Interreligious Dialogue (was Spirit/soul)

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

achintya, "Mario Leonelli" <marioefranca@h...> wrote:

 

>Harekrishna

 

>

 

>...but in western countries we have to answer some questions about jesus

>and

 

It is nice to be able to answer these kinds of questions, but we must also

be truthful to the scriptures which we represent, and refrain from preaching

doctrines that can backfire on us. If we could prove the position of Jesus

with respect to objective evidence (specifically, scriptural testimony),

then there should be no objection. However, as there is (to the best of my

knowledge) no such evidence substantiating Jesus' position, the problem

becomes a little more complicated.

 

If other Vaishnavas (outside of our sampradaaya) perceive that we are

dressing up our philosophy simply to make it more attractive to people of

other religions, their objections would have merit. Even more serious is the

question of standing up for dharma. We object to things like meat-eating,

animal slaughter and the like. Yet we say Jesus is a pure devotee, when

there is Biblical evidence that he is connected to acts such as these which

are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics. And yet again, we object to the

alleged "saintliness" of some modern-day Hindu swamis because they too are

engaged in such acts. Others will rightfully call this a double standard,

and I for one do not see any way to defend it.

 

>we ourselves must have an idea about the religion in wich we were born....

 

Perhaps, but it is even more important to be knowledgeable in the

conclusions of the religion which we practice. Many ideas practiced by

contemporary Christians are simply not acceptable to Vaishnavas, and it does

no service to either religion to gloss over these differences on the

sentiment that Jesus is a pure devotee. For example, the idea that Jesus is

God Himself, and that he suffered on the crucifix for our sins is

incompatible with the Vaishnava point of view which holds that God has an

eternal, transcendental body and is immune to the interactions of the three

modes of nature. One could argue that Jesus' suffering during the

crucifixion is simply an illusion, just as Krishna's "wounds" on the

battlefield of Kurukshetra was merely a manifestation of His chivalry rasa

with Bhiishma. But the point here is that, for Christians, the fact that

Jesus really suffered and died for our sins is very central to their

religion. Hence, we aren't being very understanding or respectful by trying

to reinterpret their doctrine to bring it more in line with ours.

 

One could also argue that the original Christianity was more in line with

Vedic thinking, that only due to the corruption over the ages did it come to

take its present form. This is a compelling view, but without evidence, it

is nothing more than wishful thinking. We have no real evidence as to the

character of Jesus Christ other than the Bible, which itself must be held up

to scrutiny if we are to postulate that Christianity has fallen far from its

roots.

 

Some years back, at a Hindu Students Council meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan,

there was an Indian-Christian missionary giving a speech on "The Hidden

Christ in the Ancient Vedas." He tried to interpret many key shlokas in the

Vedic literature as actually being veiled references to the God of

Christianity and Jesus Christ. Needless to say, this was not appreciated by

the Hindus present, who pointed out that he misinterpreted many Sanskrit

phrases and glossed over other evidence not convenient to his position. Now

I am not a member of the HSC. My point here is that if we object to people

of other religions reinterpreting our scriptures of the sake of

proselytizing, then it is only reasonable that they should similarly object

when we do it. Obviously, each side feels that they are absolutely right

when they do it, but they must respect the fact that the other side

disagrees.

 

>the personality of Jesus is easily judgeable by His acts.

 

But such an argument is of course based on sense perception and deduction,

which we know from Vedic thinking are limited and prone to error. Besides

which, we only have the Bible to judge his acts, and if the Bible must be

taken as evidence of this, then we must include all of the evidence of his

activities. If one's divinity is to be judged by his acts (as opposed to

authoritative scriptures), then such judgements will always be subject to

one's faulty perception. Many people in India believe their guru or local

Godman is an avatar of Krishna "by His acts." That will simply not do. We

have to consult authoritative scriptures on this point, and not leave it to

personal whim.

 

I am a christian

 

>born, i have a little more than average culture of gospels and bible

 

I can respect that, and I am not saying that I know for sure that Jesus is

not a pure devotee. I am simply trying to point out that it is not obvious

either way. Devotees need to be careful in what they preach.

 

and i

 

>cannot find behaviours of Lord Jesus not in line with the vaishnava

 

>siddhantas.

 

I would like to believe this. Certainly there are many behaviors of the

Biblical Jesus that are very saintly even by Vaishnava standards. But there

are other behaviors/teachings/statements that cannot be similarly explained

away.

 

In Numbers 15:8 and 22:39-41 we find statements describing a sacrifice of a

bull or of cattle. This is incompatible with the verse from the Puraanas

which states:

 

ashvamedha.m gavaalambha.m sannyaasa.m palapaitR^ikam |

devareNa sutotpatti.m kalau pa~ncha vivarjayet ||

 

In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in

sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order

of sannyaasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a

man's begetting children in his brother's wife (brahmavaivarta puraaNa).

 

Deuteronomy 12:1-3 describes commandments by God for His followers to

destroy the altars and "idols" of infidels. Vaishnavas are not encouraged to

attack the holy places of people of other religions. In the same chapter we

find statements permitting the followers to sacrifice animals as they

please, so long as they pour the blood before the altar of their God. In

Vedic thinking, even properly performed sacrifices of animals are meant

ultimately for their renunciation. In Srila Prabhupada's purports, it is

indicated that such sacrifices are often to Kali or some other deity, but

not to Lord Krishna, who is vegetarian.

 

Matthew 15:36, Luke 9:16, and Mark 6:41 describe how Jesus took fish that

were offered to him and then offered them in turn to his disciples for

eating. In Vedic society, there may have been fisherman, but eating of fish

is not acceptable for those who are following brahminical culture. Luke

chapter 5 describes a miracle in which Jesus made fish appear in the nets of

some unlucky fishermen. If he is a pure devotee, then why does he use his

potency to create suffering among fish, who are also living entities? A

Vaishnava is not supposed to cause any living entity harm.

 

There are many strong references throughout the Biblical literature, some

spoken by Jesus, in which "idol-worship" is condemned in the strongest

possible tone, even to the point of exhorting the followers to destroy them.

Christians associate the worship of any icon as being somehow worship of a

different deity other than God. Well, Vaishnavas also create murthis of

Krishna according to Vedic prescription. We can say that the archa-vigra is

not an "idol," but when you look at the context of the "idol" in Christian

discourse, it is hard to see how the Christian is supposed to know the

difference; there is no commandment anywhere that encourages the worship of

Jesus idols, for example.

 

There are other references as well, such as Jesus drinking wine and so on. I

did not want to bring all of this up, but I had to do so when it was claimed

that there are no behaviors of Jesus that are inconsistent with Vaishnava

etiquette. Clearly, that is not telling the whole story, and we must be

cognizant of the truth even if it is not to our liking.

 

I would like to believe very much that what Srila Prabhupada about Jesus is

true. But objectively speaking, there is no basis of that position, other

than faith. For Christians, faith is something sacred, and if you have faith

in something, then it must be true. But Srila Prabhupada never accepted this

kind of thinking; nor is it standard among Vaishnavas.

 

>obviously we know also that there are Puranas speaking specifically of

 

>jesus, Buddha and Mohamed

 

Can you prove this, by telling me exactly where Jesus and Mohammed are

spoken of in the Puraanas? Can you show me where they are spoken of as pure

devotees? If you can, then I will happily withdraw all of my arguments.

 

>....... , the simple word God, knowing the science of vedas, is extremely

 

>generic.... Srila Prabhupada accepts the jesus's statement : "who sees me,

 

>sees the Father", in this way, i have not any difficulty, preaching to

 

>christians that make such questions at the sunday feast or so, to answer

>YES

 

>Jesus is GOD, then it is possible to continue with other important topics,

 

Now you see, this is yet another reason why I object to the propensity among

devotees to glorify Jesus. Even if you accept that Jesus is a pure devotee

of Krishna, on what basis do you say that he is God? He is *not* God,

period. This is even rejected by Srila Prabhupada, and I can find Back to

Godhead transcripts of his conversations with leading Christian

practitioners to substantiate this. How can Jesus be God, when he suffered

and bled on the crucifix? God does not have a material body. This is a

deviation from Vaishnava siddhaanta.

 

Please note that I write all this only to get devotees to see the

difficulties in arbitrarily preaching certain things. Truth is understood

from shaastric evidence; it is not determined because a majority of people

like what you say. The issue is not that Srila Prabhupada is correct or

incorrect, so I will thank members to please not turn this into an issue of

who is loyal to Srila Prabhupada and who is not, as such character

assasinations are not appropriate for Achintya.

 

The issue is that we must step back and cross-examine what we are saying,

lest we end up fighting battles we cannot win.

 

regards,

 

 

 

- K

 

 

 

H. Krishna Susarla

 

www.achintya.org

 

 

 

 

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com