Religious training for Ksatriyas

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> > I am not at all up on this stuff, but Kirtananda did have a bit of a

> > reputation for being a loose cannon quite a while before this period. He

certainly did among many of the senior devotees in Phili, where I was

> > serving at that time.

 

 

>

> Given the current widespread dissatisfaction with the GBC, a case could be

made that Kirtananda was a man ahead of his time in regards to his dealings

with the "senior" men of that time who were all GBC lackeys,

> but I won't go there.

>

 

 

Yes, Kirtanananda wasn't the only cannon on the loose--something recognized by

many, even then. Still, he consistently made some of the boldest attempts at

changing the nature of our Gaudiya tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

"COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2242019 from COM]

>

> >

> >

> > I am not at all up on this stuff, but Kirtananda did have a bit of a

> > reputation for being a loose cannon quite a while before this period.

> > He

> > certainly did among many of the senior devotees in Phili, where I was

> > seving

> > at that time. From a legal standpoint, I wonder if it was in ISKCON's

> > interest

> > to acknowlege Kirtananda's crimes committed while he was acting as an

> > official

> > ISKCON representative.

>

> Again, so noone misunderstands my position, Kirtananada is in prison

> and needs to be there(as do a few others, incidentally).

>

> Given the current widespread dissatisfaction with the GBC, a case could

> be made that Kirtananda was a man ahead of his time in regards to his

> dealings with the "senior" men of that time who were all GBC lackeys,

> but I won't go there.

>

> Yes, there were strong legal advantages for ISKCON to give up

> Kirtanananda to the feds - it gave them immunity for their own crimes.

> But let's not go there either.

>

> Whatever the externals, Kirtanananda was a miscogynist, who created a

> climate where woman and children were vulnerable to abuse. For that,

> he deserves prison. For others who espouse the same philosophies, I

> can only feel guilty I am unable to help them change their minds, as

> they face the same fate, and by my lack of articulation I am unable to

> save them from it.

 

****************************

 

One time I had a job where I had to make reprints of different articles

published by professors. The first time I made a reprint, it came back with

the center page printed with a blank sheet on the back. The whole job,

which costs $72 had to be thrown out. But the benefit was, having invested

that much in my mistake, I never made that mistake again. In all my future

jobs, I made sure that the printer knew exactly what I wanted.

 

I have some similar feeling about the Kirtanananda situation. He was an

expensive mistake for ISKCON. Now, if that expensive mistake of blind

following and failing to evaluate the quality of our leaders is used

properly, it can become a valuable asset for ISKCON. But, my fear is that

it will be ignored and the mistakes will be repeated.

 

Madhava Gosh certainly is doing everyone on this conference a favor by

reminding us of the errors perpetrated by the Kirtanananda regime -- and the

catastrophes they led to. What we need is an excellent book of the history

of ISKCON -- not just a self-congratulatory pat on our backs, but also not

something that simply badmouths our GBC and everything we have done.

 

We really need an honest history book of our movement up to date, so that

our future leaders can benefit by learning the detail of our past mistakes

(and successes) and learning what their consequences were.

 

Srila Prabhupada says that ksatriya's were trained in social structure.

Surely a resource detailing the history of social structure in ISKCON would

be a vital tool for training competent, compassionate and effective

ksatriyas.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

> Far from not needing to understand the feelings of his people -- it is

> *essential* that he understand the feelings of his people. To me, that is

> an important distinguishing characteristic of the varnasrama system as

> presented by Srila Prabhupada contrasted with modern government. In

> describing the activities of King Prthu in the 4th Canto, and in other

> places, Srila Prabhupada points out that it is important that the ksatriya

> must hear from the ordinary citizens and learn what different concerns are

> on their minds. Then he can take appropriate steps to relieve their

> suffering. If he does not hear from them and find out how they feel about

> their situation, how can he help them out? And certainly, there is ample

> historical record of leaders who simply had no idea of how their citizens

> were feeling -- the example of Catherine the Great's tour of Russia in

> which she had no idea her subjects were all starving to death comes to

> mind, for instance.

>

> So, it is important that the ksatriya understand the feelings of his

> people, and it is important that he be trained by a "perfect gentleman"

> brahmana so that he does not unintentially discourage his citizens in

> their spiritual life.

 

Yes of course, its fundamental. Just look at how Lord Ramachandra appeared

to suffer so badly because he was forced to banish Sita, only to placate the

feelings of his subjects, who due to their own misconceptions, criticised

her. They were wrong, and when she had to endure the final insult of proving

herself worthy a second time, she prayed to be taken into the lap of the

earth, at which time the citizens finaly realised, all too late, that she

was indeed pure.

 

Even though the citizens were wrong, and even though that caused a great

personal tragedy (apparently) in the life of Ram and his sons, still as the

great Ksatria ruler he was, he demonstrated how he could not favour his own

family, over the concerns of the citizens.

 

It is such an important factor that the entire Ramayan is based on it.

 

If you consider this it would seem that very very few people would have the

breeding and integrity to have such resolve, and be prepared to rule while

voiding the possible opportunity to enjoy their own lives and those of their

families. I would think that the amount of effort it would require to hone a

person to this kind of stature, would not be wasted except on the most

promising (by astrological evaluation) candidate for ruler.

 

Priyavrata was such a soul, and *had to be convinced* by Lord Brahma

personaly, to take up the administration of the *entire universe*, as he

wanted to remain as a renounced spiritualist. Srila Prabhupada points out in

one of his purport's regarding this episode, that Maharaja Priyavrata was a

shining example of how saintly persons do not aspire to high posts, what to

speak of something so high as ruler of the Universe, but he also points out

that modern politicians automaticaly expose their lack of integrity

themselves as they are so eager for even the smallest of positions.

 

Sometimes we find this trait in our devotees also. Although gurus are

needed, a 'devotee' does not aspire to become one, as we understand that

devotees do not desire beautiful women or to have followers. A person may

accede to repeated requests from qualified people who are convinced that

THEY are qualified, but they certainly don't *aspire* for the position.

 

Generaly in history we find that only the sons of high ranking noblemen and

Kings could afford to get the kind of intensive training required to produce

a first class monarch.

 

YS

SD

[Guest guest]

> We really need an honest history book of our movement up to date, so that

> our future leaders can benefit by learning the detail of our past mistakes

> (and successes) and learning what their consequences were.

>

> Srila Prabhupada says that ksatriya's were trained in social structure.

> Surely a resource detailing the history of social structure in ISKCON

> would be a vital tool for training competent, compassionate and effective

> ksatriyas.

 

This is probabaly one of the most important things ISKCON could do right

now, and would be essential reading in all our varnasrama colleges, as well

as all Bhakta programs.

 

Who is going to do it?

 

YS

Sd

[Guest guest]

> > We really need an honest history book of our movement up to date, so

> > that our future leaders can benefit by learning the detail of our past

> > mistakes (and successes) and learning what their consequences were.

> >

> > Srila Prabhupada says that ksatriya's were trained in social structure.

> > Surely a resource detailing the history of social structure in ISKCON

> > would be a vital tool for training competent, compassionate and

> > effective ksatriyas.

>

> This is probabaly one of the most important things ISKCON could do right

> now, and would be essential reading in all our varnasrama colleges, as

> well as all Bhakta programs.

>

> Who is going to do it?

 

That is a very good question since history looks very different depending

on whose view it is seen from.

Maybe it would be a project which if properly done could give the

possibility for different devotees to finally say goodbye to the past.It

would also give us a reason to get into serious contact and discussions with

those who have left during the years for different reasons and which we have

often ignored. It would certainly be a test of cooperation.

On the whole I think it is a wonderful project and I would definately

support it in my part of the world.

Y.S. Gunamani d.d.

[Guest guest]

On 16 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> Where you might be wrong is your interpolation of the name of

> Jesus Christ, as well as his activities, into Srila Prabhupada's

> words.

 

Srila Prabhupada explicitly says that the New Testament is

a temporary, contradictory yavana scripture. Whatever its

faults, the NT (preferably in Greek) is the _only_ close to

authoritative document we have today regarding what Jesus did

and didn't preach. Anything else is scholarly speculation.

Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

yavana scripture.

 

> There is a golf of difference in between Srila Prabhupada's

> perception of Jesus Christ's preaching, and that one of yours.

> Srila Prabhupada always referred to Jesus as the pure devotee

> of the Lord, one who preached the *love of Godhead* (you can

> check the Folio), and not as a "preacher of mleccha-dharma."

> It is simply that Jesus gave so much of knowledge so much

> the mlecchas of that time and place could possibly take.

 

If he gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have

been able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

After all, many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were as mleccha (if

not more so) than Jesus' disciples at the time of their initiation,

yet they were given the information on how to go back to Godhead;

disciples like Jayananda prabhu may have done exactly that. However,

Srila Prabhupada said that Jesus' disciples did not go back to

Godhead, but just advanced in the material world:

 

"Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go

to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world.

A devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly following

the ten commandments. Now just like in the commandment 'Thou

shalt not kill,' this is a moral instruction for the sinful man.

Similarly, Lord Buddha also emphasized _ahimsa paramadharma_ 'the

highest religion is nonviolence.' So these instructions are for

the sinful men. When one is pious, instead of being sinful, he

is promoted to the higher planetary systems like Janaloka,

Mahaloka, or Tapaloka and they are above the planet Svargaloka.

So persons who are cleansed of sinful life become eligible for

spiritual life. From the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ we

find that the stress is given to make men free from sinful

life--such as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not

covet,'--like that. Therefore, the conclusion is that the

devotees of Lord Jesus Christ are promoted to the heavenly

planets which are within this material world."

(Letter to Bhagavan das 70-03-02)

 

A spiritual master who can take one to the heavenly planets is better

than none at all, but that's only the tiniest step on the way back to

Godhead. Further, that's a step achieved even by the veda-vaada-rataH

class of men, who only have interest in the fruitive benefits of

certain portions of the Vedas rather than the process of unalloyed

devotional service. This class of men is described in IshopaNishhad

(9) -- "tato bhuuya iva te tamo ya u vidyaayaaM rataH" : the fate of

those who pursue such so-called knowledge is even worse than the dark

ignorance achieved by those who engage in nescience.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay S. Pai

[Guest guest]

> Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> yavana scripture.

>

 

Nope, Jesus preached, and than others compiled it as the Gospel, whcih became

regarded as scripture.

 

 

 

>

> If he gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have

> been able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

>

 

I hope you are not insinuating that Srila Prabhupada didn't have any 'real'

information about our most intimate rasa with Krsna, being that he didn't

indulge us in such affairs?

 

 

 

>

> "Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go

> to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world.

>

 

 

If I could get myself promoted to a higher existence where the people are more

saintly, I wouldn't be entirely dissappointed. Not all heavenly realms are

meant for gross sense enjoyment.

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

VSP wrote:

> > If [Jesus] gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have

> > been able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

 

> I hope you are not insinuating that Srila Prabhupada didn't have any 'real'

> information about our most intimate rasa with Krsna, being that he didn't

> indulge us in such affairs?

 

Srila Prabhupada gave lots of information in his books on

intimate relationships with Krishna. He didn't give any

specific individual information about his or her constitutional

spiritual form since his own Guru Maharaja was against

such practices, seeing that such information could be

abused. However, the repeated discussions of rasa in his books

shows that Srila Prabhupada had great knowledge about this

topic and wanted us to have respect for it and implicit faith

in it as well.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> I'd be real careful about pursuing this line of reasoning. According to

> this thinking, Srila Prabhupada failed too, because in addition to

> Jayananda, many of Prabhupada's disciples continued to cheat, steal, and

> commit adultery and some even committed murder.

 

Well, that can't be held against the knowledge that Srila Prabhupada

gave; if even one disciple went back to Godhead as a result of

his teachings, then his teachings have the potency to send

someone back to Godhead. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada did not

have such regard for the teachings of Jesus, saying that the devotees

of Jesus only went to a higher place in the material world. Thus,

the teachings of Jesus do _not_ have the potency to send someone

back to Godhead, according to Srila Prabhupada.

 

[Remainder of motherhood-and-apple-pie arguments snipped]

 

Regards,

 

Vijay S. Pai

[Guest guest]

At 7:20 -0800 4/19/99, WWW: Vijay Pai (Houston TX - USA) wrote:

>If he gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have

>been able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

>After all, many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were as mleccha (if

>not more so) than Jesus' disciples at the time of their initiation,

>yet they were given the information on how to go back to Godhead;

>disciples like Jayananda prabhu may have done exactly that. However,

>Srila Prabhupada said that Jesus' disciples did not go back to

>Godhead, but just advanced in the material world:

[snip]

 

I'd be real careful about pursuing this line of reasoning. According to

this thinking, Srila Prabhupada failed too, because in addition to

Jayananda, many of Prabhupada's disciples continued to cheat, steal, and

commit adultery and some even committed murder. So maybe we *do* still

need the basics (such as the 10 commandments) in this age. Unless we can

show that by skipping the basics and giving only the higher knowledge,

we've been able to produce observable improvements in all of our sincere

members, I don't think we have the right to criticise Jesus for emphasizing

these points.

 

Sometimes I think that many of ISKCON's problems are due to the fact that

general ethics and morality have not been stressed enough. Instead,

people who, due to their actions, would be considered unethical and immoral

by virtually anyone, can still be defended and considered saintly in

ISKCON, simply because they're chanting and show up at the morning program.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Srila Prabhupada explicitly says that the New Testament is

> a temporary, contradictory yavana scripture. Whatever its

> faults, the NT (preferably in Greek) is the _only_ close to

> authoritative document we have today regarding what Jesus did

> and didn't preach. Anything else is scholarly speculation.

> Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> yavana scripture.

>

 

 

Well, we can get the explicit information on what Jesus Christ

was preaching from Srila Prabhupada:

 

"All the great acaryas, like Ramunuja, Madhva, Caitanya,

Sarasvati Thakura or even, in other countries, Muhammad,

Christ and others, have all extensively glorified the

Lord by chanting always and in every place. Because the

Lord is all-perveding, it is essential to glorify Him

always and everywhere. In the process of glorifying the

Lord there should not be restriction of time and space.

This is called sanatana-dharma or bhagavad-dharma."

 

(the purport to the SB verse 2.2.2 that speaks on

glorifying the Lord)

 

 

How does your statement "Jesus was a preacher of mleccha-

dharma" goes along with Srila Prabhupada's citing Jesus' name

along with Caitanya's, in term of their activities, that is

glorification of the Lord - bhagavad-dharma?

 

 

 

>

> If he gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have been

> able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

 

(another one of your "reasonable" deduction, in the form

of a rhetorical question)

 

If he did not give real information on love of Godhead (your

assumption), then the information that he gave would be

false (or wrong). This would be the logical conclusion,

wouldn't it? See how far you might get with your process of

"reasonable" conclusions, simply in order to "reasonably"

prove your claim how Jesus preached "mleccha-dharma".

 

 

We might certainly easily agree on that Lord Jesus' teachings do

not give full and complete philosophical, spiritual doctrine

on love of Godhead as it can be found in the Srimad-bhagavatam.

But even a small child may tell you merely "God is great, God is your

eternal A lot of non-Xns that went to NV during that time were

offended by seeing Jesus on a vyasasana at all in the

temple. Friend and Father, God loves you and you should love

Him and glorify Him always" and that would be enough to be classified

as *real* "information" wouldn't it? Even if that child might not

be able to deliver you, what does it make difference what is

"real" and what is not "real" info? Your deduction is topsy-turvy.

 

And anyway, the topic is "Which kind of dharma Jesus preached?",

not "Was he able to deliver his followeers?"

 

 

 

 

> After all,

> many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were as mleccha (if not more so) than

> Jesus' disciples at the time of their initiation, yet they were given the

> information on how to go back to Godhead; disciples like Jayananda prabhu

> may have done exactly that. However, Srila Prabhupada said that Jesus'

> disciples did not go back to Godhead, but just advanced in the material

> world:

>

> "Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to

> heaven, that is all.

 

 

Great! If it is that so-called "mleccha-dharma" that brings you

into the association with the demigods in the heavenly planets,

then it is just same as following the "flowery Vedas" that offer the

same destination. That's all what so many Hindus are into with their

worship of Lord Brahmaa or Lord Siva. Then why "a lot of non-Xns

that went to NV during that time were offended by seeing Jesus on a

vyasasana at all in the temple"? In the regard of the achievements,

the devotees of Jesus and the devotees of Lord Brahmaa are on the

same. According to your deductive logic, Lord Brahmaa would therefore

be the preacher of mleccha-dharma (sic!), one who gives false

info, unable to deliver his devotees back to Godhead. However,

the final destination of the Lord Brahmaa, when he dies, is

the Spiritual World, since he is the pure devotee of the Lord.

Then all his dedicated devotees go along. But so is Jesus Christ

also - the Lords *pure devotee*.

 

How about Lord Siva and his hobgoblins? Are you going to judge

Siva according to his devotees' destination, on the way you do

with Lord Jesus Christ?

 

 

>

> A spiritual master who can take one to the heavenly planets is better than

> none at all, but that's only the tiniest step on the way back to Godhead.

 

Wether "tiniest" or not (I could think on much tinier than that),

it still does not confirm your claim that Jesus was the preacher of

"mleccha-dharma", and it is still - "on the way back to Godhead"!

Anyway, what is exactly that "mleccha-dharma"? Please define the

expression so we may know what's on the "road".

 

 

> Further, that's a step achieved even by the veda-vaada-rataH class of men,

> who only have interest in the fruitive benefits of certain portions of the

> Vedas rather than the process of unalloyed devotional service. This class

> of men is described in IshopaNishhad (9) -- "tato bhuuya iva te tamo ya u

> vidyaayaaM rataH" : the fate of those who pursue such so-called knowledge

> is even worse than the dark ignorance achieved by those who engage in

> nescience.

>

 

 

I see. So, everything else than unalloyed devotional service that

doesn't lead directly to the Spiritual World can be classified as

"mleccha-dharma". So why then "a lot of non-Xns that went to NV

during that time were offended by seeing Jesus on a vyasasana at

all in the temple"? Same "pot" (the practiciants of unalloyed

devotional service excluded, only).

 

 

 

--------------------

 

One thing that I've noticed was that in all your references

that are supposed to back up your statement about Jesus Christ,

Srila Prabhupada does not explicitly speak about Jesus Christ

himself, but either about "sastra of yavanas" or about followers

of Jesus. And then you deduct "reasonably" your conclusions

about Jesus Christ himself. Why don't you simply look for

some reference from Prabhupada where he speaks about Jesus,

instead of excercising your sense of reasoning?

Here is the another one from the Second Canto (2.4.18) :

 

 

"Even those who are constantly engaged in sinful acts are all

corrigible to the standard of perfect human beings if they take

shelter of the devotees of the Lord. Jesus Christ and Mohammed,

two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service

on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe."

 

 

What is that "mleccha-dharama" anyway? Please define. I personally

would not bother if it something that brings me to the "standard

of perfect human beings", if it means "taking shelter of the

powerful devotees of the Lord".

 

 

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

I'm afraid that there is a fundamental message that I am not communicating

here: If a ksatriya makes disparaging comments about bona-fide religions

and their leaders, it will cause resentment leading to civil strife -- and

this will be a great detriment to the spiritual progress of the community

as a whole, since citizens will be expending their energy to arm and to

fight with each other -- instead of expending their energy to find ways to

glorify the Lord.

 

In Prabhupada's personal example, he did not discourage anyone from being

a Christian, Muslim, etc., as long as they were actually following their

religion. A proper ksatriya should be trained to follow this example set

by Srila Prabhupada, and thus prevent his citizens from wasting their

energy by engaging in religion-based hatred.

 

Somehow, the way I have put this so far is evidentally not adequate

because it seems that you cannot comprehend this fundamental point. I'm

not sure how else to say it.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

"WWW: Vijay Pai (Houston TX - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2247234 from COM]

>

> On 16 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> > Where you might be wrong is your interpolation of the name of

> > Jesus Christ, as well as his activities, into Srila Prabhupada's

> > words.

>

> Srila Prabhupada explicitly says that the New Testament is

> a temporary, contradictory yavana scripture. Whatever its

> faults, the NT (preferably in Greek) is the _only_ close to

> authoritative document we have today regarding what Jesus did

> and didn't preach. Anything else is scholarly speculation.

> Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> yavana scripture.

>

> > There is a golf of difference in between Srila Prabhupada's

> > perception of Jesus Christ's preaching, and that one of yours.

> > Srila Prabhupada always referred to Jesus as the pure devotee

> > of the Lord, one who preached the *love of Godhead* (you can

> > check the Folio), and not as a "preacher of mleccha-dharma."

> > It is simply that Jesus gave so much of knowledge so much

> > the mlecchas of that time and place could possibly take.

>

> If he gave real information on love of Godhead, then he should have

> been able to deliver his disciples back to Godhead, shouldn't he?

> After all, many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were as mleccha (if

> not more so) than Jesus' disciples at the time of their initiation,

> yet they were given the information on how to go back to Godhead;

> disciples like Jayananda prabhu may have done exactly that. However,

> Srila Prabhupada said that Jesus' disciples did not go back to

> Godhead, but just advanced in the material world:

>

> "Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go

> to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world.

> A devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly following

> the ten commandments. Now just like in the commandment 'Thou

> shalt not kill,' this is a moral instruction for the sinful man.

> Similarly, Lord Buddha also emphasized _ahimsa paramadharma_ 'the

> highest religion is nonviolence.' So these instructions are for

> the sinful men. When one is pious, instead of being sinful, he

> is promoted to the higher planetary systems like Janaloka,

> Mahaloka, or Tapaloka and they are above the planet Svargaloka.

> So persons who are cleansed of sinful life become eligible for

> spiritual life. From the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ we

> find that the stress is given to make men free from sinful

> life--such as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not

> covet,'--like that. Therefore, the conclusion is that the

> devotees of Lord Jesus Christ are promoted to the heavenly

> planets which are within this material world."

> (Letter to Bhagavan das 70-03-02)

>

> A spiritual master who can take one to the heavenly planets is better

> than none at all, but that's only the tiniest step on the way back to

> Godhead. Further, that's a step achieved even by the veda-vaada-rataH

> class of men, who only have interest in the fruitive benefits of

> certain portions of the Vedas rather than the process of unalloyed

> devotional service. This class of men is described in IshopaNishhad

> (9) -- "tato bhuuya iva te tamo ya u vidyaayaaM rataH" : the fate of

> those who pursue such so-called knowledge is even worse than the dark

> ignorance achieved by those who engage in nescience.

>

> Yours,

>

> Vijay S. Pai

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

> I'm afraid that there is a fundamental message that I am not communicating

> here: If a ksatriya makes disparaging comments about bona-fide religions

> and their leaders,

 

Define "disparaging." Is it ok to say that Jesus' teachings can

only take one to heaven, or is the only acceptable thing some "yato

mata tato pathaall roads lead to Rome" hodgepodge?

 

Yours,

Vijay

[Guest guest]

>

> Srila Prabhupada gave lots of information in his books on

> intimate relationships with Krishna. He didn't give any

> specific individual information about his or her constitutional

> spiritual form since his own Guru Maharaja was against

> such practices, seeing that such information could be

> abused. However, the repeated discussions of rasa in his books

> shows that Srila Prabhupada had great knowledge about this

> topic and wanted us to have respect for it and implicit faith

> in it as well.

>

 

 

I agree with you, but others have other opinions based on his preaching

strategy. So we should be careful how we choose to 'label' the empowered

devotees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, that can't be held against the knowledge that Srila Prabhupada

> gave; if even one disciple went back to Godhead as a result of

> his teachings, then his teachings have the potency to send

> someone back to Godhead. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada did not

> have such regard for the teachings of Jesus, saying that the devotees

> of Jesus only went to a higher place in the material world. Thus,

> the teachings of Jesus do _not_ have the potency to send someone

> back to Godhead, according to Srila Prabhupada.

>

>

 

 

 

The argument could be presented: was this situation due to the nature of

Jesus's personal relationship with Krsna, or the strategy he employed on

behalf of his audience.

 

Conversely, if Srila Prabhupada choose to remain and preach within the

material world--would we go to join him, or leave him 'behind' to be in

Vaikuntha.

 

In my mind the correct answer is: wherever the pure devotees congregate, that

is the spiritual world.

[Guest guest]

>

> Define "disparaging." Is it ok to say that Jesus' teachings can

> only take one to heaven, or is the only acceptable thing some "yato

> mata tato pathaall roads lead to Rome" hodgepodge?

>

>

 

 

How about some younger devotee minimizing the position of an empowered servant

of the Lord who was willing to sacrifice his all for the benefit of humanity.

 

Again, I would find it difficult to imagine the 'heaven' of Lord Jesus Christ

as being on the level of the 'heaven' of Lord Indra. Many of the heavenly

planets far surpass the quality of the sensual realm associated with the

demigods. For instance there is the realm of Lord Brahma, where the

predominating energy is 'intelligence', and the residence are but a hairs

breath from achieving pure devotion, or so we've been told. There are a wide

variety of realms between the abode of Lord Brahma and the realm of Lord

Indra.

 

Sometimes I think we have a very childish view of the power of Lord Krsna and

the opulence of His material energy, what to speak of the pure spiritual

abode.

[Guest guest]

> Sometimes I think that many of ISKCON's problems are due to the fact that

> general ethics and morality have not been stressed enough. Instead,

> people who, due to their actions, would be considered unethical and

> immoral by virtually anyone, can still be defended and considered saintly

> in ISKCON, simply because they're chanting and show up at the morning

> program.

 

Definately. We are so ready to judge a person due to such externals as

whether or not they attend the programs, while having no idea at all about

their actual position, circumstances or whatever.

 

How dare we pass judgement on another devotee because of such external

manifestations. Are we not supposed to consider only our own faults?

Whatever happened to Trinad api?

 

YS

Sd

[Guest guest]

> Definately. We are so ready to judge a person due to such externals as

> whether or not they attend the programs, while having no idea at all about

> their actual position, circumstances or whatever.

>

> How dare we pass judgement on another devotee because of such external

> manifestations. Are we not supposed to consider only our own faults?

> Whatever happened to Trinad api?

 

I also think we sometimes forget that it is possible to have a personal

relationship to another person, to see some inner personal qualities,

even though others just see the external. For some the "fallen gurus"

are just someone who has fallen from his position in an institution,

and for others he is a dear friend, and will so remain no matter what

colour he has on his dhoti, or even if he (God forbid) does not even

wear a dhoti at all.

 

ys Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> How about some younger devotee minimizing the position of an empowered

servant

> of the Lord who was willing to sacrifice his all for the benefit of

humanity.

 

Pray tell, where would one find such a thing?

 

> Again, I would find it difficult to imagine the 'heaven' of Lord Jesus

Christ

> as being on the level of the 'heaven' of Lord Indra.

 

We can't be sure one way or another; however, we can get some

insights from the Bhagavad Gita. In particular, those who

are pious in Vedic study go to the worlds like Indraloka and

Chandraloka and enjoy for a very long time before falling back to

earth (9.20-9.21), while those who fall from yoga after a short

time of practice go first to the heavenly worlds of enjoyment and

then are reborn in the home of a braahmaNa or aristocrat (6.41).

Those who fall short after a long time of yogic practice are born

in the family of transcendentalists (6.42); there is no description

of any time spent in the heavenly worlds for such personalities.

Thus, since there is a description of time spent in the heavenly

worlds for Christians, we cannot fit their future into the

"transcendentalist" description in the Bhagavad Gita, and the other

two categories both get to go to the heavenly worlds for enjoyment.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> VSP wrote:

> > Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> > yavana scripture.

 

> Nope, Jesus preached, and than others compiled it as the Gospel, whcih

became

> regarded as scripture.

 

This same argument can be used to call the Bhagavatam into

doubt; after all, Shukadeva Goswami preached, but others compiled

it into the Bhagavatam. (Incidentally, such a style of argument

is favored by some mayavadis who want to consider Shukadeva to be

an advaitin but can't explain away the Bhagavatam.)

 

The ground-level reality, though, is that we do not even know of

the existence of Jesus without the New Testament -- we do not even

have Roman crucifixion records or Jewish written histories of the

time from which we can gather evidence. Calling the NT into question

in this fashion while still maintaining a high view of Jesus suffers

from a logical flaw known as "upajIviya-virodha"; roughly,

self-contradiction. This is self-contradiction because calling the

NT into question as an accurate portrayal of Jesus' preachings

actually calls the very existence of Jesus into question. [On the

other hand, calling the NT into question by saying that it is a

temporary, contradictory yavana scripture does not cast doubt onto

the existence of Jesus since even such documents can have useful

historical information.]

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 19 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> VSP wrote:

> > Srila Prabhupada explicitly says that the New Testament is

> > a temporary, contradictory yavana scripture. Whatever its

> > faults, the NT (preferably in Greek) is the _only_ close to

> > authoritative document we have today regarding what Jesus did

> > and didn't preach. Anything else is scholarly speculation.

> > Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> > yavana scripture.

 

> Well, we can get the explicit information on what Jesus Christ

> was preaching from Srila Prabhupada:

 

Srila Prabhupada got his information from his teachers (including

Bhaktivinoda, etc.), who in turn got their information from the

New Testament. Thus, even Srila Prabhupada's view of Jesus Christ

is based on the New Testament, which he in turn calls a temporary,

contradictory yavana scripture.

 

 

> "All the great acaryas, like Ramunuja, Madhva, Caitanya,

> Sarasvati Thakura or even, in other countries, Muhammad,

> Christ and others, have all extensively glorified the

> Lord by chanting always and in every place. Because the

> Lord is all-perveding, it is essential to glorify Him

> always and everywhere. In the process of glorifying the

> Lord there should not be restriction of time and space.

> This is called sanatana-dharma or bhagavad-dharma."

 

> How does your statement "Jesus was a preacher of mleccha-

> dharma" goes along with Srila Prabhupada's citing Jesus' name

> along with Caitanya's, in term of their activities, that is

> glorification of the Lord - bhagavad-dharma?

 

You've read too much into Srila Prabhupada's purport. The purport

says that bhagavad-dharma is glorification of the Lord everywhere

and also gives examples of individuals who extensively glorified

the Lord. It does not explicitly say that all the individuals thus

named were teachers of bhagavad-dharma -- it only speaks of their

own personal practice. Note that I have not questioned Jesus as

a pure devotee of the Lord; I have only referred to his

preaching.

 

> > "Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to

> > heaven, that is all.

 

> In the regard of the achievements,

> the devotees of Jesus and the devotees of Lord Brahmaa are on the

> same. According to your deductive logic, Lord Brahmaa would therefore

> be the preacher of mleccha-dharma (sic!),

 

Sorry, your deductions are woefully inadequate. One who worships

BrahmA is an independent deity may only go so far; however, one

who follows the _teachings_ of Lord BrahmA received in paramparA

(such as "IzvaraH paramaH kRSNaH ... ") goes back to Godhead. On the

other hand, even one who follows the _teachings_ of Jesus only

goes to heaven. Srila Prabhupada explicitly said that about

the teachings of Jesus in his assessment: "Regarding the end of devotees of

Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to heaven, that is all. That is a planet in

the material world. A devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly

following the ten commandments." So, following the

teachings of Jesus (such as the ten commandments, which he

confirmed) only leads one to improve in the material world.

 

> How about Lord Siva and his hobgoblins? Are you going to judge

> Siva according to his devotees' destination, on the way you do

> with Lord Jesus Christ?

 

Again, those who follow the teachings of Shiva in paramparA

can go back to Godhead; this is different from the position of

the hobgoblins who follow him as their only lord and master.

 

> Wether "tiniest" or not (I could think on much tinier than that),

> it still does not confirm your claim that Jesus was the preacher of

> "mleccha-dharma", and it is still - "on the way back to Godhead"!

> Anyway, what is exactly that "mleccha-dharma"? Please define the

> expression so we may know what's on the "road".

 

I'll back away from "mleccha-dharma" and settle for "yavana-dharma."

Yavana-dharma means that he taught temporary, contradictory

yavana scriptures. Not only did Jesus apparently preach the New

Testament (a yavana scripture), he also confirmed the Old Testament

(another yavana scipture).

 

> One thing that I've noticed was that in all your references

> that are supposed to back up your statement about Jesus Christ,

> Srila Prabhupada does not explicitly speak about Jesus Christ

> himself, but either about "sastra of yavanas" or about followers

> of Jesus. And then you deduct "reasonably" your conclusions

> about Jesus Christ himself.

 

We can't even know the existence of Jesus wihtout those

yavana scriptures.

 

> "Even those who are constantly engaged in sinful acts are all

> corrigible to the standard of perfect human beings if they take

> shelter of the devotees of the Lord. Jesus Christ and Mohammed,

> two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service

> on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe."

 

Again, this says nothing of their preachings.

 

Regards,

 

Vijay S. Pai

[Guest guest]

>

> The ground-level reality, though, is that we do not even know of

> the existence of Jesus without the New Testament -- we do not even have

> Roman crucifixion records or Jewish written histories of the time from

> which we can gather evidence. Calling the NT into question in this fashion

> while still maintaining a high view of Jesus suffers from a logical flaw

> known as "upajIviya-virodha"; roughly, self-contradiction.

 

Srila Prabhupada did not have the high opinon on NT, yet his view

of Jesus was exceptionaly high (and he maintained it through out

all his writings and preaching. Is that also the case of

"upajIviya-virodha'"?

 

 

 

> This is

> self-contradiction because calling the NT into question as an accurate

> portrayal of Jesus' preachings actually calls the very existence of Jesus

> into question.

 

Why?

 

 

 

> [On the other hand, calling the NT into question by saying

> that it is a temporary, contradictory yavana scripture does not cast doubt

> onto the existence of Jesus since even such documents can have useful

> historical information.]

 

Thus you demonstrate us an example of "upajIviya-virodha",

or self-contradiction. Namely, you first reject the possibility

of a contradictory scripture giving an inaccurate portrayal of the

person's preaching/activities and an accurate info about the existence

of that person. And then, right away, you accept fully that the same

temporary, contradictory scripture *can* have such useful historical

information.

 

 

Just as in the case of your previous "reasonable conclusions",

made out from the obtained info about the NT, you seem to be doing

the same mistake now as well. That is, you first set-up your

objective (the low view of Jesus Christ), and then you go with

adjusting the "reason and logic" accordingly.

 

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

> > VSP wrote:

> > > Thus, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus preached

> > > yavana scripture.

 

> On 19 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

>

> > Nope, Jesus preached, and than others compiled it as the Gospel, which

became regarded as scripture.

>

 

On 21 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

> This same argument can be used to call the Bhagavatam into

> doubt; after all, Shukadeva Goswami preached, but others compiled

> it into the Bhagavatam.

 

 

 

I disagree - the Bhagavatam was compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, who is not only

considered a shaktya-vesa avatara, but a direct disciple of Narada Muni.

 

 

>

> The ground-level reality, though, is that we do not even know of

> the existence of Jesus without the New Testament -- we do not even

> have Roman crucifixion records or Jewish written histories of the

> time from which we can gather evidence.

 

 

 

There is historical evidence--I recently read up on this issue in the

Encyclopedia Britannica. I can research it again and relay the info if we want

to pursue this one further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> Srila Prabhupada got his information from his teachers (including

> Bhaktivinoda, etc.), who in turn got their information from the

> New Testament. Thus, even Srila Prabhupada's view of Jesus Christ

> is based on the New Testament, which he in turn calls a temporary,

> contradictory yavana scripture.

>

>

 

Whatever the case, Srila Prabhupada had a high opinion of the words (you can

judge a man by his speach) attributed to Jesus Christ. It is hard to ignore

how the preaching of Jesus has turned countless people towards the theistic

conclusion. Further, we often consider devotees such as Bhaktivinoda and

Prabhupada as having insight beyond the academic.

 

Any rate, if we are going to obsess on the alleged deficiencies of the other

devotees, why not simply meditate on the GBC? That way we can keep our

offenses within our own society.

[Guest guest]

>

> Pray tell, where would one find such a thing?

>

 

Are you refering to younger devotees, or empowered devotees, or younger

empowered devotees?

 

 

> > Again, I would find it difficult to imagine the 'heaven' of Lord Jesus

Christ as being on the level of the 'heaven' of Lord Indra.

> >

 

>

> Thus, since there is a description of time spent in the heavenly

> worlds for Christians, we cannot fit their future into the

> "transcendentalist" description in the Bhagavad Gita, and the other

> two categories both get to go to the heavenly worlds for enjoyment.

>

>

 

 

It is somewhat silly thinking of devotees of the caliber of a St. Francis as

going to Indraloka to enjoy the celestial damsels, etc etc. He was an asthetic

who renounced the life of his materially prominant and 'religious' family. The

sincere followers of Jesus will follow their spiritual preceptor. The words

attributed to Lord Jesus Christ suggest an individual with profound

appreciation of his loving service relationship with God.

 

I am not sure why this debate is so crucial to devotees who feel secure in the

Vaisnava siddhanta. The sincere followers of Jesus Christ will progress in

their relationship with the Supreme Lord, whether they get our personal

approval or not.