Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Krishna and Jesus were names – of same God in different tongues


dattaswami
 Share

Recommended Posts

Krishna and Jesus were names – of same God in different tongues

 

The blind fanatic conservative rigidity – of one’s own religion is

Leading to communal wars – destroying the peace of society.

Common sense and simple analysis – are sufficient to know truth.

Every religious fan says that – his God created this earth.

Unfortunately there is only – one earth and not many earths.

Religions are many with different Gods, - but, sorry, one earth only!

This clearly means that there is – only one God, names differ.

Then, one God should preach – one syllabus only to the earth.

Languages may be different, – but subject is one and the same.

 

God is impartial Father of all souls – existing on this one earth.

If you say that Krishna alone is God, – Gita alone is the path,

Those who followed Krishna only – are liberated, others to hell,

We fully agree, but one small doubt, - when Krishna came here,

India was disconnected with – other foreign countries for some time.

During that time, foreigners, - who died ignorant of Krishna

Went to hell and fault was not in them – they did not know Krishna

Due to fault of Krishna only, - if Krishna wished, all countries

Could have been linked on His – arrival to India simultaneously.

 

Having known Krishna, – if the foreigners did not follow Him,

Their hell is justified, – now Krishna becomes partial to India.

God is always impartial, – entire earth is His creation only.

All the souls on the earth – are issues of the same divine Father.

Partiality is not justified, - if you say India alone has good devotees.

It is also not true because – Kauravas opposed Him vehemently.

The only solution is that God came – to all countries simultaneously

In different names and preached – the same syllabus simultaneously.

This logic applies to all religions, – When Jesus came to Jerusalem,

India was disconnected for some time, – in that time some Indians

Went to hell for not following Jesus, - it was not their fault at all,

Jesus need not be partial to Jerusalem – containing good devotees

Only, since He was crucified by – the worst priests in Jerusalem.

The solution is that same God came – to India and Jerusalem.

Krishna and Jesus were names – of same God in different tongues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Guest Thomas_*

Enlightened Hindus of modern times have made attempts to institute a reform in Hinduism by rejecting all idolatrous and immoral rites, and by setting up a purely monotheistic form of worship. Of these, the earliest and most noted was the so-called Brahmá Samaj (Congregation of Brahmá), founded in Calcutta in 1828, by the learned Rammohun Roy. He tried to combine a Unitarian form of Christianity with the Brahmin conception of the supreme personal God. After his death in 1833, differences of view as to the nature of God, the authority of the Vedas, and the obligation of caste-customs caused the society to split up into a number of small congregations. At present there are more than a hundred independent theistic congregations in India. Some, like the Arya Samaj, rest on the sole authority of the Vedas. Others are eclectic, even to the extent of choosing for devotional reading in their public services passages from the Avesta, Koran, and Bible. Few of them are altogether free from the taint of pantheism, and, being more like clubs for intellectual and moral improvement than for ritualistic forms of worship, they make but little progress in the way of conversion.

 

In short, Brahminism cannot succeed in reforming itself. Its earlier sacred books are steeped in the polytheism out of which it grew, and the pantheistic view of the world, to which it was afterwards committed, has been like a dead weight dragging it hopelessly into the stagnant pool of superstition, pessimism, and immorality. In virtue of its pantheistic attitude, there is no form of religion, high or low, that cannot be tolerated and incorporated into its capacious system. The indifference of Brahminism to the gross buses of Hinduism is, after all, but a reflex of the indifference of its supreme god. Sin loses most of its hideousness when it can be traced ultimately to the great impersonal Brahmâ. There is but one form of religion that has any prospect of reforming the religious life of India, and that is the Roman Catholic. For the shadow, pantheistic deity it can set form the One, Eternal, Personal Spirit and creator; for the crude Tri-murti, the sublime Trinity; and for the coarse and degrading avatars of Vishnu, the incarnation of the Son of God. It can replace the idolatrous and immoral Hindu rites with its own imposing liturgy, and substitute the Cross for the abominable linga.

 

Brahminism, being a natural religion and a privilege of Hindu birth, has never made any concerted attempt at proselytizing in foreign lands. But some years ago steps were taken by a few individuals of England to foist upon English-speaking people a new religious system embodying the pantheistic belief and magical superstition of the Vedanta school of Brahminism. This new system, known as Theosophy, was to embrace within its fold members of every form of religion, reconciling all differences of creed in the pantheistic view that all deities, high and low, are but transitory emanations of the supreme, incomprehensible Reality, devotion to which was the highest religion. This quasi-cult, which also made pretensions to the exercise of magical powers, soon met the ridicule and obloquy it deserved. It is practically obsolete at the present day.

 

The Christian proposal is based, however, on the revelation of the God-in-three-persons, in the image of Whom each person is called to live in communion. Faith in the tri-personal God is the basis of the whole Christian faith and also of the constitution of an authentically human society. Further awareness of the concept of person seems necessary in all fields: in prayer, in inter-personal dialogue, in inter-personal relationships in daily life, in the destiny of man after death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Enlightened Hindus of modern times have made attempts to institute a reform in Hinduism by rejecting all idolatrous and immoral rites, and by setting up a purely monotheistic form of worship. Of these, the earliest and most noted was the so-called Brahmá Samaj (Congregation of Brahmá), founded in Calcutta in 1828, by the learned Rammohun Roy. He tried to combine a Unitarian form of Christianity with the Brahmin conception of the supreme personal God. After his death in 1833, differences of view as to the nature of God, the authority of the Vedas, and the obligation of caste-customs caused the society to split up into a number of small congregations. At present there are more than a hundred independent theistic congregations in India. Some, like the Arya Samaj, rest on the sole authority of the Vedas. Others are eclectic, even to the extent of choosing for devotional reading in their public services passages from the Avesta, Koran, and Bible. Few of them are altogether free from the taint of pantheism, and, being more like clubs for intellectual and moral improvement than for ritualistic forms of worship, they make but little progress in the way of conversion.

 

In short, Brahminism cannot succeed in reforming itself. Its earlier sacred books are steeped in the polytheism out of which it grew, and the pantheistic view of the world, to which it was afterwards committed, has been like a dead weight dragging it hopelessly into the stagnant pool of superstition, pessimism, and immorality. In virtue of its pantheistic attitude, there is no form of religion, high or low, that cannot be tolerated and incorporated into its capacious system. The indifference of Brahminism to the gross buses of Hinduism is, after all, but a reflex of the indifference of its supreme god. Sin loses most of its hideousness when it can be traced ultimately to the great impersonal Brahmâ. There is but one form of religion that has any prospect of reforming the religious life of India, and that is the Roman Catholic. For the shadow, pantheistic deity it can set form the One, Eternal, Personal Spirit and creator; for the crude Tri-murti, the sublime Trinity; and for the coarse and degrading avatars of Vishnu, the incarnation of the Son of God. It can replace the idolatrous and immoral Hindu rites with its own imposing liturgy, and substitute the Cross for the abominable linga.

 

Brahminism, being a natural religion and a privilege of Hindu birth, has never made any concerted attempt at proselytizing in foreign lands. But some years ago steps were taken by a few individuals of England to foist upon English-speaking people a new religious system embodying the pantheistic belief and magical superstition of the Vedanta school of Brahminism. This new system, known as Theosophy, was to embrace within its fold members of every form of religion, reconciling all differences of creed in the pantheistic view that all deities, high and low, are but transitory emanations of the supreme, incomprehensible Reality, devotion to which was the highest religion. This quasi-cult, which also made pretensions to the exercise of magical powers, soon met the ridicule and obloquy it deserved. It is practically obsolete at the present day.

 

The Christian proposal is based, however, on the revelation of the God-in-three-persons, in the image of Whom each person is called to live in communion. Faith in the tri-personal God is the basis of the whole Christian faith and also of the constitution of an authentically human society. Further awareness of the concept of person seems necessary in all fields: in prayer, in inter-personal dialogue, in inter-personal relationships in daily life, in the destiny of man after death.

 

 

I & Father Are Same, Son Of God, Messenger Of God

 

To a deserving devotee, Jesus told He and His father are one and the same. When Jesus saw a devotee who was slightly affected by jealousy and egoism, Jesus came down by one step saying that He was the son of the God. The word son is indicating that He is different from the God but the same spirit is present in both like the same blood in the father and the son. This means that He is different and smaller than the God but at the same time has the same essence. It is like the relationship between the mighty ocean and the tiny water drop. The father is major and the son is minor component. They resemble qualitatively but differ quantitatively. This is the visishta advaita of Ramanuja.

 

When Jesus met a devotee who is fully bacterialised by jealousy and egoism He told that He was the humble messenger of God. This is the Dvaita of Madhva. Therefore the human incarnation will declare its level based on the level of the receiver. Mohammad told that He is the messenger of the Lord. Thus there is a gradual degradation of spiritual obedience and the gradual growth of jealousy and egoism. Jesus stands as a transition bridge between the Advaita of Krishna and Dvaita of Mohammad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...