Is Jesus also Vishnu?

[gHari]

SB 7.11.31:

 

<center>

prAyaH sva-bhAva-vihito

nRNAM dharmo yuge yuge

veda-dRgbhiH smRto rAjan

pretya ceha ca zarma-kRt

</center>

prAyaH--generally; sva-bhAva-vihitaH--prescribed, according to one's material modes of nature; nRNAm--of human society; dharmaH--the occupational duty; yuge yuge--in every age; veda-dRgbhiH--by brAhmaNas well conversant in the Vedic knowledge; smRtaH--recognized; rAjan--O King; pretya--after death; ca--and; iha--here (in this body); ca--also; zarma-kRt--auspicious.

My dear King, brAhmaNas well conversant in Vedic knowledge have given their verdict that in every age [yuga] the conduct of different sections of people according to their material modes of nature is auspicious both in this life and after death.

PURPORT

In Bhagavad-gItA (3.35) it is said, zreyAn sva-dharmo viguNaH para-dharmAt svanuSThitAt: "It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faulty, than another's duties." The antyajas, the men of the lower classes, are accustomed to stealing, drinking and illicit sex, but that is not considered sinful. For example, if a tiger kills a man, this is not sinful but if a man kills another man, this is considered sinful, and the killer is hanged. What is a daily affair among the animals is a sinful act in human society. Thus according to the symptoms of higher and lower sections of society, there are different varieties of occupational duties. According to the experts in Vedic knowledge, these duties are prescribed in terms of the age concerned.

 

 

 

SB 10.14.31:

 

<center>

tad astu me nAtha sa bhUri-bhAgo

bhave 'tra vAnyatra tu vA tirazcAm

yenAham eko 'pi bhavaj-janAnAM

bhUtvA niSeve tava pAda-pallavam

</center>

tat--therefore; astu--may it be; me--my; nAtha--O master; saH--that; bhUri-bhAgaH--greatest good fortune; bhave--in the birth; atra--this; vA--or; anyatra--in some other birth; tu--indeed; vA--or; tirazcAm--among the animals; yena--by which; aham--I; ekaH--one; api--even; bhavat--or Your; janAnAm--devotees; bhUtvA--becoming; niSeve--I may fully engage in serving; tava--Your; pAda-pallavam--lotus feet.

My dear Lord, I therefore pray to be so fortunate that in this life as Lord BrahmA or in another life, wherever I take my birth, I may be counted as one of Your devotees. I pray that wherever I may be, even among the animal species, I can engage in devotional service to Your lotus feet.

 

[Guruvani]

 

SB 7.11.31:

 

<center>

prAyaH sva-bhAva-vihito

nRNAM dharmo yuge yuge

veda-dRgbhiH smRto rAjan

pretya ceha ca zarma-kRt

</center>

prAyaH--generally; sva-bhAva-vihitaH--prescribed, according to one's material modes of nature; nRNAm--of human society; dharmaH--the occupational duty; yuge yuge--in every age; veda-dRgbhiH--by brAhmaNas well conversant in the Vedic knowledge; smRtaH--recognized; rAjan--O King; pretya--after death; ca--and; iha--here (in this body); ca--also; zarma-kRt--auspicious.

My dear King, brAhmaNas well conversant in Vedic knowledge have given their verdict that in every age [yuga] the conduct of different sections of people according to their material modes of nature is auspicious both in this life and after death.

PURPORT

In Bhagavad-gItA (3.35) it is said, zreyAn sva-dharmo viguNaH para-dharmAt svanuSThitAt: "It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faulty, than another's duties." The antyajas, the men of the lower classes, are accustomed to stealing, drinking and illicit sex, but that is not considered sinful. For example, if a tiger kills a man, this is not sinful but if a man kills another man, this is considered sinful, and the killer is hanged. What is a daily affair among the animals is a sinful act in human society. Thus according to the symptoms of higher and lower sections of society, there are different varieties of occupational duties. According to the experts in Vedic knowledge, these duties are prescribed in terms of the age concerned.

SB 10.14.31:

 

<center>

tad astu me nAtha sa bhUri-bhAgo

bhave 'tra vAnyatra tu vA tirazcAm

yenAham eko 'pi bhavaj-janAnAM

bhUtvA niSeve tava pAda-pallavam

</center>

tat--therefore; astu--may it be; me--my; nAtha--O master; saH--that; bhUri-bhAgaH--greatest good fortune; bhave--in the birth; atra--this; vA--or; anyatra--in some other birth; tu--indeed; vA--or; tirazcAm--among the animals; yena--by which; aham--I; ekaH--one; api--even; bhavat--or Your; janAnAm--devotees; bhUtvA--becoming; niSeve--I may fully engage in serving; tava--Your; pAda-pallavam--lotus feet.

My dear Lord, I therefore pray to be so fortunate that in this life as Lord BrahmA or in another life, wherever I take my birth, I may be counted as one of Your devotees. I pray that wherever I may be, even among the animal species, I can engage in devotional service to Your lotus feet.

 

 

Some members of the forum like to pass off this kind of shastric basis of ideas and thoughts as simple copy and paste without realization.

 

But, studying the books and using shastric statements to support one's input is far from mechanical copy and paste robotism.

 

If it was so easy to support one's position with shastric evidence then everybody would be doing it.

 

It's no small effort to study the shastra and support one's statements with shastric evidence.

 

It's definitely in a league above the armchair commentors who simply post opinions and views in their own words.

 

I applaud the approach of supporting all views and opinions with shastric evidence.

 

I don't applaud the attempt to take letters or lectures of Srila Prabhupada to establish a different siddhanta than what the shastra gives.

 

If letters and lecture statements conflict with shastric siddhanta then we need to understand that such preaching is strategically given in consideration of the adhikara of the audience.

 

Obviously, the shastra is for those who are capable of putting forth the effort to dive deeply into the philosophy and go beyond the compromising of time and circumstance preaching of the acharya.

[theist]

 

The antyajas, the men of the lower classes, are accustomed to stealing, drinking and illicit sex, but that is not considered sinful.

 

I remember reading this before and just skipping by it as I couldn't make sense of it. I still don't get it. How would that be applied in today's society?

[theist]

 

I see it simply as his unique perspective on things.

 

I believe Bhaktisiddhanta also stated Muhammed was a shaktyavesa avatar so it wasn't Srila Prabhupada's lone perspective.

 

I know nothing about Muhammed or the Koran but within the teachings of Christ I see the key ingredients necessary for a complete change of heart whereas I am not sure if the same is in the Koran. For instance the strong emphasis Jesus placed on forgiveness.

[theist]

 

I think it is a 'time and circumstance' thing. What can one say to such people, to people who have already abandoned two other religions promulgated by Moses and Christ, to a war-ravaged people for whom the sword has dictated truth for millenia?

 

It is written that God comes to all species - even the tigers will have their perfect dharma, their perfect guru.

 

I am drawn to this explanantion.

[Guruvani]

God comes as Mahaprabhu to save all mankind, but few be that accept him.

Mahaprabhu is the Yuga Avatar for all humankind.

There is no second avatar for this age.

[theist]

Within the teachings of Christ, and leaving aside the rest of the Bible, I see eternal principles being taught as to how to relate to God and fellowmen. "Acts of charity are never to be given up" Gita.

 

Can the same be said for Muhammed teachings? From what I have gleaned his approach seems more in tune with the harshness we see in the Old Testament with stoning and the like. Whereas Jesus taught forgivness and repentance instead of stoning.

 

I believe the relevancy of much Judaism for the Earth ceased with the advent of Christ and his path of loving service to God and others that placed mercy over law.

 

Islam to my uneducated eyes with it Sharia law appears like a step back into the stone age.

[Guruvani]

It's amazing the double-standard that some "devotees" use in relating with the Jesus conception.

These devotees will jump your ass if you suggest that Srila Prabhupada is as worshipable as Krishna, but they don't have a problem with thinking that Jesus might be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

 

In the Vaishnava doctrine it is considered an offense to consider the devatas like Lord Siva or Lord Brahma to be equal to Lord Vishnu.

These people are known as pashandi or "blasphemers".

 

To propose that Jesus is "also Vishnu" as the title of this topic suggests is considered blasphemy by some thinkers.

 

In Vaishnavism neither Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Shankaracharya, or any of the great acharyas and gurus are considered as "also Vishnu", so I think the proposal that a minor figure such as Jesus Christ who did not even appear in a Vedic society should be considered as "also Vishnu" is ludicrous to say the least.

[ksbh]

I completely agree with your post, Guruvani prabhu (except the part that Jesus Christ is a 'minor' figure). The folks that go around saying Jesus Christ is Visnu are just propagating apasidhanta.

 

Jesus Christ is a bonafide Acarya but he is not Visnu.

 

 

It's amazing the double-standard that some "devotees" use in relating with the Jesus conception.

These devotees will jump your ass if you suggest that Srila Prabhupada is as worshipable as Krishna, but they don't have a problem with thinking that Jesus might be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

 

In the Vaishnava doctrine it is considered an offense to consider the devatas like Lord Siva or Lord Brahma to be equal to Lord Vishnu.

These people are known as pashandi or "blasphemers".

 

To propose that Jesus is "also Vishnu" as the title of this topic suggests is considered blasphemy by some thinkers.

 

In Vaishnavism neither Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Shankaracharya, or any of the great acharyas and gurus are considered as "also Vishnu", so I think the proposal that a minor figure such as Jesus Christ who did not even appear in a Vedic society should be considered as "also Vishnu" is ludicrous to say the least.

[Guruvani]

 

I completely agree with your post, Guruvani prabhu (except the part that Jesus Christ is a 'minor' figure).

Jesus made very little impact in his lifetime.

He had a small group of followers.

Heck, Jayapataka Swami has thousands more disciples than Jesus had.

 

Jesus was a small-timer.

It was the Holy Roman Empire using their political power that made Christianity a widespread cult.

 

The Romans, the British and other such nation states have spread the Christian cult all over the world.

 

Jesus couldn't manage to amass more than a small band of followers in his own time.

 

It was the power of Rome that spread Christianty, not the personal charisma of Jesus.

 

You can't compare a true preacher like Srila Prabhupada with the state religion of Rome.

 

Without the influence of powerful nation states, Srila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness all over the world.

 

The comparison today would be if the United States adopted Krishna consciousness as the national religion and imposed it on all of society, then we would have something like the process of how Christianty became a world religion.

 

Jesus couldn't have done much without the might of Rome to spread the Jesus cult.

[ksbh]

Prabhu ... I agree with your premise that Srila Prabhupada's accomplishments are truly astonishing!

 

As for the rest of your post, I will refrain from agreeing or refuting it!

 

 

Jesus made very little impact in his lifetime.

He had a small group of followers.

Heck, Jayapataka Swami has thousands more disciples than Jesus had.

 

Jesus was a small-timer.

It was the Holy Roman Empire using their political power that made Christianity a widespread cult.

 

The Romans, the British and other such nation states have spread the Christian cult all over the world.

 

Jesus couldn't manage to amass more than a small band of followers in his own time.

 

It was the power of Rome that spread Christianty, not the personal charisma of Jesus.

 

You can't compare a true preacher like Srila Prabhupada with the state religion of Rome.

 

Without the influence of powerful nation states, Srila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness all over the world.

 

The comparison today would be if the United States adopted Krishna consciousness as the national religion and imposed it on all of society, then we would have something like the process of how Christianty became a world religion.

 

Jesus couldn't have done much without the might of Rome to spread the Jesus cult.

[theist]

 

I completely agree with your post, Guruvani prabhu (except the part that Jesus Christ is a 'minor' figure). The folks that go around saying Jesus Christ is Visnu are just propagating apasidhanta.

 

Jesus Christ is a bonafide Acarya but he is not Visnu.

[...]

Martin: Can a true devotee come face-to-face with God through the teachings of Buddha, the teachings of Christ?

Prabhupada: Yes. Teachings of Christ, teaching of Buddha, they are meant for a particular type of men. Generally it is meant for everyone, but specifically for a particular type of men. Just like Lord Buddha, he preached ahimsa. They were a particular type of men. Lord Jesus Christ also preached to a particular type of men. "Thou shall not kill.'' That means they were killing. Is it not? If I say, "Thou shall not steal,'' that means you are thief, you are stealing. So a kind of preaching among the thieves and a kind of teaching among the philosophers must be different. That is the difference. Lord Buddha is Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ was Krishna incarnation, but they were preaching to a different type of people. Therefore you'll find difference of Lord Jesus Christ teaching, Buddha's teaching, Krishna's teaching. Krishna's teaching also is there, which is also Buddha's teaching. But more than that, because the persons amongst whom He was teaching, they were far, far elevated than the thieves and the rogues. That is the difference. Just like I am pushing on this Krishna consciousness movement, I am doing so many things which sometimes my Godbrothers out of envy criticize. But I know what is the circumstances how to do it. They do not know it. I know my business. So that is their fault. Their own buddhi business, then simply criticize "How he is acting.'' Find out some fault. Just like Lord Buddha was criticized by the Vedic brahmanas, "Oh, you are stopping animal sacrifice? It is already in the Vedas. Because it is sacrifice, the animal is also sacrificed, so how you can stop animal sacrifice?'' But Lord Buddha, nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam. Sruti-jatam. In the Vedas there is recommendation for animal sacrifice, but he began to deride. So his business was to deride the Vedic principles, that "I do not care for these Vedas.'' Therefore Buddha's religion was not accepted in India. He criticized. He criticized the Vedic principles. In the Vedic principles there is recommendation for animal sacrifice, and he criticized, "This is not good. Don't do this.'' Therefore it is criticism. Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is. You cannot criticize. Then there is no Vedic authority. So therefore he defied Vedic authorities. As such, he was not accepted, strictly followers of the Vedas. But he has got a different purpose. The ordinary man cannot understand. But one who is devotee, he knows that why he has done this. Therefore they offer their obeisances, kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare. A devotee does not accept the philosophy of Buddha but accepts him as incarnation of Lord Krishna and offers obeisances. This is our position. We offer obeisances to Lord Buddha as incarnation of Krishna, kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare. This is our study of knowledge. conv. 1972[...]

[ksbh]

That is a pretty straight forward comment by Srila Prabhupada but how do we know he wasn't referring to Jesus as Shyaktavesa avatara, which is empowered representative, not the Lord Himself. Therefore the question must be asked- Is there any such statement in any of Srila Prabhupada's books?

 

 

[...]

Martin: Can a true devotee come face-to-face with God through the teachings of Buddha, the teachings of Christ?

Prabhupada: Yes. Teachings of Christ, teaching of Buddha, they are meant for a particular type of men. Generally it is meant for everyone, but specifically for a particular type of men. Just like Lord Buddha, he preached ahimsa. They were a particular type of men. Lord Jesus Christ also preached to a particular type of men. "Thou shall not kill.'' That means they were killing. Is it not? If I say, "Thou shall not steal,'' that means you are thief, you are stealing. So a kind of preaching among the thieves and a kind of teaching among the philosophers must be different. That is the difference. Lord Buddha is Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ was Krishna incarnation, but they were preaching to a different type of people. Therefore you'll find difference of Lord Jesus Christ teaching, Buddha's teaching, Krishna's teaching. Krishna's teaching also is there, which is also Buddha's teaching. But more than that, because the persons amongst whom He was teaching, they were far, far elevated than the thieves and the rogues. That is the difference. Just like I am pushing on this Krishna consciousness movement, I am doing so many things which sometimes my Godbrothers out of envy criticize. But I know what is the circumstances how to do it. They do not know it. I know my business. So that is their fault. Their own buddhi business, then simply criticize "How he is acting.'' Find out some fault. Just like Lord Buddha was criticized by the Vedic brahmanas, "Oh, you are stopping animal sacrifice? It is already in the Vedas. Because it is sacrifice, the animal is also sacrificed, so how you can stop animal sacrifice?'' But Lord Buddha, nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam. Sruti-jatam. In the Vedas there is recommendation for animal sacrifice, but he began to deride. So his business was to deride the Vedic principles, that "I do not care for these Vedas.'' Therefore Buddha's religion was not accepted in India. He criticized. He criticized the Vedic principles. In the Vedic principles there is recommendation for animal sacrifice, and he criticized, "This is not good. Don't do this.'' Therefore it is criticism. Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is. You cannot criticize. Then there is no Vedic authority. So therefore he defied Vedic authorities. As such, he was not accepted, strictly followers of the Vedas. But he has got a different purpose. The ordinary man cannot understand. But one who is devotee, he knows that why he has done this. Therefore they offer their obeisances, kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare. A devotee does not accept the philosophy of Buddha but accepts him as incarnation of Lord Krishna and offers obeisances. This is our position. We offer obeisances to Lord Buddha as incarnation of Krishna, kesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare. This is our study of knowledge. conv. 1972[...]

[Guruvani]

 

Lord Jesus Christ was Krishna incarnation,

 

This must be a forgery as Srila Prabhupada made it clear in letters to his disciples that the so-called "Jesus" was a jiva.

 

Therefore, he could not possibly have been an incarnation of Krishna.

 

Jesus is a myth.

 

Krishna is not a myth.

[theist]

 

That is a pretty straight forward comment by Srila Prabhupada but how do we know he wasn't referring to Jesus as Shyaktavesa avatara, which is empowered representative, not the Lord Himself. Therefore the question must be asked- Is there any such statement in any of Srila Prabhupada's books?

 

He was referring to Jesus as a Shaktyavesa avatar. That is the point! Oneness and difference, not straight dualism or monism but both simultaneously.

 

Lord Buddha is also Shaktya vesa. Narada muni is listed as an incarnatrion also but we know he is a jiva.

 

By accepting oneness we do not cancel out duality and vis a vera.

[ksbh]

Prabhu, do you have access to where Srila Prabhupada says Jesus is a jiva?That might help come to a conclusion.

 

My personal understanding is that he is Guru tattva.

 

 

This must be a forgery as Srila Prabhupada made it clear in letters to his disciples that the so-called "Jesus" was a jiva.

 

Therefore, he could not possibly have been an incarnation of Krishna.

 

Jesus is a myth.

 

Krishna is not a myth.

[ksbh]

Prabhu ... I guess the disagreement is because you consider Jiva to be one and different from Visnu.

 

I consider Jiva as eternal servant, never one (albeit simultaneously different). I have read where Srila Prabhupada says we are 'part and parcel of God' but can you provide references where he says we are simultaneously God?

 

 

 

He was referring to Jesus as a Shaktyavesa avatar. That is the point! Oneness and difference, not straight dualism or monism but both simultaneously.

 

Lord Buddha is also Shaktya vesa. Narada muni is listed as an incarnatrion also but we know he is a jiva.

 

By accepting oneness we do not cancel out duality and vis a vera.

[Guruvani]

 

Prabhu, do you have access to where Srila Prabhupada says Jesus is a jiva?That might help come to a conclusion.

 

My personal understanding is that he is Guru tattva.

 

Some member posted the quote on the forum here just a few weeks ago.

I think the thread is now closed, but I will dig around and see if I can find it.

 

I think it was a letter to Anirrudha das.

 

So, it appears that in teaching his disciples Srila Prabhupada was less diplomatic than when preaching to a Christian.

 

It appears that Srila Prabhupada was even willing to lie to try and bring a fallen soul into Krishna consciousness.

 

As far as that goes, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur apparently did not even include Jesus amongst the Vaishnavas.

 

He said that the Vaishnavas are millions of times greater than Jesus.

 

But, he was preaching in India and did not need to be as compromising and diplomatic as Srila Prabhupada preaching in the western world.

[Guruvani]

 

 

Los Angeles 14 November, 1968

 

My Dear Aniruddha,

 

 

 

Yes, Lord Jesus was jivatattva. He is not Visnu tattva. When a jiva tattva becomes specifically empowered by the Lord, he is called saktyavesa avatara. Lord Buddha and Lord Jesus Christ were in this group of saktyavesa avatara.. But they were not in conditioned state when they appeared; they came to teach here.

 

so, Srila Prabhupada is comparing Lord Jesus and Lord Buddha in the same class.

We all know that Buddha preached atheism and rejected the Vedas.

Jesus was an iconoclast who despised deity worship.

 

The Vaishnavas have nothing to do with either of them.

[Guruvani]

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur:

 

 

So the comparative position of Vasudeva Datta is millions of times better than that of Lord Jesus Christ. A Vaishnava is so liberal that he is prepared to risk everything to rescue the conditioned souls from material existence.

It appears from this statement of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur that he had a fairly low estimation of Jesus and did not include him in the list of Vaishnavas who are willing to risk everything to save the fallen conditioned souls.

[Guruvani]

(Letter to Hamsaduta, Nov.2, 1969)

Srila Prabhupada said:

 

Lord Buddha is mentioned specifically in Srimad-Bhagavatam as incarnation of Godhead, and yet Vaishnavas do not accept his philosophy, which is classified as atheism. Similarly, even if we accept Lord Jesus Christ as saktyavesa avatara, it doesn't mean that we have to accept his philosophy.

[Guruvani]

 

"The sastras 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. (Cc Adi. 17,169 purport)

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

"MAN-MADE RELIGION HAS NO VALUE. So man-made religions, there are so many religious system, the Hindu religion, Christian religion, Mohammedan religion or this religion, that religion. That is a kind of faith. But religion means the order or the laws given by God. Therefore here it is said, dharmah projjhita-kaitavah atra. Kaitavah means cheating type of religious system. Real religion means "God is there. I am there. God is great. I am subordinate. I must abide by the laws of God." This is religion. At the present moment, under the spell of illusion in this material condition, we have forgotten our real religion. Real religion means to revive our consciousness -- we say, "Krsna consciousness" -- or God consciousness, by which we agree to abide by the laws of God. So Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gita at the end, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja [bg. 18.66]. He says that "You have manufactured so many religious system. So you give up all these. You simply surrender unto Me."

[Guruvani]

(Cc, Madya 15.163 purport)

 

 

Srila Vasudeva Datta wanted to completely relieve the conditioned souls from material existence so that they would no longer have an opportunity to commit sinful acts. This is the significant difference between Srila Vasudeva Datta and Lord Jesus Christ.

[Guruvani]

(Cc, Madya 15.163 purport)

 

 

Here, however, we find Shree Vasudeva Datta Thakur and Shree Haridas Thakur to be many millions of times more advanced even when compared with Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ relieved only his followers from all sinful reactions, but Vasudeva Datta is here prepared to accept the sins of everyone in the universe.