In Church yesterday, the visiting preacher (who was ethnicaly Indian and was raised as a Hindu, converting to Christianity at the age of 25) made two statements:
[ul][li]“In Hinduism, the only way for mankind to be saved is for Brahma to be born as a human being, then to die and return to life after three days”[/li][li]“In Hinduism, a sacrifice of atonement is often carried out wherein a goat is made to drink a bitter substance, nailed by the feet to a wooden plank and a crown of thorns is put on its head; then it is killed - if it comes back to life, the sacrifice was acceptable, otherwise not”[/li][/ul]
The preacher claims to have studied comparative religions extensively; my question is - How accurate are the above claims?
I should have mentioned that although I have presented his claims as verbatim quotes, they are merely my best recolection of what he said (although they do accurately encapsulate the essence of his claims).
I am Christian but I believe in reincarnation. IMO, Christ himself believed in reincarnation. But in the christian teachings, the emphasis is on the current life, as it should be.
Thanks for your input flonks, but that doesn’t in any way address my questions; this is about whether there are aspects of Hinduism that seem to agree with fundamental Christian doctrines, not the other way around.
BTW, I’m almost certain that by ‘come back to life’, the preacher meant resurrection, rather than reincarnation (in both cases).
The ONLY places I have ever found mention of this “goat sacrifice” in such detail and remarkable parallel is in claims made by Protestant missionaries/proselytizers trying to prove that the Rig Veda prophesizes Christ. That ought to tell one something.
totally incorrect. I am a Hindu, and this is the first time i have heard of these claims.
In Hinduism, the ultimate aim of mankind is to merge with the creator, i.e., Bramha, to be one with him by doing good deeds. But he ain’t commin down to help us. we keep trying to do it in our lives, and if we dont succeed, we are reborn, and have a go at it again.
-In Hinduism, atonement is done by saying the name of the Lord when you breath your last. But since you can never know when you will die, you must keep at it, and never stop remembering the lord. IMO, our gurus pulled a really neat trick there.
I agree with Dogface, these claims are made by the missionaries/proselytizers. They first say that both the religions are nearly the same, but then say that the Christian faith is newer, and more advanced.
“In Hinduism, the only way for mankind to be saved is for Brahma to be born as a human being, then to die and return to life after three days”
This is false. Hindu theologists summarize the paths to salvation as: bhakti (devotion), karma(work), gnana(knowledge). One can attain salvation through intense devotion, selfless focus on duties and responsibilites, knowledge and meditation.
noname, Brahma and Brahman are not the same. Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman as creator. The closest equivalent of Brahman in Christian theology is God or Holy Spirit.
And, your view on atonement in Hinduism is either very marginal or incorrect.
There is so much variation in Hindu practices that I’m shocked they couldn’t come up with better “evidence”. We are talking about a religion with millions of Gods (or incarnations of God), endless sects, and a plethora of ways to worship. It’s an almost limitless well to dip from. You are garenteed to find something in it that suits whatever claims you feel like making.
litost, Brahman is the universe, created by Brahma, Man was created by Brahma from his body (the Brahman Priest from the head, the Kshatriya warrior from his arms, the Vaishya merchant form some other part, and the Shudra outcaste from his feet. this is like the creaton of the world and of Adam and Eve in the Christian theology.) the aim of each person, therefore, is to get back, or merge into the Brahma.
and regarding the atonement, you must be familiar with the various ‘yug’ or ages in the Hindu philosophy. there is the Sathyug, which is the age of truth, there is the Tretryug, which is less perfect, the Dwaparyug, which is even less perfect, and finally there is the Kaliyug, which is the least perfect and which is the present yug. for each of these yugs, there is a way for salvation. In kaliyug, the way is by saying the name of the Lord. hope this helps
As I said before, that is patently wrong. Brahman is not the material universe. Brahman is akin to a spirit, powerful, transcendent, immanent, Eternal… and much more. The Upanishads is an ode to the Brahman. The Advaitic philosophy (drawn from the Upanishads) urges Man to remove the false barriers between Atman (soul) and Brahman.
Lord Brahma is merely a manifestation of Brahman in the form of creator. Inasmuch as all of us are manifestations of Brahman. As per the advaitic school of thought, salvation is attained when the soul finds oneness with Brahman, NOT Lord Brahma, the creator.
You can read the link I provided earlier, or read the Upanishads, or peruse any standard Hindu texts.
This is more mythology than philosophy. I understand that many ways to attain salvation are espoused by the myriad schools of thought, but the three I mentioned earlier and summarized in the BBC cite (bhakti-marga, karma-marga, gnana-marga) have been widely recognized as the core paths to salvation and are the most common interpretations from Hindu scriptures. Sounds like a True Scotsman fallacy but I am sure mainstream Christians can recognize fringe beliefs when they see them.
So are we basically saying that he was either grossly misinformed or lying? (dammit, while everybody else was calling out"Hallelujah, Amen!", I should have yelled out 'CITE?")
I have to agree with even sven on this. In an Asian history class I had, we watched a film on Hinduism. It’s point was to show that you Hinduism is a very broad term. It encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and gods.
If this is true, it’s not unlikely that you could find some sect or village that believes as your preacher says. Whether that is the belief of the majority of Hindus, I don’t know.
You are right, the Brahman is more than material universe. But i differ with you when you say that Lord Brahma is the manifestation of the Brahman. In fact, in the Hindu philosophy, He created the Brahman (Brahman created by Brahma, get it??). Brahma is, infact, the manifestation of the energy that is OM. The Brahman was created by Brahma, Vishnu preserves it, and Shiva/Mahesh destroys it.
And the Advaitic philosophy seeks to remove the false barriers between jivatma (soul in ones body) and paramatma (the Supreme soul, the Brahma).
Where is the myth in this? in fact, the Hindu philosophy, for better or for worse, has the tendency to compartmentalise everything (the Supreme Energy into the Creator, Preservor and Destoyer, the segregation of man in to four castes, the division of religious thought into Vaishnav, Saivam, Advaitic and a host of others), and the differentiation of the ages in four distinct ages is right up the alley. The BBC cite did summarize the three margs, but it failed to mentioned which is the right path prescribed for each age. For example, in Satyug (the age of truthfulness) there was strict adherence to the rituals-bhakti marg. That is why the Ramayan lays onus on bhakti and Dharma. In Dwaparyug, it was less perfect, and so the emphasis was on ones duty-Karma marg. The Mahabhart is an example. In the Kaliyug, when there is Adharam (non-religiousness??!!??, non truthfulness) everywhere, one need only remember the Lord when dying. But since no one knows when one will die, one should constantly keep saying the name of the Lord. In fact, since we are now in an information age, shoudnt the Gyan-marg be the correct road to salvation? the BBC cite failed ot mention that.
he lied about he salvation part and also about the part about Brahma being reborn. In fact, its Vishnu who will be reborn 10 times (9 up, one more to go). The Hindus are waiting for his finalavtaar (reincarnation) as Kalki. But that wont happen soon- he is arriving just before the end of the world
You are contradicting yourself. If Brahman was created by Brahma, then how come Brahma is a manifestation of OM, the sound of Brahman?
Overall, you continue to be wrong. Brahman is not an entity created by Brahma. It is just the opposite. Brahman is everything. The core of the Upanishads is that Brahman is the ultimate essence of the universe. Brahman is described as beyond attributes and is said to contain all and everything. There is no power above it, hence it wasn’t created by anyone. Lord Brahma is one manifestation. If there is an etymological relationship, you got it reversed.
“**Brahma, the manifestation of Brahman as creator, and not to be confused with him, **is not living in the daily devotions of the Hindu as are the other two gods, Siva and Vishnu”.
Cite: From the introduction to ‘The Upanishads’, translated by Juan Mascaro.
“…at the heart of both the Vedas and the Upanishads lies Brahman, the Ultimate Reality of the universe. Hindu doctrine is grounded in this. It is also in the Upanishads that we find Brahman being united with the human soul (atman) to form the Brahman-Atman unity, ‘Thou art that’ (Tat tvam asi) … Thus Brahman is, ‘The inner essence of humanity… the outer essence of the universe’: stability in a sea of flux.”
<snip>
"However, although Brahman is ineffable (neti neti – ‘Not this; not that’), it is nonetheless real. In light of this Sankara postulates saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes). This immanent aspect of Brahman is sometimes manifested as the Trimurti (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva). "
(bolding mine)
Moving on…
Your wrong notion of Brahma and Brahman persist in your description of the core of Advaitic philosophy. From the previous link:
“…It is also in the Upanishads that we find Brahman being united with the human soul (atman) to form the Brahman-Atman unity, ‘Thou art that’ (Tat tvam asi)”
This is not an union between soul and Lord Brahma as you called it. Non-dualism preaches a state of realization where the soul recognizes that it is part of the all-pervading, all-encompassing, all-powerful Brahman. The Supreme soul is Brahman, NOT Brahma.
OM is the sound emanated by each and everything in this universe. Brahma is a manifestation of OM, and so is Vishnu and Shiva (for that matter, even you and I are manifestations of OM)
quote:
‘Brahma was born of the golden egg, HIRANYAGARBHA. When the divided into two parts, heaven and earth were formed. Between these was the sky.’
<snip>
And in vedic times, these compromised the known universe, the Brahman.
Granted Brahman is eveything. But getting back to the begining of the argument, I had said that the ultimate aim of a Hindu is to merge with Brahma, while you seem to be saying that we should be one with the Brahman. so if Brahman contains all and everything, how can we merge with it? are we not already a part of it? and regarging the part about creation, I ask again, what did Brahma, the creator, create?
The others are Vishnu and Shiva/Mahesh.
No, no etymological relationship. Brahma created the Brahman, the universe.
Not to be confused with whom? Brahma is not to be confused with Brahman? Notice the author has used ‘him’ for Brahman. Now, even you agree that the Brahman is not a person, leave alone a male, so the entire passage is incorrect, don’t you agree?
what is the point you are trying to make here?
I ask you again after this, according to Sankara, what is the Brahma the manifestation of? Is it not the creation of the universe, the Brahman?
I quote: ‘According to Advaita, the ultimate bliss is the experience of non-difference between the Jivatma and the Paramatma’
The Paramatma here is Brahma, the Supreme soul. In all the links that you have given, nowhere is it said that the Brahman is the Paramatma, the Supreme soul. In fact, it says that the Brahman encompasses everything, so soul the is encompassed in the Brahman as well. So what is the Paramatma? It is Brahma. Remember, according to the Hindu philosophy, man was made from the parts of Brahma, and it strives to be back with Brahma.
