raghu

We really aren't making much effort to grasp the obvious today, are we? The Bible has been changed over the years. This is an obvious fact to anyone who has bothered to study the subject even superficially, and even Christian scholars will admit to it when pressed. However, feel free to continue proposing the absurd. If you truly believe that the Bible we have today is the original one, despite the multiple different editions and versions to date, then that is your right. Murali, if you truly are a Vaishnava, then you should already know the answer to that question. If your guru couldn't trouble himself to explain the ABC's of Vaishnava Vedanta to you, then what kind of guru is he?

How strange. You seem to "know" that I am a bigot and that what I say is wrong. I guess what you mean is that if *you* believe in something, then you "know" it, but those of us who disagree with you can't "know" anything in reality, right?

Do you want to provide evidence for your statement, or are we supposed to draw conclusions based on hearsay?

Here is an example of why some individuals really need to be more compliant with their attention-deficit medication before they presume to post. Theist earlier wrote in this very same thread, and I quote: "The Bible while containing many God conscious passages is also heavily mixed with much specualtion. I had a Jehovah witness lady last week show me a verse from the Old Testament that clearly stated that at death there is no after life until the Lord comes to bring people back to life for the Judgment. This was her answer to my belief in reincarnation. As the saying goes, "too many cooks spoil the broth", and the Bible has too many authors or more precisely too many authors offering differing and unenlightened speculations on such topics as the self etc." As in, he just clearly stated that the Bible has been corrupted over the years by the adulterations of other individuals. But when I say the same thing, he wants proof? Some people are just hopelessly confused, but despite that, they just have to argue and disagree, not because they have something intelligent to contribute, but just for the sake of arguing.

A lot of tangential and frankly irrelevant postings here... The basic point that no one addressed is that a given scripture's validity cannot be established by the "pick and choose" mentality of the christian-vaishnava syncretists. Either the scripture is beyond all flaws, and is thus independently authoritative, or it has some corruptions/adulterations/flaws in which case all of it is at least suspect. It's not a question of being a paramahamsa. It's a question of what is pramana and how you know that something is correct. This is a simple and elementary point, but once again the confusion resulting from your (possibly deliberate) attempts to obfuscate the issue do nothing to help these people shed their misconceptions.

And of course, someone who is comparably clueless will inevitably chime in with the "jnani" remark. This may sound odd to you, but they see that as an insult of sorts. To them, "jnani" means "mayavadi." So, in essence, you and I are going to be called mayavadis because we have pointed out their inconsistency on determining correct knowledge from a given source. The corollary being that if you simply pick and choose what you want to be correct, and that too from a source of information you acknowledge to have been adulterated over the years, then you are a Vaishnava and not a mayavadi. I know it doesn't make sense to you. Try standing upside down and then see how it looks.

As you can see, Theist did not understand the real "purport" of your question. If my experience is any indication, no one else here will get it either, and they will just repeat more or less what Theist just wrote. The problem is that they don't have any standard of determining valid knowledge - it's whatever they want it to be. They will even quote pramanas out of context that seem to support this "selective pick and choose" mentality. Actually, Theist just did that too.

Is English not your first language? I said that his message had been "corrupted" - meaning, interpolated, adulterated, tainted, etc by the unauthorized interventions by other individuals down the ages. This is an undisputed fact, and even the iskcon intellgentsia on this very thread agreed with it. QED the Bible is not a valid pramana and any religion based on such invalid pramanas is also invalid.

In response to my question about how you know that what you say is right, you wrote: To me, you and the Hare Krishnas seem to have a lot in common, not the least of which is your propensity to articulate religious views without any obvious attempt to authenticate them on the basis of some mutually-accepted standard of evidence. Is the strength of your belief system rooted firmly in the idea that because they do it, then so will you?

This is a very verbose answer to what was a very simple question. Perhaps I need to be more clear. The question, simplified, is this - how do you know that what you assert to be true is in fact correct?

No, the Vedic tradition is not classified in such a manner. Only the Puranas are. Their authority is only valid to the extent that they uphold the conclusions of the shruti. You are going off tangent here. We were talking about how the Biblical god curses people who don't worship him, sends plagues to kill their first born, made warnings about his jealousy if they worship other gods, etc etc and you claimed these were all lies told to "control the population." My point is that these "lies" have taught the followers of Biblical tradition to be aggressively expansionistic and to uproot all non-Biblical traditions, for that is the logical result of being told that their god is a jealous god who demands, on pain of violence, that he be given exclusive worship. Are you really going to sit here and claim that Sri Vishnu arranged for these people to hear these things for their own good? That He didn't know their descendents would use this to go and start attacking all other religions? Come on. Maybe in *your* own tradition, perhaps - like the "well motivated lie" to the effect that Jesus is a pure devotee of Krishna? Historically, the teachings of the Bible united several Greco-Mediterranean subcultures and gave them a philosophical impetus to take to a program of aggressive socio-political domination of the known world, all in the name of spreading their faith. Is it likely that the all-knowing, compassionate and impartial Sri Hari gave them these teachings by which they then proceeded to terrorize and destroy much older religious cultures (including Vaishnavism)? Or is it more likely that some other entity who was wrongly deified as "God" did this? I think that any intelligent person who deliberates on this objectively will think the latter.

Dear Tantra guy, You obviously have some issues with Hare Krishna people. That, and you can't seem to keep your fingers off the exclamation mark key. I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava, so I am not going to get into all of that. All I want to know is, when you make statements like this - ... on what pramana are you basing it? Is it merely your own opinion, and you want to us to accept it on that basis? Or is there some other evidence to substantiate this?

What a strange theory, given the fact that such "well motivated lies" did nothing to control Christians from spreading all over the globe and uprooting all other religions in their path. Whatever the rationale, if a given source of information gives any false information, then all of it is necessarily suspect. Thus the entire scripture becomes unacceptable as a valid means to proper knowlege. Which again speaks to the point of the validity of the religion which is based on it.

That is one of the points I had made earlier - several times in fact. It would seem to be an obvious, logical problem with the idea that the Biblical god is the same as Sri Vishnu. Unfortunately, all I got in response was some innuendo to the effect that I was a misguided Hindu who could not understand that God is one, etc etc and that obviously these two are the same God (despite all the evidence to the contrary). And then there were the numerous digressions, ad hominem attacks, blatant insults, etc.

Oh, ok. As long as you think it then....

There is nothing about this mantra that contradicts the Vaishnava point of view. When the shrutis refer to Brahman by such anya-devata names such as Indra, Agni, etc then these references can only be properly understood to refer to Vishnu. Vishnu does have many names, and these include some names that are also names of other deities. Therefore context is important. One cannot argue that anya-devatas are different forms of Vishnu because even elsewhere in shruti the deva-taratamya (hierarchy of dieties) with Vishnu at the top is upheld.

In order to accuse someone of running from an idea, you must first develop the attention-span necessary to follow an idea in the brief period of time in which it is moved from one posting to another within a thread, a stage of cognitive development which roughly corresponds with that of mid-adolescence. If you had been paying more attention, you would have grasped the point which has already been articulated here several times in painstakingly-clear English, that *no one* objectively speaking knows the historic Jesus or his teachings. All of his alleged teachings which have been passed down to us have been corrupted over time, a fact which your friends Thiest et. al. repeatedly acknowledged on this very thread. And yet, in defiance of all of logic, you continue to invoke ideas about Jesus and the "real" Christianity that are based on the very sources which you acknowledge to be corrupted in the first place. It is precisely because you and other new-agers continue to display this sort of confused thinking (and worse yet, try to pass it off as "Vaishnavism") that all true Vaishnavas should feel duty-bound to correct your ludicrous ideas. Yes, we know. Too much thinking and too little blind following is evil, or some such thing. I heard you the first time... and the second and the third....

Whatever one thinks of the Bible, it is a fact that Christianity is based on the Bible. If one argues that Christianity is valid in some sense then it follows that the Bible must be a valid pramana in some sense. If the Bible is corrupted and interpolated over the years (an idea which I have no problem with as it's consistent with what I know on the subject) then this invalidates Christianity as a "bona fide religion." If it is argued that there is some real Christianity somewhere and sometime then the reasonable question is, what is the evidence? We can say all we want about Jesus really being a great chap but without evidence it is all hearsay. Jahnava Nitai Das, Something I feel very comfortable telling you, and which I think you will accept if you think it over objectively, is that you cannot pass judgement on a given culture's view on human rights by looking at just the last few centuries and without due regard to the whole context of the socio-economic-political spectrum. For the last 10 centuries India (like most of the "third world") has been a civilization in decline, being the subject of numerous invasions which robbed it of its wealth and replaced it with a ruling class that is totally uneducated in dharma. America, on the other hand, got where it was by stamping out every indigenous tribe that stood in its way. There weren't any "civilized and humanitarian" men who managed to stop the near-total genocide of indigenous peoples in North America. It's all very nice and good for one civilization to plunder another and then point fingers at the desperation of its people. Bad people are everywhere. Certainly there are some good people who are Christians and bad people who call themselves Hindu. But since the discussion is about the validity of the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, etc, I'm really not sure what this has to do with it.

I am initiated, and that post was obviously a light-hearted jab. I'm not sure how it implies that I am not initiated, but then again like gHari's I find your thought process rather disconnected and difficult to follow.

The title of this thread is "Vaisnava Bible Study - Is Jesus Vaisnava?" Accordingly, we will discuss both subjects, namely the study of the Bible from a Vaishnava perspective as well as the matter of Jesus's alleged identity as a "Vaishnava." Many points have already been brought up refuting the latter, and beyond the usual ad hominem attacks and sentimental reasoning, no substantial reasoning or evidence has been provided by the new-age/iskcon purva-pakshins to support it. I will therefore revisit that subject after discussing the first matter - namely the Bible from a Vaishnava perspective, and more specifically the Biblical "God" from a Vaishnava perspective. I will continue to provide exact references with due regard to context in the Bible (including the Old Testament) that show how this "God" behaves in ways that are completely out of character for a devotee of Vishnu or even Sri Vishnu Himself. Another example of this occurs in Exodus 32.27-35. It is explained here how the Israelites finally reach Mt Sinai, and becoming impatient with Moses' long absence, they fashion an icon of a golden calf and start worshipping it. God threatens to kill all of them for this behavior and only relents when Moses convince him to. Then we have the following: Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin." So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin." And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made. From the above, we can clearly see that the Biblical "God" uses wanton violence to ensure purity of his religious teachings, which forbid idol (or icon) worship of any kind. Some misinformed iskconites may try to compare this to Sri Krishna ordering Arjuna to fight in the Battle of Kurukshetra, but this comparison is not valid for the following reasons: 1 - The people who died in Kurukshetra war were kshatriyas - fighting for them was a matter of duty and they were required to fight on behalf of their leige. By contrast, the Israelites were non-combatants and former slaves who had followed Moses on the promise that their "God" would free the from captivity. 2 - The Kurukshetra war was being fought to uproot a corrupt king who was guilty of usurping the throne, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit rape. Many warriors lost their lives in the ensuing battle, but there is no record of any civilians or non-combatants being targetted. Even those warriors who were slain all got liberation (if you believe the testimony of the Bhagavata). By contrast, the slaughter of 3000 Hebrews was ordered by the Biblical "God" because the Hebrews lost faith in their "God" and turned to "idol worship." And this "God" does not grant them salvation; he vindictively writes them out of his plan for the Israelites. 3 - While Sri Krishna clearly does not agree with anya-deva worship, He does not command anyone to take up arms against someone solely because they are not His devotees. Why should He, when He is very clear that anya-devata worship leads to different results? But the Biblical "God" is very jealous of his position and will not co-exist with any other religious beliefs, right or wrong.

And once again, to illustrate the principle of the Judeo-Christian "God's" partiality, we have this passage from Exodus 11.4-8: So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. Does Sri Vishnu play racial or ethnic favorites? Please feel free to consult the original text for better appreciation of the context.

Another statement that illustrates the principle that the Judeo-Christian god is partial and cruel is this passage from Exodus 10.1-2: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD." Essentially, the Judeo-Christian "God" is telling Moses once again that he manipulated the will of the Egyptian leaders so that he could torture the people of Egypt. Once again, let us be clear on the relationships - - "God" sends Moses to demand the Israelites' release from Pharaoh - "God" hardens Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses - "God" then sends a plague which terrorizes the people of Egypt - "God" again sends Moses to demand the Israelites' release from Pharaoh - "God" again hardens Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses - "God" again sends another plague which again terrorizes the people of Egypt ... ad nauseum "God" sends Moses -- "God" makes Pharaoh refuse Moses -- "God" indiscriminately kills Egyptian women and children (but never Pharaoh) Does this sound like the same para Brahman Sri Krishna who Himself became the chariot driver of Arjuna, or who released Gajendra from the grip of the crocodile, or who greeted the lowly Sudhama Brahmana like a friend with tears of divine joy? As always, deliberate on the points objectively. Feel free also to consult the original text for fuller appreciation of the Biblical context.

This remark is a sterling example of how your (iskcon?) concept of epistemology is more akin to that of Christianity or Islam than it is to Vaishnavism, including Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The Vaishnava concept of shabda-pramana has nothing to do with "mis-copied, mis-translated, and mis-interpreted words on paper," which you ought to know if you really studied Vaishnava philosophy. Acceptance of an individual's testimony on the grounds that he is a "prophet" or "pure devotee" requires additional assumptions about that individual's character and motives which one cannot readily determine objectively. This form of faith-acceptance is not a characteristic of Vaishnava Vedanta.

Caitanya Caritamrta is not apaurusheya-vakya. It was written by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Why would non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept it? Would you accept Divya Prabandham? Doubtful. What makes him out of place on this forum? There are forum members who profess to be attached to Gaudiya Vaishnavism but disagree with Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas and call some GV Swamis as "foolish,ignorant," and so on. Then there are all the Christians, Muslims, mayavadis, new-agers, etc.

The "personality of Kali" was also given favor by the Lord's devotee Maharaja Parikshit. Should we therefore accept Kali as a pure devotee and a shakti-avesha avatara? Buddha was given favor by the Lord to mislead and delude the naastikas. Should we therefore say that Buddhism has its own special validity, even though Buddhists reject all notions of atman and reject the authority of the Vedas? By your own logic Mohammed must have gotten favor of the Lord. After all, he united the various and sundry tribes of Arabia under the premise of a single god and a single religious doctrine. How can just anyone do that? Should we say that his way is valid in some sense, even when he leads his people to destroy other people's places of worship and take their women into sexual slavery?