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

[Ashvatama]

 

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.

 

Night Chant I remember a Christian minister got on the Harmonium and sang this sweet Hare Krishna chant to the congregation in 1972 at Byron Bay, they all loved it!

[HerServant]

 

Originally Posted by 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.

 

 

The above statement (quote) seems to be a correct statement based on my experience except the "wiser traditions than Christianity" That part of your statement is unfounded.

 

 

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.

 

This above statement is absolutely false and ridiculous and is based on the Protestant (no disciplic succession) view of "Sola Scriptura".

 

The parampara of Jesus (apostolic succession) has maintained a Guru Saddhu Sashtra approach to Spritual Truth and Revelation.

 

PROPOSITION: Is Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) a reasonable method for understanding Christian orthodoxy? Let’s examine the facts:

 

FACT: There is nothing in Scripture teaching that "Scripture alone" is all-sufficient for the Christian Faith.

 

FACT: There is something in Scripture advocating reliance on both Scripture as well as oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, Phil 4:9, 1 Corinth 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6).

 

FACT: There is nothing in Scripture suggesting that a time will come when this dual expression of Christian truth (Scripture and oral Tradition) will come to an end.

 

FACT: There is also nothing in Scripture determining a Divinely-selected list of inspired books (i.e., the present New Testament canon).

 

FACT: There is also no statement within any of these New Testament books claiming that these books are Divinely-inspired. This becomes especially significant when one cites references to Divine revelation in the present New Testament books (e.g. Ephesians 3:3), since many of the Christian writings excluded from the New Testament canon also contain such references to Divine inspiration (e.g., The Apocalypse of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc).

 

FACT: The present canon of the New Testament was not determined until the year 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. ...And by a Church which clearly accepted both Scripture and oral Tradition as the rule of Faith.

 

FACT: Examples of this oral Tradition can be documented as early as A.D. 90 --a time when many of those who knew Christ (including the Apostle John) were still alive.

 

This documentation is to be found in 1 Clement to the Corinthians --a non-canonical epistle, which was considered to be Divinely-inspired by numerous Church fathers and many city-churches (esp. Corinth itself) until it was excluded from the New Testament in 397 A.D..

 

FACT: Three of these oral Traditions documented in 1 Clement are: 1. Peter and Paul’s ministries in Rome; 2. Apostolic succession; and 3. the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.

 

See the entire article here:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a21.htm

[Sarva gattah]

 

Night Chant I remember a Christian minister got on the Harmonium and sang this sweet Hare Krishna chant to the congregation in 1972 at Byron Bay, they all loved it!

 

Yeap, I was there in Byron on the double decker bus, remember it well. You know when Prabhupada first heard Siddhasvarupa chant Hare Krishna in this way, he had tears in his eyes. Madhudvisa chanted this tune for the first time in 72 in Brisbane, he had tried to be friends with Siddha at Byron Bay but that never happened, Siddhasvarupa and Tustakrsna were determined to do their own thing and not be actively part of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. Ugrashava prabhu knows the full true story.

 

Anyway it became one of Yasomatinandana's favourite tunes in New Zealand, he loved it

 

This chanting of Hare Krishna by Srila Prabhupada is my favourite. It is the original and the best<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=800 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="4%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

 

<TD vAlign=top width=130>Hare Krishna Maha Mantra. No. 1 hit from 1966

LISTEN | DOWLOAD

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[theist]

 

<center>Real Vaishnavism

 

</center> The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. Vishnu, the Supreme, All-pervading Soul gives life and meaning to all that is. He is the highest unchallengeable Truth devoid of illusion everywhere and through eternity. He is Sat - ever-existing, Chit -all-knowing, Ananda -ever-blissful and fully free. He is in jivas and jivas are in Him, as are the rays in the glowing sun and the particles of water in the vast rolling ocean. As nothing but heat and light of the sun, and coldness, liquidity etc. of the sea is found in the constituents of the rays and the particles of water respectively, so nothing but Sat, Chit or free-will and Ananda is found in the jiva. The ingredients and attributes of the whole must remain in the part in a smaller degree.

So the part is identical with the whole when taken qualitatively and different, when taken quantitatively. This is the true and eternal relation between jiva and Vishnu. So He always prevails over jiva who is also ever subject to Him. As the service of the master is the fundamental function of the servant, so the service of Vishnu is natural and inherent in jiva and it is called Vaishnavata or Vaishnavism and every jiva is a Vaishnava. As a person possessing immense riches is called a miser if he does not display and make proper use of them, so jivas when they do not display Vaishnavata, are called falses though in reality they are so.

 

[raghu]

 

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

 

I suppose you reserve that right for those who indiscrimnately accept your teachings as truth. Shame on me for daring to question you. Will you be issuing a fatwa now?

 

And in response to my well-supported view that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" theory is a lie, another gaudiya has only this to say:

 

 

Making such categorical statements is the sign of a bigot.

 

It's little wonder that sensible individuals invariably get turned off to gaudiya vaishnavism. After all, if someone were really looking for a trite worldview charcterized by polarized absolutes, he would probably do better with fundamentalist Islam.

[krishnadasa]

Why did not Jesus bring anything about Lord Visnu in Bible or any of the scriptures related to christianity. Well when I asked this with bunch of Christ followers, they said its coz Jesus did not write the Bibile.. So does not that mean he did not refer to that supreme lord Visnu to any of his followers, who eventually put Bible in a book form? he could have very easily done that as people werent biased so much about any of the indian systems at that time...On the top of that , it must have been lot more easier for the people to comprehend of God explianed in his real form as Vinsu or Krishna. And unfortunately, this is not shown in Bible or any related abrahamic scriptures, which says though the God was explained but purely in impersonal way.. This is a very simple thing, and does not need any scriptual evidence either...So , howver one tries to bring forth some kind of meaning out of nothing, no way Bible is going to lead to Vinsu in his sac. chit. anadana form.. Nevethelss if tried that may lead to some kinds Anukula shastra

[matarisvan]

 

I suppose you reserve that right for those who indiscrimnately accept your teachings as truth. Shame on me for daring to question you. Will you be issuing a fatwa now?

 

And in response to my well-supported view that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" theory is a lie, another gaudiya has only this to say:

 

 

 

It's little wonder that sensible individuals invariably get turned off to gaudiya vaishnavism. After all, if someone were really looking for a trite worldview charcterized by polarized absolutes, he would probably do better with fundamentalist Islam.

 

I read somewhere that iskcon was formed mostly by high school dropouts and former drug users or in other words people who could not be part of normal society.

 

I do not know if it is true but if yes it makes sense that it is hard for them think logically. It wil be easier for them dsicard logic in favor of sentiments.

[Beggar]

 

I read somewhere that iskcon was formed mostly by high school dropouts and former drug users or in other words people who could not be part of normal society.

 

I do not know if it is true but if yes it makes sense that it is hard for them think logically. It wil be easier for them dsicard logic in favor of sentiments.

 

Some of the GBC men have Ph.d.s but that is also not a qualification for bhakti, if fact Srila Prabhupada preached that it was a disqualification. Remember Western society is a cow eating society, so some Western devotees have a difficult time fitting in to the "normal" society of the West.

[krishnadasa]

 

I read somewhere that iskcon was formed mostly by high school dropouts and former drug users or in other words people who could not be part of normal society.

 

I do not know if it is true but if yes it makes sense that it is hard for them think logically. It wil be easier for them dsicard logic in favor of sentiments.

There is a song in India which goes like this:

Poti poti pade jag muha

pandith hua na koi;

dhhai achar prem ka pade so pandith hoi.

 

" One doesnt become a Pandith by reading many books ; but can certainely become by knowing what is Love"

 

Hari bol

[raghu]

 

I read somewhere that iskcon was formed mostly by high school dropouts and former drug users or in other words people who could not be part of normal society.

 

I do not know if it is true but if yes it makes sense that it is hard for them think logically. It wil be easier for them dsicard logic in favor of sentiments.

 

I do not know if that is true, but based on what I have seen here, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

People who are unable to fit into the mainstream society and are desperate for social acceptance might find some of their coercive tactics (i.e. "disagree with me and you are a bigot and/or are not allowed an opinion") to be intimidating.

 

That is not to say that I think being unable to fit into the "mainstream" is necessarily a bad thing. Mainstream culture is materialistic, atheistic, cruel to animals, and tolerant of many excesses. To me, that just underscores the tragedy that people looking for an alternative cannot get genuine guidance from some new religious movements that seem authentic on the surface ("bona fide parampara") but are in fact cultish and intellectually oppressive underneath.

[gHari]

The village id**ts meet. How touching.

[raghu]

Well if a mayavadi needs to believe he is one with Vishnu in order to talk about Hari-katha and chant Vishnu Sahasranama, then why bother if it works for him?

 

The answer is obvious - you can't learn the Truth by subscribing to falsehoods. Nor can you truly surrender to the Lord when you hang on to all sorts of preconceived notions of what you want truth to be.

 

It amazes me that when iskcon devotees quote "sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA..." they mean it in the sense of "shut up and stop disagreeing with me" rather than "give up all other pre-conceived notions and attachments and just accept what Sri Krishna has said." How many of these "surrendered souls" do you think would still practice vaishnavism if their leaders one day got up and told them that Christianity is not a valid path to self-realization? You know the answer - they would immediately reject such leaders, as they did when they called narasingha swami "foolish person" and worse. What question is there of surrender? These people want everything on their own terms. They have no concept of what "guru" really means.

[Beggar]

 

It amazes me that when iskcon devotees quote "sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA..." they mean it in the sense of "shut up and stop disagreeing with me" rather than "give up all other pre-conceived notions and attachments and just accept what Sri Krishna has said." How many of these "surrendered souls" do you think would still practice vaishnavism if their leaders one day got up and told them that Christianity is not a valid path to self-realization? You know the answer - they would immediately reject such leaders, as they did when they called narasingha swami "foolish person" and worse. What question is there of surrender? These people want everything on their own terms. They have no concept of what "guru" really means.

Some persons are eligible for direct entrance into bhakti. Bhakti is very rare, even to aspire for pure bhakti is rare. Most do not have so much sukrti, especially in Mleecha Loka. Therefore the merciful representative of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, Srila Prabhupada and now others are giving the chance to many to get some sukrti so that we will be eligible one day for suddha bhakti. How will someone who is not sukrti-van have the proper concept of guru?

[gHari]

Why do you give a flying duck about what we nasty Gaudiyas think? Don't pretend you're doing all this out of concern for our welfare. It's all childish ego maintenance. You aren't intelligent enough to understand your opponents' position. Or Caitanya's position or for that matter Krsna's position, so how could you possibly understand the words of Jesus, for they are all the same truth? Take your bag of words and play in the corner by yourself. Build a staircase to God with them. Always so clever they are, but never quite clever enough.

[AncientMariner]

 

I have found that reason and logic are completely ineffective when dealing with people's sentiments. People will see what they want to see, and they will find enough arguments to support their claim.

 

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?

 

If acharyas make clear distinction between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, and between Vaishnavas and Shivaites, the claim that Christians are Vaishnavas is 100% bogus because Christian God is the God of Old Testament, and there is no way any serious Vaishnava scholar would claim that it is Lord Vishnu.

 

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....

 

All I know is I have little respect for any group of Vaisnavas that attempt to defame or mythologize the life of Jesus and I regard them on the same level as the Pharisees that mocked Jesus. One of the main reasons I hold Prabhupada in such high regard is that he gave Jesus his due respect. You seem to think anyone who believes Prabhupuda when he said Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar and comparable to Prahlada Maharaja and Haridasa Thakura is part of a pseudo cult. I am of the opinion that you will be in for a big shock in the spiritual world just like you were probably shocked when your guru apparently ran off with a massage therapist and apparently took a lot of cash on the way out.

[HerServant]

""Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." - Matt. 7.6

 

" The sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the way side. And it was trodden down: and the fowls of the air devoured it. And other some fell upon a rock. And as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. And other some fell among thorns. And the thorns growing up with it, choked it. And other some fell upon good ground and, being sprung up, yielded fruit a hundredfold. Saying these things, he cried out: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." - Luke 8:5-8

[raghu]

 

All I know is I have little respect for any group of Vaisnavas that attempt to defame or mythologize the life of Jesus and I regard them on the same level as the Pharisees that mocked Jesus.

 

Herein lies the problem with the gaudiya vaishnava community. They are the ones who make baseless statements about Jesus as an "empowered Vaishnava" or whatever, and they call it defamation if anyone objects to such ridiculous theories.

 

It is ok for them to make anything up just to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but it is not ok for someone to call them to question.

 

And of course, we once again see the effect of the Jesus-preaching on the perceptions these non-Vaishnava converts have about gaudiya vaishnavaism:

 

 

One of the main reasons I hold Prabhupada in such high regard is that he gave Jesus his due respect.

 

There you have it, ladies and gentleman. Never mind converting to gaudiya vaishnavism on its own merits; it was only when some flattering words were spoken about Jesus that he suddenly found gaudiya vaishnavism worthy of his attention.

 

Hence I have very correctly stated that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" myth is nothing more than a white lie invented for the sole purpose of attracting Westerners to gaudiya vaishnavism. What more need be said? He just confirmed it.

[theist]

"Bow wow."

[matarisvan]

 

"Bow wow."

 

You are an embarassment to yourself and your creed.

[matarisvan]

 

All I know is I have little respect for any group of Vaisnavas that attempt to defame or mythologize the life of Jesus and I regard them on the same level as the Pharisees that mocked Jesus.

There is a world of difference between mocking Jesus and accepting him as a Vaishnava knowing well that he never heard of Vishnu in his life. But based on some of the recent discussions here with your friends I doubt this difference would go into your head.

 

One of the main reasons I hold Prabhupada in such high regard is that he gave Jesus his due respect.

In other words if he had not said what he had to say about Jesus, you would not have been interested in Iskcon. I already said this before. Prabhupada was smart enough to know what you people of Christian backgrounds wanted to hear and he told you exactly that. If the US was a Muslim country he would have taken a similar position about Muhammad.

Jesus is a Vaishnava or in other words a devotee of Vishnu. But wait...he is also an avatar of Vishnu which means he is a devotee of himself. Wonderful! Prabhupada must have had an incredibly easy time building Iskcon with people like yourself and theist who were ready to believe in anything as long as Jesus got his due.

[HerServant]

 

There is a world of difference between mocking Jesus and accepting him as a Vaishnava knowing well that he never heard of Vishnu in his life. But based on some of the recent discussions here with your friends I doubt this difference would go into your head.

 

Wow. How do you know Jesus never heard of Visnu?

 

Well Jesus spoke Aramaic and was likely knowledgable of Greek and Hebrew.

 

"After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. - Luke 2:46-48

 

Greek was extensively used by Jewish scholars and scribes at the time of Christ. In fact, the Hebrew scriptures at the time of Christ were preserved (written in) greek. The Greek compilation of Hebrew scriptures is known as the Septuagint ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint )

 

Varios aspects of Egyptian history would have also been taught to Jesus and He may have known Egyptian dialects.

 

"Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you" - Matt 2:13

 

The Jewish temple in Cochin India dates to 700 BC (the time of King Solomon) and this fact is often referenced by scholars as proof that there existed a spice trade between India and the middle east.

 

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews

 

Therefore, the presence of the Bible and Bible philosophy in India dates back to 700BC . It would be unreasonable and ridiculous to assume that questions of faith, discussions of faith and the nature of God were not discussed among peoples interacting in trade and commerce, or as foriegn immigrants living among a new people.

 

Regarding the Cochin Jews, "They traditionally spoke Judeo-Malayalam, a form of the Malayalam tongue, native to the state of Kerala, in India. "

 

Is it an accident that among all Indian languages, Malayalam is most "infused" with sanskrit?

 

"Influence of Sanskrit is most prominent in Malayalam in almost all linguistic areas. From Sanskrit, thousands of nouns and hundreds of verbs are borrowed into Malayalam. Some items of basic vocabulary also have found their way into Malayalam from Sanskrit." - source: Language in India http://www.languageinindia.com/may2005/girishenglishmalayalam1.html

 

Now we can look at dialects for the Name of God across language families in Africa , Summeria, Persia Greek, and India and see the following:

 

The Supreme Father God

 

OLU Niger-Kordofanian Language Family

 

HERU Nilo-Saharan Language Family

 

HELI Greek

 

SOLE Roman

 

ELI West Semitic (ALI as in Allah is related)

 

URI ARI, ORI Semitic variants

 

HURRI SERRI Hurrian and Hittite variants

 

ILU Sumerian

 

ZER HVARE Persian variants

 

SURA same as HARI, compare SURIH, SUREH, HARIH, HAREH, SURYA, HARYA etc.

 

HARI HARA Vaishnava and Shaivite Sanskrit forms

 

HRIH Buddhist Sanskrit

 

 

One of the two most used names for God among Greeks and Hebrews at the time of Christ was HELI(OS) EL, ELI

 

HARI and ELI are definitely linquistically related, and hence the Holy Name of LORD Hari was known throughout the entire civilized world.

 

Is Visnu a different God than HARI?

[gHari]

And your execution of vaisnavism leaves much to be desired, raghu. It is known as mental speculation, devoid of any contact with the Supreme, simply mental gymnastics. Bound up with the false pride born of acquiring material knowledge they become offensive to real religion and those established in a loving relationship with God. Have you ever heard of Parasurama, your all-loving Vishnu who slayed twenty-one generations of ksatriyas?

 

You have been defeated three times; still you remain incorrigible. For such a hard heart, only the special mercy of a sadhu can take you beyond the words that hide the truth so well from you. Krsna has no interest in your mind.

[raghu]

I didn't realize you could "defeat" someone by simply declaring "defeated" in writing.

 

I guess it's easy to do when you depend on the moderation team to remove the posts you are responding to.

[gHari]

You defeated yourself in your very first response when you said your words were not from Paramatma, demonstrating that you had no real understanding of vaisnavism to begin with. So how can you see when you are defeated?

 

Your time would be much better spent trying to execute your own religion rather than this half-hearty attempt to defame one you are not familiar with. You simply look foolish, like a five year old ridiculing quantum physics. First know quantum physics, then speak.

[krishnadasa]

I had such discussions many time before and ended up wit nothing..Westeners (not all) always have a superiorty complex over others especially, easteners.. This is got to do with the height of materilism seen in these parts of the world. It is difficult therefore to persuade them in anyways, something they have been revering for ages as false or different.......Partly, Indians themself are responsible for that,, they have lost their selfesteem and running behind money... Education starts from home and home is totally corrupted,,, its has become kind of confused junk,, on the one hand they cant stop themselves going to temples ,, on the other hand cant also stop themselves from going to discos,, kind a rowing at a time in two boats that have entirely different banks to reach,,,