Jesus Christ or Daksha : Who Died for our Sins?

[Khoo Hock Leong]

Hi Learned Members

In an earlier post, I mentioned how the story of Daksha beheaded and resurrected with a goat's head represents his dying for mankind's sins. Jesus Christ also fits the bill and in fact I got the interpretation of Daksha's story through the allegory given by Jesus Christ cruxifixion.

Manu Samhita said that the progenitor of mankind died for our sins. But within one cycle ruled by one manu, there are many yugas. Currently our yuga is Kali and Jesus Christ is also within this yoga. The fact that our calendar, a marker of time, changes in terms of the counting with Jesus Christ death as the focal year where we start our CE counting (before that that was BCE) shows that the referrent saviour for us should be Jesus Christ but bearing in mind Daksha's story.

Best Regards
Khoo

[Black Cat]

No one died for anyone's sin - neither Jesus, nor Daksha. The whole thing was initiated as propaganda. Spirituality is very different. One singular figure can't, "die for anyone's sins." That's not what the Geeta states.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

That's not what Manu Samhita says.

As for the Geeta, give me a link so that I can check it out exactly what it says.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

The other thing you need to note is to see the period we are governed by in the case when we broached on this topic on "dying for our sins".

In Christianity we are governed by the New Testament. In Vedic Science we are governed by Kali Yuga.

Anyway, give me the link for the Geeta.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

Yes, another point I forgot to reiterate.

Manu is the progenitor of men for a kalpa, so he has a final say on such matters as we all come under him. I did mention this point initially.

[Black Cat]

Manu Smriti is a treatise on code of conducts, primarily. And with such claims taken on the face, we'd only be hiding behind scriptures, which is something KN Rao always opposes and I can get his plight totally.

You need a link to Geeta? Bhagawad Geeta? It's there every where. Just pick a book and read it. Staking such a claim - as in someone died for someone's sins - is undermining the great philosophy of Advaita Vendanta and taking things too literally.

We're all part of Parabrahma, and the only thing is to realize that we're as eternal as God itself. In such a case, anyone dying for our sins becomes nonsensical.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

Ok, you are referring to Bhagavad Gita. Geeta and Gita both synonymous. Clarified.

I believe the characters in Mahabharata are semi-divine and the lineage is not directly from Manu unlike men. So Manu Samhita applies to us, but Bhagavad Gita also apply to us because our Atman and Parabrahman is the same. Thus two set of conditions applicable to us. All of us have a Rahu in our Vedic Chart. Only if Rahu stops generating karma in this present life, then can Ketu grant us moksha. Rahu corresopnds to the concept of someone dying for our sins. Ketu is the moksha that we aspire to.

Based on Manu's advice, to get rid of the current life karma in our age or Last Days or Kali Yuga, would be that of believing Jesus Christ died for our sins. Daksha would be for a previous yuga within this kalpha.

[Black Cat]

Dying for someone else's sin isn't possible and is more folklore than spiritual because we are responsible for our individual salvation. We're Parahmatma (Advaita Vedanta) and it's only a matter of realization.

Western religions have a different foundation when it comes to spirituality. India and Greater India has lived under colonization for over 1000 years, which is why I think a lot of cultural events have been borrowed from various traditions.

When you believe in the strict order of Vendanta, you cannot claim that someone else - a greater soul - will land and, "die," for our sins. In Christianity, death is permanent. In the East, death is merely an interlude. There is a thin line between simplification of spirituality and folklore.

Coming to Rahu and Ketu, Jaimini states that a benefic in the 12th house could lead to salvation. In spiritual terms, Ketu is a benefic, so that's correct. But Rahu is the point of fixation - or, material manifestation. So, we can't make Rahu stop, "generating karma." We can use spirituality - Jupiter, Ketu, or even the Moon if adequately placed - to refine our spiritual life.

At the end, spirituality is above and beyond Jyotish.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

As Jyotish is the eyes of the Vedas, everything can be covered by Jyotish. It is the tool that is being passed by the Gods to those who are able to make use of it (whether because they are enlightened or through past lives they have come into contact with these kind of skills before or their forefather have).

Everything in Bhagavad Gita covers for both spiritual and non-spiritual beings ie. man. Manu Samhita covers that for men only. We are men (human beings) so both ancient texts apply to us. I mentioned this already. Your interpretation is purely just based on your own reasoning and nothing else.

Regards
Khoo

[Khoo Hock Leong]

In Vedic Science there is no such thing as Eastern or Western religion. As long as it ties in with the scriptures, that is the true perspective. In fact any phenomenon occuring in this world comes under the lila of Vishnu. It must be interpreted correctly though.

8th house of jyotish is the 9th house from the 12th house of spirituality. 12th stands or falls according to the 8th because the 9th to any house is the sustainer just like the 9th to the Lagna must be good for the overall chart to reap overall rewards ie. to have an overall successful life as represented by the jyotish chart.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

All jyotish charts come with a Rahu. As long as it is there, we have to acknowledge we are sinful. So the jyotish chart also covers the fact that all men are born sinful and Manu Samhita tells us how to deal with this Rahu. Manu is not a jyotisha so he does not call it as Rahu.

All astrological sages of yesteryears why they never mention this aspect of liberation for mankind? I believe that is already understood as per the information given by Manu so the sages did not deem it necessary to repeat themselves when they are talking about jyotish. They are well verse in the whole corpus of vedic science.

[ash2016]

Khoo,
With no offence mean to you; can you compare oranges with apples.
May one poiltely remind you -Lord Krishna , Lord Rama, great saints Adi Shankar , Ramanuja were born men !
So, how can you call them sinful. Unlike west; in eastern texts- Kama (desire) is not treated as sin .
In different chapter of Bhagwad Gita ;Lord emphasises himself as the doer and receptor of fruits ( karta,bhogkarta)
In short, unlike christianity; Hinduism is not a religion but way of life : Dr.Radhakrishnan.
Regards,
Yours,
Ash

[Khoo Hock Leong]

When did I say Lord Krishna and Lord Rama were born sinful???????

They are divine beings as all the characters in the Ramayana and Mahabharata. I did mention that right??????

As for the others, let me just say this Kali Yuga is no different from any other previous Yuga. Prajapathi is the forerunner of men which is Manu. That is what he wrote in his Manu Samhita - and is not so much on Hinduisum but everything comes under the Vedas, the originator of all knowledge which means Vedic Science.

There are saints, siddhis, rishis etc. and there are gods too.

As far as anyone born on this Earth (other than those deities which are born as avatars on Earth) can be considered as men with sin (based on Manu Samhita) and from this we gather it must be because of the presence of Rahu in the chart because Rahu denotes our sinful nature (We are jyotishas aren't we? It does not require a leap of faith to come to this conclusion). Some may be less like Rahu in the 4th according to Lal Kitab, but sinful nevertheless. Who are the avatars? Well each of us would have to judge ourselves based on the Atman (God) that is part of us.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

And it is not so much about Hinduism or Christianity or any religionn.

All knowledge originated from the Vedas and then the rest follows including Manu Samhita. That is why it is called Vedic Science - Santhana Dharma - and Hinduism happened to deviate less from the Vedic path which is why Hinduism is a way of life just like the Vedas is a propounder of the way of life when beings whether men or God was first pure. Nevertheless all scriputral Vedic texts are God's breadth and all assertions in the texts come from God.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

But all the deities are actually from one God. So only the avatar of God is absolved from sin - you can still consider all the deities as different Gods if that is what your mind is comfortable with. Santhana dharma allows for that.