Devotes in other traditions

[Guest guest]

On 15 Apr 1999, Samba das wrote:

> I also love this kind of thing. A few years back I was intrigued also to

> find out that Bhaktivinoda Thakur has written a lot regarding accepting

> other religionists who are sincere.

 

Here are his specific comments on Judeo-Christian theologies, from

Tattva-Viveka (translated by Kuzakratha dAsa). Note the Thakur's

key conclusion: "An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of

this....Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion...

...Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find

this religion completely unacceptable."

 

Text 25

 

adi-jivaparadhad vai

sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya

vibhor dandena niskrtih

 

adi--original; jiva--soul; aparadhad--because of the offense;

vai--indeed; sarvesam--of all; bandhanam--bondage; dhruvam--indeed;

tatha--so; anya--of other; jiva-bhutasya--souls; vibhor--of God;

dandena--by the punishment; niskrtih--deliverance.

 

Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin

all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material

world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the

living entities.

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic

monotheists concluded that this material world is not a place of

unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the

pleasures. They decided that the material world is a prison to punish

the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a

crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment?

What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer

this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very

wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant

garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of

the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being,

the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge,

thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden

into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their

offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of

their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God

Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the

sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily

attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal

hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and

thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make

sense of any of this.

 

Text 26

 

janmato jiva-sambhavo

maranante na janma vai

yat-krtam samsrtau tena

jivasya caramam phalam

 

janmatah--from birth; jiva--of the living entities;

sambhavo--birth; marana--death; ante--at the end; na--not;

janma--birth; vai--indeed; yat--what; krtam--done; samsrtau--in the

world; tena--by that; jivasya--of the living entity; caramam--final;

phalam--result.

 

(These philosophers say that) the living entity's life begins at

birth and ends with death. After death, he is not born again. After

death he attains the results of his actions in that one lifetime.

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather

implausible things: "The living entity's life begins at birth and ends

at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after

death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material

activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have

souls." Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In

this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own

will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living

entities born into very different situations? The followers of this

religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into a house filled

with sufferings, another living entity born into a house filled with

joys, another living entity born into the house of a person devoted to

God, and another living enttity born into a wicked atheist's house?

Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to

perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why

is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin,

and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot

answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is

unfair and irrational.

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts

not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only

one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded

in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who

believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion

completely unacceptable.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts

> not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only

> one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded

> in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who

> believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion

> completely unacceptable.

 

Reincarnation was one of the teachings of the early Christian church. I

don't recall the specific counsel where it was decided not to include

it in the church doctrine anymore, but the reason it was excluded was

because of situations where it was used as justification for abuses of

others, and for rationalizing lack of compassion for others on the

basis that their suffering was due to their karma.

 

Although it was no longer considered an essential doctrine of the

church, neither was it considered a doctrine of the church that

reincarnation was false. It was just agreed to not discuss or promote

it as a doctrine.

 

As a matter of fact, the "one life" idea is not supported by the

Bible. That was a scare tactic used by the later institutionized

church. And there is a reference in the New Testament where I believe

Jesus refers to St John the Baptist (not to be confused with St John of

the Cross) as "Elijah come again", a clear reference to reincarnation.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

 

> Reincarnation was one of the teachings of the early Christian church. I

> don't recall the specific counsel where it was decided not to include

> it in the church doctrine anymore, but the reason it was excluded was

> because of situations where it was used as justification for abuses of

> others, and for rationalizing lack of compassion for others on the

> basis that their suffering was due to their karma.

 

 

 

It was at the council of Nicea (now Constaninople, Turkey) around 300 C.E. it

was thrown out. The Eastern Orthadox Churches still believe in it, I am told,

but may be mistaken.

[Guest guest]

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It was at the council of Nicea (now Constaninople, Turkey) around 300 C.E.

it was thrown out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Constantinoble is now Istanbul -- duh! Previously it was Byzantium.

[Guest guest]

>> It was at the council of Nicea (now Constaninople, Turkey) around 300 C.E.

>it was thrown out.

>

>Constantinoble is now Istanbul -- duh! Previously it was Byzantium.

 

So where did the council really meet?

[Guest guest]

On 17 Apr 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

> It was at the council of Nicea (now Constaninople, Turkey) around 300 C.E.

it

> was thrown out. The Eastern Orthadox Churches still believe in it, I am

told,

> but may be mistaken.

 

If reincarnation was actually thrown out at Nicea (I wasn't

aware of this; I thought that Nicea was mostly about the position

of Christ -- human or divine), then the modern Orthodox would not

accept it, since both the Eastern Orthodox (e.g. Greek, Russian,

Ukrainian) and the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Syrian, Coptic, Armenian)

accept the Nicene creed.