Jesus Christ lived in India

I never said everyone should marry. As for Jesus, we simply don't know if he was married or not.

No - the term 'father' is purely symbolic - it means the origin, that from which all has emmanated.
The ultimate absolute.

I myself have met Catholic monks who practice hatha yoga to some extent.

It has to be noted that the number system although originated in India, came to the west via the Arabs during the middle ages.

I'm well aware of the Hindu and Buddhist ideas of heavens and hells. However, they are very different from the christian idea, which says they are eternal. There is no return to earth or any other plane according to christianity.

I've read AOY - personally, I'm not at all convinced by Yoganada's theory regarding Jesus and John as reincarnations of past prophets.

 

The personal God and the Impersonal God is definetely identical, because both are ultimately one and the same , and at the same time both are distinct from each other.

According to Shankara, " In Brahman there's no caste, no religion, no teaching. Brahman has got neither name nor form.
It is beyond space and time, and beyond the objects of sensorial experience."

Father the God is dualistic, not monistic like Brahman, which includes the personal God(which is but an aspect of Brahman), human beings , animals, matter and energy and consciousness , and everything.

According to Wikipedia .......

This Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Absolute Reality called Brahman is said to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in the human language. It can be at best described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe. It is pure being. Brahman manifests as Hiranyagarbha, the "world soul", which also can take many forms or manifestations of the thousands of gods. It was deemed a singular substrate from which all that is arises, and debuts with this verse:

"Great indeed are the devas who have sprung out of Brahman." — Atharva Veda





​

Essentially, it is also beyond being and non-being alike, and thus does not quite fit with the usual connotations of the word God and even the concept of monism. For this reason, some authors use the word 'Godhead' for Brahman, to distinguish it from the usual usage of the word 'God'.



There is clearly a difference between the Personal God and the impersonal God.

You can call Vishnu Father, but you cannot say that Vishnu is Brahman, strictly speaking.

Good for them.

I am aware of that, and the Arabs are also using the Indian numeral system. So I think both the Arabs and the West have to thank us for the 'devils numbers.'

I think I have given the answer to this in my post to Svedngarden.

It was just an educated opinion of his. It may be true, may be not.

 

Whether the message came from here or there, by this influence or that, does it really matter?


My only care is whether the teaching is valid or not.

 

Well, the teachings are valid all right.

Anthony deMello was an Indian Catholic Jesuit priest who died back in the 80s. His work was a western read of the teachings of christ with an eastern perspective underpinning it all.

As a priest of the Saint Thomas Christian Church of South India once commented : "You cannot understand the teachings of Jesus if you do not know the scriptures of India."

 

According to your understanding, God the Father is dualistic - but some, Eckhart and myself included, would see it differently as I explained.

God the Father is the same as Brahman - beyond conception. Containing all, yet more than all. Totally transcending everything in an eternal existence beyond time.

The personal aspect is the Son. John Milton, for example, gives Christ the role of creator of the universe, in line with St. Paul's saying that God made all things through Christ.

I think it's possible to view all this in different ways, and there's probably no one right way.

 

OK, I'm not being funny or cynical or nuffin but you can't really state something like that as a solid fact - and simply evidence it using such a brief source. Who's the scholars? whats their credentials etc...

Any also, again, not being funny... but Chastity, Non-Violence and Renunciation. All religions have these or elements of these. Do you therefore believe that all religions adopted these from hinduism? I think its probably more viable to say that these are based on Ethics (at least of those times, but still relevant today) that are universal across cultural or religious boundaries.

 

Vishnu means = he who pervades everything. Vishnu is Brahman and Vishnu is parabrahman.

 

Eckhart and you are looking at the impersonal aspect of God, not necessarily the personal aspect. Essentially , God the Father and the impersonal God is the same, but also distinct at the highest level. And God the Father can lead you to the impersonal God.

Well, I have read about God the Father in the Old testament and New testament, and he is referred to in a personal way. He is also seen to be having likes and dislikes, which is not impersonal.

 

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a highly respected scholar, and his yogic technique Sudarshan Kriya has been accepted by the United Nations. He has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize as well.

And Holger Kersten is a noted scholar as well.

Also wish to state that the same thing has been said by Paramahamsa Yogananda, Osho, and Swami Abhedananda.

Well, I think that life long chastity, renunciation and non-violence is not a part of the Judaic tradition.

" An eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth " seems to be diametrically opposed to unconditional non-violence as taught by Christ.


There is even a book published recently on the similarities between Jesus and Buddha's teachings , called 'Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings ' .


An another observation of mine.....

"As you sow, so shall you reap" . -- Jesus Christ

This quote of Christ is very similar to the Hindu-Buddhist teaching of Karma, which is the law of 'cause and effect.'


"God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will see God." -- Jesus Christ.

And according to the Hindu-Buddhist traditions, it is a pure mind or the no-mind that attains enlightenment , where one becomes one with Brahman or God.



I and my Father are one . --- Jesus Christ.

According to the Upanishads, Aham Bhramasmi ---- " I am He. "

Tat Vam Asi ------ Thou art That.(Santhokya Upanishad)


From the Santhokya Upanishad

Saint Suvethakedu was the son of Uthalaga Aruni Rishi. Suthevakedu, being trained by his father on sasthras, felt a bit of too much self pride that he knew *everything*. Aruni rishi wanted his son to realize that his son was just boasting around; so he called upon his son and asked him to tell him which was the most powerful of the all the shashtras. Suvethakedu couldn't answer this question and he realized this himself. His father then made an explanation for the most powerful of everything present in this universe...

One who has the perfect knowledge of God, one who has understood and realized God, is the one who has the perfect knowledge of everything. God is the source and destination of everything. Everything comes from him, everything is a part of him and everything ends in him. God is present in everything that exists in this universe. So, one who has realized God becomes master of everything and as there is only one master who owns everything, the same person becomes God himself. Thereby, realization of God is actually becoming God himself. Once you realize God, you and God are one!




​

​

 

It is true that Vishnu is Brahman in essence, but Vishnu is also distinct from Brahman , the impersonal God , in the strictest sense.

Krishna himself in a way, differentiates between his forms of Vishnu and Brahman in the Gita. Both were shown to Arjuna at seperate times.

 

Really this whole impersonal vs. personal is purely a human invention. The truth is that God is beyond mental conception - He/She/It is personal, impersonal and more than both at the same time.

The Bible was probably aimed at the ignorant masses in part, who are not able to deal with concepts which are too difficult for them. It is a book of populist religion.
Even Jesus says he spoke always in parables - never directly.

Also why should we think that God the personal has likes and dislikes, whilst God the impersonal has none? And still try to maintain they're the same One? It just doesn't make sense.

In ch11 of the Gita Krishna shows Arjuna the Virat Rupa or 'universal form', not the formless Brahman.

 

The problem there is that if this were true, then no-one in the Christian world prior to about the late 18th c at the earliest could have had any understanding of their own religion. Hence, it would actually not be a religion with any validity, since we know that a lot of development took place in Christianity between 1 A.D. and that time.
If none of the historic saints and illuminati of Christendom understood the teachings, then really, we might as well dismiss Christianity altogether as something cobbled together by ignorant people.
St.Augustine, St.Teresa, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, St.Francis of Assisi - all were entirely unaquainted with the scriptures of India.

Also, many of Jesus' teachings seem to conflict with the teachings of Indian gurus, for instance in matters such as diet, abstention from alcohol and so on, not to mention the theological differences.
You could construct an argument that Jesus words "call no man your master, for one is your master, even Christ" would tend to discourage placing any faith in a human guru.
No guru would be needed by one who had recieved the Holy Spirit directly.

One could as easily say 'no-one who doesn't understand the essence of Tao Te Ching can understand Christianity'.

 

Nope. This difference really exists, and while I have understood it , I am not able to put it clearly into words as it is very subtle.

I will check works of Vivekananda which deals with this subject and will type it down.

God is everything ultimately.

Yes thats true, they were illiterate, not very cultured and were slaves as well under the Romans. The situation is not comparable to the times of Krishna and Buddha, who had highly literate and cultured people among them , and hence could teach them the highest metaphysics and philosophy without any problem.
Jesus had to teach what he learned in simple terms and parables.

As I said , this is a bit subtle. Why should the impersonal God have likes and dislikes when It is everything. Both the lover and the beloved is one.

I don't have the Gita with me. But the universal form itself is different from the form of Vishnu, which he showed.

Arjuna loved the forms of Krishna and Vishnu , but he was terrified by the 'universal form ' , which I believe is Brahman, and asks Krishna to stop it and come back to his original form.

Also Arjuna was able to see this because of the divine vision given to him by Krishna.

 

In my educated opinion ,and through which I do not mean to offend anyone , all those who rely on the book and Church and nothing else , still has not completely understood the teachings of Christ. Their understanding is vague and superstitious.

Christ does give some teachings of loving God with all your heart and soul, same as Bhakti yoga, and if anyone follows that sincerely and loves God or Jesus unconditionally ( I stress unconditionality ) , they too will receive superconscious wisdom, and come to the same truths in their own unique way, and this is what we find in St.Francis, who you can say is very eastern.

Christ essentially preached Bhakti Yoga, not Raja yoga or Jnana yoga. Raja yoga especially requires strict rules regarding alcohol and diet and other intoxications.

And Bhakti yoga, is essentially about developing unconditional love for God. As Ramakrishna himself said, a true lover doesn't follow any rules, he makes his own rules and worships God in his unique way.

And Jesus being an enlightened master, could have understood this fact clearly. And I know of other enlightened masters who were unorthodox , and were not pedants themselves.

Do you mean to say that " no one is your master, even Christ " .

Well, he does tell about having faith in him and God , doesn't he ?
And this is the same as well with a guru . As the Buddha and Swami Vivekananda stated, you should rationally see for yourself if the teachings of a guru are good and creates results. If not, then leave him. If he does, then take him as your guru and have faith in him and follow his teachings faithfully. Faith is emphasized in the Hindu-Buddhist religions.

The true guru is the guru within you, for God is within you. The purpose of the external guru , is to purify you , and tune yourself to the guru within you.

As Paul himself stated in I Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God...?

As Swami Vivekananda says, "Vedanta says that within man is all knowledge--even in a boy it is so - and it requires only an awakening, and that much is the work of a teacher. "

There are many logical loopholes in Christianity. For example , Christ teaches us to show the other cheek , when you are slapped. This is a fundamental teaching of Christ. But how many can do it. Its impracticality is clear to anyone. No self-respecting person can do it.

Similar with Jesus's exhortations of renunciation, and giving your coat, and stuff. This has created a lot of confusion. How can everyone practice this?

According to Hinduism and Buddhism , non-violence is encouraged for all. But it is the monk and the sannyasin who should strictly practice non-violence, not the householder. The householder should be a hero, and should earn wealth and support his family and society, and should retaliate against physical violence, though he is prohibited from harming anyone without any reason in the first place. This is his duty and dharma.

On the other hand the duty of the monk or the sannyasin ,is strict non-violence, chastity and renunciation. This is their duty and dharma.

There is a distinction between the monk and the householder.

And as for your statement "One could as easily say 'no-one who doesn't understand the essence of Tao Te Ching can understand Christianity' ", I must say that only a very few Christians has understood Christianity in its true sense.

I haven't read completely Tao Te Ching, but from what I have read about it, it is very impressive, especially the ones about following the intuitions within you. It is more rational to me.

 

Michael Fischman :What is the true meaning of life?

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar : Ah . . . this you better find out for yourself. Don’t ask the meaning from me. It’s like asking me to chew your candy for you. It is not possible. Be with this question. I can tell you one thing, you are very fortunate that this question arises in your mind. One in a million people will get this question. It is a very sincere question. It means you have started your journey toward the light. Be with this question, and don’t be in such a hurry for a ready-made answer from somebody. Go deep into yourself and you will find out.

 

Yet Jesus is recorded as having drunk wine, and tyrned water to wine. At the last supper he gave his discples wine to drink.
Also, in the Acts of the apostles, far from introducing new dietary restrictions, the old Jewish one's were to be abolished.

That is a great saying.

Thing is though, that Christians believe Jesus was more than anenlightened master - He was God come in a human form. For a Christian, such a description would be the same as if you said Krishna was an enlightened master to a Vaishnava.
He is believed to be a unique being descended from above, as He himself says in many places, not an ordinary human who became enlightened.

I was quoting the King James Bible, the one with which I am most familiar.
In modern english the verse would read something like "you have only one master and He is Christ". It is an antiquated useage of the word 'even'.

My personal opinion is that Jesus was trying to set a standard towards we should aim. If one can't turn the other cheek always, at least the idea is there in principle.

This isn't at all a 'logical loophole' though. It's more to do with ethics than logic. It is strictly a logical proposition. As an ethical injunction, it may be a hard one to fulfill.
Still, that wouldn't mean it isn't correct. Calculus too is difficult - beyond the scope of most people, yet clearly it can be mastered.

St.Francis gave all his clothes away in public, and had to be covered with a blanket.
It can be done. But again, I think it's a question of the underlying principle.
We should be ready to give to those in need. That is practical active compassion.

I'm afraid that sounds a bit like the law of the jungle to me. We have proffesional policemen to defend us in civil societies. If you always return fire for fire you end up with an ever growing conflagration....

Perhaps. But if so, millions have departed this life under wholly false hopes. It isn't really necessary to fully understand, and frankly, many people are incapable of understanding anything complex. It's more a question of 'has Christian belief made them better people? Have they, during their lifetime, contributed to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth? Have they tried sincerely, and according to what understanding they do have, to follow Jesus teachings?'
That's what matters I think. Intellectual understanding and philosophy are a luxury really.

But probably, one could say the same of all religions including Hinduism - hardly anyone has the true understanding, although as with Christianity, many claim to have.

 

Niranjan - just to add - the ethical or moral teachings of Christianity are one of the more positive things about it, especially on the historical level.
I believe Naom Chomsky has written that Christianity encapsulated and preserved what he terms 'moral truisms' for western, and especially European culture during the period of it's dominance, up to about the 17th century.
It also seems that Christian morals are something of an improvement on the morals of the Pagan Greeks and Romans who went before.
Even if the moral behaviour of Christians during the past seems shocking to us, and cruel, still contained in their Holy Book were the teachings of Jesus, so it was preserved for future generations.
And there's little doubt that modern 'humanitarianism' owes a great deal to the Christian teachings as it developed in the west. As does the whole concept of 'humanism'.

Sri Aurobindo wrote 'from his cross, Jesus humanized the whole of Europe'

It is/was all about evolution in the end, or that's my view. Evolution of the inner spirit in the individual, and evolution of a truly 'human' society. The two must go hand in glove.
'On earth as it is in heaven' as the Lord's Prayer says.
That must be the goal.

We have yet to create such a society. The barbaric and inhuman culture of the 1st century rejected Jesus, and tried to kill him off - to kill off what he represented, that is. Today we don't nail people to crosses, but still society fails to come up to the moral standard set by Christ's teaching. Today's barbarians reject the humanist message of Jesus in more subtle ways, they even pervert the teaching, or ignore parts of it to justify their own personal or more worrying, political ambitions. Thus they show themseleves to be not Christ's followers, as they profess, but hypocrites.

Humans are or have the potential to be, an agressive lot. Telling them to 'turn the other cheek' is like a corrective, in case they should come to imagine they have the right to stamp on other people for their own ends. It goes further than that, I know, but perhaps that's what is needed. For people to come to a point where violence would be impossible, un-thinkable for them.
What makes it hard to do is 'the enemy within'....An external 'enemy' can often be a kind of mirror - a representative of things within oneself which remain to be dealt with. I believe the Dalai Lama has said that we can learn more from our enemies sometimes than our friends.
Turning the other cheek is also a metaphor for taking the moral high ground, and being unprepared to compromise one's deeply held principles, despite provokation.
Thus we would evolve from the semi animal to the fully human. And to be fully human, is to realize one's own innate spirit, and the spirit of the Divine.

Anyway, a few of my more Christian thoughts there.:daisy:

EDIT - I think the reason we can learn from enemies is that they provoke in us a negative response, thus showing us the negativity in ourselves which we need to overcome.
Often, our worst enemies are the unruly and imbalanced forces of our own psyche.(which, incidentally, is one meaning of the Christian symbol of the Devil - the lower, animal side of the nature. The devil is often shown in a form similar to the greek god Pan - goat from the waist down, showing that he isn't yet fully human).

 

And Krishna is recorded to have drunk wine along with Arjuna, in the Mahabharatha .

Does Jesus advocate alcoholic consumption ? I doubt it.

Also meat was a dietary requirement of the Jews at that time, and it would have been impractical to eradicate it from their diet at those times.

According to Bhakti yoga , ( the yoga of love) this applies both to Krishna and Jesus.
But according to Jnana yoga ( the yoga of the intellect ), both are enlightened masters , who have become one with God, and others too can do the same.

Whatever that may be, it still means that Jesus is advocating himself as the spiritual master and guru.

Well, Krishna and Buddha and the Rishis and others too teaches about the importance of non-violence. So the principle is present there as well.

And as I said before, I believe St. Francis was a true sannyasin or monk.

Charity is prescribed for the house holder as well, in the Hindu-Buddhist scriptures.

Please understand the context of what I had said.

You don't find policemen everywhere.Let me present a hypothetical situation. Suppose you went with your wife and daughter to the woods for a hiking trip, and suddenly you find yourself surrounded by immoral ruffians, who take a fancy towards your wife and daughter and gives undue attention to them. Would you wait for a policeman to come up to save the honour of your loved ones, or would you take action on your own ?

And however there are many people , including Christians themselves , who have rejected Christianity and the Church too because of what they perceived to be highly irrational teachings , with no logic whatsoever, and have become agnostics and atheists. They are there for all to see.

Same as above. We are not living in a situation similar to that of the times of Jesus in Palestine. We are not slaves anymore, and have advanced in terms of intellect and logic and science and culture , and mere parables don't satisfy us intellectually.

For many , intellectual understanding and philosophy is not a luxury, but a clear necessity and a refuge.

Also as I stated in other posts, intellectual understanding is necessary to strip religion of its superstitions, which has caused tremondous harm to the world and humanity.

Religion should become rational and logical. And this has been stated by Vashista, Buddha, Vivekananda and Thomas Paine.

Well, Hinduism and Buddhism seems to be more correlative with modern science and reason.

Carl Jung states that 1 in 10 people in the western world will have a pyschotic breakdown at some point in life and drown in the waters of the subconscious. In the east, the yogis and such swim in the same waters that they in the west drown in.

The chakras too are an expression of the human psyche according to Jung. Carl Jung and Joesph Campbell go on and on about the way that Indians have such a close understanding of the human mind.

William James too was highly impressed by Indian psychology, meditation and yoga. And scientific research has shown the tangible benefits of yoga and meditation in many dimensions.


Also Hinduism and Buddhism insists on direct perception , rather than blind belief or faith.

Here are the teachings of the Buddha..........

Do not accept my Dharma merely out of respect for me, but analyze and check it the way a goldsmith analyzes gold, by rubbing, cutting and melting it.



Rely not upon the person, but upon the doctrine.

With respect to the doctrine, rely not on the words but on the meaning.

With regard to the meaning, rely not on the interpretable meaning, but on the definitive meaning.

With regard to the definitive meaning, one should rely not upon comprehension by an ordinary state of consciousness but upon an exalted wisdom consciousness.

Because of this, the reliability of teachings cannot be determined by the person who taught them but by investigating the teachings themselves.





Believe nothing, merely because you have been told it, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for your teacher. But whatever after due consideration and analysis you find to be conducive to the good , the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine , believe and cling to and take it as your guide.

 

Yeah, I believe Jesus's teachings neutralised the aggressive, barbaric and warlike nature of the Europeans and made them more humane and civilized and refined.

Terms like 'Christian compassion ' and 'christian charity' manifest this.
Humanists like Thomas Paine , Voltaire could have been influenced by Christ, though they wrote extensive material on the evils of the church.

However there are also negatives like the 'dark ages', and the atrocities committed by the Europeans in all the continents , and the world wars.

Perhaps Christianity has to evolve , in order to adapt to the changed conditions.

 

Christianity has no monopoly on acts of savagery etc. They are unfortunately a feature of life in just about every civilization which has yet existed on the planet.

Personally, I doubt it can or will evolve very far at all. I think it has has its day, and we need something new. Same goes for most of the established religions - none of them are really suited to the new conditions we face in the new age.
A certain amount can be learned from them, but as they exist at present they simply can't help us to move forward. They are mostly forces of cultural conservatism.