vaisnava teachings of Lord Jesus Christ

[bija]

From what you are saying guest things look very bleak indeed. Can there be any common ground? Personally I have hope there can be. In this sanatana dharma. Transcendental perception.

 

Maybe we need to put some deep thought into this and how to present it to an ever changing world. The previous guest is correct in that sectarianism even pervades Hare Krsna institutions. Surely this was not the Acarya's intentions. They claim to teach sanatana dharma.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but this fundamentalist radicalism is wearing very thin in the beginning of this 21st century world for me.

 

So by what you are saying, things look very bleak indeed.

[Guest guest]

One point not mentioned here is the fact that in all the accounts of Jesus going to India where do we find that he went there to receive knowledge? He went to India to give knowledge. No Vaishnava can accept such a thing. Anyway the Aquarian Gospel is a recent invention and is not revealed scripture. The Christians have been making it up for 2,000 years. The best thing the Vaishnavas can do is tell them the truth about their religion. We have historical evidence to back up our claims that Christianity is a man made religion and not transcendental.

 

Since when is eating flesh and drinking the blood of the guru considered a Vaishnava ritual? Jesus asked us to do that. Therefore he could not have been a Vaishnava.

[gHari]

That just ain't so. You'll only make the Christians laugh. And rightly so.

[Beggar]

 

Vaisnavism is a sect: a particular designation with certain core beliefs. If you don't believe that, then try going to an ISKCON temple and leading the morning program doing the pranam mantras from Sridhar Maharaja's camp or Narayana Maharaja's camp or Swaminarayana's camp. And that is just within Gaudiya Vaisnavism from Bengal. Vaisnavism is much broader than that.

 

If you want to discuss the universal wisdom that everyone from any tradition can agree on which is extant in all the hearts of all living beings then why don't you refer to it by its proper name: Sanatana Dharma?

 

However, if you start such a thread and want to be taken seriously by other people, don't start putting it into writing that what other people believe in is bogus and and that they are offenders just because they don't believe what you believe in.

 

Many people here seem to be able to critique your essay and not use such verbiage towards you. If you were in kindergarten and called another child "bogus" or an "offender" during sharing time, in a country like UK, Oz, NZ, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, or the US, the teacher would most certainly immediately correct you and remind you not to call the other students names when it was sharing time.

Who is the bogus offender who made this post? What is his program What has he everdone for Srila Prabhupada! Time out? I was just kidding. I didn't really mean it. Do I have to take a time out? sniffle sniffle:crying2:

[Guest guest]

Hari OM:

 

i think the different religions , varnas, species exists because of the different types of desires in Jiva, each Jiva is given a particular type of body in a particular species within a particular societyfamily to work out its desires (even ants are said to have 30 different types)

 

so we can't say abhramic religions are bad, but are meant for a particular type of Jivas who are given birth in those religions (by God), trying to convert them has two issues--- preventing a Jiva from working out his desire and trying to find fault with assignment of body to Jiva (by God)

 

That is the reason, i think Srila Prabhupadha and other Acharyas, say no need for conversion and they also speak approvingly of all religions. They instead ask all people to chaint Lord's name sincerely so that they will get purified and eventually become desirless or with one desire to serve God. i don't think they are playing tricks to get people from other religions.

 

The only issue is the over-excited abhramic missionaries who set up a goal for themselves to destory everything else and devote their time, energy, intelligence for that goal. Of course they can't succeed ( they are trying for atleast 1000 years or more but still what they see is struggling, fighting , breaking up of the camps every where), since the vedic statement "Loke Binna Ruchi" protects the world from becoming a single camp and no body has power to break that statement.

 

So what ISKCON and all other members who believe in Santana Dharama and Peace or Service to Lord, should do as per my opinion, is to educate the Abhrams about their foolishness and imposibile mission of their religious heads which just sows hatred and violence and achieves nothing else. So they should instead turn to real prayer and meditation and chanting , if not for the world sake, at least for their own safety and prosperity.

 

Also non-abhrahams (hindus, buddhists, jains, sikhs, various native religions) should be explained that they are quite lucky that they are not yet entrapped by Abhrams, so instead of spending their full time and energy in materialistic pursuits should turn towards spiritual side (within their own religious framework)

 

And both of them should be encouraged to chant HK as much as possible to purify and exhaust their desires, instead of struggling to work it out.

 

But if tries are made to humiliate/hurt people with the so-called historical (?) facts , it will only increase the hatred and will not help in achieving the ISKCON's or any reasonable goals.

[Guest guest]

 

Therefore you find today in reliable public-opinion poll, 96% of present Israelis claiming to not believe in a personal God - are atheistic disbelievers.

 

99% of all Christians, Jews and Moslems are impersonalists. It stands to reason that if Jesus visited India he would have been there when the Buddhists controlled everything. If he had wanted to learn from the Vaishnavas he would have had to go underground.

 

SOme one said it is mentioned in the Aquarian Gospel that he stayed at Puri inside the temple there. But that could not be true as NO ONE lives in the temple at Puri. Also they keep very good records and there is no account of a wandering mendicant from the middle east coming to Puri. Just like there are no records of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the time of Jesus the Buddhist ran the Jagannatha temple. I believe Christ and Christianity may be the biggest hoax in the history of Kali Yuga. But if he did exist and went to India to learn he must have learned from the Buddhist. In fact modern day followers of that tradition claim he was a Buddhist and all his teachings are similar to lord Buddha at least all his parables were already told by Lord Buddha. His teachings are certainly abc and meant for the meat-eaters. For sure he taught impersonalism and gave no method for attaining personal God-realization. He could not have been a Vaishnava. All the rituals and doctrines found in Christianity from transubstantiation to virgin birth were stolen from other cults of the day. Christianity borrowed everything from everywhere as far as I can see.

It is illogical to assume Jesus was a Vaishnava. But coming from the west it is understandable that many feel some sentiment for the Jesus figure.

[gHari]

" 99% of all Christians, Jews and Moslems are impersonalists"

 

More lies. Same liar? Why should we listen further?

[Guruvani]

 

" 99% of all Christians, Jews and Moslems are impersonalists"

 

More lies. Same liar? Why should we listen further?

According to Vaishnava principles, anyone who refuses to accept and worship the deity form of the Lord is an impersonalist.

 

Of couse Jesus was an impersonalist and an iconoclast as well.

 

If Jesus would have seen a deity of Krishna he probably would have smashed it to the ground in a thousand pieces whilst pronouncing so many explitives.

 

Anyone who doesn't accept the deity form of the Lord is a demon possessed of hellish mentality.

 

Jesus was against all IDOL WORSHIP. (deity worship)

[Gaea]

 

According to Vaishnava principles, anyone who refuses to accept and worship the deity form of the Lord is an impersonalist.

 

Of couse Jesus was an impersonalist and an iconoclast as well.

 

If Jesus would have seen a deity of Krishna he probably would have smashed it to the ground in a thousand pieces whilst pronouncing so many explitives.

 

Anyone who doesn't accept the deity form of the Lord is a demon possessed of hellish mentality.

 

Jesus was against all IDOL WORSHIP. (deity worship)

 

I think this picture puts this argument to rest. Bart Simpson, a boy from an American Christian family, meets the personal God. See?

 

[sanatan]

 

99% of all Christians, Jews and Moslems are impersonalists. ...

 

Not true...at least from the Christian Trinitarian POV.

 

God the Father...the Supreme personal Godhead. This could be called very vague personalism, as there is no clear indication of his appearance in the Bible, other than the statement in Genesis that he created man in his own image.

 

The bearded patriarch is an artistic tradition, an attempt to put a face on God the Father, nothing more.

 

God the Son...Jesus Christ. Many Christians worship him as God. Perhaps the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, and particularly verse 14, are the most scripturally-influential in this regard. As well, the vast number of sources that provide the everyday familiarity of the human Jesus contribute to an ongoing and highly personal Christian veneration for him equal to that held for Krishna in the Hindu/Vaisnava traditions.

 

God the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit...obviously the impersonal, all-pervading aspect of the Trinity. The same as the Brahman aspect of Krishna.

[theist]

One can see what they like in Michealangelo's (sp) painting I suppose. I see the idea of a personal God reaching down to give renewed life to fallen humanity.

 

I find it very inspiring vs. the bart simpson conception that some prefer.

[Avinash]

 

According to Vaishnava principles, anyone who refuses to accept and worship the deity form of the Lord is an impersonalist.

 

Isn't it your own definition? A personalist is one who believes that God is a person and, therefore, has a form. An impersonalist is one who believes that God is an impersonal, formless principle. It has nothing to do with deity worship. It is possible for a person to believe that God has a form but he does not like worshipping an idol because he does not consider that as God. What will you classify that person as? Personalist or impersonalist or something else?

[Guruvani]

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Now what is that bird who is killed in Christmas?... Turkey, you see. Now, Christmas, God's Christmas, Jesus Christ. He said, "Thou shalt not kill." But his birthday is observed by killing, killing, killing, killing, killing.

 

The animal killers are not followers of Jesus.

 

Obviously, Srila Prabhupada thought that Jesus was a vegetarian.

[Guest guest]

Most people who eat turkey do not actually kill the birds. That is done by someone else. They are not violating Jesus's "thou shall not kill" even if Jesus included animals in the statement, which is doubtful.

 

It is Jesus's mistake to make an unclear statement by failing to specify just humans or all kinds of life - opening up the statment to interpretation. Since he did not tell the fishermen not to kill fish, it is likely he only meant humans and he himself was not a vegetarian. If he was a vegetarian, it is reasonable to assume that it would have drawn special attention and special mention in a meat-eating society. Since vegetarianism never comes up, he was not.

 

In conclusion, when Jesus said thou shall not kill, he only meant humans and Prabhupada misunderstood this. The standard christian understanding of this statement is correct.

[Guruvani]

 

Most people who eat turkey do not actually kill the birds. That is done by someone else. They are not violating Jesus's "thou shall not kill" even if Jesus included animals in the statement, which is doubtful.

 

It is Jesus's mistake to make an unclear statement by failing to specify just humans or all kinds of life - opening up the statment to interpretation. Since he did not tell the fishermen not to kill fish, it is likely he only meant humans and he himself was not a vegetarian. If he was a vegetarian, it is reasonable to assume that it would have drawn special attention and special mention in a meat-eating society. Since vegetarianism never comes up, he was not.

 

In conclusion, when Jesus said thou shall not kill, he only meant humans and Prabhupada misunderstood this. The standard christian understanding of this statement is correct.

 

 

According to the law of karma, all those who are connected to the killing of an animal are liable - the person who gives permission for the killing, the person who kills, the person who helps, the person who purchases the meat, the person who cooks the flesh, and the person who eats it. (These six guilty parties are enumerated in the Manu-samhita, ancient India's book of civic and religious codes.

 

Prabhupada meant what he said.

Animal killers and meat-eaters are not following Jesus.

[Guest guest]

The point is prabhupada got Jesus's message as in the bible wrong. Avoiding this by waving quotes from nonchristian sources gains nothing. then another will quote islam books to support meat eating and go on.

 

if you discuss christianity, then stick to christianity. do not bring in extraneous material from other false religions.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada taught according to time and place and was a perfected soul. But he was not a Biblical scholar. The Christian idea that Jesus is NOT a vegetarian is upheld by most Christians and substantiated in the Bible itself. The asura god of the Bible does indeed accept blood sacrifices even that of his servant Jesus.

 

The fundamentalist Christians are following what is taught in the Bible. They are actually the real Christians and according to them and the New Testament Jesus will return and bring them to heaven while casting the non-believers into ever-lasting hell. So much for love.

 

The point being a scripture that can be so easily interpreted to do harm to others is very dangerous. The Bible is an asuric religious text.

 

Yes we can say Jesus said thou shalt not kill. But any devotee including a pure devotee who debates a Christian who actually knows the Bible will be easily defeated in argument on this point.

 

Therefore it is better to just tell the truth and not try to give vague interpretations to asuric scriptures like the Bible. You cannot turn this cactus into a rose no maatter how hard as you try.