L.B. Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Hi there. To all the members knowledgeable about Hinduism. etc: I know that etymologically, the word Christ and the word Krishna are related... shining or anointed. That explains why the halos in xtian art when there were halos of light around gods and saints for years before there were xtians. What about other similarities? Not so much the details like Dec. 25th birthdays or whatever... I mean more like the philosophy. Is it possible that the jebus of the bible is a mashup of Buddhist and Hindu thought combined with the authoritarian stance of the 'priesthood', so that the story reads like a typical god-hero, but with the caveat that the hierarchy of the church is the final arbiter of the religion's beliefs? It just seems to me that Hinduism and Buddhism were both around for so long before there were xtians... with all the trade that went on over the centuries, certainly the 'thinkers' of the world had to have been exposed to the religious beliefs of their neighbors and visitors. Who has any insights? Oh, and as a side note: I have begun reading the Gita again (I did so a long time ago) and while I do not accept that the gods of Hinduism are literal personages, the philosopy of Hinduism, especially as it relates to Impersonal Ultimate Reality, resonates with me deeply. I see in the gods and goddesses of Hinduism much that is to be admired and appreciated, because I believe that their characteristics are those of our human potential, made known to us in the form of the art and stories that surround Krsna, Devaki, Hanuman, Ganesha etc. Anyway, have at it... I love watching the minds in here work. Namaste. Haribol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Certainly there was trade between the Roman Empire and India. I certainly see some Buddhist influence - some of Jesus' sayings seem kind of zen. But the influence may be indirect. Certain Greek philosophies seem to be influenced by buddhism, and those philosophies probably also influenced christianity. As for Krishna - I think the god-man idea may have actually travelled to India via the mystery religions of the near east. These mystery religions also separately influenced christianity. There is an important difference between the mystery religions and Krishna however. Mystery religion gods die and then rise again. Krishna is not depicted as dying and rising again. But there is definitely some cross-pollination of ideas between Rome/Near-East and India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I've heard this topic before, and honestly, I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising if there were some cross-pollination. Like Evo said, the Greek possibly were influenced, and later the Christians by Greek philosophy (which is known). Considering that the Roman empire was a mesh of traders and citizens from then the whole known western world, and most likely there were some business going between Rome and eastern countries. At least there must have been some migration of people over time, and ideas would have traveled. However, with the poor communications back then, most likely the ideas as such were poorly understood in the Europe, and only parts and fragments of them were incorporated in the culture. That would explain that the correlations aren't that clear, but only hinted at. But on another note, there are some fundamental ideas that seems to keep on coming up, naturally from civilization and culture, so may it's just pure coincidence and not any real causality here. Maybe there are certain ideas that eventually always come about in human philosophy? Just because it makes sense. Tit-for-tat is mathematically proven, and we are a "mathematically" thinking species. So for instance the Golden Rule could be just the effect of pure reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Buddhism was in full swing during Alexander's conquest. Given the Hellenistic influence on Buddhist art, an exchange of ideas is highly likely if not a given. Then there is the reign of Asoka (269-232 BCE). Asoka sponsored monk emissaries to travel to all nations India had contact with at the time in order to spread the Dharma. In the Far East, Buddhism was able to thrive partially due to royal patronage that probably wasn't available any further West than Persia. It is possible that some ideas were borrowed directly or interpreted according to other methods of thought philosophies. In the end it doesn't matter since a useful idea is a useful idea regardless of the source. On the other hand, we have the tale of Barlaam and Jehosephat. Some Korean scholars have found that the story is most likely a Christianized reworking of the life of Gautama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JernJane Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Since you mention philosophy... First of all, Hindu religions and traditions build upon a faith in reincarnation, as opposed to the Vedic religions that preceded them, where one believed in a heaven. I'm not sure whether they believed in the counterpart - hell, but I know that salvation in Vedic religion was enter into the home of the gods, which is best translated into heaven in our day. Hinduism is more or less based upon the belief that our souls are our "self" and that our "self" is detached from the materialistic world. In other words - it's a dualistic world view. Realizing that the self is detached from the material world is a way to salvation (freedom from further rebirths in the future) in many traditions. What is commonly believed to keep the series of rebirths for a particular soul going is its karma, and when I mention karma, I must rush to explain that the western version of karma is a misconception. That is - the idea that karma is a spiritual system which is rewards you according to your own actions is a misconception. It may act like that in New Age religions, but that's not what it is in Hinduism, at least not traditionally. The word karma simply means action (and has - over time - come to mean ritual action), and is what binds the self to the material world. The ideal for some renouncers is to minimalize karma as much as possible. How they seek to achieve this depends on which philosophical school they belong to and which deity they regard as the supreme one. Through history the traditions have disagreed upon whether the way to minimalize karma is to avoid wrong action, or in fact avoid action altogether. In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna presents a third alternative. The Bhagavadgita is the most popular part of the epic Mahabharata which is the story about Krishna. In this holy text, what is most commonly perceived as Krishna's main message is that third alternative: To do one's duty for duty's sake, completely without intention - without any regard for the consequences. Your duty is determined by your social status (caste), your gender and age. In this particular part of the story, Krishna and his friend Arjuna are on their way to a battle. Arjuna is of the warrior caste, a caste whose duty it is to fight. However, Arjuna's adversaries on this occasion are his very own kin, and he is tormented by his conscience. He doesn't want to go to battle because he doesn't want to kill his own kin. Krishna, on the other hand, is trying to convince him that he should do his duty for duty's sake, and not think about the consequences. This is duty-ethics taken to its extreme, and I can't say that it sounds a lot like Jesus. Other things that make clear differences between Jesus and Krishna are their very own image: Krishna was a bit of a sleep-around, seducing young women by playing his flute (Freudian, anyone?). His favourite lover was a married woman, who is thought of as a form of Vishnu's (who Krishna is an avatar of) consort Lakshmi. When he is portrayed as a child, he is portrayed as what may be called a bit naughty, but also charming. There are definately similarities between the two faiths, but the most striking similarities are not found between modern-day Hinduism and Christianity, but rather between a certain Vedic god by the name of Varuna and the Judeo-Christian god. Even more interestingly - Varuna and Mitra are closely linked in Vedic religion. I'd recommend you check out the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varuna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Hi there. To all the members knowledgeable about Hinduism. etc: I know that etymologically, the word Christ and the word Krishna are related... shining or anointed. That explains why the halos in xtian art when there were halos of light around gods and saints for years before there were xtians. What about other similarities? Not so much the details like Dec. 25th birthdays or whatever... I mean more like the philosophy. Is it possible that the jebus of the bible is a mashup of Buddhist and Hindu thought combined with the authoritarian stance of the 'priesthood', so that the story reads like a typical god-hero, but with the caveat that the hierarchy of the church is the final arbiter of the religion's beliefs? It just seems to me that Hinduism and Buddhism were both around for so long before there were xtians... with all the trade that went on over the centuries, certainly the 'thinkers' of the world had to have been exposed to the religious beliefs of their neighbors and visitors. Who has any insights? Oh, and as a side note: I have begun reading the Gita again (I did so a long time ago) and while I do not accept that the gods of Hinduism are literal personages, the philosopy of Hinduism, especially as it relates to Impersonal Ultimate Reality, resonates with me deeply. I see in the gods and goddesses of Hinduism much that is to be admired and appreciated, because I believe that their characteristics are those of our human potential, made known to us in the form of the art and stories that surround Krsna, Devaki, Hanuman, Ganesha etc. Anyway, have at it... I love watching the minds in here work. Namaste. Haribol. This very idea occurred to me last week and I found a very cool book called THE YOGA of JESUS. Yes, I believe Jesus was a Yogi. Why a Hindu Accepts Christ and Rejects Churchianity By Swami Abhedananda (A direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa) Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Calcutta. A Hindu distinguishes the religion of the churches from the religion of Jesus Christ. Speaking from the Hindu standpoint, the religion that the churches uphold and preach today, that has been built around the personality of Jesus the Christ, and which is popularly known as Christianity, should be called ‘Churchianity’, in contradistinction to that pure religion of the heart that was taught by Jesus the Christ and practised by his disciples. The religion of Christ or true Christianity had no dogma, no creed, no system, and no theology. It was a religion of the heart, a religion without any ceremonial, without ritual, without priest-craft. It was not based upon any book, but upon the feelings of the heart, upon direct communion of the individual soul with the heavenly Father. On the contrary, the religion of the church is based upon a book, believes in dogmas, professes a creed, has an organized system for preaching it, is backed up by theologies, performs rituals, practises ceremonials, and obeys the commands of a host of priests Read the rest HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts