vaisnava teachings of Lord Jesus Christ

[gHari]

Seems ritvik is all you're qualified to speak about after all. My apologies.

[mahak]

Yeah, gHari. Their form of nectar is the next scandal, maybe their mag should be the vais inquirer. Their theology has no room for facts, They speak of rasa like its some kinda option of the individual, not even reading what they post.

 

guest: The different locations of the devotees...according to the respective differences in the nature of their rasa are settled by the inconceivable power of Krsna".

 

[This text and purport is a description of the Spiritual World. Sri Krsna Himself places some devotees HIGHER and LOWER.]

 

mahak. So he doesnt even read, how can we speak to them.. Hes arguing about how I said that ccomparing rasas in terms of higher and lower is idiotic, then he posts something about the matter being settled by the inconceivable power of Krsna. Well, I rest my case. When Paundraka pasted his extra arms on to pretend that he was Narayana, Krsna laughed at him (then killed him). So he thinks that when i say, basically, that to pretend that we are inconceivable in power and can settle this matter of comparison of rasas is idiotic, well, maybe Srimati Saraswati temporarily made him lose it.

 

Speaking of other literatures, Srila Prabhupada never forbids this, some were instructed to because that was the art they brought to the table of guru-disciple relationship. If he makes a statement that we (all five billion of us) do not need to study other things, this is a fact. However, he is not prevented from giving specific instructions to specific individuals to do certain things. When Srila Prabhupada was about to meet with important folks, he often consulted knowledgable disciples concerning the agenda of such discussions.

 

What, you think he wants infants, immatutre disciples. Now this is truely a christian ideal, dont ask, dont think, just pledge allegiance. Why did he bother with telling us that nonsense about Lord Chaitanya defeating the kazi on the strength of the koran if he didnt think we should be able to discuss the issues of spiritual life with others, expecially those with rudimentary conceptions of vaisnavism, ie the understanding of the personality of Godhead.

 

Anyway, theist, dont worry bout these folks, they obviously have an agenda, maybe even a jihadist ideology. They really like the shiite/sunni like discussions of gbc/rtvik more than anything else. But Audarya-fellowship doesnt do this nonsensical diatribe, so they come here to spread their same anti-logic about prabhupada using false teachings about Lord Jesus to somehow trick the christian.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

PS Im waiting for a topic about the glories of Haridas Thakur, but they dont have time, because they are attracted to the party spirit madness that they relish on this topic.

[Guruvani]

Kirtanananda Swami was a Jesus freak too.

Look at the mess he made out of ISKCON in New Vrindavan.

 

If you don't draw the line somewhere, you end up with a whole flock of these Christy Krishna's who turn Gaudiya Vaishnavism into another Hindu hodgepodge of homogenized conceptions.

 

Prabhupada said the Bible is the scripture of the meat-eaters (mlecchas).

Well, I am a strict vegetarian and I don't want to become a meat-eater by reading the Bible.

 

The ten commandments are religious principles for cavemen.

The great sages of India offered things that are millions and billions of times greater than the caveman religion of the Bible.

[bija]

 

The fatherhood of Godhead is a repugnant concept in the Gaudiya conception.

 

How can any devotee of Krishna be interested in some Jesus who taught that God is the father who supplies bread?

 

Give us this day our daily bread?

 

Sure, that is what the father God does.......

 

he supplies bread...

 

God is my father the baker of bread and I am the lover of woman. quote by Guruvani

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 7.4.40

 

TRANSLATION

 

Sometimes, upon seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Prahlāda Mahārāja would loudly call in full anxiety. He sometimes lost his shyness in jubilation and began dancing in ecstasy, and sometimes, being fully absorbed in thoughts of Kṛṣṇa, he felt oneness and imitated the pastimes of the Lord.

 

PURPORT

 

Prahlāda Mahārāja sometimes felt that the Lord was far away from him and therefore called Him loudly. When he saw that the Lord was before him, he was fully jubilant. Sometimes, thinking himself one with the Supreme, he imitated the Lord's pastimes, and in separation from the Lord he would sometimes show symptoms of madness. These feelings of a devotee would not be appreciated by impersonalists. One must go further and further into spiritual understanding. The first realization is impersonal Brahman, but one must go still further to realize Paramātmā and eventually the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is worshiped by the transcendental feelings of a devotee in a relationship of śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya or mādhurya. Here the feelings of Prahlāda Mahārāja were in the mellow of vātsalya, filial love and affection. As a child cries when left by his mother, when Prahlāda Mahārāja felt that the Lord was away from him he began to cry (nadati). Again, a devotee like Prahlāda sometimes sees that the Lord is coming from a long distance to pacify him, like a mother responding to a child, saying, "My dear child, do not cry. I am coming." Then the devotee, without being ashamed due to his surroundings and circumstances, begins to dance, thinking, "Here is my Lord! My Lord is coming!" Thus the devotee, in full ecstasy, sometimes imitates the pastimes of the Lord, just as the cowherd boys used to imitate the behavior of the jungle animals. However, he does not actually become the Lord. Prahlāda Mahārāja achieved the spiritual ecstasies described herein by his advancement in spiritual understanding.

[Guruvani]

 

Here the feelings of Prahlāda Mahārāja were in the mellow of vātsalya, filial love and affection. As a child cries when left by his mother, when Prahlāda Mahārāja felt that the Lord was away from him he began to cry (nadati). Again, a devotee like Prahlāda sometimes sees that the Lord is coming from a long distance to pacify him, like a mother responding to a child, saying, "My dear child, do not cry. I am coming."

 

Srila Prabhupada says that Prahlada felt as if Krishna was like his mother, not his father.

Because Krishna is as much the mother of the living entities as he is the father.

the full concept of God is that God is Father AND Mother.

 

Bhaktivinode has written:

krsna mata krsna pita krsna dana pran...

 

 

so, Krishna is also mother not just father.

That is the siddhanta.

The idea that God is father and not mother is only partially correct.

 

So, God is everything...... father, mother, friend, lover, master and dependent of the living entities.

 

The Father exclusive concept is only a partial concept of God, not the full-fledged understanding.

[mahak]

Thanks, bhij, for your Prahlad nectar. When speaking of rasas, (śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya or mādhurya), these constitute five main ways the self relates to the Supreme Lord. In the Nectar of Devotion, elaborate descriptions of these are made, as well as combinations of sub-rasas like chivalry and aghast. While there is nothing in the literature about Lord Jesus Christ's teachings that indicate that he taught of madurya rasa, there is certainly dasya, sakhya and even vatsalya rasa. When we speak of the rasa shown by Lord Jesus Christ, the relationship between him and The Supreme Lord, it is important to note that we not mistake father-son to be the parental rasa. This rasa is where the devotee accepts the Supreme Lord, while covered by yogamaya, as his child. Where Lord Jesus Christ accepts the Supreme Lord as Father is dasya, he is acting as loyal servant doing nothing but the will of His Father. There are many examples that the intimacy increases (meaning the awe and reverential feelings simultaneously decrease) to friendship, as Lord Jesus refers to his father as Eloyha, which loosely translates as dearmost friend.

 

If one accepts Lord Jesus Christ as shativesa avatara, then one can accept vatsalya rasa as experianced by Yusif and Mary. The stories of them chastizing Lord Jesus as a child, or even where Mary advises him to wait for a better time to do a certain thing, this is actually a demonstration of vatsalya rasa.

 

I really dont care what the naysayers think, but before they criticize this point, I would refer them to the pastimes of King Prthu and Queen Arci. King Prthu is not Visnu Tattwa, however, he is considered shaktivesa avatara, and Queen Arci is depicted as a partial incarnation of Srimati Laxmidevi. Therefore, when considering the relationship of Prthu Arci, we can see more intimate rasas involved.

 

I mention Prthu and Arci in light of the position of Lord Jesus Christ because their causes are quite similar. whenever there is a decline in spiritual values, the Lord Descends or sends a devotee to incarnate to set things right.

 

Lord Jesus Christ's teachings are not necessarily backward or even rudimentary. Some may like to think they have transcended all this stuff, and simply pretend they are gopis or something, but Srila Prabhupada does not concur with this at all. He has carefully told us the stories of Prahladas relationship with Nrsimhadeva, he has told us the story of Prthu and Arci, of Bali and Vamana. Srila Prabhupada carefully cultivates this gradual understanding of all the rasas, not wanting us to be cheaply approaching rasalila prior to understanding that Krsna first and foremost is great, Supremely powerful, full of the six opulances. Our approach to Krsna initially must have awe and reverence.

 

Santa rasa is "Allah Akbar", the understanding that God is Great, but not really cultivating any type of personal relationship with him. Santa rasa may not even considered vaisnava, because within this rasa there is no transcendental exchange. However, Lord Jesus Christ is not teaching of mere appreciation, though the majority of so-called christians are content with such appreciation without having to deal with a person, even his son Jesus Christ. The main desire of one in santa rasa is salvation, a selfish desire that never asks what can be done in servicer of the lord. Muslims and christians alike want heavenly existance, freedom from pain, eternal happiness, but are they really devotees? The goal of santa rasa is not unlike the merging of the mystic into the effulgence of the Lord.

 

Lord Jesus enkindles in those who have ears, as he often says, a manner of devotional reciprocation in servitude and even friendship, which defines as vaisnavism. The goal of one who actually follows Lord Jesus Christ is to satisfy the Father as taught by the son. The Father is satisfied by hearing his name. Some scoff, deriding this prayer as having god satisfy our senses, but it is far from that. This bread is spiritual life, and the conditions are set forth, that we are forgiven only as far as we forgive others, this is what is being asked. Not something for nothing, but a reciprocal agreement between man and God that nothing is given without our sincerity. Again, we have derision of a writing without the derider even reading the writing properly. The scoffer says "give us our daily bread", like all cut and paste, out of context people. The contextual understanding is "give us our daily bread and forgive our offences, as we forgive those who have offended us." One sentence, why take a phrase out to change the meaning? This is not a prayer for something for nothing, an order. It is a transcendental understanding of the conditions for reviving our eternal relationship whose Name we Glorify.

 

Anyway, hare Krsna. Maybe we go to Martin Luther King, who is also honorable, both politically as well as for his spiritual insight.

 

ys, mahaksadasa

[bija]

In the Gaudiya conception madhurya rasa is considered the highest. But not all Gaudiya Vaisnava's end up in madhurya rasa. Is this correct?

 

My point in posting the Prahlada Maharaja verses was to try and minimise criticism, or contention between different devotees and their preferred feelings. I feel such feelings are sacred. Max, it has been a pleasure lately, reading the Bhagavatam. I have never read these pastimes of Prahlada before the last few days. Slowly working my way through the Bhagavatam over the last five or so years. Surely a masterpiece, that opens up as time goes by.

 

 

 

If one accepts Lord Jesus Christ as shativesa avatara, then one can accept vatsalya rasa as experianced by Yusif and Mary. The stories of them chastizing Lord Jesus as a child, or even where Mary advises him to wait for a better time to do a certain thing, this is actually a demonstration of vatsalya rasa. quote by Mahak

That is so sweet. Such a fresh way to look at the gospel. I wonder if any of the christian saints over the centuries entered such meditation and reflection. Similar to the approach of the Gaudiya tradition. The Gaudiya tradition has so much to offer other traditions. Something which I am sure Srila Prabhupada rightly knew.

 

Anyway Mahak...let's join another forum and talk about Thomas Merton.

 

On reflection upon reading Merton's Asian Journal and his journey to India, I realized he only touched a little upon Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu. I am sure if he had the years, he would of relished discovering more of Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya practices. (For those interested: Merton wrote the preface to Bhagavad Gita As It Is, published by Macmillan 1968.)

[bija]

From the Asian Journal of Thomas Merton quoting Vidyapati.

as wing to bird

water to fish,

life to the living-

so you to me.

 

But tell me

Madhava, beloved,

who are you?

Who are you really?

[Guest guest]

 

In the Gaudiya conception madhurya rasa is considered the highest. But not all Gaudiya Vaisnava's end up in madhurya rasa. Is this correct?

 

So my point in posting the above is to minimise criticism or contention between different devotees and their preferred feelings. I feel such feelings are sacred and should not be argued over.

 

 

 

That is so sweet.

 

Anyway Mahak...let's join another forum and talk about Thomas Merton.

 

Which "other forum", bija?

[bija]

 

Which "other forum", bija? quote by guest

 

Mahak in one of his other posts said he was happy to talk about various execellent people (check his previous posts), one of them was Thomas Merton. Kind of a fave personality of mine.

 

Other forum? Forgive my sarcasm. If you find another forum that talks of Merton, let me know. It would be interesting.

[gHari]

It is the siksa forum, the bhagavat forum. It is here but we read selective posts, ommitting the aparadha and false ego crowing - separating the milk from the chalf.

[bija]

 

It is the siksa forum, the bhagavat forum. quote by gHari

That's the one.

 

Got any tips on how to seperate the milk from our aparadha and crowing.

[gHari]

Each author carries a spamming-potential-probability-rating and is read with corresponfing caution or not read at all according to past performance. Once they are banned from my consciousness, I notice they end up leaving here, one way or another. But not before they've dragged a few innocents down with them. Most victims, however, manage to fight their way back to the Path after a time.

[mahak]

Haribol, and thank all of you for sharing your realizations. This includes the detractors here as well, because Im an ex g-man who was involved in committes (ad nauseum). In these committtees, opposing views opened up discussion quite a bit, and everything is left on the table. As the concept of istagosthi carries the same potential of brainstorming, I dont get mad at anyone. Guruvani and I have so much agreement on other issues, so our differences here are minor. Differences are felt up to and including the transcendental realm, so if we get rid of our false ego driven anger because of these differences, then maybe we can touch on the real concept that we HAVE unity in diversity.

 

I am very inspired by bhij's post, praising the stroies of Srimad Bhagavatam. When I bring up the pastimes of Lord Jesus Christ, I am in no way encouraging anyone to accept the bible, or even delve into the more authoritive works that have not been tampered with by the eccliastics (ie Kebra Nagast). My encouragement is that folks spend time engrossed in the wonders of Srimad Bhagavatam. Though I have studied this masterpiece given to the western world by my Guru Maharaja for over thirty years, I still am overcome by appreciation on how fresh these stories are. As Bhij is appreciating Prahlad, I never go away from the meeting between Sukadeva Goswami and King Pariksit. Because of the guru-tattwa controversies plaguing the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, I have taken shelter of the books Srila Prabhupada had with him when he travelled the Jaladhuta, the First Canto. This volume has everything anyone could ever want to know on the science of guru tattwa, from Naradas meeting with Lord Brahma (which produced the atma tattwa verses, the original four verses that began the Srimad Bhagavatam, etc.), Vyasas meeting with narada, the real life and very presently applicable science of love of God as heard from Srimati Kuntidevi. Srila Prabhupada has stated that the entire gist of the Srimad Bhagavatam is contained in what he brought to America originally, canto one. All the rasas are fully described there, there is nothing missing. In fact, the first three verses with the multi-paged purports is the entire science of bhakti in a nutshell. Srila Prabhupada also spoke of how his Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, spent years teaching his students just the first three verses of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

So we have open spiritual discussions here. I accept this gift from the owner of this website and sincerely thank him for this opportunity. My spirituaL DISCUSSIONS do not detract from the mission of Srila Prabhupada. There is no cause for concern that I speak of Lord Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ himself taught his disciples the following:

 

They were in great anxiety one day as they approached him, saying, "there is another who is speaking of the same things you speak of, what should we do, what should we do!" Lord Jesus replied, "Those who are not against us are with us." So, following this teaching, I have taken great care that my discussions of the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ have absolutely no opposition to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. I have challenged many on this fact, and no one has come forth with evidence to the contrary. I have spoken of my upbringing in christian religiosity, on how I had no interest at all, however, once I heard Bhagavad Gita from Srila Prabhupada, Lord Jesus Christs teachings became clear. On my website, I strongly urge readers to never try to figure out any religious teachings without guidance from a bonafide spiritual master. Anything I have written about Lord Jesus and his associates is fully credited to Srila Prabhupada, as I have nothing to say about anything of a spiritual nature without his guidance.

 

Bhij asks about other christians who have an inkling of rasa. a true personal exchange with the supreme Lord. I have actually studied this, but wont elaborate other than mention a few names. I am humbly and with much appreciation for the association thinking of a departed Vaisnava who we used to have such discussions on the iNTERNET, Srimati Jayaradhe devi dasi. Theresa Avila has great realizations of thios naturer. I have mentioned some AVADHUTAS (similar to babajis, bhjajananandis) of christian tradition like ambrose, jerome and padre pio. Most are familiar with Francis of Assisi. Thomas Merton was also very renounced, sort of a western sanyassi of the strictest sense. Thomas Merton immediately accepted Srila Prabhupada and publically praised his works in the early days of the western movement. I admit that I have not read much of his works, but the little I have convinced me of his vaisnava-like quality and unique vision outside the "eccliastic religiosity" box that christianity has become. If we were to start a Thomas Merton thread, I would be as a student, mostly silent, relishing others viewpoints.

 

Whats to talk about? We could throw around quotes, but is this association? No, it isnt, because the books are already published, in context. What we do here is share realizations, share our deepest understandings. This is in compliance with the way devotees are relating to each other, confidentially (meaning having confidence in each other), as described in Srila Prabhupadas nectar of Instruction. I dont want to discuss the seahawks win last night, no nectar there despite the exhilleration.

 

Hare Krsna, gotta get to work, my dead people (I work in a military graveyard) are needing me, they dont like the moss, and the wind keeps throwing branches at them. I thank them for there service, telling them, "Well done. Hare Krsna, you can leave now, dont get tricked by the light, go with the guidance.":pray:

 

Haribol, again, thanks, everyone. ys mahaksadasa

[sanatan]

 

Kirtanananda Swami was a Jesus freak too.

Look at the mess he made out of ISKCON in New Vrindavan.

 

Flawed logic. Kirtanananda as Jesus freak doesn't = mess in NV.

 

 

If you don't draw the line somewhere, you end up with a whole flock of these Christy Krishna's who turn Gaudiya Vaishnavism into another Hindu hodgepodge of homogenized conceptions.

 

And do you intend to be the drawer of this said line? Advice...if you don't like the way some folk synthesize and apply ideas, ignore them.

 

 

Prabhupada said the Bible is the scripture of the meat-eaters (mlecchas).

 

So? That's what he meant; in saying this he also affirmed that it was also bonafide and appropriate for many people.

 

 

Well, I am a strict vegetarian and I don't want to become a meat-eater by reading the Bible.

 

I guess you can also become gay by talking to a homosexual...it's catching, you know.

 

 

The ten commandments are religious principles for cavemen.

 

There are many so-called advanced transcendentalists who could use a refresher course in these...we're all cavemen, dude, with very few exceptions.

 

 

The great sages of India offered things that are millions and billions of times greater than the caveman religion of the Bible.

 

If you don't understand and thoroughly apply these "caveman" principles first, how can you hope to aspire to the greater ones?

[Guruvani]

 

Flawed logic. Kirtanananda as Jesus freak doesn't = mess in NV.

 

 

 

And do you intend to be the drawer of this said line? Advice...if you don't like the way some folk synthesize and apply ideas, ignore them.

 

 

 

So? That's what he meant; in saying this he also affirmed that it was also bonafide and appropriate for many people.

 

 

 

I guess you can also become gay by talking to a homosexual...it's catching, you know.

 

 

 

There are many so-called advanced transcendentalists who could use a refresher course in these...we're all cavemen, dude, with very few exceptions.

 

 

 

If you don't understand and thoroughly apply these "caveman" principles first, how can you hope to aspire to the greater ones?

 

Sorry, but arguing about Jesus is a futile attempt.

 

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami has said that even devotees of Krishna who are not devotees of Mahaprabhu are demons.

So, Jesus was not a devotee of either Krishna or Mahaprabhu, so as far as I am concerned he was a demon inconoclast.

[mahak]

Are arguing, despite the opposite conclusion by Srila Prabhupada. There is no arguement that the Supreme Lord is not only the one who sent Lord Jesus Christ, but is also his most worshippable Lord. As far as being a devotee of Lord Chaitanya, his mission is the same, to have all who come to him worship the Holy Names of the Supreme. Your logic is dangerous as well, because we see all the great devotees of the Lord who appeared prior to the advent of Lord Chaitanya who did not profess to be devotees of mahaprabhu, are they also demon iconoclasts? Madhavacarya? King Prthu? King Yudhisthira? Though you may counter that they appeared with Lord Chaitanya, you have no ability to make this statement, because you dont know if Lord Jesus did not also appear with Lord Chaitanya.

 

So if you dont want to argue, and all arguement is useless, just dont come here anymore. Again I ask, what is your attraction? If you are attracted to defeat all those who have no ill will toward Lord Jesus Christ, those who recognize his contributions of a vaisnava character, then you are also attracted to defeat the last three sampradaya acaryas who all make affirnmations as to his vaisnava status.

 

Your disagreement is with them, it is they whom you must defeat, calling he, who they call a vaisnava, an iconoclast demon. Arguing against stalwart acaryas like Srila Bhaktivedanta, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and Srila Bhaktivinode is a very futile endeavor.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[mahak]

From introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita:

 

"The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles thaught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma. This is scientific consideration of truths regarding religious principles. Those who consider their own religious principles as real dharma and others religious principles as irreligion or subreligion are unable to ascertain the truth due to being influenced by prejudice. Actually religious principles followed by people in general are different only due to the different qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious principles of all living entities are one. It is not proper for swanlike persons to reject the religious principles that people in general follow according to their situation. Therefore, with due respect to the religious principles followed by people in general, we will now discuss the living entities constitutional religious principles."

 

and this too, by Srila Bhaktivinode, discussiong rasa appearing in the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ, from the same Sri Krsna Samhita:

 

"Vatsalya rasa manifested throughout India in different forms at different times. Among the different forms, vatsalya mixed with opulence crossed India and appeared in a great personality named Jesus Christ, who was a preacher of Jewish religious principles."

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist]

So after hearing all these descriptions of hellish planets... As there are heavenly planets, there are hellish planets also. So Parikshit Maharaja inquiring from Sukadeva Gosvami,

adhuneha maha-bhaga

yathaiva narakan narah

nana ugra yatanan neyat

tan me vyakhyatum arhasi

[sB 6.1.6]

"Sir, I have heard from you about many hellish planetary description, and the men who are very much sinful, they are put into those planets." But Parikshit Maharaja is a Vaishnava. Vaishnava is always feeling for others' distress. That is Vaishnava. (aside:) Don't make this sound. (indistinct) Vaishnava—para-duhkha-duhkhi. They're very much afflicted with others', I mean to say, miserable life. Just like Lord Jesus Christ, he presented himself as very much afflicted with others' miserable condition of life. So all the Vaishnavas, devotees... It doesn't matter which country he belongs to or which sect he belongs to. Anyone who is God-conscious or Krishna conscious... Therefore to blaspheme a Vaishnava, a preacher of God's glory, is great offense. Krishna, or God, will never tolerate offense on the lotus feet of a Vaishnava. So here Parikshit Maharaja is asking... Because he's a Vaishnava. Mind that. A Vaishnava is actually feeling... Para-duhkha-duhkhi kripambudhi. These are the adjectives of the qualifications. (aside:) Sit down. Kripambudhi means ocean of mercy, kripambudhi. And para-duhkha-duhkhi. Vancha-kalpa-taru. Vancha-kalpa-taru means everyone has got desires, but Vaishnava can fulfill all desires.(...)

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

 

Mahak, I know you are posting to others and not casting pearls before swine. Be careful reading his obnoxious and blasphempous posts though. I'll be skipping them taking gHari's advice.

[Guruvani]

Starting with Bhaktivinode Thakur and then to Srila Prabhupada there has been some attempts to sort of build a bridge between the Christian beleifs and the Vaishnava beliefs. I think that most all their effort to acknowledge Jesus and his teachings have been a sort of preaching device to make inroads into the Christian societies and gradually spoon-feed them the Vaishnava principles.

 

I don't accept that everything either of them said about Jesus or Christianity as actual fact as much I believe that they were just trying to devise some way to appease the Christian types and then more-or-less trick them into understanding the Vaishnava theology.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was not very much into the appeasement of Christians and his position was rather blunt, as he made statements like "Vasudeva Datta and Haridas Thakur were millions of times greater than Jesus".

 

If we judge the Jesus concept on the basis of the Vedic requirements, we will find that Jesus had no connection to any bona-fide sampradaya and never made any reference to the Vedas or Vedic scriptures.

 

In normal Gaudiya thinking, anybody like Jesus that popped up today would just be rejected as an unauthorized person with no authentic credentials in spiritual science.

 

Today, we can find common people all over the world who have much greater knowledge of Godhead than anything we see in the teachings of Jesus.

 

Even a new bhakti that spends one day in Hare Krishna temple can tell you more about Godhead than anything Jesus every revealed.

 

In my opinion, a new bhakti at a Hare Krishna temple is millions of times more advanced in knowledge than Jesus.

 

If Jesus hadn't manifested some mystic siddhis, ain't nobody would have given him any special attention.

 

Mystic powers hold a very insignificant position in the Vedic view of spirituality.

 

Jesus was a very small-time spiritualist with some mystic siddhi.

 

What he taught about God is so elementary and primitive that even Bubba Free John knows more than what Jesus revealed.

 

I don't see what all the big deal is about Jesus.

 

Any new Bhakta at a Hare Krishna temple can teach more about God than Jesus ever did.

 

Any new bhakta at a Hare Krishna temple could be guru to Jesus, in my opinion.

 

Jesus needs a genuine spiritual master to teach him about Krishna.

Hopefully, he made some advancement in his subsequent incarnations and maybe made some more advancement towards self-realization - God realization.

[Guest guest]

Someday he will be as advanced as bhaktivinode and prabhupadas spiritual master sri guruvani. What drivel.

 

And no, theist, bhaktivinode makes the case quite well when he states "It is not proper for swanlike persons to reject the religious principles that people in general follow according to their situation." Srila Prabhupada makes greater and more grave statement on what we have seen here: "Therefore to blaspheme a Vaishnava, a preacher of God's glory, is great offense. Krishna, or God, will never tolerate offense on the lotus feet of a Vaishnava."

 

haribol, thank all those who have made this thread so nice, hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Kanaka]

Lets see Jesus says he came to fulfill the laws of Moses and he was a Jew who followed the Torah.

 

In the Torah,

In the beginning God rejected the grains offered to him by Cain and accepted the slaughtered animal given by Abel.

 

Doe not add up that Jesus could have been asking us to love that god that accepts blood and rejects grains.

[Guruvani]

I don't say this to offend anybody or demean anybody, but I just feel that my intelligence is being insulted when so-called devotess try to hype this Jesus concept.

I think the whole Jesus story is a fabrication for the most part and just another one of the man made religions of the world.

 

Bye the way, how does one worshiip Jesus?

Worship is puja of a deity.

There is no puja of a Christ deity in Christianity.

 

I don't think there actually is any way to WORSHIP Jesus.

 

One might try to follow the teachings of the so-called Christ, but that is not worship.

 

Bhaktivinode and Srila Prabhupada simply tried to appease the Christian types of the western world with some remarks and statements about Jesus.

 

But, I think it was just a preaching device and not actually factual spiritual reality.

 

If Christ came out today and tried to preach to the Gaudiyas of India, he would just be shunned as an apasampradaya jnani trying to preach a very shallow and primitive concept of God.

 

Maybe the Christ concept was powerful in the Middle East 2000 years ago, but in todays world of international Vaishnavism and Krishna consciousness it is a very lame concept of God and has been made obsolete by Krishna consciousness and all the other bona-fide yoga systems of India.

 

Everybody is all about parampara until it comes to Jesus and then all of a sudden you can accept a dead guru as your spiritual master.

 

I don't disagree with that idea, but I don't like to see these hypocritical double standards being bounced around by devotees.

 

None of these Jesus freaks in here are ritviks till it comes to Jesus.

Then they are all about being the disciple of a dead guru.

[Guruvani]

 

Lets see Jesus says he came to fulfill the laws of Moses and he was a Jew who followed the Torah.

 

In the Torah,

In the beginning God rejected the grains offered to him by Cain and accepted the slaughtered animal given by Abel.

 

Doe not add up that Jesus could have been asking us to love that god that accepts blood and rejects grains.

 

And we can know for sure that the God of the Torah and the Bible was not Lord Vishnu or Krishna, because we know from the scriptures that the Lord does not accept meat offerings.

 

The God of the Hebrews must have been a minor deity and maybe an asura and not even a deva.

 

The God of the Hebrews sounds like an asura with all this meat-eating and meat-offerings of the Bible and the Torah.

 

I don't see how he could have been a deva, because the demigods do not eat meat.

 

Many asuras have been worshipped as God by all sorts of primitive peoples.

Maybe the Hebrews had been duped into worshipping an asura who was passing himself off as God?

[Guruvani]

Despite any so-called acknowledgement that Srila Prabhupada might have given to Jesus or his teachings, he is also known for saying that there is no reason for Jesus to return because there wasn't a true Christian on the planet.

I don't have the quote at hand, but it was common preaching around ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada laughed about the idea of the return of Christ because he said Christ would not return to this world to deliver all the hypocrits.

 

Prabhupada might have acknowledged Jesus, be there is no evidence that he even acknowledged that these so-called Chrisitians were at all spiritual or religious.

 

For the most part, Srila Prabhupada wrote off Christianity as a hoax religion.

 

Jesus got some recognition, but the Christians got nothing from Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada writes: "One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not kill,' but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."

Srila Prabhupada even candidly told a Catholic priest in London in 1973, that, "Animal-killers cannot understand God. I have seen this. It is a fact."

 

 

Srila Prabhupada:"if the Christians want to love God, they must stop killing animals."