AncientMariner Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 How come he was given advance warning of his impending death and he knew the hearts and minds of his disciples and even knew who would end up betraying him? I read in some of Srila Prabhupada's literature that one of the special mercies of Lord Krishna to his pure devotees is he gives them advance knowledge of their death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 The "personality of Kali" was also given favor by the Lord's devotee Maharaja Parikshit. Should we therefore accept Kali as a pure devotee and a shakti-avesha avatara? Buddha was given favor by the Lord to mislead and delude the naastikas. Should we therefore say that Buddhism has its own special validity, even though Buddhists reject all notions of atman and reject the authority of the Vedas? By your own logic Mohammed must have gotten favor of the Lord. After all, he united the various and sundry tribes of Arabia under the premise of a single god and a single religious doctrine. How can just anyone do that? Should we say that his way is valid in some sense, even when he leads his people to destroy other people's places of worship and take their women into sexual slavery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 The "personality of Kali" was also given favor by the Lord's devotee Maharaja Parikshit. Should we therefore accept Kali as a pure devotee and a shakti-avesha avatara? Buddha was given favor by the Lord to mislead and delude the naastikas. Should we therefore say that Buddhism has its own special validity, even though Buddhists reject all notions of atman and reject the authority of the Vedas? By your own logic Mohammed must have gotten favor of the Lord. After all, he united the various and sundry tribes of Arabia under the premise of a single god and a single religious doctrine. How can just anyone do that? Should we say that his way is valid in some sense, even when he leads his people to destroy other people's places of worship and take their women into sexual slavery? Gotta admit that is a valid point you make especially in regards to Buddhism. I don't have the answer to your questions that is why I refer you to the statements of Prabhupada that Jesus is saktyavesa avatar because he is the authority that I study Krishna Consciousness from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Gotta admit that is a valid point you make especially in regards to Buddhism. I Don't have the answer to your questions that is why I have to rely on the statements of Prabhupada that Jesus is saktyavesa avatar because he is the authority that I study Krishna Consciousness from. Your fellow Western Hare Krishnas like GHari are arguing - or at least countering objective arguments with liberal ad hominem attacks - that Jesus was a Vaishnava and here you are saying Jesus was an avatar himself. Make up your minds. Was he a Vaishnava or Vishnu himself? I suspect the slippery Hare Krishna excuse to beat all excuses will come up here, that he was simultaneously Vishnu and a devotee of himself at the same time...somehow. If we are going with this excuse today, then by similar logic can we agree that jesus was a Vaishnava and at the same time, not a Vaishnava? The former for Prabhupada's western disciples and the latter for the rest of the world. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Your fellow Western Hare Krishnas like GHari are arguing - or at least countering objective arguments with liberal ad hominem attacks - that Jesus was a Vaishnava and here you are saying Jesus was an avatar himself. Make up your minds. Was he a Vaishnava or Vishnu himself? I suspect the slippery Hare Krishna excuse to beat all excuses will come up here, that he was simultaneously Vishnu and a devotee of himself at the same time...somehow. If we are going with this excuse today, then by similar logic can we agree that jesus was a Vaishnava and at the same time, not a Vaishnava? The former for Prabhupada's western disciples and the latter for the rest of the world. Cheers You must have missed out when Prabhupada refered to Jesus as a saktyavesa avatar. You must not have been paying attention that day. A saktyavesa avatar isn't Vishnu Himself it is a living entity belonging to jiva-tattva category who is empowered by Vishnu and descends from the spiritual world for a particular purpose. I guess there are some direct saktyavesa avatars that are the Lord Himself but noone is saying Jesus is Vishnu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: 1. "Hazrat Muhammad, the inaugurator of the Islam religion, I accept him as an empowered servant of God because he preached God-consciousness in those parts of the world and induced them to accept the authority of God. He is accepted as the servant of God and we have all respect for him."? ( Letter, 2-4-1976) 2. So therefore, by that symptom, we accept Lord Jesus Christ as Saktyaves avatara, or Hazrat Muhammad, he's also. Because these two religious leaders of the world, they preached about the glorification of the Supreme Lord. And they sacrificed everything for preaching the glories of the Lord. Therefore... And their influence and their followers, there are... These are the symptoms by which we can understand that Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad was, were Saktyaves avataras. ( CC Madhya-lila 20.367-84) 3. "Vedas means the books of transcendental knowledge. Not only the Bhagavad Gita, even the Bible or the Quran, they are also."? (lecture 29-7-68) 4. Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Christianity is Vaisnavism. Dr. Patel: Vaisnavism? Absolutely Vaisnavism. Srila Prabhupada:Islam is also Vaisnavism. Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaisnavism. Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Caitanya Mahaprabhu had talked with the Pathanas. He proved that "Your religion is Vaisnavism."? (February 17, 1974, Bombay) 5. "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proved devotional service from the Quran. So, it requires a devotee who can explain God from any Godly literature"? ( Morning Walk, June 6, 1974, Geneva) 6. "Then Islam is Vaishnava dharma in a crude form like christianty."?(room conversation, Tehran 14-3-75) 7. They accept God. They are also our brothers because they accept God. They are not atheist. Atheist don't accept God. "there is no God"? say the atheist. But here they are theists. They accept God. They want to please God. They go to the church, go to mosques, offer prayers. Prayers is also bhakti, devotional service. The Christian way or the Muslim way is to offer prayer. The Muslims offer obeisences & offer prayer. So that is also Bhakti (devotion). The Christians also do that, so that is also bhakti. And they accept God; We accept God. So there is no difference. But the only point is who is that God. ( room conversation, Tehran 14-3-75) Krsna Himself says: "Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do"? Bhagavad Gita 18-63. "?My mission is not turn any one from the affiliation of a particular religion but I want to let them know more knowledge about God and devotion."? 6-11-1965, (letters) Srila Prabhupada. "Actually, we are not teaching a particular type of faith. We are teaching the post graduate studies of all religions:we are teaching people how to love God and who is the man that will deny this principle?"? 5-12-68, Srila Prabhupada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.