Which is more personal, Christian or Vaisnava?

[Guest guest]

 

 

The answer is that it is a poor question because to speculate on something such as a personal relationship with the Supreme Lord is out of the jurisdiction of someone not in that personal relationship. It is like asking, who do you like better, your daughter or your wife. The answer is that the love is not possible for others to understand, the flavor is impossible for anyone else to taste.

 

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

 

I agree it is a stupid question. I am trying to point out the Vaisnavism is better religion because it's the PhD of spiritual science is a bad argument if we are to "become like little children"

 

As I recall, Srila rupa Goswami says that we must become a small child to get close enough to the most intimate pastimes of Radha Krsna.

 

... Krsna's baby don't need no stinkin' PhD .. why do I need all of these mountains of PhD knowledge.

 

Pharisees had all of that and more .. they even argue about why the first letter of the book of Genesis was chosen as the first letter.

 

Gimme some fruit a flower a leaf some water .. I am going to offer it to "mommy and daddy"

 

[Guest guest]

 

Well, if I really think about it, I have to say that they whole question of which faith is more personal is just a formula for argument.

 

I one thinks Christian is more personal than Vaishnava, then that should be the person's personal preference, but asking for people to take sides or make a choice just seems to be an attempt to insult one or the other.

 

In this case I think the author is trying to say that Christian is more personal than Vaishnava which is my my view just picking a fight or trying to create dissention.

 

so, if someone comes back and says Christian is just a sentimental religion without any philosophy then they should be willing to deal with the response.

 

Creating dissention is not my specialty. (see all of my previous posts) .. Regarding a fight, .. no fight .. simply stating facts through the "forum" of "philosophical argument"

 

We should understand that Krsna is dealing with each devotee personally .. and surprise .. Some of them are Christians!

 

Now you should now it would be a sin to shake the faith of a christian if they are taking steps toward Krsna.

 

Prabhupada's disciples really had (have) a shot at changing society, but only through the highest principles.

 

Not by becoming the same thing they despise in Christian fundamentalists and offering Krsna Consciousness as sectarian.

 

I also , for some 90 or 100 posts have been very low key about debating with Christian bashers.

 

Ya know why? Cause I been through that 3 decades ago on college campus debating evangelical fundamentalist Christians. I realized I could NEVER reason with a fundamentalist. Debating with a fundie assumes they have understanding of the topic they debate .. bad assumption

[AncientMariner]

 

Jesus taught His disciples and hence His parampara/sampradaya to pray:

 

"Our Father (Abba i.e. Daddy) , who are in heaven .... "

 

The Vaisnava acharyas taught to pray with maha mantra:

 

"Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna .. "

 

What is a more personal way to call God:

 

Daddy or Krsna ?

 

Oh, no. Not this question again. The standard Vaisnava answer is Christianity sucks and Vaisnavism is awesome. Just remember that and you will never ask those types of questions again on this board.

[Guruvani]

Teachings of Lord Kapila, purport Srila Prabhupada:

 

The Christian conception of God as the

Supreme Father is not very perfect because if we conceive of God as a

father, our position will be to take things from Him. Everyone wants to

take something from the father. One is always saying, "Father, give me

this. Father, give me that." However, accepting the Supreme Lord as

one's son means rendering service. Yasodamayi got Krsna as her son, and

she was always anxious that He not be in danger. Thus she was always

protecting Him. Actually Krsna protects the entire universe, but Yasoda

was giving protection to Krsna. This is Vaisnava philosophy.

[mahak]

For those with open minds and attempting to get rid of the suicidal sectarianism.

 

What we come down to, as her servant is presenting with this topic, is simplicity. Like I mentioned in my previous post, we cannot just read, we must decipher MEANING, and we do it here as well as with everything, lest we are truely lost.

 

Simplicity is actually the key to vaisnavism. No PhD. Srila Prabhupada has the greatest gift to give us, his purports to Srimad Bhagavatam. Purports is MEANING. His purport is distribution of maha-prasadam. Srila Prabhupada has tasted the meaning, and has distributed to us. The very first canto has a clear understanding to the idea that complexcity of religion gets in the way of bhakti yoga. Lord Vyasadeva has created the complex, PhD study of the veda, yet he is not very satisfied. He has found it dry, devoid of simplicity, and he is crying, just as Arjuna had a nervous breakdown at the critical juncture of the great kuruksetra war. This is where the devotee helplessly cries, "Im lost, I need something more!"

 

Srila Narada Muni appears to Srila Vyasadeva and tells him that His Veda is too complex, too dry. He tells him to lighten up on the dots and dashes and just describe the wonder of the Supreme person, and His dealings with his associates. In other words, while some may think that vaisnavism is a complex religion full of difficult ritual, processes, perfection of technique, mistake free performance. Well maybe some can undergo this way, but it is not the way of Vyasadeva. Simplicity is what vaisnavism is all about. If one finds kanistha adhikaris trying to make it difficult, overplaying the ritualism, there will be dry and non-attractive religion (Same with christian churches, orthodox judaism, fundamental Islam, etc). However, the key to vaisnavism is to follow the teachings of Krsna to Arjuna. He says, give up this religion stuff, and just surrender to me. Arjuna was a PhD. Knew mantras that could make the God of the Sun come down and do his will. Knew how to activate that which only the God of the Wind operates. Knew how to access the weaponry of the God of Death. Yet he was not able to continue. It was not fear of death, heck, he was the brother of Death (yudhisthira). It was that all he learnde in the ksatriya religion was useless, he needed to accept Krsna as his friend. After everything was said and done, Krsna showed Arjuna the complete universal form of God, Arjuna says "I dont want to see that. Then Krsna shows himself as the four armed Lord Narayana, and Arjuna did not even want to ssee that. So Krsna appeared as he is, the FRIEND of Arjuna, and the cloud was lifted.

 

Same with the gopis. They are not bereft of the PhD of religiosity. They are looking for Krsna, and Krsna appears before them as the four-armed Lord Narayana. The gopis bow down, say their prayers sufficiently, but Lord Narayana is really just a disturbance and they just wish he would leave so they could continue to look for their loving blue boy who is hiding from them. YOGAMAYA is the simplest form of relating to god. We cannot play tag with god, so Krsna removes all this religious nonsense so we can play with him. We cannot fight with god, but Krsna appears as the perfect foe for the great warrior vaisnavas like drona, krpa, and Srila Bhismadeva.

 

So, my friend, I fully appreciate your concern for simplicity, but state unequivocally (sp, I tried) that vaisnavism is the place for that. Srila Prabhupada tells his disciple that the entire veda is fully understood by uttering only once the name of the Supreme Lord. He tells us that the mahamantra is like a child crying for his mother (if that aint hallowing his name, I dont know what hallow is). The vaisnava decries the complexities of the veda. Lord Chaitanya is the superstar of 15th century India vedic erudition. He cannot be defeated, hes michael jordan, muhammed ali, and reggie jackson rolled into one personality. He knows the grammer even of those religions he is opposed to, knows the religion of the opponant, uses their own scripture to defeat them all. But when Srila Iswara Puri initiates Him into vaisnavism, he calle him a fool for such religious practice, for undertaking such learning. Iswara Puri forbids Lord Chaitanya from teaching what he has learned (PhD), and tells him only to utter the Names and spread the glories of the Supreme Lord.

 

Christianity as a religion is not simple. In fact, we find a history of manipulation (control by man) that has taken away similar simplicity taught by lord Jesus Christ. We find emphasis on difficult ritual, we find negative preaching against sin (which BTW is the other side of the same hedonistic coin). We find annihilatyion of all those who try to live the simplicity of which Lord Jesus teaches, (which is why I point out the genocide of the cathars. abyssinians and other true christ followers by the complex business and political system of euro-centric church establishment.) His mantra is the lord's prayer, but seldom do christians free themselves from the nonsense of religiosity even when they utter. They miss the MEANING. "Thy will be done" is understanding the universal form, lets move on, lets have some of that daily bread.

 

We can do Lord Jesus Christ's mantra, it is full of simplicity, it is full of meaning, it is NOT a ritual. If the lords prayer is a ritual, something to offset the hail mary ritual, then all is useless, the meaning must be there, the veda is rejected in favor of the love of God. Another word for the veda being rejected for the love of god is "bhaktivedanta", which is what Lord Vyasadeva became after the full blessing from Srila Narada Muni.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Dont worry bout the squitos, AM. They buzz but cant bite.

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada - Teachings of Lord Kapila.

 

 

We may be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian for fifty or sixty

years, or at the utmost one hundred, but again we have to take birth and

be something else. We are thinking in terms of these religious

designations, which are called asad-dharma, meaning that they may change

at any moment.

Srila Prabhupada considered Christianity as "asad-dharma" which means temporary religious designation.

He says that Christians again have to take birth.

Christians don't get salvation or liberation.

[mahak]

we know your position, guruvani. Quit spamming. Know the MEANING. Go convert elsewhere, we all know how happy and sublime your life with krsna is. Bzzzzzzzz

[Guruvani]

 

we know your position, guruvani. Quit spamming. Know the MEANING. Go convert elsewhere, we all know how happy and sublime your life with krsna is. Bzzzzzzzz

 

Mahak, you shouldn't be encouraging people to put their faith in "asad-dharma".

That is what we call cheating in the Vaishnava world.

 

Blind man leading blind people into a ditch.

 

Shame on you Mahak, you should know better than that.

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada: Teachings of Lord Kapila...

 

 

Reconnecting with Krsna is called bhakti-yoga, and Krsna comes to

instruct us in this supreme yoga. In essence, He says, "Just revive your

connection with Me, you rascal. Give up all these manufactured yogas and

religions and just surrender unto Me. That is Krsna's instruction, and

Krsna's representative, the incarnation or the guru, says the same

thing.

[mahak]

This is how I was taught how to speak to the world, offering all respect to others and not expecting respect in return. If we preach like you do, everyone leaves, because it is so full of "my way or the highway", it is very hard to deal with. Even my peers who are vaisnavas and dont even consider christians do not go out of their way to agitate and turn off all whom they speak to. Srila Prabhupada sets the example. You are always accusing Srila Prabhupada of being duplicitous, meaning that he is pandering to the christian by saying the things he does about Lord Jesus, but Srila Prabhupada does not pander. What he doesw do is follow the instructions of his grandfather gur5u maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinode, who emphasizes the technique of humble persuasion. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also sets the example that we are BOUND to follow. He listens patiently to the other viewpoint, then, if there is a flaw in the other persons presentation, he deals with the flaw without making the opponant feel like he is rejected, discarded like a piece of trash. So, you can shame on me all you want, but actually, I have met very many followers of Lord Jesus Christ that a great many of my vaisnava peers should take example from, meaning they have many more vaisnava qualities.

 

Sectarianism is practiced by really un-advanced devotees. In fact, many christians that we dont care for are just like this, "my way or the highway", unwilling to even consider a higher flavor, a purport of their Lord Jesus Christ coming from one who actually practices his teachings and applies them to their lives, like Srila Prabhupada. I was raised a Catholic, and while it was interesting, I dont particularily get anything out of it. However, if I use Bhagavad Gita as it is as the concordex to occidental shastra, Lord Jesus Christ comes alive. In fact, Srila Prabhupada IS the representative of Lord Jesus Christ, because, even though he did not necessarily teach christian religion, he gave me Lord Jesus Christ as he is.

 

I dont pander to christians. If you see any false doctrine in any of my posts, go ahead and call me on it. However, you dont, you just see the word Jesus, and like the fanatic jihadist, you declare me to be an infidel, preaching against Srila Prabhupada.

 

So shame on you, bro, you are in the way, interfering with istagosthi. You must have had some fanatic teachers who overused the word karmi like it is some kind of disease. I never used that word, never considered my neighbor to be less than me because I declare allegiance of Srila Prabhupada. In fact, he is very displeased if we dont take to his example and use HUMBLE persuasion in our discussions with INTERESTED parties. Maybe your leaders were the type that just wanted you to pick their wallet, give them a rolling stones bumper sticker, tell them their donations are for the starving masses in Biafra,. dress up like hos. Who is the cheater here? One who takes time to go over the sincere inquiry of the person on the street or the wallet picker who leaves with the bucks while Srila Prabhupadas masterpieces end up in airport dumpsters by the tens of thopusands.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

Indic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are philosophical

religions. Christianity is a dogmatic creed.

 

Christianity should be described and commented upon

in the language and vocabulary of the Bible and not in the

language of Sanskrit thought, philosophy and spiritual literature.

 

Arya dharma and ethos are incompatible with Semitic

Christianity.

[mahak]

but we aint speaking "comparitive religion", we are speaking of the rasa of personal relationship, which is very compatible. Dogmatic means that when a hindu sees the word jesus, the discussion cannot take place and vice versa.

 

Churches make creeds, the council of nicea made up the creed for those who they co-opted. Belief in christ and krsna has no value, beliefs change like your clothes. We speak of realized truth, tattwa, sraddha.

 

Your point is absurd, and leaves the world suffering under tribal gods and UFO captains. Disciples of Srila Prabhupada are gosthianandis, preachers, and thus we approach anyone and everyone, speak in their language, humble inject tattwa as we have come to REALIZE however we see fit. If I say the Lord's Prayer is the mantra of initiation he gave to his disciples, this is a fact. Despite the words.

 

Go speak sanskrit to those who speak sanskrit. Shall we speak in Hebrew, How about gaggle in tongues. Samerian. No, we speak that we can hear, sravanam, kirtanam. All languages, all peoples, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says every town and village, not just tel aviv, not just the Vatican, not just bengal or mumbai. But the tongue of Tonga, the language of latvia, the words of wellington, the music of Mali, even the rankin of the rastafarian, mon. mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

It depends on the practitioner.

[Guruvani]

Well, Jesus taught that we should ask God for our daily bread.

The Vaishnavas want to supply God his daily bread.

 

So, as Srila Prabhupada pointed out that taking God as father is for asking for bread, luxury cars, fancy homes etc. etc.

 

So, it's more personal when you supply God his daily bread than simply praying to God to give us some bread.

 

Who is more personal with God?

The one begging for bread or the one cooking bread for God?

 

go figure.....

[Guest guest]

enjoy your misconceptions, I havent time to explain bread to you. Nor yogamaya of servitude rasa. bzzzzzzz

[Guruvani]

 

enjoy your misconceptions, I havent time to explain bread to you. Nor yogamaya of servitude rasa. bzzzzzzz

Srila Prabhupada said they are praying for bread.

Bread is bread.

Bread is not yogamaya or whatever else you are imagining it to be.

 

If Jesus was not talking about bread, then he was probably smart enough to use some other more appropriate word.

 

If you knew the teachings of Srila Prabhupada you would know that he pointed out that praying for bread is a poor relationship with God.

 

Srila Prabhupada said that God as father is not a servitude relationship.

 

God as father is God is our servant.

 

Read the books of Srila Prabhupada and maybe you'll get the picture someday.

 

Fatherhood of God makes him our servant.

 

Service begins in serving bread to God not in asking him to provide for our bread.

[Guruvani]

Our Father in Heaven, please allow us to to serve you your daily bread.

 

this is service...

[theist]

 

It depends on the practitioner.

 

This is spiritual knowledge. Spiritual life is itself personal as in a relationship to God and others. If we drop the divisively used terms vaisnava and christian we can see that Srila Prabhupada and Lord Jesus Christ are both the perfection of personalism giving there lives for the satisfaction of Krsna out of personal love for Him and selflessly giving themselves other to the salvation of those parts of Krsna known as the lost souls.

 

Real religion is defined as loving God with all one's heart mind deeds and loving other souls as oneself.

 

As guest succintly taught us in one sentence above it all depends on the practioner.

[Guruvani]

Actually, the conception that God is the father of the soul is wrong.

God is not really the father.

He is the "friend" of the soul, because we are eternally co-existing with him.

He did not father us.

We are simply part of him eternally.

He is not THE FATHER.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.23 purport.

 

 

The fact is that every individual living entity is eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, and both of them are very intimately related as friends.

 

God is our friend not our father.

(maybe boyfriend?)

[Guest guest]

 

Well, Jesus taught that we should ask God for our daily bread.

The Vaishnavas want to supply God his daily bread.

 

So, as Srila Prabhupada pointed out that taking God as father is for asking for bread, luxury cars, fancy homes etc. etc.

 

So, it's more personal when you supply God his daily bread than simply praying to God to give us some bread.

 

Who is more personal with God?

The one begging for bread or the one cooking bread for God?

 

go figure.....

 

Jesus gave His life. Then said " I am the bread of life" .. He gave Krsna bread by giving His life. You give Krsna bread by surrendering to Him your life. Not by offering some crumbs in your cupboard.

 

duh! doy!

[Guruvani]

 

Jesus gave His life. Then said " I am the bread of life" .. He gave Krsna bread by giving His life. You give Krsna bread by surrendering to Him your life. Not by offering some crumbs in your cupboard.

 

duh! doy!

 

 

John, chapter 6: The Bread of Life:

 

 

53- "Let me solemnly assure you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54- Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55-For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink..."(John 6:53-55)

 

 

 

Myself, I don't want any religion with this kind of talking.

None of this makes any sense to me.

 

Sounds like these people were eating a lot more than fish.

[Guest guest]

Which is more personal, Christian or Vaisnava?

 

I would judge by the results as manifested in the followers of these traditions. If we treat others as non-persons (and that includes non-human living entities) then our approach is impersonal in nature.

 

Seems that both traditions are capable of fostering various degrees of personalism and impersonalism.

[gHari]

http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/2/34/en

 

... as pearls strung on a thread ...

[Guruvani]

The form of Lord Vishnu as Lord Siva is the father of all the jivas in the universe.

Lord Siva is our father as we exist in this material world...

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.273 purport...

 

 

The word svāńga-viśeṣābhāsa-rūpe, indicating the form by which the Lord begets living entities in the material world, is explained herein. He is Lord Śiva. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Lord Śiva, who is another form of Mahā-Viṣṇu, is like yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk, yet it is not milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva is considered the father of this universe, and material nature is considered the mother. The father and mother are known as Lord Śiva and goddess Durgā. Together, Lord Śiva's genitals and the vagina of goddess Durgā are worshiped as the śiva-lińga. This is the origin of the material creation. Thus Lord Śiva's position is between that of the living entity and that of the Supreme Lord. In other words, Lord Śiva is neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor a living entity. He is the form through which the Supreme Lord works to beget living entities within this material world.

[gHari]

The word was mannah not bread, meaning spiritual food from heaven. They like didn't even speak English, dude; they were like very backwards back then. Even though we all know Jesus is American.