krsna Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Is this not what some iskcon members would refer to as "menal speculation" or a "mental concoction?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Madonna & Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folkpoet80 Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 I'm not sure what fruitful discussion could come out of it. It's just a picture of the supreme consciousness's many forms. Ekam Sat~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Sri Chaitanya-Charitamrita, Adi-Lila, Chapter 5 Text 4 -5 with purports by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, is the fountainhead of all incarnations. Lord Baladeva is His second body" Purport "Lord Sri Krishna, the absolute Personality of Godhead, is the primeval Lord, the original form of Godhead, and His first expansion is Sri Balarama." Text 5 "They are both one and the same identity. They differ only in form. He is the first bodily expansion of Krishna, and He assists in Lord Krishna’s transcendental pastimes." Purport "Balarama is a svamsa expansion of the Lord, and therefore there is no difference in potency between Krishna and Balarama." The apostolic (disciplic) parampara/sampradaya of Lord Jesus teaches: The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use: "We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." The theology of Only Son of God and eternally begotten of the Father can be traced to 4th century latin writings having the following theological terms Homoousios - Christ's relation to the Father, which is one and the same substance or nature of the Father. (Etym. Greek homousios, of one essence, consubstantial.) Also notable is the teaching of Hypostasis - union of two natures in one divine person in Christ. A person is a hypostasis endowed with reason; it is the bearer of the nature and ultimate subject of all being and doing, nature being and doing, nature being that through which the person acts. (Etym. Latin hypostasis, basis; single substance; person; Greek hypostasis, support, foundation, substance, sediment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sopatel Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 This is kind of silly... First and foremost that after we leave this material body and if and when we achieve the spiritual abode, I want to see someone's face when they see white, black, asian, hispanic and hindu,chirstian, muslim, or jew serving the ultimate mighty Supreme Lord with the same devotion all living as brothers under the protection and mercy of the Lord. Then I think that how merciful our Lord is that to date we have 6 billion plus humans on this particular Earth(not counting all the infinite universes) and he provided 6 billion unique forms for all of us to LOVE. People may say how this is possible...take my Krishna for example. In just one avatar he was a child (butter-thief, the beloved of Mother Yashoda, Devaki nandan, cowheard boy with his many friends), then he was our lila thar (Govardhan girdhari, dancing Krishna on Kaliya, and various other forms that killed demons), he provided the love form (flute playing Mohan, teasing the milkmaids, playing raas with them), then the Krishna who became a philosopher, Rukmini Pati, a charioteer. So the point is regardless of which form of the Lord you worship, it takes you back to him. Just one incarnation has so many forms, then if you try to add up the many avatars as Ram, Narsimha, Varah, Vaman, etc. we would be baffled. Even furtherto reason with is that suppose one form of the Lord attracted you, for arguement's sake the Mohan form. Then if you personally described your internal picture, it will be different from the next person. How merciful of Krishna that he gives you the darshan you wish for. So in conclusion, the Lord is one and his forms are innumerable but regardless of how many times we have this discussion, many people will not see there inner "murti" in every living being. Isn't that what Krishna taught us. Weather dog, insect, plant or human...see me in everything. Finally, to krsna, the picture is lovely, hopefully people will take symbolic meaning and try to find respect and humbleness for all forms of the Lord, while Loving the form that has been engraved into your hearts. Jai Shri Krishna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 This is kind of silly...First and foremost that after we leave this material body and if and when we achieve the spiritual abode, I want to see someone's face when they see white, black, asian, hispanic and hindu,chirstian, muslim, or jew serving the ultimate mighty Supreme Lord with the same devotion all living as brothers under the protection and mercy of the Lord. Then I think that how merciful our Lord is that to date we have 6 billion plus humans on this particular Earth(not counting all the infinite universes) and he provided 6 billion unique forms for all of us to LOVE. People may say how this is possible...take my Krishna for example. In just one avatar he was a child (butter-thief, the beloved of Mother Yashoda, Devaki nandan, cowheard boy with his many friends), then he was our lila thar (Govardhan girdhari, dancing Krishna on Kaliya, and various other forms that killed demons), he provided the love form (flute playing Mohan, teasing the milkmaids, playing raas with them), then the Krishna who became a philosopher, Rukmini Pati, a charioteer. So the point is regardless of which form of the Lord you worship, it takes you back to him. Just one incarnation has so many forms, then if you try to add up the many avatars as Ram, Narsimha, Varah, Vaman, etc. we would be baffled. Even furtherto reason with is that suppose one form of the Lord attracted you, for arguement's sake the Mohan form. Then if you personally described your internal picture, it will be different from the next person. How merciful of Krishna that he gives you the darshan you wish for. So in conclusion, the Lord is one and his forms are innumerable but regardless of how many times we have this discussion, many people will not see there inner "murti" in every living being. Isn't that what Krishna taught us. Weather dog, insect, plant or human...see me in everything. Finally, to krsna, the picture is lovely, hopefully people will take symbolic meaning and try to find respect and humbleness for all forms of the Lord, while Loving the form that has been engraved into your hearts. Jai Shri Krishna Thank you sopatel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Seen in a personal context this pictures shows the rasa of friendship which I believe to be accurate. I step beyond awe and reverence. So much nicer than endlessly depicting Christ suffering on the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnadasa Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 But jesus is without tilak!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 But jesus is without tilak!!! Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BhaktiK Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Jesus and Krishna ice skating. Is that Allah there in the middle between them? The formless glow beyond the mountains and the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Are you all magicians that you are able to copy and paste a photo here, I didn't succeed, yet I like to add a picture, so here is the link, it is picture number 28 : http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=344369&l=8e8b5&id=667445070 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Erik''s photo. Erik what I did was copy and paste the photo exactly as one would do with text. No magic. Give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 So Jesus is a form of the "supreme consciousness" and not to accept this is silly? Why would you expect to see tilak on Jesus? He is not a Vaishnava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 So Jesus is a form of the "supreme consciousness" and not to accept this is silly? Why would you expect to see tilak on Jesus? He is not a Vaishnava. Some folks claim Jesus visited and studied in India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternity Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 I don't see Tilak on Krishna face too. By the way the picture is beautiful and harmonious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Some folks claim Jesus visited and studied in India. Well, my friend's niece claims that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, but her belief in this does not make it so. It's curious don't you think, that if he supposedly studied in India and was influenced in some way by Krishna, that no trace of this Vaishnava influence seems to have survived in his teachings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 It's curious don't you think, that if he supposedly studied in India and was influenced in some way by Krishna, that no trace of this Vaishnava influence seems to have survived in his teachings? Perhaps that is more a limitation in your vision than an actual reality. I see plenty of Vaishnava influence in Jesus' teachings. His teachings are certainly a radical departure from the Jewish orthodoxy of his time. Others say Jesus was an Essene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Perhaps that is more a limitation in your vision than an actual reality. I see plenty of Vaishnava influence in Jesus' teachings. Well, anything is possible. Perhaps my vision is deluded and there is something there that I am not seeing. What specifically do you see as the obviously Vaishnava influences on Jesus' teachings that distinguish them from Judaism? Note that I am not asking what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, but rather what are the Vaishnava influences on Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Well, anything is possible. Perhaps my vision is deluded and there is something there that I am not seeing. What specifically do you see as the obviously Vaishnava influences on Jesus' teachings that distinguish them from Judaism? Note that I am not asking what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, but rather what are the Vaishnava influences on Christianity? I wish I could give you a patient, detailed reply. There is a member of Audarya called HerServant who could give you a much better response than I could. If you look through his postings, you'll find a lot of interesting thought and information. To me, it's not so much that Jesus was influenced by Vaishnava thought, but that certain spiritual principles are universal and may be revealed by the Lord in the hearts of sincere seekers anywhere at any time. In brief though, Jesus said to focus on our own shortcomings rather than pointing out the shorcomings of others. Srila Gurudev says, "my religion is finding fault with myself". Jesus placed love of God above all else, as do the Vaishnavas. Jesus placed service to God (though service to God's representative) above ritualistic activities as do the Vaishnavas. That's all I can manage at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Also, as has been said many times before, Jesus was no fool. If he *had* studied in India, he knew that he was preaching to simple folk in Palestine, so he couched his teachings in parables and presented things in terms that would be accessible to his audience, rather than use traditional Vaishnava terminology and history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 I agree with the idea of finding fault in onesself rather than finding it in others, but that is not the point of this discussion, which is in regards to the validity of certain ideas regarding a supposed relationship between Christ and Sri Krishna. For some unclear reason some people want to turn this into a discussion of character, as if this is the only thing they can do to avoid having certain cherished beliefs scrutinized in a public forum. Also, as has been said many times before, Jesus was no fool. If he *had* studied in India, he knew that he was preaching to simple folk in Palestine, so he couched his teachings in parables and presented things in terms that would be accessible to his audience, rather than use traditional Vaishnava terminology and history. I must point out that intoxicated hippies of 1960's San Francisco are no more qualified to hear Hari-katha than were "the simple folk" of ancient Palestine. If the establishment of iskcon in an environment of free sex and free drugs is possible, then it begs the question as to why these other supposedly shakti-avesha avatars did not come teach what iskcon taught in their respective historical periods, which were no more degraded than is contemporary modern civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 I must point out that intoxicated hippies of 1960's San Francisco are no more qualified to hear Hari-katha than were "the simple folk" of ancient Palestine. If the establishment of iskcon in an environment of free sex and free drugs is possible, then it begs the question as to why these other supposedly shakti-avesha avatars did not come teach what iskcon taught in their respective historical periods, which were no more degraded than is contemporary modern civilization. Good points. Srila Prabhupada was certainly "Abhay", or fearless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Isn't it directly stated in the Aquarian bible that Jesus Christ visited India? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Isn't it directly stated in the Aquarian bible that Jesus Christ visited India? The Aquarian bible is a bogus scripture. Prabhupada's disciples were so rascal that they presented this bogus scripture to him as a bonafide authentic teaching from Jesus' parampara / sampradaya. Had he been informed that this "scripture" was fabricated by a mayavadi, Srila Prabhupada would have been outraged at his followers for presenting it as authentic. "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (full title: The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age) claims to be the true story of the life of Jesus, including “the ‘lost’ eighteen years silent in the New Testament.” The book, first published in 1908, was written by Levi H. Dowling (aka Levi) during the late nineteenth century. Dowling claimed to have transcribed it from the Akashic Records." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aquarian_Gospel_of_Jesus_the_Christ The idea of "Akashic Record" is outright demonic mayavadi poison: "The Akashic records (Akasha is a Sanskrit word meaning "sky", "space" or "aether") is a term from Hinduism that was incorporated into Theosophy denoting a collection of mystical knowledge encoded in a non-physical plane of existence. The Records are supposed to contain all knowledge, including all human experience, of the history of the Cosmos. The Akashic Records are metaphorically described as a library and are also likened to a universal computer or the 'Mind of God'. The records are supposed to be constantly updated. The concept originated in the theosophical movements of the 19th Century, and remains prevalent in New Age discourse." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_Records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts