-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus an avatar of Lord Vishnu?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Actually, Vishnu is a deity in the Vedas, not a symbolic abstract. The presence (tanuú) of a deity is defined in of itself, as per the Vedas; each element-deity is accorded its own tanuú. Vishnu, as the element of the atanu, is uniquely defined by non-atomicity and non-locality.
In asking about your statement 'God does not incarnate; the souls do;' you are viewing God as somehow separate from souls, even though some of the main Vedic gods are the 'parts' of the soul, up to and including Atman itself as the 11th Rudra?
Let us also remember that the gods are co-generating one another; Aditi creates Daksa; Daksa creates Aditi. Here we again have a concept of gods incarnation cyclically, a precursor of avatars.
We get to the idea of avatars when, after the upanishadic phase which reorients our kathenotheistic view of the Vedas towards monism of one stripe or another (and thus the co-identity of Brahman and atman, however this is laid out), we begin to see a supreme being based on a composite of many Vedic gods who incarnates whenever adharma gains sufficient influence to warrant extreme measures to correct the imbalance; as per Shri Krishna's pledge in the BG.
I will say however that ideas of some kind of 'purely vedic' revival of Hinduism are impossible and unfounded, primarily because there are probably fewer than a few thousand people who are actually conversant with the Vedas' content; and the vast majority of these have little contact with the broader world which might otherwise benefit from their knowledge.
For this reason, I find it ... somewhat suspect when people wax fundamental over this or that of the Vedas, finding modern Hinduism to be produced in a 'dark ages' or some such. We may indeed see a Vedic revival, but it will not be in such a way as to be contrary to its offspring in the various forms we see Hinduism evolve subsequent to the Vedas.
Such sentiments seem to coexist with remarkably scant knowledge of the Vedas. Avatars are not Vedic, but neither are they contrary to the Vedas, and they are a well-established part of many Hindu denominations which, far from emerging in a 'dark ages,' emerged in a time of great illumination.
Last edited:
Sumit
Sanatana Dharma
.Vedas advocate single god and not gods. They are not gods but demigod.
Demigod is one that illuminates, help in creation. They may be living or non living or just an assumption. Rigveda clearly states that "there is only one god and not the second".
Shri Krishna and Shri Rama were definately great souls but not the god.
demigods of vedas are
Eight Vasus(Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Sky, Moon, Sun, Stars/ Planets)
11 Rudra(10 nervauric forces enlivening body and eleventh is the spirit or soul)
12Adityas represents 12 months
Indra represents Electricity
Prajapati represents Yajna
And rest are synonyms of god or tells about quality of god.
Last edited:
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Apologies to you sir, but these are not Vedic concepts. These are particular interpretations (and frankly incorrect ones at that, unsupported by any scholarly (whether Western or our own pandits) conclusions.
Poly-cum-monotheism is what the Ved consists of; Max Muller called it kathenotheism, and such it is; the rotational configuration of the mandala so as to place each deity (or set of deities ) in the centermost place of adoration, revered as supreme, all-powerful, etc., before moving on.
As per the Purusha sukta, all the deities, as conscious entities and elements in of themselves, are also parts of the primordial cosmic body whom they animate and are animated by, in this case often identified with Narayana as the swarup of Brahman.
The idea that "deva" is "demigod" is a modern notion brought about by intellectually dishonest translation.
Vedic deities do not 'work,' in a mechanical sense, as per our view of demi-gods, or even most modern Western concept of gods, plural.
The plurality of the Gods of the Vedas is not at all contrary to the singularity of the God of the Vedas.
Can you give reason as per Ved for this statement?
Sumit
Sanatana Dharma
These are the translations of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, one of the greatest vedic scholar.
Vedas declare god is omnipresent and knows each and every thing.
Now when Rama and Krishna took birth, where they still omnipresent. The answer is not. At that time they were only an identity. Hence it does not clarifies the above defination of god acc to vedas.
Secondly when Rama was sent to exile by his father.How Ravana was able to take Sita away. This shows that Shri Ram is not the knower of all past ,present and future since he does not know the evil plan of Ravana and hence Shri Ram cannot be god acc to vedas.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Correct so far
Indra and Prajapati are both solar deities conflated with Pushan. Indra requests the solar power from Prajapati, its original holder, and is thus conferred with it to become the Lord of the mandala, with Prajapati, with Indra recasting Prajapati as the great mystery, the one to be known as Brahman; Ka (Who).
Let us reexamine these 33+ gods who are given as 11 x 3, or other numbers variously, but always classified as according to the vyahriti.
Ved says there are 3 basic realms, which become as a mantric seed-kernel: 'bhuh' 'bhuvah' 'svaha.' The vyahriti. which is almost always recited before the Gayatri mantra (as well as being a key concept in its own right.)
These 3 mandalas (the sun, the moon, and the fire - as it were) are themselves part of a singular mandala which is ruled over by Indra, and generated by and as Prajapati. This mandala is the ultimate cosmogram containing within it all subtle and gross bodies as the cosmic individual; Purusha as the form of Brahman.
Here is one of the many recountings of particular allegories in the Veda samhita which may shed some light as to how the Gods are seen as per the Vedas:
[Yajur veda, AB Keith tr.]
In any case, Prajapati is equivalent to Brahmā of later triune Hinduism.
I do not believe we can correlate Indra with electricity nor Prajapati with yajna.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Pray tell, from what shakha does Mr. Dayanand Saraswati come from? Arya Samaj is only authoritative scholarship in their own minds.
Sumit
Sanatana Dharma
Yajna is referred as prajapati (In hindi "prajaa kaa paalan karne waala") because its helps to keep atmosphere pure and component used in Yajna, they also keep people healthy and kill harmful germs , as you know that in ancient time there were no temples but Rishis performed yajnas daily, hence a lot of yajnas daily which warms the surrounding and as the air molecules are heated they rises up and the freash air takes it place, this also results in greater rainfall due of the creation of low pressure area .
I do not agree with Swami Dayanand at some topics such as tantra vidya, astrology etc but in case of avatars and advaitya philosophy I agree with him because I have no ans of his ques.
It does not matter from which shakha he comes but his knowledge matters
I do not agree with Swami Dayanand at some topics such as tantra vidya, astrology etc but in case of avatars and advaitya philosophy I agree with him because I have no ans of his ques.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Jesus declared in the Bible that "I am the son of God."
And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."Luke 22:70
Vishnu or Krishna declares that "I am the Father."
It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kuntī, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.[B.G. 14.4]
What and where is the confusion then?
And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."Luke 22:70
Vishnu or Krishna declares that "I am the Father."
sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāḿ brahma mahad yonir
ahaḿ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāḿ brahma mahad yonir
ahaḿ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kuntī, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.[B.G. 14.4]
What and where is the confusion then?
Honest question, not a trap....
I'm curious to know where you pulled your scripture from?
Several different versions (even including the King Jame Version, which has very questionable translations) that I have looked at all say:
This quote is from the New Revised Standard Version.
To me that seems tantamount to saying 'If you say so'... not a declarative or agreement.
Thank you.
:namaste
SageTree
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Good point, SageTree.
What about when we get into the Gnostic texts, which discuss hypostases and Yeshua's self-similarity with the Father?
I think it's a matter of translation. Rather than "If you say so", it's more likely "You yourselves say I am", because at that moment Caiaphas the high priest tore his robes saying "He has blasphemed!" The high priest was required to tear his robes at blasphemy. There is also a translation, and I can't remember the source, where Caiaphas asks "I adjure you (to charge, bind, or command earnestly and solemnly, often under oath or the threat of a penalty; to entreat or request earnestly or solemnly - Dictionary.com), by the living God, are you the son of God?" and Jesus answered "I am".
Well, this is a talk about Jesus after all, am I wrong in that assumption?
And the most prevalent accounts of his life are from the Gospels....
so.... I personally felt it worth clarifying.
I meant no harm and am not trying to lobby for any sort of Christological position.
(As a side note: There is a million page thread on 'Is Jesus God?' topic already, and consensus seems to lean more on the vast opinion on the mater, over a narrow 'yes or no'.)
:namaste
And the most prevalent accounts of his life are from the Gospels....
so.... I personally felt it worth clarifying.
I meant no harm and am not trying to lobby for any sort of Christological position.
(As a side note: There is a million page thread on 'Is Jesus God?' topic already, and consensus seems to lean more on the vast opinion on the mater, over a narrow 'yes or no'.)
:namaste
Jesus never said he is the son of God.
John 10:24
So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 10:25
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,
John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:28
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
John 10:33
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
John 10:35
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
John 10:36
do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 10:37
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
John 10:38
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
John 10:24
So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 10:25
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,
John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:28
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
John 10:33
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
John 10:35
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
John 10:36
do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 10:37
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
John 10:38
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
There are many versions which say the same thing! You can find them here: Bible 22:70
That asides, there must be conclusive proof (as given in the scriptures), based on which a person should be accepted as an avtār or God. There have been many powerful personalities in the history of the world, who have performed amazing and wonderful feats. However, they cannot be accepted as God.
There are many people in India, who accept and worship Satya Sai Baba as God. He had some mystical abilities and performed some miracles. That does not qualify him as God or an Avtār.
People who follow a particular faith, out of their love, awe, reverence and affection, can and do portray the object of their worship as God/Avtār. It is natural. It is human. However, we must ascertain and accept someone to be an Avtār of God, not based upon our personal/cumulative belief or faith, but basis the infallible scriptures. Not just blindly, but should also test the person in the light of revealed scriptures, before accepting him as an incarnation of God or an Avtār.
Thank you.
:namaste
Last edited:
Fair enough.... maybe my bias was the translations I was looking at, as some of those which say 'I am' are a little, imo
.... bias in the point they wish to make, might we say.
Just curious... no need for exclamation points
Thanks for answering the question
That was more than I bargained for and not sure if I asked/stated anything warranting that,
but all the same, thanks for your take on the matter. I appreciate hearing different views on topics very much.
:namaste
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Actually ... that was in response to the o.p.
Apologies for clubbing it with the answer to your post!
:namaste
Actually ... that was in response to the o.p.
Apologies for clubbing it with the answer to your post!
:namaste
No damage done.
Thanks for clarifying the readership
I did enjoy your post all the same.
:namaste