Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Hindu view of Jesus

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: AstikanAstika

    Namaste Yajvan,

    As christmas approaches, I suppose the time is ripe for consideration of who is “nasty” (nAstika) and who is “nice” (Astika); but in truth that is a judgment only a great shAnta can make.

    An Astika is “believing, pious, or faithful”, and especially “one who believes in the existence of god”.

    And a nAstika is “unbelieving, atheistic, or unfaithful”, and thus “an unbeliever, atheist, or infidel”.

    Only cArvAka is entirely nAstika, while bauddha denies the possibility of unchanging eternity (and thus also the basis for vaidika authority) but not necessarily the existence of god, and jaina certainly doesn’t deny the existence of god (only the ultimate authority of the veda and brAhmaNa).

    Orthodox, however, generally means “according to the doctrines of scripture”, and as soon as this idea is connected with Astika the concept changes from believing in the existence of god to believing in the authority of the veda and the brAhmaNa.

    Religion was anciently derived from the phrase rem legere (“to choose that which is right”), but it has come to mean religare (“obligation to the established rule”); and similarly Astika has developed from simply “faithful to god” into “faithful to a particular revelation of god”.

    The strict brAhmaNa opinion is that only brAhmaNa vidyA is truly Astika, while kshatriya vidyA (jaina and bauddha), and all else, is nAstika unless informed by and in accord with brAhmaNa revelations. But it seems wrong to define bauddha and especially jaina dharma as “faithless” or “infidel”.

    bauddha dharma depends on the mahat (buddhi) of prakRti (mAyA, the mother of gautama) and the individual jIva, but ignores nirguNa brahma as shUnya.

    And jaina dharma arises from the AdinAtha puruSaRSabha (the first incarnation of shiva, the virile bull man remembered as nandi) and unites the verities of sAMkhya in a paramparA of 24 incarnations.

    The cosmology of sAMkhya does not depend on the existence of any deity that can be worshipped, although it does not deny the existence of brahma (as the infinite sum of every individual puruSa). And both bauddha and jaina have followed the lead of sAMkhya and focused their attention on divine incarnations (and reincarnation) rather than on the incomprehensible, inactive, invisible and anonymous whole that exists beyond manifest creation. And in this sense, the jaina and bauddha preoccupation with divine incarnation and incarnate divinity is not different from the vaiSNava preoccupation with nArAyaNa at the expense of nara (or christian devotion to the explicit son of man rather than to his implicit father).

    You have given the orthodox brAhmaNa position, but nAstika is a divisive term that should be applied with care.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste Yajvan,

    You have given the orthodox brAhmaNa position, but nAstika is a divisive term that should be applied with care.
    Namste sarabhanga.

    you are correct and care was given, with absense of malice.

    As noted, nāstika or na+ astika नास्तिक or it is not so and this word nāstika नास्तिक is not believing, or atheistical. So , from a 'clinical' POV this is how it was offered and applied. e.g. that the veda is not the final word, and is how my post reads.



    That said, I can see how one can take it to the next level of infidel and ruffle feathers.

    FYI only - 'infidel' is on my top 10 list of words that need to be removed from the planet. There are several more I find detestable and do not even choose to have my fingers spell out these words nor give my mind the opportunity to think of them... oooopps one just slipped into my head , excuse me while I go work on its extraction.




    pranams,
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Namaste Yajvan,

    Not believing in God and not believing in the brAhmaNa are really two different things (unless of course one is a brAhmaNa).

    And nAstika is exactly translated as " infidel " ~ unfaithful (as one with infidelity) ~ i.e. unfaithful to the brAhmaNa and their interpretation of the veda ~ but NOT necessarily atheist. Also " nasty " (originally meaning strange or astray) is derived from nAstika, so the connotations in english are clear.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~

    Namaste sarabhanga,

    you wrote
    Not believing in God and not believing in the brAhmaNa are really two different things (unless of course one is a brAhmaNa).
    I comprehend the differences but miss its application to the conversation. I am sure I am missing something.

    Also -
    great pains where taken for the following:
    And a nAstika is "unbelieving, atheistic, or unfaithful", and thus "an unbeliever, atheist, or infidel".
    Hence nAstika is rooted in = "no , it is not so" + आस्तिक = "there is or exists " and that how it was applied & called out by using its roots to do the work.

    Hence one can then come to the conclusion that one is the infidel ( ouch! I dis-like that word ) due to this condition. That has been my orientation, yet I appreciate the augmented knowledge you offer.

    The reason I wish to pursue this, I find great value in using the roots of meanings behind the words and the core application, as do you, and think they add value to a post when defined in a post accordingly.

    I cannot help but think of the conversation between King Janasruti¹ and the cartman Raikva, where he calls the King a sudra upon meeting him for the first time.
    Now was he thinking this King is of the working class in the Varna system, and perhaps said condescendingly? Absolutely not. He addressed him as sudra as he recognized his condition, 'shuchAt dravanam' a person who is in suffering/mourning/pain. The root of where sudra word begins.

    Raikva allowed the word that may by some be inappropriate, yet was used accordingly, to do the work for him...And the King took no issue, in fact he brought him 1000 cows, pearls, a chariot , etc. for his wisdom he wished the cart-man to expound.

    Like that, I hope to be so wise in the choice and use of the words I offer...

    I am aways open to be corrected and agumented as the situation occurs,yet if we are parsing hairs on this matter I will leave it to the barber


    pranams,


    1. Chandogya Upanishad Chapt 4 sloka 3
    tam u ha parah pratyuvAcAha hAre tvA SUdra tavaiva saha gobhir ...
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post

    I comprehend the differences but miss its application to the conversation.
    You have clearly written that the Jaina and Bauddha faiths are atheistic (i.e. not believing in God) and I have been trying to show that this is perhaps not entirely true, and also that some faiths (normally considered Astika) such as sAMkhya and even vaiSNava could be argued as "godless" in exactly the same way!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    You have clearly written that the Jaina and Bauddha faiths are atheistic (i.e. not believing in God) and I have been trying to show that this is perhaps not entirely true, and also that some faiths (normally considered Astika) such as sAMkhya and even vaiSNava could be argued as "godless" in exactly the same way!

    Namaste sarabhanga,

    Now I see your point and the reason for my confusion, because of the following ...
    I wrote, chose and defined that Unorthodox does not regard the Vedas as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox. I purposelfully and mindfully left out any references to God and only focused on recogntion of the Vedas for the same reason you have cited i.e. not believing in God ...this is perhaps not entirely true ( yes, I concur)

    Again, now I see your point.



    Reference only from the orginal post:
    So what does this mean? astika there exists , or a regard that the Vedas as infallible, the final word, with out doubt. Hence this is called Orthodox e.g. there exists the Vedas as the foundation of infallible truth.

    nastika does not regard the Vedas as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox.

    So, what is considered orthodox ? Which schools that is? It is the 6 systems of Indian philosophy. We know them as Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vaisesika.
    And what is considered Unorthodox? ( this does not mean 'bad'). We have Jaina, Carvaka , and Buddhist.

    pranams,
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  7. #17
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    Cleveland oh
    Age
    40
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    There is a book i had came across while at Borders that i thought might be of interest. It is called

    The gospel of John in light of Indian Mysticism.
    "My spiritual father is Swami Vivekananda" Canibus

  8. #18
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Age
    81
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    46

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottMalaysia View Post
    What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.
    If Hindus accept the concept of God incarnating and accepts the testimony of those who say they are incarnations of God, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't accept the testimony of Jesus that He is an incarnation of God.

    Granted there are some kooks out there who make the claim and don't fit the bill but if a person knows God, he should be able to tell the difference.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottMalaysia View Post
    What is the general Hindu view of Jesus? Is he an incarnation of God like Rama and Krishna, or was he just a man who taught his people to serve God? As a former Christian, I would be quite interested to know this. I remember the ISKCON people telling me that Jesus was a man empowered by God.
    The general "Hindu" view of Jesus is that he was a jew that came to India when he was 12-13 to study Vedas and Vedanta and learned yoga. After that, he started trying to teach mlecchas about the philosophy of the Vedas for which he was admonished (read: he wanted to teach the Vedas to other sUdras because he thought everyone should learn/read it ). He went back to the ME when he was ~30 years old and then after the crucifixion, he came back to India with the help of his 'disciples' and lived there till his last days. He is buried in Kashmir.

    On the philosophical aspect, Jesus pretty much had nothing new to espouse as he was just repeating what he had learned in India. In fact, many verses in the bible were directly taken from the Gita and other Hindu scriptures. Some people, Indians, claim that he might have reached the first level of unity consciousness. Through this he may have acquired some siddhis and therefore he showed them off to the illiterate (still) public in the ME. They had no clue as to how a normal human being could perform 'miracles' and therefore jumped to conclusions that he was of divine origin blah blah blah.. etc.

    Jesus may have at best reached kevala nirvikalpa and definitely not samadhi as anyone who has really realized the Self will not go around preaching and engage in polemics. In the West he was probably the first one to have reached a level beyond the three normal states of waking, dreaming, deep sleep. However, he was NOT an incarnation of a Supreme Being like Krishna. It is ridiculous to even compare the two. The '3 wise men' mentioned in the bible were from India, where else (), and must have prophecied his relatively higher level of consciousness; hence visiting him and giving gifts etc.

    Throughout history, especially in India, even today, there are many human beings who are highly developed spiritually and even in samadhi, much higher than Christ ever was. There are even more people around the world with experiences of spontaneous expansion of consciousness (i.e Fritjof Capra etc.). Therefore, to label them as 'incarnations' etc. is just silly and simply wrong.

    Subham.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Wink Re: Hindu view of Jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi

    Jesus may have at best reached kevala nirvikalpa and definitely not samadhi as anyone who has really realized the Self will not go around preaching and engage in polemics.
    If kevala nirvikalpa (“unwavering abstraction” or “absolute unity of spirit”) is pratyAhAra, then it is the “last supper”, before the final communion of saMyama and samAdhi (which is the crucifixion). And after that ultimate tapasya of kRSTi (“passion of christ”) there was no preaching and certainly no engaging in polemics.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •