Would you like to contribute to a text about how Hinduism views Jesus (and perhaps others)?

[Zelophehad]

Post 37 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3641237-post37.html

You were saying Jesus was not an Avatar, yet you said that anyone can be a manifestation of God. I was thinking that is the same thing. Being a manifestation of God IS being his Avatar. That's what I am trying to understand.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the thing is. Hinduism is really just another word for theologian. If you live in a free country with multiple religions, you are living the same philosophies as Hinduism. Same as the mythologies like Greek and Roman mythologies. They also were theologians who adopted deities and philosophies from other parts of the world. Hinduism kind of embodies that phenomenon.

Hinduism may be fairly tolerant of heterodoxy, but I'm pretty certain that you are taking the idea well into the breaking point.

Like it or not, there is such a thing as mainline Hinduism and it has a right to reject too extraneous ideas.

 

[Windwalker]

All interpretations of religion change over time. They may have roots in traditions, but even the traditionalists of today, are not the same as the people that practiced 2000 years earlier. The only way they would be is if the culture remained static for 2000 years. I see no reason that people who identify as Hindus cannot adopt another figure from another culture and integrated it into their own beliefs and practices, which in time becomes a tradition itself. In time, that becomes "Hinduism", and then those 2000 years from now would argue that not having that figure was a violation of what Hinduism is. Bottom line is, traditionalists romanticize the past as a fixed set of beliefs, whereas they were novel then too.

 

[idav]

You were saying Jesus was not an Avatar, yet you said that anyone can be a manifestation of God. I was thinking that is the same thing. Being a manifestation of God IS being his Avatar. That's what I am trying to understand.

I am curious about the same thing. Seems its just a matter of whether they believe jesus was a rep of god. Since in hinduism, god incarnations are possible, not just in india.

 

[Jainarayan]

You were saying Jesus was not an Avatar, yet you said that anyone can be a manifestation of God. I was thinking that is the same thing. Being a manifestation of God IS being his Avatar. That's what I am trying to understand.

He's not an avatar by the standard of Hindu usage and belief in avatars, i.e. incarnations of Vishnu. This subject is about Jesus wrt Hinduism. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

 

[LuisDantas]

All interpretations of religion change over time. They may have roots in traditions, but even the traditionalists of today, are not the same as the people that practiced 2000 years earlier. The only way they would be is if the culture remained static for 2000 years. I see no reason that people who identify as Hindus cannot adopt another figure from another culture and integrated it into their own beliefs and practices, which in time becomes a tradition itself. In time, that becomes "Hinduism", and then those 2000 years ago would argue that not having that figure was a violation of what Hinduism is. Bottom line is, traditionalists romanticize the past as a fixed set of beliefs, whereas they were novel then too.

While that is true, it is also true that there is a clear conception of Hinduism these days, and it hardly deserves to be pressured into vague syncretic conceptions of what it should be.

 

[Kalidas]

All interpretations of religion change over time. They may have roots in traditions, but even the traditionalists of today, are not the same as the people that practiced 2000 years earlier. The only way they would be is if the culture remained static for 2000 years. I see no reason that people who identify as Hindus cannot adopt another figure from another culture and integrated it into their own beliefs and practices, which in time becomes a tradition itself. In time, that becomes "Hinduism", and then those 2000 years ago would argue that not having that figure was a violation of what Hinduism is. Bottom line is, traditionalists romanticize the past as a fixed set of beliefs, whereas they were novel then too.

No one is saying a Hindu CAN'T do that. They can do what ever, Hinduism is especially forgiving: "Got it wrong in this lifetime? Try again in the next!". Yet I see no reason certain things or people should be added that are unnecessary. Jesus honestly has no reason to be added.

 

[Windwalker]

No one is saying a Hindu CAN'T do that. They can do what ever, Hinduism is especially forgiving: "Got it wrong in this lifetime? Try again in the next!". Yet I see no reason certain things or people should be added that are unnecessary. Jesus honestly has no reason to be added.

To some he clearly does. You don't see a reason for you.

 

[Zelophehad]

Hinduism may be fairly tolerant of heterodoxy, but I'm pretty certain that you are taking the idea well into the breaking point.

Like it or not, there is such a thing as mainline Hinduism and it has a right to reject too extraneous ideas.

Not sure what you are getting at. I am saying that you don't need to be of the Hindu race to be Hindu-like.

 

[Kalidas]

Not sure what you are getting at. I am saying that you don't need to be of the Hindu race to be Hindu-like.

Of course not I'm white! lol

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure what you are getting at. I am saying that you don't need to be of the Hindu race to be Hindu-like.

I never even saw race enter the subject matter.

But if we are talking about Hinduism, then it is only fair to acknowledge that it has doctrinary characteristics - and that it is not at all a part of the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[Windwalker]

While that is true, it is also true that there is a clear conception of Hinduism these days, and it hardly deserves to be pressured into vague syncretic conceptions of what it should be.

Which is why I prefer to use words such as "traditional Hinduism", to make a clear distinction between traditionalists and progressives or liberals, or what have you. I don't care for traditionalists to assume their understanding is what constitutes what the religion actually is, what is valid and what is not valid based on their own view of themselves as "true" to the religion itself. Yet, that is what is done again and again, excludes the rest as not truly Hindu, truly Christian, etc. It's a fallacy.

 

[Zelophehad]

No one is saying a Hindu CAN'T do that. They can do what ever, Hinduism is especially forgiving: "Got it wrong in this lifetime? Try again in the next!". Yet I see no reason certain things or people should be added that are unnecessary. Jesus honestly has no reason to be added.

I agree completely. Far eastern philosophy has got everything covered that Jesus does, and then some. That is why my conversion away from Christianity was so easy for me. I am one of the lucky ones to have known the eternal compassion and guidance of Hindus and Buddhists. You're philosophies are BEAUTIFUL.

 

[Zelophehad]

I never even saw race enter the subject matter.

But if we are talking about Hinduism, then it is only fair to acknowledge that it has doctrinary characteristics - and that it is not at all a part of the Abrahamic traditions.

OK. I think the Abrahamics are VERY anti-Hindu. Jesus knew a lot of the same philosophies of Hinduism. But Moses, who Jesus was OK with, practiced terrorism against Jews who wanted to practice freedom of religion, and worship as a Hindu would. The 3000 Jews murdered for erecting a statue of the golden calf and worshipping it, were very Hindu/Ancient Egypt- like. I think any Hindu who wishes to worship Moses is making a HUGE mistake, and going against Hinduism and all other forms or freedom of religion. Certainly against polytheism of a sort.

 

[Zelophehad]

Which is why I prefer to use words such as "traditional Hinduism", to make a clear distinction between traditionalists and progressives or liberals, or what have you. I don't care for traditionalists to assume their understanding is what constitutes what the religion actually is, what is valid and what is not valid based on their own view of themselves as "true" to the religion itself. Yet, that is what is done again and again, excludes the rest as not truly Hindu, truly Christian, etc. It's a fallacy.

I tend to think that you can act in ways that are Hindu-like, or you can share in the same philosophies and not know of each other, and still be the same thing. For instance, I believe Ancient Egypt religion is the same religion as Hinduism. Their similarities are profound. I think the similarities stem from the fact that they are both born out of freedom. I think other mythologies are also another sect of the same religion that is Hinduism. Wherever there are nations with freedom of religion, different sects of the same philosophy of freedom are born. I think any free nation with multiple religions is the same as Hinduism. It's just in another part of the world. Freedom being at it's core. Hinduism is just another symptom of what happens when you inject freedom upon a peoples. We can see the same effect in other parts of the world throughout history. Hindu, Egypt, Norse, Greek, Roman mythologies, Ancient American Indians, Bushman, to name a few. All are polytheistic, all are born from freedom to worship God or whoever, in whatever peaceful way they want. All are the same religion with the same religious beliefs and practiced the same policies.

 

[idav]

I feel the hindus have a handle on their own avatar term. It is the christains that cant find concensus on the divine nature of jesus. Depending on the denomination, they may view jesus the way hindus view avatars, that certainly was the case for me as I started delving into the dharma religions and straying from christianity. Hindus could have tons of god, jesus would just be one more.

 

[Windwalker]

I feel the hindus have a handle on their own avatar term. It is the christains that cant find concensus on the divine nature of jesus. Depending on the denomination, they may view jesus the way hindus view avatars, that certainly was the case for me as I started delving into the dharma religions and straying from christianity. Hindus could have tons of god, jesus would just be one more.

But if the gods are manifestations of Brahman, and Jesus is the manifestation of God.... are they not all God?

What I really see is that people no matter what religion they are see their religious figures differently among themselves in the same ways. Some understand them very literally, and very tied to its cultural grounds. Hence to them, these figures seem to stand in stark contrast with one another. And they do, because they are symbols of a very literal understanding of their own culture which appears different than other cultures. But then there are those who in exploring the greater depths of these figures, begin to see them in a light that transcends the culture. And as they do this, they see the same transcendent nature in the symbols of another religion. It's at that point, they are all the same. But prior to this, they are seen in their surface features which are necessarily different. They are seen as false, or in error, rather than themselves being Truth in another form.

 

[Jainarayan]

Which is why I prefer to use words such as "traditional Hinduism", to make a clear distinction between traditionalists and progressives or liberals, or what have you. I don't care for traditionalists to assume their understanding is what constitutes what the religion actually is, what is valid and what is not valid based on their own view of themselves as "true" to the religion itself. Yet, that is what is done again and again, excludes the rest as not truly Hindu, truly Christian, etc. It's a fallacy.

I too find it ironic that the very same Hindus who say it is diverse, vast, encompasses so many beliefs, tolerates and welcomes all, etc. are the same ones who are the first to howl when something doesn't meet their criteria of what comprises this vast all-encompassing religion. Eta: especially when Hinduism itself is a syncretization and outgrowth of pastoral, tribal local and Proto-Indoeuropean religions.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

In the attempt to make Hinduism a 'universal religion' which can be followed/practiced by anyone, I believe that certain elements of other faiths became incorporated into it, to show that Hinduism is open, tolerant and not limited by its own inherent beliefs or ideologies.

This serves Hinduism up to a point, but it seems that nobody can move past that point and they all just get stuck there.

Personally, I see those such as Lord Buddha, Mahavir, The Christ, Ghandi, Sankaracharya, Vivekananda etc as being holy, venerable personages that we should all respect, but can only fully appreciate within the confines of our own faith and belief systems.

I have enough trouble reconciling all the many 'Gods' and 'Avatars' that Hinduism already has, I don't need to throw Jesus, Buddha or any other facet of any other religion into that colourful mix.

The debate has also been presented, that the incorporation of other beliefs only serves to enrich Hinduism and not dilute it, but I beg to differ.

In all honestly, as soon as any attribute is placed upon Brahman Absolute, Hinduism becomes diluted, So I just identify all that with Lord Siva (and often Shakti...and often both together) - Jai Ardhanarishwar! :bow:

This is as far as I go. I don't worship Krishna, or Ganesha, or any other Hindu God in the Pantheon, so extending that to 'worshiping Christ' is just way down on my 'candidate list' there.

The whole problem begins when we split the One (Brahman) into two....so fracturing that into multidimensional shards of reality is just too much for me to take in. I'd rather keep the whole thing as pure and as simple as I can...as close to Brahman, as I can.

I learned my lesson after starting a similar thread about the teachings of Christianity vs the teachings of Advaita Vedanta a while ago.

To this day, I still don't understand, or know why it is that my thread (about the same thing, basically) was moved and then locked (with me copping an infraction for breaking rule #10), yet that thread remains in the Hindu DIR, for all to see and post on.

I am still annoyed over all that, because no-one has been able to offer me any logical explanation for it, leaving me to believe that rule #10 only applies to me and nobody else.

But that's the way of the world though...rules only apply to me but other people break them habitually and nothing is ever done...but as soon as I do, the whole world comes down on me like a ton o' bricks.

I shall never understand this as long as I live.

Om Namah Shivay

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hari das baba was in sahaj samhadi, he was himself Christ. His word is solid.

Do christians accept it? Of course, I do not know about this baba, there are so many around.