Not a modern religion but nevermind.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

The Hare Krishna movement was brought to the west from India in modern times by Swami Prabhupada but its origins go back along way at least as far back as Krishna Chaitanya born on the 18th of February 1486 A.D. who the Hare Krishnas believe to be Krishna come again and He was only re-invigorating the movement which they claim goes back 5 thousand years to the original Krishna.

I though I'd make this point after reading in a Bahai faith thread of their assertion of Abrahamic origins. The Rastafarians are also an Abrahamic faith as they regard themselves as Christian, at least the one with which I am familiar does. (Interestingly they don't say much or generally don't evan know about the Hindu infuence on the formation of their faith. Jai Rastafari!)

[wil]

Originally Posted by Samuel Linton Boot

The Rastafarians are also an Abrahamic faith as they regard themselves as Christian, at least the one with which I am familiar does. (Interestingly they don't say much or generally don't evan know about the Hindu infuence on the formation of their faith. Jai Rastafari!)

ah we crhistians don't say much on the Hindu influence in the formation of Christianity either.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Amen (or should I say Om) to That.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I wasn't aware that there was a hindu influence on Rastafarianism, could someone explain please?

[wil]

Amen (or should I say Om)

is there a difference?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Samuel Linton Boot

The Hare Krishna movement was brought to the west from India in modern times by Swami Prabhupada but its origins go back along way at least as far back as Krishna Chaitanya born on the 18th of February 1486 A.D. who the Hare Krishnas believe to be Krishna come again and He was only re-invigorating the movement which they claim goes back 5 thousand years to the original Krishna.

Swami Prabhupada effectively created the movement in the 20th century, so Hare Krishna are effectively a modern religion, even though - like most modern religions - they try and claim a more ancient tradition.

[Postmaster]

Brian, all Major world faiths have influence off an other faith. Buddhism didn't have an image of Buddha for 200 years until Alexander the great made his way to India and they seen the coins he had idolising him then they developed there Icon of the Buddha with his halo and his Apollo looking imagine. Fact is these are modern faiths regardless of there origins or influences. Also I can't understand why some of the Baha'i's are making a fuss on this forum, if they truly believe in progressive revelation they shouldn't be too concerned with connecting themselves to the past.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I wasn't aware that there was a hindu influence on Rastafarianism, could someone explain please?

I am minded of what Lee 'Scratch' Perry said once in an interview with a journalist. The journalist asked him why he had a Swaztika on his hat. Perry said it was an ancient African symbol and he was claiming it back. The journalist said, no its an ancient Indian symbol, Perry said, same place.
This supports the Rastas explanation of themselves as being the 'Original Religion' or as Hindusim is known the 'Sanatana Dharma'.
There is a large Indian community in Jamaica due to Indians being brought in to replace the slaves. The communities undoubtedly intermingled celebrated festivals and philosophised together. Indians brought the practise of smoking ganja with them. Rastas call this gunja or 'coli weed' a reference to 'Kali' a Hindu name of The Goddess. Indian Sadhus with their matted hair look just like Rastas and often smoke ganja in clay chilums which look just like big spliffs. Other similiarities include: vegetarianism; belief in karma and reincarnation; and terminology such as, 'Jai Rama' - 'Jah Rastafari'; 'Shiva/Rastafari Most High Unterrible God'; and 'I and I Rastafari' - 'Aham Brahmaasmi'- expressing the Unity of all Beings and God.
I regard all religions as sects of the Sanatana Dharma but then I'm a Hindu supremacist


I, Brian - Swami Prabhupada created 'Iskcon' but not the Hare Krishna movement, as he was carrying out the orders of his Guru in bringing the cult to the West. So its a modern evolution of an old religion, but then as you say what religion isn't.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Samuel,

Originally Posted by Samuel Linton Boot

This supports the Rastas explanation of themselves as being the 'Original Religion' or as Hindusim is known the 'Sanatana Dharma'.

Very interesting info Samuel, I wasn't aware of any connection between Sanatana Dharma and Rastafarianism.

Swami Prabhupada created 'Iskcon' but not the Hare Krishna movement, as he was carrying out the orders of his Guru in bringing the cult to the West. So its a modern evolution of an old religion, but then as you say what religion isn't.

I agree that ISKCON is a modern manifestation of an ancient path shown by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I'm curious to know whether you consider ISKCON as branch of Hinduism or not (I don't mean in the universal sense, but in the direct sense of the word). I think Swami Prabhupada said that it was neither Hinduism nor non-Hinduism. But, I've also seen ISKCON devotees identify themselves as Hindus. What's your opinion on this subject?

I regard all religions as sects of the Sanatana Dharma but then I'm a Hindu supremacist

I don't think you're alone in this . Sanatana Dharma has a very strong universalist dimension, and a LOT in common with many other religions. Swami Vivekananda once claimed that there is nothing in any religion anywhere in the world that is not found in Hinduism. This claim is a bit too bold, in my opinion, but the point is that there is a lot of commonality if we really do care to analyze it.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Namaste Samuel,

I agree that ISKCON is a modern manifestation of an ancient path shown by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I'm curious to know whether you consider ISKCON as branch of Hinduism or not (I don't mean in the universal sense, but in the direct sense of the word). I think Swami Prabhupada said that it was neither Hinduism nor non-Hinduism. But, I've also seen ISKCON devotees identify themselves as Hindus. What's your opinion on this subject?
A.

Namaste Agnideva

Although Swami Prabhupada does say they are above such body identification, I've always thought of them as Hindus, their certainly not Muslims or Christians or Buddhists etc. are they. Their beliefs, scriptures and practises are all Hindu arn't they?

I didn't realise until reading the below that Swami Prabhupadas Guru is considered as having broken away from traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

"The division into traditional and non-traditional is made in particular with ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha in mind. We do not regard them as being a part of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism, given the fact that Gaudiya Matha's founder, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, was very explicit in his desire to break off from most of the existing traditions, for all practical purposes forming a new kind of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. While we respect his reform and innovations, we may disagree on several of its aspects, and therefore feel it as being essentially outside the scope of this forum."

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/

Originally Posted by Agnideva

I don't think you're alone in this . Sanatana Dharma has a very strong universalist dimension, and a LOT in common with many other religions. Swami Vivekananda once claimed that there is nothing in any religion anywhere in the world that is not found in Hinduism. This claim is a bit too bold, in my opinion, but the point is that there is a lot of commonality if we really do care to analyze it.
A.

Perhaps it is a bit too bold after all you won't find halal or kosher beef in Hinduism.

[I, Brian]

I have to admit, although I've got a couple of ISKON books, I know little about their core beliefs. However, I am under the impression that I've been told by Hare Krishnas that Jesus was an avatar of Krishna. I don't believe that would be a common viewpoint among Hindus.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I have to admit, although I've got a couple of ISKON books, I know little about their core beliefs. However, I am under the impression that I've been told by Hare Krishnas that Jesus was an avatar of Krishna. I don't believe that would be a common viewpoint among Hindus.

I've come across Hare Krishnas who say this, but Swami Prabhupada said Jesus was a pure devotee who descended from Brahmaloka (Brahmas heavan). Although he did say 'Christ' and 'Krishna' are the same name coming from the root word 'Krista' meaning attraction.
As technically everyone is an incarnation of God and as absolute union or communion with God is the ultimate goal the distinction as to who is or was an Avatar and who is or was not can become a bit academic, as everyone is worshipable as God, although some examples are better than others.
'Life is the process of God becoming man and man becoming God'

[wil]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

... I've been told by Hare Krishnas that Jesus was an avatar of Krishna. I don't believe that would be a common viewpoint among Hindus.

I can not claim to know all the ins and outs of the Hindu faith. However having been to a few temples and picked up Hindu Priests to bring them to an ecumenical service they have expressed the same repeatedly. I have seen pictures of Jesus in temples and heard claim he is one of their gurus. It is my understanding they believe he studied in India during part of those 'missing years' 12-30, that the three wise men were Hindu, and that after his crucifiction he was back in India, and somewhere they actually have a headstone for him.

[Agnideva]

Namaste all,

To my knowledge, ISKCON does not officially recognize Jesus as an avatar of Krishna, as has been stated already. However, I think followers are free to do so if they so wish.

Originally Posted by wil

I have seen pictures of Jesus in temples and heard claim he is one of their gurus.

It is likely that these temples belong to liberal Hindu sects. Many branches of Vedanta Hinduism do accept Jesus as a teacher, a guru, and a jivan-mukta (liberated being). The same goes for Buddha. These branches teach that the message of Krishna, Jesus, and Buddha is the same message as the Upanishadic Hindu sages.

Traditional Hinduism has nothing to say about Jesus though. Traditional Hindus, I would say, do not accept or reject Jesus, but most respect him as they would respect Buddha or other great world figures.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Samuel,

Originally Posted by Samuel

Their beliefs, scriptures and practises are all Hindu aren't they?

Yes, indeed they are. ISKCON is a western expression of Vaishnava Hinduism, and has a lot in common with the other branches of Vaishnavism. In fact, I’m fairly certain that ISKCON does use the term ‘Sanatana Dharma’ and considers itself the truest expression of that religion.

I didn't realise until reading the below that Swami Prabhupadas Guru is considered as having broken away from traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Hmm … this is very interesting … I never knew this before.

Perhaps it is a bit too bold after all you won't find halal or kosher beef in Hinduism.

Most certainly not

As technically everyone is an incarnation of God and as absolute union or communion with God is the ultimate goal the distinction as to who is or was an Avatar and who is or was not can become a bit academic, as everyone is worshipable as God, although some examples are better than others. 'Life is the process of God becoming man and man becoming God'

Samuel, I highly doubt that ISKCON or Vaishnava Hinduism would agree with this statement . Vaishnava teachings, in my understanding, say that God and soul are eternally distinct and moksha means existing in the bliss of the Lord as His servant, and not complete merger with His being.

Regards,
A.