a brief history of the cult of mary in Christianity

[Guest guest]

"...The coincidence in timing between the genesis of courtly love and the sudden expanmsions of Mariolatry in Europe was too close to be entirely accidental...

 

"...Until the 12th century Mary had been just another one of the saints in the Western Christian calendar , but soon after her cult was brought back from Byzantium [the Middle East]...

 

"...by the 13th century poets and troubadors had begun to confuse the Virgin with the Lady [an idealized woman], the sacred with the profane...

 

"...the Virgin became Notre Dame, our lady...much more at home in the princely courts of Europe than she ever would have been in an inn at Bethlehem...

 

"...Under the 14th and 15th century Franciscans she shed her mantle of disengagement to become a warm and compassionate mother to the poor and wretched of the earth. The Holy Family, which had no place in the Gospels, found one in the social milieu of 15th century Europe...

 

"...not until after the Counter-Reformation in the latter part of the 16th century did she arouse any similar enthusiasm in scholars who were responsible for orthodox Church doctrine...her increasingly diversified cult kept slipping through its doctrinal fingers...

 

"...the laity, to whom faith is something quite apart from logic, were quite ready to accept Mary as simultaneously Virgin, Bride of Christ, and Mother, this combination of roles presented certain intractable theological problems...

 

"..she remained a thorn in the flesh of the Church's policies...with increasing frequency it found itself into the dialectically weak position of having to make an exception of Mary, because she was 'different'..."

 

 

"Mary" pages 270-271

The History of Sex by Reay Tannahill 1980 Stein and Day

[Guest guest]

The true history of mary is an ancient text, discovered in 1923 AND authenticated as being written in the 1st century, is called Kebra Nagast. In actuality, the writing of this history of righteous rulers of ancient abyssinia began shortly after the reign of King Solomon.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

 

PS Other than the discussion between mary and elizabeth, there is very little history of her in the canonized bible.

[theist]

Regarding the Christian's Trinity, I believe it is called God, the Holy Ghost, and the son. Person in Krishna Consciousness accepts this by the name Visnu, Paramatma, and Jiva. God is a Person, the holy spirit or the supersoul is a person, and the living entity is also a person. Also, Mary is the representation of the energy of God. Either as internal energy Radharani or as external energy Durga, the energy of Godhead can be considered the mother of the living entities. But there is no clash between the Bible and the Vedas, simply some people formulate their personal ideas and cause quarrelings. Nobody can say the Bible was meant for the same class of men as the Bhagavad-gita. And Bhagavad-gita is the ABC's of spiritual knowledge. Beyond that is Srimad-Bhagavatam. How great Srimad-Bhagavatam is nobody can imagine. And beyond that is Caitanya Caritamrta. But beginning from the Bible or Koran, on up the principle remains the same. Just like beginning from the pocket dictionary, up... letter to Sivananda april 1968

[Guest guest]

It would be nice if a person really has something that they consider serious to share, then in the future they might consider also providing references, footnotes, citations, and sources. That is the standard in essay writing within academia from about grade 4 or ages 8-9. As an added plus if you make it into a habit of doing that, then it would make it alot easier for the author to get published on something other than the internet.

 

Writers Market is a fertile sourcebook of places you can publish articles such as the ones you are writing and it is updated every year. Available at your local public library. I believe that Prabhupada said, "All of my disciples should write books." Sorry if such a suggestion seems nit-picky, it's just that any theory or argument holds more validity if you cite your sources.

 

Also isn't it true that "this time of the year" has nothing at all to do with the birth of Christ and more to do with Saturnalia, the pre-Christian holiday of the indigenous peoples of Europe that celebrated the Winter Solstice? So when you begin an essay that you want people to take seriously with "...this time of the year..." appropos to Christianity then that also makes it more suspect and difficult for anyone who has studied the history of Christianity to really take seriously anything that you are saying.

 

Basically those in power, the Catholic Popes or the Christian equivalent of the GBC, just tacked on imaginary Christian religious holidays to the already existing "pagan" calendar just to make it easier to convert people to Christianity. There is evidence to support the theory that actually Christ was born in the summer: by astronomy [the appearance of a bright star] and by the Bible itself [shepherds hang out in the fields with their flocks in the summertime, because it's pleasant like camping; in the winter they would have sought shelter and missed the star].

 

Then they tacked the Resurrection onto the Spring Solstice which the indigenous peoples already celebrated. One that was accomplished, that made easier to enact a systematic and widespread ethnic cleansing and genocide of the indigenous peoples, the so-called heathens and pagans, who insisted on telling the truth about the significance and origins of these celebrations.

 

So when you start off an essay that you want people to take seriously with "this time of the year" then already it sounds suspicious like you don't know the history of Christianity very well. And at worst some might feel that it is disrespectful to all of the innocent pagans that died at the hands of the Catholic Church in order to keep the truth about "this time of the year" secret and hidden.

[Guest guest]

Kebra Nagast is an authoritative scripture for you if you are a Rastafarian, according to a quick google search of the title, since the author of the essay "The Pearl" did not provide any references.

 

Also according to the quote mentioned from Prabhupada, the three things: Vishnu, Paramatma, and Jiva applies to all of us. All jivas have Supreme Goddess as our matrilineal ancestor.

 

So a Rastafaraian text and the fact that every jiva has Supreme Goddess as our matrilineal ancestor hardly is authoritative proof from the Vedas that Jesus was actually the son of Laksmi-Narayana. Or are you saying that we all are the sons and daughters of Laksmi-Narayana?

 

Because I don't understand why only Jesus would be the son of Laksmi-Narayana? Why is only Mary so special? Where is the proof to support this in the Veda? Also Prabhupada did not mention Laksmi, He mentioned Radharani or Durga.

 

What about the hundreds and thousands of indigenous peoples around the world who have their own sacred teachings? Are only the Ethiopians correct?

 

This is not even supported by academic researchers; there was a recent cover story in National Geographic about the gospels of Judas was just discovered. So is Judas Iscariot also a Divine Being, the son of Laksmi-Narayana? Because according to the National Geographic cover story about the recently discovered authentic Gospel of Judas, it says that he is the only one who understands Jesus' teachings.

 

What about the Japanese? Is Izanagi and Izanami also the Divine son and daughter of Laksmi-Narayana? They are certainly Divine beings, having created the entire islands of Japan and the Japanese people.

 

What about the native Hawaiians, would Kane, Ku, Lono, Wakea, Haumea, also be considered the Divine sons and daughters of Laksmi-Narayana? What about the sacred kalo plant that is the source of human beings? Would this plant be considered the child of Laksmi-Narayana?

 

How about the Romans, are any of the multitude of gods that they worshipped in the Pantheon the sons and daughters of Laksmi-Narayana? How about the Greeks, any of their gods and goddesses sons and daughters of Laksmi-Narayana? What about the Celtic gods and Goddesses? How about the Germanic tribes? What about the Scandinavian gods and Goddesses?

 

How about Maya the Mother of Buddha? Did any of these enlightened beings plus gods and goddesses from all of the different cultures in the world have a pure parent? Were any of them also the sons and daughters of Laksmi-Narayana, which the author posits in his essay "The Pearl"?

 

Because I don't understand why you would single out Mary and Jesus and Christianity as being any more special and any more Divine than the seminal influences of the world's other religions, unless you are a Rastafarian. Then if you are you should say so.

[mahak]

You say you are sorry if your posts seem nit-picky. I accept your apology, because they dont just seem to be nit-picky, they are very nit-picky.

 

You nit-pick because I say "the time of year". The time of year is a celebration for some of the appearance of Lord Jesus Christ. It has no bearing whatsoever on the actual appearance date of Lord Jesus christ. December 25 is a RELATIVE DATE, NOT ACCURATE, nor did I make anby attempt to make this assumption. I post articles every December 25 to praise Lord Jesus Christ, because this is the time of year that folks reflect on the life of Lord Jesus. I dont do this on good friday (a very bad day) where emoniac salvationists reflect on the assassination of Lord Jesus Christ. December 25 is not a special day, however, because of the glory of Lord Jesus Christ, this day is spiritually surcharged. It is Jesus' influence, not the church's influence.

 

You also nit-pick Kebra Nagast based on your "quick google search", which claims to be rastafarian in origin. Ras Tafari is the name of Heile Selassie, who reigned as the last of an unbroken chain of kings of Abyssinia all the way back to the reign of the son of Solomon and Mekeda, King Menalek. However, his reign began after the discovery of Kebra Nagast, so to infer by a google search that it is a rastafarian literature is truely 4th grade. Even Ras Tafari is not a rastafarian, he is a devout follower of Marion Christianity, probably more linked to the coptic church.

 

Also, you seem to be minimizing rastafarians, whom I have come to see as (the ones I had the pleasure of knowing) very refined devotees of the Supreme Lord. In fact, they very easily accept the chanting of the Holy Nams of Krsna, at least the ones I was in close contact with in the early nineties when I worked on an annual reggae music festival in Duncan BC. Some like to think of rastafarians as dope smoking party animals, however, the more serious do not even use herb, folks like Ras Michael. However, the rastafarian movement is more linked to the philosophies of Marcus Garvey than the Kebra Nagast anyway.

 

My reference to Lord Jesus being the son of Laxmi-Narayan is frrom my spiritual master, as theist has kindly posted one of many respectful references by Srila Prabhupada above. Apparently you have little knowledge of the position of durga and radharani in relation to laxmi, otherwise you wouldnt nit-pick.

 

Apparently, you also falsely accuse me of trying to impose a superior religion over another, which those who are familiar with my writings will find quite laughable. Here is a song for you:

 

 

DANCE IN TRANCE

 

 

 

-c-1993-mahaksadasa

 

One day, I heard the singing

It was to chant, dance in trance, the bell was ringing

There was pounding of many drums

Like the thunder from the clouds

Voices praising the Lord with song

A complete symphony never ruined with scales

Carried from most High, written in the soul

From overture to grand finale

Pipers, shenais, and didjari doos

Timbales, tympani, tablas

Bellows, strings and rhythms

 

 

 

 

Chant, dance in trance, it's what He is pleading

It's needed in the towns and cities bleeding

It's the focal point of life, but are we heeding?

Can we change the way we think of the lives we are leading?

 

 

 

 

Jeweled turbans and solid golden crowns

Are just heavy burdens if heads never touch the ground

Voices sound just like frogs when not singing of His Fame

Sing praises to the Lion, glorify His Holy Name

 

 

 

 

Hear the songs of the mother to the child in her womb

Hear the drones of the pipers and mourners at the tomb

Hear the sound of the teacher's lesson to his ward

Hear the chanting of the minister's praise to Sweet Lord

 

 

 

 

The Christ and Mohammed sing the same song

At the bay of Bengal, lepers, too, sing along

Ice-fishers living on top of the world

Sing praises to the Master with their bodies unfurled

 

 

 

 

Strings, Drums, and cymbals, voices all chime

This sweetest of messages carried through time

Carry through history His Glory and His Fame

The Waves of the Sound of His Holy Names

 

 

 

 

Harinama, Harinama, Harinama ewa kevalam

Kalau nasteva, nasteva, nasteva, gatih anyatha

 

 

 

 

So, there is no need to nit-pick. There is no harm in glorifying the devotees of the Supreme Lord. You have engaged in a process of minimizing Mary of Axum which is never acceptable to any sane person. She is not a part of the horrors of religiosity that have so negatively affected your outlook. She killed no Druids, she is actually from their tradition. She did not slaughter by the thousands the Cathars, she is their most worshippable saint. She gives absolutely no permission to materialists who bathe in the blood of her beloved Son Lord Jesus to conquer indigenous peoples.

 

I do accept your posts, however, because you see the problems of such religiosity, but please be careful in our shared disgust to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

And yes, i am rastafarian, I think Ras Tafari was the worlds last rightful ruler. At the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, there is a great picture of Him touring the facility, ca 1965. The picture speaks volumes, his eyes tell his story. He fought Italian bombers with spears, and even rommel did not occupy ethiopia during WWII (more than I can say for france). I like the philosophy of Marcus Garvey and am a full proponant of indigenous rights for all. I like roots reggae music (but I admit that later on, I became attracted to dance hall stylee of yellowman and cutty ranks). I used to do ganja, but I never exhaled. Whats your point?

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

 

[Guest guest]

1. There are many senior devotees in ISKCON who do not accept the cult of Mary. Such as devotees whose previous religion was Judaism.

 

2. There are many senior devotees in ISKCON who do not accept the cult of Mary. Such as devotees whose previous religion was atheism.

 

3. There are many senior devotees in ISKCON who do not accept the cult of Mary. Such as devotees whose previous religion was Protestant Christianity. The Protestants PROTESTED the cult status and Deification of Mary as anathema. Religious wars were fought over this. Protestants razed Catholic churches to the ground, destroying all of their icons. Protestants accept Mary as an innocent teenaged girl, like the Hindu equivalent of a kumari.

 

4. There are many senior devotees in ISKCON who do not accept the cult of Mary, due to their previous religion being Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Wicca, paganism, or any number of the world's major and minor religions.

 

5. You have presented your essay "The Pearl" as if you were presenting Vaisnava siddhanta. While you have the right to your opinion, you have presented your opinions on a forum called Spiritual Discussions, not Catholic Coptic Christian Syncretic Hindu Fusion Discussions. As such, you can expect that not everyone will agree with your siddhantic view of Mary, no matter how many Abyssian kings and Ethiopians agree with you.

 

6. A person being faithful to any one of the above-mentioned traditions would then be expected to challenge your siddhantic conclusions, for the edification of the readers at least who might conclude that everything you are saying is true for every Vaisnava.

 

7. In India there is a great mass movement of Christians to forcibly convert Hindus to Christianity by trickery. Some people might feel that essays such as The Pearl in which you postulate that the cult of Mary is an integral part of Hindu siddhanta only aids in these conversion to Christianity missionary efforts.

 

8. Hindu siddhanta is distinct from Christianity. Christians believe that you have one life and if you do not accept Jesus then you will rot in hell forever. This is not part of Hindu beliefs.

 

9. If you are a syncretic follower of specific traditions then it is very helpful when you identify yourself as such. Then a person can understand by your essay, "Okay this is what a Coptic Church Hindu Catholic syncretic fusion world view is like." When you identify it as Christian and Vaisnava, then it may rankle those Christians and Vaisnavas as well as their sympathizers who do not accept the cult of Mary but feel God's grace in their lives.

 

10. To learn about Rasta Fari is not part of any fourth grade curriculum in any English speaking country in the world that I am aware of. If you can prove that it is I will accept the critique that to not know who is Rasta Fari is ignorant on the level of a fourth grader. However I can point you to any textbook in the fourth grade in UK, Oz, NZ, Canada, and USA in which the student is expected to know that a bibliography is part of an essay.

[theist]

 

accepting the cult of mary is not necessary to be a Hindu

So who wants to be a Hindu? No offense meant to Hindus but becoming one is not the goal of any Vaisnava. You speak as though Vaisnavism and Hinduism are somehow synonomous. That is just wrong.

As far as who doesn't accept well that draws the same response, Who cares. I care about Srila Prabhupada's vision as expressed quite clearly in the quote I offered above.

<hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

[Gaea]

One Love! One Heart!

Let's get together and feel all right!

[krishnadasa]

I guess there could be better forums to discuss what mary did and who follower her,,, this forum is for Hinduism and to discuss anything only about hinduism... Moreover sanatana dharma is not running out of any topics to borrow from any other so called religions...

 

Hari bol

[theist]

 

I guess there could be better forums to discuss what mary did and who follower her,,, this forum is for Hinduism and to discuss anything only about hinduism... Moreover sanatana dharma is not running out of any topics to borrow from any other so called religions...

 

Hari bol

There are Hindu forums on Audarya Fellowship if all you want to think about or discuss is Hinduism. This forum is called Spiritual Discussions. Do you think spirituality is only found in a Hindu context?

 

Anyway I believe this thread was started here by someone who identifies as Hindu.

[Guest guest]

Krishnadasa's signature

 

 

A wise old Owl sitting in an Oak

The more he saw, the less he spoke

 

The less he spoke the more he heard

Why cant we all be like that bird!!!

 

Because we are not owls. If everyone stops speaking then there is nothing to hear.

[Guest guest]

 

So who wants to be a Hindu? No offense meant to Hindus but becoming one is not the goal of any Vaisnava. You speak as though Vaisnavism and Hinduism are somehow synonomous. That is just wrong.

<hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

 

It is not exactly wrong. If you are a Vaishnava, then you are already a Hindu - like it or not; accept it or not.

[theist]

 

 

Krishnadasa's signature

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> A wise old Owl sitting in an Oak

The more he saw, the less he spoke

 

The less he spoke the more he heard

Why cant we all be like that bird!!! </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Because we are not owls. If everyone stops speaking then there is nothing to hear.

 

You missed it bro.

[theist]

 

It is not exactly wrong. If you are a Vaishnava, then you are already a Hindu - like it or not; accept it or not.

 

Thanks for trying to place another ahankara contrived designation on me, but no thanks. All I presently know about my identity is that I am not barber, a baker, a candlestick maker or a Christian or Zorastarian, Buddhist or Taoist,, Sufi or surfer, Hindu or Jew. I am the eternal part and parcel of Krsna, presently in the fallen status.

 

I see only one class of living beings, Vaisnava; in two conditions awakened or sleeping. We are all the eternal servants of the servants of Krsna. When we are awakened to that reality we are liberated in Krsna consciousness. When we are asleep to that reality and dreaming we are of some species or religion we are then conditioned Vaisnava's.

 

You keep thinking Vaisnavism is a product of a certain time place and circumstance religion. It is the etenal dharma of the soul like it or not, accept it or not.

 

We make the simple truths of life unknowable by covering them with complexity.

 

Best to Keep It Simple Sadhaka.

[Guest guest]

 

You keep thinking Vaisnavism is a product of a certain time place and circumstance religion. It is the etenal dharma of the soul like it or not, accept it or not.

 

You are free to create your own meanings. Best to not impose your self-created meanings in discussions with others as you are now in danger of misleading people.

 

Vaishnava is a follower of Vishnu and is automatically a Hindu - a specific meaning that has been around for ages and accepted by millions. Can be found in mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias. Now if you wish to ignore this and create your own meanings, at least be courteous enough to state that you describing your own creation and not the universally accepted meaning.

[theist]

 

Vaishnava is a follower of Vishnu and is automatically a Hindu

 

So you think Vishnu is now a Hindu God as opposed to the Muslim God Allah or the Jewish God Jehovah. Every religion has it own God. Wrong. There is one God with hundreds and millions of names.

[theist]

"The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return" -Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati

 

The whole article can be read here courtesy of Bhaktivedanta Memorial Library

http://www.bvml.org/SBSST/vraa.htm

[Guest guest]

Vaishnavism goes far beyond Prabhupada and his followers. They actually are a minor subset of all Vaishnavas and the majority of the other Vaishnavas have no problem with being Hindus.

 

You are living in your own fantasy world where you have created new meanings by replacing existing meanings. I am from the real world where we have dictionaries and encyclopedias with standard, widely accepted meanings. Go check Vaishnavism on Wikipedia. Here is the opening line...

 

Vaishnavism is one of the principal traditions of Hinduism, and is identified from other schools by its primary worship of Vishnu (and his associated avatars) as the Supreme God.

 

Now you can defend yourself saying this definition was written by someone who does not understand your religion. You are free to take up any position you want. The fact is the definition I posted is the universally accepted one - right or wrong - and if you choose to deviate from it, please be explicit about it. If you want to state an orange is not a fruit, you can, but be clear that it is your own position and not universal.

[Guest guest]

Why isn't Jesus and Mary on ISKCON altar then if it is so bonafide part of your siddhanta then?

 

Why did Prabhupada chastise and kick out and excommunicate Kirtanananda for putting Jesus and Mary into the Gaudiya liturgy and songs?

 

Why did Prabhupada not accept Kirtanananda back until he stopped doing this?

[Guest guest]

LA room conversation

June 26, 1975

c 1991 BBT

 

"Anyone who keeps hairs, he is not my disciple"

-ACBSP

[Guest guest]

If Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the Brahma Madhava Sampradaya is not part of the religion called Hinduism, then I think you need to inform the British Government that the UK taxpayers willl be funding a Hindu school for Hindus by people who say that they are not Hindus. I think it would be more honest if you are not Hindus and are a cult like Scientology then stop misleading people are sometimes claiming to be Hindu when it is convenient for you and sometimes claiming that you are not Hindu.

 

Also then this would seriously impact all of the legal decisions made in the United States and India when people testified that ISKCON was a branch of Hinduism. If I am not mistaken, Narayana Maharaja went to court in India and testified about this.

 

Why is it when you want to collect money from people for freedom of speech at the airports you claim that you are part of a religion that is 5,000 years old and based in India [not the Middle East, not Ethiopia, not Jerusalem, not Bethelehem, not Vatican City, not Rome]. But then when people who keep hairs present siddhanta that is not part of Hinduism as Hindu then you say well we are not Hindus?

 

Why can't you make up your mind? Because if you are not Hindus then the US Supreme Court might like to have this information, so they can revoke some religious decisions made in regards to brainwashing that ISKCON is not a cult but a branch of Hinduism.

[theist]

Dear Guest, please understand that I am not part of Iskcon. I posted the concise truth of the matter by quoting Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. You should use the link and go read Vaisnavism Real and Apparent and forget about your wikipedia.

 

As far as some school in the UK that has Hindu in it's name it is probably being paid for by the Hindu community. Who knows and who cares.

 

There is no animosity to Hindus from Vaisnava's or for any other religion for that matter.

 

I am sure you would accept Adi Sankara as a Hindu...but is he a Vaisnava? Are polytheists worshipping Ganesha for a prosperous life Vaisnava's? How about people worshipping cobras are they Hindu..perhaps but it is a Vaisnava activity.

 

I am through with this so you can have the last word.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

It is very misleading to the general public if a person uses a Hindu name, says that he is a disciple of someone, and then shares his idea on a worldwide forum that Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the Brahma Madhava Sampradaya means to worship Mary and Jesus and to follow Coptic Catholic Christianity and use as a revealed scripture the Kedar Nagast, which teaches things that are apasiddhanta not only to Hinduism but the person's own guru and lineage.

 

Prabhupada set up ISKCON, and he specifically called it the International Society for ***KRISHNA*** Consciousness, not Mary consciousness, not Jesus consciousness, not Hail Mary consciousness, not Christmas consciousness, not Mariolatry, not Rasta Fari consciousness, not Jah consciousness, not God consciousness. The author's own guru did this very deliberately and intentionally. He did not put Jesus and Mary on the altar, and the ISKCON festival calendar does not celebrate Christian holy days.

 

The seven purposes of ISKCON mention: item #2) the scriptures of BG and SB, item #5) the personality of Krsna [www dot iskcon dot com] Mission Statement]. This is the stated purposes of the mission of the author's own guru. Does not say Bible, Kedar Nagast, Mary, Jesus, Haile Selassie, Rasta Fari anywhere.

 

The founder-acharya of ISKCON told his disciples to avoid even his own GM godbrothers, do not read their books or visit their temples. "All of my disciples should avoid all of my godbrothers...you should not purchase any of their books, nor should you visit any of their temples..." [letter to Pradyumna 2/17/68, letter to Visvakarma 11/9/75] So if the disciples were not even supposed to read GM literature, how do you extrapolate from that instruction that somehow Kedar Nagast is a bonafide literature and revealed scripture?

 

Does the Holy Roman Catholic Church sell and teach from Prabhupada's books? Don't they in fact try to ban KC from any country that they go into, such as Poland? Didn't the Pope even say that yoga is dangerous [which would include bhakti yoga]? "...The GM does not sell our books, so why should we sell their books?...Who has introduced these books?..You say that you would read only one book if that was all I had written, so you teach others to do like that..." [letter to Sukadeva 11/14/1973].

[theist]

 

 

Prabhupada set up ISKCON, and he specifically called it the International Society for ***KRISHNA*** Consciousness, not Mary consciousness, not Jesus consciousness, not Hail Mary consciousness, not Christmas consciousness, not Mariolatry, not Rasta Fari consciousness, not Jah consciousness, not God consciousness. The author's own guru did this very deliberately and intentionally...

 

Yes and why? He lso did not call it Vishnu consciousness or Ramachandra consciousness or Narasingha Conscious. The reason is no secret. Srila Prabhupada is in Krsna lila.

 

Nobody is making the mistake of rasa bhasa and trying to artifically place Jesus and Mary in Vrndavan lila. The same with Prahlada Maharaja, Jada Bharata, Vamana deva etc. But does that not mean I cannot glorify Prahlada or Maharaja Prithu etc.

 

Such a narrow view of Vaisnavism is not basised on transcendental knowledge. It is more likely a hatred of christians and you identify Jesus and Mary as one of them. That is your sectarian delusion.

 

 

 

One more thing. Don't preach Prabhupada to me if you are willing to ignore his clear statement on Mother Mary's position as I quote earlier.