opening these vermin need to begin converting Hindus who are less fortunate in run-of-the-mill education and wealth. And, jesus learnt from Hindus/Buddhists in India! That is all anyone needs to know about him.

Sathya Sai Baba doesn't claim he came up with his ideas on his own; he is a Hindu. He recognizes the roots. jesus learnt under the Hindus and then pondered them off as his own thoughts. That is the hallmark of a fraud. And people, Hindus themselves I should add, don't question that and instead denigrate saints like Sai Baba. LOL! The irony!

christianity = islam = judaism = absolute garbage.

Any philosophy that says, "I (believer) am saved while others are doomed" is unadulterated trash.

That is proof.

Namaskar.

yajvan
13 June 2010, 02:55 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TTA,
you offer the following:


his visit to India during the ages of 12 and 29 is deliberately hidden by these christians...
Can you point me to some authorative śāstra-s that offers this ? I do not disagree, yet I have not seen any credible information on this matter.

You mention the following

No person who is the cause of such destruction can ever be termed a "saint".This is a matter of perspective and scale as I see it:
The son of dharma (yudhiṣṭhira) orchestrated a war that brought death to millions in 18 days:

the pāṇḍva army lost 7 akśauhini-s¹
the kaurava army lost 11 akśauhini-s
Total 18 akśauhini-s lost ; total kṣatriya deaths at ~ 3.54 million in 18 daysMany bad things occur on this earth , sometimes they are promulgated by right action and what must be done, sometimes
not. I am in hopes your view is the times when it is done for all the wrong reasons and little good comes from it.


Another view I have ( my personal perspective only ) :
Perhaps 'no person' can cause such destruction and be considered a saint , yet Śivabhaṭṭāraka¹ not only destroys but anniolates this entire creation into Himself and many of us bow at His feet. We (I) take no issue with His ability for devistation And He is is the home of all saintly pursuits.

praṇām

words

1 akśauhini = 21,870 chariots ; 21,870 elephants; 65,610 horse-mounted warriors and 109,350 infantry, as per the mahābhārata;
the udyoga parvan calls out the number of akśauhini for each army. This word udyoga means the act of undertaking anything , exertion , perseverance , strenuous and continuous endeavour
Śiva-bhaṭṭāraka - bhaṭṭāra - the great lord , venerable or worshipful; bhaṭभट्- nourish , maintain

saidevo
13 June 2010, 10:42 PM
namaste everyone.

There is a proverb in Tamil that says "one leg in the river water and one on the shore". I can understand that traces of the influence of Jesus and Christianity still linger in the minds of the Western Hindus here, especially when they are yet to understand the dimensions and practices of Hinduism. So more often than not, they take us into a discussion on Jesus and his teachings, which are at best redundant and inadequate for us Hindus.

My personal take is that Jesus Christ has no historical existence, and that the Bible has no message that is worthwhile for Hindus.

• I am surprised that Yajvan puts the blame of the MahAbhArata war on YudhiShthira by saying that he "orchestrated a war that brought death to millions in 18 days", ignoring the fact that the war was fought at the behest of shrI KRShNa.

YudhiShthira is identified as the son of Yama DharmarAjA in the MahAbhArata, but it was the avatar of KRShNa that was responsible for the restoration of dharma by the MahAbhArata war. YudhiShthira, if at all, was only used as a tool, being the eldest of the PANDavas.

• Even if for argument sake, YudhiShthira "orchestrated" the War, he never professed himself to be a saint or an avatar unlike Jesus, so there is no comparison here.

• There is no teaching in Hinduism that reviles other faiths, whereas it is the teachings of Jesus in the Bible that are responsible for the Christian aggression and crusades, so Jesus is responsible for the adharma that mankind had and still has to suffer in the name of Christianity.

• Unless and until the doctrines of Christianity and Islam are revised to repudiate conversion and openly declare their intention of peaceful co-existence with Hinduism and other religions, and then demonstrate it in practice, Hindus should denounce the teachings of exclusivity in these religions and weigh it against anything good in their scriptures. If they don't do it, but instead succumb to their professed monotheism by diluting traditional Hinduism, Hindus and Hinduism will be in great danger, as MahaHrada rightly points out.

• The concept of monotheism in Christianity amounts to nothing, as most Christians consider only Jesus to be God, elevating him above the status of a son. Further, when there is a son to God, who is also God, and still stays as such in the Heavens after his ascension, how can there be monotheism and a single God? And then there is the Holy Ghost!

• As a religion, I find Christianity to have no self-respect, when in the name of 'inculturation' they seek to absorb the 'pagan' ways of worship, when Jesus in Bible sought for their elimination. Their only aim is, as Satay would rightly put it, market the brand name of Jesus by hook and by crook. Some links:

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Wolf in sheep's clothing
http://hvk.org/articles/0709/16.html

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Christian Priests Uncloaked!
http://hamsa.org/ashram.htm

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Sannyasins or Swindlers?
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=8810&SKIN=C

• Kumar_Das seems to think that St.Thomas visited India. I suggest that he take a look at this Website that disproves it: http://hamsa.org/ You can also find a book citing evidences against the historical existence of Jesus: http://hamsa.org/artifice-intro.htm

*****

I would request our Western Hindus to read deeper into the teachings, concepts and philosophy of Hinduism and decide for themselves if they are relevant to them vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, instead of wasting our time here in fruitless discussions of comparison. There is no point in becoming a Hindu if you people are not convinced about the need to let go your earlier Christian affiliations. As for our native Hindus who seek to raise the issue, there is no need at all to go into the teachings of Abrahamic religions to learn about anything which is not in Hinduism.

atanu
13 June 2010, 11:34 PM
Namaste First, thank you everyone for the large response to this question. If I may suggest that for a moment we disregard the importance of whether in actual fact Jesus existed or not, for the purpose of inquiry (i.e. let us assume that the Bible is indeed factual). Then assuming this, what image does the Bible actually conjure of Jesus? A relevant question I feel, is if there is anywhere in the Bible where Jesus himself states that the only way to God is through him. Is Jesus written as having said this? I believe that if Jesus is God-realized, then he would not say that the only way to God is through him, although he may say that one way to God is through him.

Namaste All,

Personally I do not see fault in Jesus or His manifestation.

"I am the way" is understood as per one's view. Most christians cannot see beyond the physical body and hence they associate "I am the way" with the physical frame of the so-called physical man called Jesus and foolishly think that the way could be known only after birth of Jesus.

One may remind christians:

Whether there was No way before Jesus appeared?
If no one else knew or knows about the way, why then it was the wise men of East who declared Jesus's coming to the west? How did they know that Jesus was going to show a way?
Why Jesus manifested among brutal animals who were not civilized and who murdered Jesus?
Did not Jesus know that He would be sacrificed?I think that the west needed Jesus. Further being dominantly rajasic, christians, in general, have not assimilated the key teachings but have taken up Jesus as a weapon against those who announced Jesus's coming to them.

The preachers forget two key teachings of Jesus:

An ignorant teacher is not helpful but is dangerous
One must remove the blindness from one's own eyes before attempting to teach others.But, I feel, that does not absolve us Hindus of our duty to remain loving as per our own dharma. I see Yajvan ji's post as full of wisdom.

On the other hand, as God's name in these western religions is "I am", which is same as "Om", "I am the way" is probably not different from "Om is the way".

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 June 2010, 12:01 AM
Namaste TTA,

I agree fully that people representing christianity, islam, and judaism have been at the forefront of destruction, mayhem, genocide for the past 3000+ years. But this was and is true despite the religion.


jesus was a charlatan par excellence. his visit to India during the ages of 12 and 29 is deliberately hidden by these christians...

If christians today or in past kept this hidden then how does Jesus become a charlatan?


he learnt yoga under the Hindu/Buddhist gurus and even travelled up to Puri Jagannath in Orissa.

Of course, a lot of people say he never existed. Perhaps that is true. If he did exist, however, he certainly learnt philosophy in India. Of that, there is no doubt.

Actually I think, these emotional assertions which cannot be proven or which are logically contradicting, defeat us at the outset. I agree that this is an emotional issue arising out of crusading spirit of christians but I think that we need more calmness.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
14 June 2010, 02:51 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



• I am surprised that Yajvan puts the blame of the MahAbhArata war on YudhiShthira by saying that he "orchestrated a war that brought death to millions in 18 days", ignoring the fact that the war was fought at the behest of shrI KRShNa.

YudhiShthira is identified as the son of Yama DharmarAjA in the MahAbhArata, but it was the avatar of KRShNa that was responsible for the restoration of dharma by the MahAbhArata war. YudhiShthira, if at all, was only used as a tool, being the eldest of the PANDavas.

• Even if for argument sake, YudhiShthira "orchestrated" the War, he never professed himself to be a saint or an avatar unlike Jesus, so there is no comparison here.

What you say in part is true saidevo. I have read my post again to see how you arrive at this word 'blame'. Orchestrated was used to suggest planning, action and directions.Yudhiṣṭhira-ji¹ was the king, upon his orders others acted. Orchestrated = responsible in my application of the post and not shying away from duty.


'Blame' was not nor is my intent of the post. Nor do I see any word I offered that suggested that yudhiṣṭhira called himself a saint. He is doing what needs to be done. He is assisted by Kṛṣṇa , of this there is no doubt. So what is my point that I was trying to offer? Right action may be above 'good and bad' . In that right action there may be death that occurs. If we judge only on this outcome of death, we will miss the point.


praṇām

1. I have the highest respect for yudhiṣṭhira-ji. I hope I may arrive a 1/100th of his virtue. I also encourage all to read the śanti parvan of the mahābhārata to listen to yudhiṣṭhira's lament over the war that incurred. He did not take his responsibilities and decisions lightly.

yajvan
14 June 2010, 04:56 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté atanu


Namaste All,
"I am the way" is understood as per one's view. Most christians cannot see beyond the physical body and hence they associate "I am the way" with the physical frame of the so-called physical man called Jesus and foolishly think that the way could be known only after birth of Jesus.

One may remind christians:

Whether there was No way before Jesus appeared?
If no one else knew or knows about the way, why then it was the wise men of East who declared Jesus's coming to the west? How did they know that Jesus was going to show a way?
Why Jesus manifested among brutal animals who were not civilized and who murdered Jesus?
Did not Jesus know that He would be sacrificed?brilliant.

praṇām

yajvan
14 June 2010, 05:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TTA (et.al)


Namaste Yajvan,

With due respect, you have never been at the receiving end of these asuras' conversion tactics or denigrations. Thus, you are not qualified to make such statements. I know you say "you" do not feel demonized, but that is because you are a westerner. Namaskar.

What you say is true... I am from the West. What I wished you would have also quoted from my post would have been germane to the conversation:

I do not see from your eyes so I cannot comment on what you have said This I mentioned to kumar_das and offered I have not walked in his shoes.

No matter if from the east, west, south or north, the truth is this - we all hail from the same Grandsire. If one wishes to track their roots all the way back to the origin one will arrive at their roots:

dakṣa ( also known as kaśyapa) , marīci , atri , aṅgiras , pulaha , kratu , pulastya , vasiṣṭha are given as the names of the ṛṣi's of the first manvantara and we know then as prajāpati-s.
Some say gotama , bharadvāja , viśvā-mitra , jamadagni , vasiṣṭha , kaśyapa , and atri , and they too are called prajāpati-s.And from where did these prajāpati-s (lords of all creation on every level) come from? The Self-Born. This Being of Fullness (bhūman) is the Grandsire of all.
For many coming from, and being aligned to, one of the 10 directions is of great import. For me, less so, but I respect one's pride of place.

In this life I arrived in the West, next life perhaps South, and after that I do not know. I am most fortunate to get a human life.
Ādi Śaṅkara-ji¹ tells us the following:
For all things subject to birth, birth in a human body is rare. Even rarer to obtain are strength of the body and mind. Rarer still is purity. More difficult ( rarer) then these is the desire to live a spiritual life. Rarest of all is to have an understanding of the scriptures. As for the discrimination between Self and not-Self or Self-realization, continuious union with brahman, final and complete liberation are not to be obtained without meritorious deeds done in a hundread-billion well lived lives.

praṇām

1. vivekacūḍāmaṇi or the Crown jewel of Discrimination ( some say crest jewel) - 2nd śloka

TatTvamAsi
14 June 2010, 05:54 PM
Namaste Yajvan,



Can you point me to some authorative [/SIZE][/FONT]śāstra-s that offers this ? I do not disagree, yet I have not seen any credible information on this matter.

There are several authoritative works describing jesus' expedition to India during his so-called 'lost years'.

The most widely-respected source is the book by Holger Kersten named Jesus Lived in India.

Another book written by Elizabeth Clare Prophet called The Lost Years of Jesus:... describes Buddhist manuscripts in various monasteries that have evidence to support the fact that jesus did visit them and stayed there.

I am sure you have also heard of Nicolas Notovitch who traveled to India, Nepal, and Tibet and saw several manuscripts in person describing "issa". Of course, fundamentalist christians will say these are "not true" without ever researching them and the church has millions of brain-dead zombies working for them along with billions of dollars so they can keep these facts suppressed. However, since this is the truth, it is slowly but surely coming out.

Here is another article written on the subject: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060704171641AAnMUOs

I know it is a "yahoo question" but the person has written it with great detail and temperament so it is worth reading.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this jewish son of a carpenter jesus, learnt Hinduism under the Brahmins and went back to the middle east when he was 30 and started preaching.

Let me pose the question to you: Where do you think jesus was during the age of 13-29?? The bible is woefully lacking with that information (as well as everything else, but that is for another thread).



The son of dharma (yudhiṣṭhira) orchestrated a war that brought death to millions in 18 days:

You must truly be joking! Comparing the KuruSetrA war to the genocide that christians have committed across the globe is preposterous. How can you even put this on the same plane?

Have you heard of the term "dharmaYuDhA"? The KuruSetrA war was about quelling negative forces that otherwise would have brought the entire planet into ruin. War in and of itself is NOT adharmic. That is why the term dharmaYuDhA exists. Hindus engaged in war ONLY to quell evil; when their survival was threatened.

Are you going to say that because Krishna didn't stop the war from happening and therefore was the cause of millions of people's death He was a warmonger? That fat jew Wendy Doniger says that! And she's considered a "scholar" on Hinduism. :rolleyes:

The christians, who are excellent at playing victim, persecuted, executed, murdered, raped, pillaged, and destroyed every civilization they touched; not much unlike muslims. Their wars were brought about due to expansionist fervor, religious zealotry, and plain old bigotry. The druids of England were burnt at the stake. Scientists and philosophers were burnt at the stake because of christianity.

If the icon of such an ideology, jesus, did not foresee such destruction under his name, he is most definitely NOT a saint. This is also why muhammad is NOT a saint. If they could not tell that their followers would become so demonic in action, what kind of a saint is that? Even a snake-charmer in India, who may get the attention of five-year-olds, cannot claim such fame.

And someone who was dishonest like jesus, who didn't say that he traveled to India and learned under the gurus there, is full of deceit. It is Kali Yuga after all so it is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that so many Hindus in India claim that jesus was a saint when it is patently false. I'm afraid it's this overly accommodative attitude of Hindus that brings about their misery.

Back to the topic of warfare; India, that is Bharat, was filled with wars were dharma was hanging in a balance and the Supreme had to step in, so to speak, to restore balance. One cannot misconstrue that to mean "God goaded war" or some such nonsense.

Comparing a dharmic war, where adharmic forces were vanquished, to adharmic conquest/murder/genocide and the annihilation of age-old cultures and peoples around the world that was brought about by christianity and islam is downright erroneous and insulting to Hindus.

It is very disheartening to see someone so into Hinduism draw such absurd parallels.

Namaskar.

TatTvamAsi
14 June 2010, 05:59 PM
I would request our Western Hindus to read deeper into the teachings, concepts and philosophy of Hinduism and decide for themselves if they are relevant to them vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, instead of wasting our time here in fruitless discussions of comparison. There is no point in becoming a Hindu if you people are not convinced about the need to let go your earlier Christian affiliations. As for our native Hindus who seek to raise the issue, there is no need at all to go into the teachings of Abrahamic religions to learn about anything which is not in Hinduism.

Namaste Saidevo,

This is the most brilliant post on HDF bar none!

Satay, please make this a sticky and let every new member on HDF read this.

Absolutely brilliantly stated.

Namaskar.

TatTvamAsi
14 June 2010, 06:11 PM
Namaste Yajvan,



hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TTA (et.al)



What you say is true... I am from the West. What I wished you would have also quoted from my post would have been germane to the conversation:
This I mentioned to kumar_das and offered I have not walked in his shoes.

No matter if from the east, west, south or north, the truth is this - we all hail from the same Grandsire. If one wishes to track their roots all the way back to the origin one will arrive at their roots:

dakṣa ( also known as kaśyapa) , marīci , atri , aṅgiras , pulaha , kratu , pulastya , vasiṣṭha are given as the names of the ṛṣi's of the first manvantara and we know then as prajāpati-s.
Some say gotama , bharadvāja , viśvā-mitra , jamadagni , vasiṣṭha , kaśyapa , and atri , and they too are called prajāpati-s.And from where did these prajāpati-s (lords of all creation on every level) come from? The Self-Born. This Being of Fullness (bhūman) is the Grandsire of all.
For many coming from, and being aligned to, one of the 10 directions is of great import. For me, less so, but I respect one's pride of place.

In this life I arrived in the West, next life perhaps South, and after that I do not know. I am most fortunate to get a human life.
Ādi Śaṅkara-ji¹ tells us the following:
For all things subject to birth, birth in a human body is rare. Even rarer to obtain are strength of the body and mind. Rarer still is purity. More difficult ( rarer) then these is the desire to live a spiritual life. Rarest of all is to have an understanding of the scriptures. As for the discrimination between Self and not-Self or Self-realization, continuious union with brahman, final and complete liberation are not to be obtained without meritorious deeds done in a hundread-billion well lived lives.

praṇām

1. vivekacūḍāmaṇi or the Crown jewel of Discrimination ( some say crest jewel) - 2nd śloka

That philosophy is great and it is Hindu philosophy.

It is a bit disingenuous to use it against Hindus themselves.

Until christians, muslims, communists give up their rotten ideologies of conversion, deceit, and violence, we Hindus have every right to not only protect ourselves, but to crush them in any possible manner with everything we have.

It is extremely puerile for non-native Hindus to dictate how we should act or what we Hindus should do.

Namaskar.

yajvan
14 June 2010, 06:17 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TTA

Namaste Yajvan,

Let me pose the question to you: Where do you think jesus was during the age of 13-29?? The bible is woefully lacking with that information (as well as everything else, but that is for another thread).

You must truly be joking! Comparing the KuruSetrA war to the genocide that christians have committed across the globe is preposterous. How can you even put this on the same plane?

Have you heard of the term "dharmaYuDhA"? The KuruSetrA war was about quelling negative forces that otherwise would have brought the entire planet into ruin. War in and of itself is NOT adharmic.

I do not know where Jesus might have been, yet this does not keep me up at night , nor does it give me a thorn in my side.


On point two - you have gotten the point correctly ( I am impressed) on kurukṣetra. This point that you say superbly is war in and of itself may just be needed. That has been my point. Millions died yes? But in the scheme of things that was right action for the right time.


praṇām

TatTvamAsi
14 June 2010, 06:19 PM
Namaste Atanu,



If christians today or in past kept this hidden then how does Jesus become a charlatan?

jesus was a charlatan because he learned under the gurus in India, stayed there for 18 years and went to the middle east and preached to the ignorant masses as if they were his own ideas. He gave no credit, much unlike our western "yogis" around the world today. Without India, jesus is nothing. In fact, he is nothing no matter what but even to christians, he would not have been able to learn the philosophy and practice sAdhanA in order to gain siddhis (apparently he had a few).

He also went back to India after the crucifixion and lied about that as well.

It's just a big hoax. If the truth about him were to surface, christianity is history.



Actually I think, these emotional assertions which cannot be proven or which are logically contradicting, defeat us at the outset. I agree that this is an emotional issue arising out of crusading spirit of christians but I think that we need more calmness.

Om Namah Shivaya

I agree with you philosophically but unfortunately, I am not sure if such "calmness" would work with asuras. Even Krishna Himself couldn't be "calm" and defeat the Kauravas.

Namaskar.

yajvan
14 June 2010, 06:31 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste Yajvan,

That philosophy is great and it is Hindu philosophy.

It is a bit disingenuous to use it against Hindus themselves.

Until christians, muslims, communists give up their rotten ideologies of conversion, deceit, and violence, we Hindus have every right to not only protect ourselves, but to crush them in any possible manner with everything we have.

It is extremely puerile for non-native Hindus to dictate how we should act or what we Hindus should do.

Namaskar.

I do not see your point... I see nothing be used 'against' anyone , yet you see it as so.

I also do not see any one nation, religion or birth-right that can corner the market on truth as if to take ownership; as if truth can be contained based upon the soil one is born from. This is folly.

It has been the great fortune and responsibility of Bharat to foster and garner this truth (satyaṁ) over time. For this we owe our respect and gratitude.

praṇām

Shanti
14 June 2010, 07:37 PM
namaste everyone.

There is a proverb in Tamil that says "one leg in the river water and one on the shore". I can understand that traces of the influence of Jesus and Christianity still linger in the minds of the Western Hindus here, especially when they are yet to understand the dimensions and practices of Hinduism. So more often than not, they take us into a discussion on Jesus and his teachings, which are at best redundant and inadequate for us Hindus.

My personal take is that Jesus Christ has no historical existence, and that the Bible has no message that is worthwhile for Hindus.

• I am surprised that Yajvan puts the blame of the MahAbhArata war on YudhiShthira by saying that he "orchestrated a war that brought death to millions in 18 days", ignoring the fact that the war was fought at the behest of shrI KRShNa.

YudhiShthira is identified as the son of Yama DharmarAjA in the MahAbhArata, but it was the avatar of KRShNa that was responsible for the restoration of dharma by the MahAbhArata war. YudhiShthira, if at all, was only used as a tool, being the eldest of the PANDavas.

• Even if for argument sake, YudhiShthira "orchestrated" the War, he never professed himself to be a saint or an avatar unlike Jesus, so there is no comparison here.

• There is no teaching in Hinduism that reviles other faiths, whereas it is the teachings of Jesus in the Bible that are responsible for the Christian aggression and crusades, so Jesus is responsible for the adharma that mankind had and still has to suffer in the name of Christianity.

• Unless and until the doctrines of Christianity and Islam are revised to repudiate conversion and openly declare their intention of peaceful co-existence with Hinduism and other religions, and then demonstrate it in practice, Hindus should denounce the teachings of exclusivity in these religions and weigh it against anything good in their scriptures. If they don't do it, but instead succumb to their professed monotheism by diluting traditional Hinduism, Hindus and Hinduism will be in great danger, as MahaHrada rightly points out.

• The concept of monotheism in Christianity amounts to nothing, as most Christians consider only Jesus to be God, elevating him above the status of a son. Further, when there is a son to God, who is also God, and still stays as such in the Heavens after his ascension, how can there be monotheism and a single God? And then there is the Holy Ghost!

• As a religion, I find Christianity to have no self-respect, when in the name of 'inculturation' they seek to absorb the 'pagan' ways of worship, when Jesus in Bible sought for their elimination. Their only aim is, as Satay would rightly put it, market the brand name of Jesus by hook and by crook. Some links:

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Wolf in sheep's clothing
http://hvk.org/articles/0709/16.html

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Christian Priests Uncloaked!
http://hamsa.org/ashram.htm

Atma Jyoti Ashram: Sannyasins or Swindlers?
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=8810&SKIN=C

• Kumar_Das seems to think that St.Thomas visited India. I suggest that he take a look at this Website that disproves it: http://hamsa.org/ You can also find a book citing evidences against the historical existence of Jesus: http://hamsa.org/artifice-intro.htm

*****

I would request our Western Hindus to read deeper into the teachings, concepts and philosophy of Hinduism and decide for themselves if they are relevant to them vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, instead of wasting our time here in fruitless discussions of comparison. There is no point in becoming a Hindu if you people are not convinced about the need to let go your earlier Christian affiliations. As for our native Hindus who seek to raise the issue, there is no need at all to go into the teachings of Abrahamic religions to learn about anything which is not in Hinduism.

Great post!

The only thing I would say I don't 100% agree with is learning at least a little bit of the tenets of Abrahamic religions and their conversion tactics.

I homeschool my kids and as most people know, there is a large majority of fundamental christians in the homeschooling circles. They have TONS of their own curriculum that taints factual science and history with their own "christian worldview". They have their faith in every subject across the board. There are a growing number of secular homeschoolers, but there are fewer curriculums to choose from and I have seen personally, how these poor people have been 'swayed to the dark side' by using these christian curriculums.

These curriculums indoctrinate children and their parents with their so-called logic and discovery of 'fallacies'.

Look closely at number 5 Here (http://www.sonlight.com/written-goals.html)

a little more of their goals (http://www.sonlight.com/thatbook.html)-http://www.sonlight.com/thatbook.htmlhttp://www.sonlight.com/thatbook.html

This is only one and not even a strongly fundamentalist one. There are many secular homeschoolers that use this curric since it is considered to be one of the least offensive/religious.:eek:

My point is, we need to be aware of their tactics and the quotes they pull from their scriptures. I can already say with complete confidence that I know my kids will someday come across someone that will try to convert them (we live in the bible belt). They most definitely need to know how to defend their beliefs, their religion. There will surely be times when they can't just walk away, kids tend to hang out in groups.

By allowing christians to even get a foot into our religion, they see it as an open door to come on in and destroy. Forget about thinking Jesus was an avatar, or in any way related to Sanatana Dharma. As we can see from the wake of his aftermath, he was obviously not sent down here to preserve dharma.

saidevo
14 June 2010, 10:32 PM
namaste Shanti.

I totally agree with you that we Hindus and our children should be knowledgeable or at least have some idea about the offensive teachings in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, specially Christianity, in order to arm us with such knowledge to defend our dharma.

• My only suggestion for us native Hindus is that such study of foreign religions should be undertaken only after our children are sufficiently exposed to the concepts and teachings of Hinduism.

• Thank you for giving the information about the homeschool system. From the links you have provided it looks sickeningly evangelical; I wonder why a Hindu child need to join such a system or why we Hindus with our population of one million in the US, have not started our own gurukula system.

• Since the Internet connectivity facilities must be far better in the US than in India, and the entire the Hindu diaspora use them, why can't somebody take the initiative to start a gurukulam--homeschool system for Hindu kids wherein the character-building is according to the teachings of the Hindu Dharma? Let us also teach the Western science and humanities in the curriculam without any religious taint. Is there any Governmental stipulation against it?

Yes, I completely agree that when the Evangelical Wolf is at the home/school door in the absence of parents, our kids (pun intended) should not fall victims to its wiles and guise, and get eaten up.

atanu
14 June 2010, 11:48 PM
Namaste Atanu,
jesus was a charlatan because he learned under the gurus in India, stayed there for 18 years and went to the middle east and preached to the ignorant masses as if they were his own ideas. He gave no credit, much unlike our western "yogis" around the world today. Without India, jesus is nothing. In fact, he is nothing no matter what but even to christians, he would not have been able to learn the philosophy and practice sAdhanA in order to gain siddhis (apparently he had a few).

He also went back to India after the crucifixion and lied about that as well.

It's just a big hoax. If the truth about him were to surface, christianity is history.

Namaste TTA

Well. If you assert that Jesus was a charlatan based on some hypothesis of few people, then i have nothing to say.

Om Namah Shivaya

Alise
15 June 2010, 11:52 AM
Ok, so... my whole family by religion is christian (catholic).

My mom is secular, spiritual, but not that religious. My older sister, well she just had her daughter baptized at her boyfriend's christian sect church - lutheran. By commendments she actually sins. But who am I to judge? I have always seen life in different light than her.
My younger sister was baptized along with my step-dad, cause someone told him that you need to baptized kids as fast as you can or demons will curse or something. She was baptized in orthodox church. She believes in God, but is really secular... (BTW in my opinion it's impossible to be half-sisters or something if mother is same, because mother is only one we have and so on... it's highly offensive to me, if someone says other way...)

Most of christians I know are not really that christians, who actually follow commandments or know about bible...

I DON'T like the idea of Jesus being God, Avatar, God-realised or anything like that.

And so I would be non-native western hindu, who doesn't want to think about Jesus or what he teached. He didn't teach anything original. Did he?

But in the end Christianity is really hypocrite religion... What about hating pagans, but celebrating pagan holidays? (Yep, I don't like Christmas or Easter anymore...). If Jesus existed, than he was just ordinary guy... Maybe he was misunderstood or maybe crazy, but his teachings were not effective. I know christians who are great people, but they don't really know their religion and would be good people even without Christianity. Sorry!

I must sound like I'm very bad person, or something... Sorry. Also I would like to say, that I will teach my children in the way, that trying to convert them would be almost impossible. I love Sanathana Dharma and I will want my children to have strong faith in this religion and way of life than something like Christianity.


BTW I'm not off topic. it's all connected... Christianity would never be like this, if Jesus really would be God-realised, Avatar or Saint or anything like that.

Sorry to everyone who disagrees, this is just my opinion...


Have a nice day,
~Alice...

TatTvamAsi
15 June 2010, 12:22 PM
Namaste,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TTA


I do not know where Jesus might have been, yet this does not keep me up at night , nor does it give me a thorn in my side.

So make sure you read those books I quoted and understand where he was during that time. Simply saying "I do not know" does not enable you to claim he was a 'saint' when there is plenty of proof against it. If you do not know where he was and don't care, then you should not be saying that he was "important" or he was a "saint".

TatTvamAsi
15 June 2010, 12:33 PM
Namaste,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I do not see your point... I see nothing be used 'against' anyone , yet you see it as so.

Let me give you an example.

muslims who come to America and European countries often claim that there is vehement anti-islamic sentiment among the local populace. They then form groups, take advantage of the local laws such as freedom of speech, freedom to gather etc. and protest loudly sometimes causing damage to property and persons.

The muslims, who have no such freedoms in their home countries, use what is given to them by the western countries against them!

That is what I meant.

The philosophy you pointed out in some earlier post is entirely Hindu and you're saying that I should not find fault with aggressive, fanatical, and violent christians because my philosophy says so. This is highly hypocritical. First and foremost, as Arun Shourie stated, "The same philosophy that teaches me to love everyone also tells me to crush my enemies." Many westerners and ignorant Hindus don't understand that.

So when people turn around and say, "Be peaceful, Gandhi did it" or some such nonsense, it is not only disingenuous but also dangerous for us Hindus.

Regardless of that, when you have not faced any discrimination, aggression, and violence by these missionaries, you have no right to tell Hindus, who are facing that everyday in India, to not act and/or react. As stated earlier, we have every right to protect ourselves and our way of life.

christians, muslims, and communists are in collusion in India and are trying to erode the Hindu fabric of the nation and its collective conscience. They will not succeed but we Hindus still have to be proactive and be cognizant of the impending danger these vermin bring into Bharat.


I also do not see any one nation, religion or birth-right that can corner the market on truth as if to take ownership; as if truth can be contained based upon the soil one is born from. This is folly.

praṇām

Well, if it weren't for India, there would be no Hinduism on this planet. Yes, it is Sanatana Dharma, but only because of the immense spiritual power of Bharat, it has been preserved in the soil and its people. Many westerners are keen to make the point you do. You are just mistaken. We (most Hindus) don't say others should not practice Sanatana Dharma or learn from it, but you have to give credit where its due. You have to recognize its roots. Trying to dissociate Hinduism from its roots, India, simply cannot be done. It is also very wrong to do such a thing. After all, the great rishis of India never wrote their names after every sloka they heard. The recognized that Sanatana Dharma is universal and thus put only TRUTH on a pedestal. In recognition of such selflessness, we lesser mortals need to put the land and her sons, the rishis, on a pedestal. In not doing so, one is committing robbery; cultural theft. This is what I, and many other Hindus, are against. We are not asking for anyone to pay for what Bharat has given the world. All we Hindus ask is for due respect, affection, and recognition for the immeasurable wealth she has poured forward. Is that too much to ask?


It has been the great fortune and responsibility of Bharat to foster and garner this truth (satyaṁ) over time. For this we owe our respect and gratitude.

Yes, indeed. And we greatly appreciate all those who are respectful, affectionate, and loving towards Bharat; for that is inseparable from Sanatana Dharma!

Namaskar.

TatTvamAsi
15 June 2010, 12:47 PM
Namaste Atanu,


Namaste TTA

Well. If you assert that Jesus was a charlatan based on some hypothesis of few people, then i have nothing to say.

Om Namah Shivaya

My assertions are based on his travels to India during his "lost years". And, to be fair, perhaps he did tell his disciples that. Who knows for sure? May be they hid the fact and/or it was discarded after Constantine(?).

The point is, the religion, its saint(s), and its philosophy are reflected through its followers. We both agree that the christians of today are rotten. Thus, why the speculation that jesus may have been a realized person? Why does it matter to us Indians/Hindus? It is giving ammunition for these mlecchas to convert Hindus!

Namaskar.

Darji
15 June 2010, 01:18 PM
we Hindus have every right to not only protect ourselves, but to crush them in any possible manner with everything we have.



And your battle front starts sitting in relative comfort in a Western and Christian nation sitting behind your computer ranting about how dirty westerners are. That ought to do it! <eye roll>

In a less sarcastic view, I agree Hindus should be more assertive about their faith especially in the face of encroachment, this every path is the right path bollocks should end, and now. Islam and Christianity will show no quarter, so why should Hindus?

Riverwolf
16 June 2010, 12:27 AM
Islam and Christianity will show no quarter, so why should Hindus?

Because if we show no quarter, we risk extremism and fanaticism and therefore not essentially different.

Shanti
16 June 2010, 11:53 AM
namaste Shanti.

I totally agree with you that we Hindus and our children should be knowledgeable or at least have some idea about the offensive teachings in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, specially Christianity, in order to arm us with such knowledge to defend our dharma.

• My only suggestion for us native Hindus is that such study of foreign religions should be undertaken only after our children are sufficiently exposed to the concepts and teachings of Hinduism.
Yes, I see your point here. It is certainly most important to have the children gain a firmer grasp on Hinduism first. I just wish there were more resources available. Even kid versions of Bhagawad Geeta, Mahabharata, etc are more geared towards the older child, with little explanation of the meaning behind the the symbols ands stories.


• Thank you for giving the information about the homeschool system. From the links you have provided it looks sickeningly evangelical; I wonder why a Hindu child need to join such a system or why we Hindus with our population of one million in the US, have not started our own gurukula system.
Unfortunately, the link I provided is from one of the least evangelical. There are some that schedule our Bhagawad Geeta into there lessons simply to pick and shred the meaning to pieces. Some of the things out there are absolutely sickening.

• Since the Internet connectivity facilities must be far better in the US than in India, and the entire the Hindu diaspora use them, why can't somebody take the initiative to start a gurukulam--homeschool system for Hindu kids wherein the character-building is according to the teachings of the Hindu Dharma? Let us also teach the Western science and humanities in the curriculam without any religious taint. Is there any Governmental stipulation against it?
There are some programs that are run by temples as an every Sunday type of class. But nothing that I have found that has lessons for each day. I've been trying to piece together my own, but it's not easy to find resources. I've even emailed some gurukuls in India to ask if I could purchase any of there books and/or lesson plans but never received any response.

Yes, I completely agree that when the Evangelical Wolf is at the home/school door in the absence of parents, our kids (pun intended) should not fall victims to its wiles and guise, and get eaten up.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get this thread off-topic. I just really think that we need to be more aware of the agendas out there that seek to destroy our faith. I remember reading a thread here recently that suggested christianity may be on the decline, but I feel the opposite. I think that many are actually trying to bring spirituality back into the lives of there families (especially during economic downturns) and since christianity is familiar and there is a church on practically every block, they head down the roads that are most available to them. Mission work is a huge business. In addition to all this, "quiverfull" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102005062) families are on the rise and there goal is to create as many of god soldiers that they can so that they can be the majority. I know several of these families myself. And many of those that aren't having lots of babies are adopting them from all over the world.
I'm not saying this is all christians, but a very good size segment of them.

Okay, I did it again-totally off-topic, I'll stop now sorry!!

atanu
19 June 2010, 03:34 PM
BTW I'm not off topic. it's all connected... Christianity would never be like this, if Jesus really would be God-realised, Avatar or Saint or anything like that.
Have a nice day,
~Alice...

Namaste Alice

But how despite God, Jesus and christianity sprung up? Will i be wrong to imitate you and say: "The world could not have anything as crude as christianity had God been wise"?

I am neither opposing nor supporting your assertion but just pointing out the logical fallacy.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
19 June 2010, 03:47 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to get this thread off-topic. I just really think that we need to be more aware of the agendas out there that seek to destroy our faith.

Namaste Shanti,

I agree. In India, the christian state of Nagaland has its own will as if. Govt. writ does not run there. I perceive this mainly as of christian indoctrination. Similar with christian funded schools and colleges. The sad part is that we patronise such christian infiltration, directly or indirectly.

Om

YoungSpiritualSeeker
05 July 2010, 10:55 AM
Namaste,

As ex-Christian I must say, that right now I don't believe that Jesus existed. Even if there were Yeshuas around that time, none was like the one in the Bible. As bible was written after death of the Jesus there is a lot of mistakes, if it isn't a fairy tale (I didn't mean to use that word). There is no proof besides gospels, that Jesus the miracle man existed.
Basically when I left Christianity I said that there are many people in modern times who have these powers of healing & looking in future or so (I watched russian show where one woman called herself witch, this show was about testing powers with real skeptics, but she was finalist) but none of these people call themself God incarnations or sons/daughters of God. If they would, people would think they are really insane.

Search on Google 'Jesus didn't exist' and you will find a lot of information.

But on last note: I have nothing against Jesus Christ as person, but I strongly dislike Christianity.


Have a nice day,
~Alice

P.S. Please let me know, if I accidently break any rule of HDF.

I'm not Christian, but, to be honest, the whole "Jesus didn't exist" thing isn't accurate (& getting old), no historical scholar takes it seriously, yes, you can find people online who'll publish sites saying he didn't, or even self-publishing books (always a warning sign if something is self-published), but, they're not any kind of accurate historian.

Personally, I don't know what Jesus was like, but, he was probably something of a Jewish Mystic (there were a lot of them around that time), who had some paranormal abilities, but, a lot of things were later added (e.g. the whole thing about Jesus being the only way was created after he died, and, apparantly, was originally a Gnostic Gospel, which had a mystical meaning to it, not the one the mainstream Orthodox shout a lot (April DeConick, a scholar of Early Christianity and Gnosticism, recently talked about this in an interview).

I hope I didn't get too OT.

YoungSpiritualSeeker
05 July 2010, 10:59 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Many have offered their opinions above and I respect your POV. I am not here to dis-prove any ones post but to offer my assessment that Jesus the Christ did in fact exist.

What do I base my assessment on? The test of time. Jesus remains a central figure in Christianity for 2000 years. Now do I think Jesus is the son of God - yes, but so are we all. I am all for any/all positive influence in our society. I do not have to dislike Jesus or Christianity to be more firm in sanātana dharma.

Christianity offers value for certain people at a point in their evolution to fullness ( brahman). I cannot fault them even if they fault me.
There is no doubt differences in this world - some we like, others not so much. But as one grows one begins to see the differences also come from the same place.
Like a tree, so many branches, and leafs, and bark and roots, yet they are all the expression of the sap. The sap becomes the flower, the smell, the bud, bark, branch, etc. All different expressions of the same sap that works behind the scenes. as does brahman , become all that is in this Universe, even Christians.

If for some reason Christians erk you in some way, consider this from the mahābhārata , śanti parvan:

What wonder is there that a person destitute of wisdom do many improper acts (act in a certain way out side of dharma) ; knowing this a person of real wisdom never gets angry with others when they become guilty of folly ....
praṇām

references
My additional views ( not to convince but to offer my POV): http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876)

I wanted to say that's a really great post, and quote you provided, perhaps if more people felt that way, religion wouldn't be a cause of division for so many people. I, personally, think people should worship who they want, when they want, how they want, etc, I don't have a religion right now, and, I just like learning about others, but, IMO, people focus too much on what others believe. Why does it matter to a Christian what a non-Christian believes or does, why does it matter to a Neo-Pagan what a Christian believes or does, why does it matter to a Muslim what a Hindu does, etc. It's not important in the Grand Scheme of Things.

BryonMorrigan
15 July 2010, 02:11 AM
Jesus definitely described Himself as an incarnation of God. He has the Word of God in His mouth, miracles and prophecy fulfilled to back up His claim. And foremost He has the resurrection of Himself which appears to be unique since all other resurrections are of other people.

I believe that David Koresh also claimed to be the "messiah" as well. Didn't make it true. Stupidity really should hurt...


I'm not Christian, but, to be honest, the whole "Jesus didn't exist" thing isn't accurate (& getting old), no historical scholar takes it seriously, yes, you can find people online who'll publish sites saying he didn't, or even self-publishing books (always a warning sign if something is self-published), but, they're not any kind of accurate historian.

BZZZT! Wrong answer. As I've demolished all of the alleged "evidence" for the existence of "Jesus" before on this board, I'm not going to repeat it all again. (*) There is no evidence of his existence. All of the references to him occur only after his alleged death...and many of those references themselves are of disputed authenticity. (**)

There is way more evidence of a historical "Trojan War," but that doesn't mean that The Iliad is a factual record of events. Any non-Christian that accepts Christian MYTHOLOGY as historical fact is obviously not ready to let go of their Christian beliefs.

There might have been a historical guy named "Jesus." (***) Who knows? But the evidence is not there, and looking at the actual historical accounts makes you wonder why. I've read them. In Latin and Greek. If he was such a big deal, then why didn't anyone but his disciples write anything down about him? Why did medieval monks go back and add in forged references to his existence into translations of earlier texts? In a society as literate as ancient Rome, why doesn't the evidence show that the guy was even a real person?

And since I actually KNOW many reputable historians, some of whom are Christians...I can say that there are plenty of them who realize that there is no concrete historical evidence for his existence. For a Christian, such a thing is "proved" by faith. They need nothing more.

For a Hindu, he is IRRELEVANT. How many times do we have to say this? We should make a rule that anyone who brings up this "Jesus" nonsense on this board should have to go do some kind of "penance" for Hinduism... LOL.

________________________________________________________

(*) And I have a Master's degree in Ancient History, BTW...

(**) Check it out: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc....They were all written DECADES after 33CE. In fact, none of those authors were even BORN at the time that "Jesus" is alleged to have existed. Sure, there may have been a Christian sect in existence at that time. I'm not saying Christianity as a religion didn't exist. What I'm saying is that, for all we know...it could've been made up by Paul or any of the other apostles, or just been intended as a mythological allegory. (This was not unheard-of in this time...You'd know that if you studied ancient Rome...) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Such proof is amazingly absent.

(***) Of course, his name wouldn't have been "Jesus" anyways, since that's a later Latin invention. It would have been "Yeshua." And for the record "Christ," or more aptly "Christos," is a Greek word meaning "savior" or "messiah," and would not have been his last name, but rather a title, like "Lord Ganesha." You'd be surprised how many uneducated Christians think that there was some family of "Christs" out there: Mary Christ, Joseph Christ, etc. LOL.

atanu
15 July 2010, 04:56 AM
Bryon makes a lot of sense to me and as far as Bryon's logic goes, I think it is bullet proof. There is no historical figure called Jesus. (this is based on the evidences of Bryon. I have not read the evidences of the opponent. And i am not too keen).

Probably for a common christian it is of paramount importance that Jesus be a fleshy man. But at least with some Hindus, the knowledge/teaching represents a greater person that the physical guru perceived by the eyes and other senses........ For example, Sikhs take the Holy Book Guru Granth as the Guru. My Guru is no more. But He exists as all pervading knowledge. Just as the whole universe and whole of time and beyond is contained in the primal word Om. Similarly, Shiva is considered the cosmic Guru, who may teach through any physical form.

But for most christians and for many others what is not sensually perceived as solid is not a support. We want solidity. We think that flersh alone is solid. Iron rod alone is solid. For Hindus who go through Upanishads and scriptures such as Yoga Vasista or Tripura Rahasya, all these notions of solidity of flesh and matter and linearity of time go topsy turvy. But for me, just as Shri Krishna says "Kalosmi (I am Time), Jesus also says so.

Rambled enough.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 July 2010, 11:54 AM
I'm not Christian, but, to be honest, the whole "Jesus didn't exist" thing isn't accurate (& getting old), no historical scholar takes it seriously.

On the contrary all attempts by any scholars to provide hard evidence for a historical Jesus based on eye witnesses or archeology have been futile! All i know is that there is a consensus among scholars that there are no contemporary witnesses of Jesus life at all to be found. That those "proofs" that where belived to have existed have been proven forgeries of the vatican, was universally accepted among serious scholars already as early as about 40 or 50 years ago. The first documented references to Jesus appeared half a century after his execution. Of course historians and theologians that live in ta christian cultural context must belive that the account in the gospels is true, but all, historical evidence is based on the gospels and other christian documents or material that could be extrapolated from these christian documents, not on a single instance of any hard evidence like a document from a contemporary eye witness or archeological remains of the time of Jesus life.

sanjaya
19 July 2010, 01:39 AM
I believe that David Koresh also claimed to be the "messiah" as well. Didn't make it true. Stupidity really should hurt...

I think the problem here is one of presuppositions, and that's what makes dialog with Christians so difficult. Our set of assumed truths is different. Christians assume that anything written in the Bible is true. So they'll quote the Bible to show that some Christian doctrine is true, and expect us to believe it. This is probably because they're used to arguing with liberal Christians in America and Europe, who give the Bible lip service but don't really believe it. Liberal Christianity is self-defeating because it claims that the Bible is inspired and then denies unpopular doctrines like hell, which are genuinely taught in the Bible. I think this frustrates evangelicals, and they're thus programmed to contend for their faith by quoting the Bible. Perhaps this tacit assumption of Biblical inerrency has seeped into the general American ethos.

But right now, any Christians on this board are talking to Hindus, and we don't believe that the Bible is true. They could quote a passage from the Bible which explicitly says "Christianity is true and Hinduism is false," and it wouldn't matter, because we don't believe the Bible in the first place. It's important for them to understand this.



BZZZT! Wrong answer. As I've demolished all of the alleged "evidence" for the existence of "Jesus" before on this board, I'm not going to repeat it all again. (*) There is no evidence of his existence. All of the references to him occur only after his alleged death...and many of those references themselves are of disputed authenticity. (**)

There is way more evidence of a historical "Trojan War," but that doesn't mean that The Iliad is a factual record of events. Any non-Christian that accepts Christian MYTHOLOGY as historical fact is obviously not ready to let go of their Christian beliefs.

There might have been a historical guy named "Jesus." (***) Who knows? But the evidence is not there, and looking at the actual historical accounts makes you wonder why. I've read them. In Latin and Greek. If he was such a big deal, then why didn't anyone but his disciples write anything down about him? Why did medieval monks go back and add in forged references to his existence into translations of earlier texts? In a society as literate as ancient Rome, why doesn't the evidence show that the guy was even a real person?

I've studied the arguments of evangelicals pretty extensively, and I agree with what you've said. I will give this to Christians: there is a surprising number of extant Biblical manuscripts of the Bible dating pretty far back. For example, it's likely the gospel of John was written by at least 125 AD. So it's not like the Bible was invented by Erasmus in the second millenium or anything. However, we have to also keep in mind that there are just as many non-canonical books about Jesus written in the same time as there are canonical books (e.g. the gospel of Thomas, Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.). There never was a monolithic Christian religion. These guys couldn't figure out exactly what they believed from the very start.

As you said, there's more evidence for a historical Trojan War. I do believe that there's a historical Jesus, just as I believe that there's a historical Trojan War. But I believe that both the Iliad and the gospels are embellished tales of the events they depict, and should not be taken as accurate history.


For a Hindu, he is IRRELEVANT. How many times do we have to say this? We should make a rule that anyone who brings up this "Jesus" nonsense on this board should have to go do some kind of "penance" for Hinduism... LOL.

Heh, it's funny you say this. Try going to jewfaq.org and typing Jesus into the search engine. Our Jewish friends have the right idea.

Honestly I don't think there's anything wrong with Jesus. He was a great spiritual teacher, from what I can tell. If you subtract out the hell doctrines (which largely come from the apostles, who use words other than "hell"), it's good stuff. But this business of taking the gospels as literal historical truth is just foolishness. It seems to me the words are more important than the historicity. You don't see Hindus running around trying to prove that Sri Krishna existed (at least you don't see many). The wisdom of the Mahabharata speaks for itself. Is Christianity so spiritually impoverished that its followers have to resort to historical arguments?


(*) And I have a Master's degree in Ancient History, BTW...

I did not know that; very interesting. As a fellow academic, I can thus appreciate your use of footnotes. And I guess we both know that hell is a real place. It's called grad school. :)

NetiNeti
11 August 2010, 12:51 AM
I think he was real. Doing so does not make someone less Hindu. He had some interesting points and according to his story gave up his life for humanity. Westerners like to beat up on his legacy as a rebellion against his faulted followers of the current world.

The real answer is it does not matter really. If you want to look up to him like Ramakrishna did, then go ahead and do so. If you do not think he was real then don't think about him. Getting angry and fussy to prove a point shows ego-attachment. Don't allow what you perceive as a myth to make you more attached to your viewpoints and opinions. Follow our faith and release what is un-needed instead of dwelling on it.

atanu
11 August 2010, 12:59 AM
I think he was real. Doing so does not make someone less Hindu. He had some interesting points and according to his story gave up his life for humanity. IMO he was an avatar. Westerners like to beat up on his legacy as a rebellion against his faulted followers of the current world.

The real answer is it does not matter really. If you want to look up to him like Ramakrishna did, then go ahead and do so. If you do not think he was real then don't think about him. Getting angry and fussy to prove a point shows ego-attachment. Don't allow what you perceive as a myth to make you more attached to your viewpoints and opinions. Follow our faith and release what is un-needed instead of dwelling on it.

Namaste Neti-Neti

You make a fine point.

The moment I say "To me Jesus does not exist and never existed", I am unknowingly uttering a falsehood as upanishads teach that naman makes up this Universe.

Om Namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
11 August 2010, 01:40 AM
You might believe he was an avatar, but that has no basis in the shastras. Therefore, it's purely your own fantasy. Someone could say Harry Potter was an avatar. From a Hindu perspective Harry Potter being an avatar and Jesus Christ being an avatar are equally truth.

Jetavan
12 September 2010, 10:39 AM
You might believe he was an avatar, but that has no basis in the shastras. Therefore, it's purely your own fantasy. Someone could say Harry Potter was an avatar. From a Hindu perspective Harry Potter being an avatar and Jesus Christ being an avatar are equally truth.

Harry Potter is an Anglicized form of the Sanskrit "Hari Putra"

"Hari" means "Lord Vishnu".

"Putra" means "son".

Hari Putra, or "Harry Potter", is the Son of Vishnu.

Believer
13 September 2010, 09:33 PM
The two extremes:
1. If one is a devout Hindu, then Jesus is a non-entity. Hindu scriptures pre-date him by thousands of years.
2. If one is a Swami living in the West and catering to the locals for 10&#37; of their income, then he will find a verse in the scriptures and stretch its translation, and if he can't find any, then he will compose a verse which makes Jesus an avatar.

In between these two extremes, there are gullible, apologetic Hindus who accept everything, just because they want to be seen as "realized" souls treading on water. Middle of the roaders who are too busy making a living, don't care one way or the other. And the third kind, who don't particularly entertain this idea.

Adhvagat
14 September 2010, 12:08 AM
How could one explain the similarities between Revelations and the 12th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam?

Both describe the end of Kali-yuga the same way.

ScottMalaysia
14 September 2010, 01:28 AM
Some Hindus have pictures of Jesus and Mary on their altars, alongside the Hindu Gods. The local Sai Centre here in Wellington has a picture of Jesus on the altar, between the pictures of Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba.

Other Hindus, such as the late Sita Ram Goel, have an extremely negative view of Jesus. Mr. Goel wrote a book called Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression (http://www.mediafire.com/?kn2juazeuzh) in which he states the following:

"The first glimpse of the Jesus of the gospels came to me in 1956. My Jesuist friend who had tried to convert me, had failed in the attempt. When we were back at the mission headquarters in Patna, the following dialogue took place between us.
“You believe that Jesus was an avatar,” he asked.
“Yes, I do,” I replied.
“Can an avatar tell a lie?”
“He is not supposed to.”
“What if Jesus says he is the only God?”
“He can't say that.”
My friend picked up a copy of the New Testament and read out several passages from the gospels. Jesus did say in so many words not only that he was the only God but also that those who did not accept his claim would burn for ever in the infernal pit. I realized with painful surprise that Jesus was not all Sermon on the Mount as I had been led to believe by his Hindu votaries."

Adhvagat
14 September 2010, 01:59 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Many have offered their opinions above and I respect your POV. I am not here to dis-prove any ones post but to offer my assessment that Jesus the Christ did in fact exist.

What do I base my assessment on? The test of time. Jesus remains a central figure in Christianity for 2000 years. Now do I think Jesus is the son of God - yes, but so are we all. I am all for any/all positive influence in our society. I do not have to dislike Jesus or Christianity to be more firm in sanātana dharma.

Christianity offers value for certain people at a point in their evolution to fullness ( brahman). I cannot fault them even if they fault me.
There is no doubt differences in this world - some we like, others not so much. But as one grows one begins to see the differences also come from the same place.
Like a tree, so many branches, and leafs, and bark and roots, yet they are all the expression of the sap. The sap becomes the flower, the smell, the bud, bark, branch, etc. All different expressions of the same sap that works behind the scenes. as does brahman , become all that is in this Universe, even Christians.

If for some reason Christians erk you in some way, consider this from the mahābhārata , śanti parvan:

What wonder is there that a person destitute of wisdom do many improper acts (act in a certain way out side of dharma) ; knowing this a person of real wisdom never gets angry with others when they become guilty of folly ....
praṇām

references
My additional views ( not to convince but to offer my POV): http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3876)

I agree.

I attribute the current state of Christianity to the lack of a proper parampara thus suffering the effects of Kali-yuga's foulness.

Sahasranama
14 September 2010, 03:36 AM
The faith of Sai Baba is not really Hindu, it's more a hodge pod of sufism, Hinduism and Christianity.

Thanks for the link of the ebook, I don't have time to read it all, but it looks interesting.

Sahasranama
14 September 2010, 03:47 AM
Harry Potter is an Anglicized form of the Sanskrit "Hari Putra"

"Hari" means "Lord Vishnu".

"Putra" means "son".

Hari Putra, or "Harry Potter", is the Son of Vishnu.

I am aware of the similar sounds, that's why I chose the example. You see how easy it is to come up with these contortions. Because Hari Potter sounds similar to Hari Putra, doesn't mean we have to build a temple for Hary Potter and read J.K. Rowling with as much reference as the Bhagavad Gita. That would be ignorant, similarly ignorant to worshipping Jesus as an avatar.

kallol
15 September 2010, 07:58 AM
Actual Jesus story - do we know it ?

There are so many gaps in the present understanding of Jesus that it is throwing up many question

Whatever is known is through the bible and some gospel which came long after Jesus. The whole of that is being questioned by westerners and thus are several books and films on that.

So most of the assumptions might be speculations and influences from other cultures.

Actual life history might be different altogether.

Love and best wishes

Ao
16 September 2010, 04:31 AM
Actual Jesus story - do we know it ?

There are so many gaps in the present understanding of Jesus that it is throwing up many question

Whatever is known is through the bible and some gospel which came long after Jesus. The whole of that is being questioned by westerners and thus are several books and films on that.

So most of the assumptions might be speculations and influences from other cultures.

Actual life history might be different altogether.

Love and best wishes

This issue of historicity has actually been a hot-topic for about ten years now. Outside of the Gnostic/Early Christian gospels there is only one reference in all of Roman-era history to Jesus, and many scholars think that was a later insert (e.g. a forgery put into one of the Jewish historian Josphesus' texts). This is of course very embarrassing for Biblical defenders as surely a figure as revolutionary as the one presented in the gospels would have warranted official attention and hence left an official record.

There are many interesting debates on this topic for those interested at sites like:
www.jesusneverexisted.com

But I would be careful visiting a site like that as the issue tends to get people very angry. I prefer far more mellow forums like our fine HDF here. :)

Sahasranama
16 September 2010, 07:44 AM
Thanks for the link, I will not investigate it though, because it's better to keep my mind on Hinduism which has nothing to do with Jeebus.

jaggin
28 September 2010, 07:42 AM
Namaste All,

Personally I do not see fault in Jesus or His manifestation.

"I am the way" is understood as per one's view. Most christians cannot see beyond the physical body and hence they associate "I am the way" with the physical frame of the so-called physical man called Jesus and foolishly think that the way could be known only after birth of Jesus.

One may remind christians:

Whether there was No way before Jesus appeared?
If no one else knew or knows about the way, why then it was the wise men of East who declared Jesus's coming to the west? How did they know that Jesus was going to show a way?
Why Jesus manifested among brutal animals who were not civilized and who murdered Jesus?
Did not Jesus know that He would be sacrificed?I think that the west needed Jesus. Further being dominantly rajasic, christians, in general, have not assimilated the key teachings but have taken up Jesus as a weapon against those who announced Jesus's coming to them.



This should not be done. Albeit Chritians do it also but the verse should be understood in context. jesus is answering this question:
John 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?
This also refers further back to Jesus stating that He will prepare a place for them and that they will be with Him. This is in reference to the New Jerusalem which will be the refuge of the righteous when God destroys the world with fire. However most pastors see a double entendre with a promise of Heaven. It appears to be a strtch to me but there is no doubt that the disciples did not go to the New Jerusalem in that lifetime.

I don't perceive the general lack of spirituality in Christians that you claim. The physical presence of Jesus is replaced by the spiritual presence of the Paraclete. I doubt that it is physicality that causes a misinterpretation of this passage but rather a desire for exclusivity. There are over 10,000 Christian denominations and most likely each one thinks it has the right answer. On the other hand the New Jerusalem and the Rapture to it are unique to Christians as far as I can tell.

Obviously, there was no way because Jesus had not even started to prepare the New Jerusalem so how could there have been a way to it before then?

The wise men only knew that there would be a king born and where he would be born.

The whole concept of the cross is that everyone is sinful enough to have put Jesus there. And then forgiveness is given for having done so. The leaders who were responsible are no different from any other religious leaders because they believed they were acting according to dharma.

Yes, He knew and previously had stated that He had come for that purpose.

jaggin
28 September 2010, 08:29 AM
Ok, so... my whole family by religion is christian (catholic).

My mom is secular, spiritual, but not that religious. My older sister, well she just had her daughter baptized at her boyfriend's christian sect church - lutheran. By commendments she actually sins. But who am I to judge? I have always seen life in different light than her.
My younger sister was baptized along with my step-dad, cause someone told him that you need to baptized kids as fast as you can or demons will curse or something. She was baptized in orthodox church. She believes in God, but is really secular... (BTW in my opinion it's impossible to be half-sisters or something if mother is same, because mother is only one we have and so on... it's highly offensive to me, if someone says other way...)

Most of christians I know are not really that christians, who actually follow commandments or know about bible...

I DON'T like the idea of Jesus being God, Avatar, God-realised or anything like that.

And so I would be non-native western hindu, who doesn't want to think about Jesus or what he teached. He didn't teach anything original. Did he?

But in the end Christianity is really hypocrite religion... What about hating pagans, but celebrating pagan holidays? (Yep, I don't like Christmas or Easter anymore...). If Jesus existed, than he was just ordinary guy... Maybe he was misunderstood or maybe crazy, but his teachings were not effective. I know christians who are great people, but they don't really know their religion and would be good people even without Christianity. Sorry!

I must sound like I'm very bad person, or something... Sorry. Also I would like to say, that I will teach my children in the way, that trying to convert them would be almost impossible. I love Sanathana Dharma and I will want my children to have strong faith in this religion and way of life than something like Christianity.


BTW I'm not off topic. it's all connected... Christianity would never be like this, if Jesus really would be God-realised, Avatar or Saint or anything like that.

Sorry to everyone who disagrees, this is just my opinion...

Have a nice day,
~Alice...

There is no need to apologize. Opinions are usually held on the basis of knowledge and understanding. With better knowledge and undestanding an opinion can change.

I would be interested in hearing how you think that could happen. Perhaps you walk through a scenario of how it might happen.

This looks suspiciously like a superstition. A baptism is a one time event. It isn't as though water could put a protective spiritual coating on the person to protect from demons. My thinking is that prayer should do the trick.

The question is not whether you like it but whether it is true. I don't like to think there are demons but I have had enough experience to convince me otherwise.

Yes, He did.

Christianity does not teach the celebration of Pagan holidays. If you are claiming that the celebration of the birth of Jesus and the death of Jesus on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus are Pagan provide proof.

The question is whether you have a desire to see things get better or are celebrting the sinfulness. If it is the latter, you need a change of heart.

jaggin
28 September 2010, 08:40 AM
I believe that David Koresh also claimed to be the "messiah" as well. Didn't make it true. Stupidity really should hurt...



Many have, but only one has fulfilled the prophecies and that is Jesus.

BryonMorrigan
28 September 2010, 10:33 AM
Christianity does not teach the celebration of Pagan holidays. If you are claiming that the celebration of the birth of Jesus and the death of Jesus on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus are Pagan provide proof.

The holiday known as "Christmas" is completely...100%...undoubtedly...PAGAN. The date comes from the celebration known as the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the "Holy Day of the Unconquered Son." This occurred on December 25th, and was celebrated in honor of the deity known as Mithras, the worship of which came from the East, and is associated with both Persian and Vedic deities. No reputable scholar, Christian or otherwise, actually believes that "Jesus" was born on December 25th. It's laughable.

If you would like to learn more about Mithras, and the large number of similarities between his worship and later Christianity, here is a paper, written by the Christian minister Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on this very subject: (LINK (http://lam.mitra.free.fr/doc/A_Study_of_Mirthraism.pdf))

Furthermore, many of the traditions of Christmas were directly copied from other Pagan traditions, and a later Christian "reasoning" attributed to them. For example:

1. Christmas Trees - Originated with Germanic Paganism. They would bring in evergreens during the winter times to remind them of the strength of these trees, who were impervious to the cold winter. Roman Pagans also pinned garlands of evergreen inside their houses during winter for much the same reasons.

2. Gift-giving - Originated in the Roman Pagan holiday of Saturnalia, which ran for a week in late December, ending on the 23rd. It was far too popular of a tradition to end, so when the Roman Emperors (Post Constantine I) forced Christianity on the populace (under penalty of decapitation, I might add...how lovely!) they merely made up a new "reason" for the tradition.

(Note: Interestingly enough, followers of Mithras were described as wearing some kind of Tilak on their foreheads, but there is no description of what it looked like, or of what it was composed from.)


Many have, but only one has fulfilled the prophecies and that is Jesus.

You don't read history much, do you? Besides, as I've pointed out many times on this very forum, there is no concrete evidence that your Jesus ever existed, much less that he did any of the supernatural things your book claims he did, or the fulfillment of any "prophecies." We're just supposed to take your word...or actually, the words of the books that Emperor Constantine I felt were the most "valid" Christian texts.

I swear...Christians are pretty much the only religion in the world where the actual practitioners of the religion are less knowledgeable about its practice, history and doctrine than outsiders! Here's an interesting article that mentions a recent poll, the findings of which point out that very issue: (LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_religious_literacy_poll))

Go be a Christian if that makes you happy. But don't tell me about "prophecies" and other nonsense in an attempt to "prove" your Exclusivist wickedness is "true." Further attempts at proselytism on this board will be met with even more historical references, scorn, and ridicule.

atanu
28 September 2010, 11:49 AM
This should not be done. Albeit Chritians do it also but the verse should be understood in context. jesus is answering this question:
John 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?
This also refers further back to Jesus stating that He will prepare a place for them and that they will be with Him. This is in reference to the New Jerusalem which will be the refuge of the righteous when God destroys the world with fire. However most pastors see a double entendre with a promise of Heaven. It appears to be a strtch to me but there is no doubt that the disciples did not go to the New Jerusalem in that lifetime.

I don't perceive the general lack of spirituality in Christians that you claim. The physical presence of Jesus is replaced by the spiritual presence of the Paraclete. I doubt that it is physicality that causes a misinterpretation of this passage but rather a desire for exclusivity. There are over 10,000 Christian denominations and most likely each one thinks it has the right answer. On the other hand the New Jerusalem and the Rapture to it are unique to Christians as far as I can tell.

Obviously, there was no way because Jesus had not even started to prepare the New Jerusalem so how could there have been a way to it before then?

The wise men only knew that there would be a king born and where he would be born.

The whole concept of the cross is that everyone is sinful enough to have put Jesus there. And then forgiveness is given for having done so. The leaders who were responsible are no different from any other religious leaders because they believed they were acting according to dharma.

Yes, He knew and previously had stated that He had come for that purpose.


Namaste jaggin

Thank you for your reply and i now understand the 'way' better. I understand jerusalem as a place of eternal unbroken joy and not as a physical place. In our Vedas also the word meanings are at three levels: physical, mental, and spiritual. I am only talking of the spiritual.

1. With this background I, from the perspective of our teachers, say that anything new is not eternal and thus has to pass -- all things must pass, New Jerusalem including. We are taught that the way is without beginning. Only some methods change at surface in different yugas.I see in other replies you saying "Opinions are usually held on the basis of knowledge and understanding. With better knowledge and undestanding an opinion can change". I agree fully. Our scriptures teach: a man is as is his knowledge. With that background, I say that NEW will inevitably become OLD and PASS AWAY.

2. The question is how the wise men knew, whatever they knew, which the people of Jesus's birthpalce did not? My point is that the arrogance of some people "We know the new way" is again hoisting the truth on a cross.



One who clings fast to Eternal Truth
Will attain Ultimate Truth Itself.
The strength of Rta, Eternal Order, is far reaching
It brings wisdom to those that pursue it.
Earth and Heaven owe their existence to Rta.
And the Supreme Powers yield their ambrosial milk,
their treasured contents,
In perfect obedience to the Lord of Eternal Existence.
(Rg Veda.IV.23.1):
Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

charlebs
05 November 2010, 08:25 AM
I believe that David Koresh also claimed to be the "messiah" as well. Didn't make it true. Stupidity really should hurt...

didn´t koresh prove the earth was hollow? just like people nowadays say it´s proven solid, while no one can explain details of how they know this.
everyone I talk to has his facts from hearsay, while all I know, there might be a microcosmos inside earth or degenerated mass or whatever.
hehe even buddhists believe their king is inside earth, and that the dalai llama is his representative.

even more dubious is that there are no pictures of the poles, nasa and google both filtered it from their software, claiming they don´t take pictures of boring areas
it´s also supposedly a no fly zone, and I can´t find anyone debunking this

Adhvagat
06 November 2010, 02:23 AM
didn&#180;t koresh prove the earth was hollow? just like people nowadays say it&#180;s proven solid, while no one can explain details of how they know this.
everyone I talk to has his facts from hearsay, while all I know, there might be a microcosmos inside earth or degenerated mass or whatever.
hehe even buddhists believe their king is inside earth, and that the dalai llama is his representative.

even more dubious is that there are no pictures of the poles, nasa and google both filtered it from their software, claiming they don&#180;t take pictures of boring areas
it&#180;s also supposedly a no fly zone, and I can&#180;t find anyone debunking this

Charlebs...

This thread was the reason I joined this forum:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=626

sanjaya
07 November 2010, 10:39 AM
Maybe I missed something, but how did we get into this debate on whether the earth is hollow?

Eastern Mind
07 November 2010, 11:00 AM
Maybe I missed something, but how did we get into this debate on whether the earth is hollow?

Vannakkam: I actually laughed out loud. When I hit this aspect yesterday, curiousity got the best of me, and I did some browsing. Maybe I was bored. I do seem to have writer's block right now. Out of this world, or should I say 'in' of this world stuff. Some of the diagrams were just amazing. I wonder how long I would have lasted teaching that as an alternative in Grade 6 Science class.

Yeah, but lets go back on topic. I reiterate.. Jesus didn't exist. (Maybe he's hiding still under one of the poles.)

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 12:12 PM
I reiterate.. Jesus didn't exist.
Amen.

Adhvagat
07 November 2010, 05:31 PM
I see a lot of hatred (some senseless) against Christianity here. It makes me sad sometimes.

I agree that most of Christian religions nowadays are a mess and the scriptures they are based on are heavily altered, therefore not reliable.

However, the little sense I can find on passages from the Bible have Jesus involved. So I conclude he was a realized man and even with heavy adulteration of the work that contains his words, there's still spiritual content in there.

Christianity as of now is clearly flawed, but do we need to mindlessly shout that Jesus didn't exist? I'm sure it's just fine to shout that any vedic figure didn't as well.

When I'm in doubt, I question whether or not the philosophical content is something that make us advance or not. And if we consider the situation of the world at the time Jesus walked the earth (according to the Bible), I think he was a wise man.

I must say that I'm curious and research should be done, even though there should be more effort on retrieving the 'Original Bible'.

What is even more curious is how the Revelations are a copy of the 12nd canto of the Bhagavatam, it clearly describes Kalki's arrival at the end of this Kali Yuga, I mentioned this several times here, but no one commented much.

Hari Om Tat Sat

PS:


Vannakkam: I actually laughed out loud. When I hit this aspect yesterday, curiousity got the best of me, and I did some browsing. Maybe I was bored. I do seem to have writer's block right now. Out of this world, or should I say 'in' of this world stuff. Some of the diagrams were just amazing. I wonder how long I would have lasted teaching that as an alternative in Grade 6 Science class.

Yeah, but lets go back on topic. I reiterate.. Jesus didn't exist. (Maybe he's hiding still under one of the poles.)

Aum Namasivaya

Dear Eastern, do you find the Hollow Earth Teory to be a joke?

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 05:48 PM
I see a lot of hatred (some senseless) against Christianity here. It makes me sad sometimes.
Did not mean to make you sad, but I think it needs to be said that Jesus is irrelevant for Hindus. There is historical evidence that he didn't exist. If you want to believe in Jesus that is absolutely your personal choice. If you are not a Christian (anymore), I don't see a reason to cling on the belief of Jesus.


I'm sure it's just fine to shout that any vedic figure didn't as well.It depends who you are talking about. There are a lot of vedic figures that didn't leave any historical evidence for their existence, but here it also comes down to a matter of faith, e.g. that Krishna, Rama etc existed and lived according to how it was written in the itihasas and puranas.

Eastern Mind
07 November 2010, 05:50 PM
Vannakkam Pietro: One of the beauties of Hinduism is the freedom of thought it allows. As reiterated many times, there are varying opinions. These are just opinions. You have yours and I respect that. We all have different paths within the Sanatana Dharma. Different gurus, different backgrounds, different sects, and different experiences make each of us unique. That is not to say all opinions are correct. They are just opinions. But certainly they are valid for that person (or they wouldn't be expressing them) Occasionally myself and others here will state opinions without the cordiality of prefacing it with, "from my point of view" or "This is just my opinion." So I don't think people should take such comments as insulting. But again, that is up to you. Obviously (to me at least) there are many interpretations of scripture, especially the Bhagavad Gita, as it has so many translations and commentaries. Clearly each new translator thought he could do a better job than his predecessor or he would have just recommended a previous version. This is just one example of a wider variety of thoughts and actions in the whole of Hinduism.

So indeed, in my humble opinion, Christ the man did not exist, and the earth is not hollow. But I could be wrong as thinking pigs can fly. Only He knows for sure.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
07 November 2010, 08:12 PM
namaste PI.

The belief of many Hindus that Jesus did not exist historically is based on the researched publications of Christian scholars. Any shades of hatred that you might find in the attitude of devout Hindus against the religion of Christianity is due to the fact that the Bible itself calls other religions and gods false and exhorts religious conversion, and the 'sincere belief' of aggressive Christians on these 'truths' in their scriptures has been the cause of religious persecution that has been more and more increasingly practised to this day.

You might check this thread for the historicity of Jesus and other views:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=704
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4339
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2696


As for the existence of the Hindu avatars shrI RAmA and shrI KRShNa, there are innumerable places associated with their life exist in India today bearing the same name and associated legends. Underwater research has confirmed the existence of the city of DvAraka, the capital of KRShNa's kingdom. I don't know if such association with places and legends exist in the case of Jesus and if so, how these are overlooked or disproved by the Christian scholars who have researched the historical existence of Jesus.

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 08:22 PM
As for the existence of the Hindu avatars shrI RAmA and shrI KRShNa, there are innumerable places associated with their life exist in India today bearing the same name and associated legends. Underwater research has confirmed the existence of the city of DvAraka, the capital of KRShNa's kingdom. I don't know if such association with places and legends exist in the case of Jesus and if so, how these are overlooked or disproved by the Christian scholars who have researched the historical existence of Jesus.
That's true and there's also the remains seen in NASA pictures of the bridge Sri Rama build from south India to Sri Lanka. But still we Hindus accept the words of Valmiki and Krishna Dvaipayana with faith as rishis and not just as historical writers. I believe they are historical writers, but also more than just that. Valmiki wrote the Ramayana during the life of Sri Rama and Krishna Dvaipayana himself was also involved in the life of the pandavas and Krishna. These text were not written centuries later of the event like the bible was. But then it still comes down to faith to accept the words of Valmiki and Veda Vyasa exactly as they are written.

Adhvagat
08 November 2010, 10:49 AM
I never considered myself to be a Christian. Here in Brazil specifically the Kardecism (Spiritualism as brought by Allan Kardec) is very common. It is basically the study of the reincarnation mechanics, samsara and subtler worlds, both good and bad. My parents belonged to this line of study before but then we all got to know an ISKCON project near our city.

The nice thing about it was to see how the Vedas already contained everything that was said in Kardecism (and much more), so it was a practical realization that the scriptures are indeed revealed knowledge.

When I say that it makes me sad is because sometimes these claims sound unfouded and worst of all, gratuitous. I think we gain way more by focusing on discussing the great topics Sanatana Dharma gives us.

I didn't get interested in SD because someone was shouting that Jesus didn't exist. I guess we should consider the cultural implications of these claims and act wisely.

And yet again no one answers my question... Why is the Revelations so similar to the 12nd canto of Srimad Bhagavatam? Someone must have studied that!

I remember that when I was searching the internet for this I found nice discussions like this one: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/27809-proof-krishnas-dvaraka-vedic-civilization.html

I also remember reading it here in the forums a post of someone talking about the principles the Greek philosophers used to teach, that they were very similar to some vedic teachings. Like truth and something else. A shame that I didn't favorited this post! Does anyone remember this? Was it Saidevo or Kallol who said that?

Om Tat Sat

BryonMorrigan
08 November 2010, 05:37 PM
The thing I find so amusing about many Christians is the importance placed on the historicity of "Jesus." They're so damned _certain_ that everyone accept that such a person existed, and it's such a big issue for them. There are whole fields of research in History and Archaeology devoted to the attempt to "prove" that "he" existed.

And yet Hindus don't generally feel the need to "prove" anything to anyone else. I think that, in itself, is a much more profound statement than any "proof" of "Jesus's" existence could ever be. And even if they found incontrovertible proof that "he" existed. So? I can prove very easily that David Koresh existed. It didn't mean that he was correct in his belief that he was some kind of "prophet."

Maya3
11 November 2010, 08:51 AM
I don't know too much about Jesus, but the little I have read; it seems that he was most likely Self Realized (if he did say those things, he never wrote anything himself, so how do we know?).

Maya

Eastern Mind
11 November 2010, 09:03 AM
And yet again no one answers my question... Why is the Revelations so similar to the 12nd canto of Srimad Bhagavatam? Someone must have studied that!



Vannakkam Pietro: Like most Hindus, I've never read the bible, let alone studied it. So quite likely no one here has studied that. Of course I could be wrong, and from this post someone might just jump into it for you just to prove me wrong. I don't even know what Revelations? is. I am just not interested. I don't understand how this can be taken as criticism. Its neutrality. If I say I'm not interested in cricket or soccer, I think it's unfair and irrational to jump to jump to the conclusion that I hate cricket. One of the things I have noticed about western thinkers is the propensity for the idea that one must take a side. I'll say, "I don't know" in all honesty, and the western thinker still wants an answer. It's the mentality of duality operating in the intellect. Of course this is just my opinion.

Best wishes in your pursuit of finding someone who can discuss this topic with you.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
11 November 2010, 09:07 AM
namaste PI.

Did you refer to these posts of mine that were just compilations?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=25918&highlight=greek#post25918



I also remember reading it here in the forums a post of someone talking about the principles the Greek philosophers used to teach, that they were very similar to some vedic teachings. Like truth and something else. A shame that I didn't favorited this post! Does anyone remember this? Was it Saidevo or Kallol who said that?
Om Tat Sat

Adhvagat
11 November 2010, 11:10 AM
Vannakkam Pietro: Like most Hindus, I've never read the bible, let alone studied it. So quite likely no one here has studied that. Of course I could be

wrong, and from this post someone might just jump into it for you just to prove me wrong. I don't even know what Revelations? is. I am just not interested. I don't understand how

this can be taken as criticism. Its neutrality. If I say I'm not interested in cricket or soccer, I think it's unfair and irrational to jump to jump to the conclusion that I hate cricket. One

of the things I have noticed about western thinkers is the propensity for the idea that one must take a side. I'll say, "I don't know" in all honesty, and the western thinker still wants

an answer. It's the mentality of duality operating in the intellect. Of course this is just my opinion.

Best wishes in your pursuit of finding someone who can discuss this topic with you.

Aum Namasivaya

EM, the Revelations (also called Apocalypse) are situated at the end of the Bible and narrates the end of this foul age, that resembles very much the Kali Yuga as described in the 12nd canto of the Bhagavatam.

But that's not the most interesting part, the interesting part begins when the details about how God is going to present himself are given. The specifics are the same as Kalki, riding a white horse and what not. Overall, it's the whole presentation of the problems of this age and the arrival of God that is similar to the Bhagavatam.

So it's interesting not because of being something Christian, but because it has the same content as a vedic scripture.

I've also read here about invasion of India and how much was robbed out of there, I don't doubt that, I don't have enough material to argue about this, but I certainly agree in first hand.

So I wonder when exactly this content was borrowed (to say the least) from the Bhagavata Purana. And the most important... Why?

When I said no one answered me I wasn't actually referring to you... I was just throwing out there to see if someone had studied this peculiar case.

Hari Om Tat Sat


namaste PI.

Did you refer to these posts of mine that were just compilations?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=25918&highlight=greek#post25918

Saidevo, thank you for sharing the link. I'll read with care in a moment.

PARAM
11 November 2010, 11:43 AM
PI

are you hinting at Kalki, as you mentioned earlier?

Eastern Mind
11 November 2010, 02:20 PM
EM, the Revelations (also called Apocalypse) are situated at the end of the Bible and narrates the end of this foul age, that resembles very much the Kali Yuga as described in the 12nd canto of the Bhagavatam.


Vannakkam PI: Thank you for that, but frankly I don't care. Christianity is okay to look at if you're a comparative religion scholar or even if it just interests you. But it simple doesn't interest me. I have a zillion times as many legitimate Hindu texts I could explore that I don't have time for. In general, Hindus don't care what Christians think. We only care when the overzealous ones do nasty things to our Hindu kin while trying to convert us. That's about where it stops.

This will most likely be my last post in this thread, because it seems if I post, people think I care about this and want to discuss it.

Aum Namasivaya

Adhvagat
11 November 2010, 03:12 PM
Vannakkam PI: Thank you for that, but frankly I don't care. Christianity is okay to look at if you're a comparative religion scholar or even if it just interests you. But it simple doesn't interest me. I have a zillion times as many legitimate Hindu texts I could explore that I don't have time for. In general, Hindus don't care what Christians think. We only care when the overzealous ones do nasty things to our Hindu kin while trying to convert us. That's about where it stops.

This will most likely be my last post in this thread, because it seems if I post, people think I care about this and want to discuss it.

Aum Namasivaya

EM, I must admit I'm having a hard time understanding your reaction. Sincerely.

I don't want to discuss Christianity per se. A part of the Bhagavatam was copied to another scripture and that happened to be the Christian Bible. That's where it stops being about Christianity. I'm not interested in any philosophical and religious concepts of it, but the history of it that is related to "many legitimate Hindu texts".

It seems like you're being aggressive for nothing... But that may be my imperfect perception. Maybe you're simply saying that it doesn't interest you but reading "I don't care" and "Hindus don't care what Christians think" makes me think you're somehow angry.

It's just that, since the Bhagavatam is a scripture that interests me a lot, and the sacred book of the dominant religion of my country contains part of it, I find it REALLY curious and that makes me wanna investigate it.

So I assumed other people interested in the Bhagavatam as well would find it at least curious...

Just reiterating: Maybe you're simply saying that it doesn't interest you. I'm not trying to start and argument, just so we avoid mental agitation.


PI

are you hinting at Kalki, as you mentioned earlier?

Param, yes, the descriptions of the Revelations are strongly similar to those of Kalki and Devadatta as seen in the Bhagavatam.

sanjaya
12 November 2010, 12:06 AM
Vannakkam PI: Thank you for that, but frankly I don't care. Christianity is okay to look at if you're a comparative religion scholar or even if it just interests you. But it simple doesn't interest me. I have a zillion times as many legitimate Hindu texts I could explore that I don't have time for. In general, Hindus don't care what Christians think. We only care when the overzealous ones do nasty things to our Hindu kin while trying to convert us. That's about where it stops.

This will most likely be my last post in this thread, because it seems if I post, people think I care about this and want to discuss it.

Aum Namasivaya

Most likely, so there's a chance you might respond again? :)

In all seriousness though, I share that sentiment. I'm interested in talking about Christianity in the sense that it's the largest religion here in America, and what Christians do can negatively (but sadly not positively) affect us. I don't want to see Indians converting to Christianity, so I find it helpful to talk about this stuff. That in fact is why I have an interest in talking about evangelical Christianity (the only branch that seriously seeks to convert Hindus), but not other denominations.

But beyond that, too I don't care what Christian theology says about anything. I haven't even finished reading the Bhagavata yet. It's sitting on my shelf, and I don't have the time to dedicate to a serious study of it. Christian theology is infinitely lower on my list of priorities than Hindu Scriptures.

Now regarding this resemblance between Hindu and Christian texts, I'd be careful about anyone drawing conclusions. I've heard about the similarities between Kalki avatar and the Bible's description of Christ's second coming. Scholars of Near Eastern religion claim that there's a similar story in the Greek play Bacchae when Dionysus reveals himself to the city of Thebes. I've read the play, personally I don't see it. I think a lot of these scholars see similiarities where none exist. Personally I think it's just best to understand Hinduism on its own terms. Of course I'm no scholar, so maybe I just have a poor understanding in these matters.

Sahasranama
12 November 2010, 12:47 AM
But beyond that, too I don't care what Christian theology says about anything. I haven't even finished reading the Bhagavata yet. It's sitting on my shelf, and I don't have the time to dedicate to a serious study of it. Christian theology is infinitely lower on my list of priorities than Hindu Scriptures.

Good point. It's a matter of priority. Before one would even think of touching the bible or koran, think of the ocean of Hindu literature is available for study. Here is an overview: http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/ Why on earth would any Hindu waste time reading the bible?

Adhvagat
12 November 2010, 07:01 AM
It's a matter of priority indeed and how one guide his studies.

I have a great interest in understanding what vedic teachings and messages are still hiding under our culture. How did it get transformed, why did it get used and/or manipulated. Perhaps a desire to understand how was the move from a vedic society in Dvapara to this society in Kali.

I briefly read this part of the Bible when a classmate brought it to school back in 2006. Everyone was mocking him and saying he was a zealot, so I tried to look beyond the mockery and understand him. When I picked his Bible to take a look I went directly to the end and the similarities towards the 12nd canto aren't just in the description of the descending deva, but in actions and circunstance as well.

Again that is me, I had contact with the Vedas in 2003 when I was 14, so I'm on the beginning of my journey. To others it may seem as a waste, but for me it's a sincere interest towards the Vedas.

PARAM
12 November 2010, 12:09 PM
Param, yes, the descriptions of the Revelations are strongly similar to those of Kalki and Devadatta as seen in the Bhagavatam.

Oh no, Kalki will come only at the end of Kaliyug, and as mentioned in Dharma Granths when his work is done Satyug will start again with pure Dharma, but Adharm is raised with Xistians and Jihadist. So that means Kalki work has not done yet.



Why on earth would any Hindu waste time reading the bible?
I wasted my time reading it, and I found that if there was a gang of barbarian dacoists showing themselves as angels and their lord become Xistian God

Believer
15 November 2010, 10:46 AM
Was Jesus spiritually developed beyond that of God-realisation?

If JC indeed was God-realized, that simply means he knew about his father, being the 'son of God'. That is not a big accomplishment, is it?

satay
15 November 2010, 11:08 AM
namaste,


If JC indeed was God-realized, that simply means he knew about his father, being the 'son of God'. That is not a big accomplishment, is it?

This really made me laugh out loud. I suppose the big accomplishment would be if he knew who the 'mother' was? Where indeed is the mother in that picture? Anyway, I digress.

Sahasranama
17 November 2010, 07:32 AM
Yes, that was funny. I had to laugh too.

truthseeker96
13 December 2010, 12:23 PM
it's my opinion that jesus was a heavily misinterperted saint

peace

Sahasranama
13 December 2010, 02:56 PM
it's my opinion that jesus was a heavily misinterperted saint

peace

That's just a conversion technique many universalist Hindu gurus have used to popularise themselves. That's where the opinion comes from. It has no basis in theology or history.

Adhvagat
13 December 2010, 03:09 PM
That's just a conversion technique many universalist Hindu gurus have used to popularise themselves. That's where the opinion comes from. It has no basis in theology or history.

Please develop... Feel free to PM me.

Om Tat Sat

hrdayananda
14 December 2010, 03:05 PM
The bible to me is intellectually deficient spiritual defecation compiled into a single book.

I'm just very sad for Westerners that their entire history has been overshadowed by this worthless steaming pile of crock. Had they been left to themselves they would have been far more advanced than what they already are.

The christian deity has got a multiple personality disorder, he is father in the heavens, son walking on earth and holy ghost that possesses you once in a while.


Wow, do you ever listen to yourself? :) I'm not a christian anymore, but I certainly don't hate it. So just because some pastor has mistaken you for a 3 year old, and told you some b/s, that mean christianity is a steaming pile of crock? How are you better than the regular christian fanatic, that says the same thing about hinduism?

You can kick me out of this forum or do whatever you like, but I will keep standing up to these unhealthy attitudes...

hrdayananda
14 December 2010, 03:21 PM
Yajvanji and Atanuji you have beautifully articulated the religion of the mlecchas who will do whatever it takes to demonize us by declaring themselves exclusively as true and the rest dim in darkness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3ElGdC2fU

Your acceptance of even the most coldhearted hatemongers towards us astounds me.

Unfortunately, you are falling in the same mistake, declaring yourself exclusively as true and discriminating between you and the "mlecchas", just like the hebrews did and just like the christian do today, between then and the "pagans". Why not be better than these people? :)

Namaste.

Eastern Mind
14 December 2010, 04:21 PM
Unfortunately, you are falling in the same mistake, declaring yourself exclusively as true and discriminating between you and the "mlecchas", just like the hebrews did and just like the christian do today, between then and the "pagans". Why not be better than these people? :)

Namaste.

Vannakkam hrdayananda: I don't believe Hindus claim exclusivity. If they did, I wouldn't be one. It is more a claim of being at a different level of understanding. The University professor doesn't claim the Grade 6 kid is evil, and not with us. He just sees the child as not yet capable of understanding calculus, and that one day he will - maybe. Whereas in the Abrahamic view, all others are evil, wrong, condemned to hell, etc. Of course we all think our religion is the best one for ourselves. Logically thinking we'd convert if we didn't. Why would you learn from a particular professor if you had the option to sign up in the class with a better one?

We Hindus believe Christians have souls, will reincarnate, etc. That's not exclusivity. That's a deep inuitive understanding of life tempered with philosophy.

I believe that some of us carry Abrahamic belief patterns with us subconsciously without even being consciously aware of it. An example is the few minor sects, one in particular, that still try to convert.

Aum Namasivaya

hrdayananda
14 December 2010, 04:26 PM
We Hindus believe Christians have souls, will reincarnate, etc. That's not exclusivity. That's a deep inuitive understanding of life tempered with philosophy.


Namaste, Eastern Mind

I totally agree with you, however I don't agree with saying some other religian is a "steaming pile of crock" or other such words. I am of the belief that what we say is a mirror of our purity. If some christians do not know how to respect the "non-believers", that doesn't mean we have to borrow their hate (if I might call it that way) and act the same way as they do. We are at a higher level, are we not?

Pranam

Eastern Mind
14 December 2010, 04:34 PM
Namaste, Eastern Mind

I totally agree with you, however I don't agree with saying some other religian is a "steaming pile of crock" or other such words. I am of the belief that what we say is a mirror of our purity. If some christians do not know how to respect the "non-believers", that doesn't mean we have to borrow their hate (if I might call it that way) and act the same way as they do. We are at a higher level, are we not?

Pranam

Vannakkam: I agree about 99%, although indeed there are moments when stronger language is necessary just to prove a point, like when parenting or teaching moments when the message simply won't get through unless volume is raised. There is also an ability or notion for a reader or listener to misinterpret words as negative when in fact they are neutral.

For example, I can honestly say that I don't believe in a historical Jesus. Of course I'm not 100% sure, but based on my personal experiences and reading, that is what I think. Some will misinterpret my statement as being full of hate, when its not.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
14 December 2010, 10:33 PM
Unfortunately, you are falling in the same mistake, declaring yourself exclusively as true and discriminating between you and the "mlecchas", just like the hebrews did and just like the christian do today, between then and the "pagans". Why not be better than these people? :)

Namaste.

EM already covered this, but I feel I need to put in my $0.02 as well. Making a truth claim is not the same as exclusivity (though perhaps "intolerance" may be a better word than "exclusivity" for the concept we're all referring to here). There is such a thing as objective truth and falsehood. Many people, even many Hindus, deny this. But who would say that the flat earth and round earth views are equally valid? I suppose one could say that at small distances the surface of the sphere can be approximated by a flat plane, but the round earth view is more general, and is objectively better. Likewise, Hinduism and Christianity cannot both be simultaneously true. One religion must be better; this is necessitated by their opposing teachings.

I would not agree with the view that Christianity is a steaming pile of crock, indeed I'm not personally in favor of the strong language (but hey, no judgment on those who choose to use it, this just isn't my thing). I know people who live better lives as Christians than they would as atheists. Personally I think that just about anything is better than atheism, with a few notable exceptions. Here in the West, a European who is not a Christian would likely just default to atheism, and in that sense Christianity serves some useful purposes. But it also serves a lot of negative purposes, especially evangelical Christianity. Hinduism, I think, is objectively better than this religion.

Contenting for this moral superiority does not make us intolerant though. As EM said, we don't think Christians will burn in hell for all eternity. Heck, I think that some people who are Christians are in fact more spiritual than a lot of Hindus (though usually this has nothing to do with them being Christian). You do raise a valid point that we shouldn't actively hate Christians for being Christian. At the same time, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that hellfire and brimstone preaching deserve the same respect as Dharmic philosophies.

hrdayananda
15 December 2010, 01:54 AM
Sure, I don't have any problem with stating that you believe hinduism is true and christianity false or corrupted. I am of the same opinion myself, though I do think Jesus was a historical figure.

I also believe Jesus tried to reform the hebrew religion, which is why he was killed. About the fact that he was the son of God, like yajvan said, we all are and if you read the New Testament carefully (not that you should), Jesus actually states that we are all sons of God. He also states that the "kingdom of Heaven" is inside us. He also told us to be accomplished/perfected, just like our Father in Heaven, which, IMO, points to our unity with God, since it states the possibility of our perfection. His actual statements were missunderstood after he died, then they built a church and rituals on top of that and used it as a means of manipulating people...

Anyway, it is normal to say that your religion is good and you don't believe another religion can lead you to truth, but I think it's best to respect everyone's religion. Maybe there are christians reading this forum to inform themselves of hinduism sincerely. If they read statements like christianity being a pile of crock, I doubt that would be a pleasant thing for them. It's not really about respecting the religion, but the people (and not all christian are fanatic missionaries etc.)

Namaste!

Sahasranama
15 December 2010, 02:13 AM
Maybe there are christians reading this forum to inform themselves of hinduism sincerely. If they read statements like christianity being a pile of crock, I doubt that would be a pleasant thing for them. It's not really about respecting the religion, but the people (and not all christian are fanatic missionaries etc.)

That's not a bad thing to consider. From the bible: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. ~Matthew 7:12

hrdayananda
15 December 2010, 03:48 AM
That's not a bad thing to consider. From the bible: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. ~Matthew 7:12

Exactly!

Maya3
15 December 2010, 06:39 AM
I agree that it is not appropriate to speak negatively about other religions even though you think that Hinduism is the best one.
Especially as Hindu´s we should respect that people come to God by different roads.
If we don´t accept this, then we really are not evolved enough ourselves.
Even if Christianity in my opinion is a very round about way to reach God, even though there are parts of it that is very exclusionary we still have to accept that some people will reach God with it, and that it should be respected.
That is not to say that you have to approve of their missionary work, or agree with their theology.

But how would God react? Let´s say that God sits on top of a mountain (just to make it simple). He/She/It sees a Hindu reach Him/Her/It after many lifetimes (many where we may have been Christians by the way) God sees this Hindu reach Samadhi open their eyes and stay. Or come up after doing years of Selfless Service etc.
I´m sure God and the Hindu will join.

Then if a Christian comes walking, climbing and crawling up the mountain after many twists and turns, do you really think that God would say: Nope you cannot join you did it wrong?

No, God would never do that, if you get there, you get there, thats it.
Or rather, if you see God, you see God and can join, it´s as simple as that.
HOW you get to the top where you can see really doesn´t matter.

Maya

hrdayananda
15 December 2010, 10:10 AM
Namaste, Maya

The core of the New testament is that people should:

- love everyone, including your enemies (and I personally see no way of doing this, unless you see yourself or God in every living being);

- do not judge others and strive for your own perfection first (similar to the eastern concept that you can only help the world by first reaching enlightenment);

I believe that those two principles are also found in Sanathana Dharma, but SD takes it much further. The love for people is extended to include all living beings, not only humans (ahimsa). Also, the philosophy explicitly "proves" to you that everything is in fact ONE. That makes it much easier for someone to practice the above two principles. Maybe that also explains why many christians don't practice what they believe. The philosophic substratum is too inferior and there is too much emphasis on believing in Jesus in order to be saved, that they think that's the only thing they need to do in order to attain the Highest.

AUM Shanti, Shanti, Shanti - if all people would follow this "injunction", what a wonderful world we would live in...

Sahasranama
15 December 2010, 04:30 PM
But how would God react? Let&#180;s say that God sits on top of a mountain (just to make it simple). He/She/It sees a Hindu reach Him/Her/It after many lifetimes (many where we may have been Christians by the way) God sees this Hindu reach Samadhi open their eyes and stay. Or come up after doing years of Selfless Service etc.
I&#180;m sure God and the Hindu will join.

Then if a Christian comes walking, climbing and crawling up the mountain after many twists and turns, do you really think that God would say: Nope you cannot join you did it wrong?

A christian might be walking on a different mountain altogether, or he may not even have reached the mountain yet and still walking on flat land. Reaching the mountain itself means finding Sanatana Dharma. Only after having found the mountain one can reach the mountain top. Some people were fortunate to be born on the mountain, others are still on their journey towards the mountain, some people are not interested in climbing mountains, others were on the mountain, but went back.

धाता पुरस्ताद्यमुदाजहार शक्रः प्रविद्वान्प्रदिशश्चतस्रः।
तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति नान्यः पन्था अयनाय विद्यते॥

dhātā purastādyamudājahāra śakraḥ pravidvānpradiśaścatasraḥ |
tamevaṁ vidvānamṛta iha bhavati nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate ||

'I know this great person who is resplendent like the Sun and is beyond darkness. By knowing Him alone one transcends death. There is no other path to go by'.

The vedas are very clear, नान्यः पन्था अयनाय विद्यते nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate: "there's no other path to go by."

There's no other religion that describes Paramatman as accurately nor is there any other religion that offers many complete systems to know him. Hinduism offers all the tools and teaches all the skills that are necessary for mountaineering in the most dangerous situations. Other religions are only approximations of this Dharma which is the Maha Meru amongst mountains, while other religions are like hills on the land or smaller mountains. Hinduism doesn't condemn people walking on the smaller mountains. They are building mountaineering skills in baby steps, maybe when the time is right they will find the guidance and the courage to tackle on the Maha Meru to start their journey to reach the ultimate.

Rationalist
15 December 2010, 07:34 PM
Supposedly Jesus's teachings were good were profound and full of wisdom and yet in the Bible, there are a plethora of passages where it seems to the reader that he was (if he existed) an arrogant (I am the way, blah blah blah) and intolerant man. I personally think he is an asura incarnate.

Maya3
15 December 2010, 10:32 PM
A christian might be walking on a different mountain altogether, or he may not even have reached the mountain yet and still walking on flat land. Reaching the mountain itself means finding Sanatana Dharma. Only after having found the mountain one can reach the mountain top. Some people were fortunate to be born on the mountain, others are still on their journey towards the mountain, some people are not interested in climbing mountains, others were on the mountain, but went back.


With all due respect this sounds identical to a Christian who says, that no matter how much a person tries, he must find Jesus Christ to get salvation.

God IS everything, He/She/It does not make rules that what got separated can only rejoin a certain way.

We have recently debated the folly of Christian philosophy that says that no matter if a man devotes all his life to selfless service he will go to hell if he doesn't believe in Jesus, but a murderer who does believe in Jesus will go to heaven.

The Vedas also say, Truth is One, sages call it by many names.

The Gita says: "I am the same to all beings, I favor none and reject none.

"Any offering- a leaf, a flower or fruit, a cup of water- I will accept it with a loving heart."

"The man who sees me in everything and everything within me will not be lost to me or will I ever be lost to him"


You can reach God through ALL religions, unless you become attached to your ego thinking that you are better and different than others, when in fact we are ONE.

Maya

Sahasranama
15 December 2010, 11:10 PM
With all due respect this sounds identical to a Christian who says, that no matter how much a person tries, he must find Jesus Christ to get salvation.It's not similar to Christianity, since Hinduism believes in reincarnation, you always have a chance to find the right path. Christianity believes that people who do not accept Jesus will burn in hell for eternity.



We have recently debated the folly of Christian philosophy that says that no matter if a man devotes all his life to selfless service he will go to hell if he doesn't believe in Jesus, but a murderer who does believe in Jesus will go to heaven.This is part of Christian theology, we can agree or disagree with it, but at the end of the day it's not important what Christians believe our destiny to be. It doesn't affect Hinduism as it is. Look at the story of Ajamila, he was a sinful person, but he was saved at the last moment of his life uttering the name Narayana. The Bhagavat Gita says that one will reach what one thinks of at his lasts moments of life. In the Bhagavata Purana, there's a story of a realised soul who thinks about a deer at the last moment of his life, because of that he reincarnates as a deer. What happens if someone thinks about Jesus at his lasts moment, he will not be saved, but he will become a bearded jew in his next life. Maybe even a member of "jews for jesus."


The Vedas also say, Truth is One, sages call it by many names.
The Gita says: "I am the same to all beings, I favor none and reject none.
"Any offering- a leaf, a flower or fruit, a cup of water- I will accept it with a loving heart."None of these quotes prove that the ultimate ideal of Hinduism can be reached through Christianity or Islam.


You can reach God through ALL religions, unless you become attached to your ego thinking that you are better and different than others, when in fact we are ONE.You cannot use advaita in an argument like this. It is similar to saying "Anyone can perform open heart surgery, because we are all ONE." If you make this conclusion based on advaita, then Hinduism itself, or medical school in the anology, would be superfluous. This is called Radical Universalism and is very popular in neo-vedanta circles, but this believe is not part of traditional Hinduism, not even of advaita vedanta. http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm

Why did you choose to become Hindu and not Muslim or Buddhist? Was it as casual as deciding what colour jacket to buy? Do you think that choice of religion is nothing more than a matter of personal preference which has no basis in the (percieved) validity of its teachings? Since you believe that the Hindu gods are only symbols, not real entities, do you also believe that any symbol, whether Christian or Muslim, can "do the trick" which extends to your belief in radical universalism?

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 02:14 AM
Look at the story of Ajamila, he was a sinful person, but he was saved at the last moment of his life uttering the name Narayana. The Bhagavat Gita says that one will reach what one thinks of at his lasts moments of life. What happens if someone thinks about Jesus at his lasts moment, he will not be saved, but he will become a bearded jew in his next life. Maybe even a member of "jews for jesus."

The thief thought about Jesus and asked his forgiveness when they were both on the cross. As a result, the thief was saved, even though he sinned all his life. So, you see the similarity?

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 02:18 AM
Since you believe that the Hindu gods are only symbols, not real entities, do you also believe that any symbol, whether Christian or Muslim, can "do the trick" which extends to your belief in radical universalism?

It is a fact that both christians and hindus have had visions about their "deities". Hindus have had visions of Ganesha, Shiva etc. Likewise, there are lots of accounts of christian saints having the vision of Christ. If the hindu gods are real entities, I think Christ is as real as they are. Just my 2 cents...

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 02:19 AM
The opportunity to redeem yourself at the end of your life is part of both religions. From a Hindu perspective, thinking of Jesus at the last moment of life is not different than thinking about any other bearded jew though. Thinking of Jesus is not a valid means to redeem yourself, according Hinduism. In Christianity it is. Let's not make a hodge podge of both religions. Also, if the thief did not think of Jesus, he would never ever had a chance to redeem himself in the future, according to Christian theology. This is different in Hinduism, because we look beyond one life. These distinctions are important.

It is a fact that both christians and hindus have had visions about their "deities". Hindus have had visions of Ganesha, Shiva etc. Likewise, there are lots of accounts of christian saints having the vision of Christ.Someone having a vision does not make something true. It can also be a sign of mental illness to have visions or hear voices. Meditation is the opposite of delusion. The ancient rishis had their experiences in meditation. The prophets did not have the background of the rishis, they were not yogis, they had no means to experience this reality. I do not put my faith in the words of prophets and saints.

If the hindu gods are real entities, I think Christ is as real as they are. There's no relationship between the two propositions.

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 04:08 AM
Also, if the thief did not think of Jesus, he would never ever had a chance to redeem himself in the future, according to Christian theology. This is different in Hinduism, because we look beyond one life. These distinctions are important.

True, but I am not talking from hinduism's point of view, I am talking objectively. In the end, it's all just blind faith we're talking about here. Nothing can be proved on any part.



Someone having a vision does not make something true. It can also be a sign of mental illness to have visions or hear voices. Meditation is the opposite of delusion. The ancient rishis had their experiences in meditation. The prophets did not have the background of the rishis, they were not yogis, they had no means to experience this reality. I do not put my faith in the words of prophets and saints.

The same can be said by the christians regarding the ancient rishis (mere delusions or maybe they were posessed by demons etc.). We know the prophets were very austere, fasting & praying etc. Maybe they were not meditating, but there barely is any difference between their practice and bhakti/devotion. Are you saying bhakti cannot lead to that reality?

Again, not sure it's meaningul to even continue this discussion as it's all about faith.

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 04:26 AM
Well, I am not saying I am going to scientifically proof Sanatana Dharma. I am not in favour of mixing up religious beliefs. My faith is Hinduism, not Christianity.

Maya3
16 December 2010, 07:33 AM
It's not similar to Christianity, since Hinduism believes in reincarnation, you always have a chance to find the right path. Christianity believes that people who do not accept Jesus will burn in hell for eternity.
[quote]

I didn't say it's similar. What I'm saying is that a person who IS a Christian and is a very devoted, spiritual and ethical person can reach Moksha without having to be reborn again. EVEN if they believe differently than us, once they see the truth they see the truth. It's as simple as that.
Just because they looked through a window to see out that is very, very different from us, (and not as good in my opinion), they can STILL see.
They might be in for a surprise that they see Hindu's and others join too, but it will not prevent them from joining God.

[quote]
This is part of Christian theology, we can agree or disagree with it, but at the end of the day it's not important what Christians believe our destiny to be. It doesn't affect Hinduism as it is. Look at the story of Ajamila, he was a sinful person, but he was saved at the last moment of his life uttering the name Narayana. The Bhagavat Gita says that one will reach what one thinks of at his lasts moments of life. In the Bhagavata Purana, there's a story of a realised soul who thinks about a deer at the last moment of his life, because of that he reincarnates as a deer. What happens if someone thinks about Jesus at his lasts moment, he will not be saved, but he will become a bearded jew in his next life. Maybe even a member of "jews for jesus."


No it's not important what Christians believe. But that is not to say that they cannot join God. If they think of Jesus at the end and they have been a good person God (if we put a human attribute on him/her/it) will smile and "say" what a nice image you imagined me to be, but THIS is what I AM.



None of these quotes prove that the ultimate ideal of Hinduism can be reached through Christianity or Islam.
You cannot use advaita in an argument like this. It is similar to saying "Anyone can perform open heart surgery, because we are all ONE." If you make this conclusion based on advaita, then Hinduism itself, or medical school in the anology, would be superfluous. This is called Radical Universalism and is very popular in neo-vedanta circles, but this believe is not part of traditional Hinduism, not even of advaita vedanta. http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm


That's just crazy, why would anyone be able to perform open heart surgery?
It is a persons faith and belief in God that matters not the means.
It all looks different.
Just as some Hindu's may see God as formless and others as Ganesha, Shiva or all of the above, those who focuses on Jesus or Muhammad.



Why did you choose to become Hindu and not Muslim or Buddhist? Was it as casual as deciding what colour jacket to buy? Do you think that choice of religion is nothing more than a matter of personal preference which has no basis in the (percieved) validity of its teachings? Since you believe that the Hindu gods are only symbols, not real entities, do you also believe that any symbol, whether Christian or Muslim, can "do the trick" which extends to your belief in radical universalism?

Because our theology is superior and a much more sound and direct path and because it's in line with what I have always believed (at least in this life, and probably in more).

I practice what my teachers tell me, my teachers who are knowledgeable and enlightened who studied and lived with a Self Realized master.



Take a look at the mandala on top of the page here http://www.nyganeshtemple.org/home.aspx
Look at what it says on the first page here: http://www.hafsite.org/
Maya

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 08:53 AM
In Hinduism one has to know God first in order to reach moksha (tamevaṁ vidvānamṛta iha bhavati), this may take many lifetimes. To reach immortality there is only one path (nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate). You are still attached to the Christian concept of the final judgement. According Hindu philosophy, people have had many lifes and will continue to have many lives as long as they are bound by karma, it doesn't matter whether it's good karma or bad karma.

If I am correct, you believe that Gods like Shiva and Hanuman are not real entities, but worship them only to purify yourself and concentrate your mind. If yo do not believe in the gods in the first place, making an extension to worshipping fictive characters like Jesus is not a big leap. The next logical step would be to worship Harry Potter. This is not what Hinduism teaches.

The concept of God in Christianity and in Hinduism are not the same. When one knows the Hindu God one cannot remain ignorant and believe in the Christian God. The Christian God is a wrathful monster, one example should be sufficient to understand the impossibility of remaining Christian and reaching the vedic ideal of knowing him.

Let's first take a look at Christian theology to understand the Christian concept of God:

The Bible gives us evidence of this, and clues that vegetarianism was not regarded with favor. In Genesis , Chapter Four, Eve bears Cain and Abel. 'And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.' That 'but' in the middle of the sentence is the first clue to disapproval. This disapproval is confirmed by verses three to five. Abel and Cain bring offerings to God: Abel of his sheep and Cain, the fruits of the ground. God, we are told, had respect for Abel's carnivorous offering, but He had no respect for Cain's vegetarian one. Never forget - it was the vegetarian Cain who murdered the shepherd Abel.Let's now take a look at Hindu theology to understand the Hindu concept of God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI1EgwdTUVI

Duryodhana ke meva tyago, saga vidura ghara khayi
He renounced the sweets of Duryodhana to eat spinach at the house of Vidura.

Now, please stop torturing me with all this talk about Christianity and put your mind on Krishna.

सम्प्राप्ते सन्निहिते काले नहि नहि रक्षति इसाइ रटने
samprāpte sannihite kāle nahi nahi rakṣati isāi raṭane
because, when death comes, Jesus will not save you...

Maya3
16 December 2010, 09:05 AM
In Hinduism one has to know God first in order to reach moksha (tamevaṁ vidvānamṛta iha bhavati), this may take many lifetimes. To reach immortality there is only one path (nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate). You are still attached to the Christian concept of the final judgement. According Hindu philosophy, people have had many lifes and will continue to have many lives as long as they are bound by karma, it doesn't matter whether it's good karma or bad karma.

If I am correct, you believe that Gods like Shiva and Hanuman are not real entities, but worship them only to purify yourself and concentrate your mind. If yo do not believe in the gods in the first place, making an extension to worshipping fictive characters like Jesus is not a big leap. The next logical step would be to worship Harry Potter. This is not what Hinduism teaches.

The concept of God in Christianity and in Hinduism are not the same. When one knows the Hindu God one cannot remain ignorant and believe in the Christian God. The Christian God is a wrathful monster, one example should be sufficient to understand the impossibility of remaining Christian and reaching the vedic ideal of knowing him.

Let's first take a look at Christian theology to understand the Christian concept of God:
Let's now take a look at Hindu theology to understand the Hindu concept of God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI1EgwdTUVI

Duryodhana ke meva tyago, saga vidura ghara khayi
He renounced the sweets of Duryodhana to eat spinach at the house of Vidura.

Now, please stop torturing me with all this talk about Christianity and put your mind on Krishna.

सम्प्राप्ते सन्निहिते काले नहि नहि रक्षति इसाइ रटने
samprāpte sannihite kāle nahi nahi rakṣati isāi raṭane
because, when death comes, Jesus will not save you...


Still attached to the Christian concept?

You know nothing about me, I have never been Christian.
Don´t make assumptions about people you don´t know.

Again, I go with what my teachers tell me.

Maya

PARAM
16 December 2010, 10:29 AM
Supposedly Jesus's teachings were good were profound and full of wisdom and yet in the Bible, there are a plethora of passages where it seems to the reader that he was (if he existed) an arrogant (I am the way, blah blah blah) and intolerant man. I personally think he is an asura incarnate.
I too think this


Look at the story of Ajamila, he was a sinful person, but he was saved at the last moment of his life uttering the name Narayana. The Bhagavat Gita says that one will reach what one thinks of at his lasts moments of life. In the Bhagavata Purana, there's a story of a realised soul who thinks about a deer at the last moment of his life, because of that he reincarnates as a deer.
Do you think this is true, it is said that these stories were made by Bobdev who was Jaidev's brother.
Krishna have given importance to Karma and Bhakti both. Karma can make fate.

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 10:39 AM
Do you think this is true, it is said that these stories were made by Bobdev who was Jaidev's brother.
Vopadev did not author the Bhagavata, he wrote a summary of the Bhagavata called the muktaphala.

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 10:44 AM
If I am correct, you believe that Gods like Shiva and Hanuman are not real entities, but worship them only to purify yourself and concentrate your mind. If yo do not believe in the gods in the first place, making an extension to worshipping fictive characters like Jesus is not a big leap. The next logical step would be to worship Harry Potter. This is not what Hinduism teaches.

The concept of God in Christianity and in Hinduism are not the same. When one knows the Hindu God one cannot remain ignorant and believe in the Christian God. The Christian God is a wrathful monster, one example should be sufficient to understand the impossibility of remaining Christian and reaching the vedic ideal of knowing him.

You cannot judge the christian "god" from a single verse. Why not look at the part where Moses asks God who He is, in order to tell the jewish people who sent him, and God answers: "I am the ONE WHO IS". Pardon me, but that seems in perfect agreement with the hindu concept of Parabrahman being the only self-existent "thing".

Sentences like "the christian God is a wrathful monster" only reflect your ignorance of the subject, in my opinion. I cannot say that about any god of any religion. People spend tens of years studying the bible. You read a passage and think you can draw these conclusions? It's like me reading the Rig Veda once and saying it's all just worshipping of the thunderbolts, fire and other absurdities that are common right now among the "orientalists".

Second, why would you need to believe in 10 gods in order to attain moksha? Why would I need to bow my head before Ganesha, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Parvati and so on? the only one that needs to be worshipped is the Supreme, in my opinion, not his inferior and limited manifestations, whoever they might be and how many they might be... At the level where you worship Ganesha as something separate, I do not think you are any more evolved than the christian that is praying to Virgin Mary or to Jesus. They are all bowing down to limited manifestations of the divine.

Here is what Yajnavalkya says in Brhadaranyak'opanishad:

“Whoever worships another God, thinking ‘He is one and I am another,’ does not know.”

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad I 4:10

Hence, neither the christian, nor the hindu will get moksha as long as he worships ANY manifestation whatsoever... Just my 3 cents :)

PARAM
16 December 2010, 10:55 AM
The supreme is ॐ, but many evil have tried to be worshipped when they do not deserve it like Hiranykshipu, no body can worship him.

Yajnavalkya is very important in Hinduism, and next Satyug will follow him

Don't try to misunderstand........ 0 cent

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 11:06 AM
As long as there is duality, there will always be this battle between "my god" and "your god" and which one is mightier and better. Would we even be having this discussion if we actually experienced the Real, the Supreme? I doubt it.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter (IMO) if Jesus was or was not an avatar, God-incarnate, a self-realized yogi, a prophet, or just a bearded jew, as Sahasranama prefers.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter (IMO) if Ganesha or Brahma are "real" entities in this maya and if we worship them or not. Ultimately, they are all part of maya and moksha is only when you have crossed that river, when Ganesha, Brahma or Jesus Christ no longer exist, for everything is ONE. In that case, there is no place for divisions, nor for names or forms.

The point in worshiping (IMO) is to clean one's mind and loosen the ego, by surrendering yourself to something else. When there is complete surrender, gradually, the division between the devotee and the deity starts to shrink, until they are ONE. That expands (brh) the devotee's consciousness and "transforms" him into Brahma(n) (the expansion, the Great).

End of my contribution to this thread.

AUM TAT SAT

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 11:29 AM
Seriously, people are making conclusions here based one fourth of verses from Hindu texts and you are saying I shouldn't make conclusions based on passages from the Bible. What fun is that? You are again quoting irrelevant passages from Hindu literature which say nothing about the validity of paths outside the realm of Hinduism. You have no knowledge of Hinduism, you are spreading a form of crypto-atheism disguised as universal non dogmatic spirituality. I am not interested in what you have to say, good luck with your pseudo advaita.

If you really want to know what I think of the Bible, read this post:http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55335&postcount=8

Adhvagat
16 December 2010, 11:36 AM
Hrdaya, but if we have this all-around mentality we might end up accepting everything, just like Sahasranama indicated with his example.

I think an Advaita would never worship Ganesha as separate, it would go against its philosophical understandings in the first place.

Since I sympathize with Achintya Bheda Abheda, I view that every aspect of the Supreme has to be manifested fully, be it personal, impersonal or interpersonal. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me, it isn't the Supreme.

The philosophy of Shankara differs, but still the devas would be very key elements on our path to moksha.

You wouldn't NEED to worship ten devas. You'd need to worship the devas you feel inclined to.

Again, one needs to look for the authenticity and authority of the whole system to conclude about its validity. When I look at the Christian lineage, I don't see many philosophical masters, or acharyas, most of the knowledgable people of the Bible only speak about very materialistic concepts. When I look at Christianity I see not a valid spiritual path, a good path to better yourself as a person, in worldly life, perhaps born in a better place next life (if only they believed), but not much spiritually. Specially still eating of violence.

About phallacies in sacred texts, well, even vedic content has some. It's Kali Yuga! Why wouldn't the heavily altered Bible has them as well?

It's better for us to focus on scriptures that were better protected by lineage.

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 11:50 AM
Seriously, people are making conclusions here based one fourth of verses from Hindu texts and you are saying I shouldn't make conclusions based on passages from the Bible. What fun is that? You are again quoting irrelevant passages from Hindu literature which say nothing about the validity of paths outside the realm of Hinduism. You have no knowledge of Hinduism, you are spreading a form of crypto-atheism disguised as universal non dogmatic spirituality. I am not interested in what you have to say, good luck with your pseudo advaita.

If you really want to know what I think of the Bible, read this post:http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55335&postcount=8

Obviously, you have no knowledge of Hinduism also, if you point me to such kind of "posts" and actually agree to their contents. Search inside and you'll see what I mean... I am only spreading Advaita, not some pseudo advaita, as you call it. As you know, the Vedas are interpreted in different ways, which is why there isn't just one darshana, but many. I understand the way you are interepreting the Vedas and how you feel about this particular subject and I respect that. But then again, there are countless ways of interpreting the hindu shastras and that is evident, since many hindu POV's are mutually exclusive. You picked one, I picked another one. Which one of us is "right"? Maybe both of us are wrong, maybe you are right, or maybe I am and you're wrong. Maybe we're both right :).

That said, I promise I'll read more on the subject of devas and bhakti, if you promise to do some more homework on the subject of Advaita. I may not be a jivanmukti, but I do believe I have a good intelectual grasp of Advaita Vedanta, having been studying it for several years. I recommend you read the Tripura Rahasya when you get the chance.

Sahasranama
16 December 2010, 11:58 AM
Don't patronise me. One moment you call me ignorant, the other you pretend you understand what I am saying. I do not trust people with double tongues.

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 12:04 PM
Don't patronise me. One moment you call me ignorant, the other you pretend you understand what I am saying. I do not trust people with double tongues.

I did not intend to patronise you and I only affirmed you were ignorant regarding the Bible, not generally. I am ignorant with regards to the Quran and many more things. We're not supposed to be omniscient :). Sorry if you took it as an offence.

Pranam

Adhvagat
16 December 2010, 12:18 PM
I look at you both and I see the gunas discussing.














Sorry couldn't resist... :D

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 12:26 PM
@Pietro Impagliazzo:

Yes, I can sense the rajas in the air :). I am just a shishya on the path... This discussion went way too far. I only wrote in this thread because I didn't agree to wordings like "steaming pile of crock" or "toilet paper" with regard to other religions and their defining texts. How are we better than the fanatic christians or muslims if we use words like that? I can literally feel the hate and disgust of the person that writes them. Every religion and every philosophy has it's good and bad parts. The bad parts could be there either due to the passage of time and corruption of texts or because that religion/philosophy is just a human invention (and human systems of thought are prone to error). However, classing someone as a non-hindu just because he believes Jesus is an avatar seems too harsh to me. The Vedas were written thousands of years before Jesus was even born. So unless the Vedas also contain the whole future of mankind and the names of all future avatars, then I don't see why someone that believes in the Godhead of Jesus violates in any way his belief in the Vedas. If God has provided numerous ways for the hindus to achieve the highest goal, why wouldn't He be born as an avatar in other countries also and teach them according to their ability? Just some food for thought... Now I am really done here.

Adhvagat
16 December 2010, 12:33 PM
Actually, the shastras have predictions to avatars. I don't know where... Someone enlighten me please!

But I was always told that Buddha was predicted in the shastras. Jesus, however, was not.

I think the wrong word here is avatar, Jesus was certainly not an avatar, based on classifications and descriptions. Performing the actions described show yogic siddhis, not that he was God.

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

Eastern Mind
16 December 2010, 02:43 PM
Vannakkam:

And then there are people like me, following Saiva Siddhanta tradition, who don't believe in any avatars, or the concept of avatar at all. I think we need to go back and realize the vastness of this multidimensional faith termed Hinduism.

I do agree with hrdayananda that is rude at best to just post insults without any back up.

"You're the baby"
"No, you're the baby"
"You're even less than a baby."

and so it goes ... nowhere fast.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
16 December 2010, 03:51 PM
You cannot judge the christian "god" from a single verse. Why not look at the part where Moses asks God who He is, in order to tell the jewish people who sent him, and God answers: "I am the ONE WHO IS". Pardon me, but that seems in perfect agreement with the hindu concept of Parabrahman being the only self-existent "thing".


Sentences like "the christian God is a wrathful monster" only reflect your ignorance of the subject, in my opinion. I cannot say that about any god of any religion. People spend tens of years studying the bible. You read a passage and think you can draw these conclusions? It's like me reading the Rig Veda once and saying it's all just worshipping of the thunderbolts, fire and other absurdities that are common right now among the "orientalists".

Hi, since I did infact spend years studying this text you refer to I will offer some things here.

In the course of my time here I read the bible through to the end many times. The christian god is wrathful, hateful and a full out monster. Unfortunately I know this book so well I can point you to the exact locations of some of the most serious attrocities.

But first, let me explain that the bible was not written by a God, it's origin is in the hands of common men with their own motivations...then edited by other men and clumped together in the form we know today.

I suggest reading the appocrypha if you have any doubts about that.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm

One has only to look at the other books which were taken away to see how convoluted the truth would be to decypher.

Okay so onto the actual bible and its "god".

This portion of Leviticus is where God tells Moses that disabled people can not take sacrament inside the temple.


16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.


Here's another jewel....Good ol' Numbers 11-

Folks had been walking lost in the desert with Moses, only having Mana to eat and drink. The people begged kindly for God to give them special food for their celebration. He got very angry....angry enough to poison and kill every single man, woman and innocent child within the group.



1And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
7 And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.
8 And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.
9 And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.
10 Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.
11 And Moses said unto the LORD, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?
12 Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?
13 Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.
14 I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.
15 And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.
16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
18 And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.
19 Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
20 But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?

21-29 is just blah blah blah about the details of this-

30 And Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
31 And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day’s journey on this side, and as it were a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
32 And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.
33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
34 And he called the name of that place Kibrothhattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.
35 And the people journeyed from Kibrothhattaavah unto Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth.


Disgusting....and this happens throughout the bible. It's positively wretched.

One time the followers of Moses finds a stranger gathering wood for his family in a bit of forest, they capture this man and take him to Moses and God commands them to stone this man who could have a wife and children depending on his hunting, because it was the Jew's sabbath. Even though this man was not of them!

Numbers 15-


32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.


I could go on and on...all day and night with these things. Because when one comes from such ridiculous indoctrination and with Shivaya's Grace, are allowed to leave such ignorance. You know exactly the reasons for this religion to be truly and undeniably separate from the Divine Truth of Sanatana Dharma.

The knower knows this and can never forget. For that Truth is so precious I would spend a thousand lifetimes and never return to that darker option.

Despite the bible's problems, good people believe in the christian god.

Kind people, mean people, honest people and liars. The book is not fully read, and they stick to what they know...picking and choosing the laws to abide. The God in that book behaves wickedly, it is a vindictive, jealous monster.

Now, this is not to say Christians are bad, monsterous or evil. So so many of them are not even aware of the full contents of their own beliefs.

It's true....seldom few have read numbers or Leviticus. It is avoided by churches because of the content. Over and over again you will hear sermons about baby jesus being born. Never ever will you hear how God orders an innocent man to be stoned for nothing more than trying to warm his family.

Okay so now that we know whom we are talking about let's go esoteric with this discussion.

I hate to use ice cream here, as a beloved friend was once chastised for his wonderful analogy of ice cream.

But...

One time I told an aquaintance that pineapple icecream with macadamia nuts and cherries is THE best! WOOhoo!

This young lady got very angry with me...chocolate is good...why do you hate chocolate?

I was stunned. I don't hate chocolate....did I say this?

She absolutely took it as I was saying this because I was so very passionate about Hawaaiian macadamia cherry icecream.

Then I realized that often times, by being SO passionately positive about something, others can take this as a slap to their own tastes.

Isn't this often the case here with this subject. Because, you higher beings know, truly know...these things not readily understood...

It may come off as an affront to others on a different section of this journey?

Christians can become enlightened, one beloved elder of the mormon church saved my life in many ways. He was honorable, wise, kind to every living being...a father to all who knew him, and I love him with all my heart.

But, those beings are rare and few...most here in the U.S. are in a perpetual cycle of making money and spending it...they never even wonder what the truth could be, they simply accept their community's common beliefs and live in fear and ignorance their whole life long.

Afraid to question this indoctrination.

I do not think it is wrong to evaluate them in such ways.

These bodies were meant to evaluate and to judge things for our survival. You pull up to a gas station, a man has a knife and is standing there...do you unlock your door and get out?

You make a judgement of this man, because it's a survival instinct.

We make judgements small and large every day. It's the way of this realm.

Evaluation of such things brought me here, to this blessed spot. It was vital to my evolution.

Despite that evaluation, I try very hard to be kind to these other beings who are still so shrouded in confusion and darkness. It is not a bad thing to evaluate, it's natural that we all start from somewhere and move up the ladder? Right?

Every being starts in these lower spiritual positions and moves up over lifetimes of understanding. They are not bad, nor wrong...they must go through these things to evolve. Who here would be immune to this climbing?

It's all about our perspective.

Recently, my son was talking to a young lady in school. He is 14 and not allowed to date, he owns no cell phone and is given only limited and monitored time on our internet.

This caused him great grief...all of his friend have phones are allowed to make out with young ladies. All of his friends have flashy things like IPOD.

But, I am conservative and he agonizes over this. Because this society is our home we face such things. He is very young and can not understand why I do these things...

Someday he will understand why I will not allow him to talk to a young lady in that dispicable manner his peers do...one day as he looks at his beautiful 13 year old daughter and finds out she is being pressured for sex....then he will know why I refused to let him speak this way.

Unfortunately, right now, in his eyes, I am "old and just don't understand."

He is not ridiculed for this ignorance, as it is very natural for young men in this society have these immature views. I try to be kind as he works this out on his own. I do lose my patience sometimes. Fourteen year olds are just a vessel racked with hormones. Oh boy!:p


Just as christians can be very unaware, my son is also unaware. Each just need some time to work it out. I am always mindful to be kind to all beings that do not have malicious intent. Even the malicious ones, I will try to avoid harming and give them a wide berth. To engage such a being would result in harming them. It's easy here to do such things. In other places around the world, such as Kashmir, this is almost an impossibilty. If I lived there...I would have already died from my impact with the confused beings dwelling there who kill Hindus.

Even as I type this I am compelled to say-

Given time, every single being here will move upward...I truly believe this.

NayaSurya
16 December 2010, 03:59 PM
Eek that was long, but it's those silly quotes that do it. Please forgive, but I think they were important for this conversation.<3

hrdayananda
16 December 2010, 05:07 PM
@NayaSurya

Yes, I am fully aware of the attrocities described in the Old Testament and I cannot but agree with the fact that what is described there as God is a cruel entity, an "angry and jelous" god. However, Christianity is really defined by the New Testament, which proposes a radically different view about God (let he who has never sinned throw the stone first). He is a forgiving and loving God. That radical difference between the Old and the New Testaments is what made me renounce it, I have to admit, because the official view is that Yahweh is the same God as the "Father" of the New Testament. I can't and won't bow to that kind of angry and jelous god, because he's no better than us :)

satay
16 December 2010, 05:33 PM
Admin Note

Closed for review.