Krsna Story Borrowed from Christianity????

[Tattvadasa]

"The early Christian missionaries and scholars had indeed found a significant number of very interesting similarities between Vaishnavism and Christianity which in their own words were, "Not single and obscure, but numerous and clear."

 

 

 

The Borrowing Theory

by an anonymous Vaishnava

 

The era of the "Borrowing Theory," as it was known, first began when Antonio Giorgi published his book Alphabetum Tibetanum [Roma 1762]. The materials for Giorgi's writings were gathered from manuscripts of Capucine missionaries [1741] led by Horacio de la Penna [a particularly zealous missionary] who traveled in India and Tibet for several years. Giorgi undertook the task to prove by comparative philology the opinion entertained by the missionaries, that Vaishnavism and Buddhism were a corrupted form of Christianity.

 

Giorgi wrote that "Krishna is only a corruption of the name of the Saviour [Christ]; the deeds correspond wonderfully with the name, though they have been impiously and cunningly polluted by most wicked imposters."

 

Indeed, the parallels between Christ and Krishna are many. Just to name a few: The births of Christ and Krishna were heralded by divine beings [angels]. King Harod of Judea planned to kill the Christ child and King Kamsa of Mathura planned to kill the child Krishna. Christ and Krishna both dispelled demons, cured the sick, performed miracles, taught the truth, were not conceived of seminal conception, and both Christ and Krishna were destined to be Kings.

 

In his monograph Uber die Krishnajanmasthami, Albrecht Weber [1825-1901] pointed out the many and striking similarities between the birth stories of Krishna and Jesus. The following quote from his work notes many of these similarities:

 

"Take, for example the statement of the Vishnu Purana that Nanda, the foster-father of Krishna, at the time of the latter's birth, went with his pregnant wife Yasoda to Mathura to pay taxes (cf. Luke II, 4, 5) or the pictorial representation of the birth of Krishna.... and of the shepherds, shepherdesses, the ox and the ass that stand round the woman as she sleeps peacefully on her couch without fear of danger. Then the stories of the persecutions of Kamsa, of the massacre of the innocents, of the passage across the river (Christophorus), of the wonderful deeds of the child, of the healing-virtue of the water in which he was washed, etc., etc. Whether the accounts given in the Jaimini Bharata of the raising to life by Krishna of the dead son of Duhsala, of the cure of Kubja, of her pouring a vessel of ointment over him, of the power of his look to take away sin, and other subjects of the kind came to India in the same connection with the birth-day festival may remain an open question."

 

Weber even contended that the whole Vedic system of avatars, or incarnations of God, was "borrowed" from the "Incarnation of Jesus Christ."

 

Yes the Christians concluded the cunning Vaishnavas had borrowed their story from the story of Jesus and in this way acted as cunning deceptors.

 

Yes indeed the Christian scholars argued the story of Krishna had been taken from the story of Jesus and tried to debunk the birth and life of Krishna as being just a copy of the birth and life of Christ.

 

Dr. F. Lorinser [1869] translated the Bhagavad-gita and compared it scrupulously to the New Testament. He concluded, that the author of the Bhagavad-gita knew and used the Gospels and Christian Fathers. According to Lorinser the similarities were not single and obscure, but numerous and clear. There was no doubt in Lorinser's mind that the Bhagavat-gita had been largely "borrowed" from the New Testament.

 

Other Western scholars gradually came in contact with the borrowing theory but disputed its validity. One such scholar, Sir William Jones, [philologer] found Vishnu to be one of the more ancient Gods of India, who Vaishnavas asserted was distinct from all the other Avatars [incarnations], who had only a portion of Krishna's divinity. In his fascinating and provocative work, "On the Gods Of Greece, Italy and India" Sir William Jones writes [1786] that "In the principal Sanskrit dictionary, compiled about two thousand years ago, Krishna, Vasudeva, Govinda, and other names of the Shepherd God, are intermixed with epithets of Narayana, or the Divine Spirit."

 

Sir William Jones's is best known today for making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit [the ancient language of India] bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In "The Sanskrit Language" (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root.

 

 

 

Following in the direction of Sir Jones's research, the English philosopher Edward Moore [1873-1958] later went so far as to say that the popular Greek myths had some basis in real life and could be traced ultimately to India.

 

However, conclusive proof of a borrowing theory for either side of the argument did not surface for some time, thus the debate continued. And in more than one instance it was the religious Christian fervor that won the day in favor of all theological thought in India being borrowed from Christianity. Any literary evidence provided from the ancient Sanskrit literatures which proved that Vaishnavism predated Christianity was never considered as verifiable evidence and was simply brushed aside. The only creditable literary evidence would have to be, in the biased minds of the Christian dominated debate, of Western origin - the "Holy Bible" of course being wholly admissible as evidence - otherwise to question its validity was an act of heresy.

 

As destiny would have it there finally surfaced a Western literary account of ancient India that was in fact much older than the Bible. This record of ancient India was found in the book, Indica, written by Megasthenes [3rd century BCE, Greek] and authoritatively referred to by his commentators in their writings.

 

 

Sometime in the third century BCE, Meghasthenes journeyed to India. The King of Taxila had appointed Meghasthenes ambassador to the royal court of the great Vaishnava monarch, Chandragupta. Evidently while there, Megasthenes wrote extensively on what he heard and saw. Unfortunately, none of Megasthenes original writings survived the ages. However, through early Greek historians like Arrian, Diodorus, and Strabo, fragments of Megasthenes's writings were available and remain so today.

 

German orientalist Christian Lassen [1800-1876] was the first scholar to bring Megasthenes into the debate on the borrowing theory. He noted that Megasthenes wrote of Krishna under the pseudonym of Heracles and that Heracles, or Krishna, was worshipped as God in the area through which the Yamuna River flows.

 

 

 

A respected German Indologist, Richard Garbe [journeyed to India 1885-1886], agreed with Lassens analysis and called the testimony of Megasthenes indisputable. Soon, other scholars who had formerly supported the borrowing theory changed their minds and admitted, that the evidence of Megasthenes had exploded the borrowing theory once and for all.

 

The life of Krishna and the religion of Vaishnavism had not been influenced by Christianity, but had appeared autonomously on Indian soil and was already well-established by at least the third century BCE. Indeed, according to numerous accounts in the ancient Sanskrit literature [that began to appear more creditable to Western scholars] Krishna and the worship of Krishna as God appeared in India close to 3,000 BCE.

 

Following close behind the evidence of Magasthenes were several archaeological discoveries that also verified the Vaishnava faith as independently existing in India several centuries before the advent of Jesus and the doctrine of Christianity.

 

By far, the most important archaeological discovery made was by the indefatigable General Sir Alexander Cunningham in 1877. During an archeological survey of Beshnagar in central India [near present day Bhopal], he noted a curious ornamental column. The shape of the column caused Cunningham to attribute it erroneously to the period of the Gupta Dynasty (CE 300-550). Thirty-two years later, however, two gentleman, Mr. Lake and Dr. J. H. Marshall saw some lettering on the lower part of the column in an area where pilgrims customarily smeared it with red paint. When the thick red paint was removed an inscription dating the curious pillar to 113 BCE was revealed.

 

In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1909, Dr. J. H. Marshall described his conclusions. Cunningham had dated the column far too late and could little have dreamt of the value of the record which he just missed discovering. A glance at the few letters exposed was all that was needed to show that the column was many centuries earlier than the Gupta era. This was, indeed, a surprise to Dr. Marshall, but a far greater surprise was in store when the opening lines of the inscription were read.

 

The following translation of this ancient Brahmi inscription was published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society [London: JRAS, Pub, 1909, pp 1053-54].

 

 

"This Garuda-column of Vasudeva (Visnu), the God of Gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Visnu, the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship."

 

The column had been erected in BCE 113 by Heliodorus, a Greek ambassador to India. He, like Megasthenes, hailed from Taxila in the Bactrian region of northwest India, which had been conquered by Alexander the Great in BCE 325. By the time of Heliodorus, Taxila then covered much of present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Punjab.

 

 

 

After the publishing of the findings on the Heliodorus pillar in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1909 little more was said amongst scholars about the borrowing theory.

 

Indians did not take much interest in the debate of this theory, as they did not realize its relevancy in their times. The early Christian missionaries and scholars had indeed found a significant number of very interesting similarities between Vaishnavism and Christianity which in their own words were, "Not single and obscure, but numerous and clear." So it was only logical to any trained mind that this idea should arise. However, since it was concluded long ago that the worship of Krishna existed long before Christianity - could it then be reasonable to assume or at least to question that possibly it was Christianity that borrowed from Vaishnavism?

 

Of course the Vaishnavas are not interested in opening up an old can of worms but it was the Christians who first made the challenge. It is reasonable that at least the possibility that it could have very well been the early Christians who were looking for a good story and found one in the birth and pastimes of Krishna then cunningly attributed it to the Middle Eastern sage Jesus.

 

Discuss...?

[Guest guest]

Srimad Bhagavatam outdates the bible, even by mundane standards. So there is no way Krishna is a product of Christian influence.

[theist]

Interesting topic.

 

 

Indians did not take much interest in the debate of this theory, as they did not realize its relevancy in their times. The early Christian missionaries and scholars had indeed found a significant number of very interesting similarities between Vaishnavism and Christianity which in their own words were, "Not single and obscure, but numerous and clear." So it was only logical to any trained mind that this idea should arise. However, since it was concluded long ago that the worship of Krishna existed long before Christianity - could it then be reasonable to assume or at least to question that possibly it was Christianity that borrowed from Vaishnavism?

 

There is yet a third option that I tend to accept. That is that the similarities in the Gita to the teaching of Jesus are there because of the common source and the fact that the truth is one.

 

There are even other curious similarities to be found. For instance between the Mahabharata and the works of Homer and I suspect borrowing occured but not sure by whom.

 

So it's possible that some story lines are borrowed from one direction to the other but that would have no bearing that I can see on the essential truth of spiritual loving devotion to one Supreme God being the only true religion.

[Tattvadasa]

 

Interesting topic.

 

 

 

There is yet a third option that I tend to accept. That is that the similarities in the Gita to the teaching of Jesus are there because of the common source and the fact that the truth is one.

 

There are even other curious similarities to be found. For instance between the Mahabharata and the works of Homer and I suspect borrowing occured but not sure by whom.

 

So it's possible that some story lines are borrowed from one direction to the other but that would have no bearing that I can see on the essential truth of spiritual loving devotion to one Supreme God being the only true religion.

 

You are not sure who borrowed???

 

The fact that Krishna appeared before all other religious figures is no longer a subject of debate. It is established fact. It is no longer debated what was the original scriptures on earth. Most all agree the Veda was the first religious texts on earth.

 

Concerning Christians borrowing from Krishna.

The birth story is too identical for me to accept as a coincidence. Or to dismiss by saying the truth is one.

 

But it is ashamed the concept of guru parampara was not also copied.

 

I know those who claim Jesus was a Vaishnava say he did accept the principle of having a guru because he took babtism from John the Baptist. But such initiation was nothing like Vaishnava diksa and more and more scholars and historians are concluding that John the Baptist was a competitor of Jesus like so many other 'want to be' messiahs of the day.

The Middle East seems to have been full of them at the time of the Jesus story.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed a lot of light on the matter and this information is just now beginning to be understood by those who look into it. It changes much of what we have been led to believe concerning the spiritual and political climate in the Middle East at the time the story of Jesus takes place.

 

Perhaps Jesus was an Essene? That seems the most likely. They were looking for a war with Rome to herald in the day of judgement. And apparently they got their war and got wiped out. I know the romanticized version of the Essenes paints a picture of them being like some kind of pacifist love group from Berkley.. But the Dead Sea Scrolls show they were anything but that. Yes they were vegetarian but they had other beliefs that are just plain crazy by Vaishnava standards. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls without cherry picking and see what I mean.

 

If Jesus was an Essene or influenced by them, he could not have been a Vaishnava.

 

Just a counter spin here. No offense intended.

 

Discuss....

[theist]

I am interested in essential truth. The kind of knowledge that will liberate me. As a liberation seeker I am not yet a Vaisnava. But even as a Vaisnava I would not be so much interested in what the academics say about the actual time line of which came first the Mahabharata or the Gospels. You do know among that group the debate is far from settled with many seeing the Mahabharata as being written less than 2,000 years ago. Most say 5,000 I agree, but what does indenpendent evidence show?

 

To enter into such a debate to me is something like stepping into quick sand. I am content to let others worry about such things. personally I could not care less if the Bhagavatam or the teaching of Christ both fell from the sky yesterday.

 

I have limited time and brain power. What little of each I have I must use to my greatest advantage which means I must be concerned with only the essential transcendental portion of of the devotional books of knowledge that are accessable to me. Fortunately through the SB and gospels of Christ I have more of that then I could hope to assimilate in this one lifetime or many others. My struggle is to stay focused.

 

You speak of Vaisnava diksa. I consider the transmission of transcendental knowledge to be Vaisnava diksa, and the ceremony of fire sacrifice or baptism to be rites applicable to time place and circumstance and as such of no real consequence to me.

 

I have nothing more than a small curiousity in the Dead Sea scrolls. Not because they may be authentic religious texts or not but as I mentioned there is so much transcendental knowledge in the SB and teaching of Christ that my search for source is over and now I must concentrate on substance.

 

The topic of the similarities between Homer, the Mahabharata the life accounts of Jesus are interesting to me but also not traceable by me so my participation in these discussions cannot go beyound these couple of posts. Although i would listen in and may have a question or two.

 

I thank you for the civil way you approach the subject. Even opposing views can be discussed without all the heated emotion as you have shown.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

 

"The early Christian missionaries and scholars had indeed found a significant number of very interesting similarities between Vaishnavism and Christianity which in their own words were, "Not single and obscure, but numerous and clear."

 

Of course the Vaishnavas are not interested in opening up an old can of worms but it was the Christians who first made the challenge. It is reasonable that at least the possibility that it could have very well been the early Christians who were looking for a good story and found one in the birth and pastimes of Krishna then cunningly attributed it to the Middle Eastern sage Jesus.

 

Discuss...?

 

Likely. The birth stories are strikingly similar.

 

Since the time of Alexander (300 years before the alleged time of Jesus) there was a lot of interaction between India and Greece. Since Greece held sway in that part of the world, at least some knowledge related to India was spread around and continued by Rome when it eventually gained control.

 

It is unlikely if there is any scholar who does not accept that the Mahabharata existed before the time of Jesus. These stories may have traveled over and modeled part of the story of Jesus, although there was no reason to do so. However, they could not have made Jesus a king like Krishna as people would have expected to know about a king and would have raised questions about this unheard of king who was created overnight. The only solution was to make him an obscure person for one whom no evidence was available. This would be more believable.

 

Ashoka’s edicts indicate he sent Buddhist missionaries beyond Persia into Egypt. It is possible that some Buddhist thoughts may have gone into modeling the principles of Christianity

[sanatan]

 

I am interested in essential truth. The kind of knowledge that will liberate me. As a liberation seeker I am not yet a Vaisnava. But even as a Vaisnava I would not be so much interested in what the academics say about the actual time line of which came first the Mahabharata or the Gospels. You do know among that group the debate is far from settled with many seeing the Mahabharata as being written less than 2,000 years ago. Most say 5,000 I agree, but what does indenpendent evidence show?

 

To enter into such a debate to me is something like stepping into quick sand. I am content to let others worry about such things. personally I could not care less if the Bhagavatam or the teaching of Christ both fell from the sky yesterday.

 

I have limited time and brain power. What little of each I have I must use to my greatest advantage which means I must be concerned with only the essential transcendental portion of of the devotional books of knowledge that are accessable to me. Fortunately through the SB and gospels of Christ I have more of that then I could hope to assimilate in this one lifetime or many others. My struggle is to stay focused.

 

You speak of Vaisnava diksa. I consider the transmission of transcendental knowledge to be Vaisnava diksa, and the ceremony of fire sacrifice or baptism to be rites applicable to time place and circumstance and as such of no real consequence to me.

 

I have nothing more than a small curiousity in the Dead Sea scrolls. Not because they may be authentic religious texts or not but as I mentioned there is so much transcendental knowledge in the SB and teaching of Christ that my search for source is over and now I must concentrate on substance.

 

The topic of the similarities between Homer, the Mahabharata the life accounts of Jesus are interesting to me but also not traceable by me so my participation in these discussions cannot go beyound these couple of posts. Although i would listen in and may have a question or two.

 

I thank you for the civil way you approach the subject. Even opposing views can be discussed without all the heated emotion as you have shown.

 

Hare Krsna

 

Your feelings about the whole subject are similar to mine...in fact, if I were as articulate, I could have written your post.

 

Where I am, it's a jungle of fundamentalist Christians. I haven't yet decided whether it's the false ego loving a fight or that I sincerely don't want to see what I perceive as truth trashed without being able to raise some strong counter-arguments. In either case, the more arguable points that I can have under my belt, the better.

 

For both Christianity and Vaisnavism, scripture and religious traditions make certain fixed claims, independent scholarship is a dynamic field and findings often dispute, deny, or modify these. It's good to have a working knowledge of both.

 

Tattvadasa: excellent post regarding the Borrowing Theory!!

[Tattvadasa]

The people who say such things as the Veda was written after the Bible are the same types who say the earth is 6,000 years old. No credible historian, archaeologist or scholar takes them seriously and neither should those who preach Mahaprabhus mission. Nor should we give any indication that our histories are similar to theirs or that ours are just as unprovable as theirs. This will attract the intelligent members of society. Those who are deemed with good sense and are educated in philosophy and science reject Christianity and other man made religions because of the unscientific nature of these religions and the utter absurdness of their doctrines. The same people if approached in the proper way will become interested in Vedic knowledge. Once converted such people rarely become fanatical.

 

To tell you the truth in my research I have found the secular humanist and atheist to be a lot more civil when it comes to discussing these matters. Most have been converted to atheism due to the fanatical believers who have nothing to back up their belief but blind faith.

 

If we try to align ourselves too closely with those groups simply because we fall into the category of theists we lose a large very intelligent segment of society.

 

Concerning Buddhism at the time of Jesus. Yes it is true the karma kanda teachings of Jesus are very similar and if we examine the parables of Jesus and Buddha most are exaclty the same and this is why many Buddhist claim Jesus as one of them. The view we get from the Bble is more impersonal than personal and many now believe the Essenes and other Gnostic cults of the time were influenced heavily by Buddhism.

 

Lord Buddha was certainly an avatar but the Vaishnavas still try to defeat the arguments of Buddha.

 

Why are we so sentimentally inclined towards Christianity when in fact its teachings are far inferior to Lord Buddhas????? Why do we distance ourselves from Buddhism but not from Christianity?????

 

I say it is because of our western conditioning from birth and our affinity towards Christianity is based more on mundane sentiment than logic.

[sanatan]

 

...Why are we so sentimentally inclined towards Christianity when in fact its teachings are far inferior to Lord Buddhas????? Why do we distance ourselves from Buddhism but not from Christianity?????

 

I say it is because of our western conditioning from birth and our affinity towards Christianity is based more on mundane sentiment than logic.

 

Regarding Christianity, IMO that is true for many westerners, and I'll cruise along with it...I still consider myself a Christian to certain degree, and happy to be so. So the Bible doesn't record Jesus Christ directly teaching transcendental practices or reading from the Vedic scriptures? That doesn't mean he wasn't a transcendental personality...there are plenty of clues even in this admittedly watered-down scripture.

 

I've never had any intuitive attraction or pull at all toward Buddhism, though it's much more similar in some aspects to Hinduism/Vaisnavism, which fascinated me from the start.

 

Conclusion: We're each where our past lives led us.

[theist]

 

The people who say such things as the Veda was written after the Bible are the same types who say the earth is 6,000 years old. No credible historian, archaeologist or scholar takes them seriously and neither should those who preach Mahaprabhus mission. Nor should we give any indication that our histories are similar to theirs or that ours are just as unprovable as theirs. This will attract the intelligent members of society. Those who are deemed with good sense and are educated in philosophy and science reject Christianity and other man made religions because of the unscientific nature of these religions and the utter absurdness of their doctrines. The same people if approached in the proper way will become interested in Vedic knowledge. Once converted such people rarely become fanatical.

 

To tell you the truth in my research I have found the secular humanist and atheist to be a lot more civil when it comes to discussing these matters. Most have been converted to atheism due to the fanatical believers who have nothing to back up their belief but blind faith.

 

If we try to align ourselves too closely with those groups simply because we fall into the category of theists we lose a large very intelligent segment of society.

The fatal flaw you are making is assuming any one follower of Mahaprabhu is aligning themselves with those who say the earth is six thousand years old. That is simply not true and I invite you to show ONE person that is.

 

 

Concerning Buddhism at the time of Jesus. Yes it is true the karma kanda teachings of Jesus are very similar and if we examine the parables of Jesus and Buddha most are exaclty the same and this is why many Buddhist claim Jesus as one of them. The view we get from the Bble is more impersonal than personal and many now believe the Essenes and other Gnostic cults of the time were influenced heavily by Buddhism.

 

Lord Buddha was certainly an avatar but the Vaishnavas still try to defeat the arguments of Buddha.

 

Why are we so sentimentally inclined towards Christianity when in fact its teachings are far inferior to Lord Buddhas????? Why do we distance ourselves from Buddhism but not from Christianity?????

 

I say it is because of our western conditioning from birth and our affinity towards Christianity is based more on mundane sentiment than logic.

I am sorry tattvadas but it is you who are the sentimentalist. Buddha was born in India and Christ was not therefore you have deep sentiment for Buddha's teachings.

 

The fact is Christ's teachings are in line with Mahaprabhu's it is just that Mahaprabhu could go much much deeper into teaching on rasa due to the adikar of His audience.

 

Buddha denied the existence of the self and the Superself.

Lord Caitanya affirms their existence.

Lord Jesus Christ affirms their existence.

 

There is no room for the teachings of any no-self philosophers in Mahaprabhu's movement. We are taught to avoid their teachings.

Need I say more?

[Tattvadasa]

 

The fatal flaw you are making is assuming any one follower of Mahaprabhu is aligning themselves with those who say the earth is six thousand years old. That is simply not true and I invite you to show ONE person that is.

 

 

I am sorry tattvadas but it is you who are the sentimentalist. Buddha was born in India and Christ was not therefore you have deep sentiment for Buddha's teachings.

 

The fact is Christ's teachings are in line with Mahaprabhu's it is just that Mahaprabhu could go much much deeper into teaching on rasa due to the adikar of His audience.

 

Buddha denied the existence of the self and the Superself.

Lord Caitanya affirms their existence.

Lord Jesus Christ affirms their existence.

 

There is no room for the teachings of any no-self philosophers in Mahaprabhu's movement. We are taught to avoid their teachings.

Need I say more?

 

Of course there are no real followers of Mahaprabhu who believe Bible history when it comes to the creation or the 6,000 year old earth myth. Any Vaishnava must dismiss such accounts as myth.

 

I have no sentiment what-so-ever for the teachings of Buddha anymore than I have for the myth of Jesus. But I will defend the fact that Buddha did exist, his appearance was foretold in the Veda . Whereas we cannot validate the appearance of Jesus anywhere other than the New Testament. The only evidence the 'Jesus as Vaishnava" proponents can give is that there were other writings that disappeared. The poinit being you have NO evidence of Jesus's existence other than texts you admit were tampered with. We have only the word of the New Testament writers who never saw Jesus. Or the revelations of those not in parampara, basically we have the speculations and wild dreams of questionable mystics.

 

If we want to compare the two religions Buddhism and Christianity and other Abrahamic Religions (yes Christianity is the evolution of the Old Testament Story, Abraham being the patriarch of Islam, Judaism and Christianity). then all I can say is you can know a tree by its friut. When was the last time you heard of a Buddhist suicide bomber? WHen was the last time you heard of a Buddhist terrorist? So that religion does promote peace and harmony hunderds of more times than the Abrahamic religions although all three profess to be religions of love and brotherhood.

 

In fact the three Abrahamic religiions that sprang from the Bible have a long and bloody history of terrorism from day one.

 

At least the Buddhist story is real and can be validated and is not a debate in the Vaishnava world considering the authenticity of Lord Buddha.

 

I do not understand your logic that I have affinity for Buddha beacuse he was born in India? What difference would that make to me??????

 

Furhtermore:

Jesus DOES NOT say anything about the paramatma. His followers talk about ghosts who posses them and cause them to speak all kinds of jibberish.

 

Mohammad said love god, Jimmy swargart says love god, Charlie manson said love god, everyone says love god, this does not mean they know anything about god. If they give some process then I will believe they know what 'LOVE GOD' means and that they have it themselves and can therefore give it to others. But the history of Christianity shows something contrary to this. Those who love god do not exploit.

 

As pointed out by Bhaktivinode Thakur,

 

 

“The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fuitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation."

 

 

 

Christianity teaches only speculative knowledge and good works. It is not on the transcendental platform. They have been speculating for 2,000 years. I believe the Thakur was actually being generous about the good works part.

[Tattvadasa]

Again to make things clear. I do not promote the Buddhist doctrines or theology other than the conclusion the material world is a place of suffering.

Buddhist are athiest and the teaching of Buddha is contrary to Vaishnava siddhanta.

 

However,

I do acknowledge that Buddha did exist and I do recognize that although these Buddhist are atheist they are still much more moral and godly than the majority of those who adhere to Abrahamic religions. History is proof.

[theist]

 

Of course there are no real followers of Mahaprabhu who believe Bible history when it comes to the creation or the 6,000 year old earth myth. Any Vaishnava must dismiss such accounts as myth.

 

There is no such statements in the Bible that earth is six thousand years old.

 

There are statements in the Bhagavatam that refer to the universe as being 5 billion miles across however.

 

And to hear a Hindu complain that others are believing in myths is really rich....I mean really really rich.

 

Sorry I won't go point for point with you. Stay a sectarian as long as you like. Afterall India is the factual center of the 5 billion miles across universe right? Anything outside your land of birth must be suspect right?

[Tattvadasa]

I was born in America.

[Guest guest]

 

Sorry I won't go point for point with you. Stay a sectarian as long as you like. Afterall India is the factual center of the 5 billion miles across universe right? Anything outside your land of birth must be suspect right?

 

Funny how you never ask these qs of Christians, who don't even allow Vaishnavas to build temples. But you mock Hindus, who mean you no harm. Bottom line, you're more attached to christianity than you are to Vaishnavism. Stay sectarian, then, and do not advise others. You simply don't have the moral right.

[Tattvadasa]

 

There is no such statements in the Bible that earth is six thousand years old.

 

?

 

 

You are right you will not find dates in the Bible but you will find chronology.

 

Bible Time line and Chronology (abbreviated) accepted by most Christians Jews and Moslems.

 

Year 0 (4230 BCE) Adam and Eve is created from matter (dirt). The whole human race is populated beginning with one man and one woman.

 

Year 2083 (2147 BCE) God floods the world and destroys mankind but saves Noah his family and his animals.

 

From Noahs family the world repopulates.

 

Year 2083 ( 2147 BCE)

Abraham the patriarch of Judaism (Islam and Christianity ) appears. He has sons Ismael Isaiah and Ham . From Ismael the Arab race descends. From Isaiah the Jewish race descends. From Ham the negro race descends. The Jews are the chosen ones by God. All the other races that morped from from Noahs family including Chinese, Indians, Caucasions etc. etc. are not chosen by God. How all there races came from Noahs family is not explained in the Bible.

 

 

Year zero - Jesus appears

 

Year 31 Jesus is crucified

 

Year 2007 present time.

 

These numbers vary from scholar to scholar but all are close to this. The earth according to most believers of the Bible is around 6-7 thousand years old.

 

Now you want to compare this to the VEDA?

 

Many early Christian Church fathers were confounded as to where all the other races came from and how the whole earth got populated from just Noahs family after the flood. Up until fairly recent history It was a crime punishable by death to question the Biblical account of history.

 

 

 

Ok if you want to split hairs and say they are not talking about the age of the earth you cannot say they are not talking about the age of civilization on earth. How does everyone in the world descend from Noah's family in only 4,000 years?

 

The devil is in the details? No the truth is in the details.

 

If you say this has nothing to do with Jesus you are wrong. It has everything to do with Jesus, without the Bible you have no Jesus story.

[Tattvadasa]

 

 

Afterall India is the factual center of the 5 billion miles across universe right? Anything outside your land of birth must be suspect right?

 

 

There are 10 offenses to the Holy Name. A follower of Mahaprabhu is careful not to commit offenses against the Holy Name.

 

This one is usually listed as #4

Blaspheming the Vedic Literature

 

* To denounce the information in the revealed scriptures.

* To regard the Vedas as mundane literature

* To keep scriptures in a dirty place

 

Yes in the Veda the length and breadth of this universe is told as well as the age of this universe. The biblical version of the age of the planet is wrong and the Vedic scripture is right.

 

 

 

How to counter-act the offense of disrespecting the Veda: Offer flowers to the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Many early Christian Church fathers were confounded as to where all the other races came from and how the whole earth got populated from just Noahs family after the flood. Up until fairly recent history It was a crime punishable by death to question the Biblical account of history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson saw the absurdness in the Bible and so he created his own version by throwing out everything that did not make any sense.

Problem was by the time he finished throwing out the nonsense there was hardly anything left to read. It is called The Jefferson Bible. Its a short read.

[gHari]

It would seem that we know neither Jesus nor his teachings.

 

It would be better to stick to what you know, than to appear so foolish and insincere.

 

What did Jesus teach? Will I place a jewel on the head of a cobra? I think not. It is better you remain so obviously ignorant as to never fool anyone.

[sanatan]

 

There are 10 offenses to the Holy Name. A follower of Mahaprabhu is careful not to commit offenses against the Holy Name.

 

This one is usually listed as #4

Blaspheming the Vedic Literature

 

* To denounce the information in the revealed scriptures.

* To regard the Vedas as mundane literature

* To keep scriptures in a dirty place

 

Yes in the Veda the length and breadth of this universe is told as well as the age of this universe. The biblical version of the age of the planet is wrong and the Vedic scripture is right.

 

 

 

How to counter-act the offense of disrespecting the Veda: Offer flowers to the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita.

 

You're just pitting one tradition of scriptural literalism against the other, and falling back upon what can be used as a fear-based injuction to stop the discussion in its tracks...very similar to a fundie Christian telling someone that no one comes to the father but by Jesus, and anyone who doesn't accept this is going to hell.

 

Honest questioning does not equal denunciation...we can respect and venerate scripture and hold it as extra-ordinary in spite of our doubts. I do.

 

It may be hard for some people to come to grips with, but this is the 21st century, not the 13th, and several centuries of empirical science unobstructed by religious authority has added a new dimension to the common thought process of mankind. We can either choose to honestly acknowledge scientific findings and observations or outright deny them because they challenge a strictly literal interpretation of scripture.

 

Remember, science still can't do what scripture does...open the doors to the spiritual platform.

[Guest guest]

sanatan says

 

It may be hard for some people to come to grips with, but this is the 21st century, not the 13th, and several centuries of empirical science unobstructed by religious authority has added a new dimension to the common thought process of mankind. We can either choose to honestly acknowledge scientific findings and observations or outright deny them because they challenge a strictly literal interpretation of scripture.

 

Remember, science still can't do what scripture does...open the doors to the spiritual platform.

 

Well said. It is however a problem with many - some on this forum too - to fear and condemn science as it threatens their pet beliefs; most of the threatened beliefs having nothing to do with spirituality.

[Tattvadasa]

"Religion must be on the basis of science and logic. That is first-class religion."

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

 

"Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation."

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

 

 

“The sastras [scripture] of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.”

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam is very scientific in its explanation of the cosmos. Nothing like it can be matched in any other religious text on earth. To put the Bible in the same category is foolish.

[theist]

 

Funny how you never ask these qs of Christians, who don't even allow Vaishnavas to build temples. But you mock Hindus, who mean you no harm. Bottom line, you're more attached to christianity than you are to Vaishnavism. Stay sectarian, then, and do not advise others. You simply don't have the moral right.

 

Fact is I do I challenge Christians specifically the evangelical types who come up with things like the earth is six thousand years old and reincarnation has no place in Christianity etc. and I have done so all my adult life. But why would I come to this forum to do so when there are christian debate forums all over the web. I usually stick to challenging their opposition to reincarnation which is the missing link in current Christianity and their sectarian viewpoint. I also regularly challenge them on animal slaughter.

 

No religion or idea is beyond questioning. And I do fiercely object to the merging of Vaisnavism with Hinduism or any other ism per Srila Prabhupada's teachings on the matter. When people get on this board and insist that Srila Prabhupada considered himself a Hindu when he clearly and repeatedly says otherwise I get pissed off and object. I really expect more from people here than the cheap and foolish flaming of other peoples beliefs which only serves to keep the atmosphere here down.

 

It's my sincere contention that we should appreciate anyone's most humble beginnings on the path of God consciousness and if we have anything to say it must be of the nature of helping their growth just as we wish help from those father along the path than we. Do unto others as you would others do unto you.

[theist]

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam is very scientific in its explanation of the cosmos.

 

How would you know? Are you an astro physicists or an advanced metaphysian or some sort. Most likely you are not and are just a "believer" with no personal knowledge on the subject.

 

I am also a no nothing who knows little beyond the Sun is father away than the moon. So what if the Bhagavatam is wrong on many of these points. The scientists are also having to revise their fancy theories to accomodate no knowledge. But neither are important to me in my search for transcendental understanding. "take the essence' Prabhupada said and I consider that perfect advice.

 

 

 

Nothing like it can be matched in any other religious text on earth. To put the Bible in the same category is foolish.

 

What is fooloish is thinking the Bible even attempts to describe the cosmos is foolish. So there is nothing there to accept or reject on the subject. besides I am no pusher of the Bible so don't accuse me of that. I have never done more than causally scan it and it holds little interest for me.

[theist]

 

There are 10 offenses to the Holy Name. A follower of Mahaprabhu is careful not to commit offenses against the Holy Name.

 

This one is usually listed as #4

Blaspheming the Vedic Literature

 

* To denounce the information in the revealed scriptures.

* To regard the Vedas as mundane literature

* To keep scriptures in a dirty place

 

Yes in the Veda the length and breadth of this universe is told as well as the age of this universe. The biblical version of the age of the planet is wrong and the Vedic scripture is right.

 

 

 

How to counter-act the offense of disrespecting the Veda: Offer flowers to the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita.

 

 

Revatinandana: "The ten offenses to avoid in chanting the maha-mantra. The first is blaspheming the Lord's devotee." Just read them?

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Revatinandana: "Second, considering the Lord and other demigods on the same level."

 

Prabhupada: This is very important point, blaspheming the devotees. The Lord's devotee, in many countries, many places... Just like Lord Jesus Christ, he's also devotee of Lord. Muhammad, he's also devotee of Lord. So it is not that because we are Krishna conscious, we shall unnecessarily decry any other parts, any other devotee. It may be, according to time, place, and country, the method may be different, but anyone who is preaching devotion to God, he's a devotee of God. So he should never be blasphemed. Yes.

Revatinandana: "Two. Considering the Lord and other demigods on the same level."

 

Prabhupada: Yes. One should not put the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Just like the Mayavadi says, "The demigods and God, they are all the same." Because according to them, God has no form, so any form you accept, imagine, as the form of God, it is as good. But that is not the fact. There are demigods and the Supreme God also. So we should not place... Just like demigod, Lord Brahma or Lord Siva, Indra, Candra, they are demigods. So we should not place... In one sense, there is nothing except God, because everything expansion of God. But that does not mean I am equal to God. I am also expansion of God, that's a fact. Just like father and the son. Son is the expansion of father; still, the son is not the father. Don't mistake that. There is no difference between father and son because the same body is expanded as son, but still, the son is not the father. Father is father, son is son. This, I mean to say, variety, the Mayavadi philosophers, they do not understand. Then?

 

Revatinandana: "...or assuming that there are many Gods."

 

Prabhupada: God is one. There cannot be many Gods. If God is not one, there is no meaning of God. God means, according to Vedic definition, asamordhva. Asama means one who has no equal. Nobody is equal to God. And urdhva means nobody is greater than God. God is great. Nobody can be greater than God. Therefore God is one. Nobody is greater, nobody is equal. That means everyone is lower. Then?

 

Revatinandana: "Neglecting the orders of the spiritual master."

Prabhupada: Yes. This is one offense. These are offenses. When we accept spiritual master, it is understood that you cannot deny his order. Just like Krishna and Arjuna was talking as friends, but when Arjuna accepted Krishna as spiritual master, he was simply hearing, and whenever there was difficulty to understand, he was questioning. Not that he was equally arguing with Krishna. Before accepting Him, he was arguing. So this is the position. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, He said that "My spiritual master found Me a great fool [Cc. Adi 7.71]." Caitanya Mahaprabhu is not a fool, but it is the good qualification of a disciple to remain a fool before the spiritual master. Therefore he'll never, I mean to say, dare to argue or disobey. That is offense. Now, go on. That does not mean that when you cannot understand, you cannot question. Question must be there. That is stated in this Bhagavad-gita, tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya [bg. 4.34]. Your relationship is to know from a spiritual master everything, but you should know that with three things. What is that? First of all you should surrender. You must accept the spiritual master as greater than you. Otherwise what is the use of accepting one spiritual master? Pranipat. Pranipat means surrendering; and pariprasna, and questioning; and seva, and service. There must be two sides, service and surrender, and in the middle there must be question. Otherwise there is no question and answer. Two things must be there: service and surrender. Then answer of question is nice. Yes.

 

Revatinandana: "The fourth offense is minimizing the authority of the Vedas."

Prabhupada: Yes. Scriptures, authority of Vedas, they must be accepted. Just like the other day I was explaining, the Veda says the conchshell is pure although it is a bone of an animal. In other places Veda gives you the injunction that bone of an animal is impure. But it says the conchshell is pure. It can be placed before the Deity, it can be used in the Deity room in His service. Now there may be argument, "Oh, this is a bone of an animal. How is that? Contradiction." No. So one should accept the injunction of the Vedas like that. Whenever it says this is impure, it is impure; when it says it is pure, it is pure. Now if there is any doubt, that should be understood by questioning submissively and with service from the spiritual master. The spiritual master is there. Then? But we should always accept the injunction of the scripture as truth. Just like there is a proverb, "Bible truth,Biblical truth." Nobody can deny Bible. This should be the attitude. Bible is also part of Vedas. Therefore Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is, without any interpretation. Just like Bhagavad-gita is Veda. Why Veda? The Supreme Personality of Godhead personally speaking; therefore it is Veda. There is no mistake. One should accept—no interpretation—as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Yes. Go on.

 

Revatinandana: "The fifth offense is interpreting the holy names of God."

Prabhupada: Yes. No interpretation in the holy... Just like Krishna, the Mayavadi philosophers may... Just like Gandhi has written, "Pandava means the senses; Kurukshetra means this body; Krishna means the mind." No such nonsense interpretation. Krishna is Krishna. Yes. Go on.

 

Revatinandana: "The sixth offense is committing sin on the strength of chanting."

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Now we have explained the mantra that as soon as one chants Hare Krishna, immediately, bahyabhyantarah sucih, he becomes purified. Now if one takes advantage of this holy name, "Let me commit sins..." Just like sometimes in the Christian church they take advantages that by confessing sin one becomes free from sinful reaction. So go to church and confess, and again come out and do all sorts of sins, and again confess. This sort of (laughs) minimizing is nonsense. It is fact. When you confess before the church, before God, you are free from all sinful action. That's all right. But if you commit again, then next confession will not be accepted. They do not know this. You cannot... Suppose a child has committed some mistake. Father says, "All right, don't do this." If he again does it, there is no excuse. They do not know that. They think, "We shall commit sin and go to church and confess and finish. So let us do this balancing business." Yes. Similarly, don't do this balancing business, that "Because chanting Hare Krishna will wash off all my accounts of sinful activities, so in the morning, from morning to night, let me do all kinds of sinful activities, and at night, at bedtime, let me chant Hare Krishna. Then finish." No. (laughs) Don't do that. Don't do that. That is the greatest offense. Yes. You'll never be forgiven. Those who purposely do like that—"I have got very nice instrument for washing off my sinful activities. So whole day let me do all sinful activities, and at night let me chant Hare Krishna. Let me meditate. That's all. Finish."—no. You should note that the name, the holy name has got the power. Now, from this date, you are free from all sinful activities, reaction. But don't do it. That is the greatest offense. Yes.

 

Revatinandana: "The seventh offense is instructing the Lord's name to the unfaithful."

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Those who do not believe in God, atheists, what is the use of...? But not to bother him, but give him the chance of hearing. That will make him competent to come forward. Therefore we are distributing this holy name. Not that everyone will be immediately turned to Krishna consciousness, but we are giving chance. If they hear... You have got practical experience. Somebody's hearing, he's reforming. So we should give chance. But if one is staunch atheist, we should not talk very much with him about Krishna. He may say something against, offensive. Yes. Then?

 

Revatinandana: "The eighth offense is comparing the holy name to material piety."

 

Prabhupada: Yes. And another thing, just like we are holding this ceremony, initiation ceremony. It should not be accepted just we are functioning some ritualistic ceremony. No. It is different from ritualistic ceremony. Although it appears like ritualistic, it is transcendental. Ritualistic ceremony, they are meant for giving you advantage of become pious, from impious life. It also gives that, but this is not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is to give you love of God, which is far, far transcendental to the pious and impious activities. That is a different thing that belongs to the spiritual world—love of God. It is not that it is a function to nullify your sinful activities. That is automatically done. Just like if you get one million dollars, the purpose of ten dollars automatically solved. Similarly, this acceptance of holy name of God will automatically wash off all your sinful reaction. That's a fact. But it is not meant for that purpose. It is meant for higher purpose, to attain to this platform of loving God, rendering transcendental loving service to the Lord. That is the aim. Yes.

 

Revatinandana: "The ninth offense is inattentive while chanting the holy name."

 

Prabhupada: Yes. This is ninth offense. While you chant, you hear also. You don't turn your attention to anything else, mechanically chanting and thinking of something. Thinking of Krishna is all right, but if I think something which is not in Krishna consciousness... Best thing is that I shall chant Hare Krishna and each word I shall hear; then it will be very much effective. Yes.

 

Revatinandana: "The tenth offense is attachment to material things while engaged in the practice of chanting."

Prabhupada: That I explained. This is the disease, aham mameti [sB 5.5.8]. The material disease means I am thinking this body, "I am," and everything belonging to this body or in relationship with the body—"Mine." This is material disease. So we shall see. By chanting we shall see how much we are making progress, how much I am free from these two concept of life, that "I am this body, and anything belonging to this body is mine." This is the test, how we are becoming free from these two concept of life. If there is still the concept that "I am this body, and anything belonging to this body is mine," then you have to chant very cautiously to make progress. That's all. These ten kinds of offenses you should guard against. [break]