Vaisnava Bible Study - Is Jesus Vaisnava?

[gHari]

Yes, it is so humorous. The detractors, the great vaisnava poseurs claim to worship Krsna - but oops we said 'only Visnu makes one vaisnava', so I guess they're not feigning vaisnavism after all. Words, words, words - the tools and limitation of the almighty mind.

 

It's just like Caitanya. They have no seva, no bhakti, so they have nothing. First deserve, then desire to have an opinion - until then, don't flaunt your ignorance. You embarrass all vaisnavas.

[matarisvan]

 

Yes, it is so humorous. The detractors, the great vaisnava poseurs claim to worship Krsna - but oops we said 'only Visnu makes one vaisnava', so I guess they're not feigning vaisnavism after all. Words, words, words - the tools and limitation of the almighty mind.

 

Quite a collection of pseudos we have here.

 

Everything is one...according to this gentleman. Then you are a shaiva and a muslim. Can you accept that? Will your iskcon friends accept that?

[matarisvan]

 

"A rose by any other name..."

 

Try the name 'sunflower' and see how logical you and your team sound.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Aren't you being pedantic? What's the purpose of your sophistry?

 

 

Quite a collection of pseudos we have here.

 

Everything is one...according to this gentleman. Then you are a shaiva and a muslim. Can you accept that? Will your iskcon friends accept that?

[gHari]

 

[...]

Everything is one...according to this gentleman. Then you are a shaiva and a muslim. Can you accept that? Will your iskcon friends accept that?

That is not a logical conclusion. Your hatred has stolen your intelligence and integrity.

 

Many claim to worship Visnu, but God knows what they really worship. As Krishna says: "Hardly anyone knows Me in truth" [bG 7.3].

 

 

 

<center>

manuSyANAM sahasreSu

kazcid yatati siddhaye

yatatAm api siddhAnAM

kazcin mAM vetti tattvataH

</center>

manuSyANAm--of men; sahasreSu--out of many thousands; kazcit--someone; yatati--endeavors; siddhaye--for perfection; yatatAm--of those so endeavoring; api--indeed; siddhAnAm--of those who have achieved perfection; kazcit--someone; mAm--Me; vetti--does know; tattvataH--in fact.

Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Try the name 'sunflower' and see how logical you and your team sound.

 

The word "awful" used to have a nearly opposite meaning to today's accepted meaning.

[shvu]

I notice (as usual) theist and GHari glossed over and completely ignored the explicit quote of Sanatana Goswami. As usual again, they instead tried to divert attention by ad hominem attacks which is now second nature to them.

 

This is what I mean by lack of honesty or should we use fanaticism as a more accurate word? Brush aside everything that does not jell with my views by diverting attention and continue to fixate on my sentimental views notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence to support my position and there is plenty of evidence against my position.

 

Now if you have the guts, you shoud be able to come forward and deal with that quote by providing a proper justification. Or admit you do not understand what he (Sanatana Goswami) is saying. Avoiding the topic just does not reflect well on you. Skirting an issue is a sure sign of defeat.

 

Have a great weekend, folks!

 

Cheers

[Vigraha]

 

The fact is Jesus has passed the batton on to a new generation, a new Religion to the West. There is no need to read the Bible anymore now that we have the Srimad Bhagavatam etc

 

Hey lets move on, christanity has had their two thousand years, out the old and in with the new (the original). Its now the Golden Age of Lord Caitanya.

I'm sick of seeing mundane Christian, Jewish and Muslim nonsense on these threads

 

HARE KRISHNA!!

[krsna]

truth is KRSNA the SPG. He is God.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

<center>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah

vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah

</center>

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

 

Since Shvu threw down the gauntlet, let me take it up.

 

Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the Christian is *not* worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna, *regardless* of the name by which they address the "Lord" (I understand that some in India, even, pronounce "Krishna" as "Kishan")?

 

Who here is qualified to say that the Lord's Prayer is not a translation (literal or otherwise) of the Vaishnava mantra?

 

Who here is qualified to judge the sincerity of the sincere Christian?

[theist]

 

Since Shvu threw down the gauntlet, let me take it up.

 

Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the Christian is *not* worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna, *regardless* of the name by which they address the "Lord" (I understand that some in India, even, pronounce "Krishna" as "Kishan")?

 

Who here is qualified to say that the Lord's Prayer is not a translation (literal or otherwise) of the Vaishnava mantra?

 

Who here is qualified to judge the sincerity of the sincere Christian?

This gets to the heart of it. What is the difference between a humble man in India (a Hindu) on his knees, bowing to the Supremecy of the Lord and offering a prayer to Him and another man (a Christian or Muslim or even a member of no religion doing the same in Palestine, Europe or the USA?

 

Does God only hear prayers that are in sanskrit or Bengali? Or Hebrew,Greek and English.

 

Prayer is prayer. And it is prayer that is a Vaisnava practice. It is the dovetailing of one's consciousness to line up with the will of the Lord that makes one a Vaisnava.

 

It doesn't matter if one lives in a little Christian sectarian box or a Hindu sectarian one. It is a painful waste of time to talk to such small minded fools wherever they are found.

[HerServant]

 

Regarding who is and who is not a Vaishnava as per gaudiya vaishnava philosophy, here is the opinion of Sanatana gosvami, one of the sampradaya acharyas of gaudiya vaishnavism and a direct disciple of Sri Chaithanya:

 

 

<CENTER>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah

vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah

</CENTER>

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

 

This is a very unambiguous and exclusionary statement. If one wants to accept that Jesus is a Vaishnava, then one should show that he worshipped Vishnu and that he was initiated into a Vaishnava mantra.

 

It is not sufficient to say that all gods are the same God or that all mantras are ultimately Vaishanva mantras - that is nothing more than a convenient misrepresentation of facts to force a square peg to fit into a round hole. All religions attribute omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and other common attributes to their God-figures, but that does not mean they are all derived from the same God concept.

 

By such standards, Jesus cannot be considered a Vaishnava by any gaudiya vaishnava who wants to retain a semblance of intellectual honesty. Of course, gaudiyas may feel free to disagree with their own acharya, which is perfectly fine by me!

 

 

Can you prove Madhva acharya was initiated by Vyasa into the Vaisnava mantra?

 

 

 

“Srila Narayana Maharaja: Madhvacarya was a direct disciple of Vyasadeva. When Madhvacarya was living, about 4,000 years had passed since Vyasa disappeared from this world. However, Madhvacarya knew that Vyasadeva was still alive and that he is eternal. So he prayed to him in Badrikasrama, beseeching him, "I want to take your darsana and to be initiated by you." And when he was praying, at once Vyasadeva personally came there, and Madhvacarya presented his wish to him that he should grant him initiation. And then after that Vyasa disappeared. ”

 

– “Srila Prabhupada: Srila Madhvacarya is the original acarya for those who belong to the Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya.” (Srimad Bhagavatam, 6.1.40.purport) “This Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya is also known as the Brahma-sampradaya because the disciplic succession originally began from Brahma. Brahma instructed the sage Narada, Narada instructed Vyasadeva, and Vyasadeva instructed Madhva Muni, or Madhvacarya. ” (Krsna Book, Introduction).

 

If the above is true, (which I don't deny, particularly of my love for Vyasadeva), could you please provide Madhva's account of Vyasadeva's initiating him into the Vaisnava mantra? I can't seem to find a reference.

 

Other references regarding Madhva make no such claim:

 

"Acharya Madhva was born on Vijayadashami day of 1238 CE at Pajaka, a tiny hamlet near Udupi. Narayana Panditacharya who later wrote Madhva's biography has recorded the names of Acharya's parents as Madhyageha Bhatta as name of the father and Vedavati as Acharya's mother. They named him Vasudeva at birth.

Purnaprajna - Anandatirtha - Madhva

Even as a child, Vasudeva exhibited precocious talent for grasping all things spiritual. He was drawn to the path of renunciation and even as a young boy of eleven years, he chose initiation into the monastic order from Achyuta-Preksha, a reputed ascetic of the time, near Udupi, in the year Saumya (1249 CE). The preceptor Acyuta-Preksha gave the boy Vasudeva the name of 'Purnaprajna' at the time of his initiation into sanyasa." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya

 

Another source says:

 

Madhva’s parents naturally objected and so it was not until he was about 16 years of age that Madhva was able to leave home and become a sannyasi. From then on the young Vasudeva became known as Ananda Tirtha, the name given to him by his sannyasa guru. Ananda Tirtha later assumed the name Madhva by which he is most commonly known today. In many of his writings Madhva openly identifies himself as the third incarnation of mukhya-prana (Primal Breath) alluded to in the Rg Veda. It is said that mukhya-prana takes the form of the wind-god (Vayudeva) and descends into this mortal world in three successive incarnations: as Hanuman, the follower of Rama, as Bhimasena, one of the Pandava, and finally as Madhva, who in Kali-yuga appears in the guise of a sannyasi. Ananda Tirtha’s followers readily accept and worship him as Madhva, the incarnation of Vayudeva. Sometimes Ananda Tirtha is also known as Purnaprajna due to his display of vast learning. - http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Madhva/madhva.html

 

Neither source indicates that Vyasa deva initiated Madhva.

 

Personally, I need no proof that Madhva acharya was "One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra" . I have faith in the Lord and He can come and initiate anyone He wishes.

 

Srila Prabhupada initiated thousands of people .. here is a list of "unknowns"

 

http://www.oldchakra.com/mainpages/sp_database/index.htm

 

A vast percentage of these lost devotees are currently likely christians or of other faiths . They took initiation but clearly have no association with Vaisnavas at the present time.

 

Are they Vaisnava?

 

Therefore, prabhu, could you please be so kind as to provide the account of Vyasadeva's giving Vaisnava mantra to Madhva?

 

Also, it would be very nice of you if you please identify all of the branches of Vaisnavism that surely must have been established in the 4000 years between Vyasa deva (disappearence) and Madhva's initiation.

 

Warmest wishes.

 

Her Servant and yours.

[raghu]

The burden of proof is on he who is making the outlandish claim in the first place. Otherwise, one can simply make any ridiculous claim and hold it true because no one can refute it.

 

 

Since Shvu threw down the gauntlet, let me take it up.

 

Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the Christian is *not* worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna, *regardless* of the name by which they address the "Lord" (I understand that some in India, even, pronounce "Krishna" as "Kishan")?

 

Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the god of the Jews and the Christians was not really some rakshasa who, by using his mystic powers, presented himself as an all-powerful deity to superstitious people living outside Vedic civilization in order to create a religion of rakshasa-like followers for the purpose of undermining dharma in Kali Yuga?

 

Consider the following facts -

 

The god of the Bible is a "jealous god," as he himself states in the Old Testament: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord am a jealous god...."

 

Compare and contrast with the personality of Sri Krishna, who is content to accept one's surrender and remain indifferent to others who chooses to worship other devatas. Indeed, He is the one who facilitates the foolish desires of those who wish to worship anya-devatas (BG 7.21-22) - yet He does not become jealous or directly punish them.

 

The god of the Old Testament is partial to some races over others. He favors the Hebrews (for no obvious reason - many still doubt him throughout Exodus) over the Egyptians.

 

In contrast, the bhAgavata purANa 2.4.18 says that people of all races can be purified by taking shelter of Sri Vishnu. He does not play racial favorites.

 

The god of the Hebrews/Christians is partial and cruel. According to Exodus, he makes pharaoh stubborn in the face of Moses' demands that the Hebrews be released, just so he can attack the people of Egypt with plagues, locusts, etc. He even strikes down their first-born children just to make a point! This sounds like rakshasa behavior.

 

As devious as our rakshasa friend was, however, he could not help but be disappointed with the Hebrews. After all, there were limits to their desires for expansion - they were content to have escaped Egyptian slavery. These were not the violent and dominating race he was secretly hoping for, and so the rakshasa arranged for a new variation of the religion - Christianity - which was forged under the violent tutelage of Roman persecution. So well had the Christians learned the lesson of violent persecution that they were quick to take up those reins once the Roman Empire fell out of power, inaugurating centuries of religious suppression and intersectarian conflict that rage throughout Europe even to this day.

 

Now, the Christians must certainly have impressed our little rakshasa mischief-maker, because in their bloody wake, they had managed to uproot all sorts of indigenous peoples - pagans, druids, Native American tribals, etc. But after 5 or 6 centuries they still had not attacked the people our rakshasa friend hated the most - the land of the Vaishnavas, where dharma was still flourishing. And so he appeared as an angel in Arabia and inspired Mohammed, creating a religion of violent expansionism and religious suppression the likes of which the world had not yet encountered - Islam. And then the rakshasa sat back and laughed with glee as its followers finally made their way into India, systematically attacking and razing the temples of Vishnu, bringing down the surviving elements of Vaishnava civilization.

 

Who here can definitively say that my analysis is wrong?

 

 

 

Who here is qualified to say that the Lord's Prayer is not a translation (literal or otherwise) of the Vaishnava mantra?

 

Anyone who can ask the question, "what mantra is the Lord's prayer a translation of?"

 

 

Who here is qualified to judge the sincerity of the sincere Christian?

 

This has nothing to do with the iskconite's claims about Christianity as a "bona fide" path. Stay on the subject, please.

[raghu]

Sri Ananda Tirtha's initiation into Vedic knowledge by Sri Vedavyasa is well documented in the two main biographies about him by his disciples. However, I could care less whether you believe them or not.

 

Your own Sanatana gosvami says that one is a Vaishnava if he is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu, and not a Vaishnava if he does not meet those qualifications. That is the opinion of *your* acharya, which precludes any iskcon fantasies about Jesus or Mohammed or George Harrison or Princess Diana or Santa Claus being Vaishnavas.

 

I don't see how you can consider yourself a gaudiya vaishnava if you disobey your own acharya's teachings. But, as I am sure you still don't grasp the significance of your inability to reconcile your opinions with his views, feel free to continue posting tangential points to skirt the issue.

[gHari]

You were right about something, raghu: it's not a Paramatma thing. Perhaps you should get back on track. The arguments are so juvenile, you should be able to switch the board around and disassemble them with ease and detachment; and thereby spare us all some valuable time. Thanks.

[HerServant]

 

Sri Ananda Tirtha's initiation into Vedic knowledge by Sri Vedavyasa is well documented in the two main biographies about him by his disciples. However, I could care less whether you believe them or not.

 

Your own Sanatana gosvami says that one is a Vaishnava if he is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu, and not a Vaishnava if he does not meet those qualifications. That is the opinion of *your* acharya, which precludes any iskcon fantasies about Jesus or Mohammed or George Harrison or Princess Diana or Santa Claus being Vaishnavas.

 

I don't see how you can consider yourself a gaudiya vaishnava if you disobey your own acharya's teachings. But, as I am sure you still don't grasp the significance of your inability to reconcile your opinions with his views, feel free to continue posting tangential points to skirt the issue.

 

I am not in the line of Gaudiya Vaisnava and never have been.

 

I first read Bhagavad Gita as it is 11 years ago at the age of 38 years old. I am an eastern rite catholic and study all the holy scriptures of God because they inspire me. I have studied dvaita, advaita, vivesteka advaita, shavaite and vaisnavism.

 

For me Vaisnava is not limited to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Also, Srimad Bhagavatam is not exclusive to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is accepted and studied by other branches of Hinduism. I have a complete volume published by Ramakrsna math in Chennai, and have found the text to be very honest and very devotional (personal) for the most part.

 

Vaisnavas, (* i think .. though I am not certain) consider Ramakrsna math to be advaita. (mayavadi)

 

My faith is firmly established in Lord Jesus as He Himself has revealed His immovability. I do not have to speculate on His identity because I know Him.

 

As such, I can only wish you peace and love.

 

Her servant and yours.

[raghu]

I'm sorry to hear that you have are very taken with Christianity. Good luck to you.

[Sarva gattah]

 

My faith is firmly established in Lord Jesus as He Himself has revealed His immovability. I do not have to speculate on His identity because I know Him.

 

As such, I can only wish you peace and love.

 

Her servant and yours.

 

I have the uttmost respect for Jesus, after all, it was him I prayed to in the Cathedral in Melbourne who I believe answered my prayers by sending me to Srila Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya, on Lord Caitanya's appearance day 1972, the day I 'shaved up' and became an aspiring devotee of Lord Krishna. It was Jesus who guided me to understand that Krishna is the Father, the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

Please 'go on line' and read Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam

[mahak]

the bible is fine literature, and because it praises the glories of the Supreme person, Srimad bhagavatam tells us that such literature is acceptable to those who are tghoroughly honest, even though such literature may be imperfectly composesd.

 

However, there is a caveat. Just as bhagavad gita can and is dangerous when commented upon by those envious of Krsna, it is very imporatnt that we follow the advice of Pope Shenouda III, who defines theism as something beyond the realm of all except those who love God, and the followeras of such lovers of God. The bible is therefore, theistic, the science of the Supreme Lord, but must be heard from a lover of the supreme Lord. Otherweise, it becomes the scripture of death. We see this all over the world, death spewing from so-called religion. This is because the commentary of materialists has polluted the meaning drastically. This is not an inherant trait of the bible, for islam, judasim, hinduism, all the religions of man, can be used by dark forces as a means to control the population by commission, by omission by revisionism, etc.

 

So. the vaisnava will gladly hear of the activities of Lord Jesus Christ as explained by a vaisnava, otherwise, we dont care much for him or polluted ideas about him.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Ramaprasad]

Dear Sir

 

Why do you try to prove, jesus is a vishnava or anything else. Was he spriritual or not is the question. We all know the answers. To querry as to whether jesus was vishnava etc is blasphemy of what the guru has been teaching. While he tries to groove you towards supreme consciouness, you seem to tend towards wordly earthly disputes. Also being attached to the lord is different and being attached so badly to a sect an attachment escaping from which will be difficult. As the gurus have said to attain supreme consciouness, you need to be void of earthly attachments.

 

your thoughts please.

[HerServant]

 

Dear Sir

 

Why do you try to prove, jesus is a vishnava or anything else. Was he spriritual or not is the question. We all know the answers. To querry as to whether jesus was vishnava etc is blasphemy of what the guru has been teaching. While he tries to groove you towards supreme consciouness, you seem to tend towards wordly earthly disputes. Also being attached to the lord is different and being attached so badly to a sect an attachment escaping from which will be difficult. As the gurus have said to attain supreme consciouness, you need to be void of earthly attachments.

 

your thoughts please.

 

You are new to the forum and welcome dear seeker of the Truth.

 

This topic was raised because certain members of hate the mere mention the name Jesus. Simply say the Holy Name Jesus and out come the antichrists with vehement attacks on Christians, the Bible, and everything believed to be sacred by Jesus bhaktas.

 

The Lord certainly does not need my defense, but I decided to create this thread because neophyte devotees use this forum to investigate spiritual topics.

 

Therefore, I believe it is important for devotees to understand that the message, mission and the Lila of Jesus does not conflict in anyway with Vedic scriptures.

 

Rather, Jesus and the Vedas, particularly in this era of rapid information exchange between cultures and people, are meant to be studied together.

 

I agree with Ramaprasad that it is an offense to bring the Lord into such sectarian worldly disputes. Thank you for reminding us of the higher principles .. To Know Him, To Love Him and To Serve Him.

 

To Ramaprasad ... Welcome! Your presence here is a blessing.

 

All assembled devotees, let us leave worldly disputes behind in favor of singing the great glories of God.

 

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya! Jesu Ki Jaya!

[CCC]

 

You are new to the forum and welcome dear seeker of the Truth.

 

This topic was raised because certain members of hate the mere mention the name Jesus. Simply say the Holy Name Jesus and out come the antichrists with vehement attacks on Christians, the Bible, and everything believed to be sacred by Jesus bhaktas.

 

The Lord certainly does not need my defense, but I decided to create this thread because neophyte devotees use this forum to investigate spiritual topics.

 

Therefore, I believe it is important for devotees to understand that the message, mission and the Lila of Jesus does not conflict in anyway with Vedic scriptures.

 

Rather, Jesus and the Vedas, particularly in this era of rapid information exchange between cultures and people, are meant to be studied together.

 

I agree with Ramaprasad that it is an offense to bring the Lord into such sectarian worldly disputes. Thank you for reminding us of the higher principles .. To Know Him, To Love Him and To Serve Him.

 

To Ramaprasad ... Welcome! Your presence here is a blessing.

 

All assembled devotees, let us leave worldly disputes behind in favor of singing the great glories of God.

 

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya! Jesu Ki Jaya!

 

The Supreme and Absolute Lord Says: Some says that Jesus is superior, Shiva is superior, Krsna is superior, Vishnu is superior, Brahma is superior, and others says that Jehova is superior, But I say to them that their ignorance is by far superior.

[raghu]

 

This topic was raised because certain members of hate the mere mention the name Jesus.

 

No, the topic was raised because certain individuals with less-than-ethical motives continue to propagate a falsehood about Jesus' identity for the sole purpose of winning Western converts and increasing their sect's numbers.

 

It is only because the claims are so utterly devoid of logic and reason that their proponents must resort to accusations of hatred and bigotry in order to conceal their tracks from those who question them.

 

 

The Supreme and Absolute Lord Says: Some says that Jesus is superior, Shiva is superior, Krsna is superior, Vishnu is superior, Brahma is superior, and others says that Jehova is superior,

 

No, I'm afraid the Supreme and Absolute Lord did not say that. You said it.

[theist]

We all know that saying, "The dogs may bark but the caravan keeps on rolling."

[matarisvan]

 

We all know that saying, "The dogs may bark but the caravan keeps on rolling."

 

I do not see you as a dog, but if you see yourself as one I have no objects and I doubt anyone else will object. But yes the caravan keeps rolling in spite if your immature assertions and your bow-wows.