Interested, but not wanting to intrude.

[Guest guest]

I may be an 'illiterate yank' but to blatantly call people ignorant seems.... well, ignorant to me, what is this trend I'm supposed to be breaking? The idea of listening to only one teacher and one philosophy?

 

As you point out D, just because YOU believe something does not make it true. I thought personal freedom, open ness, shedding of those bad karmic emotions of hatred, and judgement, were part of hinduism, I may not -be- hindu, born into it, raised in it, but already I know how to at least meditate in my own bumbling fashion and accept what I cannot change and change those things about me that are unacceptable for peace.

 

I may not know what some of the foreign language greetings said here are, but I know the comraderie with which thier spoken, I can understand the 'brotherhood' of peace of belief that a majority of the people here strive for.

 

And i may never be able to completely read the geeta or gita, and understand it. But I can understand the intent, the lessons, the stories, and enjoy the calm, and the insights into the human beings failings, faults and possibilities they attempt to instill in us.

 

So, find peace, enjoy it, embrace it,

 

I'm learning to.

 

SarahK

 

 

[Guest guest]

further to my earlier post, id like to stress how important it is that a person new to hinduism is allowed to search for themselves. it's essential for the soul to find what attracts it the most. surely it isn't theory on karma. nobody needs that. even vivekananda pointed out all the knowledge in the vedas is already there in our minds, hidden deep within. all we need is the key to unlock it, which is basically introspection on God. dont force theory and doctrine down her throat. it makes us no better than a common church. perhaps i'd reitorate the importance of keeping things simple at first, learning theory slowly, avoiding arguments and debates. ironic this is becoming one though. as for the reference to a simple copy of the gita, i say so because each gita obviously has it's own authors viewpoint. there are many great minds out there stressing what they want to stress. we need not affiliate ourselves with anyone particular line of thought when we read the gita, which is why a 'simple' copy is the most attractive for a first read. make notes while you're at it.

[Guest guest]

Brahma and Sarasvati became Abraham and

Sarah in the hands of the plagiarists of

the Christian Bible.

 

Adi in Sanskrit means: the first. And

ma: man. Adima means: the first man.

Adam, a proper name, came from the Sanskrit

word adima.

[Guest guest]

Dvaitin, please leave this thread gracefully.

You are contributing nothing to the discussion.

[Guest guest]

Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage

 

Stephen Van Eck

 

"Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned" (Prov. 6:28)? But of course!

 

Objective and open-minded scholars long ago conceded that Christianity is at heart a revamped form of Judaism. In the process of its development as something distinct from its mother religion, it became hybridized with so much pagan influence that it ultimately alienated its original Jewish base and became predominantly Gentile. The source of this pagan influence is varied and vague in the minds of most advanced Bible critics, but it may owe more to Hinduism than most people suspect.

 

The average person does not connect India with the ancient Middle East, but the existence of some trade between these two regions is documented, even in the Bible. Note the reference to spikenard in the Song of Solomon (1:12 ; 4:13-14 ) and in the Gospels (Mark 14:3 ; John 12:3 ). This is an aromatic oil-producing plant (Nardostachys jatamansi) that the Arabs call sunbul hindi and obtained in trade with India.

 

It is axiomatic that influence follows trade, and the vibrant culture of India could not help but impact on anyone exposed to it. The influence on Judaism came for the most part indirectly, however, via the Persians and the Chaldeans, who dealt with India on a more direct basis. (Indeed, the Aryans, who invaded and transformed India over 1500 years before Christ, were of the same people who brought ancient Persia to its greatest glory. Persia's name today--Iran--is a corruption of Aryan.) The ancient Judeans absorbed much of this secondhand influence during the Babylonian captivity of the sixth century B. C., and during the intertestamental period, when Alexandria became the crossroads of the world, intellectuals both Jew and Gentile were exposed to a variety of ideas, some of which originated on the subcontinent.

 

The precise pattern of influence was neither observed nor documented, but it can be inferred from the numerous uncanny similarities in concept and expression, not all of which can be coincidental. Let us examine the telltale evidence (none of which, it may be added, depends upon any apocryphal account of the alleged "lost years" of Jesus in India).

 

Most Christians are familiar with Galatians 6:7 , "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Less known is Proverbs 26:27 , "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him." Both express the Hindu principle of karma (the sum and the consequences of a person's actions during the successive phases of his existence), but since no direct connection can be deduced, we'll merely consider it an interesting coincidence and move on.

 

The concept of a soul that is distinguishable from the body and can exist independently of it is alien to Judaism. It is first known in Hinduism. Only after the Babylonian captivity did any such concept arise among the Jews, and it is in the epistles of Paul, the "debtor to both the Greeks and the Barbarians," that the notion receives its first clear expression. (See 2 Corinthians 5:8 and 12:3 .)

 

The Brahmin caste of the Hindus are said to be "twice-born" and have a ritual in which they are "born in the spirit." Could this be the ultimate source of the Christian "born again" concept (John 3:3 )?

 

The deification of Christ is a phenomenon often attributed to the apotheosis of emperors and heroes in the Greco-Roman world. These, however, were cases of men becoming gods. In the Jesus story, the Divinity takes human form, god becoming man. This is a familiar occurrence in Hinduism and in other theologies of the region. Indeed, one obstacle to the spread of Christianity in India, which was attempted as early as the first century, was the frustrating tendency of the Hindus to understand Jesus as the latest avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu.

 

It is in the doctrine of the Trinity that the Hindu influence may be most clearly felt. Unknown to most Christians, Hinduism has a Trinity (or Trimurti) too: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, who have the appellations the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer (and Regenerator). This corresponds to the Christian Trinity in which God created the heavens and the earth, Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as a regenerator (Titus 3:5 ). It is interesting to note, furthermore, that the Holy Spirit is sometimes depicted as a dove, while the Hebrew language uses the same term for both "dove" and "destroyer"!

 

The Trinity was a major stumblingblock for the Jews, who adhered to strict monotheism. The inherent polytheism in the Trinity doctrine cannot be explained away with the nonsensical claim that three is one and one is three. Besides, Jesus himself undermined any pretense of triunity (or omnipotence, for that matter) in Matthew 19:17 , "And he said unto them, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God...." Matthew 20:23 ; Mark 14:32 ; John 5:30 ; 7:16 and 14:28 also contradict the Trinitarian concept.

 

The Hindu scriptures, which are the oldest in the world, contain a number of astonishingly familiar expressions. The Upanishads mention things like "the blind led by the blind" (Matt. 15:14 ) and God's being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (Heb. 13:8 ). The path is said to be "narrow and difficult to tread" (Matt. 7:14 ). They also make reference to "a voice from out of the fire" (Ex. 3:4 ) and a man's face shining after encountering God (Ex. 34:29 ). They refer to those who are "wise in their own conceits" (Prov. 34:29 ; Rom. 12:16 ), warn against "fleshly desires" (1 Pet. 2:11 ), and advise that "it is not by works alone that one attains the Eternal" (Gal. 2:16 ]), and "to many it is not given" to know of metaphysical truth (Matt. 13:11 ). They describe the Self as "smaller than a mustard seed" (Matt. 17:20 ), and they speak of "the highest knowledge, having drunk of which, one never thirsts" (John 4:14 ). And how about this: "Man does not live by breath alone, but by him in whom is the power of breath" (Matt. 4:4 )?

 

Sounds a little too familiar, I'd say!

 

Then there is the Hindu epic, the Bhagavad-Gita, a story of the second person of the Hindu Trinity, who took human form as Krishna. Some have considered him a model for the Christ, and it's hard to argue against that when he says things like, "I am the beginning, the middle, and the end" (BG 10:20 vs. Rev. 1:8 ). His advent was heralded by a pious old man named Asita, who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleling that of Simeon in Luke 2:25 . Krishna's mission was to give directions to "the kingdom of God" (BG 2:72), and he warned of "stumbling blocks" along the way (BG 3:34; 1 Cor. 1:23 ; Rev. 2:14 ). The essential thrust of Krishna's sayings, uttered to a beloved disciple, sometimes seems to coincide with Jesus or the Bible. Compare "those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead" (BG 2:11) with the sense of Jesus' advice to "let the dead bury their own dead" (Matt. 8:22 ). Krishna's saying, "I envy no man, nor am I partial to anyone; I am equal to all" (BG 9:29) is a lot like the idea that God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11 ; see also Matt. 6:45 ). And "one who is equal to friends and enemies... is very dear to me" (BG 12:18) is reminiscent of "love your enemies" (Matt. 6:44 ). Krishna also said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" (BG 8:17), which is very similar to 2 Peter 3:8 .

 

In fairness, however, one purported similarity needs to be discredited. Skeptics sometimes cite Kersey Graves in Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Godfrey Higgin's Anacalypsis (which Graves drew from) in asserting that Krishna was a crucified deity. No such event occurred in the Gita or in any recognized Hindu scripture. Given the pronounced syncretic tendency of Hinduism, it is safe to assume that any odd tales of Krishna's being crucified arose only after the existence of Christian proselytism, in imitation of the Christian narrative. It is neither authentic to Hinduism nor is Hinduism the source of that portion of the Christian narrative. The same may be said for most of the purported nativity stories. In my opinion, both Higgins and Graves are highly unreliable sources and should be ignored.

 

That notwithstanding, the existence of uncanny similarities in concept and phraseology in those Hindu writings that are both ancient and authentic leaves Christians in a difficult quandary. With the historical reality of Indian influence on the Middle East being an established fact, how can they account for these similarities with anything less feeble than coincidence, or less bizarre than the notion of "Satanic foreknowledge and duplication," which is sometimes invoked to explain the similarities of Judeo-Christian precursors?

 

I'll close with Ecclesiastes 1:10 , another inconvenient and uncomfortable passage: "Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us."

 

(Stephen Van Eck, Route One, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839.)

 

Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html

 

Internet Infidels 1995-2002. All rights reserved.

 

[Guest guest]

how can Holy Spirit be linked with Lord Shiva??utter nonsense!!

[Guest guest]

just because to proof jesus is krishna u cant claim shiva is the holy spirit....senseless!!

[Guest guest]

There are well over a hundred passages in

the New Testament hijacked from Hindu-Buddhist

literature. Ordinary Christians do not

know this, neither do Hindus. Scholars do.

 

Christ is not a historical figure. He's a

fictional character and the New Testament

is a plagiarists' compilation.

 

The author of this article gives only a

small sample of borrowed passages. For

example, he does not even seem to be aware

of Buddhist sources of Christianity.

[ajit12 0]

One can distinguish Vedic religion which consists of carrying out Yagnyas for material things,worshipping of a few gods such as Indra,Vayu,Surya& yama etc.There were no temples or idols.Rigveda,Yajurveda & Samveda [which is essentially Rigveda] fall into this category.This Vedic religion does not exist anymore.

The next stage is Aryans & Vedic religion absorbing Non-aryan local religion.Shiv,Shakti,Ganesh were all gods which were absorbed into hinduism from non-aryan sources.When vedic religion spread to Bihar,Orissa & Bengal we find Tantra prevalent in that part of India getting absorbed into vedic religion.During this phase Castes & untouchablilty came into existance to keep those outside the vedic religion as second rate citizens.

Atharwaveda was composed during this period that is why for the first time you find muhurta,mantra,tantra m ,Jaaran-maaran,Jyotish and spells for varius maladies in Atharva Veda.

This was also the period during which a number of entire communites were absorbed wholesale into hinduism.A yagnya called Wratya stome was formulated for this by which entire communites were converted to hinduism rather vedic religion.This was the period of conversion into Hinduism contrary to populer belief However these communities retained and brought into hinduism their own social customs.

There were a number of communites which remained ouside the mainstream religion & were nevre absorbed.Adiwasis are an example of this.

The next stage is of Budhism and Jainism which caused Vedic religion to go into decline.The hindu brahmins then looked at budhism and incorpotaed budhist tenets into vedic religion wholesale such as temples [which are based on stupas],idol worship [again borrowed from Mahayan budhism],pooja rituals , taboo against nonveg food and stories about gods and godesses likes of mahayan budhism.This took form of puranas.This is more like the hinduism that we know today.

As hinduism had till then been on an absorbing and expanding spree therefore all communites have different social customs from the god to worship ,what to eat ,how & whom to marry.They were permitted to retain all this and then an overpatina of hinduism was laid on top of that.Therefore everyone is hindu.

The next stage came in 1st century B.C. to first century A.D.,where the brahmin dynasty in Maghada brought their version of hinduism and tried to stamp out bushism ruthlessly.Brahmins then made Budha as 9th Avataar & solved the problem neatly.

Hinduism or Vedic religion had encouraged mutliplicity of thoughts on the ulimate truth so the real flowering of thoughts[This has nothing to do with hiduism for the common man or hinduism in practice]with competing philisophies such as Sankya yoga by Kapila,Lokayat by Charvaka, Adwaite,Asoor[asoor are not demons but it was a distinct philosohpy and very logical one at that],Budhism & jainism were all searching for the truth[They were al hindus but not necessarily vedic]. There was no rancour against each other.There used to be hordes of scholers travelling from city to city and debating with the other philosophy in specially organised 'WADWIWADSABHA'.Upnishads probably belong to this period

Then came Adi shakracharya with his towering intellect and bhashyas. He was instrumental in giving hinduism the rigidity as it has today.He stamped out other schools and even their books such as Shasthiyog by kapila are not available anymore.

Then comes Bhakti sampraday with focus on Vishnu, Bhagvatam, Bhagwatgita and the focus on naam mahatyam.Once we discovered this with Vishnu/Krisna then shaivism,Dattatreya,Swaminarayan,Iscon and other Swamis were not far benind .These have needlessly divided hindus by claiming their brand is the sole and only truth.The fights between shivaites and Vishnu followers are legendary.

Hinduism as exists today is not a lie but a product of history,which we need to understand.Even today the regious rituals in some of the lower castes have no resemblance to hinduism.

The hinduism which used to believe that there many truths, perhaps many facets of the same truth and many paths of reaching it does not exist

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ajit, you are very knowledgeable! you must do a lot of reading!

keep it up

 

"The hinduism which used to believe that there many truths, perhaps many facets of the same truth and many paths of reaching it does not exist"

 

Ramakrishna said there are as many paths to God as there are men. there are infinite faces (forms) of god but they are all one.