W
wisdomseeker
Guest
So, they worship the God of Israel?
- Status
A
afthomercy
Guest
I think the real disconnect between Christianity and Hinduism-Buddhism is regarding who the human being is, in relation to God. For Christians, human beings and God are two distinct kinds of persons, whereas for Hindus-Buddhists, they are the same at source.
I got one of my Hindu friends to send me relevant extracts from their holy book, The Gita. Here Krishna, an avatar of their Supreme God, is speaking to his charioteer Arjuna. Krishna says: *"Many births have been left behind by Me and by thee, O Arjuna, I know them all, but thou knowest not thine, O Parantapa.
This eternal individual Jiva (= human being), the world of Jivas, is a ray of Myself and at the time of leaving the body he draws round himself the various senses, that is, the sense of hearing, sense of sight, sense of touch, sense of smell and sense of taste, with the mind as sixth sense, all these having their abode in Prakriti i.e., the world of matter, as distinguished from the Purusha, who is the Paramatman. When He acquires a body, and when He departs from the same, the Isvara takes these and goes out, even as the wind is laden with fragrance gathered from flowers and other sources. Verily, the perverted and the deluded do not perceive Him, who thus leaves the body, or who resided and enjoyed in the body in conjunction with the senses; but the Sages, endowed with the eye of wisdom, do perceive Him.
There are two classes of beings in the world, the perishable and the imperishable. The perishable comprises the whole of Creation, together with the Universe of changing forms, whereas the imperishable is the eternal and the immutable. Different even from these two is yet the highest spirit known as the Paramatman or the Supreme Self, the immutable, who penetrates and nourishes the three worlds. Insofar as I transcend the perishable and the imperishable and because I am superior to them, I am realised as the Purushottama or the highest divinity in the world of Seers and Scriptures."*
In identifying the human person as “a ray of Myself”, Krishna clearly implies that man, at source, is co-eternal with God, and therefore just like Him, has no beginning. By contrast, in Christianity, before conception: void. At the instant of conception, poof!: individual/person. Also in Christianity, a man, once created, remains a distinct person eternally, whereas in Hinduism he/she, at the point of moksha, surrenders his individual ego, and in doing so, gets merged back into the Supreme Self or Para Brahman. So in Hinduism, man, in essence, is divine. The disconnect between the two faiths begins from here and flows into everything else, such as resurrection v/s reincarnation. And this being a doctrinal matter, there can be no arbitration as to where the truth lies, though it has to lie in either of the camps and not in both. As a Christian, if I claim to be uncreated/without a beginning, I commit blasphemy, since that is claiming equality with God. As a Hindu-Buddhist, if I say that I am distinct from God (i.e. I hold on to my ego), I commit heresy and by definition deny myself moksha. It’s a very clear-cut dilemma and no amount of argument or dialogue can resolve it. It is better that we appreciate what divides us, and co-exist amicably, without deriding the other (Christians please note) and without trying to subsume the other (Hindus-Buddhists please note)
I got one of my Hindu friends to send me relevant extracts from their holy book, The Gita. Here Krishna, an avatar of their Supreme God, is speaking to his charioteer Arjuna. Krishna says: *"Many births have been left behind by Me and by thee, O Arjuna, I know them all, but thou knowest not thine, O Parantapa.
This eternal individual Jiva (= human being), the world of Jivas, is a ray of Myself and at the time of leaving the body he draws round himself the various senses, that is, the sense of hearing, sense of sight, sense of touch, sense of smell and sense of taste, with the mind as sixth sense, all these having their abode in Prakriti i.e., the world of matter, as distinguished from the Purusha, who is the Paramatman. When He acquires a body, and when He departs from the same, the Isvara takes these and goes out, even as the wind is laden with fragrance gathered from flowers and other sources. Verily, the perverted and the deluded do not perceive Him, who thus leaves the body, or who resided and enjoyed in the body in conjunction with the senses; but the Sages, endowed with the eye of wisdom, do perceive Him.
There are two classes of beings in the world, the perishable and the imperishable. The perishable comprises the whole of Creation, together with the Universe of changing forms, whereas the imperishable is the eternal and the immutable. Different even from these two is yet the highest spirit known as the Paramatman or the Supreme Self, the immutable, who penetrates and nourishes the three worlds. Insofar as I transcend the perishable and the imperishable and because I am superior to them, I am realised as the Purushottama or the highest divinity in the world of Seers and Scriptures."*
In identifying the human person as “a ray of Myself”, Krishna clearly implies that man, at source, is co-eternal with God, and therefore just like Him, has no beginning. By contrast, in Christianity, before conception: void. At the instant of conception, poof!: individual/person. Also in Christianity, a man, once created, remains a distinct person eternally, whereas in Hinduism he/she, at the point of moksha, surrenders his individual ego, and in doing so, gets merged back into the Supreme Self or Para Brahman. So in Hinduism, man, in essence, is divine. The disconnect between the two faiths begins from here and flows into everything else, such as resurrection v/s reincarnation. And this being a doctrinal matter, there can be no arbitration as to where the truth lies, though it has to lie in either of the camps and not in both. As a Christian, if I claim to be uncreated/without a beginning, I commit blasphemy, since that is claiming equality with God. As a Hindu-Buddhist, if I say that I am distinct from God (i.e. I hold on to my ego), I commit heresy and by definition deny myself moksha. It’s a very clear-cut dilemma and no amount of argument or dialogue can resolve it. It is better that we appreciate what divides us, and co-exist amicably, without deriding the other (Christians please note) and without trying to subsume the other (Hindus-Buddhists please note)
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t know about that. Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi OutOfThyMercy: Very nice write up. I would offer a thought if I may. In Hinduism it is not that we are equal to God in that we are separate entities who are equal to God. Rather, we are *part *of God, so equality isn’t really relevant. Most Hindus wouldn’t see anything about what Jesus said or did to conflict with this. By holding up bread and saying “this is my body” is an affirmation that He is in everything, in that the cosmos is His body, and we are part of the cosmos. By eating the bread we are being told that He is in us as well. And like the Catholics (and as I understand it, some other Christian sects) believe, it really is Him. It’s not a metaphor.I think the real disconnect between Christianity and Hinduism-Buddhism is regarding who the human being is, in relation to God. For Christians, human beings and God are two distinct kinds of persons, whereas for Hindus-Buddhists, they are the same at source.
I got one of my Hindu friends to send me relevant extracts from their holy book, The Gita. Here Krishna, an avatar of their Supreme God, is speaking to his charioteer Arjuna. Krishna says: *"Many births have been left behind by Me and by thee, O Arjuna, I know them all, but thou knowest not thine, O Parantapa.
This eternal individual Jiva (= human being), the world of Jivas, is a ray of Myself and at the time of leaving the body he draws round himself the various senses, that is, the sense of hearing, sense of sight, sense of touch, sense of smell and sense of taste, with the mind as sixth sense, all these having their abode in Prakriti i.e., the world of matter, as distinguished from the Purusha, who is the Paramatman. When He acquires a body, and when He departs from the same, the Isvara takes these and goes out, even as the wind is laden with fragrance gathered from flowers and other sources. Verily, the perverted and the deluded do not perceive Him, who thus leaves the body, or who resided and enjoyed in the body in conjunction with the senses; but the Sages, endowed with the eye of wisdom, do perceive Him.
There are two classes of beings in the world, the perishable and the imperishable. The perishable comprises the whole of Creation, together with the Universe of changing forms, whereas the imperishable is the eternal and the immutable. Different even from these two is yet the highest spirit known as the Paramatman or the Supreme Self, the immutable, who penetrates and nourishes the three worlds. Insofar as I transcend the perishable and the imperishable and because I am superior to them, I am realised as the Purushottama or the highest divinity in the world of Seers and Scriptures."*
In identifying the human person as “a ray of Myself”, Krishna clearly implies that man, at source, is co-eternal with God, and therefore just like Him, has no beginning. By contrast, in Christianity, before conception: void. At the instant of conception, poof!: individual/person. Also in Christianity, a man, once created, remains a distinct person eternally, whereas in Hinduism he/she, at the point of moksha, surrenders his individual ego, and in doing so, gets merged back into the Supreme Self or Para Brahman. So in Hinduism, man, in essence, is divine. The disconnect between the two faiths begins from here and flows into everything else, such as resurrection v/s reincarnation. And this being a doctrinal matter, there can be no arbitration as to where the truth lies, though it has to lie in either of the camps and not in both. As a Christian, if I claim to be uncreated/without a beginning, I commit blasphemy, since that is claiming equality with God. As a Hindu-Buddhist, if I say that I am distinct from God (i.e. I hold on to my ego), I commit heresy and by definition deny myself moksha. It’s a very clear-cut dilemma and no amount of argument or dialogue can resolve it. It is better that we appreciate what divides us, and co-exist amicably, without deriding the other (Christians please note) and without trying to subsume the other (Hindus-Buddhists please note)
Your friend,
Sufjon
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
Are you absolutely sure you want to use that verse, taken out of context and misread, to make it say we have pre-existence before conception?
Sufjon, "By holding up bread and saying “this is my body” is an affirmation that He is in everything, in that the cosmos is His body, and we are part of the cosmos."
I don’t know where you drew up the conclusion that when Jesus states “this is my body” in the Eurcharist is a generalization of every single thing in existence, but that is not anywhere close to Christian theology.
But that’s not what I’m interested in, I’m puzzled to what you believe. Do you believe creatio ex materia (creation out of pre-existant matter) or creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God)? Guess it can be boiled down to asking you do you believe we are contingent or nessesary?
S
Sufjon
Guest
This is what most any follower of Vedic scripture would say that it means. However, I am very aware that this is not what Christians for the most part believe. It is also my understanding that Christians would take this to be restricted to the bread and wine, which is not a problem with me. He is in fact in the bread and wine, and as long as you see Him there, at least you are seeing Him somewhere, and in my opinion that is good.
Neither.
Your friend
Sufjon
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
If by nither you were referring to contingent or nessesary, then what?
If you believe the cosmos, universe, is part of God or is God by some affirmation of some form of pantheism, ex deo, then explain to me how the universe is (part) God if it will undergo heat death (maxium entropy)? Isn’t this an indirect way of saying God will die unless you accept a different theory of the ultimate fate of the universe.
If you believe the cosmos, universe, is part of God or is God by some affirmation of some form of pantheism, ex deo, then explain to me how the universe is (part) God if it will undergo heat death (maxium entropy)? Isn’t this an indirect way of saying God will die unless you accept a different theory of the ultimate fate of the universe.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I make no claims about pre-existence, but the verse is very interesting nonetheless: Hasidic Jews certainly would interpret the verse in support of their ideas about pre-existence of the soul.
S
Sufjon
Guest
-Ultimate fate of *this *universe. Every end is a beginning, therefore there is no end, and no beginning. This is only the linear way the mind looks at what it calls time.
-This Universe is perhaps 13.7 billion years old. In relation to eternity that’s the blink of an eye. We are eternal.
Your friend
Sufjon
M
Michael19682
Guest
“Hindus are polytheists, Christians are monotheists.”
I disagree that Hindu’s are polytheistic. They merely conceptualize God differently. Brahman, The Self, Krishna, whatever–all the same thing–are not even definable save as Being Itself, Consciousness, and Bliss (and these terms are compromises to that entities’ non definition). (All of their Guru’s are considered manifestations of that entity, and are, for pedagogical purposes, worshiped as such). They would consider Christ the Christian Guru; and many Hindu’s find Christianity a perfect religion, and Christ a perfect guru. Christ made known that he was the Son of the Most High–still a unique claim for any guru. (Note the distinction between Brahman and Brahma (the creator)). Trying to ‘reconcile’ the two doctrines is difficult for words to accomplish, but if anyone is interested I can try. It is very tricky and I would only make the attempt by request.
Still–I don’t think they are polytheistic.
I disagree that Hindu’s are polytheistic. They merely conceptualize God differently. Brahman, The Self, Krishna, whatever–all the same thing–are not even definable save as Being Itself, Consciousness, and Bliss (and these terms are compromises to that entities’ non definition). (All of their Guru’s are considered manifestations of that entity, and are, for pedagogical purposes, worshiped as such). They would consider Christ the Christian Guru; and many Hindu’s find Christianity a perfect religion, and Christ a perfect guru. Christ made known that he was the Son of the Most High–still a unique claim for any guru. (Note the distinction between Brahman and Brahma (the creator)). Trying to ‘reconcile’ the two doctrines is difficult for words to accomplish, but if anyone is interested I can try. It is very tricky and I would only make the attempt by request.
Still–I don’t think they are polytheistic.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
“Poly” means “many”. “Theos” means “god”.
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, Ye are gods’?”
– John 10:34
M
Michael19682
Guest
Thanks to you, I am aware of what ‘poly’ and ‘Theos’ mean. What is the meaning of your reply? If it is that there are many gods, then why do the Hindu’s like Catholics say there is only one entity underlying all of reality?
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
Not going to address my question of contingent or necessary are you?
What theory do you accept of the universe? Steady state, oscillating universe, multi-verse, efficient causation, etc…? Are you dismissive of the present state of science supports that the universe will undergo an ultimate end, therefore acknowledging an ultimate beginning?
They can interpret that way all they want but they are wrong to do so. This is where we introduce the context of the ENTIRE Sacred Scripture and not cherry pick things out of context. For one, that verse is speaking of God’s foreknowledge of Jeremiah, Not his pre-existence. And two, let’s observe job 38:4 when God was speaking to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” I would use 1 Cor 15:46 but haven’t concluded that it fits this context but would add, like you have stated, the verse is very interesting nonetheless.
Not going to straw-man your stance but why are pulling this verse out in a conversation of polytheism? Are you suggesting Sacred Scripture says we are to become like God in a polytheistic sense? Or is this another “the verse is very interesting nonetheless” approach?
You seems to have a Mormon take on Sacred Scripture, are you adoptive of their theology?
M
Michael19682
Guest
For what it is worth–and I am a self-invite on this conversation–I think the Buddhists are more in line with Catholicism on the end** times.** I believe they call it the paranirvana, or the time of liberation or enlightenment of all souls. It denotes a reality transformed by the enlightenment of all. Hence no disagreements, arguments, or fights of any kind—much like I personally (and so many Catholics I have met) envision Heaven.
As for the creation argument in this thread: my opinion is that it boils down to action on the part of the creator. Hence we need to ask what relation the creator bears to his creation, the matter. The Latin uses the feminine for it, to me suggesting it is of a different nature than the masculine God but can be joined to him by a matrimony of sorts involving proper joining with the matter (body, in its highest form). If as some Hindus say the creator sprang from the Being, then created the universe, then that is a use of recursion in the explanation and is of use pedagogically only–does not answer the question posed by Trevor Stamm (forgive my reference to your thread and any misconception thereof, Trevor)? Not only does no one know the answer, but Augustine warned against even asking the question; for if The Being is a transcendent with no action potential then how could anyone including It provide an answer, which necessarily is an action insofar as ‘provide’ is a verb?
As for the creation argument in this thread: my opinion is that it boils down to action on the part of the creator. Hence we need to ask what relation the creator bears to his creation, the matter. The Latin uses the feminine for it, to me suggesting it is of a different nature than the masculine God but can be joined to him by a matrimony of sorts involving proper joining with the matter (body, in its highest form). If as some Hindus say the creator sprang from the Being, then created the universe, then that is a use of recursion in the explanation and is of use pedagogically only–does not answer the question posed by Trevor Stamm (forgive my reference to your thread and any misconception thereof, Trevor)? Not only does no one know the answer, but Augustine warned against even asking the question; for if The Being is a transcendent with no action potential then how could anyone including It provide an answer, which necessarily is an action insofar as ‘provide’ is a verb?
1
1voice
Guest
Well, counterfeits wont pass as the real thing unless they look real good.
Christ has died … Christ has risen … Christ will come again … in glory, honor and majesty to reign forever… every knee shall bow … every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
As the song goes … “Well Buddha waaaas a man … Im sure that he meant well … but if you are his disciple … you might wind up in hell.”
The crucial difference between Christianity and other religions is Jesus Christ. He said “I am the way the truth and the life … no one can commune/ share a relationship with God the Father … except through having a personal relationship with me first” (paraphrased of course)
The Bible clearly states that without a relationship with God through his Spirit in us ("God is a Spirit and we can only worship and know him if we have his Holy Spirit in us) … as a result of a repentant heart and the willing acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior … then … “man’s righteousness is filthy rags”.
S
Sufjon
Guest
I am not a scientist nor a theologian, however, my sense is that the end is prescribed by the beginning and the beginning is contingent on the end. Each sets the other in motion and makes the other inevitable. It is not linear, whereas one can point to the far left end of a yard stick and say this is the beginning and point to the far right end and say it is the end. It is more like trying to put your finger on a particular place on a beach ball and call it the beginning and another place on the beach ball and call it the end. Additionally, I would say that the beginning, the end, and all points in between exist together and do not occur in a serial manner. You mentioned multi-verse, and insofar as I know that theory has no defined end. Rather it is cyclical, and this is consistent with Vedic thought, which of course is my faith. As far as science prescribing an end, I think that is a matter of what is meant by end. Matter no longer looking like or acting like what it does now is not an end. It is a change. Universes have done this before. We however, are changeless.
Your friend
Sufjon
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Because, for a Hindu, a “god” – or, in Sanskrit, a “deva” – is not the “only one entity underlying all of reality”. That One Entity is not a “deva”, not a “god”; it is beyond all gods, beyond all “devas”. It is Brahman.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
You are free to tell Jews that they are incorrectly interpreting their own scripture. I’m not sure if they will believe you, though.
I’m suggesting that “polytheism” is not foreign to Christianity, because the word “god” is different from the word “God”. There are many “gods”, as Jesus said, but only one God.
K
Kelley_Green
Guest
I read that article- biased beyond belief, and the responses that followed it all biased beyond belief. Oprah is not a prophetess endowed with a magic wand, but for anyone out there investing worship in another human being- whether it be Mohommed, The Pope, Guru x/ y/ z they’ve missed the point of the respective discipline they were adherents to all along. Make no mistake about it- every single religion out there cannot stand without it’s backbone in personal discipline. Jesus himself was INSISTING not to worship HIM as his mortal body, but to worship the God beyond him.
AND I wholeheartedly agree the sycretic mind is not immune from the very same foibles and trappings that the Holy See must discipline himself to dodge every day he dons that mantle of responsibility in leadership. It is a tremendous burden he undertakes and in and of itself commands respect. Many peoples concept of ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ is so malformed they only wind up creating a different brand of jail. Ergo, atheists inventing another religion for themselves.
HOWEVER… when you are born Paul Erdos opening your eyes to this world and the cross millions observe with homage registers as nothing more than a ‘plus sign’, what makes anyone believe they ought to force this man to change his way of thinking when God made his brain and orientated him in life from (what I believe is) another perspective of God vastly different than the frequency you and I operate on? To presume that the gift he came to offer= imprinting him like ducks and acting like idiots in hopes of achieving genius is not going to be fruitful for the rest of us, now is it? We can’t follow what WE are not but that doesn’t negate his gift. Our (collective) work as far as I can glean is being the tempering force guiding that gift to productive endeavors and not destructive. Instead there are far too many who socially/ organizationally convince themselves to medicate an idiot savant sydrome away to the point where the genius is stripped of the only thing he was sent to offer humanity. Ridicule Tesla. Does that not sound eerily like the bloodthirsty ignorant mob persecuting Christ? Shall you demand womankind see and think and do as mankind to appease a one sided world view divorced from the reality of the majority of the planet? That’s a Frankenstein world no one can live in.
There was something innately wrong with Judaism when they philosophically convinced themselves they were chosen children and all other human beings on the planet standing around as objects for their amusement. They learned and they grew. There is something innately wrong with Christians defying the parables, the admonishments of Jesus to his disciples, engaged in insane sibling rivalries that only caused them to entirely miss the lessons Jesus was teaching. See now how Christendom follows the lead of select apostles mistakes with false pride and not Jesus to this very day when they only come to view themselves as another brand of superior chosen child. The very same guilt of philosophically getting in the way of the light of God.
Watch this 2 part series: youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM
The overwhelming majority of the planet is not connecting to God the way his left brain does, but when he is describing something running a parallel track to the highest expressions & mastery of Christendom, why on earth would any of you be throwing stones incredulously justifying it ‘in defense of God’? How faithless can folks make themselves? Equally when this school John Hagelin is involved with speaks with that very same voice in defense of their man made paradigms attempting to negate all other religions, holding all the rest of humanity in contempt as any other brand of tribalism, he has made himself equally guilty of the crime he claims to be victim of via tradition.
The grave danger of self worship & sociopathic behavior is in all faiths and in atheism. Would it not make more sense for all of humanity to focus it’s energy on learning/ teaching how to avoid self worship rather than continue with the quibbling that tramples children to our collective doom as a species? All over what amounts to be which chalice is more superior?
Dear Humanity (ALL of you):
Haven’t you all made yourselves unworthy of the very religions you profess when you persist in this century with the very same behaviors that got you in jail the first time around? And the second time. And the millionth time. Come on now. When you’re defending vanity and claim it’s defense of God, what garbage have you smeared on your God?
1
1voice
Guest
LOL! … Good luck with that!
- Status