PDA

View Full Version : Why Hindus should reject Jesus



Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 01:20 PM
http://hindudharmaforums.com/

sanjaya
09 January 2011, 11:36 PM
I've started reading the article on why Hindus should reject Jesus, and I'm very interested to finish the one on the Evangelical Christian Creed. While I tend to have enough respect for Jesus as to not insult him, I would of course concur that there is nothing in Christianity that Hindus would find beneficial. To read the Bible or other Christian materials will only make some Hindus easier targets for conversion, and so I believe this should be avoided. Perhaps the wisest statement I've seen (specifically in the pamphlet on the evangelical creed) is this:

The ultimate fall back position for all of them when challenged will



be — “It is a matter of faith!” If so then let them keep their delusional faith to themselves and not share it with us who follow the oldest religion on earth and who already have morality, spirituality and salvation in abundance.

The typical party line of evangelicals against those who call Christianity immoral is that one who does not believe in God has no absolute standard of morality, and cannot call anything moral or immoral. This is true when the critic is an atheist (and atheists are the predominant critics of Christianity). We, however, believe in God and are well within our rights to make moral judgments concerning Christianity. Also, in the document on why Hindus should reject Jesus, many arguments are given explaining the Old Testament concept of the Jewish messiah, and the New Testament's failure to apply these to Jesus. These arguments can also be found on the website of the counter-missionary organization Jews for Judaism, which perhaps is a good resource as well.


The only caution I would advise here is that some of these things seem to be written from a rather atheistic perspective. Of all the arguments Hindus might make against Christianity, calling the idea of bodily resurrection absurd is not one of the better ones. Similar stories of supernatural occurances exist in Hindu Scriptures. So let us be careful to use only the good arguments against evangelical Christianity, of which there are many. That way we can present an unimpeachable case against the evangelicals.


Anyway, interesting articles. Thanks for posting them!

Sahasranama
10 January 2011, 12:08 AM
That's a good observation, the author has studied abrahamic religions for eight years in the middle east before he converted to Sri Vaishnavism. He knows all the arguments against Christianity, both atheistic and non-atheistic. I think both are valuable to fight of Christianity, so that we can defeat them from both perspectives.

I don't think it would be a bad thing if Hindus did read the Bible, because many gurus quote the good parts from the Bible to be kind to the Christians, but respectfully hide the filth in the Bible, so many devoted Hindus remain unaware of it and become subjects for conversions:


"There are, as I have demonstrated many similar teachings found in both the Bible
and the Gita. But the Gita is truly a HOLY Scripture dealing with the nature of the
soul, the nature of the Godhead, our relationship with Him and the path of virtue
and love. Nowhere in all the sacred revelation of India — the Vedas, the
Upanishads or the Gita is there to be found anything comparable to the most
appalling and repulsive teachings and injunctions which are found in the Bible."

sm78
11 January 2011, 06:21 AM
To read the Bible or other Christian materials will only make some Hindus easier targets for conversion, and so I believe this should be avoided.

On contrary reading it and using one's intelligence to understand will only make us more informed about the truth and stupidity of this creed. Universalist hindu's never read the Bible totally or impartially, most of the time they are happy knowing some saint praised Jesus or rembering how Yogananda quoted "First there was the word, and the word was God..." sort of stuff from Bible and proved the existence of sabda brahman from Bible. Christians read the Bible even lesser - they only swear by it. Having a little knowledge about Bible can empower any Hindu to floor a Christian with Bible itself....its all the same for any dogma based on lies. No communist have actually sat down, read and analysed Marx's works. They have only read pamplets and listened to speeches.

For me, it was reading Islam which have made me so anti-Islamic.

sm78
11 January 2011, 06:25 AM
Why Hindus should reject Jesus
http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/Why%20Hindus%20Should%20Reject%20Jesus.pdf

The Bible unmasked:
http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/the-bible-unmasked.pdf

Cosmic Game:
http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/cosmic-game.pdf

Hindu Criticism of the Evangelical Christian Creed:
http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/hindu-criticism-evangelical-christians.pdf

A Hindu response to Dawa:
http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/A%20Hindu%20Response%20to%20Dawa.pdf

Thanks for pointing this website. The author seems to have a rare combination of grounding in a ancient sampradaya, yet having a practical and non-sectarian outlook for Hinduism, plus a good background in the Abrahamic delusions. The kind of people we need to propagate and preserve faith from right perspective.

BryonMorrigan
11 January 2011, 07:36 AM
I don't even understand why Hindus should even have to have this discussion. I understand the necessity of pointing out info like this, as too many Hindus seem to be falling for the Christian propaganda...but I mean, do other religions ever have to have these discussions?

Do Christians sit around discussing whether or not Hanuman is "appropriate" for Christianity?

Do Jews sit around discussing whether or not Zeus is "appropriate" for Judaism?

Do Muslims sit around discussing whether or not the Buddha is "appropriate" for Islam?

Frankly, "Jesus" is as relevant to Hinduism as Maa Kali is to Christianity.

Allowing Hinduism to be altered or defined by Christianity, or even considering it, shows that one's mind already feels that Christianity is "superior" to Hinduism. You can see this kind of thinking echoed in some of the writings of Rammohan Roy and Keshub Chunder Sen. They were so eager to be "accepted" by their oppressors and seen as "modern," that they couldn't stop fawning over the aggressive hatred of Christian proselytism.

In fact, I cannot think of many religions as fundamentally INCOMPATIBLE as Hinduism and Christianity. It's like trying to be both an observant Jew and a Jihadist Muslim at the same time.

Sahasranama
11 January 2011, 09:24 AM
I don't know why Hindus keep falling for the trap of Jesus, it is self evident that Jesus is irrelevant to Hinduism and that Christianity is incompatible with Sanatana Dharma. But the collonial inferiority complex and self loathing attitude of Ram Mohan Roy is still rampant among many Hindus. The list of gurus who have been influenced by Ram Mohan Roy is endless, even the para-guru of Srila Prabhupada was once a RMR groupie.


Allowing Hinduism to be altered or defined by Christianity, or even considering it, shows that one's mind already feels that Christianity is "superior" to Hinduism.I could not have said this better. We should take the Christian advice to not take his name (in vain), meaning "let's not waste any energy on Christianity." I agree that we shouldn't even have this discussion. I hope the links I posted will put the problem to rest, so that we can keep our focus on more important discussions that deal with Hinduism itself.

Adhvagat
11 January 2011, 04:21 PM
What I usually do is try to define christianity and every other religious manifestation through the knowledge of the Vedas. It's just natural curiosity to get to know how some religions evolved into their current forms, like the african religions that have rituals very similar to deity worship.

But I guess sometimes in this forum people think I'm doing the opposite.

Alise
11 January 2011, 04:37 PM
Namaste,

I actually changed my religious beliefs by accident... If I wouldn't have researched about Judaism for a project & got hooked-up, I still would be Christian. If it weren't for Judaism, I wouldn't have looked around & found Sanatana Dharma.
I believed everything church said & never checked info twice.
That said, now for me belief in Jesus Christ seems illogical.
Person who looks deeply into Sanatana Dharma would never want to turn back or try to change it for society's beliefs or anything.

I agree with Bryon.

Have a great day,
~Alice

Riverwolf
13 January 2011, 01:09 PM
I will not reject Jesus because of certain Christian interpretations of his teachings.

I've managed to get my hands on a New Testament that contains the Greek text and an EXACT, word for word and even by grammar, translation. I will go off of that, not evangelical interpretations or translations.

Sahasranama
13 January 2011, 08:41 PM
I will not reject Jesus because of certain Christian interpretations of his teachings.

I've managed to get my hands on a New Testament that contains the Greek text and an EXACT, word for word and even by grammar, translation. I will go off of that, not evangelical interpretations or translations.


If you have more inclination to study the Bible then who am I to interfere with that. Personally I would rather spend my valuable time studying the Valmiki Ramayana (http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/). I have read in another post you were skeptical about the itihasas, yet you still cling on to Jesus and the Bible, maybe you are more Christian than you think. :)

sanjaya
13 January 2011, 08:57 PM
I will not reject Jesus because of certain Christian interpretations of his teachings.

I've managed to get my hands on a New Testament that contains the Greek text and an EXACT, word for word and even by grammar, translation. I will go off of that, not evangelical interpretations or translations.

I can see why that might be a good idea.

From what I've read, most translations are pretty much correct. If so, then whatever misinterpretations of Jesus' teachings occur are happening after the translational level. I've read the Bible. At face value the words of Jesus seem rather wise. But evangelicals gives us another interpretation which makes them seem somewhat less favorable. Which interpretation is correct: the one you see at face value or the evangelicals'?

My answer is that since we have all the wisdom we need in Hinduism, it doesn't ultimately matter. I have no doubt that Jesus' words are wise and in contradiction to evangelical theology. He's probably even a representation of God of some sort. But his words are so few; the Bible is a very small book compared to Hindu Scripture. And even these are so clouded by the evangelicals that I think it's best to just stick with traditional Hindu Scripture. Plus, Christianity is strongly associated with the Western world. Christianity is a solely Western religion. Westernization is the last thing we need, given all the Westernization that's already happening in India. Best to stay away from Christianity, I think.

Riverwolf
13 January 2011, 09:53 PM
If you are interested in studying New Testament Greek, here are some interesting resources: http://www.textkit.com/new-testament-greek.php If you have more inclination to study the Bible then who am I to interfere with that. Personally I would rather spend my valuable time studying the Valmiki Ramayana (http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/). I have read in another post you were skeptical about the itihasas, good for you that still cling on to Jesus, maybe you are more Christian than you think. :)

I'm only skeptical about the itahasas as far as history goes, not as far as story, lesson, or essence goes. I love the story of the Ramayana; after all, it's the prototypical hero rescues princess from monster scenario that I've been exposed to since I was a baby. Whether or not it really happened isn't important to me.

Besides, I call myself Hindu, but I belong to no club. I call myself Hindu because I believe the Vedas, specifically the Vedanta, to be the highest authority on spiritual matters.

But they are not the only Scriptures, nor do I believe that India is the only place on earth where Scriptures containing spiritual worth came from.

I'm not Christian, for I do not worship Christ. But I am a discriminative universalist. (That is, I agree with Sri Ramakrishna that all paths are legit paths to God, and I believe that all paths have something to add; but I'm also careful about avoiding the pop religions that are more about consumerism and materialism than spirituality.)

Riverwolf
13 January 2011, 10:00 PM
I can see why that might be a good idea.

From what I've read, most translations are pretty much correct. If so, then whatever misinterpretations of Jesus' teachings occur are happening after the translational level. I've read the Bible. At face value the words of Jesus seem rather wise. But evangelicals gives us another interpretation which makes them seem somewhat less favorable. Which interpretation is correct: the one you see at face value or the evangelicals'?

My answer is that since we have all the wisdom we need in Hinduism, it doesn't ultimately matter. I have no doubt that Jesus' words are wise and in contradiction to evangelical theology. He's probably even a representation of God of some sort. But his words are so few; the Bible is a very small book compared to Hindu Scripture. And even these are so clouded by the evangelicals that I think it's best to just stick with traditional Hindu Scripture. Plus, Christianity is strongly associated with the Western world. Christianity is a solely Western religion. Westernization is the last thing we need, given all the Westernization that's already happening in India. Best to stay away from Christianity, I think.

This Western world that you criticize so is the world where I come from, FYI. ;) Trust me: though I do agree that traditional and orthodox Hinduism need to stay, well, traditional and orthodox, I see nothing wrong with including the wisdom that I've found here in my personal beliefs and practices.

Besides, modern Catholic and Protestant Christianity aren't the only forms there are. There's also Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Gnostic... and, frankly, from what very little I've seen of these other pre-Catholic forms of Christianity, they seem to represent the teachings of Jesus far better than modern ones.

Not to mention, while translations tend to be correct to a certain extent, often, a single word is changed to fit a certain agenda, and ends up changing the entire meaning.

For example, "the Kingdom of God is inside you" (the proper translation) vs. "the Kingdom of God is among you" (the modern translation).

Believe me, for now, I am staying away from popular Christianity. (Then again, popular religion in general should be avoided.)

Sahasranama
13 January 2011, 10:16 PM
I will not deny that other places on earth have had their share of spiritual teachers. There is wisdom to be found from all directions of the universe. I am sure there is some amount of wisdom to be found in the Bible, but you will have to search for a needle in a haystack. If you are into advaita vedanta, maybe you can benefit more from studying from real (classic) philosophers of the west like the stoics? There are parts of the stoic writings which are similar to vedantic thinking. A lot of the sayings of the bible that appear as wisdom come from Stoicism or Plato.

Riverwolf
14 January 2011, 12:25 PM
I will not deny that other places on earth have had their share of spiritual teachers. There is wisdom to be found from all directions of the universe. I am sure there is some amount of wisdom to be found in the Bible, but you will have to search for a needle in a haystack.

Not really. Just like with our Scriptures, you just have to be careful about translation and commentary. For example, in regards to the Tanakh, I NEVER read Christian translations or commentaries: I read Jewish ones. Therein I have found great wisdom.

Just like our own Scriptures, the essence of theirs is found beneath the surface, not on it.

Just look at the first nine chapters of Proverbs (as far as I'm concerned, it's Athena Herself speaking those words), Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), an the Wisdom books in general. Those are my favorite parts of the Tanakh.

As for the New Testament, I ignore everything after the Gospels, and will lean closer to studying the Gnostic texts and Coptic/Eastern Orthodox teachings. I know enough about modern Catholic and Protestant Christianity to know there's not much spiritual worth there.

So, I don't take the Bible, or more accurately, the Biblical canon as a single whole, because it's not: it's a collection.


If you are into advaita vedanta, maybe you can benefit more from studying from real (classic) philosophers of the west like the stoics? There are parts of the stoic writings which are similar to vedantic thinking. A lot of the sayings of the bible that appear as wisdom come from Stoicism or Plato.My studies are still within Vedic literature; I'll take my studies to other places later. :)

Sahasranama
14 January 2011, 12:45 PM
My studies are still within Vedic literature; I'll take my studies to other places later. :)

That's fine, you should study according your own inclination, but you are already scouting outside the vedic literature. The bible is not vedic literature. I guess if you pick and choose, instead of looking at the whole picture, you can get something from Christian texts too. Just don't close your eyes for the negative aspects which may not be relevant to you, but are also part of the ideology of the people who wrote the biblical texts and are important to the followers of Christianity. Similarly, we could read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, looking for some gems of wisdom, but not acknowledging the terror the Nazis have caused while praising Hitler as a great humanitarian. This would be a great disservice to history. In these type of discussion, people always come up with oneliners that are supposed to show the good side of Christianity, but simple oneliners do not negate the terrorism caused by this religion, neither do they put these texts on equal ground as the vedic literature.

Riverwolf
14 January 2011, 01:50 PM
That's fine, you should study according your own inclination, but you are already scouting outside the vedic literature. The bible is not vedic literature. I guess if you pick and choose, instead of looking at the whole picture, you can get something from Christian texts too.

I personally don't see anything wrong with picking and choosing from a text that was canonized via picking and choosing. ;)


Just don't close your eyes for the negative aspects which may not be relevant to you, but are also part of the ideology of the people who wrote the biblical texts and are important to the followers of Christianity.

I know. I ignore negative things in any text. For example, I'm a feminist, so I do not follow those parts of Vedic literature that try to impose gender roles.

I personally don't care what other people follow, so long as they don't try to impose that onto me, or threaten others for not following what they follow.

Basically, I agree with the Wiccan Creed: "At harm none, do as thou wilt."


Similarly, we could read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, looking for some gems of wisdom, but not acknowledging the terror the Nazis have caused while praising Hitler as a great humanitarian.

Horrible analogy. Mein Kampf was written by one man (whose sanity was questionable), and therefore contains one ideology and proper interpretation.

The Biblical canon contains many ideologies, many viewpoints, many valid interpretations.


This would be a great disservice to history. In these type of discussion, people always come up with oneliners that are supposed to show the good side of Christianity, but simple oneliners do not negate the terrorism caused by this religion, neither do they put these texts on equal ground as the vedic literature.

Well, I don't really care for using the followers to judge the teachings. It's not like Vedic literature or followers have a clean history; it's just that our bloody history goes back much, much farther. But this kind of attitude of demonizing others could cause that history to come back.

Just remember, Christianity is the teachings, not the results of those teachings. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, but I disagree with Jesus on the reverse: a good tree can, in fact, bear bad fruit.

Sahasranama
14 January 2011, 02:09 PM
I personally don't see anything wrong with picking and choosing from a text that was canonized via picking and choosing.You should pick and choose for your own sake, this is a noble thing to do to disregard the bad parts of the Bible, but at the same time, for the sake of cultural and historical accuracy and to protect Hindus from proselytization and other forms of Christian aggression, not ignoring the negative parts which you can find in the links I posted earlier is also necessary.

Serious Hindus will ignore the teachings of the bible completely, why buy dirty laundry when you can get new clothes?


Horrible analogy. Mein Kampf was written by one man (whose sanity was questionable), and therefore contains one ideology and proper interpretation.
The Biblical canon contains many ideologies, many viewpoints, many valid interpretations.
Please tell me, which Christian tradition does not interpretate the Bible as a whole?


Well, I don't really care for using the followers to judge the teachings. It's not like Vedic literature or followers have a clean history; it's just that our bloody history goes back much, much farther. But this kind of attitude of demonizing others could cause that history to come backIgnoring the inherent flaws of Christianity will lead history to come back.

Riverwolf
14 January 2011, 04:23 PM
You should pick and choose for your own sake, this is a noble thing to do to disregard the bad parts of the Bible, but at the same time, for the sake of cultural and historical accuracy and to protect Hindus from proselytization and other forms of Christian aggression, not ignoring the negative parts which you can find in the links I posted earlier is also necessary.

I agree.


Serious Hindus will ignore the teachings of the bible completely, why buy dirty laundry when you can get new clothes? You mean sectarian Hindus: those who belong to specific sects. Of course it makes sense that such people ought to ignore the writings of sects not of their own, to avoid confusion.

I'm not sectarian: I'm syncretic. Yet I fail to see how that makes me "less" Hindu or less serious.


Please tell me, which Christian tradition does not interpretate the Bible as a whole? Well, in the early days of Christianity, there was a Christian who denied the Tanakh as revealed, and in fact demonized it as a product of Satan. Thus, he compiled the very first collection of Christian writings, which only included a very truncated version of Luke's Gospel (all references to the Tanakh removed), and 10 of Paul's letters.

Some Christians deny all parts of the Bible not directly spoken by Jesus.

It is true that most Christians use both the Tanakh (or variants of it) and the New Testament. That doesn't mean all of them do.

Besides, most Christians from what I've seen don't place much importance on the Tanakh: they focus on the New Testament.


Ignoring the inherent flaws of Christianity will lead history to come back.
I can say the same about all practices and paths, including Vedic ones.

No path is perfectly flawless.

sanjaya
14 January 2011, 11:03 PM
This Western world that you criticize so is the world where I come from, FYI. ;) Trust me: though I do agree that traditional and orthodox Hinduism need to stay, well, traditional and orthodox, I see nothing wrong with including the wisdom that I've found here in my personal beliefs and practices.

Nothing wrong with being Western. Aside from my religion and Indian ethnicity, I am "Western" as well, being born/raised here and all. Ethnicity doesn't count for so much, but oh what a difference religion can make in one's perspective and view of the world in modern times, when geographic borders are becoming much less meaningful.

As I said before, Christianity is a European religion. It was made by Europeans and for Europeans. Evangelical Christians, in their eagerness to convert Hindus to their religion, are quick to point out that Jesus was Jewish and from the Middle East; but they are slow to point out that by the Bible's own admission, most of the first churches were born in Greece, which is the seat of Western philosophy. And they are slower still to recognize the obvious fact that Jews, by and large, are white. I don't mean to say that there's anything wrong with being European. I do mean to say that religion and culture are strongly intertwined, and trying to divorce a religion from it's culture is a great injustice. Imagine what would happen if Hinduism ceased to be associated with India. I do not doubt that within a couple of generations, there would be no such thing as European culture. Westernizing Hinduism would impoverish it greatly.


Besides, modern Catholic and Protestant Christianity aren't the only forms there are. There's also Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Gnostic... and, frankly, from what very little I've seen of these other pre-Catholic forms of Christianity, they seem to represent the teachings of Jesus far better than modern ones.

Eastern Orthodox aren't necessarily preferable to Catholics. Just look at the thread I linked to (in my other post on this forum) on a Christian forum. The person who charges Hindus with raping and murdering Christian missionaries is Eastern Orthodox. As for groups like Gnostic Christianity, I find these schools of thought to be mere hot air. There has been no Gnostic Christianity for almost two thousand years. It was only recently revived when Biblical scholars unearthed texts that tell us about Christianity in its infancy. It seems to me that Gnostic Christianity is effectively a made up religion. I personally find it to be as laughable as Wicca or Satanism; it exists solely to rebel against mainstream Christianity. The person who practices Gnosticism is effectively making up his own religion (and at that point, why not just declare yourself God and be done with it?).

Having said that, it's important to note that most Christian denominations are mere annoyances, but not harmful. The most dangerous and fastest growing group is evangelical Christianity, and I feel it is this group about which Hindus should make ourselves most aware.


Not to mention, while translations tend to be correct to a certain extent, often, a single word is changed to fit a certain agenda, and ends up changing the entire meaning.

For example, "the Kingdom of God is inside you" (the proper translation) vs. "the Kingdom of God is among you" (the modern translation).

Maybe, but who's to say which translation is correct? If I'm not mistaken, "inside you" or "within you" comes from the King James translation, whereas "among you" is from more modern renditions. Chances are that this has to do with an evolution of the English language more than anything else. If the meaning of a text can depend so strongly on just one word, it isn't all that useful. The Bhagavad Gita has never been misunderstood to the extent that the Bible has. Bringing us full circle, I think this has to do with the preservation of Hindu culture from ancient times. Interpretation of language changes with culture, but Hindu culture seems far more static than the West. Maybe that's why we don't have hundreds of denominations. In any case, I would say that the Gita's fewer possible interpretations alone makes it a more valuable text than the Bible, despite its smaller size. And this is to say nothing of the volumes upon volumes of Hindu Scripture, which likewise do not have such hotly contested meanings.


Believe me, for now, I am staying away from popular Christianity. (Then again, popular religion in general should be avoided.)

By all means do what you want, it isn't for me to judge you. Honestly it's none of my business what religious path you choose. And it isn't anyone else's business either, unless the people questioning your beliefs happen to be married to or have given birth to you.

But may I ask: why is popular religion to be avoided? Hinduism is a popular religion; statistically it's the third most popular one in the world. It seems to me that unpopular religion is what is to be avoided. As I stated above, I find invented religions (basically anything that's cropped up in the last few hundred years) to be ridiculous, fickle, and worthless. If someone invents a religion, there are a couple of possibilities. It's possible that Bhagavan has come to that person in a dream, vision, or in person, and given him some discourse or teaching upon which a religion is to be based. However (and this is the more likely case), it's also possible that the person has just made up his religion. And if so, he knows in his mind that the religion is false and an utter waste of time.

This is why it seems to me that it is most spiritually profitable for a person to either learn about God and religion through what his parents hand down to him, from a religious Scripture, or from a guru. By mixing and matching religions, a person is creating a spirituality that is clearly false, because different religions have contradictory teachings and cannot be simultaneously true. I suppose that you could pick out non-Hindu texts that happen to agree with the Vedas and other Hindu teaching. But in that case, why bother with the other texts at all? And if you selectively choose scriptures that do not contradict each other, but that together form an original spirituality...well, see my earlier comment on invented religions.

I personally think that Sahasranama is right about serious Hindus rejecting the Bible, as well as other non-Hindu teachings. And I say so for several reasons. First, Hinduism has so much Scripture to its name that one could likely not study it in a single lifetime, and that is if one completely neglects the Hindu teachings that can only be learned through gurus or bhakti. So why waste time on other texts and practices? Secondly, mixing Hinduism with religions from other cultures will eventually lead to the loss of Hindu culture, and this is harmful. Finally, Christianity has failed to find a place in Hinduism after several hundred years. If you take the Christians at their word, their religion has been in India since the first century AD. In far less time than that, Christianity was able to conquer other cultures like Europe, Africa, and South Korea. But despite Inquisitions and aggressive missionary activity, it's never claimed more than 2.5% of India's population. All generations of Indians have seen fit to not include Christianity in their religious life. And who am I to contradict centuries of tradition?

Riverwolf
15 January 2011, 07:22 PM
Nothing wrong with being Western. Aside from my religion and Indian ethnicity, I am "Western" as well, being born/raised here and all. Ethnicity doesn't count for so much, but oh what a difference religion can make in one's perspective and view of the world in modern times, when geographic borders are becoming much less meaningful.

As I said before, Christianity is a European religion.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's a middle-eastern religion. European religions as they were died long ago, only a few of them seeing a revival.


Evangelical Christians, in their eagerness to convert Hindus to their religion, are quick to point out that Jesus was Jewish and from the Middle East; but they are slow to point out that by the Bible's own admission, most of the first churches were born in Greece, which is the seat of Western philosophy.Those are the ones that swept the West. But there's a reason why the Greek church is called "Eastern" Orthodox.

Not to mention, they're not the only ones.


And they are slower still to recognize the obvious fact that Jews, by and large, are white.So? Interbreeding over a few thousand years along with living in a cooler environment will quickly cause skin color to change.


I don't mean to say that there's anything wrong with being European. I do mean to say that religion and culture are strongly intertwined, and trying to divorce a religion from it's culture is a great injustice. Imagine what would happen if Hinduism ceased to be associated with India.I'm Hindu, but I feel no real attraction to India or Indian culture as it is right now.


Eastern Orthodox aren't necessarily preferable to Catholics. Just look at the thread I linked to (in my other post on this forum) on a Christian forum. The person who charges Hindus with raping and murdering Christian missionaries is Eastern Orthodox.One person can hardly represent an entire church.


As for groups like Gnostic Christianity, I find these schools of thought to be mere hot air. There has been no Gnostic Christianity for almost two thousand years. It was only recently revived when Biblical scholars unearthed texts that tell us about Christianity in its infancy. It seems to me that Gnostic Christianity is effectively a made up religion. I personally find it to be as laughable as Wicca or Satanism; it exists solely to rebel against mainstream Christianity. The person who practices Gnosticism is effectively making up his own religion (and at that point, why not just declare yourself God and be done with it?).I heartily disagree. Sure, modern Gnosticism isn't like the original form of it, but neither are Asatru or Kemeticism. Doesn't make them less valid.


Having said that, it's important to note that most Christian denominations are mere annoyances, but not harmful. The most dangerous and fastest growing group is evangelical Christianity, and I feel it is this group about which Hindus should make ourselves most aware.They're loud, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they're the fastest growing.


Maybe, but who's to say which translation is correct? If I'm not mistaken, "inside you" or "within you" comes from the King James translation, whereas "among you" is from more modern renditions.Correct. The King Jimmy isn't all that accurate when it comes to the Tanakh, but from what I've seen, it's fine based on the documents those scholars had at the time.


Chances are that this has to do with an evolution of the English language more than anything else. If the meaning of a text can depend so strongly on just one word, it isn't all that useful.That can happen to other texts, as well.


The Bhagavad Gita has never been misunderstood to the extent that the Bible has.Really? Then why all the interpretations?


Bringing us full circle, I think this has to do with the preservation of Hindu culture from ancient times. Interpretation of language changes with culture, but Hindu culture seems far more static than the West. Maybe that's why we don't have hundreds of denominations.It sure looks like we do.


In any case, I would say that the Gita's fewer possible interpretations alone makes it a more valuable text than the Bible, despite its smaller size. And this is to say nothing of the volumes upon volumes of Hindu Scripture, which likewise do not have such hotly contested meanings.I don't really like comparing the Gita to the Bible, since they're not in the same style. The Bible is a whole text: the Gita is part of a larger whole. The Biblical equivalent would be the Sermon on the Mount.

Then again, I think our translators are more careful about it than Western ones do. Hence why, when I read Biblical translations, I tend to stick with ones done by one person.


By all means do what you want, it isn't for me to judge you. Honestly it's none of my business what religious path you choose. And it isn't anyone else's business either, unless the people questioning your beliefs happen to be married to or have given birth to you.

But may I ask: why is popular religion to be avoided?I don't mean popular as in followed by a lot of people. I mean popular as in part of pop culture.


As I stated above, I find invented religions (basically anything that's cropped up in the last few hundred years) to be ridiculous, fickle, and worthless. If someone invents a religion, there are a couple of possibilities. It's possible that Bhagavan has come to that person in a dream, vision, or in person, and given him some discourse or teaching upon which a religion is to be based. However (and this is the more likely case), it's also possible that the person has just made up his religion. And if so, he knows in his mind that the religion is false and an utter waste of time.I disagree. I think that, to an extent, people can come up with their own paths all they want, if they've been given the insight to do so. It depends on what the followers get out of it that determines whether or not it's of worth.

For example, Scientology is obviously nonsense. On the other hand, Neo-Pagan paths allow for an alternative form of spirituality for those who do not care for the old ways. Just because a path is new doesn't automatically invalidate it. There was a time when all paths were new. "By their fruits you shall know them."


This is why it seems to me that it is most spiritually profitable for a person to either learn about God and religion through what his parents hand down to him,from a religious Scripture, or from a guru. By mixing and matching religions, a person is creating a spirituality that is clearly false, because different religions have contradictory teachings and cannot be simultaneously true.What's wrong with taking the best of everything?


I suppose that you could pick out non-Hindu texts that happen to agree with the Vedas and other Hindu teaching. But in that case, why bother with the other texts at all?Because they can sometimes offer something the Vedas can't. For example, in my case, familiarity.

Not to mention, wisdom isn't always found in texts. Bruce Lee once said something very wise in one of his films:

Some of the characters are practicing karate to defend themselves from thugs. One of their companions does not. When Lee asks him about it, he responds: "It's foreign." Lee retorts with this: "Foreign or not, if it helps you defend yourself in a fight, then you should learn how to use it. It doesn't matter at all where it comes from."

And, of course, in martial arts, the one who can learn multiple styles and mix and match them into his own is the better one. Why should spiritual paths be any different?


And if you selectively choose scriptures that do not contradict each other, but that together form an original spirituality...well, see my earlier comment on invented religions.Which I disagree on.


I personally think that Sahasranama is right about serious Hindus rejecting the Bible, as well as other non-Hindu teachings. And I say so for several reasons. First, Hinduism has so much Scripture to its name that one could likely not study it in a single lifetime, and that is if one completely neglects the Hindu teachings that can only be learned through gurus or bhakti. So why waste time on other texts and practices? Secondly, mixing Hinduism with religions from other cultures will eventually lead to the loss of Hindu culture, and this is harmful.You haven't adequately shown how this is so.


Finally, Christianity has failed to find a place in Hinduism after several hundred years. If you take the Christians at their word, their religion has been in India since the first century AD. In far less time than that, Christianity was able to conquer other cultures like Europe, Africa, and South Korea. But despite Inquisitions and aggressive missionary activity, it's never claimed more than 2.5% of India's population.What does that have to do with anything?


All generations of Indians have seen fit to not include Christianity in their religious life. And who am I to contradict centuries of tradition?Tradition isn't always correct. Going by tradition alone is actually a logical fallacy. Just because it's always been a certain way doesn't mean it's correct.

Besides, my own experiences completely contradict that kind of thinking. I'll go by my experiences.

And another thing: many Hindus have included Jesus.

And one more thing: nothing is static. Cultures are constantly changing. From what I've seen, Indian culture now is not the same as it once was: it used to be a lot more accepting. One day, all of the current cultures will die out, replaced by new ones just like the current ones have replaced even older ones. Doesn't the Vedanta teach renunciation: not to hold on to that which is impermanent, anyway?

Therefore, I have no attachment to any country's culture, and I do my best not to be too attached to the subculture that I belong to.

Riverwolf
15 January 2011, 07:33 PM
Besides, I don't appreciate the implication that I'm not serious simply because I'm more accepting of other paths.

BryonMorrigan
15 January 2011, 09:32 PM
Plus, Christianity is strongly associated with the Western world. Christianity is a solely Western religion. Westernization is the last thing we need, given all the Westernization that's already happening in India. Best to stay away from Christianity, I think.

Christianity represents the destruction of the Western world, and the appearance of a foreign, Middle-Eastern ideology, used primarily by the later Roman Emperors and medieval monarchs because of its "strength" as a method for ensuring that the public acquiesce to totalitarian forms of government.

The only truly "Western" religions are the ones with their origins in the Vedas...namely the pre-Christian religions of the Celts, Norse, Greeks, Romans, etc. We (Europeans) are the descendants of people who either willingly or unwillingly stopped practicing our true hereditary, Vedic religion...and we should be humble when we come back to our true mother in Bharat Mata...rather than clinging to the Exclusivist faith of the people who razed our temples and converted our forefathers by sword and fire.

If all this is "new" to you, then read this article by Dr. David Frawley (http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?141-Vedic-Origins-of-European-Danu) as a good start regarding how most historians of ancient Europe have accepted the idea that the Europeans were originally a Vedic people.

And frankly, while this might sound harsh, when Western people still cling to "Jesus" and the Bible, while claiming to be Hindus...I feel this does a GREAT disservice for those of us (like me) who have worked hard to be taken seriously by other Hindus. THIS is why we are not allowed into some temples. THIS is why some Hindus scoff at us and say, "You can never be Hindu."

Just please...if you want to study "Jesus" and the Vedas...call yourself a Universalist. You can be "accepting" of other paths without FOLLOWING them. When you are ready to be serious, maybe then you can call yourself a Hindu. If you still feel some kind of "pull" towards Christianity, then maybe you just aren't ready to commit yourself to Sanatana Dharma. Right now, you just sound confused.

(And if you think I'm being mean...just wait until TTA gets a hold of this thread...)

Riverwolf
15 January 2011, 11:30 PM
And frankly, while this might sound harsh, when Western people still cling to "Jesus" and the Bible, while claiming to be Hindus...I feel this does a GREAT disservice for those of us (like me) who have worked hard to be taken seriously by other Hindus. THIS is why we are not allowed into some temples. THIS is why some Hindus scoff at us and say, "You can never be Hindu."


I say screw what those people have to say, and those temples. I call myself Hindu because I see the Vedas as the highest spiritual authority, not on par with any other text. I see great wisdom in other texts, but the Vedic (specifically the Vedantic) wisdom, to me, is the highest wisdom of which later wisdom is but a shadow.

But I also call myself a Universalist. I see no reason why I can't be both, especially since Hinduism has, in the past, incorporated elements from other beliefs, and even now, presents itself as universalist in nature. It actually saddens me when I encounter Hindus who have the same sectarian mindset that many followers of the Abrahamic paths have.

Like I said, I belong to no club. I refuse to believe that a path that calls itself "Sanatana" can be limited to a single culture and set of Scriptures.

Besides, I don't "still" cling to Jesus and the Bible: it was after I became Hindu that I began to see the wisdom in it; before that, I was rather whiny and cynical in my attitude towards the Bible, finding very little of worth in it. I was raised in a secular household, and in middle-school, created my own pseudo-religion out of elements from video games and movies (which, by the way, featured a goddess who was oddly similar to Mother Kali in role and personality: an element that was not in my source materials), and in high school and soon after, loosely followed a form of Gaia-worship. If anything, the only things I still "cling" to from those days is a love for Athena, and the idea that the Sun is feminine, not masculine.

Sahasranama
16 January 2011, 12:44 AM
I was raised in a secular household, and in middle-school, created my own pseudo-religion...

Yeah, please stop doing that, or don't be suprised when you are not considered as serious of a Hindu as others like BryonMorrigon who are uncompromising with their alliance to Hinduism. Don't spit on the plate that's feeding you. I do not have any desire to change your beliefs, if you want to be a "Universalist with Hindu inclinations," that's fine. But don't impose your universalism on Hinduism. Hindus are tolerant to allow individuals and groups to have freedom of religion, but not braindead to include every fairy tale or false doctrine.

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 12:37 PM
Yeah, please stop doing that,

Strawman. If you didn't read the rest of my post, then you have no right to say that.

That pseudo-religion is gone. I do not follow it anymore. I'm quite discriminating nowadays in what I accept and what I don't.


or don't be suprised when you are not considered as serious of a HinduI define myself, not others. If someone wants to say I'm not a serious Hindu because I don't follow traditions, that's his or her problem.


as others like BryonMorrigon who are uncompromising with their allianceALLIANCE!? Really!? Since when did Hinduism become a side in a war?


Don't spit on the plate that's feeding you.I'm not. That plate you speak of isn't in front of me. The plate I'm eating from is the words in the Scriptures and spoken by the Sages.


I do not have any desire to change your beliefs,You're doing a very bad job of showing that. You seem to be trying to.


if you want to be a "Universalist with Hindu inclinations," that's fine.Why not a Hindu with universalist inclinations? I'm a Hindu before I'm a universalist.


But don't impose your universalism on Hinduism.I don't. I'm already aware that I don't represent orthodox or traditional Hinduism, nor do I make any pretense of doing so.


Hindus are tolerant to allow individuals and groups to have freedom of religion, but not braindead to include every fairy tale or false doctrine.Black and white thinking, which is illogical. Basically, either I follow traditional or orthodox Hinduism exactly, or I include every fairy tale or false doctrine? I do neither, nor do I strike a balance between the two. I follow the Vedic teachings as best as I can, and any wisdom I gain elsewhere is, at best, supplemental. But before I accept it, I examine it to see if it is, in fact, something to accept.

Sahasranama
16 January 2011, 01:09 PM
I am a little annoyed with you replying line by line, instead of in coherent paragraphs, but let me respond anyway. You say that the pseudo religion is gone. I find that hard to believe, since you are still mixing and matching beliefs from various religions. There is a difference in being a follower of Sanatana Dharma and appreciating the wisdom in other traditions and in being a Universalist and collecting (disparate) beliefs from around the world. In the beginning of this thread you were not ready to reject Jesus, but you have created your own fantasy Jesus. Yes, your fantasy Jesus is much much better than the fantasy Jesus of the Christians, but it is still a fantasy. I don't know exactly how your fantasy Jesus looks, was he an avatar, a yogi or some sort of saint? I am now going to use a word that may make your blood pressure go up, so take a deep breath first... Serious Hindus do not accept Jesus. He is a figurine from another religion and has nothing to do with Sanatana Dharma. You like to call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't change reality. I could read a pilot manual and call myself a pilot, but that doesn't mean I can go ahead and drive a plane, or even worse what about a pilot universalist who uses his car manual in the plane?

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 01:45 PM
I find I cannot argue anymore, for these harsh words of judgment, from both sides, are preventing me from studying and meditating. I had already known it is unwise to get involved in these subjects wherein someone or something is judged, when both sides look down upon the other from imagined podiums, thinking that the other is wrong and therefore lesser. Nevertheless, the call of argument in defense of my beliefs is strong like a Seiren's song, and I unwisely gave in. Perhaps that was Bhagavan showing me even further that these kinds of things are best avoided.

If someone doesn't accept me as a serious Hindu, fine. If someone does accept me as a serious Hindu, that's equally fine.

I am saddened that the Hinduism being displayed here is contradictory to the Hinduism that I read about, and the Hinduism that I was told about by the priests and described by a couple devotees at my local temple. But, then again, I also read and hear that Hinduism is so diverse that defining it is nigh impossible. Thus, the sectarian mindset, where true Hindus only study Vedic texts and offshoots, becomes just as valid as the more universalistic mindset.

...and this is why the term "Hindu" is such a bad term. It's so vague and poorly defined that it barely has any real meaning.

sanjaya
16 January 2011, 04:04 PM
Hi Riverwolf. The line-by-line format of your responses is a bit cumbersome. But if it's your preferred method, I'll attempt to adapt.


Actually, no, it isn't. It's a middle-eastern religion. European religions as they were died long ago, only a few of them seeing a revival.

You sure about that? I agree that Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which is a middle-eastern religion. However, Christianity is the very antithesis of Judaism. The first Biblical churches were in Greece and Turkey, and the only place where Christianity has always flourished is Europe. Most Christians are white. I think it's no stretch to say that Christianity is wholly European, and an unfit religion for Indians.


Those are the ones that swept the West. But there's a reason why the Greek church is called "Eastern" Orthodox.

Well they're Eastern in the sense that they're East of Rome. But we're talking about geography, and the Greek church is far West of India. But my salient point here is that Greece is a part of Europe. Indeed it is the birthplace of Western philosophy. A Greek church is a European church.


Not to mention, they're not the only ones.

Yes, there's also the Russian Orthodox church, i.e. more Europeans. In fact, the only indigenous Indian church I know of is the Indian Orthodox Church. It's very small, and as far as I know its theology is largely different from standard Christianity.


So? Interbreeding over a few thousand years along with living in a cooler environment will quickly cause skin color to change.

I'm no biologist, but if I'm not mistaken the changes you're talking about would take more than just a couple thousand years. Africans living in North America and Europe for five hundred years have exhibited no such changes in skin color, for example. It seems more likely to me that these evangelical protestations that Christianity is a Jewish religion are intended (among other things) to falsely portray Christianity as exotic Eastern wisdom, so as to make it more palatable for prospective Indian converts.


I'm Hindu, but I feel no real attraction to India or Indian culture as it is right now.

Fair enough; for an Indian I'm not that "Indian" myself. I don't eat the food, wear Indian clothes, watch Bollywood, or speak any of the languages. In fact, upon some reflection I've concluded that the only thing that genuinely makes me "Indian" is my Hinduism. Yet I find that to be a stronger cultural tie than any of these other things (save perhaps for the language). The fact of the matter is that Hinduism is a characteristically Indian religion. The vast majority of Hindus are Indian, and it is known that India is the birthplace of Hinduism. I doubt even you would deny that Hinduism is an Indian religion, am I right?


One person can hardly represent an entire church.

You're right, but this person is far from my only experience with the Eastern Orthodox Church. I recall once reading about a public outcry over the construction of a Hindu temple in Moscow. The head of the Union of Orthodox Citizens in Russia said that "Hinduism is considered one of the most anti-Christian cults." I'm sure he doesn't represent all Eastern Orthodox, but he does represent quite a few.


I heartily disagree. Sure, modern Gnosticism isn't like the original form of it, but neither are Asatru or Kemeticism. Doesn't make them less valid.

You think that novelty doesn't make a religion less valid? I believe that it does. Spirituality is not arbitrary. If it were, then the spiritual beliefs of Hitler (or insert other generic evil man) are equivalent to other religions. Essentially what you are advocating is moral relativism, through which the very notion of objective evil is invalidated. If a person invents a religion and expects me to take it seriously, I need to know why his new religion is not completely arbitrary. I don't know much about Asatru or Kemeticism. I'm sure they're based loosely on some ancient texts. But why not just base a religion around the works of Shakespeare or DC Comics? Hinduism is thousands of years old, and I find it to be far superior to these invented religions. I would certainly not consider Hinduism and Gnosticism to be peers.


They're loud, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they're the fastest growing.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#By_branches

and check out the table on religious self-identification in the US. Evangelical Christianity has grown by 0.5% from 1990 to 2008, which is a lot larger than most of the other growth rates. Non-denominational Christianity (which usually just means evangelical) has grown by over 2%. The liberal churches all seem to be losing ground, which is why I'd caution my fellow Hindus about the evangelicals.


Correct. The King Jimmy isn't all that accurate when it comes to the Tanakh, but from what I've seen, it's fine based on the documents those scholars had at the time.

But the passage in question isn't from the Tanakh. It's Luke 17:21, "nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst." If you don't take any issue with the Greek Textus Receptus that was used, then how can one translation be preferred over another?


That can happen to other texts, as well.

But what analogous doctrinal disputes do you see in Hinduism? People may have different views, but I don't think most Hindus have the arrogance to believe that our views must be correct and others' wrong.


Really? Then why all the interpretations?

Again, I'm not aware of the disputes you're referring to. Individuals take away different things from the Gita, but I've never seen people arguing theology and proof-texting from Hindu Scripture the way Christians do with their Bible.


It sure looks like we do.

The philosophical school that a person belongs to is as dependent on birth as anything else. And we don't view other schools with enmity. Some people prefer to worship Vishnu, others Shiva. But we all agree that they are ultimately the same God. At the temple I attend, there are images of both these Gods, and many others.


I disagree. I think that, to an extent, people can come up with their own paths all they want, if they've been given the insight to do so. It depends on what the followers get out of it that determines whether or not it's of worth.

For example, Scientology is obviously nonsense. On the other hand, Neo-Pagan paths allow for an alternative form of spirituality for those who do not care for the old ways. Just because a path is new doesn't automatically invalidate it. There was a time when all paths were new. "By their fruits you shall know them."

Well hey, if some ridiculous belief makes someone behave well, I'm not going to stop them. Some people have had positive experiences with Scientology. Doesn't mean I'm going to recognize everyone's spirituality as equally valid though.

As for "by their fruits shall you know them," do you believe that the existence of good Muslims confirms that Mohammad is the prophet of Allah? Even though his claim of being the last prophet would invalidate all other religions including your universalism? Or what about well-behaved atheists? My point is that people can produce good fruits while believing in ridiculous things such as Islam or atheism. Or Christianity, for that matter.


What's wrong with taking the best of everything?

Well if you're asking me why I don't do it, I think that this approach is illogical. Different religions teach different things. Collect enough religious scripture and you'll find a few statements that are true. But you have to have some basis on which to distinguish truth and falsehood. Hinduism is that basis. I can use it to find out what is right and what is wrong in other religions, but I still have no need to study those religions.


Because they can sometimes offer something the Vedas can't. For example, in my case, familiarity.

Not to mention, wisdom isn't always found in texts. Bruce Lee once said something very wise in one of his films:

Some of the characters are practicing karate to defend themselves from thugs. One of their companions does not. When Lee asks him about it, he responds: "It's foreign." Lee retorts with this: "Foreign or not, if it helps you defend yourself in a fight, then you should learn how to use it. It doesn't matter at all where it comes from."

And, of course, in martial arts, the one who can learn multiple styles and mix and match them into his own is the better one. Why should spiritual paths be any different?

Well like I said, do as you wish (not that I adhere to the Wiccan rede). Religion is different from martial arts because unlike martial arts, the purpose of religion is to conform yourself to some outside standard, not the opposite. As I said, if you're going to conform religion to yourself, it's probably easier to just declare yourself God and make up whatever rules you like. If you pick and choose, it's too easy to dismiss rules you don't like. If you don't want to be vegetarian, just eat kosher. If you want to enter the pooja room before bathing, just remember what the Bible says about how God cares nothing for outward appearance. One can't pick and choose, and practice Hinduism at the same time. You can call yourself Hindu, and no one is going to stop you. Unlike the Christians, we have no Inquisition. However, you have to be ready to not always be accepted by Hindus. As Byron said, some temples in India may not let you in. You say screw those people and the temples where Hindus have worshiped for centuries. But please ask yourself if you really know better than all those rishis and gurus.

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 05:36 PM
the purpose of religion is to conform yourself to some outside standard

It is? I've always read, in Scriptures and in the words of the Sages, that religion is about seeking God.

sanjaya
16 January 2011, 08:34 PM
It is? I've always read, in Scriptures and in the words of the Sages, that religion is about seeking God.

I'd certainly say that's what Hinduism is about. But not necessarily with other religions. Buddhism, for example, has little to do with seeking God. Same goes for many forms of Judaism. But one thing all religions have in common is conforming the adherent to a way of life that he wouldn't otherwise practice. Drawing from multiple religions circumvents this, and let's the "adherent" adhere to whatever he wishes. Hence why so many Hindus would view a person who does this as not taking Hinduism seriously.

Again, it's not for us to judge you. The only reason you should care what we think is if you want to be part of a larger Hindu community. Not all Hindus have such concerns. Most of my family is actually like this. Though my dad is quite religious, even he only practices poojas at home. No one goes to temple or does functions with other Hindu families. Actually, I'm considered the religious nutcase of the family because I go to temple. We of course don't have any problem being accepted by the Hindu community, since we happen to be Indian Brahmins. But it goes to show that you can call yourself a Hindu, practice Hinduism at home, and not worry about anyone else. There's no church inquisition that's going to come hunt you down for practicing heresies.

...except that there's always Bhagavan watching. Hindu poojas have to be performed according to certain prescriptions, which come naturally to Indians, but have to be learned and adhered to by outsiders. If one practices cafeteria-style Hinduism, picking what he likes and discarding the rest, God is still privy to his actions, and can be offended. I do not know how you practice poojas, but I'd advise against mixing Christian influences in these religious activities. I don't say this because I'm worried that you'll offend me. I only mention it because there are stories in Hindu Scriptures about ills that befall people who offend the Lord. While our Scriptures don't speak of God striking people down in his wrath and sending them to hell, he does perform certain corrective disciplines that can cause a degree of suffering.

sanjaya
16 January 2011, 08:45 PM
Christianity represents the destruction of the Western world, and the appearance of a foreign, Middle-Eastern ideology, used primarily by the later Roman Emperors and medieval monarchs because of its "strength" as a method for ensuring that the public acquiesce to totalitarian forms of government.

I'll differ to your greater level of education on this subject.

To clarify, when I say that Christianity is a Western religion, I'm thinking of the West has it has been for the past 1,000+ years. I wouldn't be surprised if ancient European religions were influenced by Vedic culture. But go back far enough, and we all come from the same primordial soup anyway. What matters to me is the religion that in more recent history has come to characterize the West, namely Christianity. It's important, I feel, for Indians to recognize this, so that we understand that to embrace Christianity is to leave Indian culture and become Western. And this is something that we should avoid.

Anyway, I think you give some good counsel here. I think that people who combine Hinduism with other religions can indeed dilute the religion, and cause more orthodox Hindus to be wary of them. This isn't just something the Westerners do; Deepak Chopra is as guilty as anyone in this matter.


(And if you think I'm being mean...just wait until TTA gets a hold of this thread...)

Oh God no! He'll tear poor Riverwolf apart. For once I hope the guy has a moment of weakness. :)

Eastern Mind
16 January 2011, 08:47 PM
Vannakkam: My only concern for people who like to pick and choose is the possibility of confusion as a result. No one should be confused. The result can often be a 'giving up on it all' as it no longer makes any sense because of all the contradictions one discovers. Confused people make poor decisions. Sticking to one particular tried and true path (of which there are many within SD) that has been passed along orally and mystically successfully for a few thousand years makes more sense to me. Of course this is combined with respect for other valid traditions, but not adherence to them.

There are some 105 or more various proofs of the Pythagorean theorem yet only one is needed. The various proofs if combined into one mishmash algebraic/geometric proof would no longer make any sense. A prof would mark it wrong.

But of course, it's a free country last time I heard.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
16 January 2011, 08:53 PM
So? Interbreeding over a few thousand years along with living in a cooler environment will quickly cause skin color to change.


Ah, just an addendum I'd like to add to my previous comments on this, since I forgot to address the issue of interbreeding. It's true that ethnicities can change over time by mixing with other ethnicities. But Jews, much like Hindus, are averse to marriage with people of other races. Surely you've seen that among Hindus, marriage to a non-Indian is pretty highly looked down upon (I'm not commenting on the morality of this, but it is the case). Jews are the same way, and over the past two thousand years in Europe, they've pretty much stuck to themselves. That leads me to believe that Jews today look much as they did in Jesus' time. Christians would have us believe that Jesus was from the Far East. In fact he was basically as European as most Christians are.

Not that I hold this against him. Personally I think that Jesus is a wise spiritual instructor. Only reason I don't study the Bible is because I have too many Hindu texts to read, and no desire to be a Western Christian.

Sahasranama
16 January 2011, 09:23 PM
Vannakkam: My only concern for people who like to pick and choose is the possibility of confusion as a result. No one should be confused. The result can often be a 'giving up on it all' as it no longer makes any sense because of all the contradictions one discovers. Confused people make poor decisions. Sticking to one particular tried and true path (of which there are many within SD) that has been passed along orally and mystically successfully for a few thousand years makes more sense to me. Of course this is combined with respect for other valid traditions, but not adherence to them.

There are some 105 or more various proofs of the Pythagorean theorem yet only one is needed. The various proofs if combined into one mishmash algebraic/geometric proof would no longer make any sense. A prof would mark it wrong.

But of course, it's a free country last time I heard.

Aum Namasivaya

Confusion doesn't always play a role, some people are blissfully ignorant. ;)

Eastern Mind
16 January 2011, 10:09 PM
Confusion doesn't always play a role, some people are blissfully ignorant. ;)

Vannakkam Sir: Certainly! On an intellectual level regarding religion, sometimes the less you know the better! Endless rounds of point-counterpoint feels more like a legal ego battle in some courtroom than valid religious expression.

Aum Namasivaya
:)

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 10:16 PM
I'd certainly say that's what Hinduism is about. But not necessarily with other religions. Buddhism, for example, has little to do with seeking God. Same goes for many forms of Judaism. But one thing all religions have in common is conforming the adherent to a way of life that he wouldn't otherwise practice. Drawing from multiple religions circumvents this, and let's the "adherent" adhere to whatever he wishes. Hence why so many Hindus would view a person who does this as not taking Hinduism seriously.

That's still a logical fallacy: broad generalization.


Again, it's not for us to judge you. The only reason you should care what we think is if you want to be part of a larger Hindu community. Not all Hindus have such concerns. Most of my family is actually like this. Though my dad is quite religious, even he only practices poojas at home. No one goes to temple or does functions with other Hindu families. Actually, I'm considered the religious nutcase of the family because I go to temple. We of course don't have any problem being accepted by the Hindu community, since we happen to be Indian Brahmins. But it goes to show that you can call yourself a Hindu, practice Hinduism at home, and not worry about anyone else. There's no church inquisition that's going to come hunt you down for practicing heresies.

...except that there's always Bhagavan watching. Hindu poojas have to be performed according to certain prescriptions, which come naturally to Indians, but have to be learned and adhered to by outsiders. If one practices cafeteria-style Hinduism, picking what he likes and discarding the rest, God is still privy to his actions, and can be offended. I do not know how you practice poojas, but I'd advise against mixing Christian influences in these religious activities. I don't say this because I'm worried that you'll offend me. I only mention it because there are stories in Hindu Scriptures about ills that befall people who offend the Lord. While our Scriptures don't speak of God striking people down in his wrath and sending them to hell, he does perform certain corrective disciplines that can cause a degree of suffering.

If there's one thing I've learned about Sri Bhagavan, it's that He's not so petty as to be offended. The Bhagavad Gita itself says that it doesn't matter what you do for worship, so long as it's done with a full heart.

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 10:18 PM
And by the way, I'm not so much confused as I am enjoying my time wandering the forest of the Vedas (referring not to the books, but to the accumulation of mankind's spiritual knowledge).

Riverwolf
16 January 2011, 10:46 PM
GAHCK! Even after a post saying I'm not going to argue anymore, I'm still arguing! :mad:

Adhvagat
17 January 2011, 12:11 AM
Riverworlf, chill. Let the rajas float away. :)

It's always nice to have discussions on these matters with different points of view.

Om Tat Sat

sanjaya
17 January 2011, 12:41 AM
That's still a logical fallacy: broad generalization.

Just to be clear, are you disagreeing with my claim that the person who practices a religion should conform himself to the religion, instead of conforming the religion to himself? Surely you see the problem here. Prime example: I feel like eating at McDonalds, I can just decide to ignore the rules about beefeating. I don't mean to offend you at all, but I think you may be trivializing the Hindu religion. One of the most significant social barriers to being raised Hindu in America is the strict vegetarianism. From my early years until today, people ask why I am so stubborn as to not eat meat, and my explanation that I am Hindu only confuses them even more. This, and the many other inconveniences of being Hindu are what make our religion ultimately so valuable to us. When you alter the rules as you go along, it cheapens the religion. In the end, your primary concern should not even be that you may be offending Hindus, but that you are robbing yourself of the experience of being Hindu by picking and choosing what parts of the faith you accept.


If there's one thing I've learned about Sri Bhagavan, it's that He's not so petty as to be offended. The Bhagavad Gita itself says that it doesn't matter what you do for worship, so long as it's done with a full heart.

Careful now, this is a slippery slope. I would ask if Nazism offends God, but I think there's an Internet joke about how all online conversations will ultimately devolve into this. However, are you so sure that the Lord is never offended by anything? Is God offended when we kill and eat animals? Is Goddess Saraswati offended when we step on books? Or is Bhagavan offended when we sit for pooja without having bathed, and with our feet facing the images of God? Maybe God asks us to observe these rituals for our benefit and not his, and maybe nothing truly offends him.

...or maybe not. For as long as I've been able to read, I have read the Satyanarayana Katha every month on the full moon day as part of pooja to Lord Narayana. And if ever there was a doubt in my mind that we can do things to offend God, one passage from the text clarifies this. It is part of the story of the Sadhu who promised to God that he would observer the Satyanarayana Vratha if the Lord would bless him with children, but ignored his vow once the child was born. This is what it says:

In the meantime, Kalavati blossomed into a lovely maiden and Sadhu sent a messenger in search of a suitable groom. The messenger found a good-natured, handsome, and able boy in a merchant family from Kanchana Nagar. Sadhu found the boy as a suitable match for Kalavati. He celebrated his daughter's marriage with great pomp and ceremony. Engrossed in the festivities, he forgot to perform Satyanarayana Puja. This angered Lord Satyanarayana.
I've never read this in the original language. Maybe the exact wording suggests something other than anger. I do know that what follows is a series of events in which God curses the Sadhu with misfortune, he acknowledges his error and asks for forgiveness, God restores his good fortunes, and he returns to his neglectful ways. Now the Hindu conception of God isn't like the Abrahamic one; I don't know that God would kill people for bringing strange fire before an altar (actually God does kill two people in this story, but they are brought back to life fairly quickly).

Call this what you will; perhaps it's corrective discipline rather than human-like emotion. Whatever the case, there is a right way to worship God and a wrong way. The wrong way leads to suffering. Combining Hinduism with other religions may perhaps be frivolous. And I think it's worth taking some time to reflect on whether your religious practices are a good idea or not. I'm not trying to scare you into submission. It's not like you'll go to eternal hell or anything. I'm just saying that some forms of spirituality are objectively better than others. Things are not relative in this matter.


GAHCK! Even after a post saying I'm not going to argue anymore, I'm still arguing! :mad:

Sorry for making you break your vow. :)

If it's any consolation, I don't see this as a heated argument. As Pietro said, just a different point of view.

BryonMorrigan
17 January 2011, 06:39 AM
Jews are the same way, and over the past two thousand years in Europe, they've pretty much stuck to themselves. That leads me to believe that Jews today look much as they did in Jesus' time. Christians would have us believe that Jesus was from the Far East. In fact he was basically as European as most Christians are.

Interestingly enough, there are two different major ethnic groups that make up modern Jews. The Sephardic people are the Jews who are more closely related to Arabs, and the Ashkenazim are the "Russian" or European Jews, many of whom are the descendants of the Khazars, an Eastern European tribe that converted to Judaism in the 8th century CE. (If you are interested in this, Arthur Koestler wrote a book about it, entitled, "The Thirteenth Tribe.")

This is why many Jews, particularly in America (where most Jewish people are immigrants from Europe) are indistinguishable from other Europeans, while in the Middle East, the Jews there have a tendency to look more "Middle-Eastern." Of course, since the Jewish rules about marriage are based on religion, rather than race, there has been a lot of inter-marriage between Ashkenazim and Sephardim over the years, but the same could also be said of many different people of Indian ethnicity.

Basically, there's one easy way to picture the differences between how Ashkenazim and Sephardim look:

Captain Kirk (William Shatner): Ashkenazi Jew
Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy): Sephardic Jew

:)

I know this is totally unimportant to the discussion, but I find these issues to be fascinating...

sm78
14 February 2011, 02:56 AM
LOL! That is exactly why you will never be a Hindu.

I don't think such personal attacks and broad brush opinions is going to help anybody. It is very difficult to completely deny ancestry for an westerner, so a soft corner for Christ or re-interpretation of his teachings in the light of new found eastern philosophy can be expected, and can be treated with more compassion and humility.

Yes, those who have completely over Abrahamism dependece by analyzing the facts and redundancies of the so called goodness of these religions. Or by realizing that western people were never originally christians or muslims, having being forced to adopt the religion over a short span when their kings adopted them, can be more complete Hindus.


Unless riverwolf starts to believe that Hindus need to worship christ or starts preaching Christ to hindus, I don't see why he should be attacked for selective interpretation of religion and christ, which still forms essential form of his culture and his ancestory.

Its saints like Ramakrishna, sai baba and most of modern Hindu interpretors who have given the impression that all religions are basically different paths to God. Very few modern saints in known history have categorically denied this fact. So before attacking riverwolf we need to clean our own house and attack & dethrone these saints. We are generally unwilling to do that because of some reason or other. Then why are we attacking riverwolf or similar personalities - who even if not complete Hindu as per my or your understanding, can nonetheless only be beneficial to the community. If nothing else, it counter balances the fundamentalism and evangelicism in Christians. If Christians adopt such universalists beliefs, its only a good thing for everybody.

mohanty
14 February 2011, 02:59 AM
I don't even understand why Hindus should even have to have this discussion. I understand the necessity of pointing out info like this, as too many Hindus seem to be falling for the Christian propaganda...but I mean, do other religions ever have to have these discussions?

Do Christians sit around discussing whether or not Hanuman is "appropriate" for Christianity?

Do Jews sit around discussing whether or not Zeus is "appropriate" for Judaism?

Do Muslims sit around discussing whether or not the Buddha is "appropriate" for Islam?

Frankly, "Jesus" is as relevant to Hinduism as Maa Kali is to Christianity.

Allowing Hinduism to be altered or defined by Christianity, or even considering it, shows that one's mind already feels that Christianity is "superior" to Hinduism. You can see this kind of thinking echoed in some of the writings of Rammohan Roy and Keshub Chunder Sen. They were so eager to be "accepted" by their oppressors and seen as "modern," that they couldn't stop fawning over the aggressive hatred of Christian proselytism.

In fact, I cannot think of many religions as fundamentally INCOMPATIBLE as Hinduism and Christianity. It's like trying to be both an observant Jew and a Jihadist Muslim at the same time.

I understand and appreciate where BryonMorrigan is coming from. One frequently gets asked questions like 'Why do Hindus worship so many gods?'. The opposite of this "Why do Christians worship only one god?" would be laughed upon.

This is because the dominant paradigm inside which such discourse happens is Judeo-Christian. One god is taken to be a self-evident truth. It is "many gods" that must be explained. The Hindu, therefore, is always on the defensive.

He must explain his ways. He must defend his ways. He must justify his belief in his ways and if he can't, he must agree that the "one god" peddler is right.

By asking questions about whether Jesus has a place in Hinduism, we play into this trap.

Sahasranama
14 February 2011, 04:09 AM
I am glad to see you joining the discussion Tattvamasi!

@sm78 You make a good point, a Christian Universalist is better than a Christian fundamentalist. If we add Universalism to Hinduism, we are just watering it down, but if we add it to Christianity, we are improving it.