Christianity is Vaisnavism

[Guest guest]

Bhakti-yoga means connecting ourselves with Krsna, God, and becoming His

eternal associates. Bhakti-yoga cannot be applied to any other objective;

therefore in Buddhism, for instance, there is no bhakti-yoga, because they

do not recognize the Supreme Lord existing as the supreme objective.

Christians, however, practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ,

because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore accepting

God. Unless one accepts God, there is no question of bhakti-yoga.

Christianity, therefore, is also a form of Vaisnavism, because God is

recognized. Nonetheless, there are different stages of God realization.

Mainly, Christianity says, "God is great," and that is a very good

assertion, but the actual greatness of God can be understood from

Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Accepting the greatness of God is the

beginning of bhakti. Bhakti-yoga also exists among the Muhammadans, because

God is the target in the Muslim religion.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => PoP 8: Failure and Success in Yoga

 

 

 

Prabhupada: No, no. Christianity is Vaisnavism.

Dr. Patel: Vaisnavism? Absolutely Vaisnavism.

Prabhupada: Anyone who... Mohammedan is also Vaisnavism.

Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaisnavism.

Prabhupada: No, no. Caitanya Mahaprabhu had talk with the Pathanas. He

proved that "Your religion is Vaisnavism."

Dr. Patel: Christianity is Vaisnavism 100%.

Prabhupada: Therefore in Caitanya-caritamrta there is. I have already

explained that.

Dr. Patel: No, Christianity is 100% Vaisnavism. I have studied Christianity

very well.

Prabhupada: Not hundred percent, but...

Dr. Patel: More or less.

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay

 

 

 

Dr. Patel: Christianity it is really Vaisnavism, but they, unfortunately...

The church...

Prabhupada: Mohamedanism... Mohammedanism...

Dr. Patel: The church has spoiled it.

Prabhupada: Eh?

Dr. Patel: Church has defaced it.

Prabhupada: Yes. Everywhere.

Dr. Patel: It is the church, Christian church, which has defaced Christism.

Prabhupada: Hare Krsna. Everywhere the followers make the whole thing

bungled.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Morning Walk Excerpts -- May 1, 1974, Bombay

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami wrote:

>

> Bhakti-yoga means connecting ourselves with Krsna, God, and

becoming His

> eternal associates. Bhakti-yoga cannot be applied to any other

objective;

> therefore in Buddhism, for instance, there is no bhakti-yoga,

because they

> do not recognize the Supreme Lord existing as the supreme

objective.

> Christians, however, practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus

Christ,

> because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore

accepting

> God. Unless one accepts God, there is no question of bhakti-yoga.

> Christianity, therefore, is also a form of Vaisnavism, because God

is

> recognized.

 

Were I put in a position where I had to defend this position, I

would frankly decline to do so. I think it would be very difficult

not just emotionally but also logically to explain why (for example)

the typical beef-eating Christian is a bhakti-yogi and thus more

elevated than a non-Vaishnava Hindu who chants his gayatri, follows

his regulative principles, and is faithful to his system of worship.

 

Also, "bhakti-yoga" as it is defined in Vishvanaatha Chakravarti's

Gita commentary is really quite an elevated thing. If I remember

correctly, he takes it to mean service to Krishna where the

motivation is solely to please Krishna, in contrast to karma-yoga

where the motivation is for sense-gratification via dovetailed

activites or jnaana-yoga where the motivation is liberation.

 

Based on this definition, I would not call any Christian I have met

a "bhakti-yogi." In fact, I would not even call myself that or even

most temple-going Hindus I have met. It really is quite an exalted

thing that goes beyond merely theoretical acceptance of a single,

supreme Deity.

 

Also if Mohammedans are Vaishnavas of a sort, then how does one

account for the commandments in their scripture to attack the places

of worship of others? Does it not seem obvious that when they are

directed to raze to the ground places where icon-worship goes on,

that it is inevitable that they will attack Vaishnava temples and

Vaishnavas too? So they are Vaishnavas, but they are to attack

Vaishnava temples?

 

Just recently in the news there was a fatwa issued against a Muslim

man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity. The Muslim leaders

in the area, all moderates who had previously condemned the Taliban,

are condemning his conversion and calling for his death, citing

their scriptural commandments and their religious sovereignty. These

are moderates, mind you, who are asking for the death sentence not

based on secular law but on their religious laws from the Koran.

Now, I would be very hardpressed to say that this is some sort of

rudimentary Vaishnavism. There are some harsh things in dharma-

shaastras, but I do not recall reading anything quite this bad for

such a minor offense.

 

These are just my views, of course. I'm not interested in starting a

ruckus over it.

 

K

[Guest guest]

> Were I put in a position where I had to defend this position, I

> would frankly decline to do so.

 

You can defend Srila Prabhupada's statement on the ground (ref. SB)

that any religion which teaches love of god as the goal is perfect. A

Christian or Muslim who is trying to develop love for God and is

giving up attachment to this world is on the path of purification.

Even if such a devotional fervour has roots in ignorance, it is still

productive of positive progress.

 

 

This does not mean that the fundamental tenets of these religions

should not be attacked based on truth.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram wrote:

> Even if such a devotional fervour has roots in ignorance, it is still

> productive of positive progress.

>

>

> This does not mean that the fundamental tenets of these religions

> should not be attacked based on truth.

 

Hmmm. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also says that one can understand

the Qur'an only if one comes with a lowly heart, and after a lifetime

of contemplation and observing all the "farz". Also, one has to

actually READ the whole Qur'an, and at least one bona fide

commentary. Great emphasis is also placed on proper understanding

based on the Hadith and the commentaries of the great Imaams (and

their disciples). Plus one needs the Mercy... Same goes for the Bible.

 

Prabhuji, I am not humble, but at least there is no communal malice

(or double standards) when I criticize Mayavada

 

The difference between Vaishnavism and Islam/Churchianity is mainly

w.r.t. the Gunas. Lord Kapila in Bhag. 3.29.7-10:

 

"O noble lady, there are multifarious paths of devotional service in

terms of the different qualities of the executor. Devotional service

executed by a person who is envious, hypocritical, violent, and angry,

and who is a separatist, is considered to be in the mode of darkness

(like the modern-day terrorists). The worship of Deities in the temple

by a separatist, with a motive for material enjoyment, fame, and

opulence, is devotion in the mode of passion. When a devotee worships

the Supreme Personality of Godhead and offers Him the results of his

activities in order to free himself from the inebrieties of fruitive

activities, his devotion is in the mode of goodness."

 

Of course there are philosophical differences also, in more detailed

points. But the difference between Vaishnavism and Mayavada is much

more fundamental.

 

For an authentic 20th century commentary on the Qur'an, I suggest the

stalwart Turkish master Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. His Risale Noor is

here: http://www.saidnur.com/foreign/en/eng.htm

 

He was radically different from the others like Maududi or the Qutb

brothers, who advocated violence.

 

Your servant,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

 

> Prabhuji, I am not humble, but at least there is no communal malice

> (or double standards) when I criticize Mayavada

>

> The difference between Vaishnavism and Islam/Churchianity is mainly

> w.r.t. the Gunas.

 

It is far more than that. There is a total difference with regards to

epistemology. That may be why Srila Prabhupada is quoted as saying

that it is better to be a follower of the Vedas even if not a

Vaishnava (Bhakti Vikas Swami's posting).

[Guest guest]

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: --- In

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

 

It is far more than that. There is a total difference with regards to

epistemology. That may be why Srila Prabhupada is quoted as saying

that it is better to be a follower of the Vedas even if not a

Vaishnava (Bhakti Vikas Swami's posting).

 

>>>In the posting that you are referring to, it is worth noting that Srila

Prabhupada is replying to the disciple's remark about *Mostly Impersonalist*

Christians and Muslims. He would have probably said the same w.r.t Kali

worshippers and Hindu mayavadis. It is clear from the other posting that

Maharaj made that Srila Prabhupada and Mahaprabhu consider Christians and

Muslims who are aspiring for love of God as devotees, although they maybe on

different levels. He is condemning Impersonalist tendencies found anywehere and

glorifying even a little bit of Personalist tendency. We should take a similar

approach.

 

I do agree that Impersonalists from other religious traditions will have more

difficulty accessing Vedic wisdom, but by a pure devotee's mercy even they can

get access, and Srila Prabhupada and his followers are wonderful examples.

 

iys

 

Aravind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

> It is far more than that. There is a total difference with regards to

> epistemology.

 

Hare Krishna. Could you say more about this? As far as I know,

Christian doctrine is a pretty fuzzy patchwork, but the Catholic

Church basically believes in the doctrine of "Primacy of Will over

Reason", which is quite close to our position. About Islam, the

epistemology is again very close to ours, with a similar priority

given to revealed scripture, traditional commentary, logic and sense

perception, etc. The main difference is that the sources of revealed

scripture are different (Vedas, Bible, Qur'an), and their quality and

*sophistication* differs.

 

Actually all the different "grades" of religion exist in Islam and

Xianity as much as Hinduism -- because it is a reflection of human

nature, just like varNa.

 

But the complexity of the Vedas (and the array of devas, etc) makes it

much easier to bewilder and sow confusion amongst the Hindu masses. On

the other hand, the sheer austerity/simplicity of, say, Islamic dogma

make it more difficult to introduce false theories, but then the

trade-off is a lack of sophistication and deeper understanding. This

trade-off operates in all 3 traditions.

 

There are many impersonalist sects within Islam ("impersonalist" to

some degree or the other), but there are also some very very few true

'Vaisnava' ones. The commentary by Nursi that I linked in the previous

post is one such. In fact, in that line of disciplic succession, the

doctrine is pretty much achintya bheda-abheda.

 

This is why I was earlier suggesting that we avoid dealing with these

Semitic groups as "monolithic" traditions. Mayavada is mayavada

(meaning false or partial doctrine), and it exists in all traditions,

in its various grades and shades. This article by Srila Bhaktivinode

Thakura outlines the basic grades of religion that exist within any

culture:

 

'Non-sectarian Vaisnava Dharma'

http://www.bvml.org/SBTP/nsvd.htm

 

>That may be why Srila Prabhupada is quoted as saying

> that it is better to be a follower of the Vedas even if not a

> Vaishnava (Bhakti Vikas Swami's posting).

 

I think that quote has more to do with psychological obstacles to

receiving Vaisnavism (like prejudice, cultural barriers, sectarianism,

etc). It has more to do with the defects of the conditioned human

mind, which is more attached to the outer forms than the essence or

substance.

 

Your servant,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

>

> achintya, "krishna_susarla"

> <krishna_susarla@> wrote:

> > It is far more than that. There is a total difference with

regards to

> > epistemology.

>

> Hare Krishna. Could you say more about this?

 

I am simply referring to the point that Christians, Muslims, etc

follow paurusheya granthas, if we are to believe what they say about

their own scriptures. In contrast, Vaishnavism is founded on

apaurusheya granthas. In general, there are no "prophets" in

Vaishnavism whose spiritual authority must be accepted ipse dixit.

Every great aachaarya had to substantiate his views with regards to

scripture, rather than stories about meeting angels, being the son

of God, etc. Accepting that the Vedas are apaurusheya minimizes the

assumptions one has to make, since asserting an author means that

one has to then make a second assumption that the author is

qualified, competent to discuss transcendence, and honest enough to

do so, etc.

 

"Revealed scripture" means a very different thing for followers of

Semitic religions compared to Vaishnavas.

 

> There are many impersonalist sects within Islam ("impersonalist" to

> some degree or the other), but there are also some very very few

true

> 'Vaisnava' ones. The commentary by Nursi that I linked in the

previous

> post is one such. In fact, in that line of disciplic succession,

the

> doctrine is pretty much achintya bheda-abheda.

 

But these are most likely syncretic traditions which have departed

from the orthodoxy.

 

> >That may be why Srila Prabhupada is quoted as saying

> > that it is better to be a follower of the Vedas even if not a

> > Vaishnava (Bhakti Vikas Swami's posting).

>

> I think that quote has more to do with psychological obstacles to

> receiving Vaisnavism (like prejudice, cultural barriers,

sectarianism,

> etc). It has more to do with the defects of the conditioned human

> mind, which is more attached to the outer forms than the essence or

> substance.

 

Whatever the case may be, his point of view is pretty clear. Srila

Prabhpada did not have to institute the skeletal beginnings of

varnaashrama-dharma, but he did so and wanted to continue doing so

even in his final years. External? Yes, but it is still extremely

important.

 

If Vedic culture is merely sectarian instead of universal, then

there would be no need to claim an advantage to following Vedic

culture.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

For the sake of discussion, let us agree the biblical argument that

Jesus did exist historically. The only evidence we have about Jesus

is the Bible. According to the Bible and Jesus of the Bible, He is

God. Jesus was and is considered God by Christians.

 

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning

and the end" (Rev. 22: 13)

 

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:31)

 

If Sai Baba is to be considered a cheat because he / his followers

claim to be God, why should you not consider Jesus to be a cheat for

claiming to be God too?

 

All the three semitic faiths and branches, sub-branches thereof

condemn idolatory in the strongest terms. It is one of the ten

commandments. Also God is formless in all the threee faiths. How is

it personal and of all vaishnavism? If saivism and saktam are tamasic

and hence not vaishnavism, how can some thing lower than that be

considered vaishnavism?

[Guest guest]

The distinction between paureshaya agama and apaurusheya agama should be

properly appreciated. The Vedic personal and Advaita schools however are quite

clear that no human *or* *even* *Godly* testimony is sufficient as an

independent proof. Even Lord Krishna does not present His own words as

independent epistemologically. Instead, He indicates that His opinion is backed

by the sruti, smrti and nyaya (13.5). Lord Caitanya states in Madhya 6.135 that

sruti understood by mukhya-artha is the chief evidence. This is in stark

contrast to the traditions which accord high epistemological value to Christ's

or Allah's words transmitted through an angel to Mohammed. The Vedantist would

immediately doubt, "This entire story is based on the testimony of a Mohammed.

Why should I place my philosophical system on the assumption that Mohammed knows

transcendence?" Furthermore, if he were to read the earliest extant biography of

Mohammed (the translation of which is discussed at www.prophetofdoom.net), one

finds even less reason to accept such stautus for him. The entire Christian

doctrine is based on the idea that Christ is God's only son, and that he died

for all of our sins. What is the rational basis of this connection between God,

the Son and myself that I should order my life around this? The Vedas do not

beguile us with fairy tales.

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald wrote:

>

> The distinction between paureshaya agama and apaurusheya agama

should be properly appreciated. The Vedic personal and Advaita

schools however are quite clear that no human *or* *even* *Godly*

testimony is sufficient as an independent proof. Even Lord Krishna

does not present His own words as independent epistemologically.

Instead, He indicates that His opinion is backed by the sruti, smrti

and nyaya (13.5). Lord Caitanya states in Madhya 6.135 that sruti

understood by mukhya-artha is the chief evidence. This is in stark

contrast to the traditions which accord high epistemological value

to Christ's or Allah's words transmitted through an angel to

Mohammed. The Vedantist would immediately doubt, "This entire story

is based on the testimony of a Mohammed. Why should I place my

philosophical system on the assumption that Mohammed knows

transcendence?" Furthermore, if he were to read the earliest extant

biography of Mohammed (the translation of which is discussed at

www.prophetofdoom.net), one finds even less reason to accept such

stautus for him. The entire Christian doctrine is based on the idea

that Christ is God's only son, and that he died for all of our

sins. What is the rational basis of this connection between God,

the Son and myself that I should order my life around this? The

Vedas do not beguile us with fairy tales.

 

 

While it is true that Vedic System especially schools such as Nyaya,

Sankhya, Advaita etc. are objective in their approach, the vaidhika

schools do recognize the value of testimony by great personalities

and of course God. For example, the words of Lord Krishna are

accepted as eternally true by Sankara. While healthy skepticism and

enquiry is good, over doubting will cause mental disturbance /

unhappiness. So it is of less value.

 

At the same time, without objective approach it will be a matter of

blind faith. The second problem is shallowness and hence the need

for enquiry.

[Kulapavana]

"Christianity is Vaisnavism " ok, so what? Sahajiyas are Vaishnavas as well, along with all kinds of other apa-sampradayas...