Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Lion_of_Narnia]

That’s not what perennialists claim (at least the hard-core ones, especially those who are Muslims or Christians themselves–Huxley and Watts do strike me as more dismissive of the monotheistic traditions). Perennialists claim that the “esoteric” truth has various “exoteric” forms which are all true even though apparently incommensurable with each other–this is rooted in a highly apophatic concept of God as beyond names and concepts…
The Zohar is probably from the 12-13th centuries, sure. Kabbalistic ideas go back much earlier in some form–the Merkabah texts date from fairly close to Jesus’ time.

If Gershom Scholem’s reading of the tradition is right, then “Gnostic” elements go back pretty early in Judaism. …

Its highly likely Gnosticism was inspired by early contact with Eastern Religions. It’s why I used the “/” and-or usage. However gnosticism tends to act like a parasite (or perhaps more like a computer virus)–it has a history of infiltrating established beliefs by converting individuals while using the guise of “deeper meanings”–i.e. claiming secret, esoteric “knowledge” (gnosis) where there was none. It seems to influenced Pythagorean philosphy circa 500 BC–and its possible some Jewish sects (like the Essenes) by the 1st century–and by the time of the writing of John’s gospel (60-90 AD) had become an initial threat to the Church. As John Paul the Great said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, much of the New Age Movement can be categorized as another version of Gnosticism.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…Not the esoteric/exoteric one. Jesus’ description in Mark 4/Matt. 13 of why he uses parables sounds pretty esoteric. I wouldn’t assume that it’s the same as Eastern/Gnostic esotericism, but you certainly have the idea of an inner circle who “get it” and outsiders who don’t.

While I generally agree that Jesus sounds very different from “HBG” on these points, the fact is that the Gospels are difficult to interpret and to evaluate historically, and that you can find NT scholars with widely differing estimates of what Jesus taught and what it means.

Edwin

Jesus still had to explain to the “inner circle” before they “got it”–and his explanations still are contrary to HBG–The parables were meant to be vividly memorable.

Incidently, the “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6, is NOT a parable. When most of his followers leave him because they take him quite literally (6:66) Jesus just turns to the 12 and says “are you going to leave too?” NO explanation like the parables. (Edwin, this last isnt directed towards you–just to show when Jesus said something incredibly and potentially offenseive, he just laid it on the line)

 

[benedictus2]

Well, your posts this morning clearly suggest that you haven’t really done anything more than a cursory look at eastern religion, or Hinduism at least. If I get time today I’ll point that out.

That is true. However, I have read other people’s work who have done a study of Eastern Religion and they have highlighted the difference.

JMartyr’s reply a few posts before this highlights the points.

There is a priest (can’t remember the name) who did his doctoral thesis on this because he believed that Buddhism is completely opposed to Christianity. The points of congruence are minor.
Secondly. would you share some points with me on how God’s revelation to the Jews was any fuller than His revelations to others? You mentioned that it was fuller, so I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit.

Your friend
Sufjon
You mean apart from the very main difference that in Jewish religion, monototheism means a God who is other than His creation and that He is the one who saves creation?

Every other difference becomes minor because everything else proceeds from that.

That is why I do not subscribe to the kind of meditation that are being propagated by so called Christian monks who have corrupted Christian teaching by incorporating pagan and Eastern thought into their theology.

Christian theology need nothing more. Christ is THE Way, THE Truth, THE Life.

 

[Stylites]

Yes, I pointed out that he was born in Tarsus. His father was Roman though, and he himself was a Roman citizen. These two factors coupled with his writings suggest that he was very western in his perspective. This perspective, when applied to the eastern based teachings of Jesus caused this man a good deal of suffering in his life. His writings would suggest that the eastern teachings of Jesus when viewed through the lens of western perspective did little to bring him any peace. His writings were full of torment, guilt and fear. And so it has been for so many years since. Torment, guilt and fear. This does indeed suggest to me that the people who go their hands on this religion very early on were perhaps the ones that Jesus warned about. I am not the only one to wonder about that. Do you think Jesus wanted you to have those sorts of feelings? Sure, you can certainly read those into the life and words of Jesus – if you have spent your life having it presented to you from Paul’s perspective. I did not come to the teachings of Jesus with that impediment. I read the words and acts of Jesus and see something else entirely.

Your friend,
Sufjon

You must be writing about someone else, not Saint Paul. No writer in India can hold a candle to his intellect, or joy, even if you were to bribe them.

 

[benedictus2]

I think this is an important point that needs more discussion.

However, the problem of “hating evil” in a way that makes you evil yourself is a very serious one in Christianity. I’ve seen it up close and personal. So I would hesitate to say that “detachment” has nothing to teach us even there.

Edwin

But as I have earlier said, is the kind of detachment you have explained, how one must feel about evil?

You explained that “detachment” is toward created goods. And that is a good explanation. We incline towards the good because we were created for the Supreme Good. That is why every person inclines toward God.

The reason for detachment that you have given is perfect for this. We detach ourselves from these good so that we can be totally free and available to the Supreme Good, the only one who will satisfy our “craving”.

But the same cannot be said about evil, because unless you are psychopath and sociopath, the corresponding attitude towards evil is repulsion not detachment. When we hear of gruesome murders, genocide, the treatment of people in Auschwitz and so forth and so on, is detachment what is being asked of us by God.

Do we sit lotus position with a half-zen smile and escape into nada?

Is detachment what is wired into our being?

 

[benedictus2]

We may share a few things in common but it would be very few. The eastern religions are all false. They contain very little truth.

I would like to re-iterate here something that another poster has also said.

Because other religions are a mish-mash of the true and the false, the only way to determine what is true in them is if there is an outside criteria or benchmark by which specific tenets of these religions may be assessed. Christianity is this benchmark.

Since we already have the benchmark, what do we need the others for?

 

[benedictus2]

Right. I don’t see why hating evil is problematic for monks. Certainly that language would make no sense in a Christian context.

**I think the deeper issue here has to do with our definition of good and evil and our understanding of their relationship to being. Christians have traditionally adhered to a privation theory of evil–being is good and evil is a privation of the good. That’s why Christians can say, cliched though it is, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” To hate evil is precisely to love the being that is corrupted by evil. **

It’s not entirely clear to me whether Hindus would agree with a privation theory of evil or not. It doesn’t seem incompatible with basic Vedanta metaphysics. But what do I know? And one of the things I do know is that Hinduism is an umbrella term covering many different theologies. . . .

Edwin

This is excellent. Similar in some ways to JMartyr’s point.

 

[Sufjon]

I would like to re-iterate here something that another poster has also said.

Because other religions are a mish-mash of the true and the false, the only way to determine what is true in them is if there is an outside criteria or benchmark by which specific tenets of these religions may be assessed. Christianity is this benchmark.

Since we already have the benchmark, what do we need the others for?

How is Christianity the benchmark? Please elaborate if you would.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

“Composition” does not mean being put down in written form. The time periods seperating composition and being written down is far, far longer than the New Testament, even by the most critical (and modern) secular critics estimates. 1-3 generations in an oral-transmission culture is not that much. 5-10 generations on the other hand allows far too much room for embellishments, exagerations, conflations, re-compositions upon re-compositions to suit the needs of the teller and listener. Its why the 18th and early19th century deist and atheist scholars (many of them Germans and alienated sons of lutheran pastors) posited the composition of the Gospels 2-3 centuries after the events claimed. These scholars, coming from a culture that still had some oral transmission ability, figured it would take at least that long for a historical Jesus to be some mythologized by succeeding generations of followers. However the textual finds of the NT since those biased estimates were made have determined, even to the current “de-mytholigizers” that the NT was put down on papyrus withing the first century. Even Dominic Crossan admits the current NT is essentially what was first written down–so Crossan, Borg, Bultman, etc…, have to posist an incredibly intense period of “mytholigizing” (i.e. “lying”) during the oral transmission period and shove the NT writting as close to the end of the 1st century as they can get away with. Never mind some quite credible scholars (including the late, very liberal Anglican JAT Robinson) have done some quite convincing work that throws the claims of “late composition”, “Markan priority” and “Q” very much into doubt.

The point is that it is documented that there was certainly the idea of a Hindu Trinity before the time of Christ. However, the time of the writing of these texts is still generally accepted to be before Christ as well. See bleow:

The deity Krishna-Vasudeva (kṛṣṇa vāsudeva “Krishna, the son of Vasudeva”) is historically one of the earliest forms of worship in Krishnaism and Vaishnavism. It is believed to be a significant tradition of the early history of the worship of Krishna in antiquity.This tradition is considered as earliest to other traditions that led to amalgamation at a later stage of the historical development. Other traditions are Bhagavatism and the cult of Gopala, that along with the cult of Bala Krishna form the basis of current tradition of monotheistic religion of Krishna. Some early scholars would equate it with Bhagavatism, and the founder of this religious tradition is believed to be Krishna, who is the son of Vasudeva, thus his name is Vāsudeva, he is belonged to be historically part of the Satvata tribe, and according to them his followers called themselves Bhagavatas and this religion had formed by the 2nd century BC (the time of Patanjali), or as early as the 4th century BC according to evidence in Megasthenes and in the Arthasastra of Kautilya, when Vāsudeva was worshiped as supreme deity in a strongly monotheistic format, where the supreme being was perfect, eternal and full of grace. In many sources outside of the cult, devotee or bhakta is defined as Vāsudevaka. The Harivamsa describes intricate relationships between Krishna Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha that would later form a Vaishnava concept of primary quadrupled expansion, or avatar.

Sources:

Hein, Norvin. “A Revolution in Kṛṣṇaism: The Cult of Gopāla: History of Religions, Vol. 25, No. 4 (May, 1986 ), pp. 296-317”. www.jstor.org. JSTOR 1062622.

Hastings, James Rodney (2nd edition 1925-1940, reprint 1955, 2003) [1908-26]. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. John A Selbie (Volume 4 of 24 ( Behistun (continued) to Bunyan.) ed.). Edinburgh: Kessinger Publishing, LLC. pp. 476. ISBN 0-7661-3673-6. Retrieved 2008-05-03.
ate

To be continued…

 

[Sufjon]

“Composition” does not mean being put down in written form.

Part Two or Two:

Traditional scholars have always held that Kali-yuga - the Age of Kali - began in 3102 BC. Whether this refers to the date of the eighteen-day Mahabharata War or of the death of Krishna is unclear and also I feel unimportant at this time. This results in a discrepancy of about 35 years between the two, which is small in comparison with the very great age of the events we are speaking about. Several astronomers and astrologers of great eminence have attempted to arrive at the date based on astronomical references found in the epics. Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan, perhaps the foremost authority on the topic, has even determined November 22, 3067 BC as the day on which the Mahabharata War took place, but this assumes that ancient astronomical observations are exact which I chose to avoid. I am not suggesting they are wrong, only that I prefer to be conservative. Some scholars reject such an early date as c. 3100 on the ground that the Aryans came to India only in 1500 BC, and Krishna and the Mahabharata War must therefore be later. As noted the Aryan invasion theory has been discredited by science. Also, our decipherment of Harappan and pre-Harappan scripts has taken the Vedas to long before 3500 BC. So these objections can be dismissed. The one arguable issue is the discovery of an ancient submerged city at the island of Bet Dwaraka by the renowned archaeologist S.R. Rao. Rao, who identifies it with Krishna’s Dwaraka dates it to about 1500 BC. But his identification rests on insufficient grounds based on ambiguous literary interpretations. In any event, the historical references in the deciphered Harappan seals, some of which are over a thousand years older than 1500 BC make it impossible that the site found by Rao is Krishna’s Dwaraka. We can next look at Krishna’s date, from two different directions.
Since Ashvalayana mentions the Mahabharata and its authors Jaimini and Vaisampayana as ancient, at least a century must have elapsed between the War and his time. He records that in his time plants sprouted after the beginning of monsoon rains in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada. This now takes place in Jyestha or Ashadha. This goes to show that the monsoon in his time used to start in the month of Sravana instead of Jyestha as it does today - a difference of about seventy days. This is due to a well-known astronomical phenomenon called the ‘precession of the equinoxes’. Seasons fall back relative to the fixed stars (and the Hindu calendar which is based on the fixed stars) by about one day every 72 years. What this means is that the beginning of monsoon noted by Ashvalayana must have been taking place close to 5000 years ago or about 3000 BC.

Further, Ashvalayana pays homage to his teacher Kahola Kaushitaki who was the sage of the Kaushitaki Brahmana. It mentions several Mahabharata characters. It also mentions that the winter solstice - as the first day of winter is called - took place on the day on which we now celebrate the Maha-Shivaratri festival. The winter solstice now falls on December 21, and the Maha-Shivaratri comes around March 1. This is due to the precession of the equinoxes. This again means that from the time of Kahola Kausitaki, the seasons have moved by about 70 days. So, 70 times 72 or about 5000 years must have passed. This also supports a date of about 3100 BC for the Mahabharata War.

We even have Greek records pointing to the same approximate date. Greek travelers who came to India following Alexander’s invasion have left us some tantalizing references to Krishna and also to Indian historical records as they existed in their time. Authors like Pliny referred to Krishna as Heracles, derived from Hari-Krishna. They record that the Indian Heracles - our Krishna - was held in special honor by the Sourseni tribe one of whose major cities was Methora. We can recognize them as Shuraseni and Mathura. (Shura was the father of Vasudeva and the grandfather of Krishna.)

Indian Heracles (Krishna) is recorded by the Greeks as having lived 138 generations before the time of Alexander and Sandracottos which we may take to be c. 330 BC. Taking 20 years per generation, which is known to be a good average when ancient Indian dynasties are involved, we are led to the computation 2760 + 330 = 3090 BC which is remarkably close to the Kali date of 3102 BC. So a reckoning based on ancient Greek records takes us again to the traditional date of c. 3100 BC.
In summary, we may safely conclude that technical and literary evidence from several independent sources point to the traditional Kali date of 3102 BC as being close to the actual date of the Mahabharata War. We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period.

-Prof. N.S. Rajaram

The earliest reference to Kṛishṇa, the son of Devakî, (Devakiputra Krishna) is found in the Chândogya Upanishad, which was written 300 to 500 years before Christ.

-Prof MM Nenan

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

You must be writing about someone else, not Saint Paul. No writer in India can hold a candle to his intellect, or joy, even if you were to bribe them.

Your response sounds rather wounded, desperate, (and lacking of cogent substance by the way). But I’m sorry if I made you feel that defensive. You should note that I didn’t question Paul’s intellect. I made an observation that he seemed like a troubled man who battled with a lot of inner conflict. And once again, I asked a question about him for about the hundredth time on this forum that has still gone unanswered. Why are you so defensive when I bring up Paul? It only makes me more curious when I see the reaction I get whenever I ask the question. It is like I found the miscreant sibling you all had locked in the barn every time I ask it. It is only a simple question. Why does it affect you in this way?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

It was unique because only Jesus claimed to be God Himself.

QUOTE}

Wrong. That statement in itself reveals that you aren’t even aware of one of the primary and most basic tenets of Hinduism. Jesus was not the only one to claim to be an incarnation of God. He wasn’t even the first. He wasn’t even the last. He’s just the only one in your particular tradition. Of course your next reply will be to attack the veracity of any other incarnation of God, but before you do, you may want to round up some thread of proof that yours is any more valid. I mean proof, not scripture. All of us have scripture.

So, anyway, why are you arguing about a religion that you have no knowledge of? I mean, it’s okay to argue, but shouldn’t you know at least something about what you are arguing against?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Wrong. That statement in itself reveals that you aren’t even aware of one of the primary and most basic tenets of Hinduism. Jesus was not the only one to claim to be an incarnation of God. He wasn’t even the first. He wasn’t even the last. He’s just the only one in your particular tradition.

Okay then. Please enlightenment me about those who claimed to be God and what exactly it is they claimed.

Of course your next reply will be to attack the veracity of any other incarnation of God, but before you do, you may want to round up some thread of proof that yours is any more valid. I mean proof, not scripture. All of us have scripture.

As I said above tell me about these incarnations.

So, anyway, why are you arguing about a religion that you have no knowledge of?

No Knowledge?Not quite. But this question piques me. Have I hit a nerve? Could it be that my limited knowledge is limited to its shortcomings?

I mean, it’s okay to argue, but shouldn’t you know at least something about what you are arguing against?

Your friend
Sufjon

If I didn’t know even a little a bit about it, we would not have gone this far with this conversation.

 

[benedictus2]

How is Christianity the benchmark? Please elaborate if you would.

Your friend
Sufjon

Because God said so. Now of course that is not sufficient since you can say the same about Hinduism. However, Hinduism does not actually have such a founder who claimed to be God.

Still of course that is not enough. We have to determine first whether this claim is indeed true. If this is true, then it is the benchmark because Jesus is then who He claims He is - the Truth.

But establishing that is for another thread.

The thing about Christ is that one cannot equivocate when it comes to His claims. One cannot say He is not God but a good and wise man because if He is not God then he is neither good nor wise because of everything that He has claimed.

 

[Sufjon]

Because God said so. Now of course that is not sufficient since you can say the same about Hinduism. However, Hinduism does not actually have such a founder who claimed to be God.

Of the many incarnations of God in human form, yours is indeed the only one I know of that started a chain of churches. He did mention founding one, but insofar as I know, He didn’t prescribe any particular permutation. There were a number of initial iterations that condensed into one about 300 years later, split into two about a 1,000 years after that, and then countless numbers of branches since, so I don;t think anyone could say that any particular one resembles what He might have had in mind. As for Hinduism, it is true, that while we have incarnations of God, we have no Colonel Sanders or Ray Crock figure as a founder. There are no franchise rights from a centralized corporate headquarters, no formal hierarchy, no one with property rights to corporate holdings like a city, buildings, coffers, private corporate jets, swami-mobiles and so on. All our incarnations left was a message of spirituality and a promise of unity with them. Not much to glom onto from a materialistic perspective. You do have the market cornered on all that, and I yield to your accomplishment on that regard. You can also keep it for yourselves, because none of those things lead anywhere but away from what you sought.
benedictus2;7978672:

The thing about Christ is that one cannot equivocate when it comes to His claims. One cannot say He is not God but a good and wise man because if He is not God then he is neither good nor wise because of everything that He has claimed.

Of course I never said that He wasn’t God, or that He claimed to be. But to me He looks like all the others who hold the same claim. That is the difference between what you see and what I see.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Okay then. Please enlightenment me about those who claimed to be God and what exactly it is they claimed.
As I said above tell me about these incarnations.

No Knowledge?Not quite. But this question piques me. Have I hit a nerve? Could it be that my limited knowledge is limited to its shortcomings?
If I didn’t know even a little a bit about it, we would not have gone this far with this conversation.

You’re kidding right? On one hand you ask me who Hindus consider to be incarnations of God and then you tell it’s not quite true to say that you know very little about Hinduism.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You’re kidding right? On one hand you ask me who Hindus consider to be incarnations of God and then you tell it’s not quite true to say that you know very little about Hinduism.

Your friend
Sufjon

To sort of change the tenor of this conversation somewhat:

Hinduism and Buddhism tend to be pantheistic—particularly Hinduism. Hinduism’s outer manifestation is polytheistic; its “inner,” philosophical manifestation is pantheistic AND monotheistic.
Buddhism is largely atheistic, to boot.
Both believe in reincarnation.

Christianity does not support reincarnation. It does not support pantheism. Its inner and outer manifestations are largely the same. It is NOT atheistic.

So it CANNOT be a “good fit” for the other two religions.

How’s that for differences?

 

[Ahimsa]

To sort of change the tenor of this conversation somewhat:

Hinduism and Buddhism tend to be pantheistic…

This is the problem: the common, though incorrect, belief that Hinduism (leaving Buddhism out of this for a minute) is “pantheistic”.

Pantheism is the equation of the material universe with “God”, such that there is no non-material reality. Everything is composed of matter/energy, and a pantheists places the label “God” upon this collection of matter/energy.

That’s not Hinduism.

In the Gita, Krishna explains that (1) there is the realm of matter/energy (called the “gunas”); and (2) there is That Which Transcends, and yet Pervades, matter/energy:

“He who faithfully serves Me
with the yoga of devotion, going
beyond the three gunas, is ready
to attain the ultimate freedom.” – BG 14:26

A commentary on this verse indicates that the realm of matter/energy is not to be equated with God (even though God pervades the material cosmos, nonetheless): “In this verse Lord Krishna is specifically answering how such a jiva or embodied being transcends the three gunas or modes of material nature. One who is exclusively devoted to the Supreme Lord alone without cessation…is able to completely transcend all influences of the three gunas and achieving the state of the brahman or the spiritual substratum pervading all existence becomes worthy of moksa or liberation from material existence and ultimately attains the Supreme Lord Krishna.”

 

[rossum]

This is the problem: the common, though incorrect, belief that Hinduism (leaving Buddhism out of this for a minute) is “pantheistic”.

Pantheism is the equation of the material universe with “God”, such that there is no non-material reality. Everything is composed of matter/energy, and a pantheists places the label “God” upon this collection of matter/energy.

That’s not Hinduism.

Nor is it Buddhism. The material world is seen as deceptive. It is not nothing, but neither is it what it seems to be.

Gods are merely another form of living being in the world who themselves need to attain enlightenment and to realise the deceptive nature of the world. Buddhism is not strictly atheist; it just does not consider gods to be of any real importance.

rossum

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is the problem: the common, though incorrect, belief that Hinduism (leaving Buddhism out of this for a minute) is “pantheistic”.

Pantheism is the equation of the material universe with “God”, such that there is no non-material reality. Everything is composed of matter/energy, and a pantheists places the label “God” upon this collection of matter/energy.

That’s not Hinduism.

In the Gita, Krishna explains that (1) there is the realm of matter/energy (called the “gunas”); and (2) there is That Which Transcends, and yet Pervades, matter/energy:

“He who faithfully serves Me
with the yoga of devotion, going
beyond the three gunas, is ready
to attain the ultimate freedom.” – BG 14:26

A commentary on this verse indicates that the realm of matter/energy is not to be equated with God (even though God pervades the material cosmos, nonetheless): “In this verse Lord Krishna is specifically answering how such a jiva or embodied being transcends the three gunas or modes of material nature. One who is exclusively devoted to the Supreme Lord alone without cessation…is able to completely transcend all influences of the three gunas and achieving the state of the brahman or the spiritual substratum pervading all existence becomes worthy of moksa or liberation from material existence and ultimately attains the Supreme Lord Krishna.”

Ok------But it DOES teach that after a soul achieves release from reincarnation, it is “reabsorbed” back into Brahma-----does it not? And then when ALL souls achieve release, there comes a time when Brahama “sleeps” for a while----gathers "everything back into himself and then “sleeps” until a time when he awakens again and the whole “universe” process starts all over again----does it not?
Really want to know, by the way—not being sarcastic or ironic here.
Trying to find clarification.