Religious training for Ksatriyas

[Guest guest]

On 21 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

 

> So, following the

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

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

 

 

"Mr. O'Grady: ...when you say Krsna consciousness is there any difference

between that and Christ consciousness?

Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the

message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become Krsna

conscious." SSR pg 262

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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.

 

But apparently some feel that having a statue of him is fallen for some reason

or

other. Or was it the fact it was on the lawn that was fallen?

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

 

Yes, even Srila Prabhupada's info about Jesus is, ultimately,

from the same source as yours - a contradictory yavana scripture.

Therefore whatever you say about Jesus is to be accepted as good

as Prabhupada's words. You see, you deducted that the "source"

is the same.

 

 

 

> 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.

 

Yes, I suppose this is the proper understanding we ought to

stick to: That whenever Srila Prabhupada speaks about activities

of the great acaryas ("those who teach and preach by own example"),

like that they "extensively glorified the Lord by chanting *always*

and in *every* place", then we should "reasonably conclude"

that this has nothing to do with their preaching, it's only

their "own personal practice". Their private lifes, what we would

say. Thus we get saved from "too much reading" into Prabhupada's

purports.

 

 

Since you seam to love being explicit and not reading too much

into Prabhupada's purports, our situation seam to be explicitly

that one of understanding particular purports on the way you

draw your own "reasonable conclusions" out. Then we get knowing

that such-and-such Prabhupada's purport explicitly states

"Jesus preached mleccha[javana]-dharma", though none is able

to trace out in that purport not a single word from it.

It's all - reasonable conclusions, after all. It's only

the question of who is entitled on it, and who isn't.

 

 

 

> Note

> that I have not questioned Jesus as a pure devotee of the Lord; I have

> only referred to his preaching.

 

.... And I will not dare to start aplying my reason&logic (to

speculate) why the Lord would send his dear pure devotee to this

world. And what such pure devotee's actual business might be.

I guess, whatewer the answers could be, it would be the matter

of Lord's and His devotee's "own personal practice". Like

with getting tortured and crucified by demons also. So,

no use of even trying it (unless it would be fitting the

particular objective "he preached javana-dharma", I

suppose).

 

 

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

 

 

So, anyway, you don't question Jesus' as a pure devotee, nor

his "own personal practices" as a great acarya. Only his

"yavana-dharma teacher business" - the reason to get "non-Xs"

offended seeing him being offered the same kind of respect

like to some "teacher of bhagavad-dharma".

 

I suppose the same "non-Xs" would not be reactig on the same

way if it would be for Lord Buddha, for exemple. The teacher

who publicly rejected the autority of the Vedas, and the

teachings of bhagavad-dharma (what worse is there?). And why

they would react differently? Becuse they *know* who Lord Buddha

actually is, and that his actual mission was to somehow or

other lure the degraded people to on one or other way start

again worshiping and glorifying the Lord - by worshiping

and following Him, Buddha, Krsna Himself. But "technically

speaking", yes, they could have as well as all the argument

to portarte the low view of Lord Buddha Himself. Just look

what He did! He preached "mayavada-dharma"! Nothing more

condemnable than that, the spiritual death! Far worse than the

preacher of "yavana-dharma"!

 

 

But lord Jesus Christ - they know nothing. Just sticking

to "he preached javana-dharma", that's it. And then they get

offended if someone else gives Jesus more respect than they

think he deserves. Because they are in ignorance about Jesus'

personality, his actual mission, his activities, his relationship

with Krsna. All they got about him is an info on the NT

as "a scripture of yavanas", and then they get very explicit

about Jesus himself, and what kind of respect he deserves

(or more precisely - does not deserve).

 

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> "Mr. O'Grady: ...when you say Krsna consciousness is there any difference

> between that and Christ consciousness?

> Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the

> message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become Krsna

> conscious." SSR pg 262

 

 

I would say, this seems to be quite explicit, and that

no other "reading in purports" are required. Neither

the deduction where from did Prabhupada got "his info."

 

Thanks, Janesvra. But you didn't really had to let me

endeavor so much, defending this same Srila Prabhupada's

understanding of what Christ preached actually, did you?

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

> And then they get

> offended if someone else gives Jesus more respect than they

> think he deserves. Because they are in ignorance about Jesus'

> personality, his actual mission, his activities, his relationship

> with Krsna.

 

 

Another point that might be interesting to consider is that Jesus preached

before the advent of Lord Caitanya, who broke open the store house of love of

God. So time and place are certainly important factors. Previous to Lord

Caitanya even the Vaisnava acaryas where somewhat 'limited' in their

presentation as compared to those who followed after Him.

[Guest guest]

On 21 Apr 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> "Mr. O'Grady: ...when you say Krsna consciousness is there any difference

> between that and Christ consciousness?

> Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the

> message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become Krsna

> conscious." SSR pg 262

 

 

Yes, and the letter from Srila Prabhupada to Bhagavan das said that

the devotees of Jesus who follow the teachings of Jesus do not go back

to Godhead, but just go to a higher material planet. Thus, if these 2

quotes are understood to be logically consistent, we can only come

away with the conclusion that those who "become Christ conscious" and

achieve the same results as those who become Krishna conscious are

different from the "devotees of Jesus" that Srila Prabhupada spoke of

in the letter to Bhagavan das. There may be a question as to who are

the individuals who become Christ conscious, but that is

irrelevant. So, even with this quote one cannot provide convincing

evidence that Jesus taught bhagavat-dharma.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 21 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

[lots deleted]

 

Prabhu, let me make this very clear for you; I thought it was

straightforward enough, but apparently it wasn't.

 

I have only questioned the underlying philosophy in the NT, not

the accuracy of its presentation. Thus, I can fully use the NT

as evidence of the existence of Jesus and of the tenor of his

preachings without a logical self-contradiction.

 

Stitha-dhi prabhu, on the other hand, questioned not the philosophy of

Jesus, but rather the accuracy of the presentation in the NT. If one

questions the accuracy of the NT, then one cannot use the NT to

show anything, including the existence of Jesus. Since even the

existence of Jesus is not known to us today through any source not

derived from the NT, one who questions the accuracy of the NT cannot

logically accept even the existence of Jesus. Thus, this form

of questioning suffers from self-contradiction.

 

Srila Prabhupada called the NT a temporary yavana scripture. However,

I have never seen a quote in which he said that the NT (in Greek

or Syriac) was an inaccurate presentation of Jesus' teachings. (If you

have such a quote, please present it.) Thus, if we accept the

existence of Jesus based on the NT, we have no reason to reject its

underlying accuracy in presenting Jesus' teachings. From that,

we can only conclude that Jesus taught temporary, contradictory

yavana philosophy.

 

Regards,

 

Vijay S. Pai

[Guest guest]

On 21 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> 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 only way that you know that Vyasadeva was a shaktyavesha

avatara is through the Bhagavatam. Thus, using this as evidence

suffers from circularity.

 

> > 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.

 

I would be very pleased if you found some historical evidence.

I have full access to the EB through my university; here is what

the EB says specifically:

 

 

"The history of the life, work, and death of Jesus of Nazareth

reveals nothing of the worldwide movement to which he

gave rise. He lived and taught in a remote area on the

periphery of the Roman Empire. His life was of short

duration, and knowledge of it remained hidden from most of

his contemporary world. None of the sources of his life and

work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a

single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary

accounts written of his life and death. What can be

established about the historical Jesus depends almost

without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the

material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark,

Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later

church and its faith in Jesus."

 

In particular, note that "there are no contemporary accounts

written of his life and death" -- we do not even have Roman

crucifixion records or Jewish written histories. The only sources

of "Jesus history" are based on the Gospels of the New Testament.

If you have some contrary evidence, please present it; I'm sure

you could revolutionize the history world just by such a presentation.

 

Incidentally, to tie together the various threads on the VAD conference

right now, the early Xn theologian most closely associated with

belief in reincarnation (Origen of Egypt) was voluntarily

castrated. He thought it would help him serve God better.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 21 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> 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.

 

Exactly. So, let's not go out of our way to give them our personal

approval, as devotees so often try to do.

 

-- Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

 

> Thanks, Janesvra. But you didn't really had to let me

> endeavor so much, defending this same Srila Prabhupada's

> understanding of what Christ preached actually, did you?

 

 

Sorry, Prabhu. But you were doing a fine job without my insignificant help.

 

ys,

Jd

[Guest guest]

> > "Mr. O'Grady: ...when you say Krsna consciousness is there any

> > difference between that and Christ consciousness?

> > Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the

> > message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become

> > Krsna conscious." SSR pg 262

 

> So, even with this quote one cannot provide convincing

> evidence that Jesus taught bhagavat-dharma.

 

 

No, Jesus didn't taught bhagavat-dharma, the philosophy and

doctrine of Vaisnava school. But he preached the message of

Godhead. Evidently.

 

Or is it the burden of providing the convincing evidence

on what Jesus preached still on me?

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > From that, we can only

> > conclude that Jesus taught temporary, contradictory

> > yavana philosophy.

>

>

 

 

Jesus preached according the receptivity of the audience. I don't find he

changed the message of sanatana-dharma in any significant way, just that he

could only present so much under the circumstances he was dealing with.

 

Prabhupada suggested the Bible presented the 'abc' of spiritual life, while

the Srimad Bhagavatam was a post graduate study, like that. If someone has

attachment for God's message as presented through the Christian Gospel, I am

not sure how as Hare Krishnas we are going to increase their attachment by

saying we think it's low class.

 

I must admit, I never could make sense of the Bible until I became a devotee.

But now I find there is alot of powerful stuff in there. I don't find it

particularly contradictory.

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

 

 

>

> The only way that you know that Vyasadeva was a shaktyavesha

> avatara is through the Bhagavatam. Thus, using this as evidence

> suffers from circularity.

>

 

I wasn't trying to 'prove' the Bhagavatam in an academic way, just presenting

the tradition as it presents itself.

 

 

>

> I would be very pleased if you found some historical evidence.

> I have full access to the EB through my university;

 

 

This is what I came up with from the EB 1998 CD standard edition. This is an

excerpt from a section of non Christian accounts from the ancient world that

refer to Jesus. They are not particularly significant from a historical

perspective, but then the Christ and his followers were not considered

significant back then. There were a number of other references noted besides

this one. Here goes:

 

 

Jesus: The Christ and Christology

 

Non-Christian sources.

 

Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of

Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of

Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44),

written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note.... The passage only

affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of

a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in

Rome....

 

 

Anyway, I don't think this touches on the main point concerning the potency

and depth of Jesus as a servant of the Supreme Lord.

[Guest guest]

>

> Exactly. So, let's not go out of our way to give them our personal

> approval, as devotees so often try to do.

>

 

 

I am not sure if our approval or disapproval is of any significance to the

average Christian, or anyone else for that matter. Still, as individual

devotees, it is natural to find a sense of happiness in encouraging others to

purue their God conciousness to whatever degree they can.

 

As for being a devotee of Jesus, I suspect it would be Jesus' opinion better

to be a devotee of God.

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> Vijay wrote:

> >

> > Exactly. So, let's not go out of our way to give them our personal

> > approval, as devotees so often try to do.

> >

 

 

Srila Prabhupada wrote: "... anindaya is that we should not criticize others

methods of religion. There are different types of religious systems operating

under different qualities of material nature. When people are mostly under the

modes of passion and ignorance, then their system of religion will be of the

same quality. A devotee, instead of criticizing such systems, WILL ENCOURAGE

the followers to stick to their principles so that gradually they can come to

the platform of religion in goodness. Simply by criticizing them, a devotee's

mind will be agitated. Thus a devotee should tolerate and learn to stop

agitation." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.24

 

 

 

 

>

>

> I am not sure if our approval or disapproval is of any significance to the

> average Christian, or anyone else for that matter. Still, as individual

> devotees, it is natural to find a sense of happiness in encouraging others

to

> purue their God conciousness to whatever degree they can.

 

 

Confirmed above!

[Guest guest]

At 17:51 -0800 4/22/99, WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote:

 

>Srila Prabhupada wrote: "... anindaya is that we should not criticize others

>methods of religion. There are different types of religious systems operating

>under different qualities of material nature. When people are mostly under the

>modes of passion and ignorance, then their system of religion will be of the

>same quality. A devotee, instead of criticizing such systems, WILL ENCOURAGE

>the followers to stick to their principles so that gradually they can come to

>the platform of religion in goodness. Simply by criticizing them, a devotee's

>mind will be agitated. Thus a devotee should tolerate and learn to stop

>agitation." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.24

>

 

What a wonderful quote! Inspiring and crystal clear. Srila Prabhupada, ki

jaya!

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> I wasn't trying to 'prove' the Bhagavatam in an academic way, just

presenting

> the tradition as it presents itself.

 

Then you should have no difficulty doing the same with the NT.

 

> This is what I came up with from the EB 1998 CD standard edition. This is an

> excerpt from a section of non Christian accounts from the ancient world that

> refer to Jesus. They are not particularly significant from a historical

> perspective, but then the Christ and his followers were not considered

> significant back then. There were a number of other references noted besides

> this one. Here goes:

 

> Jesus: The Christ and Christology

>

> Non-Christian sources.

>

> Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of

> Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of

> Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44),

> written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note.... The passage only

> affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder

of

> a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in

> Rome....

 

This is not an acceptable primary source for history; by AD

110, all who had ever dealt with Jesus in any way, shape,

or form (even those who crucified him) were already dead. Thus,

there was no opportunity for witnesses to corroborate or correct

anything written. It may be possible to use such a document

as a secondary source, but we would need to know the primary sources

upon which the document was based. This was not given.

 

As a side note, Christians were already present in various parts of

the Roman Empire by AD 110 (and also in other places; they came to

India by AD 54); thus, popular history even as viewed by the Romans

may have already been influenced by the history presented in the

gospels, even if the Romans were not thoroughly affected by their

underlying message.

 

So, there is still no acceptable historical source that can

corroborate the existence of Jesus without reference to the

New Testament. As a result, we still cannot accept the existence

of Jesus without accepting the accuracy of presentation in the New

Testament.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> > Vijay wrote:

> > > Exactly. So, let's not go out of our way to give them our personal

> > > approval, as devotees so often try to do.

 

> Srila Prabhupada wrote: "... anindaya is that we should not criticize others

> methods of religion. There are different types of religious systems

operating

> under different qualities of material nature. When people are mostly under

the

> modes of passion and ignorance, then their system of religion will be of the

> same quality. A devotee, instead of criticizing such systems, WILL ENCOURAGE

> the followers to stick to their principles so that gradually they can come

to

> the platform of religion in goodness. Simply by criticizing them, a

devotee's

> mind will be agitated. Thus a devotee should tolerate and learn to stop

> agitation." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.24

 

Are you suggesting that Srila Prabhupada's quote contradicts

my statement? If you are, perhaps you can consider the difference

between "encourage" and "approve". The OED meaning of encourage that

best fits here (e.g. a sentiment, etc.) is "To allow or promote

the continuance or development of (a natural growth, an industry, a

sentiment, etc.); to cherish, foster." On the other hand,

the appropriate meaning of approve is "To pronounce to be good,

commend." Thus, the former is merely facilitating, while the latter

actually puts one's own credibility on the line.

 

We see a clear difference between these two in the practical

world as well; for example, consider the US government. Programs

like the NSF and DARPA give lots of money to research in various

fields; however, the conclusions of those studies are not to be

considered the opinions of the US government (many such studies

have explicit disclaimers saying so). Thus, such agencies

simply encourage academic work; they don't necessarily approve of

the end results.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 22 Apr 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> VSP wrote:

> > Note

> > that I have not questioned Jesus as a pure devotee of the Lord; I have

> > only referred to his preaching.

 

> ... And I will not dare to start aplying my reason&logic (to

> speculate) why the Lord would send his dear pure devotee to this

> world. And what such pure devotee's actual business might be.

 

There is no need for your speculations in this regard; we already

have the example of Sri Shankaracharya. He is an incarnation of

the topmost Vaishnava, Lord Shiva. He was dispatched by Lord Vishnu

for the purpose of preaching an unacceptable philosophy, thoroughly

opposed to Krishna Consciousness. Nevertheless, the Chaitanya

Charitamrita says "tAnra doSa nahi" -- Shankaracharya has no fault

in the matter; he was sent by the Lord. Thus, we can uphold

Shankaracharya as a pure devotee without accepting the bulk of

his preaching.

 

> I suppose the same "non-Xs" would not be reactig on the same

> way if it would be for Lord Buddha, for exemple. The teacher

> who publicly rejected the autority of the Vedas, and the

> teachings of bhagavad-dharma (what worse is there?).

 

Indeed, one Chinese devotee once asked HH Tamal Krishna Goswami

at a program here why we don't celebrate Lord Buddha's appearance

day. (Actually, I have forgotten the details of the incident; it may

have been another sannyasi actually.) The answer came immediately:

because Buddha rejected the Vedas. I don't know the exact source

for this answer, but I have read in one of Hari Sauri prabhu's books

that when Srila Prabhupada was walking in Buddha Jayanti park in New

Delhi, he told his disciples to make a Krishna Jayanti park.

Srila Prabhupada didn't simply settle for glorifying the Supreme

Lord's form preaching against the Vedas, but wanted to glorify the

Supreme Lord's original form as the goal of all the Vedas.

 

> And why

> they would react differently?

 

I've heard that Srila Prabhupada said that it would be ok to have

a Deity of Buddha in a temple in Sri Lanka. I don't think that

that's ever been practiced anywhere in ISKCON, though. Since it

was conditioned on being in Sri Lanka, it does seem to be a

concession. After all, if he wanted his disciples to glorify

Buddha, he could have ordered them to make a temple at his

birthplace in Gaya. However, he didn't do any such thing.

 

> Becuse they *know* who Lord Buddha

> actually is, and that his actual mission was to somehow or

> other lure the degraded people to on one or other way start

> again worshiping and glorifying the Lord - by worshiping

> and following Him, Buddha, Krsna Himself.

 

Then it would be correct to disassociate oneself from

a temple with Buddha as the main Deity. After all, as you have

just stated, Buddha came for a specific mission -- to end animal

slaughter in the name of the Vedas and to cause the atheists to

glorify the Lord. Well, we don't slaughter animals in the name

of the Vedas and we are already trying to glorify the Lord,

so Buddha worship is not for us as devotees (except to glorify

Krishna for taking on such amazing forms and pastimes).

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 23 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

 

 

>

> Then you should have no difficulty doing the same with the NT.

>

 

As a matter of fact, I was comparing how the two traditions presented

themselves in my original comment. Somehow that seems to have been overlooked

from the original post 3-4 posts previous.

 

 

>

> So, there is still no acceptable historical source that can

> corroborate the existence of Jesus without reference to the

> New Testament. As a result, we still cannot accept the existence

> of Jesus without accepting the accuracy of presentation in the New

> Testament.

>

>

 

 

Similarly there are no 'acceptable historical sources' for Vyasadeva writing

the Vedas or Sukadeva Goswami speaking to Maharaja Pariksit, etc etc. I am

missing your point other than that you feel you need to make a point about

other religious traditions.

 

As for the AD 110 date, is was about 70-80 years after Jesus' death, which is

sort of like us refering to an event that happened during the Great

Depression. I don't believe they kept records in those days to the extent we

do today, and even if they did, it is difficult to expect anyone to save them

for the 3-400 years which it took for Christianity to take hold, what to speak

of the 2 milleniums that have passed till the present. Any record, no matter

how accurate, will always have its skeptics. Before Constantine, it appears

that situations involving Jesus Christ and his early followers were considered

somewhat irrelevant by the establishment.

 

In any event, the Encyclopedia Britannica was impressed by the reference from

the Roman historian who had a low opinion of the Christian phenomena. Whether

we wish to agree or not, modern scholars acknowledge a number of non-NT

references from the ancient world concerning the life of Jesus. I could post

them, but I doubt you will find them satisfying. As I don't recall myself

personally being there, I admit I can't personally vouch for these sources.

 

It might seem you are on a mission from God concerning this issue. In my mind

the words attributed to Jesus as found in the modern NT still prove to be

quite impressive -- even more so when compared to much of the stuff posted on

COM.

[Guest guest]

>

> Are you suggesting that Srila Prabhupada's quote contradicts

> my statement?

 

 

 

It is becoming more and more difficult for me to imagine Srila Prabhupada

considering the possibility of contradicting any of your statements.

[Guest guest]

>

> > ... And I will not dare to start aplying my reason&logic (to

> > speculate) why the Lord would send his dear pure devotee to this world.

> > And what such pure devotee's actual business might be.

>

> There is no need for your speculations in this regard; we already have the

> example of Sri Shankaracharya. He is an incarnation of the topmost

> Vaishnava, Lord Shiva. He was dispatched by Lord Vishnu for the purpose of

> preaching an unacceptable philosophy, thoroughly opposed to Krishna

> Consciousness.

 

 

 

I suppose that there is no need for anybody's speculations in this

particular instance; we already have the explicit words of Srila

Prabhupada regarding the reasons for Krsna's dispatching Jesus

Christ. It was definitely not for the purpose of preaching an

unacceptable philosophy. So, yes, let's not speculate unnecessarily,

I agree.

 

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

On 23 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> On 23 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

> > Then you should have no difficulty doing the same with the NT.

 

> As a matter of fact, I was comparing how the two traditions presented

> themselves in my original comment. Somehow that seems to have been

overlooked

> from the original post 3-4 posts previous.

 

Is this a reference to your statement, "Nope, Jesus preached, and

than [sic] others compiled it as the Gospel, whcih [sic] became

regarded as scripture," or some other statement? I think the above

statement has been dealt with at some length by now as insufficient

to cast doubt on the validity of the NT while still using the NT

as evidence of Jesus' existence.

 

> > So, there is still no acceptable historical source that can

> > corroborate the existence of Jesus without reference to the

> > New Testament. As a result, we still cannot accept the existence

> > of Jesus without accepting the accuracy of presentation in the New

> > Testament.

 

> Similarly there are no 'acceptable historical sources' for Vyasadeva writing

> the Vedas or Sukadeva Goswami speaking to Maharaja Pariksit, etc etc. I am

> missing your point other than that you feel you need to make a point about

> other religious traditions.

 

I agree that there are no primary historical references outside

of the Bhagavatam (or related texts) that describe the events

you've mentioned. If we want to accept the existence of such

personalities, we must do it through reference to the Bhagavatam.

Similarly, if we want to accept the existence of Jesus, it can

only be done through the NT (or derivative sources). That's the

point. Thus, one cannot question the accuracy of the New Testament

while still believing in the existence of Jesus.

 

> As for the AD 110 date, is was about 70-80 years after Jesus' death, which

is

> sort of like us refering to an event that happened during the Great

> Depression.

 

If we were to refer to such an event, we would have to do it with

ample citations to actual primary sources; we could not just make

up our own mumbo-jumbo about the Depression and expect anyone else

to believe it. Similarly, the only way that we can accept a history

of Jesus written in AD 110 is through reference to primary sources;

such were not included in that EB article.

 

> In any event, the Encyclopedia Britannica was impressed by the reference

from

> the Roman historian who had a low opinion of the Christian phenomena.

 

Hmmm... perhaps your definition of impressed differs from mine. EB

started that very paragraph with the caveat, "Non-Christian sources

are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not

already known from the Christian tradition."

 

> Whether

> we wish to agree or not, modern scholars acknowledge a number of non-NT

> references from the ancient world concerning the life of Jesus. I could post

> them, but I doubt you will find them satisfying.

 

If they are primary sources, I will definitely find them satisfying.

 

> It might seem you are on a mission from God concerning this issue.

 

My "mission" is to force the "Jesus-freaks" of our online devotee

community to deal with facts they might otherwise conveniently

ignore or find unpalatable.

 

> In my mind

> the words attributed to Jesus as found in the modern NT still prove to be

> quite impressive

 

While you found the NT to be "quite impressive," Srila Prabhupada

considered it "not very sound and transcendental" and "unacceptable"

to "modern people advanced in science and philosophy."

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

> My "mission" is to force the "Jesus-freaks" of our online devotee

> community to deal with facts they might otherwise conveniently ignore or

> find unpalatable.

 

Boy, if I would had known earlier for this "mission" of

yours, I wouldn't even think on picking any discussion

of a kind with you - I have had enough of similar forceful

"missioners", be they "yavana-dharmis", or "bhagavad-dharmis"

or "Hindu-dharmis". They all got the same type of "mission":

To force other people (this or that "freaks") to accept

their "facts".

 

 

 

mnd.

[Guest guest]

On 24 Apr 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

 

 

>

> Is this a reference to your statement, "Nope, Jesus preached, and

> than [sic] others compiled it as the Gospel, whcih [sic] became

> regarded as scripture," or some other statement? I think the above

> statement has been dealt with at some length by now as insufficient

> to cast doubt on the validity of the NT while still using the NT

> as evidence of Jesus' existence.

>

 

 

I believe the reference I was referencing is that the tradition of the the

Gaudiya Vaisnava in particularl is presented in a manner we would certainly

consider as practitioners more thorough (sic?), offering both detailed

knowledge and a straighforward process. But because we consider ourselves

'better' does not suggest others are 'irrelevant'.

 

Your obsession with the NT seems kinda funny to me. In one sense, all one has

to do is examine the speach of a man to understand his character. But if one

is wanting to identify with a ritualistic path, then maybe there could be some

confusion as to which is the best ritual to been seen associating with.

 

 

> Thus, one cannot question the accuracy of the New Testament

> while still believing in the existence of Jesus.

>

 

Even if we accept your point, whoever the words of Jesus can be attributed to

in the NT seems to have had some very substantial realizations about his

eternal service realtionship with God. I believe uncovering that truth is the

underlying purpose of all theistic rituals.

 

 

>

> If they are primary sources, I will definitely find them satisfying.

>

 

 

Primary or shrimary, it is really a silly point, in my mind. The importance of

the preaching of Jesus is not that he was referenced in the EB as noteworthy

to modern scholars, but that people have become inspired to experience their

relationship with God by hearing his words, or at least the words attributed

to him for, those who wish to remain Jesus NT agnostics.

 

None-the-less, the EB material can be posted, or possibly better that you look

them up at your college library so you can take the time to maturely study

them.

 

 

>

> While you found the NT to be "quite impressive," Srila Prabhupada

> considered it "not very sound and transcendental" and "unacceptable"

> to "modern people advanced in science and philosophy."

>

>

 

 

There are many quotes sugesting that Srila Prabhupada found the life and

preaching of Jesus Christ quite substantial and more than important enougth

(sic?) to mention in his Bhagavatam purports time and again. He also used that

ABC/post-graduate analogy.

 

As I was born Jewish, (just like Jesus, I might add!) I don't have any

particular ethnic stake in defending the Christian church. But seeing that

others are feeling inspired by the theistic conclusion will always remain

impressive to me.

 

Sthita 'Jews for Jesus' dhi-muni dasa