Jesus in the Vedas

[Guest guest]

An article from gosai.com site!

 

A recent flurry of articles and website postings have been made to

indicate that the fable of Jesus is mentioned in the Vedas [bhavisya

Purana]. Many Vaisnavas have been enthused [confused] by these Vedic

findings, confirming Jesus as a messenger of God [Krsna] and a pure

devotee. However, a closer look at the prediction of Jesus found in

the Bhavisya Purana strongly suggests foul play or interpolation on

the part of Christian Missionaries in India during the late 18th

century.

 

Although the Bhavisya Purana is certainly a bona-fide literature, its

predictions concerning certain events cannot be taken as absolute

because of evangelical interference.

 

The Bhavisya Purana is considered to be one of the major 18 Puranas

of the Vedic canon. As the name suggests, it mainly deals with future

events (bhaviysati). The Bhavisya Purana is also mentioned in the

ancient text of the Apastambha-dharma-sutras, so it is to be taken as

an original Puranic literature dating from the time of Vyasadeva.

 

However, there are four known editions of the Bhavisya Purana, each

having different predictions from the other, but suspiciously having

one consistent prediction - that of Jesus.

 

One edition contains five chapters, one contains four, another

contains three and yet another contains only two. Additionally, the

contents in all four editions differ in various degrees - some having

extra verses and some having less. Due to these circumstances, it is

difficult to ascertain which of the four is the original text of the

Bhavisya Purana, if indeed an original text still exists, but

suspiciously all four editions do mention Jesus.

 

The Venkateswar Steam Press edition of the Bhavisya Purana printed in

Bombay in 1829 (and reprinted by Nag Publishers in 2003) is probably

the most complete version available, containing all the main features

of the four manuscripts. Since none of the four editions of the

Bhavisya Purana predate British Rule in India, this further suggests

a discrepancy, plus the fact that all four versions mention Jesus.

 

The consistent prophecy in all four editions that seems to indicate

an interpolation concerns the so-called meeting of Maharaja

Salivahana and Jesus. This is found in the 19th chapter of the

Pratisarga-parva. However, in examining this section, certain flaws

can be found which betray its dubious origins. The section begins

thus:

 

vikramaditya-pautrasca

pitr-rajyam grhitavan

jitva sakanduradharsams

cina-taittiridesajan

 

bahlikankamarupasca

romajankhurajanchhatan

tesam kosan-grhitva ca

danda-yogyanakarayat

 

sthapita tena maryada

mleccharyanam prthak-prthak

sindhusthanam iti jneyam

rastramaryasya cottamam

 

mlecchasthanam param sindhoh

krtam tena mahatmana

ekada tu sakadiso

himatungam samayayau

 

"Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of

Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the

Sakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from

Tittiri, Bahlikas and the people of Kamarupa. He also defeated the

people from Roma and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and

wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana

thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of

the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to be known

as the greatest country. That great personality appointed the abode

of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu River and to the west. One time,

that subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga (the Himalayas)."

(19.19-22)

 

At the very outset, this section is fraught with historical

inaccuracies. Salivahana was the king of Ujjain (in modern day Madhya

Pradesh), and while it is not surprising that Salivahana traveled to

the Himalayas, the enemies that he supposedly vanquished in battle

before he went, should be looked into more thoroughly. Historical

research tells us that the only invading force that Salivahana

actually subdued were the Sakas, who entered India from the

north-west regions. But as for his defeating the Cinas (Chinese),

Bahlikas (Bactrians), Kamarupas (Assamese), Romas (Romans) and the

Khurus (Khorasans, or Persians), there is no historical evidence that

validates Salivahana doing this, nor is their any historical proof of

the Romans and the Chinese ever invading India. The Bactrians

(Greeks) came earlier during the Gupta Period and the Persians

(Moguls) came later. The people of Assam were simply a small

hill-tribe during this period of Indian history [conquering which

would not have warranted Vedic verse]. The text continues:

 

hunadesasya madhye vai

giristhan purusam subham

dadarsa balabanraja

gaurangam sveta-vastrakam

 

"In the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesa - the area near Manasa

Sarovara or Kailasa mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw

an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man's complexion

was golden and his clothes were white." (19:22)

 

After Salivahana defeated the Sakas he established his empire, thus

the Salivahana period of Indian history began, circa 78 CE. According

to this apparently interpolated section of the Bhavisya Purana, at

some point after establishing his kingdom, Salivahana traveled to the

Himalayas and met Jesus. Yet Christian scholars opine that Jesus was

born in 4 BCE and was crucified somewhere between 27 and 36 CE. If we

entertain the idea that Christ somehow survived the crucifixion and

met Salivahana in the Himalayas, this would make him around 80 years

old at that time. Yet surprisingly, the description of Jesus in the

Bhavisya Purana does not mention that he was an old man.

 

The text continues with Salivahana asking Jesus, "Who are you?" to

which Jesus replies:

 

isa-putram mam viddhi

kumari-garbha sambhavam

 

"I am the Son of God (isa-putra) and I am born of a virgin

(kumari-garbha)."(19:23)

 

The idea common amongst Christians that Jesus was born of a virgin

only came into existence several centuries after Jesus and was not

part of early Christianity. Thus, it is unlikely that Jesus would

have spoken of his birth as such.

 

The Christian idea that Jesus was born of a virgin is based on the

following verse found in the Christian version of the Old Testament

in the Book of Isaiah:

 

"Behold, a virgin has conceived and bears a son and she will call his

name Immanuel."

 

However, the original Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah does not

mention anything about a virgin:

 

hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel

 

"Behold, the young woman has conceived - and bears a son and calls

his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)

 

The Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah' yet it appears nowhere in

this verse of Isaiah. The word used is 'almah' which simply means 'a

young woman'. Isaiah only uses 'almah' once. However, the word

'Betulah' is used five times throughout the Book of Isaiah, so Isaiah

obviously made a distinction between these two words.

 

After Jesus has introduced himself to Salivahana he explains that he

is teaching religion in the distant land of the Mlecchas and tells

the king what those teachings are:

 

mlecchasa sthapito dharmo

maya tacchrnu bhupate

manasam nirmalam krtva

malam dehe subhasubham

 

naigamam japamasthaya

japeta nirmalam param

nyayena satyavacasaa

manasyaikena manavah

 

dhyanena pujayedisam

surya-mandala-samsthitam

acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-

atha suryocalah sada

 

"Please hear from me, O King, about the religion that I have

established amongst the Mlecchas. The mind should be purified by

taking recourse of proper conduct, since we are subject to auspicious

and inauspicious contaminations - by following the scriptures and

concentrating on japa (repetition of God's names) one will attain the

highest level of purity; by speaking true words and by mental

harmony, and by meditation and worship, O descendant of Manu. Just as

the immovable sun attracts from all directions the elements of all

living beings, the Lord who resides in the Surya-mandala (sun globe)

and is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living

creatures." (19:28-30)

 

Nowhere in the Gospels do we find in the ministry of Jesus the above

teachings to his followers. Furthermore, in this passage, Jesus is

advocating the worship of the Sun-god (again, something that is

absent in his instructions to the apostles). Japa, meditation, the

negation of both good and bad karma, are all concepts that are

familiar to eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but not

to the Abrahamic religions of the west.

 

Considering the above anomalies and the fact that no edition of the

Bhavisya Purana can be found prior to the British period in India, we

can only deduce that the Bhavisya Purana was tampered with by the

Christian missionaries who added the chapter on Jesus. Their motive

is obvious - to make the personality of Jesus acceptable to the

Hindus, in order to convert them to Christianity.

 

In 1784, the famous Indologist Sir William Jones wrote the following

letter to Sir Warren Hastings, Governor General of India, confirming

our suspicions.

 

"As to the general extension of our pure faith in Hindoostan there

are at present many sad obstacles to it... We may assure ourselves,

that Hindoos will never be converted by any mission from the church

of Rome, or from any other church; and the only human mode, perhaps,

of causing so great a revolution, will be to translate into

Sanscrit... such chapters of the Prophets, particularly of ISAIAH, as

are indisputably evangelical, together with one of the gospels, and a

plain prefatory discourse, containing full evidence of the very

distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the history of

the Divine Person (Jesus) is predicted, were severally made public

and then quietly to disperse the work among the well-educated

natives." (Asiatic Researches Vol. 1. Published 1979, pages 234-235.

First published 1788).

 

It may also be noted that throughout the Pratisarga-parva of the

Bhavisya Purana we find the stories of Adam and Eve (Adhama and

Havyavati), Noah (Nyuha), Moses (Musa), and other Biblical

characters. These we also consider to be added by zealous Christians.

 

In conclusion, the Bhavisya Purana may well be a genuine Vedic

scripture prophesying future events, but from the above analysis we

can say with certainty that the Jesus episode of the Bhavisya Purana

is not an authentic Vedic revelation.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote:

>

> An article from gosai.com site!

>

> A recent flurry of articles and website postings have been made to

> indicate that the fable of Jesus is mentioned in the Vedas [bhavisya

> Purana]. Many Vaisnavas have been enthused [confused] by these Vedic

> findings, confirming Jesus as a messenger of God [Krsna] and a pure

> devotee. However, a closer look at the prediction of Jesus found in

> the Bhavisya Purana strongly suggests foul play or interpolation on

> the part of Christian Missionaries in India during the late 18th

> century.

 

I'm glad someone has finally decided to take a stand on this. I for

one feel that the whole "Jesus is a pure devotee" thing has been blown

way out of proportion. Perhaps he is indeed a pure devotee, but I

don't think Srila Prabhupada's statements on the subject were meant to

create a whole new philosophy out of it. His statements to that effect

probably helped him to introduce the concept of "pure devotee," but he

never installed Jesus murthis in his temples or directed his devotees

to do the same. Small wonder that, since proving that Jesus is an

occult Krishna worshipper requires evidence that simply does not

exist.

 

Yet there are devotees who are making extremely absurd extrapolations

based on this. This includes such ideas as: (1) Christianity is a bona

fide religion, different but equal to Vaishnavism (Bhaktivinod Thakura

explicitly disagress with this notion in his _Tattva Viveka) and (2)

Sinful acts committed by Christians (i.e. eating of beef) are to be

pardoned since theirs is a bona fide religion -- we cannot judge them

by our "Hindu" standards (by this logic even concepts like

vegetarianism and the sanctity of the cow are only sectarian, Hindu

beliefs -- absolutely ridiculous). In fact, it seems to me that this

attempt to validate Christianity in terms of Krishna-conscious

principles supports the movement to Westernize and secularize Krishna-

consciousness. Let us consider - if Christianity is a bona fide

religion, and Christian societies allow their children to date, are

forgiving towards divorce, make concocted institutions for homosexual

marriages, have a standard of going to church/temple in pants and so

on, then we also should take a page from their book and do the same.

In fact, there are devotees who are already doing this, but it seems

to me that the whole "Christianity is just Krishna-consciousness for a

different time and place" just feeds into their propaganda for

watering down the Vedic culture that Srila Prabhupada wanted to

propagate.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

>> However, a closer look at the prediction of Jesus found in

>> the Bhavisya Purana strongly suggests foul play or interpolation

>> on the part of Christian Missionaries in India during the late 18th

>> century.

>>>> I'm glad someone has finally decided to take a stand on this.

 

Outside the Bible, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed.

Absolutely none. And Bible is full of contradictions about Jesus.

There is ample evidence that early Church concocted evidence about

Jesus. Until today, the Church continues to reinvent itself to

evangelize.

 

Looks like it is very difficult to do a crime without leaving a trace.

While truth is simple and indestructible, lie is creative and

transient - destroyed by knowledge. When BP statement was flung at me

in defence of ISKCON stance on Jesus, I looked at it and understood

its internal contradictions. Even those who cannot get over the myth

of Jesus concede that he could not be the personality depicted in the

Bible.

 

Srila Prabhupada did not claim to be God or omniscient. There is no

reason to say that a pure devotee has to be an expert in all quantum

mechanics, nanotechnology, rock climbing, all schools of thought,

history, ballet, astronomy and investment banking. But ISKCON devotees

tend to extrapolate his statements beyond limit. Why cant we stay sane

and focus on Krishna Consciousness that he taught?

[Guest guest]

> Outside the Bible, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed.

> Absolutely none. And Bible is full of contradictions about Jesus.

> There is ample evidence that early Church concocted evidence about

> Jesus. Until today, the Church continues to reinvent itself to

> evangelize.

>

Dear Prabhus,

I am not sure that the "Jesus never existed" is a very strong argument.

Outside of the Vedas, there is no evidence that so many (most) of the great

personalities existed either. Isn't it taught that the Vedas are

mythological? In fact, there is no empirical evidence that some of

Prabhupada's disciples "existed" though of course they did. But such is the

way in the begining of things; and oral traditions. As for the early Church

and doctoring of teachings, why only Christianity? Didn't Lord Buddha

descend due to the brahmanas having so polluted the Vedas? Also, many

consider that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta "reinvented" Gaudiya Vaisnavism; some

even consider that Lord Chaitanya reinvented Vaisnavism.

 

> Looks like it is very difficult to do a crime without leaving a trace.

> While truth is simple and indestructible, lie is creative and

> transient - destroyed by knowledge. When BP statement was flung at me

> in defence of ISKCON stance on Jesus, I looked at it and understood

> its internal contradictions. Even those who cannot get over the myth

> of Jesus concede that he could not be the personality depicted in the

> Bible.

> ...But ISKCON devotees tend to extrapolate his statements beyond limit.

> Why cant we stay sane

and focus on Krishna Consciousness that he taught?

 

Part of the Krishna Consciousness he taught (perhaps not the

over-extrapolations to which you refer) was to help others understand in the

proper light fundamental spiritual principles such as 'Thou Shall Not Kill'.

In doing so, he never taught that Jesus "did not exist".

 

ys,

Shanti Parayana dasa

[Guest guest]

I am not sure that the "Jesus never existed" is a very strong

argument. Outside of the Vedas, there is no evidence that so many

(most) of the great personalities existed either. Isn't it taught

that the Vedas are mythological? In fact, there is no empirical

evidence that some of Prabhupada's disciples "existed" though of

course they did. But such is the way in the begining of things; and

oral traditions.

 

There is empirical evidence for existence of vedic personalities who

existed in this age. There can be none for the previous ages. In

Jesus case, there is lack of evidence for existence and and ample

evidence for concoction.

 

> As for the early Church and doctoring of teachings, why only

> Christianity? Didn't Lord Buddha descend due to the brahmanas

> having so polluted the Vedas?

 

 

Brahmins are easy targets for holier than thou attacks. But where is

the evidence that brahmanas polluted the vedas and buddha rescued

the vedas? There is no sastric evidence nor historical. It is a

beleif. In ISKCON, Dallas they have stated that brahamans were anti-

caitanya. But when I asked them where is the evidence, they had no

answer. Even if some brahmanas are polluted, until today it is the

brahmanas who are preserving vedic chanting, temple worship and

vedanta amidst attacks from atheists, other religions and

some "bhagavathas", if we may call them so.

 

> Also, many consider that Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta "reinvented" Gaudiya Vaisnavism; some

> even consider that Lord Chaitanya reinvented Vaisnavism.

 

They can say those things as long as they are dont feel obligated to

provide evidence. All analysis shows that there is a continous

lineage and BSST did not modify any of the core teachings.

Incorporating customs from Sri Vaishnava tradition was an explicit

act.

 

> In doing so, he never taught that Jesus "did not exist".

 

IMO, Srila Prabhupada is pure devotee of the lord because he

dedicated himself completely to the lord. A pure devotee need not be

omniscient though ISKCON devotees would like to super-impose the

inerrancy argument of semitic faiths on bhagavatha tradition. He

believed that Jesus existed. But such a statement does not have

sastric support. He believed that Krishna is the parabrahman,

glorified in the Vedas. Such as statement has sastric support. We

accept whatever he said that is in line with sastras.

 

We can disagree with his opinion on the distance of the moon but

still consider him glorious for his service / realization of

Krishna. This may be difficult to digest for the current generation

of fundamentalists but they will come around to reality.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> There is empirical evidence for existence of vedic personalities

who

> existed in this age. There can be none for the previous ages. In

> Jesus case, there is lack of evidence for existence and and ample

> evidence for concoction.

 

I would probably have to agree with Shanti on this one. I wouldn't

take the "Jesus never existed" approach, personally. At least, I

would not start with that. It feels like doing to them what they have

historically done to us. I would, however, be prepared to subject the

historicity of their prophet to the same level of scrutiny should

they initiate it with me in regards to Lord Krishna or some other

aspect of Vaishnava history.

 

> > As for the early Church and doctoring of teachings, why only

> > Christianity? Didn't Lord Buddha descend due to the brahmanas

> > having so polluted the Vedas?

>

>

> Brahmins are easy targets for holier than thou attacks. But where

is

> the evidence that brahmanas polluted the vedas and buddha rescued

> the vedas? There is no sastric evidence nor historical.

 

On this point, I would agree with Ram. My first objection may be

purely a matter of semantics. No one can pollute the Vedas because

the Vedas are eternal, spiritual sound. So no point in blaming anyone

for "polluting" them.

 

Prabhupada's view is that the Buddha descended because of rampant

abuse of animal sacrifices found in the Vedas. Yet the Buddha did not

teach bhaagavata-dharma, and Vaishnavas do not customarily worship

Buddha. We must be cautious about reading too much into such things.

I have definitely got the impression that many Marxist propagandists

like to cast people like Buddha or Chaitanya into the role of "social

reformers" who had to rescue Indian society from the "evil,

exploitive brahmin caste." Doubtless there may have been brahmins who

were impious and unable to lead society. Yet it would be unfair to

take issue with the entire class and possibly neglect to acknowledge

good brahmanas too.

 

It is a

> beleif. In ISKCON, Dallas they have stated that brahamans were anti-

> caitanya. But when I asked them where is the evidence, they had no

> answer. Even if some brahmanas are polluted, until today it is the

> brahmanas who are preserving vedic chanting, temple worship and

> vedanta amidst attacks from atheists, other religions and

> some "bhagavathas", if we may call them so.

 

The common points here being piety and humility. The genuine devotees

and the genuine braahmanas are distinguished by the fact that they

generally don't show up on our radar since they just quietly go about

doing their duty, often in poverty. They don't have websites or

business cards, but they do have potency. We tend to see and hear

only the corrupted ones who are intimately associated with modern

technology, because the modern media has given them an audience

without requiring any specific qualification from them.

 

> > In doing so, he never taught that Jesus "did not exist".

>

> IMO, Srila Prabhupada is pure devotee of the lord because he

> dedicated himself completely to the lord. A pure devotee need not

be

> omniscient though ISKCON devotees would like to super-impose the

> inerrancy argument of semitic faiths on bhagavatha tradition. He

> believed that Jesus existed. But such a statement does not have

> sastric support. He believed that Krishna is the parabrahman,

> glorified in the Vedas. Such as statement has sastric support. We

> accept whatever he said that is in line with sastras.

 

If you want to know my view on this, and it really is just my

opinion....

 

Srila Prabhupada has said that Jesus is a pure devotee. The

term "pure devotee" can mean many things, and it is quite conceivable

that there is a lot about Jesus we do not know. Perhaps he was in

fact some empowered demigod who tried to elevate some mlecchas.

 

However, the point remains that we cannot prove these things if

scrutinized, and thus we should avoid trying to create an entire

siddhaanta out of statements that were spoken in the context of

interfaith preaching. Especially in the context of Jesus, the danger

is that people in ISKCON take the "pure devotee" statements out of

context and begin extrapolating things like: Christianity is just

bhaagavata-dharma for a different time/place/circumstance, that Vedic

restrictions not present in Christianity are purely optional (like

sanctity of the cow), that Christianity has equal ability to deliver

one from the clutches of birth and death. In fact, there are many

inconsistencies with Christianity, and it's difficult to accept the

religion as it is. Perhaps that is why so many devotees try to

reinterpret it in a way that better suits them, but then they do this

also without regard for evidence.

 

> We can disagree with his opinion on the distance of the moon but

> still consider him glorious for his service / realization of

> Krishna. This may be difficult to digest for the current generation

> of fundamentalists but they will come around to reality.

 

I am inclined not to be too bothered about things like moon distance

and so on, simply because I think the Bhaagavata's cosmology is not

meant to be something that fits in with our modern 3D paradigm. That

is not to say that it is not true, but rather that we lack the

material vision to understand in what sense it is true. The same goes

with statements by Srila Prabhupada in which he attempts to follow

the Bhaagavatam's point of view literally. I welcome that literalism

for now, but I suggest that perhaps we aren't exactly well suited to

understanding it at present.

 

One thing you should be aware of is that there is a camp of people in

ISKCON who say as you do that we should not take Prabhupada too

literally when it comes to material subjects. Only the problem is,

they don't stop there, but continue that line of reasoning with

regards to Srila Prabhupada's social views, which encompass

everything from gender relations, dress and customs, everyday

behavior, etc (which they argue is also material). They also say that

Prabhupada is pure devotee but that we shouldn't take his attempts

to "Indianize" the Krishna-conscious society too seriously.

Conversely they argue that "Vedic" culture is actually something

different than all these "Indian" things Srila Prabhupada would have

us do. I mostly find these individuals to be secularists in devotees'

clothing who do not appreciate the value of culture in fostering

Krishna-consciousness. And I don't agree with their underlying view

that Srila Prabhupada's material vision was compromised by influence

of the three modes. Somehow, I doubt you would agree with them

either. Perhaps this does necessitate a clear-cut discussion as to

the significance of pure devotion with regard to knowledge and how it

is acquired.

[Guest guest]

-

"v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram

<achintya>

Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:53 AM

Re: Jesus in the Vedas

 

 

>

> There is empirical evidence for existence of vedic personalities who

> existed in this age. There can be none for the previous ages. In

> Jesus case, there is lack of evidence for existence and and ample

> evidence for concoction.

 

So apparently you accept that there is no empirical evidence for the

existence for anything Vedic in previous ages which according to your own

arguments would render pre-Modern Age sashtra and sadhu as bogus. Yet, you

cite sashtra as the way to know truth. Obviously a contradiction. The

descending process of recieving knowledge is preferable to the

ascending/empiric process, at least according to the Vedas - this Vedic

viewpoint is empirically unprovable - yet you seem to

>

>> As for the early Church and doctoring of teachings, why only

>> Christianity? Didn't Lord Buddha descend due to the brahmanas

>> having so polluted the Vedas?

>

>

> Brahmins are easy targets for holier than thou attacks.

 

So apparently are Christians.

 

>But where is the evidence that brahmanas polluted the vedas and buddha

>rescued

> the vedas? There is no sastric evidence nor historical. It is a beleif.

 

What difference does it make now that it has been decided by your belief

that without empirical evidence Lord Buddha never existed anyway???

 

>In ISKCON, Dallas they have stated that brahamans were anti-

> caitanya. But when I asked them where is the evidence, they had no

> answer. Even if some brahmanas are polluted, until today it is the

> brahmanas who are preserving vedic chanting, temple worship and

> vedanta amidst attacks from atheists, other religions and

> some "bhagavathas", if we may call them so.

 

Yes, I think this is a good point that just because some brahmanas rejected

Lord Chaitanya (as some do so today), it does not necessarily follow that

all brahmanas did so. Especially as so many became His followers (even

though there is no empiric proof of these conversions, perhaps we could bend

the rules in the spirit of agreement....). Just like, for example, just

because some ISKCON devotees claim or infer that all brahmans rejected Lord

Chaitanya, it does not necessarily follow that all ISKCON devotees claim so.

 

>> In doing so, he never taught that Jesus "did not exist".

>

> IMO, Srila Prabhupada is pure devotee of the lord because he

> dedicated himself completely to the lord. A pure devotee need not be

> omniscient though ISKCON devotees would like to super-impose the

> inerrancy argument of semitic faiths on bhagavatha tradition. He

> believed that Jesus existed. But such a statement does not have

> sastric support. He believed that Krishna is the parabrahman,

> glorified in the Vedas. Such as statement has sastric support. We

> accept whatever he said that is in line with sastras.

>

 

Again, neither the sashtra nor your opinion have empiric support - a

criteria you have established for proof.

 

> We can disagree with his opinion on the distance of the moon but

> still consider him glorious for his service / realization of

> Krishna. This may be difficult to digest for the current generation

> of fundamentalists but they will come around to reality.

>

 

As for labeling everyone who disagrees with your non-empiric opinion a

fundamentalist, this quote comes to mind: "A great many people think they

are thinking when they are merely rearranging their PREJUDICEs." Edward R.

Murrow 1908-1965. One lesson we might all be better off learning is a

little more humility before making sweeping generalizations that offend

people. Following, is a nice excerpt from a conversation between Prabhupada

and a couple of disciples that might put this discussion into better

perspective. It is a bit long, but it is very, very good.

 

"Tamäla Krsna: Can a Christian in this age, without a spiritual master, but

by reading the Bible and following Jesus's words, reach the...

Prabhupäda: When you read Bible, you follow spiritual master. How can you

say without? As soon as you read Bible, that means you are following the

instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means you are following spiritual

master. So where is the opportunity of being without spiritual master?

 

Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living spiritual master.

 

Prabhupäda: Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is

eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual

master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life.

You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a

different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible,"

when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master

represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus

Christ. So any case, you have to follow a spiritual master. There cannot be

the question without spiritual master. Is that clear?

Madhudvisa: I mean like we couldn't understand the teachings of the

Bhagavad-gétä without your help, without your presentation.

Prabhupäda: Similarly, you have to understand Bible with the help of the

priest in the church.

Madhudvisa: Yes. But is he receiving a good interpretation from his

disciplic succession or his bishop? Because there seems to be some kind of a

discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There's many different sects

of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways.

Prabhupäda: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation in the Bible. Then

there is no authority of Bible. If you interpret something... Just like

"Call a spade a spade." So if you call something else, that is a different

thing. He's not spiritual master. Just like this is watch. Everybody has

called it watch, and if I call it spectacle, then what is the value of my

being spiritual master? I'm misleading. (laughter) It is watch, that I must

say. So when there is misinterpretation, he's not a bona fide spiritual

master. He's not spiritual master, what is called a bona fide. If I want to

teach you how to see this watch, I can say that "This is called watch and

this is called hand and this is called time indication; this is, this

called...," so that is nice. And if I say that "Everybody says it is watch.

I say it is spectacle," then what kind of a spiritual master I am? Reject

him immediately. That intelligence you must have, who is a pseudo spiritual

master or real spiritual master. Otherwise you'll be cheated. And that is

being done. Everyone is interpreting in his own way. The Bhagavad-gita,

there are thousands of editions, and they have tried to interpret in their

own way, all nonsense. They should be all thrown away. Simply you have to

read Bhagavad-gita as it is. Then you'll understand. There is no question of

interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, then

there is no authority. Lawbook. Do you mean to say in the court if you say

before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," will

it be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You

have no right." Then what is the authority of this lawbook if everyone

comes, "I interpret in this way"? And interpretation when required? When a

thing is not understood. If I say, "It is watch," and everyone understands

that "This is watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting

that this is spectacle? If anyone can understand the clear passage... Just

like in the Bible, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was

creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You

cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation? So unnecessary

interpretation is not required and that is not bona fide, and those who are

interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately.

Immediately, without any consideration. God said, "Let there be creation."

So there was creation. Simple thing. Where is the question of

interpretation? What can be the interpretation here? Suggest that this can

be interpretation. Am I right? In the beginning of the Bible it is said like

that? "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation. So what is

your interpretation? Tell me what is your interpretation. Is there any

possibility of interpretation? Can any one of you suggest? Then where is the

opportunity of interpretation? One can explain. That is different thing, but

the fact that God created, that will remain. That you cannot change. Now,

how that creative process took place, that is explained in Bhägavatam: First

of all, there was sky, then there was sound, then there was this, that. This

is the process of creation, that is another thing. But the fact, the primary

fact that God created, that will remain at any circumstances. Not the rascal

scientist says, "Oh, there was a chunk and it is split up, and there was

these planets. Perhaps this and likely this," all this nonsense. They'll

simply interpret, "likely,perhaps." That is not science-"likely,"

"perhaps." Why perhaps? Here is clear statement, "God created." That's all.

Finish. Yes.

 

Mahäpuruña: Prabhupäda, is there any contradiction, because Lord Jesus

Christ and Lord Caitanya both appeared in the Kali-yuga and Lord Jesus

Christ said that "The only way to God is through me. Just believe in me or

surrender to me," and Lord Caitanya taught that hari-näma is the only means

of spiritual realization in this age?

 

Prabhupäda: So where do you find the difference? If Lord Jesus Christ says,

"Through me," that means he's representative of God, and hari-näma is God.

So either through the representative of God or God, the same thing. God and

God's representative, there is no difference. Even in these ordinary

dealings, if I send some representative, if he signs something on my behalf,

I have to accept that, because he is my representative. Similarly, God has

to be approached through God or through His representative. The same thing.

Only the difference may be of understanding. Because Lord Jesus Christ spoke

to a society that was not very much advanced. You can understand that such a

great personality, God conscious person, was crucified. Just see the

condition of the society. In other words, they were low-grade society. So

they were not able to understand the whole philosophy of God. That is

sufficient. "God created. Just take it." They were not intelligent to

understand how the creation took place. Had they been intelligent, they

would not have crucified such a great personality like Jesus Christ. So we

have to understand what is the condition of the society. Just like in the

Koran it is said by Muhammad that "From this day you have no sex intercourse

with your mother." Just find out the condition of the society. So we have to

take account of the time, circumstances, society, and then preaching. So to

society like that it is not possible to understand the high philosophical

things as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gétä. But the primary fact, the

authority is God, that is accepted both in Bible and Bhagavad-gétä. Bible

begins, "God is the supreme authority," and Bhagavad-gétä concludes, "You

surrender." Where is the difference? Simply the description is according to

the time, society, and place and people. That's all. They are not Arjuna.

You see? So the things to be understood by Arjuna is not possible by the

persons who had crucified Lord Jesus Christ. You have to study in that

light. The same thing. A dictionary, a pocket dictionary, child's

dictionary, and the dictionary, international dictionary, both of them

dictionary, but the value is different. That dictionary is meant for a class

of children, and that dictionary is meant for high scholars. But none of

them you can say it is not dictionary. That you cannot say. Both of them are

dictionaries. So we have to take consideration of the time, place, persons,

everything. Just like Lord Buddha, he simply said that "Stop this nonsense

animal killing." That was his propaganda. They were so low-grade people,

simply taking pleasure in animal killing. So in order to elevate them, Lord

Buddha wanted to stop this nonsense: "Please stop killing." So in every time

a different representative of God or God comes to teach people at different

circumstances. So according to the circumstances there may be some

difference in explanation, but the primary factor remains the same. Lord

Buddha said, "All right, there is no God, but you surrender to me." Then

where is the difference? That means one has to accept the authority of God

either this way or that way."

 

"So this is the process. So when one becomes highly elevated in Krsna

consciousness, so as soon as he hears Bhagavad-gita or Srimad-Bhägavata or

Bible, anything description of Krsna, or God, then atiharñotpula

käçru-gadgadaà protkaëöha udgäyati rauti nåtyati, as soon as he hears, he

becomes so much ecstatic that immediately he begins to dance and sing and

becomes very happy. As soon as he hears. Just like somebody hears that in

some business he has earned ten millions of dollars."

 

ys

[Guest guest]

> I would probably have to agree with Shanti on this one. I wouldn't

> take the "Jesus never existed" approach, personally. At least, I

> would not start with that. It feels like doing to them what they

have

> historically done to us. I would, however, be prepared to subject

the

> historicity of their prophet to the same level of scrutiny should

> they initiate it with me in regards to Lord Krishna or some other

> aspect of Vaishnava history.

 

There is no they and we, in reality. They are opposing and acting in

such a way because their mind is conditioned by their birth and

karma to do so in such a way. I do as I do because of my own karma

vasanas. Every one is stung on Him like pearls.

 

Today, Jesus is accepted as a reality based on the internal faith of

the Church. There is no evidence otherwise. It is not even

completely proven using the gospels because early versions dont talk

about virgin birth or reincarnation and hundreds of other

contradicitions. Any way, it is a big topic.

 

Krishna's historicity cannot be and should not be verified as per

modern standards. This is because we have the cyclical time

interleaved by pralayas and Krishna belonged to a different yuga.

But when it comes to personalities of this age, the scrutiny can be

done.

 

As shown by the lives of great saints, Krishna is not only out there

in some other world or some other point in time. He is available

here and now for us. In that metaphysical sense, he is verifiable.

So many devotees have hads darshan of Him until this century. This

can be dismissed as a legend but that then you have to explain a lot

of historical evidence. Moreover, there are processes to follow and

Krishna is fairly accessible for every one. Even if one thinks this

is just faith, at least, this claim has not been made with respect

to Jesus or any other "Living God / Man" in history!!!

> I am inclined not to be too bothered about things like moon

> distance and so on, simply because I think the Bhaagavata's

> cosmology is not meant to be something that fits in with our

> modern 3D paradigm. That is not to say that it is not true, but

> rather that we lack the material vision to understand in what

> sense it is true. The same goes with statements by Srila

> Prabhupada in which he attempts to follow the Bhaagavatam's point

> of view literally. I welcome that literalism for now, but I

> suggest that perhaps we aren't exactly well suited to

> understanding it at present.

 

I agree with this. Here is a simple experiment. Hold a ball on the

left hand half-stretched out horizontally. Hold another ball on the

right hand stretched out vertically. The ball on the left hand is

closer and the ball on the right hand is closer. Now if you take a

photograph of this from above, which ball is closer? It is the

opposite!!! So when the sages are describing the universe, they are

perhaps describing from different points of view.

 

The other point of view is even if the sages including puranas

are "wrong" from our point of view, it is not a major problem. Even

SB says that some times sages can have wrong opinion. It is only the

Lord who knows every thing perfectly (tam eva vidvan). The value

that sages bring is their devotion and realization of the lord.

 

The third view is SB is metaphorical. yojana could well mean the

yogic power required to reach that particular planet not the

physical distance.

 

> One thing you should be aware of is that there is a camp of people

in

> ISKCON who say as you do that we should not take Prabhupada too

> literally when it comes to material subjects. Only the problem is,

> they don't stop there, but continue that line of reasoning with

> regards to Srila Prabhupada's social views, which encompass

> everything from gender relations, dress and customs, everyday

> behavior, etc (which they argue is also material). They also say

> that Prabhupada is pure devotee but that we shouldn't take his

> attempts to "Indianize" the Krishna-conscious society too

> seriously.

 

IMHO, Srila Prabhupada was not trying to Indianize KC. Indians over

time were imbibing culture from higher planets. Of course, dress

etc., are external but nevertheless they have a subtle effect on the

mind. So we have to protect our mind from contamination as far as

possible.

 

But as the movement expands, I would think that there will be

millions of people who will imbibe the essence of devotion as taught

by Srila Prabhupada but continue with their cultural tendencies.

They will also realize Krishna because the Lord just needs an excuse

and is an ocean of mercy.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram wrote:

>

>

 

> Today, Jesus is accepted as a reality based on the internal faith

of

> the Church. There is no evidence otherwise.

 

On the contrary, there is non-Biblical evidence.

 

The Josephus passage is among the most celebrated as proving that

Jesus existed:

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful

to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher

of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him

both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ;

and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,

had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first

did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third

day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand

other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians,

so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities XVIII

63f)

 

 

 

> Krishna's historicity cannot be and should not be verified as per

> modern standards.

And Jesus's historicity can and should be?

 

 

> here and now for us. In that metaphysical sense, he is verifiable.

> So many devotees have hads darshan of Him until this century. This

> can be dismissed as a legend but that then you have to explain a

lot

> of historical evidence. Moreover, there are processes to follow

and

> Krishna is fairly accessible for every one. Even if one thinks

this

> is just faith, at least, this claim has not been made with respect

> to Jesus or any other "Living God / Man" in history!!!

 

On what do you base this claim? When Peter told Jesus that he was

the son of God, Jesus told Peter that it was the Father that

revealed that to him. That is, the result of faith.

Peter in his letters says that faith is 'evidence for things unseen'.

 

This double standard opens one up to an 'Emperor's clothes'

objection. 'If you don't know Krsna, you just don't have the eyes to

see him'.

That strategy can and has been adopted by Christians. Just

substitute the word Krsna with Jesus.

[Guest guest]

[Moderator Note: Guys, this is starting to get a bit off topic with the Jesus

thing. Let's wrap it up and move on, please. - K]

 

> So apparently you accept that there is no empirical evidence for

> the existence for anything Vedic in previous ages which according

> to your own arguments would render pre-Modern Age sashtra and

> sadhu as bogus. Yet, you cite sashtra as the way to know truth.

> obviously a contradiction.

 

There is no contradiction because faith and reason may not tally

always. The problem arises when one argues that faith tallies with

empirical reality. Itihasas and Puranas describe appearance and

activities of Rama, Narasimha, Krishna, Siva, Harischandra, Savitri

etc. in previous yugas. These cannot be verified empirically though

there is a living tradition in memory of these events. Across

vedantic traditions, saints have had darshans of the lord until 20th

cenury, got involved in his pastimes and written prolifically

(andal, thiagaraja, meera, purandara dasar, vedanta desikar,

syamananda .... the list is long). All this is accepted on faith

though the appearance and activities of vedic personalities in this

age such as Buddha, Sankara are verifiable to a reasonable extent

empirically through independant sources outside the tradition.

Unfortunately, for Christians this is not the case with Jesus.

 

But I have nothing against some one accepting Jesus or Mormon or any

one else on the basis of faith. But when some Jesus is talked about

as a historical personality, then I have to point out that it is not

substantiated empirically. In the case of Jesus, the concoctions by

the Church about historical evidence are self-evident.

 

> > Brahmins are easy targets for holier than thou attacks.

> So apparently are Christians.

 

History says that it is the Christians who have been violent against

others such as jews. Even individuals such as Galileo was not left

alone for their scientific opinion. Today, even the Pope has to

believe in Galileo and not the Bible, if he wants to travel around

the globe. There is no such evidence of brahmins of being violent

against others for not following their belief.

 

If Brahmins connived with Chand Kazi against Caitanya Mahaprabhu for

spreading harinam, that would be wrong. Please quote the writings of

one sankarite scholar of repute or sankaracharya who opposed

Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Sankara clearly says that Harinama is the only

process in kali yuga. Sankara Dig vijayam records how Sankara

performed kirtans chanting Govinda Govinda along with commoners.

Until today, I have not heard any Sankaracharya saying that women or

sudras should not chant the lord's names.

 

> What difference does it make now that it has been decided by your

> belief that without empirical evidence Lord Buddha never existed >

anyway???

 

I never said Buddha did not exist.

[Guest guest]

Dear v_raja ram Prabhu, et. al.,

 

I think the best way to approach this topic, at least within the context of

a group that has at its center the teachings of Srila Prabhupada would be to

quote Srila Prabhupada himself. Once, when Prabhupada was asked his opinion

about Christ, he replied: "He is our guru. He is preaching God

consciousness, so he is our spiritual master....Actually, anyone who is

preaching God's glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one

such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human

being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to

be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary

man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness."

 

When trying to convince people about the reality of Krishna Consciousness

results he would often use the phrase 'The proof is in the pudding'. In

other words, that the pudding is actually there - that is all the proof one

needs. Just as one cannot make a delicious pudding with imaginary

ingredients, neither could Christ have "delivered God [not Krishna]

consiousness" if he didn't exist. As far as descrepancies are concerned, it

is kali yuga and these things should be expected; not excused, but expected

and in knowledge addressed accordingly.

 

There are many other quotes from Prabhupada about Christ, however, I do not

find it productive in a forum dedicated to his teaching to minimize his

instructions so much. Better, we should try and understand what he was

saying before being so dismissive and run the risk of developing a "hellish

mentality". Although it may be argued that the distance between the Earth

and Sun or Moon is better measured by scientists than the guru, the distance

we must travel to the Lord of the Heart can only be measured by Sri Guru and

never by any empiric speculative process.

 

Your servant,

Shanti Parayana dasa

 

(The above quote from any edition of "The Science of Self Realization"

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles. In Chapter Four, entitled

"Understanding Krishna and Christ", pp.120

[Guest guest]

I thought that the moderator requested no further posting on this

topic. My point is there is no vedic evidence for existence of Jesus,

which is the topic of this post and in agreement with the posting on

gosai.com.

 

If the moderator would allow, I would like to briefly refute your

points.

 

[Yes, please tie it up and move on. The posting in question I think was delayed

but was sent in before I requested this. This forum is about Gaudiya

Vaishnavism, not about Christianity. Srila Prabhupada's comments on Christianity

can be discussed. - MOD]