Jesus: the Drama master

[Sahasranama]

First Dr. Morales is criticising Ramakrishna Paramahansa and now he is trying to become popular through his teachings. I think what Dr. Morales is talking about here is philosophy that went above the head of the early christians who made up a Jesus figure. What he is doing is interpretating isolated parts of the bible in the light of Sanatana Dharma and saying that this is what Jesus actually meant. It is historically proven that these never was such a being as Jesus: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ Whatever "truth" there is about Jesus is completely a Christian fabrication, how foolish is it to pretend that this fictive character named Jesus was actually on equal grounds of our ancient rishis. I am very dissapointed in Dr. Morales, had I known that he was a Jesus freak, I would have never supported his articles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYMBb65wVY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-GmQ...eature=related

[PARAM]

It's Drama Master

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

It's Drama Master

i like that Drama, queen.

a self declared master not my cup of tea.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Believer]

...... had I known that he was a Jesus freak, I would have never supported his articles.

I don't think of him or anybody else as a package deal, whereby you either accept all of him or not have anything to do with him. He researched some aspects of Hinduism and presented explanations which are in line with the attitudes and time line of events. Since he needs a wider audience base and has not left JC altogether and wants to be a Universalist also, his JC related diatribe can be ignored. Not all info coming from a mortal has to be right or wrong. There may be flashes of genius in some areas and total darkness in other areas. Sifting through the pile and pulling out the nuggets while leaving the rest of the garbage with him is our job. Disappointment comes when we elevate a person to the level of divinity, cultivate attachment, and then see him fall. If we consider him to be another researcher with all the human flaws, he would be less of a disappointment. In the same vein, Rajneesh had the knack for translating complex philosophy into simple terms and mesmerizing his followers, but he also had trouble keeping his pants zipped (or dhoti tied ). I feel comfortable reading some of his books to get a better grasp of some of the philosophical aspects, without accepting him as a 'devta', as his followers did. I find the pick and choose exercise beneficial when dealing with various self styled gurus/masters. You basically go in knowing that somewhere along the line, they will disappoint you with some of their acts/sayings/beliefs. It is my job to winnow out the chaff from the grain.
-

[Sahasranama]

I can read from people I disagree with, like Srila Prabhupada, but I lose respect for people who are self-contradicting. Dr. Morales wrote his article in 2004, but he has not responded to any criticism of his article. In 2008 he recorded this video preaching about Jesus. You are right that nobody is always right, but this is incident really puts a dent in Dr. Morales' credibility as a scholar.

The subject he discussed in his original article is still an important one and needs more research:

HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS
http://bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

Neo-Hindu views of Christianity
http://books.google.nl/books?id=wmJf...page&q&f=false

[sm78]

No person or scripture is 100% right, and one has to filter the useful stuff from the the fluff or even wrong, using the greates gift to humanity of rationality and thought coupled with experience.

But that said, one needs to have some respect for a person to derive any benefit from his words or give credibility to his words. I always thought this character was a salesman of dharma in the west. I think he started off from a better ground of being an convert to orthodox sri vaishnavism, but has gradually found out that strong views about anything doesn't sell very well this days. People respond best to watered down mocktails when coming to philosophical and spiritual matters. He may have been an orthodox to start with, but the salesman aspect was always there - giving himself self styled titles, long bio-graphical introductions etc.

I go by one simple logic - never trust a salesman. Even if he is selling good stuff now, sooner or later he will try to sell you bad apples for better profits. Salesmanship doesn't go with actual spirituality or religion.

[satay]

namaste,

No person or scripture is 100% right

Vedas are 100% right.

ps: I thought I stick that in there for the record though I know what you mean singhi.

[Believer]

namaste,



Vedas are 100% right.

+1

Doubting the scriptures is tantamount to saying I am smarter than the word of God or the sages who wrote them. Do I want to go there? Definitely not!

Various human commentators/gurus/masters may misinterpret something due to their line of thinking, but to doubt the original word is beyond me. There will be nothing left to fall back on, once a person expresses his lack of total confidence in the scriptures.
-

[sm78]

Well for me scriptures are inspired works of human authorship. To the one who has not yet experienced the beyond they are indeed a sort of proof, as truth was revealed to the seers was captured in some of them. But even these remain inspired works only.

God is always available to be directly experienced by the individual and scripture is nothing more than an assurance and guidance for the same. One does not need to discard scriptures any more than a engineer needs to discard his manual. But no manual is equivalent to this own experience.

Religionists will hold onto infallibility of an outdated book to hold down others and deny direct experience and this trend is not just an abrahamic syndrome, yet fortunately direct experience has been acknowledged as the only final means of knowledge and liberation even in the medivial orthodox hindu systems. Hindus, even the orthodox, don't need to believe scriptures as "hard" final words of God, but sometimes direct experience (shabda pramana) and sometimes clearly stated opinions (which can be challanged) of sages.

Vedas has been raised to an unsual level of reverance in present hinduism, yet only a very tiny fraction of the populationt have any clue to what they mean and what it implies in a daily hindu life (or do they, beyond ritualism?).

The so called belief in vedas is some sort of myth, since less than a few thousand people actually follow the vedic way of life. Very little of what majority of hindus believe and practice (from the most orthodox to the most heterodox) have little reference or meaning in the vedic samhitas.

Yet, maybe this myth of common belief in vedas and its 100% correctness is a blessing, because it is one thing that keeps Hinduism a well defined unit.

[charlebs]

jesus probably still had ego issues after coming to india to study, otherwise he'd have stayed there in my honest opinion = P