Should Christians be friends with Hindus/Hare Krishnas/etc.?

[HerServant]

"prahladas casmi daityanam"

Among demons, I am Prahlada -- BG 10:30

 

We can only see Jesus as He IS on the cross through the Heart of Mary:

 

He appeared as youthful innoncent little boy, having a pierced blue body and revealing a deep red wound as if His Heart was torn open.

His head was bowed having countless effulgent rays of compassion radiating from His face. His mood was that of Prahlada .. a little boy in the hands of His torturers that were His very own dearest relations.

His sorrow and anguish was that of a child who was being killed by relatives that forgot their relationship to Him. As if a father, brother, mother was killing their child, yet, not knowing that He is their very own. The Child however looks back and sees His dearest relation, .. a father, brother ... and in agony He says: " No .. no .. wait .. please do not do this .. I love you...don't you know me? .. it is Me .. I am your very own"

 

His forgiveness is completely childlike, not intellectual. He can only see you as His dearest relation. He is anguished and cannot understand that you cannot see/remember your relationship with Him. He cries out "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

 

He forgives you out of purest childlike innocent love for you.

 

Until we see Him as He IS, our hearts will remain as hard as stone. This is why Krsna chose to send Jesus and why Jesus wished to descend ... to shatter the stone of pride in the heart with unfathomable love.

[Bhakta Devarsi]

 

"prahladas casmi daityanam"

Among demons, I am Prahlada -- BG 10:30

 

We can only see Jesus as He IS on the cross through the Heart of Mary:

 

He appeared as youthful innoncent little boy, having a pierced blue body and revealing a deep red wound as if His Heart was torn open.

His head was bowed having countless effulgent rays of compassion radiating from His face. His mood was that of Prahlada .. a little boy in the hands of His torturers that were His very own dearest relations.

His sorrow and anguish was that of a child who was being killed by relatives that forgot their relationship to Him. As if a father, brother, mother was killing their child, yet, not knowing that He is their very own. The Child however looks back and sees His dearest relation, .. a father, brother ... and in agony He says: " No .. no .. wait .. please do not do this .. I love you...don't you know me? .. it is Me .. I am your very own"

 

His forgiveness is completely childlike, not intellectual. He can only see you as His dearest relation. He is anguished and cannot understand that you cannot see/remember your relationship with Him. He cries out "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

 

He forgives you out of purest childlike innocent love for you.

 

Until we see Him as He IS, our hearts will remain as hard as stone. This is why Krsna chose to send Jesus and why Jesus wished to descend ... to shatter the stone of pride in the heart with unfathomable love.

 

"Until we see Him as He IS, our hearts will remain as hard as stone."

 

Though true in an absolute sense, once we get a glimpse, our hearts immediately begin to soften, and there is much time that passes as we get to know him better, and never do we actually see him as he is, because he is eternally fresh and unknowable in total but through the unfolding of our relationship we eternally find out new wonderful things about each other.

 

During this time in the beginning our hearts grow softer and more sensitive to him in others, his presence in our heart, his voice in the heart of our mind, and there is a gradual progression. We advance. Gradually.

 

And so also does our ability to tolerate, fully forgive, and have non-sentimental spiritual compassion grow.

 

It is not an all or nothing, despite the popular misconception that there is some magic moment and we are perfectly saintly forever amen. Those who put forth such doctrine are actually furthest from the truth, from what I can see.

 

Seeing how Jesus truly was on the cross seems to consist of a lifetime of gradual and deepening realizations.

 

Just my take, as well.

 

Hare Krsna

[HerServant]

 

"Until we see Him as He IS, our hearts will remain as hard as stone."

 

Though true in an absolute sense, once we get a glimpse, our hearts immediately begin to soften, and there is much time that passes as we get to know him better, and never do we actually see him as he is, because he is eternally fresh and unknowable in total but through the unfolding of our relationship we eternally find out new wonderful things about each other.

 

During this time in the beginning our hearts grow softer and more sensitive to him in others, his presence in our heart, his voice in the heart of our mind, and there is a gradual progression. We advance. Gradually.

 

And so also does our ability to tolerate, fully forgive, and have non-sentimental spiritual compassion grow.

 

It is not an all or nothing, despite the popular misconception that there is some magic moment and we are perfectly saintly forever amen. Those who put forth such doctrine are actually furthest from the truth, from what I can see.

 

Seeing how Jesus truly was on the cross seems to consist of a lifetime of gradual and deepening realizations.

 

Just my take, as well.

 

Hare Krsna

 

Amen.

[Guest guest]

Hallelujiah!

[astrobhadauria]

Dear Gurujan,

Parnaam.

For those,who are saying that he is true worshiper,and thinker about God.In the Hindi,There are some words are saying true meaning,like "Daya"and if you reverse this word,there are opposite "Yaad",If you want kindness from God,you make learn to him,"Laabh" is making opposite "Bhalaa",and "Keertan" make opposite "Nartakee".if You want to find true God,then just make you like opposite word of "God" to "Dog".Dog have third sense and always make help to lord,by the making sound barking,after indication from Lord,Dog,keep quite.Barking is good for the making sense,and if make third sense then we start to barking by the "Keertan",not by the who is more powerfull,and who have much comunity,like a Dog,that not want any entry of other dog in his street.

[theist]

 

Dear Theist.

 

I feel you are not being clear in your communication to me. What is this telling me that my forgiveness extended to is analagous to me giving you a half full glass? In some circles it would be considered that you reject my forgiveness, by calling it inadequate.

Requires some introspection.

 

 

So let me be crystal clear.

 

Even though you did not indicate what you did that you felt you needed forgiveness for, after some reflection I decided that the fact that you obviously saw something was good enough for me to extend a blanket forgiveness. I truly never felt offended, because I do not take offense, because I deserve whatever treatment I get, due to my Karma. This is a standard Vaisnava concept that I actually realize.

 

Yes you do deserve what you get as do we all. What I am sorry for is being an agent of that karmic return instead of being an agent of the Higher Ground.

 

 

I allow my self to be offended when other Vaisnavas are offended by an offender, and I speak to that plenty. You did not ask for forgiveness for all the offenses I felt you made against others. And as you realize, despite the nice sentiment of asking Krsna to forgive others their offenses, we both know that is futile, and as far as offenses to ourselves, that is for the offender to realize and beg forgiveness, because we Vaisnavas personally do not feel offended, as per the last paragraph.

Of course not. Why would I ask that of you??

 

 

In this light, I believe you are mistaken about Jesus's mood of forgiveness. From what we know about a true Vaisnava, He would not see that people placing him there was an act of ignorance, he would have seen it as perfectly in his Father's plan.

 

He made it quite clear in the garden of Gethsemane that he knew it was the Fathers will that he go to the cross. What you fail to take into consideration is that everything Jesus Christ did was an example to the world. Acarya teaches by example. You will remember that Jesus told His disciples to "Pick up your cross and follow me." Now remember the the prayer he taught s to pray "Father forgive my tresspasses as I forgive those that tresspass upon me." Now you can understand this essential lesson Christ taught the world from the cross.

 

Bless those that curse you and horribly use you. This is real Christianity and why I doubt there are more than a handful of real Christians on the planet. I know I am not worthy to be considered a Christian.

 

 

 

I highly doubt he felt that ignorant people offended him by crucifying him, but that he forgave them for their offenses against each other and his Father. If he did feel offended then he would not have been the Christ (annointed Vaisnava messiah).

 

Awaiting your reply, with respect and in service to the truth.

 

B.M.

As explained above.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

My obeisances to all the noble Vaishnavas and guests!

 

Interesting thread here. As often is the case, it has gone off on tangents, but much of value is present.

 

Let me add 2 cents in reply to one of the original posts by JustAsking (though others have alluded to this point).

 

To see Satan as separate from and (in a sense) equal to God is a heresy. Satan is the friend and servant of God (see the book of Job if that doesn't make sense--God and Satan are chatting and make a bet together).

 

In fact, historically, there was a raging battle in the early days of the Church between the Christians and the Manicheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicheism#Manichaeism_and_orthodox_Christianity).

 

St. Augustine had been a Manicheist (who believe that God and Satan are dual and equal), but renounced that belief in realization that there is only God.

 

So, don't fear and despise Satan (or Maya for that matter). Rather, love God.

[bija]

Thanks for that enlightening post Murali Prabhu. Personally my perspective on things has changed over the years since being taught that satan is the material energy. I recall Srila Prabhupada saying this onetime. And that this energy can be utilized for development of devotional service. There is a lot to be grateful for really.

 

It is very interesting you point out the Book of Job. Great two cents worth.

[Guest guest]

test

[Guest guest]

 

Requires some introspection.

 

 

 

Yes you do deserve what you get as do we all. What I am sorry for is being an agent of that karmic return instead of being an agent of the Higher Ground.

 

 

Of course not. Why would I ask that of you??

 

 

He made it quite clear in the garden of Gethsemane that he knew it was the Fathers will that he go to the cross. What you fail to take into consideration is that everything Jesus Christ did was an example to the world. Acarya teaches by example. You will remember that Jesus told His disciples to "Pick up your cross and follow me." Now remember the the prayer he taught s to pray "Father forgive my tresspasses as I forgive those that tresspass upon me." Now you can understand this essential lesson Christ taught the world from the cross.

 

Bless those that curse you and horribly use you. This is real Christianity and why I doubt there are more than a handful of real Christians on the planet. I know I am not worthy to be considered a Christian.

 

 

As explained above.

 

Sometimes a blessing is a curse and visa versa.

 

Forgiving those who tresspass against us is the same as saying that a Vaisnava takes no offense because he knows his tresspassers are sent to deal their karma justly deserved.

 

This fact never prevents one with actual facility from offering sanctuary to and just aid to another Vaisnava who is set upon in a brutal attack of Maya's agents. Always to their defense if possible.

 

A middling Vaisnava will show anger with beginners to show Srila Prabhupada's mercy as best he is able. Srila Prabhupada also showed this example as Acharya of King of Chastisement, both sweet and sour, brilliant and dour.

 

Our Father's will is done. Through Jesus. Through Prabhupada. Through their disciples, in essence the Vaisnavas bearing their cross as the light yoke of brotherly love.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur called Christianity covered Vaisnavism. He who covered it has uncovered it in the speaking.

 

 

Mr. O’Grady: Very good. Yes, I accept that. I would like to know, though, that when you say “Krsna consciousness,” is there any difference between that and Christ consciousness?

Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become Krsna conscious.

 

 

 

As Lord Jesus Christ said, we should hate the sin, not the sinner. That is a very nice statement, because the sinner is under illusion. He is mad. If we hate him, how can we deliver him? Therefore, those who are advanced devotees, who are really servants of God, do not hate anyone. When Lord Jesus Christ was being crucified, he said, “My God, forgive them. They know not what they do.” This is the proper attitude of an advanced devotee. He understands that the conditioned souls cannot be hated, because they have become mad due to their materialistic way of thinking. In this Krsna consciousness movement, there is no question of hating anyone. (ACBSP)Pop 3 Learning how to see god

 

We may not feel like so Christ or Krsna Conscious because an advanced devotee, like Lord Jesus Christ or Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is very rare to walk the earth, while the intermediate and neophytes abound in contrast. To the degree we follow the advanced devotees, we will live for giving to those who hate us and our Lord, and what we give them will be just what they need, his love for us freely and gladly shared.

 

You are forgiven.

 

May you walk in peace in service to our Lords.

 

Hare Krsna

[HerServant]

 

. Bless those that curse you and horribly use you. This is real Christianity and why I doubt there are more than a handful of real Christians on the planet.

 

 

"but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness" -- 1st Corinthians 1:23

 

To almost everyone on planet earth, the Cross of Christ is a "stumbling block or foolishness". Who wants the cross? I can say .. "I want to follow God, but not in suffering. Please God, give me bliss, etc."

 

However Krsna wills that we are meant to encounter the depth of Jesus' compassion and love in the heart of Jesus on the cross.

 

Then we cannot bear for Him to endure the sins of the world. We see His true sorrow, which is the loss of our relationship with God.

 

Your servant.

[HerServant]

 

So, don't fear and despise Satan (or Maya for that matter). Rather, love God.

 

Fear is darkness. No doubt. Love of God is supreme! But, it in the spirit of Vaisnava Christian Fellowship/Friendship it may benefit some to understand the history of satan from both Vedic and proto Christian sources.

 

I quote from the following web site:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/questions.htm#3

 

God, the Supreme Person, has no equal. Although there are powerful beings in the cosmic divine and demoniac hierarchies none of them can be an equal opponent to God. Personalities in the Vedic thearchy sometimes thought to be an analogy to Satan (Siva, Durga, Yamaraja) are Lord's servants, not enemies. Personality of Kali, ruler of this age (yuga-purusa), is a sin personified but even he is a part of God's plan. All of them are allowed to punish those who break the cosmic order (dharma).

The Judeo-Christian concept of Satan is based on two sources - one coming from Persia and another from Egypt.

Jewish religion is thought to have been widely influenced by Zoroastrianism during the exile of the Jewish tribes after the destruction of the First Temple (586 BC) and the consequent Babylonian captivity. In Babylonia the Israelites were exposed to, and adopted, new ideas, e.g., the personification of evil (Satan) and the resurrection of the dead.

"The original Priesthood of Set in ancient Egypt survived for twenty-five recorded dynasties (ca. 3200-700 BC). It was one of the two central priesthoods in predynastic times, the other being that of HarWer ('Horus the Elder'). Unification of Egypt under both philosophical systems resulted in the nation's being known as the 'Two Kingdoms' and in its Pharaohs wearing the famous 'Double Crown' of Horus and Set.

"Originally a circumpolar/stellar deity portrayed as a cyclical counterpart to the Solar Horus, Set was later recast as an evil principle by the cults of Osiris and Isis. During the XIX and XX Dynasties Set returned as the Pharaonic patron, but by the XXV Dynasty (ca. 700 BC) a new wave of Osirian persecution led to the final destruction of the original Priesthood of Set. When the Hebrews emigrated from Egypt during the XIX Dynasty, however, they took with them a caricature of Set: 'Satan' (from the hieroglyphic Set-hen, one of the god's formal titles)." [Murray Hope, "The Temple of Set FAQ"]

Horus's principal enemy - originally Horus's other face or "dark" aspect - was this "Set" or "Sata", from which comes "Satan". Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among other similarities.

Bhakti Ananda Goswami:

In Egypt, this great religious and social trauma is associated with the dark ages of the Anti-Helios Hyksos, who corruptly identified Ketu / Setu with the Universal Savior, Baal. The Hyksos were not the enslaved Semitic heroes of the Jewish Exodus story. This is one of the worst mistakes historians have ever made. It is purely based on the racial assumption that, because the Hyksos were Semites, they somehow had to be the heroes of the Biblical Epic. In fact, all the evidence indicates that it was under the Hyksos that the Semitic and 'mixed multitude' worshipers of God Helios were enslaved.

Eli-Yahu is Helios / Hor-us, whose cosmic enemy is Ketu / Setu / Chata (Hebrew 'sin') with his minions, the rahus. Srimad Bhagavatam (8.9) narrates the story of Rahu-Ketu's (Satan) casting out of heaven. Half of Rahu-Ketu stays in the celestial realm becoming the cosmic force of destruction. Other half, Setu / Satan / Ketu, cast down (Satan falling like a lightning from heaven - Luke 10:18), was the 'father of lies' and the distortion of words (cata-chresis), the cause of celestial sun and moon-eating eclipses, inauspicious asterisms, comets (Sanskrit 'ketavah'), meteors and floods etc. (catastrophe, cataclysm), the dis-integration of all things (catabolism), and cause of possession / seizure / madness (catalepsy), disasters, disease and death.

In the Egypto-African and Helleno-Semitic traditions Setu or Satan is associated with catabolism and the Hebrew word 'chet' or 'chata' is used for 'sin' 195 times in the Hebrew scriptures. In Biblical Hebrew, evil, wickedness or destruction is expressed by the letters 'resh-ayin (usually now translated 'r-a') over 100 times. Satan is also called the evil dragon, which is Ketos in Greek! 'R a' or Chet (Setu or Ketos the Evil Dragon / Anti-Christ) is the Biblical catabolic Destroyer and Evil-Sin personified Satan. For instance, as late as the New Testament, he is envisioned by the apostle John as the cosmic dragon lying in wait to devour the Messiah as He is 'born' from the celestial Virgin. This is obviously the sun and moon devouring Rahu-Ketu, enemy of Visnu and the devas.

In Egyptian Setu is also associated with 'pp' or 'sin', which is clearly the Sanskrit word 'papa' for 'sin'. This arch-foe of God should not be confused with Shiva or the delivering-by-annihilation form of God. As the Enemy of beauty, truth, goodness, life, health and order, Rahu-Ketu and his rahu-minions are combated by the Lord in His various salvific descents (avatara). Thus as Ananta Charaka The Great Physician, Lord Baladeva descends as the Ayur Vedic Savior Asclespius or Jesus Christ (Serapis in Egypt, Yakushi-ji in Japan etc.) to defeat Rahu-ketu / Satan and relieve the suffering of all beings, restoring life, health and good order (dharma) to His creation.

In both the East and West Satan is depicted as a cosmic dragon who devours the sun and moon. As such he is Ketos or Drac in Greek, Ketu or Drug to Tibetan Buddhists and Satan the Dragon to Jews and Christians. By confounding the Enemy of life, truth, order, beauty and health, etc., with the Lord of life, truth etc., the Hyksos worshiped 'anti-Christ' in the place of Christ. They created the false Baal-Dionysos-Christ, and changed the capital of Egypt from one of the traditional Heliopolitan centers to the very capital city of Setu / Ketu (Avaris). Breaking with Heliopolitan tradition, they plunged Egypt into a 'dark age'.

Semitic Hyksos in Egypt, this left-hand tantric related deviant group of Eli / Heri - Baal worshipers, militarily conquered and devastated the Heliopolitan civilization of Northern Egypt. They moved the capital of Egypt to Avaris (yes, spelled like 'greed'), the city devoted to Setu (Rahu-Ketu / Satan), the catabolic, sinful (hebrew chata = sin), cosmic enemy of Heri. There they demonically associated the semitic second person of the Godhead Baal with the Egyptian personified evil, Setu.

Originally in the ancient Mediterranean Proto Catholic complex, Brahma and Siva were considered forms of Heri-Asu / Eli-Yahu, and Brahmaism and Saivism were not separated religions. Saivism, as separated Yahu-Baal / Dionysos worship, split from the sattvic tradition of Eli-Yahu / Helios / Heri- Asu and developed on a separated track after the great Egyptian regional trauma of the Hyksos period. During that time tamasic Baal-Yahu worshipers corruptly identified Setu-Raah (Ketu-Rahu, Satan) the arch fiend and enemy of Hari and the devas with Baal-Dionysos. This historical rise of the cult of the anti-Baal or anti-Christ led ultimately to the name Baal being dropped from common use as a name of Yahu, and to development of the separated left-hand tantric tamasic traditions of Siva, Kali (Sekmet in egypt) and Murugan worship.

Setu = Ketu, Chata = Ketu / Satan

Raah (Hebrew 'sin' / evil) = Rahu

[nekozuki]

Just asking, I hope you realize how illogical you sound. Just to let you know Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. So it seems more like he is saying "Jews shouldn't mingle with unbelievers".

 

As for people of other religions going to hell, why do near-death experiences say otherwise. I am doing near-death research and so far no sign of this "Satan". The only time I come across it is on a holy roller website with no source as to where they got the story.

[Guest guest]

 

Jesus defines such.

 

Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and do you believe that he died for your sins..

 

Jesus said I Am The Way, The Truth and The Life, and No Man comes to the Father but thru me. He said, I am the Door, it is thru me which you must enter.

Still people say they love Jesus, or other flowery rhetoric, and reject his very words, that he is the only way to God. Jesus says only those who enter fellowship with God thru me, THE DOOR, shall enter into the Kingdom of God.. But he also warns, there are will be thieves and robbers who will try to enter in another way (other religions/spiritual paths), or twist his words to their own advantage.

 

Born again Christians teach that those who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, Hare Krishnaism, Islam, and any other religion, besides Faith in Christ alone, and him crucified for the remission of sins, are destined to be damned to an eternal hell.

 

This is infact a very good thread that reflects the reality of any of the fanatical sects that are trying to follow one or the other form of God under their particular line or sampradaya and condemn others by quoting their particular books.

 

If we Compare without taking any sides or 'buts', then :

 

1. According to most Christians - Jesus said I Am The Way,

The Truth and The Life, and No Man comes to the Father but thru me.

 

2. Hare Krsnas/Gaudiyas say: in this age of Kali, Hari naam is kevalam

and there is no other way!! Most say, one who doesn't accept

Sri Gauranga or Prabhupada is offensive, and will reap bad reaction.

 

3. And of course, the Muslims believe and teach: that all those who

don't follow and accept Allah and Islam, are kafirs, and kafirs

deserve to be eliminated!

 

wOW! Do we see a remarkable similarity here? Though Islam seems more radical. At least, many clergies' views are.

 

All the three (and there are many more), are hard core religious

groups who do not accept any other sampradaya or stance on God and claim their explanation of God as the ONLY and HIGHEST reality quoting thier own interpretations of scriptures, prevailant acceptable within their own sampradayas. And this sooner or later becomes true for any hardcore

religious group. Some are more subtle, some are more blunt.

If I come to a HK and say Shiva is Supreme, he won't accept that.

If I come to a Hindu and say Shiva is Supreme, he will. If I say Krsna is too, he will accept, but he himself may be worshipping Durga and worshipping her as Supreme. He will gladly go to a HK temple and do free service and do the same in a Shiva temple too. An HK won't go to a Shiva temple. Most won't! Most of the one's I know would never care to. Most HKs will never say Om Namah Shivaya to an Om Namah Shivaya from a Hindu. A Hindu would gladly say Hare Krsna, to a HK. Even when he is not used to it.

 

Again, I'm amazed at the simplicity, largeheartedness and depth of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma, that accepts and allows one to worship

and come to God through the way that is most suitable to him, whilst

still suggesting the easier path through bhakti and devotional love.

It is the Vedic culture. As long as it is Vedic. The horizon is very wide.

Its like an ocean. Deep and wide. Not a pond or a lake.

Maybe because its not just a religious group or a closed minded sect

that forbids its followers to get out of the boundary walls of their

own maths or ashrams...

[HerServant]

 

Again, I'm amazed at the simplicity, largeheartedness and depth of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma, that accepts and allows one to worship

and come to God through the way that is most suitable to him, whilst

still suggesting the easier path through bhakti and devotional love.

It is the Vedic culture. As long as it is Vedic. The horizon is very wide.

Its like an ocean. Deep and wide. Not a pond or a lake.

Maybe because its not just a religious group or a closed minded sect

that forbids its followers to get out of the boundary walls of their

own maths or ashrams...

 

You do realize that a non Hindu cannot enter into the Jagganath Puri temple, right?

 

 

However for true seekers, the door of the Truth is open in both directions.

 

'I came as a stranger and took me in. Their activites impressed me as a life of all for one, and one for all, proclamining both the dignity of labour and the greatness of the spiritual quest.' It is for this experince that many people from different religions and life situations come to this Ashram where they find peace. 'I once stayed with Cistercian monks. They are votaries of divine love, of poverty and chastity. Their monastery was a veritable garden. There was a sweet silence pervading the whole atmosphere. I still live under the charm of their ciells. It would be may ideal to found such an institution.' - Swami Dharmanad Giril, sanyassi of the Ramakrishna Mission

 

The ashram where Swami Dharmanad Giril lives is a Catholic ashram and he lives among them.

 

See:

 

http://www.vagamon.com/kurisumala/kurisumala.htm

 

Many Catholic monks have also taken sannyasi vows from brother Hindus sannyasis.

 

So in the above example, we have a "Hindu" Sannyasi living with "Catholic" monks, and careful study of the above web link will reveal that we have "Catholic" monks taking "Hindu" sanyasi.

[bija]

Dear Y.K. and HerServant,

 

It is interesting to note that 'guestJustAsking' was expressing desires to separate from others. Who he called non-believers. Maybe at some point in our realization such things may be necessary. If faith is not fully blossomed. Almost as if the faith needs to be protected and nurtured. Fragile faith.

 

But I feel at some point of growth the internal faith will become not fragile, but sure and true. So in that stage these concepts of separation (as expressed by 'guestJustAsking') may not be any longer necessary to such an extent. Then we may be able to appreciate difference to a greater extent, and not be so over protective of our small bud of faith. To honor the faith of others more. I hope that this 'guestJustAsking' can grow in this way.

 

So personally being a Gaudiya devotee I do not feel this need to separate to such an extent. I am comfortable in my faith and comfortable with those of other faiths. So for example if Lord Shiva's devotee approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Shiva". I would respond the same. Or if a christian approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Jesus". I would respond the same. And if a devotee of Lord Gauranga approached me and said, "all glory to Mahaprabhu". My heart would reply, "Jai...all glory to Mahaprabhu!". A special intimacy would be felt internally with this Gauranga devotee. This is not separation, but intimacy in realization.

 

Dear HerServant, I grew up as catholic. And much appreciate your understandings. Some of these catholic sannyasins are very broad and open in their understandings. I have particularly enjoyed reading Thomas Merton's (a cistercian monk) Asian Journal. His contact was mainly with Buddhism amd impersonalism. I so much wish he had longer life and been able to explore more and more of Vedic culture. It is personalities like this that I admire very much.

[Guest guest]

 

You do realize that a non Hindu cannot enter into the Jagganath Puri temple, right?

Dear H.Servant,

 

The Jagannath temple policy is not really a complete representation of Hinduism (u probably have seen the publicised video of site editor Jahnava Nitai das vociferating against this policy repeating "panditah samadarshita" etc.), but this temple policy is just a fraction of it, that for most part rejects other schools, like I mentioned in the post before. Jagannath is the Lord of the world. So is Lord Vishwanath in Kashi/Benares. Both mean the same. One is hari, whilst the other - Hara/Shiva.

I'm not in line with Jagannath temple policies. Though, for purity purposes, many temples do NOT really allow a purely western (non devotee) meat consuming person inside the main sanctum santorium of a pure energy center. His consciousness is totally different and they avoid subjecting the deities and energy center as a whole to those vibes inside the main temple, to keep the subtle radiations pure. Devotees come to absorb these radiations. They must be kept in teh purest form. And that's why we go to a temple with devotional mind. The Mahakaleswara temple does not allow women to enter during the main MahaRudra abhishekam. This is not to say of course, that women are impure. But there is a rule for specific purposes rituals. Shiva worship is well prescribed for women too.

Btw, I would like to see a discussion between the top panda of Jagannath temple and say, Mahakaleshwara temple, when both may be well versed in particular scriptures and both having surrendered to their particular forms of deities.

I do not allow another person to sit on my sadhna asana that I consecrate with special mantras for particular sadhna anushthan. Then they may be my friends, Indian or western, doesn't matter really, or even family members, except my father, who is a sidha sadhak too. I myself wouldn't touch my beads and sadhna articles with impure hands.

 

Hinduism is very liberal. Especially when we look at the specifics of various lines of worship and sadhnas. It gives you freedom to chose. You have a preference. A preference to chose what is in line with your own nature, if that comes under a bonafide school of thought leading to siddhi labh/liberation. And no two persons are equally inclined for one and the same method.

 

Here, I may prefer to adhere to the guidlines of one particular sadhna. But I will not altogether reject another sadhna path.

Its something like - I like this particular type of clothing because it suits my need and prakriti, but this doesn't make all other type of clothings inferior or bad.

Yes, there are indeed particular sects that constitute a small part of it (Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma) that have their own specific rules. Then there are the sort of breakaway sects, who sprout out of Hinduism and then claim they have nothing to do with it. They simply take one branch out of it and claim that all of Hinduism is too much and this particular branch is all you need. Good examples are Hare Krsna, Sikkhism, Buddhism, etc. I know, I know, now some of my dear HK friends can mind my saying this. No offences meant. Really.

But, if you have the right knowledge of different paths of sadhna, then you see everything within Hinduism and everything a part of Sanatana Dharma, including Islam, Christianity, Hare Krsna, Buddhism, Jainism, Arya samajis, personalists, impersonalists ... and there is no conflict indeed.

 

Please understand, I'm not trying to attach too much importance to the "Hindu" word either. Its just a word. Nothing else. But the respect for others is important.

The respect for the HKs and the Shaivs is important, as much as for the Christians and others. And under the Hindu umbrella, all mostly get that.

Even when the HKs in other countries need support, they line in with the Hindus and Hindu diaspora. The Bhaktivedanta Manor in UK is a brilliant example of this. The picking up Moscow and Kazakhstan HK crisis is another. Kazakhstan crisis has been widely publicised as "Hindus under threat in Kazakhstan". Why? Because they would be more acceptable.

 

Islam and Sikkhism are into impersonalism, HK is not. But Both these are also a part of Hinduism, as far as the concepts and method of worship goes. As far as the way to concentrate goes. The differences are introduced by the followers' particular moods. Then, whether it is sakhya bhava or manjari bhava or dasya bhava. It is an approach. A mood. A preference that soul and feels more comfortable and natural in. And it highlights one or the other approach in its sadhna. Hanuman sadhna should be done in devotional but "veer bhava". That is the peculiarity of this sadhna. But it doesn't make other sadhna approaches wrong or inferior. What I'm against is the approach of putting my way superior over others' ways. And that was all my previous message wished to convey.

 

I do prefer to mention the word "Hindu", because this is the modern name given to the ageless Sanatana Dharma encompassing the essence of all relious and spiritual activities and knowledge known to man. Srila Prabhupada truly said, there is no Hindu word in the Vedas, But this is what it is - Sanatana Dharma. And to me its not really one religion, cult or sect. And that's why it can contain so much into it and is all encompassing. That's why Krsna didn't do with one chapter on Bhakti Yoga or one chapter on Dhyan Yoga in BG. And that's the spirit of Sanatana Dharma.

 

 

However for true seekers, the door of the Truth is open in both directions.

 

'I came as a stranger and took me in. Their activites impressed me as a life of all for one, and one for all, proclamining both the dignity of labour and the greatness of the spiritual quest.' It is for this experince that many people from different religions and life situations come to this Ashram where they find peace. 'I once stayed with Cistercian monks. They are votaries of divine love, of poverty and chastity. Their monastery was a veritable garden. There was a sweet silence pervading the whole atmosphere. I still live under the charm of their ciells. It would be may ideal to found such an institution.' - Swami Dharmanad Giril, sanyassi of the Ramakrishna Mission

 

The ashram where Swami Dharmanad Giril lives is a Catholic ashram and he lives among them.

 

See:

 

vagamon.com/kurisumala/kurisumala

 

Many Catholic monks have also taken sannyasi vows from brother Hindus sannyasis.

 

So in the above example, we have a "Hindu" Sannyasi living with "Catholic" monks, and careful study of the above web link will reveal that we have "Catholic" monks taking "Hindu" sanyasi.

 

This is one such time when the Spirit dictates what path is best for it to follow. As long as there is devotional love leading to the almighty beloved's lotus feet.

 

Love,

 

Yogkriya

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Y.K. and HerServant,

 

So personally being a Gaudiya devotee I do not feel this need to separate to such an extent. I am comfortable in my faith and comfortable with those of other faiths. So for example if Lord Shiva's devotee approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Shiva". I would respond the same. Or if a christian approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Jesus". I would respond the same. And if a devotee of Lord Gauranga approached me and said, "all glory to Mahaprabhu". My heart would reply, "Jai...all glory to Mahaprabhu!". A special intimacy would be felt internally with this Gauranga devotee. This is not separation, but intimacy in realization.

 

PAMHO Bija !

Alas, not many do that. My Prabhupada disciple friend would never ever say all glories to Lord Shiva. He'll say, oh don't say that!! lol! And he's a 30 years plus disciple!

He would tell me - "I'll pray for you to Krisna" and I'd reply - "I'll pray for you to Lord Shiva!" and he'll say -"I knew you were going to say that!" and we both would have a good laugh!

[Guest guest]

 

Just asking, I hope you realize how illogical you sound. Just to let you know Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. So it seems more like he is saying "Jews shouldn't mingle with unbelievers".

 

As for people of other religions going to hell, why do near-death experiences say otherwise. I am doing near-death research and so far no sign of this "Satan". The only time I come across it is on a holy roller website with no source as to where they got the story.

 

Ummm... Many Christians do argue that Jesus was not a Jew at all, but an Aryan. Some having studied imprints on the shroud of Turin, claim he didn't have Jewish features or skull shape etc..

[bija]

 

PAMHO Bija !

Alas, not many do that. My Prabhupada disciple friend would never ever say all glories to Lord Shiva. He'll say, oh don't say that!! lol! And he's a 30 years plus disciple!

He would tell me - "I'll pray for you to Krisna" and I'd reply - "I'll pray for you to Lord Shiva!" and he'll say -"I knew you were going to say that!" and we both would have a good laugh!quote by yk

I may not be as pure a follower as your friend. Your story reminds me of my dealings with a born-again acquaintance I have. Dynamics relationships that I am learning to take a light approach with. Like you say in your long post...what suits each to our own mood. Thanks for posting such a detailed post...nice to touch base with you again. Please accept my well-wishes.

[HerServant]

 

So personally being a Gaudiya devotee I do not feel this need to separate to such an extent. I am comfortable in my faith and comfortable with those of other faiths. So for example if Lord Shiva's devotee approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Shiva". I would respond the same. Or if a christian approached me and said, "all glory to Lord Jesus". I would respond the same. And if a devotee of Lord Gauranga approached me and said, "all glory to Mahaprabhu". My heart would reply, "Jai...all glory to Mahaprabhu!". A special intimacy would be felt internally with this Gauranga devotee. This is not separation, but intimacy in realization.

 

 

Little by little I have traversed the same road. I am a Jesus Bhakta and I see Him in everything, even if I am chanting "Om namo shivaya" or Hare Krsna .. Jesus is there.

 

 

Dear HerServant, I grew up as catholic. And much appreciate your understandings. Some of these catholic sannyasins are very broad and open in their understandings. I have particularly enjoyed reading Thomas Merton's (a cistercian monk) Asian Journal. His contact was mainly with Buddhism amd impersonalism. I so much wish he had longer life and been able to explore more and more of Vedic culture. It is personalities like this that I admire very much.

 

 

yes .. as are many Vaisnava sannyasis who are also broad and open in their understandings. I was told by a Vaisnava Sannyasi from India that Swami Bede Dayananda (Fr. Bede Griffiths) was reading Caitanya Caritamrta and Srimad Bhagavatam in the year or two before his passing. The reality is that Merton and many Catholic religious had no real exposure to vaisnava cult.

 

For me .. these two (catholic and gaudiya) need to see each other as long lost brothers .. and recognizing each other, embrace and weep tears of joy.

 

[HerServant]

Dear Y.K.

 

I agree with you. I was just trying to make a point that we have a mix of people on the planet. The sattvic, rajasic and tamasic and combinations thereof. The rajasic and tamasic mix will read the scriptures according to their desires. Philosophically, I enjoy the "Hindu" eastern philosophy more than the western greek. Hinduism has expanded my view of Christianity. As it should.

 

.. I just wanted to make clear that exclusionism and fundamentalism are not only coming from the west. Its all over India and in many (ugly) forms and not only recently. ( e.g. Bhakti Tirtha Swami was chased away from Jagganath Puri decades ago. )

 

Again .. overall, I agree with you. Please accept my friendship.

[HerServant]

 

Ummm... Many Christians do argue that Jesus was not a Jew at all, but an Aryan. Some having studied imprints on the shroud of Turin, claim he didn't have Jewish features or skull shape etc..

 

Jewish? Aryan? I thought Jesus is a Krsnalokan ?

[theist]

 

Jewish? Aryan? I thought Jesus is a Krsnalokan ?

 

Exactly. To think Jesus Christ ,or anyone for that matter, as a designated product of material nature is superfical.

 

Srila Prabhupada said He came straight from the Spiritual Sky.

[brajeshwara das]

 

Srila Prabhupada said He came straight from the Spiritual Sky.