A gaudiya vaishnava speaks out on christianity and other religions...

[HerServant]

 

I know that article and I know the subject matter from various angles (Heliodorus column). The Hare Christian cross-breeds create "reality" out of their wishful thinking, disregarding reason, logic, and very solid research done on both sides of that issue. When one challenges their pet theories, they attack him for being "sectarian"... There is no science in their approach, just pure sentiment.

 

prove it

[matarisvan]

 

I know that article and I know the subject matter from various angles (Heliodorus column). The Hare Christian cross-breeds create "reality" out of their wishful thinking, disregarding reason, logic, and very solid research done on both sides of that issue. When one challenges their pet theories, they attack him for being "sectarian"... There is no science in their approach, just pure sentiment.

 

Even if we assume that both Heliodorus were the same how does it show evidence of Vishnu in the Bible? HerServant ducked that question and is continuing with more meaningless posts....until Kalki will arive to put an end to this pseudo christian vaishnavism.

[Kulapavana]

 

really?

 

http://www.wikimirror.com/Heliodorus

 

yes, look even at the dates of the reign of kings these two people represented. they are separated by at least 70 years. That would mean that your Heliodorus would have to be about 100 years old when serving in India. What was an average lifespan in these days? 30-40 years. On top of that you have completely different geographical areas of activity.

[krishnaleela]

 

Even if we assume that both Heliodorus were the same how does it show evidence of Vishnu in the Bible? HerServant ducked that question and is continuing with more meaningless posts....until Kalki will arive to put an end to this pseudo christian vaishnavism.

 

The Vedic religion predates Christianity, bible, etc. and had a large area of influence.

 

The Hindus believe the same with regard to Krishna's advent. Mahabharatha mentions places in Afghanistan, etc.

 

Vedic religion/scriptures/stories could have travelled and influenced the developments of Christianity and the Bible. Several things were possibly borrowed from us.

 

End result after all the stitching together and independent additions: Christianity.

[HerServant]

I am not here to argue any of these points. really.

 

I think the Heliodorus connection in the Bible is interesting. Some on the thread do not.

 

I think the Vedas are a more complete record of Spiritual History than the Old Testament. So what does that matter?

 

We can find a single "sloka" in the bible or Vedas that could be enough meditation for our entire life and that would be pleasing enough to God .. likely more pleasing than trying to prove or disprove something from archeology, linguistics, etc.

 

I think it is way too much of a coincindence that Heliodorus of the bible is told by God (appearing as two glorious youthful men) to proclaim his glories everywhere.

 

I am perfectly willing to ACCEPT that Heliodorus (A GREEK) perhaps was already aware of Vaisnava thought prior to his mission to Jerusalem, and that he recognized that God Himself was known as Vasudeva and Visnu.

 

 

SO Maybe Vasudeva appeared to Heliodorus to STOP attacking the Jewish (religion) and get on with the praising of God among ALL people!

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

To the extent that He can be jealous and vengeful, the Old Testament God sounds more like Brahma than Vishnu, doesn't he?

[HerServant]

 

To the extent that He can be jealous and vengeful, the Old Testament God sounds more like Brahma than Vishnu, doesn't he?

 

 

It is an absolute fact that the Jews worshipped the "Lord of Time". ANY Jewish rabbi or scholar will tell you without debate that the Romans beleived that the Jews worshipped Saturn (Satur-day)

 

The Jew for sure worshipped the Lord of the Sabbath. The original word for Sabbath is:

 

Tsebaoth . The word Tsebaoth means Lord of Hosts. The word Hosts means "heavenly hosts" as in the Lord of the celestial beings, galaxies, stars, Sun, planets, and moons. (The word hosts also connotes an Legion upon legion army.)

 

The Lord of such Hosts, is the Ruler of the cycles of the stars, Sun, planets

and moon.

 

Time is measured by the movements of these planets and Time Kala, the Lord is the Wrathful form of God.

 

 

sri-bhagavan uvaca

kalo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho

lokan samahartum iha pravrttah

rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve

ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah

 

The Blessed Lord said: Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain. BG 11.32

 

 

as in Gnosticism so also in Mithraism, where the monstrous figure of Leontocephalos (a human figure with a lion's head, belted by a snake with astral signs) represents the power of astral Destiny-Time to be transcended by the soul--a power that is a basic presupposition of astrology and magic.

- http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/inlight/religion/belief/dualism.htm

 

[theist]

Hmmmm....

 

Never heard that interpretation before. Interesting insight.

[krishnaleela]

 

I think the Heliodorus connection in the Bible is interesting. Some on the thread do not.

I think it is way too much of a coincindence that Heliodorus of the bible is told by God (appearing as two glorious youthful men) to proclaim his glories everywhere.

The coincidence in name (Heliodorus) is the primary connection: that impels us to make the further connections.

My last post gave some secondary reasons why I might consider the connections as possible historically. Such reasons if beneficial will impel acceptance of such connections and to make new ones upon the least suggestion. They serve the individual who accepts but can also create a false sense of confidence in theories-without-proofs and confusion in others.

The biblical story in itself is a coincidence only by a stretch of imagination. "Two glorious youthful men and a serious man on a horse" = "krishna, baladeva and kalki", and "temple in Jerusalem" = "Vishnu temple" are speculations of a higher order.

The Heliodorus column in India gives most likely evidence of what he imbibed in India. The direct mention of Vasudeva and Garuda (if we trust the websites) indicate Vaishnavism as prevalent in India.

Is there evidence of specific mention of Vishnu, Krishna, Kalki, etc in archaelogy of the West in connection with Heliodorus? He certainly seems to know the names, not just sketches of "youthful glorious" etc. Matarisvan had also asked this specifically -- its important.

The timeline difference mentioned in last post of Kulapavana: is that easily dismissible?

The king Antialkidas of the Column does not match the king Seleocus of the bible. Should we assume that they are the same, or speculate that the same Heliodorus was ambassador to both?

[raghu]

 

Ultimately who cares if bhakta X considers the God of Old Testament to be Lord Vishnu? To me it is a bizzare claim, but if it keeps bhakta X inspired, what is the harm?

 

Just as indulgence in the senses cannot lead to sense control, so also ignorance cannot lead to knowledge. A theme that is oft repeated in the smrutis is that real knowledge burns away all ignorance and false conceptions.

 

A guru who tells a lie to lure someone into believing something that is true will attract insincere disciples who just want religion on their own terms. These foolish individuals just go on to become insincere gurus who continue to misrepresent their sampradaya with bogus conceptions born of their own ignorance.

 

Really now - these so-called "gurus" who say (for example) that Jesus is an incarnation of Brahma - can they really be considered authentic gaudiya vaishnavas?

 

At least if these people could just stop invoking "Vaishnavism" and just call themselves Hindus or something else, then their writings would not be such an eye-sore on the internet.

 

Practically speaking most of the vocal iskcon people on this forum know more about Jesus and Christiantity than they do about Vaishnavism. Iskcon's lies have created a whole class of these pseudo-devotees who mix a little Christianity with a little Hinduism and pass it off as Vaishnavism, much like some of your Bengali sahaja cults.

 

 

It may a smart preaching tactic to call Christians "Vaishnavas" - like Prabhupada did, but it is not consistent with our teachings. There I go with more reason and logic....

 

Is it just me, or do some gaudiyas see the act of thinking and reasoning to be inherently dangerous in some sense?

[raghu]

 

The oldest historical and archeological reference of Visnu, and Krsna Baladeva worship are biblical. I can't help the fact that sectarianists (on both sides) will HATE this fact. But the facts are as they are:

 

Ummm, excuse me young one, but the Heliodorus column is Greek in origin, not "Biblical."

 

Is it too much to ask that you get your facts straight?

[raghu]

http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/62-more-on-christianity.html#More-on-Christianity

 

It is a hard lump to swallow for many of us with Judeo-Christian backgrounds - but the fact is that Christianity is not a transcendental religion. As I mentioned in my previous article, for all the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Christians still do not know what the soul is. Understanding the soul is the first step in God realization. Christians haven't even made the first step in 2,000 years. They still think they are the body. Why? Because Christianity is a man-made religion. It is not bona-fide or transcendental.

 

Question: I think it is possible to appreciate good aspects of other faiths without watering ones own philosophy down or creating some kind of rasabhasa, although this danger is always there of course.

 

Answer: The principle to see the best in everything is indeed laudable and this is certainly true of the 'romanticized ideal' of Jesus. But herein lies the problem - what was the ideal of Jesus? Who was Jesus and what did he actually teach? As it turns out, there is no reliable source to answer these questions other than the Bible, which was created after the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. This council, convened by the Roman emperor Constantine and attended by 318 Church Fathers of the then loose-knit cult of Christianity, was motivated by political and despotic ambitions. At the council the divinity of Jesus [as good as God] was fabricated and any reasonable understanding or Gospel of who Jesus might have been [such as the views of Arian and the Gnostics] was henceforth driven into extinction.

 

When the Church fathers assembled at Nicea the council began with a punch out. The commonly accepted story amongst scholars is that Bishop Nicholas of Myra rushed across the hall and hardily punched Arian in the nose. Thus the stage was set - there was a preconceived doctrine to be put in place regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ and anyone who didn't heed this doctrine would be dealt with in the strictest physical terms! For the past 1681 years the Bible has been delivered as 'The Infallible Word of God' on the end of a sword and now its being delivered on the end of a bayonet [cloaked in democracy].

 

Christianity began as a Jewish heresy, born from dissatisfaction with the status quo of Judaism and a need for change. Unfortunately, men and not God inspired those changes and for the past 2,000 years the same thing has continued - men are dissatisfied with the status quo of the Church and so they set about creating new reforms, new doctrines, new political alliances, new dogmas and New Age concepts. The plot thickens and the distance between superstitions about God and the Absolute Truth increases.

 

Many contemporary Vaisnavas like to pick and choose what they want to believe about Jesus. In doing so they neglect the example of Jesus himself. For example: Jesus was a student of the Torah [the Old Testament] and Jesus says he came to uphold/fulfill the 'Laws of Moses. But which Christian or proponent of Christ these days bothers to follow the laws of Moses? It was good enough for Jesus but they don't take the trouble to follow it themselves.

The Laws of Moses, were given to Moses by the God of Abraham, Jehovah. Some may argue that the God of the Old Testament is actually Krsna but this cannot be established from the texts itself.

 

In the Old Testament the two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, make an offering to God. Cain offers grains and the fruits of the land because he was a tiller of the fields. Abel offered slaughtered lambs to God because he was the herder of sheep. It is said that God ignored the offerings of Cain and only accepted the 'blood' offering of Abel! So how can any sane person say that this is the same God as Krsna?

 

The Old Testament God is the God that causes famine to fall upon the Earth and among other atrocities causes his so-called chosen people [the Jews] to eat their own children. Here we find God speaking in the Bible, but how could anyone possibly compare this to the words of Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita?

"Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you - so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot - will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities." [God spoke: Deuteronomy 28:53-57 (also Lev 26:29)]

 

And why does God bring this wrath upon his people?

 

"Because thou serve not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things." [Deuteronomy 28:47]

The question arises, how can we love such a God, a God which Jesus himself revered in the Torah? The God of Jesus could not have been Krsna.

[raghu]

same source as above:

 

The simple fact is that although seemingly firm in their convictions about Jesus, most contemporary Vaisnavas have not made a thorough study of the Bible or of Christian history. Their knowledge is mostly derived from romanticized hearsay, the propaganda of the Church or the propaganda of Church dissidents [New Age gurus in favor of Jesus being something different from the Church]. That is to say that even the 'ideal' of Jesus is something that has been exaggerated and romanticized, but has no actual basis, other than having been borrowed from pagan and other much wiser traditions than Christianity.

If one studies the Bible objectively like many intelligent people have done, then an obvious conclusion is that today's 'Fundamentalist Christians' are actually following the Bible! This means that the Bible was created with a fundamentalist mentality, whereby anyone who does not accept Jesus goes to Hell and witches and heretics should be put to death. In the past Christians performed many atrocities based on Biblical authority and the same ideal continues among the Christian right wing today. On the other hand, the liberal Christians have no authority for what they think the teachings of Jesus are, other than their speculations. They have no scripture to support their views.

 

Question: There are certain things that I have appreciation for in Christianity such as that Christians in general have a very clear understanding that they are not God. This gives them a much better position than the great amount of atheists, Buddhists and Mayavadi's out there dominating the 'spiritual' scene in the West. Devotion to a personal God remains a central theme, and I think it is for this reason our acaryas have spoken of Vaisnavism as extended Christianity. I have yet to meet the first Buddhist who changed his outlook to Vaisnavism, whereas Christians have done so in larger number. So, I do feel your statement, about it being misfortunate if one appreciates Christianity, to be rather strong.

 

Answer: I mostly disagree with your statement. In the first place Christianity is admittedly one of the main causes of atheism in the modern world. Christian dogma and Christians have done more to turn intelligent people away from God than Darwin and the host of scientists in his wake. In fact, some atheists are more God conscious with their 'humanistic views' than Christians with their Bible-banging rhetoric and lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, the Christians are Mayavadis in that they say that the guru [Jesus] is God. As for Christians like the Mormons, their belief is that they themselves will become 'gods' and rule their own universe. And as for the early Christians, they are the one's that took the divinity out of nature and declared themselves 'Lords' of the material world. Thus they are largely to blame for the environmental holocaust.

Christians may have an idea that God is a person but what type of person is their God? In their opinion, God has given them the right to exploit the material energy for their fullest enjoyment.

 

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

 

Ultimately every Christian believes in Heaven, but it is clear in the Bible that Heaven is on this Earth after the Day of Judgment and that the saved will inherit and enjoy the Earth. The idea that Heaven is somewhere in the sky is an idea that came into Christianity much later, after the time of Jesus. Early Christians were an apocalyptic cult that was awaiting the final battle between good and evil in which evil would be destroyed and they would inherit the earth after the Day of Judgment. Christians are still waiting for the apocalypse and the Day of Judgment - one has but to read The Book of Revelations to understand this fact or just tune into any Sunday morning televangelist program.

 

It is also a fact that since the alleged time of Jesus, every Christian generation has preached that they are living in the 'End of Times', that Jesus was coming within their generation to judge the living and the dead and to bring God's kingdom to Earth. This is still the Christian worldview in 2006.

And what does Jesus say he will do on ‘Judgment Day’? Check this out:

 

"The son of man will dispatch his angels to collection from his kingdom all who draw others to apostasy [to reject Jesus], and all evildoers. The angels will hurl them into the fiery furnace where they will wail and grind their teeth." [Matthew 13-41]

 

The success in preaching Krsna consciousness in the west has not been due to people having a favorable Christian background, but rather the success has been due to certain political doctrines [constitutions] in the west granting freedom of religion. Particularly there is the constitution of the United States [where Krsna Consciousness got a foot hold in the west] that guarantees freedom of religion, but this doctrine was not the work of Christians - it was the work of Deists who made up most of the founding fathers of America. In fact, it was the fear of a Christian theocracy taking control in America that prompted the founding fathers to separate church and state.

 

You say that devotion to a personal God remains a central theme in Christianity and that because of this Christians have converted to Vaisnavism in larger numbers, but I do not find this to be entirely true. Many of the devotees who first joined Krsna consciousness in the 1960's and 1970's had practiced some sort of impersonalism, Zen, etc. Very few were practicing Christians, if any. The greater number of devotees from the west, who have converted to Krsna Consciousness did so after rejecting Christianity and the materialistic culture that Christianity fostered. They rejected Christianity because of Christianity's lack of knowledge of even the most basic spiritual points, because of Christian hypocrisy and because of Christianity lacking compassion for other living beings. The fact is that hardcore Christians rarely, if ever, convert to Vaisnavism.

 

Question: I have been personally present when my Gurudeva spoke appreciatively of Christianity, and he did not do that just to be polite or for preaching purposes.

 

Answer: Yes, that may be the fact [the romanticized ideal is laudable], but according to Sarasvati Thakura and also according to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Christianity is not something that is desirable for a Gaudiya Vaisnava. Bhaktivinoda Thakura considers that some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea and that this is not acceptable to intelligent men.

 

"Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin, all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities."

 

"Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being [a snake], the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died [was crucified]. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal Hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this!" (Tattva-viveka)

 

One may also note that since many western devotees in contemporary times came from Christian cultures, that our acaryas sometimes were generous in their statements about Christianity. But at the same time we may also note that they were very outspoken and direct about any concoctions within their own Indian traditions. Thus, it is for those of us from Christian cultures to speak out about Christian concoction as our acaryas have done in speaking out against Hindu concoctions.

 

Question: I have some appreciation for the Christian monk Thomas Keating. For me he has many saintly qualities. I genuinely feel I am not mistaking 'being nice' for saintliness here. It is about displaying the qualities of saintliness as we know them from our Vaisnava scriptures: tolerance, humility, devotion to God. He may not have the philosophical understanding of the Vaisnava conception, but he displays certain qualities of a devotee to a much higher extent then so many followers of krsna-bhakti that I know.

 

Answer: I have never met Thomas Keating but I have met several Vaisnava paramahamsas so I also have some idea about saintly qualities. As per my understanding, one may have 'saintly qualities' to some extent but without proper knowledge one is not actually a saint. If a person has no proper knowledge of the soul or of God then such a person is a neophyte [kanistha] and it is not possible for the neophytes to have 'saintly qualities' - that would be a contradiction

 

Thomas Keating in your opinion may have saintly qualities, but in fact so do many atheists such as the Dalai Lama or even Amrta Ma for that matter. Mahatma Gandhi was also considered a saint [a saint among politicians, but a politician among saints]. These personalities that I mention may have tolerance, humility and so-called devotion to God but the question is, to which God?

 

Of course, the Dalai Lama says there is no God. Amrta Ma and others like Sai Baba say they are God, and all Christians [Thomas Keating included] say that Jesus is God or that the God of Abraham is God. The fact is that all the above are mistaken. Jesus is not God nor did he say he was and the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, was a pagan God [one of many] in early Judaism - not the monotheistic God that he is made out to be today. So without knowing who God is - then all the so-called saintly qualities one may have simply fall short of the mark.

 

Even if one blindly accepts that everything that Jesus taught is true still it does not compare to even a drop of the great ocean of Krsna Consciousness. Sarasvati Thakura put it this way: "The highest morality taught by the noble Jesus does not come even near the principles of amorous love enshrined in the devotees of Krsna." (Srila Sarasvati Thakura - Interview with Prof. Suthers)

 

In addition to the above it is also a fact that India has produced thousands of sadhus over the past 2,000 years, having saintly character and many of

them as great as or greater than the alleged Jesus - particularly since the time of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. As for the Vaisnava literatures [produced by the saints of India] that deal with the Absolute Truth and the ultimate goal of love of God - the Christian world has nothing to even slightly compare.

In the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, these so-called Christian priests [monks] are comparable to the Putana demon. Christianity amounts to soul killing because it pats everyone on the back and tells everyone to just believe in Jesus, to be happy in this material world and then go to heaven to enjoy when they die - because Jesus died for their sins. There is nothing spiritual in such a conception. Christianity, when taken to task, has no spiritual knowledge or proper conception of Reality.

 

Question: I have been reading some writings of Christian mystics and some articles by Thomas Keating, and they convey a certain degree of realization that goes much beyond what most people know of Christianity. They also seem to have developed good techniques for meditation, that have helped me in my own japa. I think more devotees could benefit from a better system for nama-japa since, for the great majority of devotees, it doesn't get very far beyond the level of chanting with a totally distracted mind.

 

Answer: The Christian mystics and others that you speak of were at best trying to reach God by the ascending process whereas what Bhagavata devotee have to offer and what is given by your guru and the sadhus is coming down to us unadulterated and full of transcendental nectar - descending in parampara. Those given to the ascending process can never know Krsna nor do their processes actually enhance Krsna Consciousness. Only Krsna Consciousness can enhance Krsna Consciousness.

 

Since receiving your email I have also read some of the articles of Thomas Keating and in none of them did I find any spiritual knowledge that even remotely approaches the beginning chapters of Bhagavad-gita. Keating often refers to parables and stories from the Bible and tries to squeeze out some truth - but alas he only comes up with some sentiment and an occasional sub-religious principle. In none of his articles did I find any information about the soul or who God is. Religion without proper knowledge is sentiment and knowledge without religion is speculation.

As for the 'good techniques for meditation' developed by Christians and the writings of Christian mystics, one should question from where these techniques and writings have come? Are they 'God sent' or simply the product of mental interpretations? I am highly doubtful that such techniques have any real applicability to Krsna Consciousness. Rather, I am of the opinion that such interests develop from our own anarthas and lack of faith.

If one is interested in 'techniques' to improve one's Krsna conscious sadhana, then our recommendation is that one should study the books of the six Gosvamis and their bona-fide representatives.

 

External techniques are actually of no use in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is built on three spiritual principles; sraddha, saranagati and seva [faith, surrender, and service]. If one is having trouble controlling the mind while chanting or developing the qualities of a Vaisnava then one should question one's own sincerity. A wandering mind is due to anarthas and aparadhas and not because of a lack in technique.

 

A staunch disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta by the name of Sadananda Prabhu was of the opinion that, "If a religion doesn't even have a clear concept of what the individual atma is, what to speak of God, it is not worth the name 'religion' at all."

 

Sadananda Prabhu is also on record as having said to another Vaisnava that, "If he didn't like the razor-sharp distinctions in bhakti, he could return to his old mysticism.Mysticism," he said, "appears only where bhakti is not present."

 

[Note: Sadananda Prabhu was the first person from a Judeo-Christian background [Germany, 1933] to embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism and become a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He was a strong preacher and as is evident from the above quotes, he gave up completely any sentimental attachments for Christianity.]

 

Question: People have an aversion to fundamentalism. Hardly anybody goes to Church here anymore, the old way just doesn't work anymore. So in order for me to effectively preach Vaisnavism, an appreciative view of the aspects of Christianity that are also present in our tradition is only helpful.

 

Answer: Yes, many people have an aversion to fundamentalism as you have mentioned but not all. There are over 50 million Christians in America who are hardcore fundamentalists [and they have the guns]! That's a lot of people. These fundamentalist Christians, given the political authority, would imprison you and every other Hare Krsna devotee in the world. In fact, wherever the fundamentalist Christians, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the clout they use that to interfere with the spreading of Krsna Consciousness. Russia, Serbia, Germany, USA and even India are places where this has recently occurred. Real Christianity is a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. It is not a religion of love or even of peace as the propaganda tells us. Throughout history whenever there has been a Christian theocracy, there has been repression, torture and death brought upon the people. Even Martin Luther, who stood up against the oppression of the Catholic Church, after coming to power himself brought about his own brand of repression and sanctioned the burning of thousands of so-called witches and heretics. In England, when the Protestants came to power, they persecuted the Catholics and when the Catholics came to power they persecuted the Protestants. Thousands of innocent people died! In Ireland this fight is still going on for the past couple of centuries.

 

Then there are the Muslim fundamentalists and they number in the many millions also. So to say that there is no market in this world for fundamentalism is not accurate. Fundamentalism may also be a good thing - it depends on what type of fundamentalism we are talking about.

 

Krsna Consciousness is purified fundamentalism. The Absolute Truth [Krsna] is the fundamental basis of Reality. To speak this conception directly [frankly and straightforward] and to point out that the cheating religions of the world are the principle cause of suffering may not be appreciated by the liberal left, but compromising the truth and becoming duplicitous is not the solution - it only serves to perpetuate the delusions of ignorance that Christianity has spread around the world for more than 2,000 years.

 

People should be informed that Christianity is a man-made religion and that because of such it has no real value for spiritual advancement. Preaching means philosophical war against ignorance. Truth will set us free!

[Vigraha]

 

People should be informed that Christianity is a man-made religion and that because of such it has no real value for spiritual advancement. Preaching means philosophical war against ignorance. Truth will set us free!

 

Found in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Gita etc

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

It is a hard lump to swallow for many of us with Judeo-Christian backgrounds - but the fact is that Christianity is not a transcendental religion.

 

Sorry, oh self-proclaimed defender of the faith, but I stop reading after this sentence. The rest must be drivel when it is forwarded by this nonsense.

 

*NO* religion, even so-called "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" is transcendental.

 

The Lord unequivocably says, "Abandon *all* varieties of religion and surrender unto Me". "All" means "all".

 

You can call yourself whatever you like. You remain a bigoted partisan (at least in appearance).

[Beggar]

Another war begins over sematics. Bhagavan, Sri Krsna says in Bhavavad Gita, eighteenth chapter, sarva dharman parityaja. Srila Prabhupada translates dharma in this instance as "religion". If your going to argue about these things, first we have to define our terms. For instance what is the difference between ordinary dharma and santana dharma? When we refer to Gaudiya Vaisnavism are we referring to sanatana dharma? etc. If raghu is indeed doing this then we consider that point. If by Gaudiya Vaisnavism we mean a bunch of buildings and an eccleciastical committee then Murali Mohan's argument makes sense. If we don't first define our terms then we end up arguing over the definition of the terms. Also remember that Sanskrit words can have many meanings.

[Sarva gattah]

 

Another war begins over sematics. Bhagavan, Sri Krsna says in Bhavavad Gita, eighteenth chapter, sarva dharman parityaja. Srila Prabhupada translates dharma in this instance as "religion". If your going to argue about these things, first we have to define our terms. For instance what is the difference between ordinary dharma and santana dharma? When we refer to Gaudiya Vaisnavism are we referring to sanatana dharma? etc. If raghu is indeed doing this then we consider that point. If by Gaudiya Vaisnavism we mean a bunch of buildings and an eccleciastical committee then Murali Mohan's argument makes sense. If we don't first define our terms then we end up arguing over the definition of the terms. Also remember that Sanskrit words can have many meanings.

 

Excellent!!

[raghu]

 

Sorry, oh self-proclaimed defender of the faith, but I stop reading after this sentence. The rest must be drivel when it is forwarded by this nonsense.

 

It's nothing more than the opinion of one of your own swamis. Flaming me won't change that.

 

 

*NO* religion, even so-called "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" is transcendental.

 

What an admission! And by a gaudiya vaishnava no less....

 

Anyway, if that's the way you feel about your own religion, then far be it or me to correct you.

 

 

The Lord unequivocably says, "Abandon *all* varieties of religion and surrender unto Me". "All" means "all".

 

OK. So by your own interpretation, stop preaching your "Jesus is a Vaishnavite" nonsense and just surrender to Krishna!

 

 

You can call yourself whatever you like. You remain a bigoted partisan (at least in appearance).

 

Based on what I can tell from these forums, the definition of "bigot" is "one who has won an argument with an iskconite/gaudiya vaishnava."

[gHari]

 

OK. So by your own interpretation, stop preaching your "Jesus is a Vaishnavite" nonsense and just surrender to Krishna!

 

 

Physician heal thyself. Stop preaching your "Jesus is not a Vaishnavite" nonsense and just surrender to Krishna! Don't you get it? No one is preaching to you. They are preaching to Christians.

[raghu]

 

Physician heal thyself. Stop preaching your "Jesus is not a Vaishnavite" nonsense and just surrender to Krishna! Don't you get it? No one is preaching to you. They are preaching to Christians.

 

Whether preached to Vaishnavas or to Christians, the idea that Jesus is a Vaishnava still remains a lie.

[gHari]

As you've already been told: you don't deserve to have an opinion.

 

How do you deal with the Caitanya detractors? Study their weaknesses and see yourself here. Don't continue to embarrass yourself.

[gHari]

 

Whether preached to Vaishnavas or to Christians, the idea that Jesus is a Vaishnava still remains a lie.

Then is that your reason to not surrender to Krsna?

[krishnadasa]

 

same source as above:

 

The simple fact is that although seemingly firm in their convictions about Jesus, most contemporary Vaisnavas have not made a thorough study of the Bible or of Christian history. Their knowledge is mostly derived from romanticized hearsay, the propaganda of the Church or the propaganda of Church dissidents [New Age gurus in favor of Jesus being something different from the Church]. That is to say that even the 'ideal' of Jesus is something that has been exaggerated and romanticized, but has no actual basis, other than having been borrowed from pagan and other much wiser traditions than Christianity.

If one studies the Bible objectively like many intelligent people have done, then an obvious conclusion is that today's 'Fundamentalist Christians' are actually following the Bible! This means that the Bible was created with a fundamentalist mentality, whereby anyone who does not accept Jesus goes to Hell and witches and heretics should be put to death. In the past Christians performed many atrocities based on Biblical authority and the same ideal continues among the Christian right wing today. On the other hand, the liberal Christians have no authority for what they think the teachings of Jesus are, other than their speculations. They have no scripture to support their views.

 

Question: There are certain things that I have appreciation for in Christianity such as that Christians in general have a very clear understanding that they are not God. This gives them a much better position than the great amount of atheists, Buddhists and Mayavadi's out there dominating the 'spiritual' scene in the West. Devotion to a personal God remains a central theme, and I think it is for this reason our acaryas have spoken of Vaisnavism as extended Christianity. I have yet to meet the first Buddhist who changed his outlook to Vaisnavism, whereas Christians have done so in larger number. So, I do feel your statement, about it being misfortunate if one appreciates Christianity, to be rather strong.

 

Answer: I mostly disagree with your statement. In the first place Christianity is admittedly one of the main causes of atheism in the modern world. Christian dogma and Christians have done more to turn intelligent people away from God than Darwin and the host of scientists in his wake. In fact, some atheists are more God conscious with their 'humanistic views' than Christians with their Bible-banging rhetoric and lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, the Christians are Mayavadis in that they say that the guru [Jesus] is God. As for Christians like the Mormons, their belief is that they themselves will become 'gods' and rule their own universe. And as for the early Christians, they are the one's that took the divinity out of nature and declared themselves 'Lords' of the material world. Thus they are largely to blame for the environmental holocaust.

Christians may have an idea that God is a person but what type of person is their God? In their opinion, God has given them the right to exploit the material energy for their fullest enjoyment.

 

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

 

Ultimately every Christian believes in Heaven, but it is clear in the Bible that Heaven is on this Earth after the Day of Judgment and that the saved will inherit and enjoy the Earth. The idea that Heaven is somewhere in the sky is an idea that came into Christianity much later, after the time of Jesus. Early Christians were an apocalyptic cult that was awaiting the final battle between good and evil in which evil would be destroyed and they would inherit the earth after the Day of Judgment. Christians are still waiting for the apocalypse and the Day of Judgment - one has but to read The Book of Revelations to understand this fact or just tune into any Sunday morning televangelist program.

 

It is also a fact that since the alleged time of Jesus, every Christian generation has preached that they are living in the 'End of Times', that Jesus was coming within their generation to judge the living and the dead and to bring God's kingdom to Earth. This is still the Christian worldview in 2006.

And what does Jesus say he will do on ‘Judgment Day’? Check this out:

 

"The son of man will dispatch his angels to collection from his kingdom all who draw others to apostasy [to reject Jesus], and all evildoers. The angels will hurl them into the fiery furnace where they will wail and grind their teeth." [Matthew 13-41]

 

The success in preaching Krsna consciousness in the west has not been due to people having a favorable Christian background, but rather the success has been due to certain political doctrines [constitutions] in the west granting freedom of religion. Particularly there is the constitution of the United States [where Krsna Consciousness got a foot hold in the west] that guarantees freedom of religion, but this doctrine was not the work of Christians - it was the work of Deists who made up most of the founding fathers of America. In fact, it was the fear of a Christian theocracy taking control in America that prompted the founding fathers to separate church and state.

 

You say that devotion to a personal God remains a central theme in Christianity and that because of this Christians have converted to Vaisnavism in larger numbers, but I do not find this to be entirely true. Many of the devotees who first joined Krsna consciousness in the 1960's and 1970's had practiced some sort of impersonalism, Zen, etc. Very few were practicing Christians, if any. The greater number of devotees from the west, who have converted to Krsna Consciousness did so after rejecting Christianity and the materialistic culture that Christianity fostered. They rejected Christianity because of Christianity's lack of knowledge of even the most basic spiritual points, because of Christian hypocrisy and because of Christianity lacking compassion for other living beings. The fact is that hardcore Christians rarely, if ever, convert to Vaisnavism.

 

Question: I have been personally present when my Gurudeva spoke appreciatively of Christianity, and he did not do that just to be polite or for preaching purposes.

 

Answer: Yes, that may be the fact [the romanticized ideal is laudable], but according to Sarasvati Thakura and also according to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Christianity is not something that is desirable for a Gaudiya Vaisnava. Bhaktivinoda Thakura considers that some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea and that this is not acceptable to intelligent men.

 

"Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin, all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities."

 

"Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being [a snake], the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died [was crucified]. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal Hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this!" (Tattva-viveka)

 

One may also note that since many western devotees in contemporary times came from Christian cultures, that our acaryas sometimes were generous in their statements about Christianity. But at the same time we may also note that they were very outspoken and direct about any concoctions within their own Indian traditions. Thus, it is for those of us from Christian cultures to speak out about Christian concoction as our acaryas have done in speaking out against Hindu concoctions.

 

Question: I have some appreciation for the Christian monk Thomas Keating. For me he has many saintly qualities. I genuinely feel I am not mistaking 'being nice' for saintliness here. It is about displaying the qualities of saintliness as we know them from our Vaisnava scriptures: tolerance, humility, devotion to God. He may not have the philosophical understanding of the Vaisnava conception, but he displays certain qualities of a devotee to a much higher extent then so many followers of krsna-bhakti that I know.

 

Answer: I have never met Thomas Keating but I have met several Vaisnava paramahamsas so I also have some idea about saintly qualities. As per my understanding, one may have 'saintly qualities' to some extent but without proper knowledge one is not actually a saint. If a person has no proper knowledge of the soul or of God then such a person is a neophyte [kanistha] and it is not possible for the neophytes to have 'saintly qualities' - that would be a contradiction

 

Thomas Keating in your opinion may have saintly qualities, but in fact so do many atheists such as the Dalai Lama or even Amrta Ma for that matter. Mahatma Gandhi was also considered a saint [a saint among politicians, but a politician among saints]. These personalities that I mention may have tolerance, humility and so-called devotion to God but the question is, to which God?

 

Of course, the Dalai Lama says there is no God. Amrta Ma and others like Sai Baba say they are God, and all Christians [Thomas Keating included] say that Jesus is God or that the God of Abraham is God. The fact is that all the above are mistaken. Jesus is not God nor did he say he was and the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, was a pagan God [one of many] in early Judaism - not the monotheistic God that he is made out to be today. So without knowing who God is - then all the so-called saintly qualities one may have simply fall short of the mark.

 

Even if one blindly accepts that everything that Jesus taught is true still it does not compare to even a drop of the great ocean of Krsna Consciousness. Sarasvati Thakura put it this way: "The highest morality taught by the noble Jesus does not come even near the principles of amorous love enshrined in the devotees of Krsna." (Srila Sarasvati Thakura - Interview with Prof. Suthers)

 

In addition to the above it is also a fact that India has produced thousands of sadhus over the past 2,000 years, having saintly character and many of

them as great as or greater than the alleged Jesus - particularly since the time of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. As for the Vaisnava literatures [produced by the saints of India] that deal with the Absolute Truth and the ultimate goal of love of God - the Christian world has nothing to even slightly compare.

In the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, these so-called Christian priests [monks] are comparable to the Putana demon. Christianity amounts to soul killing because it pats everyone on the back and tells everyone to just believe in Jesus, to be happy in this material world and then go to heaven to enjoy when they die - because Jesus died for their sins. There is nothing spiritual in such a conception. Christianity, when taken to task, has no spiritual knowledge or proper conception of Reality.

 

Question: I have been reading some writings of Christian mystics and some articles by Thomas Keating, and they convey a certain degree of realization that goes much beyond what most people know of Christianity. They also seem to have developed good techniques for meditation, that have helped me in my own japa. I think more devotees could benefit from a better system for nama-japa since, for the great majority of devotees, it doesn't get very far beyond the level of chanting with a totally distracted mind.

 

Answer: The Christian mystics and others that you speak of were at best trying to reach God by the ascending process whereas what Bhagavata devotee have to offer and what is given by your guru and the sadhus is coming down to us unadulterated and full of transcendental nectar - descending in parampara. Those given to the ascending process can never know Krsna nor do their processes actually enhance Krsna Consciousness. Only Krsna Consciousness can enhance Krsna Consciousness.

 

Since receiving your email I have also read some of the articles of Thomas Keating and in none of them did I find any spiritual knowledge that even remotely approaches the beginning chapters of Bhagavad-gita. Keating often refers to parables and stories from the Bible and tries to squeeze out some truth - but alas he only comes up with some sentiment and an occasional sub-religious principle. In none of his articles did I find any information about the soul or who God is. Religion without proper knowledge is sentiment and knowledge without religion is speculation.

As for the 'good techniques for meditation' developed by Christians and the writings of Christian mystics, one should question from where these techniques and writings have come? Are they 'God sent' or simply the product of mental interpretations? I am highly doubtful that such techniques have any real applicability to Krsna Consciousness. Rather, I am of the opinion that such interests develop from our own anarthas and lack of faith.

If one is interested in 'techniques' to improve one's Krsna conscious sadhana, then our recommendation is that one should study the books of the six Gosvamis and their bona-fide representatives.

 

External techniques are actually of no use in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is built on three spiritual principles; sraddha, saranagati and seva [faith, surrender, and service]. If one is having trouble controlling the mind while chanting or developing the qualities of a Vaisnava then one should question one's own sincerity. A wandering mind is due to anarthas and aparadhas and not because of a lack in technique.

 

A staunch disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta by the name of Sadananda Prabhu was of the opinion that, "If a religion doesn't even have a clear concept of what the individual atma is, what to speak of God, it is not worth the name 'religion' at all."

 

Sadananda Prabhu is also on record as having said to another Vaisnava that, "If he didn't like the razor-sharp distinctions in bhakti, he could return to his old mysticism.Mysticism," he said, "appears only where bhakti is not present."

 

[Note: Sadananda Prabhu was the first person from a Judeo-Christian background [Germany, 1933] to embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism and become a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He was a strong preacher and as is evident from the above quotes, he gave up completely any sentimental attachments for Christianity.]

 

Question: People have an aversion to fundamentalism. Hardly anybody goes to Church here anymore, the old way just doesn't work anymore. So in order for me to effectively preach Vaisnavism, an appreciative view of the aspects of Christianity that are also present in our tradition is only helpful.

 

Answer: Yes, many people have an aversion to fundamentalism as you have mentioned but not all. There are over 50 million Christians in America who are hardcore fundamentalists [and they have the guns]! That's a lot of people. These fundamentalist Christians, given the political authority, would imprison you and every other Hare Krsna devotee in the world. In fact, wherever the fundamentalist Christians, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the clout they use that to interfere with the spreading of Krsna Consciousness. Russia, Serbia, Germany, USA and even India are places where this has recently occurred. Real Christianity is a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. It is not a religion of love or even of peace as the propaganda tells us. Throughout history whenever there has been a Christian theocracy, there has been repression, torture and death brought upon the people. Even Martin Luther, who stood up against the oppression of the Catholic Church, after coming to power himself brought about his own brand of repression and sanctioned the burning of thousands of so-called witches and heretics. In England, when the Protestants came to power, they persecuted the Catholics and when the Catholics came to power they persecuted the Protestants. Thousands of innocent people died! In Ireland this fight is still going on for the past couple of centuries.

 

Then there are the Muslim fundamentalists and they number in the many millions also. So to say that there is no market in this world for fundamentalism is not accurate. Fundamentalism may also be a good thing - it depends on what type of fundamentalism we are talking about.

 

Krsna Consciousness is purified fundamentalism. The Absolute Truth [Krsna] is the fundamental basis of Reality. To speak this conception directly [frankly and straightforward] and to point out that the cheating religions of the world are the principle cause of suffering may not be appreciated by the liberal left, but compromising the truth and becoming duplicitous is not the solution - it only serves to perpetuate the delusions of ignorance that Christianity has spread around the world for more than 2,000 years.

 

People should be informed that Christianity is a man-made religion and that because of such it has no real value for spiritual advancement. Preaching means philosophical war against ignorance. Truth will set us free!

 

Great post Prabhu, Thank you,,, I took my time to read the every bit of it..

 

Hari Bol,

[gHari]

And here is our problem. We are accepting Christianity without Jesus. We are looking to the religion of the philosophers, the strawman build over the centuries by man. Any fool can disassemble that joke. But for those who have ears can hear the true religion from the words of Christ.

 

Anyone who accepts Srila Bhaktivinoda but not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami is simply a joke and cannot be taken seriously. You know, raghu, if you spoke about something other than this antichrist rant you might have some credibility but you appear simply like a hate-monger, an uninformed insincere hate-monger intent on venting your dislike for that group of people. I don't think you know what is vaisnavism let alone Christianity. So of course you're confused.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Whether preached to Vaishnavas or to Christians, the idea that Jesus is a Vaishnava still remains a lie.

 

Making such categorical statements is the sign of a bigot.

 

I have never claimed to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I try (often without success) to *follow* a Vaishnava.