Silverbackman
Prince Of Truth
Could Jesus actually be the son of Krishna and is Krishna the father? Also are Rama and Krishna the same people? And do Hare Krishna believe in the Holy Spirit and Buddha?
Jesus son of Krishna?
- Thread starter Silverbackman
- Start date
Short answer - no.
The problem with 'comparitive religion' is trying to make everything fit. It is worth thinking that when discussing different traditional systems, one might well be discussing different universes.
One can discern metaphysical principle within scriptures, and cross reference them accordingly, so one might take 'purusha' and 'prakriti' from the Vedas and correlate them with 'essence' and 'substance' in the language of the scholastics, but to then say that 'this' person in this tradition is 'that' person in another is wrong.
To say that 'this' person embodies (carnally or otherwise), 'that' principle is relatively true, but without more thought I would not have said you could take it further than that without getting mired in contradiction and inconsistency.
Perhaps a better example is the Christian Trinity. All nature reflects certain triune principles, and all traditions have their triads - Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being, Consciousness and Bliss) for example, or Isis Osiris and Horus - but these do not equate to the Trinity of Christian Doctrine and it would be an error to put them all on a par. The Trinity is a unique teaching and has no comparator in any other tradition.
Likewise, each tradition will have its own unique and unassailable element that bears no comparison to any other.
The real truth of revelation is that they are fundamentally different, with common properties; not that they are fundamentally the same, with external differences.
Thomas
Thomas
The problem with 'comparitive religion' is trying to make everything fit. It is worth thinking that when discussing different traditional systems, one might well be discussing different universes.
One can discern metaphysical principle within scriptures, and cross reference them accordingly, so one might take 'purusha' and 'prakriti' from the Vedas and correlate them with 'essence' and 'substance' in the language of the scholastics, but to then say that 'this' person in this tradition is 'that' person in another is wrong.
To say that 'this' person embodies (carnally or otherwise), 'that' principle is relatively true, but without more thought I would not have said you could take it further than that without getting mired in contradiction and inconsistency.
Perhaps a better example is the Christian Trinity. All nature reflects certain triune principles, and all traditions have their triads - Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being, Consciousness and Bliss) for example, or Isis Osiris and Horus - but these do not equate to the Trinity of Christian Doctrine and it would be an error to put them all on a par. The Trinity is a unique teaching and has no comparator in any other tradition.
Likewise, each tradition will have its own unique and unassailable element that bears no comparison to any other.
The real truth of revelation is that they are fundamentally different, with common properties; not that they are fundamentally the same, with external differences.
Thomas
Thomas
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Good points, Thomas.
lunamoth
lunamoth
Silverbackman said:
My impression is that the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON) see Jesus and Krishna as manfiestations of the same "essense" of sorts - certainly in traditional Hindusim Rama and Krishna are seen as manifestions (avatars) of Brahma, but I ahve to say I don't know the ISKCON position on this, nor of their opinions on Buddha.
Hope that helps a little.
Silverbackman
Prince Of Truth
I did read though on wikipedia that Hare Krishna believes Jesus is the son of God, maybe someone should edit it if it is not true . When I read that I started to wonder their views on Buddha as well.
Thomas, you may be right that religions tend to contradict other religions but if you think about it religions contradict theirselves a lot at times. Heck the Bible alone has thousands of contradictions. And besides if religions don't unite soon then religions will eventually beat themselves to extinction. How are our kids going to handle all these paths, which one will they know to take? Religions must unite one day, this will only better mankind. I have to say there is no way Muhammed could ever be the final prophet! The final prophet will be the one who will unite the religions in these modern times, the information age will not create new religions that don't have their origins to one of these religions. Scientology is a made up religion, so it does not count. The last religion must be the religion that unites religions, and the man who creates it will be the most holiest prophet IMHO.
. When I read that I started to wonder their views on Buddha as well.Thomas, you may be right that religions tend to contradict other religions but if you think about it religions contradict theirselves a lot at times. Heck the Bible alone has thousands of contradictions
. And besides if religions don't unite soon then religions will eventually beat themselves to extinction. How are our kids going to handle all these paths, which one will they know to take? Religions must unite one day, this will only better mankind. I have to say there is no way Muhammed could ever be the final prophet! The final prophet will be the one who will unite the religions in these modern times, the information age will not create new religions that don't have their origins to one of these religions. Scientology is a made up religion, so it does not count. The last religion must be the religion that unites religions, and the man who creates it will be the most holiest prophet IMHO.
Heck the Bible alone has thousands of contradictions
This is an old argument, and I have to say those who choose to list contradictions are invariably the last to accept that perhaps it is they who do not understand.
And besides if religions don't unite soon then religions will eventually beat themselves to extinction.
People, not religions, and I would suggest people will surrender their nationality before people will surrender their religion.
How are our kids going to handle all these paths, which one will they know to take?
How are kids going to handle all these job opportunities? By the exercise of their intelligence (hopefully). I might also say, from an esoteric perspective, that 'the tradition calls the man.'
Religions must unite one day, this will only better mankind.
Don't you like diversity? Must all countries unite one day? All economies? All languages? One music. One art. One government ... it's a dangerous road.
Thomas
This is an old argument, and I have to say those who choose to list contradictions are invariably the last to accept that perhaps it is they who do not understand.
And besides if religions don't unite soon then religions will eventually beat themselves to extinction.
People, not religions, and I would suggest people will surrender their nationality before people will surrender their religion.
How are our kids going to handle all these paths, which one will they know to take?
How are kids going to handle all these job opportunities? By the exercise of their intelligence (hopefully). I might also say, from an esoteric perspective, that 'the tradition calls the man.'
Religions must unite one day, this will only better mankind.
Don't you like diversity? Must all countries unite one day? All economies? All languages? One music. One art. One government ... it's a dangerous road.
Thomas
Silverbackman
Prince Of Truth
Thomas said:
I know when I was younger it was really hard for me to accept Christianity because there were so many other religions (not one religion vs non-religious). No I don't think the world should unite into one government, or one language, or anything like that. I do think religion will do better united as one religion that way all the confusion on who is right and who is wrong will end. Just imagine the harmony of the religions as one
.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Some esotericists maintain, and I among them, that Sri Krishna was a former incarnation of the same Great Soul who overshadowed the disciple Jesus hundreds of years later.
This line of thought makes an important distinction between Christ, as a Cosmic entity focused through His Planetary representative ... and Jesus of Nazareth as the only advanced Soul prepared to undergo the necessary sacrifice 2,000 years ago that Christ might draw nearer to us.
The outcome was that Sri Krishna, represented by the descending Dove at the Baptism in River Jordan ... made a third appearance in recent times, to a needy Humanity. An incarnation (or appearance) earlier even than Sri Krishna is recorded, but this refers to a little known figure - and I have yet to find additional information. Perhaps I should check Vishnu's manifestation immediately prior to Sri Krishna?
Christ's appearance, or incarnation into the material world (and this is essentially what it means to overshadow a disciple as fully as did the Christ overshadow Jesus), would make Krishna the spiritual Teacher, or `Guru,' of Jesus ... the latter being given the opportunity to serve in an extraordinary and wonderful manner. Certainly other instances of this kind of overshadowing have taken place throughout history, but none in recent times as signficant - and with such results.
The same Great One who put the Christ in Christ Jesus (I couldn't resist) ... is also said to have made an effort in the early 20th Century to once again appear before Humanity via an overshadowing of a carefully trained disciple. This effort of Kalki Avatara (Vishnu's last apperance of 10) was only partially successful, and in the end it was made clear that Humanity was not - and I would submit is not - quite ready for the World Teacher. The first and almost the only requirement, after all, is (a noticeable effort made toward the attaining of) world peace - and yet we are almost as far from that now as ever.
One of the Messengers from the mid-twentieth century made an educated guess - call it a Prophecy, for it certainly would be called that in Biblical times - that Christ and his Church would reappear onto the world stage not before 2025. This is notwithstanding spurient claims by the over-zealous devotee here, and there, that so-and-so has been channeling Maitreya, or that the Imam Mahdi has come to his followers in Nairobi. I have not the certainty or ability to counter these claims, but we have plenty of precedents for such statements, we have acknowledgment from 2,000 years ago that false messiahs will arise, and we are reminded that by their fruits they will best be recognized. We are also told that, like a thief in the night ... (and I'll be damned, it's looking kind of dark out).
Having read a bit of Edgar Cayce's pronouncements on the previous incarnations of the Nazarene, I believe I noticed a good long list of folks - though I can't recall if Sri Krishna was mentioned. Certainly he identified three prior Jesus's, if you will ... or as one esoteric source states it:
No wonder Luther was so sickened and driven toward Reform.
And remaining to correct these errors at the hands - sometimes of the closest of followers, I'm afraid - are the Christ, the Syrian Master, and dozens of other Great Ones both known and unknown, throughout Europe, America, the Middle East, Russia and Asia. It has been said that genuinely, spiritually accomplished Gurus, or Teachers, number in the many hundreds - though but few are known openly as such.
Some teach in the tradition of Krishna, some in that of Buddha, others in that of Christ. All know these Great Ones for who they are - Expressions in one form or another of the Divine. Yet are hairs split, and yet do we often thwart G-d's best efforts to unite us, despite our pettiness & folly. Again, I know - I am particularly practiced at bucking the Dharma ... and I have much company ...
This line of thought makes an important distinction between Christ, as a Cosmic entity focused through His Planetary representative ... and Jesus of Nazareth as the only advanced Soul prepared to undergo the necessary sacrifice 2,000 years ago that Christ might draw nearer to us.
The outcome was that Sri Krishna, represented by the descending Dove at the Baptism in River Jordan ... made a third appearance in recent times, to a needy Humanity. An incarnation (or appearance) earlier even than Sri Krishna is recorded, but this refers to a little known figure - and I have yet to find additional information. Perhaps I should check Vishnu's manifestation immediately prior to Sri Krishna?
Christ's appearance, or incarnation into the material world (and this is essentially what it means to overshadow a disciple as fully as did the Christ overshadow Jesus), would make Krishna the spiritual Teacher, or `Guru,' of Jesus ... the latter being given the opportunity to serve in an extraordinary and wonderful manner. Certainly other instances of this kind of overshadowing have taken place throughout history, but none in recent times as signficant - and with such results.
The same Great One who put the Christ in Christ Jesus (I couldn't resist) ... is also said to have made an effort in the early 20th Century to once again appear before Humanity via an overshadowing of a carefully trained disciple. This effort of Kalki Avatara (Vishnu's last apperance of 10) was only partially successful, and in the end it was made clear that Humanity was not - and I would submit is not - quite ready for the World Teacher. The first and almost the only requirement, after all, is (a noticeable effort made toward the attaining of) world peace - and yet we are almost as far from that now as ever.
One of the Messengers from the mid-twentieth century made an educated guess - call it a Prophecy, for it certainly would be called that in Biblical times - that Christ and his Church would reappear onto the world stage not before 2025. This is notwithstanding spurient claims by the over-zealous devotee here, and there, that so-and-so has been channeling Maitreya, or that the Imam Mahdi has come to his followers in Nairobi. I have not the certainty or ability to counter these claims, but we have plenty of precedents for such statements, we have acknowledgment from 2,000 years ago that false messiahs will arise, and we are reminded that by their fruits they will best be recognized. We are also told that, like a thief in the night ... (and I'll be damned, it's looking kind of dark out
).Having read a bit of Edgar Cayce's pronouncements on the previous incarnations of the Nazarene, I believe I noticed a good long list of folks - though I can't recall if Sri Krishna was mentioned. Certainly he identified three prior Jesus's, if you will ... or as one esoteric source states it:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][Jesus] is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation as related in the book of Zechariah as Joshua ...
[/font]
And now let us suppose for a moment that various of the early church fathers knew of these things - and also of the implications for the average person of recognizing this most natural and purposeful progression (of one's spiritual development from lifetime to lifetime) ... hmmm, what do you suppose the implications would be for the average peasant otherwise frightened into warming the pews each Sunday, tithing away his hard toil's wages - and purchasing, at every opportunity, those indulgences which eased his troubles in the afterlife and earned him a spot - slightly closer to the Throne of the Almighty?[/font]
No wonder Luther was so sickened and driven toward Reform.
And remaining to correct these errors at the hands - sometimes of the closest of followers, I'm afraid - are the Christ, the Syrian Master, and dozens of other Great Ones both known and unknown, throughout Europe, America, the Middle East, Russia and Asia. It has been said that genuinely, spiritually accomplished Gurus, or Teachers, number in the many hundreds - though but few are known openly as such.
Some teach in the tradition of Krishna, some in that of Buddha, others in that of Christ. All know these Great Ones for who they are - Expressions in one form or another of the Divine. Yet are hairs split, and yet do we often thwart G-d's best efforts to unite us, despite our pettiness & folly. Again, I know - I am particularly practiced at bucking the Dharma ... and I have much company ...
andrew the apostate
Yes there are those that make those statements, and they are 'wrong' in the eyes of a Christian. That is the joys of comparitive religion, knowing that when you are in the open threads you have to embrace discussion and not dogma.
Denying contradictory statements do not make them go away. A magician praciticing in a mirror develops a blink everytime his trick is exposed. He continues to watch himself work in the mirror and thinks he is better...doesn't mean he isn't exposing his trick...just that he isn't willing to see it as others do, with eyes open.
Denying contradictory statements do not make them go away. A magician praciticing in a mirror develops a blink everytime his trick is exposed. He continues to watch himself work in the mirror and thinks he is better...doesn't mean he isn't exposing his trick...just that he isn't willing to see it as others do, with eyes open.
Is Jesus the son of Krishna?
It depends on your interpretation of hindu philosophy. For the Hare Krishnas, who are Bhakti Yogis, and believe Krishna to be the Supreme God, or supreme reality, Jesus is son of Krishna.
However, the position of the Hare Krishna movement is not a very accurate reflection of Hindu philosophy in general.
According to the Advaita school, God, or the absolute, is called Brahman and is without form or attributes. Just as the person of Jesus in his incarnation is said by christians to render God visible to man, so Hindus believe that Krishna is a special form, an Avatar taken by this formless Brahman. Or rather, Brahman manifests the gods, who then sometimes appear on earth as Avatars.
Both Krishna and Rama are Avatars of the god Vishnu. They are thus both the same and different.
It depends on your interpretation of hindu philosophy. For the Hare Krishnas, who are Bhakti Yogis, and believe Krishna to be the Supreme God, or supreme reality, Jesus is son of Krishna.
However, the position of the Hare Krishna movement is not a very accurate reflection of Hindu philosophy in general.
According to the Advaita school, God, or the absolute, is called Brahman and is without form or attributes. Just as the person of Jesus in his incarnation is said by christians to render God visible to man, so Hindus believe that Krishna is a special form, an Avatar taken by this formless Brahman. Or rather, Brahman manifests the gods, who then sometimes appear on earth as Avatars.
Both Krishna and Rama are Avatars of the god Vishnu. They are thus both the same and different.
Samuel Linton Boot
Subdued Member
According to Swami Prabhupada Jesus Christ was a pure devotee of God or Krishna. This is a term of reverence equivalent to 'son of God' but they would not regard Jesus as being the only begotten son or as being one of the trinity although a pure devotee is regarded as being not different from God and as a worshipable representative of God. Infact the worship of Gods devotee is said to be a pre-requisite for the worship of God. According to Hare Krishna philosophy Krishna is the only true male(Progenitor) everyone else is female (the energy of God).
Rama and Krishna are both considered incarnations of Vishnu although Krishna is said to be a more complete revelation of Gods glory and is regarded by the Hare Krishnas in particular as being the source of all other incarnations and forms of God including Vishnu.
The Hindu trinity Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva is comparable to the Christian trinity The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. With Shiva as the Father, Brahma the son and Vishnu (The-All-Pervasive) as the Holy Spirit, although this is not Hare Krishna teaching.
Buddha is regarded by Hare Krishnas as being an incarnation of Vishnu come with the purpose of condemning animal sacrifices, which were wrongly being justified in the name of the Vedas and in order to lull the atheists unwittingly into theism.
Rama and Krishna are both considered incarnations of Vishnu although Krishna is said to be a more complete revelation of Gods glory and is regarded by the Hare Krishnas in particular as being the source of all other incarnations and forms of God including Vishnu.
The Hindu trinity Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva is comparable to the Christian trinity The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. With Shiva as the Father, Brahma the son and Vishnu (The-All-Pervasive) as the Holy Spirit, although this is not Hare Krishna teaching.
Buddha is regarded by Hare Krishnas as being an incarnation of Vishnu come with the purpose of condemning animal sacrifices, which were wrongly being justified in the name of the Vedas and in order to lull the atheists unwittingly into theism.
Namaste Samuel,
There is debate in different schools of Vaishnavism regarding the form of God to be worshipped as the most ‘complete’ and the source of all incarnations. In Gaudiya, Vallabha and Nimbarka schools, Krishna is the primary form. In Ramananda school, Rama is the primary form. In Ramanuja school, Narayana is the primary form. In Madhva school, all forms are equal.
There are many interpretations of the Trimurti in Sanatana Dharma. But, I’ve never seen the Father-Son-Holy Spirit labels attributed as above. In Vedanta, Shaivism and Shaktism, Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are all seen as facets of the Supreme Lord, who is the Creator, Sustainer and Dissolver. In Vaishnavism, Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are seen as Guna Avatars of the Supreme Lord. Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are functional names or attributes, and are indistinct.
"Now that part of Him which belongs to tamas, that, O students, is He who is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas, that, O students, is He who is called Brahmâ. That part of Him which belongs to sattva, that, O students, is he who is called Vishnu. He being one, becomes three, becomes eight, becomes eleven, becomes twelve, becomes infinite."
Hymn of Kutsayana, Maitriyani Upanishad of the Samaveda (V.2)
-A.
Samuel said:
There is debate in different schools of Vaishnavism regarding the form of God to be worshipped as the most ‘complete’ and the source of all incarnations. In Gaudiya, Vallabha and Nimbarka schools, Krishna is the primary form. In Ramananda school, Rama is the primary form. In Ramanuja school, Narayana is the primary form. In Madhva school, all forms are equal.
There are many interpretations of the Trimurti in Sanatana Dharma. But, I’ve never seen the Father-Son-Holy Spirit labels attributed as above. In Vedanta, Shaivism and Shaktism, Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are all seen as facets of the Supreme Lord, who is the Creator, Sustainer and Dissolver. In Vaishnavism, Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are seen as Guna Avatars of the Supreme Lord. Brahmâ, Vishnu and Rudra are functional names or attributes, and are indistinct.
"Now that part of Him which belongs to tamas, that, O students, is He who is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas, that, O students, is He who is called Brahmâ. That part of Him which belongs to sattva, that, O students, is he who is called Vishnu. He being one, becomes three, becomes eight, becomes eleven, becomes twelve, becomes infinite."
Hymn of Kutsayana, Maitriyani Upanishad of the Samaveda (V.2)
-A.
Samuel Linton Boot
Subdued Member
Namaste Agnideva . The same could be said of the Christian Trinity.Agnideva said:
I've read some references to Jesus (in his teens and again after the crucifixion) in India and that the wise men were Hindu, coming to celebrate the child.Silverbackman said:
Are there no Hare Krishna's on the board to provide us answers to their beliefs on the above three questions? It seems we currently only have the opinions based on others beliefs on the questions...
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Unity? That will never happen.
Seeker_of_truth
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I did read though on wikipedia that Hare Krishna believes Jesus is the son of God, maybe someone should edit it if it is not true
Thomas, you may be right that religions tend to contradict other religions but if you think about it religions contradict theirselves a lot at times. Heck the Bible alone has thousands of contradictions
Maybe you should drop by the Baha'i forum and get a second opinion by the Baha'is. You will be amazed at the answers
Promethium
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Its very easy to notice the differences in religions, but it seems part of our human experience is also recognizing the common factor. A Mercedes is not a Mazda but both are cars, roses are not tulips but both are flowers. No need to discredit the concept of flowers just because a rose is not a tulip. Maybe the path to unity is not possible in a specific sense but in a more encompassing realization.
Seeker_of_truth
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Within every blade of grass are enshrined the mysteries of an inscrutable Wisdom, and upon every rose a myriad nightingales pour out, in blissful rapture, their melody.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 269)
IMSassafras
A Believer
I know when I was younger it was really hard for me to accept Christianity because there were so many other religions (not one religion vs non-religious). No I don't think the world should unite into one government, or one language, or anything like that. I do think religion will do better united as one religion that way all the confusion on who is right and who is wrong will end. Just imagine the harmony of the religions as one
Hello Silverbackman,
Since you think religion would "do better united as one religion that way all the confusion on who is right and who is wrong [would] end", maybe having one language and one government would also "do better...that way all the confusion on who is right and who is wrong [would] end".
"There are 6,800 known languages spoken in the 200 countries of the world. 2,261 have writing systems (the others are only spoken) and about 300 are represented by on-line dictionaries as of May 11, 2004." Personally, I like the idea of having one language solely to communicate with people from around the world. The Internet is the perfect example. Who wants to try translating three or four different languages at the same time when you are chatting with people on messenger? Maybe you do, but not me!!!
I am not touching the one government issue tonight, maybe later with request.
In harmony,
Sassafras
Source for the number of languages in the world: yourDictionary.com
Seeker_of_truth
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think English or chinese will become the universal language.