[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Jesus and the Caste system
-
To: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (srh)
-
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Caste system
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 16:48:48 -0500 (EST)
-
In-Reply-To: <199601182043.PAA15089@hague.ecn.purdue.edu> from "Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian" at Jan 18, 96 03:43:59 pm
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
> In article <4df2ut$6a5@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> [...]
> >And that makes yet another story Jesus came to India. I have heard
> >
> >1. Jesus came to Mylapore, Madras during his lost years.
> >2. He actually didn't die, but came to Kashmir and had a wife and many kids.
> >3. He studied with the Buddhist Monks during his lost years and that's
> >where he got his "ahimsa" kind of doctrines.
>
> I have a question, then: Ajay proposed to created groups like
> soc.religion.hindu.shivism, so given that some people believe that
> Jesus had formed his philosophy in India, then what would people say
> to soc.religion.hindu.christian?
I am really amazed at your interpretation of my posts. You also cut off the
portion where I said I was skeptical of these "Jesus visited India stories". I
was trying to poke fun at such theories. I received some personal e-mail where
someone agreed with me. So I am glad at least one person got it.
I have some suggestions. First of all, please read my whole post. Second, I do
not support the "all christians, sikhs, muslims, x, y, z are Hindus" theory.
And please don't link up every post to the RFD. Take it easy, relax and try to
think of things other than the RFD.
>
> After all, if Buddhism and Sikhism are part of Hinduism, then why
> wouldn't Christianity also be included, especially if Jesus did all of
> the above? There are even texts like the Issa Upanishad (I think
I have also heard one ingenious guy giving some unique interpretation of
some verses to prove that Jesus is an incarnation of Vishnu.:-) :-). I am not
kidding. The smilies are for the interpretation.
> that's what it's called), so there could even be a claim that there's
> scriptural justification of the name.
>
> -Vivek
Ramakrishnan.
--
That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not
see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperish-
able. But, there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - IV.iii.23
