my query on christianity and vedas

[saidevo]

Namaste Sudarshan.

Abodes of God do really exist - even though Brahman is not localized. There are several planes of consciousness each one more subtler than the previous. The experience of God in these different planes are different and are subjective. Each person's experience of God is quite unique and follows its own distinctive progress until the highest truth is reached.

I have not denied or ridiculed the Christian concept of God as the Father in the Heaven. My objection is to only equating this personal god with the Brahman of the Vedas and Upanishads.

As you say Brahman in some form exists at the several planes of consciousness. Thus we have the Hindu TrimUrti Brahma, VishNu and Shiva residing at Satyaloka, VaikuNTa and KailAsh respectively. These abodes do exist in manifest creation until Maha Pralaya.

If the question is asked, "In Hinduism we equate Shiva, VishNu, or Krishna with Brahman, so why can't Christians do the same with their Father God?", the answer is that the Hindu sects such as Shaiva, VaishNava, Shakta, etc. that equate their own personal god to Brahman, do not aggressively revile or try to convert the members of other sects into their own like Christianity does.

Moreover, Shiva or VishNu or Krishna as Brahman is not portrayed as just sitting in their heavenly abodes and watching the world going to the dogs but as being immanent like Brahman in every atom of the universe. Since this concept--of a Universal Consciousness innate and active in every atom of creation thereby making it qualify for divinity--is absent in the teachings of Christianity, and since Christians can do nothing about it within the confines of their own religion, it is wrong and preposterous to equate the Christian Father God figure with Brahman.

As you say, 'each person's experience of God is quite unique' but this is NOT imposed by any doctrine or dogma. This is where Christianity errs--and fails.

I agree with the other points in your post, though their equivalent teachings in Christianity seek exclusivity of them to followers of Jesus only, dooming others to eternal hell.

[jaggin]

Namaste Jaggin.



This is one of the approaches the proselyter-Christian takes towards Hindus: Vedas talk of One God, Bible talks about Jesus as the One God, so Jesus is mentioned in Vedas, why worship other false gods, come to Jesus to be in heaven! Even a cursory examination of this approach reveals that the One God spoken in Vedas and the Bible are poles apart!

The One God without a second, that is Brahman, that Vedas speak of is not the Father figure of the Bible who sits in heaven, sends his flesh-form in Jesus to the world, lets him be crucified and then let the priests take charge to impose the confused Church doctrines of inviting Jesus as the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost to get redeemed in this birth and go to heaven. The church doctrines are confused because they spell out Jesus opportunistically as the Father, Son or Holy Ghost: who is Jesus, in this Trinity? If he is the be-all, the absolute, why should he not recognize the one God of the other religions? Why should he not let them co-exist in peace?

The Brahman of the Vedas, on the other hand, is:

• satyam, jnAnam, anantam Brahma(n) -- Taittiriya Upanishad

Here 'satyam' denotes that Brahman is the eternal Truth; 'jnAnam' denotes that Brahman is not inert but active consciousness; 'anantam' means that Brahman is not localized in Heaven but infinite.

• a-dvayam, a-dvaitami, a-dvidtiiyam -- Chandogya (6.2.1,6.2.2), Kaivalya (19,23), Brhadaranyaka (4.3.22), Mandukya (7)

That is, "Brahman is One without a second." This statements is expanded in Mandukya Upanishad mantra 7:

"It (Brahman) is not the inward awareness. It is not the outward awareness. It is not the intermediate awareness. It is not the undifferentiated mass of awareness. It is not the knowing awareness. It is not non-awareness. It is unperceivable. It is not accessible to transaction. It cannot be grasped. It is attributeless. It is not accessible to thought. It is not amenable to communication. It is the substratum of the I thought. It is the remainder of the negation (annulment) of the universe. It is changeless. It is auspiciousness. It is the nondual reality. …… That is 'AtmA'.

(na antah-prajnam, na bahih-prajnam, na ubhyatah-prajnam, na prajaana-ghanam na prajnam na aprajnam; adrshtam avyavahaaryam agraahyam alakshanam acintyam avyapadesyam ekatma-pratyaya-saaram prapancopasamam saantam sivam advaitams......sa atma)

• "Subtler than the than the subtlest, greater than the greatest." "Nearer than the nearest, farther than the farthest …… unmoving moving everywhere." -- Kathopanishad I.ii.20, I.ii.21

Brahman is not the flesh-incarnated Jesus, not the Holy Ghost or the Father God but in and beyond them all. Brahman is not just in heaven but everywhere, unmoving in nature but moving everything in the world.

• "He is all pervasive, pure, bodiless, without wound, without sinews, taintless, untouched by sin, omniscient, ruler of mind, transcendent, and self-existent." -- Isavasya Upanishad 8

• Finally, Chandogya Upanishad (6.8.7), cryptically summarizes Brahman into three words: tat tvam asi -- That You Are. And you will know it when you realize, "aham brahmAsmi" -- I am Brahman.

Therefore it is preposterous to equate the concepts of God taught in Christian or any other western religion with that of the Hinduism.

All proselytizing must proceed from what a person knows to what the person needs to know to be saved.

And since theri is only one, then it must be the same God. The question now becomes why you would deny God simply because He appears in another religion?

Granted that worshipping other gods is forbidden in Abrahamic religions but what does Brahma have to say about it?

That is an interesting approach but not neccessarily the central message that Jesus asked us to preach. Jesus never said that He came to bring us Heaven. He said that He came to bring us eternal life. Then He said "I am the way the truth and the life."

If that were the case you have a false god and should not be worshipping him.

You make a lot of statements without evidence. If you mean that Brahma is not mentioned as a Father in the vedas, that does not constitute a contraindication but simply a lack of information in the vedas. Jesus is God in the flesh. Why should Jesus talk about other religions when His audience is Jewish? God loves you. How can a god who loves you leave you to wallow in your own muddle when he can give you an opportunity to be saved.

Vedas appear to be inspird by God but the Upanishads appear to be the philosophy of men. Show me something from the Vedas.

At least this philosopher had some understanding. As Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life." "Active consciousness" is equivalent to "The Creator." Biblical scripture says that God is omnipresent which means the same thing as inifinite. Every place that God is in He is God. In Heaven He is God. In Jesus He is God. In me He is God.

This is gibberish and nonsense. Maybe you could explain what he is trying to say. Good luck.

The Bible agrees that God is Holy and omniscient and that He is without a body in His essential state.

[rcscwc]

Namaskar,

I am amit,i have recently joined in this forum.Actually i dont have much idea about how to make my own posts,so i am posting my question here only.if possible plz pass that to other memebers.

Is any of our vedas has any reference of jesus christ.One of my friend he is a christian ,he use to tell me regularly that our vedas also describe about one god only Jesus and our gods are nothing but just a vauge.He even show me some of our vedas slokas where it was written that jesus is the ultimate god whom we should worship.I have not studied vedas much so i couldnt reply to him.I am a true hindu and i want to give him a strong reply of what he has said and shown to me.Need your help.Please tell me what i should say to him.

First off, Vedas do not have any reference to Jesus or Yhwh, as a member here claimed. All such claoms are false, and your xian friend too does not believe it. Ask him point blank on this issue.

If he still insists, then he testifies to the truth of Vedas. So, logically, he should come to the Vedic faith.

Any verse that he produces has been twisted, mutilated and stretched thin to breaking point. That is the usual xian tactic.

Muslims too claim Mo is prphecied. Lately Bahais too claim Bahaiullah is prophecied. They are search of legitimacy, approval from the oldest Scriptures.

[jaggin]

First off, Vedas do not have any reference to Jesus or Yhwh, as a member here claimed. All such claoms are false, and your xian friend too does not believe it. Ask him point blank on this issue.

If he still insists, then he testifies to the truth of Vedas. So, logically, he should come to the Vedic faith.

Any verse that he produces has been twisted, mutilated and stretched thin to breaking point. That is the usual xian tactic.

Muslims too claim Mo is prphecied. Lately Bahais too claim Bahaiullah is prophecied. They are search of legitimacy, approval from the oldest Scriptures.

If the claims are false then Brahma is a false god, because Yahweh is the one true God.

This is illogical reasoning. Finding one truth in the Vedas doesn't make all of the writing true.

A truth that doesn't save is a useless truth. Christians have a truth that saves and no other religion does. I can't think of one good reason why a Christian would want to abnadon salvation to become lost again.

You are making assumptions you can't back up. I don't doubt that Christians take extreme measures to try to save people but it is a natural inclination that comes from a heart of love (Except in some cases where funding for missionary work is results driven).

All religions (except Judaism) like to make converts. I doubt that it is an effort to legitimize Hinduism but rather an attempt to legitimize their won religion in a Hindu's eyes. Christianity has its own legitimacy and needs no other but evangelism has to start with what a person knows about God and for a Hindu that is the Vedas.

[chandu_69]

Is anybody going to produce references from Vedas regarding Jesus?.

[surtibadshah]

comeon chandu there isnt any refrence from vedas about jesus. this is a christian propaganda to convert ignorants of india.

its sick how low these people can get. i saw a bbc documentary on youtube in which they showed that jesus went to india most likely to study sprituality.

watch it, though i dont buy anything but its worth for fools like missionaries.

[chandu_69]

comeon chandu there isnt any refrence from vedas about jesus. this is a christian propaganda to convert ignorants of india.

its sick how low these people can get. i saw a bbc documentary on youtube in which they showed that jesus went to india most likely to study sprituality.

watch it, though i dont buy anything but its worth for fools like missionaries.

I pretty well know that is nonsense and debunked it a couple of times else where.

But, if the thread starter is not going to post any material to support his contention where is the point in arguing.

[Eastern Mind]

I pretty well know that is nonsense and debunked it a couple of times else where.

But, if the thread starter is not going to post any material to support his contention where is the point in arguing.

Just for information: The thread starter's last post was last October, so there is an excellent chance he or she is not following HDF any more.

Aum Namasivaya