Vaisnava Bible Study - Is Jesus Vaisnava?

[Jugg]

The Bible is an abridged version of the Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

[krishnadasa]

 

The Bible is an abridged version of the Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

 

 

Now thats a new propostion isnt it?

[suchandra]

 

The Bible is an abridged version of the Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

Rather too much abridged, since the most important things are missing, e.g. the Holy Bible doesn't explain that the soul is immortal.

There're of course folks even Vaishnavas who say that this is stated in the Bible, but they are wrong. Some speculations of Greek philosophers were added later but in the original Bible nothing mentioned like verse below, absolutely nothing. Therefore we have after 2000 years Christianity the problem that people can't even understand that the soul can take on different bodies. They still say things like, well, yes, Hindus don't eat cows because they think that the cow could be their re-born grandmother, etc. etc. Now Christians even support Buddhism, there's no personal God, by quoting the Bible - pretty misguided people. http://www.society-buddhist-christian-studies.org/

 

"For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."

BG 2.20

[theist]

 

Rather too much abridged, since the most important things are missing, e.g. the Holy Bible doesn't explain that the soul is immortal.

There're of course folks even Vaishnavas who say that this is stated in the Bible, but they are wrong. Some speculations of Greek philosophers were added later but in the original Bible nothing mentioned like verse below, absolutely nothing. Therefore we have after 2000 years Christianity the problem that people can't even understand that the soul can take on different bodies. They still say things like, well, yes, Hindus don't eat cows because they think that the cow could be their re-born grandmother, etc. etc. Now Christians even support Buddhism, there's no personal God, by quoting the Bible - pretty misguided people. http://www.society-buddhist-christian-studies.org/

 

"For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."

BG 2.20

The Bible while containing many God conscious passages is also heavily mixed with much specualtion. I had a Jehovah witness lady last week show me a verse from the Old Testament that clearly stated that at death there is no after life until the Lord comes to bring people back to life for the Judgment. This was her answer to my belief in reincarnation.

 

As the saying goes, "too many cooks spoil the broth", and the Bible has too many authors or more precisely too many authors offering differing and unenlightened speculations on such topics as the self etc.

 

As far as I am concerned the teachings of Jesus are stand alone instructions and don't require the context of the rest of Judaism to make sense although I know they were present in that context.

 

 

And lately the Buddhists are trying to claim Lord Jesus just like the other impersonalists have been doing for a long time.

 

"Hands off Christ you atheist rascals! He is our Lord, a Vaisnava savior!"

[RadheRade1657]

I just found this lovely article from the Sri Sri Radha-Krishna Temple in Utah:

Jesus through Vaishnava Eyes

By Shaunaka Rishi Dasa

Shaunaka Rishi Dasa is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies.

 

I’ve an Indian friend who when he was seven moved with his family from India to England. Where he was enrolled at a new school. On his first day he was asked to speak to the class about a saint from his Vaishnava tradition. Enthusiastically he began to tell the story of the saint called Ishu, who was born in a cowshed, was visited by three holy men, performed many amazing miracles, walked on water and spoke a wonderful sermon on a mountain. Of course, he was telling the story of Christ. But he was bewildered to hear that the teacher laid claim to Ishu for herself and her friends and she let him know that this was her Lord and her story, not his.

 

He was very upset about this, because Ishu’s tale was his favourite story. You see, in a sense, Vaishnavas don’t really see Jesus as a Christian at all. (Of course Jesus didn’t either because the term had not been used during His lifetime). In Vaishnava thought church or temple membership, or belief is not as significant as spiritual practice (which is called sadhana in sanskrit). As there is no Church of Vaishnavaism everyone holds their own spiritual and philosophical opinions. It is difficult then to understand someone’s spirituality simply by looking at their religious trappings. So, in India it is more common to hear someone ask, “What is your practice (or sadhana)?” than, “What do you believe?”

 

Then when we ask how we can see spirituality in Vaishnavas, the answer comes, by behaviour and practice. We can ask are we humble, are we tolerant and are we non-violent, and can we control our senses and our mind? Are we aware of others suffering and are we willing to give up our comfort to help them? Looking at these criteria Jesus measures up as a Sadhu, a holy man. He preached a universal message, love of God and love of brother, which was beyond any sectarianism or selfishness. Jesus was one of those people who appealed from heart to heart, and that’s what makes him such a good Vaishnava Saint. In my particular tradition, and among other Vaishnavas, He is seen as much more, as an Avatar, specifically a Shaktavesha Avatar or an empowered incarnation. This means that God has sent Him to us for a specific mission to fulfil God’s will on earth.

 

When I was 14 I began a personal and serious study of the New Testament. I wanted to understand what Christ had to say about things so I paid particular attention to the words of Jesus Himself. I can see now that the whole direction of my life was determined by this formative study and by the thoughtfulness invoked by it.

 

I read such passages as Luke 5: “forsake all and follow me”. I remember distinctly, as a 14 year old developing my own understanding of what that meant. I had formed a sense of mission and vocation by reading the Bible, seeing that the love of God should be shared with others. The greatest commandment, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our words and all our deeds, and love our neighbour as ourselves struck me as an instruction, as a plea and actually, as a necessity. Considering how to do to that, how to forsake all and follow God out of love, has provided me my greatest challenge in life.

 

As a young boy, that meant giving up sitting in front of the TV with my cup of coffee, two sugars and a biscuit (these were the comforts of my life at that time). It meant to go down to the town centre of Wexford, my hometown, stand in the Bullring, and preach the glory of love of God to all who wanted to hear it. From my reading of Christ’s words and the example of his life, I knew that is what I was called to do, but did I do it? No, I couldn’t. That surrender to God I had to postpone. The instructions and teachings of Christ were crystal clear to me but I wasn’t having an easy time trying to follow them. (Isn’t it funny how it sometimes seems easier to fight for our principles than to actually follow them). Thus my script was written, the challenge laid down, a challenge that Christ had posed to the whole world. “He who has ears let him hear”, he would say. I seemed to have those unfortunate ears.

 

Christ was different. He was radically different. He preached for three years and got killed for it. He gave everything. A friend betrayed him. We have all had some experience where someone we trust turns on us but imagine how we would feel if a friend betrayed us to death? Does the word forgiveness spring to mind? Not in my case, but it comes a close second. In Vaishnava scripture it says that forgiveness is the principal quality of a civilised man, and civilisation is measured in terms of spiritual qualities rather than economic or scientific advancement. Its quite clear to me where Jesus hung his hat on that issue.

 

For instance in our civilised world who would get away with going to a funeral, approaching the chief mourner and asking him to surrender everything to God NOW, as Jesus did. When the chief mourner replied, “But I’ve got to bury my father”, Christ said, “let the dead bury the dead”. (I wonder what the tabloids in those days had to say about that?). Of course, Jesus didn’t get away with this either but he had the courage of His convictions, He spoke the truth, the absolute truth to a materialistic society and risked life and limb for His mission. I wonder how He might fare today with His uncompromising stand on Hypocrites and whited sepulchres? For instance if he was to visit Belfast he might have problems being heard unless He declared first if he were a Catholic or a Protestant Christian.

 

And how did an Irish chap like me become a Vaishnava priest? Why not a Catholic priest or at least a Christian of some sort. There is certainly a great range of Christian sects to choose from these days. Maybe they are becoming as diverse as the Vaishnavas? Anyway, I first encountered Vaishnava spirituality through the Vaishnava tradition of the great medieval saint Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, that’s a lot of words that boil down to mean I met the Hare Krishnas. At the age of 18, in Dublin I bumped into a shaven headed, saffron robed fellow and visited his temple ashram, his monastery, so to speak. I had been visiting all kinds of religious groups—Christian and otherwise but these were surprisingly serious chaps.

 

They rose at four in the morning for prayer, study and chanting. By the time breakfast came at 8.30am I felt like I had done a full days work only to find that the full days work was just about to begin! The captivating thing for me though was the fact that every act was to be offered to God with love, every word spoken in His favour, every song sung for His pleasure, every dance for His eyes and all food prepared and offered first for His taste. Along with this went an ancient philosophy that answered more questions than I had ever asked. But what got me about these devotees of Krishna was what I saw as their practice of Christianity, even though they didn’t actually call themselves Christians.

 

They banded together in small groups, sung the praise of God with drums and loud clashing cymbals, wore flowing robes, abandoned the material world and preached in the public market places. That’s actually a description of the early Christians but the Krishna ’s did this as well. I loved the chanting of Hare Krishna. I’m sure you have seen the devotees chanting in public somewhere. They chant Sanskrit names of God Hare, Krishna and Rama, meaning ’spirititual happiness’, ‘all attractive person’ and ‘reservoir of pleasure’. Lovely names and they form a prayer to be engaged in the service of God.

 

The idea of chanting Gods name, any name we choose to chant, is that we come into direct contact with God Himself, as his name and His Person are not different, the Vaishnava story goes. (But don’t take my word for it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating). I think it was the spontaneous happiness produced by the music, the chant and the dancing that touched my heart so much and it continues to do so to this day. For me it was “Hallowed by thy name” in practice. The practice may look strange to some but that is not the point. I suppose it depends on our cultural view but nuns may look just as strange as naked Sadhus. Is that a reflection of their spiritual qualities or just their dress sense? To me this spiritual practice was being performed in the essential spirit of Christianity.

 

If we look in the Vaishnava scripture, Bhagavad-gita, we hear Lord Krishna asking us to abandon all our sectarianism and just surrender to Him, in love. He vows to protect us from evil and from fear. I hear the same “forsake all and follow me” message, the same call to surrender and the same reassurance.

 

Jesus shows this struggle of surrender during his evening in the garden of Gethsemane . His sincere appeal to the Lord to let the cup pass from him, although He was willing to go through with His Father’s command. I have always found myself in this kind of dilemma, although without the same willingness to do the needful that Christ had. All of us who struggle with spirituality wonder if we are capable of making the effort, or if we are doomed to failure and hypocrisy? Can we meet the challenge? Christ’s example is so relevant for all of us who want to practise a spiritual life, and even for those who just want to be good. But how many of us are willing to sacrifice our desires in favour of the will of God, even in small ways .

 

When we look at his experience during his traumatic arrest, trial and crucifixion we see a man at peace within Himself and with the world. He was condemned for his zeal and for his perceived threat to society, because he was misunderstood. I have experienced that to a lesser degree in my life - being condemned for being a Hare Krishna, for being different and incomprehensible. I have been spat at and derided, but not crucified. I have no idea what Jesus had to give up, in His early thirties, so that I, in my early forties, could be inspired to follow the Godly path.

 

The fact is I can see myself in Jesus. I recognise and empathise with His life, His temptations and His suffering. But I can see a lot more in Him than my faltering attempts at spirituality. I can see someone transcending the materialism of this world. Vaishnavas as much as anyone talk much about this noble ideal but it is a true celebration when someone, anyone of any tradition begins to make sense, spiritually. And so many of us don’t seem to make sense spiritually.

 

We can acquire a religious reputation, be addressed by religious titles. We can easily learn to say the right thing and wear the appropriate clothes and chant the right passwords for all religious occasions, and look passably good. But the example of Jesus and other saints challenge any insincerity in our heart, any duplicity and hypocrisy. They display another level of faith, a level called love and their love is beyond our need to be right about everything, to dominate others and to demand them to conform to our perception. They are humble. Its about a deep change of heart. Its about knowing God as a friend and as a lover. Its about being happy to love God with the full trust that He will take care of us in all circumstances, just as a small child will trust their father or mother. It’s about accepting absence of god in our lives as enthusiastically as His embrace.

 

Its difficult for us to neatly categorise Jesus, this lover of God, as a Christian or a Jew. He talked only of His Father and he was not enamoured of politics, religion or wealth as He experienced them. God’s service was His life, His love and his religion.

 

Remember my Indian friend who loved Ishu so much? What about him? Was he a follower of Christ? Could he have a personal relationship with God? Would he have to “bath in the blood of the Lamb” first? (a terrible option for vegetarians). These are important questions though, “Can a Vaishnava follow Jesus?”; “Can a Vaishnava love god with all his heart and soul?”; “Do you have to be a Christian to follow Christ?” ; even “Who owns Christ?.”

 

The Sanskrit word acharya means ‘one who teaches by example’. For Vaishnavas, Christ is an acharya. His example is a light to any of us in this world who want to take up the serious practise of spiritual life. His message is no different from the message preached in another time and place by Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya. It would be a great shame if we allowed our Vaishnavasm, our Islam, our Judaism or indeed our Christianity to stand in the way of being able to follow the teachings and example of such a great soul as Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Shaunaka Rishi Dasa

[theist]

 

The Sanskrit word acharya means ‘one who teaches by example’. For Vaishnavas, Christ is an acharya. His example is a light to any of us in this world who want to take up the serious practise of spiritual life. His message is no different from the message preached in another time and place by Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya. It would be a great shame if we allowed our Vaishnavasm, our Islam, our Judaism or indeed our Christianity to stand in the way of being able to follow the teachings and example of such a great soul as Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

Great article.

[Jugg]

The definition of a "great article" is how many times the word "Krishna" occurs. I counted 8 times Jai Haribol Maha Prashad Ki Jai!

[Sarva gattah]

 

All primitive cultures are coming up from the evolutionary process on this material gross planet, where the soul eventually again receives human form. Because it is inherent in human nature (because ALL living entities are in there baddha-jivas condition of forgettful consciousness while in the material creation of Maha-Vishnu), these human tribes, coming up through the lower biological species or life, develop their own speculative beliefs in a God when they attain the earthly human primitive body.

 

On the other hand there is Knowledge (Veda) that comes down to this planet from the demigods from the celestial levels of material existence (the sub-space heavenly planets). Even still a part of the material universes, the Veda has been passed down like this to our planet.

The beginning of Kali-yuga is where the human tribes, born from coming up from the lower species and the celestial beings who came down from the heavenly planets who followed the Vedas, crossed paths.

This was only possible due to the Dvapara-yuga being degraded into the beginning of Kali-yuga that allowed the lowly 'planet tribes' to invade and be eventually be influenced by of the 'more celestial beings that followed the Vedas. This is why Sanskrit Is the language of the demigods.

Also Satya-yuga. Tretta-yuga and the most of the Dvapara, even though on this planet, were more celestial than earthly and existed in the sky of this planet on not on the surface. There were mystical powers, huge cities floating in the air at the same time the biological evolutionary process was going on the floor of the planet that the 'celestials Vedic universal travellers' left alone.

 

This is why no evidence is found of the Satya, Tretta or Dvapara-yuga’s (except towards the end of Dvapara when it has virtually been degraded down to the planets surface).

Then Krishna came right at the very end of Dvapara-yuga, then after the battle at Kurukshetra the Kali-yuga began and the invasion of the annoying primitive animal like barbaric human tribes had evolved enough to plunder the remanets of what was left from the Vedic culture and in the process adapting to many practises, from cooking to prayer that gradually influenced many 'wordly' primitive cultures.

 

Interesting viewpoint, it makes one ask, are we seeing the full picture in what we call the 21st century?

 

The obvious answer is the scientist cannot even percieve the 'subtle world' which makes up the majority of the material universe, let alone anything spiritual which is only possible for a pure devotee of Krishna.

 

The idea that Satya-yuga, Treta and the earlier parts of Dvarpara-yuga, even though on this planet, existed in a higher realm of material reality distinguished from the mundane evolution of us humans and the lower species of life going happening on the planets surface, sounds correct however, does the Srimad Bhagavatam support this theory?

 

If correct, what is degradation to the Vedic celestial interplanetary beings where their presents has virtually disappeared by the time the age of Kali-yuga begins, is actually a blessing for the primitive humans that have evolved from the evolution in the jungles on this planet

[raghu]

 

As far as the old testiment, when reading it I don't see much sign of transcendental knowledge. This is just my opinion and everyone has the right to believe what they like. But to me it reads like some tribal people with a lot of hatred against other races and tribes. Such books can be found in any culture. In Kali yuga people hate each other, discriminate against each other and fight amongst each other, usually while invoking the name of "God" to justify their actions. The losers in history did the same thing (such as other pagan religions in europe). If they had won the wars their religion would have similar stories of God ordering them to kill the non believers and of God punishing their enemies.

 

I also don't see any reason to consider the bible to be the word of God. It was manipulated and more or less written by corrupt popes and fallible men. They borrowed some good things from Jesus, and thats why there is some hint of humanity in the teachings today. The teachings of Jesus were completely different from what God taught in the old testiment. The hatred was gone and there was a new message of love and compassion. The corrupt popes hijacked this popular teaching and then created something they called the bible, while selling tickets to heaven and becoming rich. I don't see anything transcendental or spiritual in their history with the exception of Jesus and a few rare saintly people.

 

The bible was more or less a product of corrupt leaders. So I don't consider it the word of God, even though there are probably some spiritual things they have stolen from saintly people and included in the mix.

 

Whatever one thinks of the Bible, it is a fact that Christianity is based on the Bible. If one argues that Christianity is valid in some sense then it follows that the Bible must be a valid pramana in some sense. If the Bible is corrupted and interpolated over the years (an idea which I have no problem with as it's consistent with what I know on the subject) then this invalidates Christianity as a "bona fide religion." If it is argued that there is some real Christianity somewhere and sometime then the reasonable question is, what is the evidence? We can say all we want about Jesus really being a great chap but without evidence it is all hearsay.

 

 

Regardless of its validity, the bible and Christianity has created some of the most civilized and humanitarian people in modern times, something we don't find much of in India even with the greatest philosophy. So for that I have a lot of respect for them. In India and other third world places like Africa, people getting burnt alive, hacked to death, etc., are daily occurences by the hundreds and thousands. There is a lack of respect for human life, and there is a lot of inner hatred towards fellow man. In modern (usually Christian) countries, such things don't occur because people are more civilized and have respect for human life. There are so many other faults in western civilization (like animal slaughter), but I see some things that we can learn from them as well. And over all I dont see a practicing utopia anywhere in the world, in any of the religions being taught.

 

Jahnava Nitai Das,

 

Something I feel very comfortable telling you, and which I think you will accept if you think it over objectively, is that you cannot pass judgement on a given culture's view on human rights by looking at just the last few centuries and without due regard to the whole context of the socio-economic-political spectrum. For the last 10 centuries India (like most of the "third world") has been a civilization in decline, being the subject of numerous invasions which robbed it of its wealth and replaced it with a ruling class that is totally uneducated in dharma. America, on the other hand, got where it was by stamping out every indigenous tribe that stood in its way. There weren't any "civilized and humanitarian" men who managed to stop the near-total genocide of indigenous peoples in North America.

 

It's all very nice and good for one civilization to plunder another and then point fingers at the desperation of its people.

 

Bad people are everywhere. Certainly there are some good people who are Christians and bad people who call themselves Hindu. But since the discussion is about the validity of the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, etc, I'm really not sure what this has to do with it.

[gHari]

And the teachings of Jesus, what are they, raghu? It does not go unnoticed that you run from this question a third time. You don't deserve to hold an opinion. Be careful; your guru will suffer your sins if you ridicule the Holy Spirit, and your bhakti will be in the toilet. Actually it may be there now, since I've seen none from you here. Don't destroy your life with this witch-hunt.

[raghu]

 

And the teachings of Jesus, what are they, raghu? It does not go unnoticed that you run from this question a third time.

In order to accuse someone of running from an idea, you must first develop the attention-span necessary to follow an idea in the brief period of time in which it is moved from one posting to another within a thread, a stage of cognitive development which roughly corresponds with that of mid-adolescence. If you had been paying more attention, you would have grasped the point which has already been articulated here several times in painstakingly-clear English, that *no one* objectively speaking knows the historic Jesus or his teachings. All of his alleged teachings which have been passed down to us have been corrupted over time, a fact which your friends Thiest et. al. repeatedly acknowledged on this very thread.

 

And yet, in defiance of all of logic, you continue to invoke ideas about Jesus and the "real" Christianity that are based on the very sources which you acknowledge to be corrupted in the first place. It is precisely because you and other new-agers continue to display this sort of confused thinking (and worse yet, try to pass it off as "Vaishnavism") that all true Vaishnavas should feel duty-bound to correct your ludicrous ideas.

 

 

 

You don't deserve to hold an opinion.

Yes, we know. Too much thinking and too little blind following is evil, or some such thing. I heard you the first time... and the second and the third....

[RadheRade1657]

I don't think that Jesus' message has been corrupted. I think that Yahweh's word (the Old Testament) is the word of men. I think that the letters of the apostles are the letters of men. But, I don't think that Jesus' message, that actual words of Jesus, has been corrupted. He doesn't say anything corrupt... so I don't think they've been corrupted.

[indulekhadasi]

 

Another pseudo scholar on this board. You lack even the basic understanding of what a language is. A language is a set of words each containing an established definition. It is not for you or anyone else to just come along and change the definition because you do not like the original definition.

 

Are you ready to say shaivas and muslims are vaishnavas?

 

vaishnava, shaiva, mayavada, dvaita, advaita have been defined long back and cannot be changed by you or any other foreign born christian just because you lack sanskrit knowledge. This is a display of extreme arrogance.

 

Pranam. Jai Nitai!

I must say I am confused about this topic.

There are many hidden Vaishnavas, do you know that?

Shankaracharya may have outwardly seemed to be a Mayavadi, but as an incarnation of the Lord's dearest Lord Shiva he was actually a great Vaishnava.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast, matarisvaranji. That is not logical.

[raghu]

 

I don't think that Jesus' message has been corrupted. I think that Yahweh's word (the Old Testament) is the word of men. I think that the letters of the apostles are the letters of men. But, I don't think that Jesus' message, that actual words of Jesus, has been corrupted. He doesn't say anything corrupt... so I don't think they've been corrupted.

 

Oh, ok. As long as you think it then....

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

One great difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Gita is the following. The God of the Bible punishes and kills anyone who worships another God. On the other hand, the God of the Gita rewards those who worship other Gods with heaven, material oppulence, material enjoyment, etc. The Gita tells us that Krishna actually rewards those who worship other Gods. There is no envy, jealousy and hatred towards those who worship another God. Krishna doesn't decide to kill the children of those who worship other Gods. He doesn't send plagues and curses on those who worship other Gods. He doesn't destroy whole civilizations because they choose to worship other Gods. Rather he rewards them with material oppulence, long life, and happiness - and in the next life he sends them to heaven to enjoy the oppulences of swarga.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

The Burning Cross BY: PRADEEP SHARMA

 

Several years ago I wrote three articles that were posted on the internet called the Burning Cross, part one, two, and three. Since that time I have received hundreds of emails filled with questions, comments, and particularly the repeated request to establish a website to thoroughly examine the issue of Christianity and Vaishnavism from a historical and theological point of view. This I felt was a task too great for one man and so I began to look around for other devotees, both men and women, who would be interested in helping me with the necessary research and writing that would be required for such an undertaking. By the grace of Krishna I was successful and was able to put together a team of researchers and writers dedicated to the task.

 

 

We have uploaded the site “The Burning Cross” and we invite all theologically and historically minded devotees to visit our website. While doing so if this is your first experience with a deep look at the similarities and differences between Christianity and Vaishnavism then your prior assumptions may feel challenged. If however you have already come in contact with this body of information then the Burning Cross website has some great materials that you will want to look at more closely.

 

To give the Vaishnava community and the Sampradaya Sun readers a preview of what to expect on the Burning Cross website we give you the following quote from Shreela A.C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada and then from Shreela Bhaktivinode Thakura: From Shreela A.C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada:

"The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.”

From Tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinode Thakura

Text 25

<CENTER>adi-jivaparadhad vai

sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya

vibhor dandena niskrtih</CENTER>

 

“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.”

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

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, 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. 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.

Text 26

<CENTER>janmato jiva-sambhavo

maranante na janma vai

yat-krtam samsrtau tena

jivasya caramam phalam</CENTER>

 

"(These philosophers say that) the living entity's life begins at birth and ends with death. After death, he is not born again. After death he attains the results of his actions in that one lifetime.”

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things: "The living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have souls." Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living entities born into very different situations? The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into a house filled with sufferings, another living entity born into a house filled with joys, another living entity born into the house of a person devoted to God, and another living enttity born into a wicked atheist's house? Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational.

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

Text 27

<CENTER>atra sthitasya jivasya

karma-jnananusilanat

visvonnati-vidhanena

kartavyam isa-tosanam</CENTER>

 

"(These philosophers say that) by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should make improvements in the material world and in this way please God.”

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fuitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world.

[raghu]

 

One great difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Gita is the following. The God of the Bible punishes and kills anyone who worships another God. On the other hand, the God of the Gita rewards those who worship other Gods with heaven, material oppulence, material enjoyment, etc. The Gita tells us that Krishna actually rewards those who worship other Gods. There is no envy, jealousy and hatred towards those who worship another God. Krishna doesn't decide to kill the children of those who worship other Gods. He doesn't send plagues and curses on those who worship other Gods. He doesn't destroy whole civilizations because they choose to worship other Gods. Rather he rewards them with material oppulence, long life, and happiness - and in the next life he sends them to heaven to enjoy the oppulences of swarga.

 

That is one of the points I had made earlier - several times in fact. It would seem to be an obvious, logical problem with the idea that the Biblical god is the same as Sri Vishnu.

 

Unfortunately, all I got in response was some innuendo to the effect that I was a misguided Hindu who could not understand that God is one, etc etc and that obviously these two are the same God (despite all the evidence to the contrary). And then there were the numerous digressions, ad hominem attacks, blatant insults, etc.

[Beggar]

 

That is one of the points I had made earlier - several times in fact. It would seem to be an obvious, logical problem with the idea that the Biblical god is the same as Sri Vishnu.

 

Unfortunately, all I got in response was some innuendo to the effect that I was a misguided Hindu who could not understand that God is one, etc etc and that obviously these two are the same God (despite all the evidence to the contrary). And then there were the numerous digressions, ad hominem attacks, blatant insults, etc.

 

The Vaisnavas who accept that Visnu and the Judeo-Christian God are one do not accept the concept that that Yaweh is in reality a vengeful and jealous God. They propose that the stories that describe Yaweh in that way were written to control the population. In fact in his speech, "The Bhagawat", Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur makes the same point about the hells described by the Bhagavatam.

[raghu]

 

The Vaisnavas who accept that Visnu and the Judeo-Christian God are one do not accept the concept that that Yaweh is in reality a vengeful and jealous God. They propose that the stories that describe Yaweh in that way were written to control the population.

 

What a strange theory, given the fact that such "well motivated lies" did nothing to control Christians from spreading all over the globe and uprooting all other religions in their path.

 

Whatever the rationale, if a given source of information gives any false information, then all of it is necessarily suspect. Thus the entire scripture becomes unacceptable as a valid means to proper knowlege. Which again speaks to the point of the validity of the religion which is based on it.

[Beggar]

 

What a strange theory, given the fact that such "well motivated lies" did nothing to control Christians from spreading all over the globe and uprooting all other religions in their path.

 

Whatever the rationale, if a given source of information gives any false information, then all of it is necessarily suspect. Thus the entire scripture becomes unacceptable as a valid means to proper knowlege. Which again speaks to the point of the validity of the religion which is based on it.

You are only applying concept to Christianity. It is said that there are three kinds of Puranas: those meant for people in tamas, for people in rajas and those in sattva guna. This means that there are gradations of religious conception even in the Vedic tradition. Gradation is everywhere but the pivotal point here is that love of God and fear of God are quite different. Fear of punishment is also coincides with social control. One group is told, "Thou shall not kill" another is told, "Don't mate with your mother". These pronouncements are there because these are the tendencies is a particular group that need to be curbed. Evidently the tribes of Israel were very much prone to following religious conceptions other than Yaweh, so they received stern warnings to curb this tendency. And again as we showed in the previous post there are also "well motivated lies" in the Vaisnava traditions. Perhaps the fear of "other gods" was a contributing factor to the global spread of Christianity and Western culture, but the situation was certainly much more complex.

[raghu]

 

You are only applying concept to Christianity. It is said that there are three kinds of Puranas: those meant for people in tamas, for people in rajas and those in sattva guna. This means that there are gradations of religious conception even in the Vedic tradition.

 

No, the Vedic tradition is not classified in such a manner. Only the Puranas are. Their authority is only valid to the extent that they uphold the conclusions of the shruti.

 

 

Gradation is everywhere but the pivotal point here is that love of God and fear of God are quite different. Fear of punishment is also coincides with social control. One group is told, "Thou shall not kill" another is told, "Don't mate with your mother". These pronouncements are there because these are the tendencies is a particular group that need to be curbed. Evidently the tribes of Israel were very much prone to following religious conceptions other than Yaweh, so they received stern warnings to curb this tendency.

 

You are going off tangent here. We were talking about how the Biblical god curses people who don't worship him, sends plagues to kill their first born, made warnings about his jealousy if they worship other gods, etc etc and you claimed these were all lies told to "control the population." My point is that these "lies" have taught the followers of Biblical tradition to be aggressively expansionistic and to uproot all non-Biblical traditions, for that is the logical result of being told that their god is a jealous god who demands, on pain of violence, that he be given exclusive worship.

 

Are you really going to sit here and claim that Sri Vishnu arranged for these people to hear these things for their own good? That He didn't know their descendents would use this to go and start attacking all other religions? Come on.

 

 

And again as we showed in the previous post there are also "well motivated lies" in the Vaisnava traditions.

 

Maybe in *your* own tradition, perhaps - like the "well motivated lie" to the effect that Jesus is a pure devotee of Krishna?

 

 

Perhaps the fear of "other gods" was a contributing factor to the global spread of Christianity and Western culture, but the situation was certainly much more complex.

 

Historically, the teachings of the Bible united several Greco-Mediterranean subcultures and gave them a philosophical impetus to take to a program of aggressive socio-political domination of the known world, all in the name of spreading their faith. Is it likely that the all-knowing, compassionate and impartial Sri Hari gave them these teachings by which they then proceeded to terrorize and destroy much older religious cultures (including Vaishnavism)? Or is it more likely that some other entity who was wrongly deified as "God" did this? I think that any intelligent person who deliberates on this objectively will think the latter.

[Beggar]

The Search for Sri Krishna

Srila Sridhar Maharaj:

 

Where are you? Who are you? What is the real

nature of the world? In the Koran, in the Bible, and in

the Vedas, and in every other scripture, a hope and

hint has been given about the life of reality. Is this all

a hoax? What charm have the materialists given? That

charm is only for the self-deceivers, and that is dragging

them into the country of loan and debt, the land where

“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”

So, a divine civilization should be drawn out into this

plane. We have to try the path that has been suggested

by the great saints and scriptures. It is not unreasonable.

It is not madness. Come, reason can also be applied there.

 

[matarisvan]

Does it occur to the Christians on this thread that their beliefs flow in the opposite direction?

 

You start with a self created image of God and using that as the baseline you are working your way backwards into the bible. Take this self created image and compare it with each reference to God in the bible. If the two are compatible, then it is the real message of God. If incompatible, then it is written by man and it is incorrect. Ultimately you are selectively interpreting the bible to pick what you like and reducing everything else as the words of man. What is the value in that?

 

Is Truth a function of personal preferences as the Christians here are making it out to be?

[theist]

First I don't know who you are addressing as Christians. Some here have the eyes to recognize the divinity of Christ and others, like yourself, do not.

 

Second your question seemed too convuluted for me to follow although I am sure it made sense to you when you wrote it. But let me address what I think is the gist of it with a quote from the avadhuta in the 11th Canto of SB. Even though he wandered the earth like a madman because he was born in India you mat accept his words.

 

 

SB 11.8.10 - Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence from all religious scriptures.

 

So the Vaisnava wants to be an essence seeker and not someone who lives in a religious and cultural box cut off from everything else ie Christian, Hindu, Islamist, Buddhist.

 

You seem to think that one has to accept the Bible all or nothing. That is a foolish proposition. The Bible is a collection of over 40 different books and lettrs written at different times by different people and compiled by the Catholic church some 300 plus years after Christ into one book called the Bible.

 

There are millions of people writing down their speculations as to what God is and what God wants from man daily. I don't have to accept all they say as God's word just because they write "Thus saith the Lord" into the text.

 

These same people will occasionaly speak the absolute truth among their speculations. When I recognise this truth I will acknowledge it as such even though 99% of what they say before and after that is speculation.

 

I find way too much speculation in the Old Testament Bible. I find eternal truths in the words of Christ. I reject the former and accept the latter.

 

This is a very simple concept that for some reason you fail to grasp. You may have to take a birth outside of India to break the current spell you are under and thus see the truth is boundless (means borderless) and surpasses all linquistic forms while being able to manifest itself in all of them.

[RadheRade1657]

 

Oh, ok. As long as you think it then....

 

Okay... well, could you please point out where Jesus' message is corrupt? Not Yahweh's message, not the disciples' messages, but Jesus' message. Please, I beg you to point out something he says that is corrupt.