Lord Jesus Christ - Abandon all varieties of religion

[mahak]

Haribol, from semi-retired-ville. I am not writing this topic starter to encourage the usual christian fanaticism. In fact, such fanatics actually hate delving into the actual teachings of Lord Jesus Christ. Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life.

 

The following teaching of Lord Jesus Christ is not unlike the demand from Krsna that Arjuna choose His Actual Self while rejecting all varieties of religion.

 

(Matt 8: 5-13)

 

As Lord Jesus Christ entered Capernaum, a Roman officer approached and requested His healing mercy. He agreed, and began following him, but the official said, "My Dear Lord, I have folks who are required to follow my orders, but You, Sir, are much beyond this realm. I do not deserve Your mercy, but, if You wish, say only the word and my son will be healed."

 

The Lord said to His followers, "I have not seen such trust in all of Judea. I predict that folks from East and West will dine with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with My Father, but for those who may think that the Spiritual Realm belongs to a segment of society will be left in darkness. Go, My friend, your son is well and awaiting your arrival."

 

On my website, I commented: "Sri Gurudeva comes to give Love of God to all without discrimination, he is never bound by sectarian ideas or imprisoned by the cultural bars of the ignorant." I would briefly further add that the christian may perhaps find a true follower of Lord Jesus Christ who is not at all identified with their sect or group, may not even hint at being one of them, any more than this Roman soldier could be confused with the known followers of Christ, the rebels, scholars, and blue collars who were always by his side. Further, it can be that the muslim may be surprised that their awaited "Madhi" may not share their barbarian wahabi fanaticism, that the awaited "messaiah" may come outside the realm of political zionism, or that a Vaisnava Guru may not even resemble a hindu in any way, shape or form.

 

When Krsna advises Arjuna to abandon all varieties of religion, the reasons are plain. Religion is a watered down materialism that rejects "aham brahmasmi" that is incompatible with virtually any teaching of a Vaisnava. My own spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, may have utilized som reflection of hindu type practices, however, he did not teach hinduism, and did not refer to his foundation as a hindu organization.

 

The first rule of religion is to falsely identify the self as linked to the hierarchy of that religious system. This ends all hope of hearing from the Vaisnava Acarya. This is why the brahmanas of Puri cannot be counted among the followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu because they reject the topmost vaisnava Haridas Thakur, who is the caretaker of the Holy Names of Krsna, therefore the absolute link for all who claim to practice the yuga dharma of Harinama Samkirtana. The true vaisnava must accept a casteless person, outside varnasrama dharma, a lowly muslim by birth, as the ultimate GURU MAHARAJA (actually the very foundation of the entire Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya Sampradaya).

 

Lord Jesus speaks plainly, yet only for those with ears to hear. Those not hearing will consider their false identity of being cultural Judeans as superior to a Roman soldier occupying their homeland. However, Lord Jesus here calls him not only superior, but also affirms that this roman's position has no comparison in "all of Judea".

 

Anyway, food for thought. I have not espoused christianity (anti-christian religion) here, so I hope all the anti-christs will not bother with this thread. I do not cast pearls before swine.

Haribol, hope all are well, ys, mahaksadasa

[xexon]

Jesus was a Jewish yogi. Make no mistake of this. And his life was/is a hard act to follow for a common person then or now.

 

I think Gandhi summed it up best:

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

 

 

 

 

 

x

[raghu]

 

Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life.

 

Uh-huh. I wonder if the average iskcon devotee householder who watches television, goes to movies, eats hotel food, pontificates on religions other than Vaishnavism, and has a greater than 50% chance of being a divorcee can also said to have done "abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

[theist]

 

Uh-huh. I wonder if the average iskcon devotee householder who watches television, goes to movies, eats hotel food, pontificates on religions other than Vaishnavism, and has a greater than 50% chance of being a divorcee can also said to have done "abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

Good point. Few are really interested in transcending the material domain and so we make a religion out of Lord Caitanya's movement, identify with it as ourselves, feel separate from others and their "faiths".

 

But this is not limited to Iskcon or Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

 

The symptom of this mentality is shown as soon as one starts to speak of Vaisnavism as a product of this mundane world, started by a certain class of people, in a certain tract of land, at a certain time in history, and characterized by certain cultural and religious rituals etc.

 

There are not many among those who call themselves Vaisnavas who are ready for the higher teachngs of Vaisnavism. I mean if we still view Vaisnavism as a sectarian religion of some kind then what is the use of pretending we are gopis or majaris. First liberation then rasa.

 

So Mahak's point is also well taken in that we must master the ABC's before we can expect to write poetry.

[indulekhadasi]

 

Uh-huh. I wonder if the average iskcon devotee householder who watches television, goes to movies, eats hotel food, pontificates on religions other than Vaishnavism, and has a greater than 50% chance of being a divorcee can also said to have done "abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

 

I wonder if you know that even in ISKCON there are some very sincere devotees. But obviously there are people in this world who just love to paint people with one brush.

 

I am a person who is lower than kanistha adhikari. Still, I do not watch television. I do not go to movies. I do not eat hotel food. I do not criticize other religions. My parents had their (Bengali hot headed) fights like all couples. It will be 20 years of marriage this December, and they are not divorced.

 

Yes, there are some problems in every institution. But I just hate it when people just take the bad out and not even look at the good. Lord Shiva does exactly the opposite. When he sees even one tiny good quality in a person he maximizes it to the fullest. I can basically make the same point, raghu. Isn't it so that many "Hindus" of todays world go to movies, eat meat and have illicit sex? Don't they now go to the extent of eating beef? But I cannot say that every Hindu is like that! There are some very religious people out there!

[cbrahma]

Please don't talk to me about religion in the same breath as Vaisnava. Certainly not ISKCON which has managed to corrupt a spiritual movement into a religion that is nothing more than a Hindu church.

The number of hoops one has to jump through, all the brahminical pieties and varna-ashrama dharma distinctions and honors and qualifications are hardly the abandonment of religion, they are more the abandonment to religion.

[raghu]

 

Good point. Few are really interested in transcending the material domain and so we make a religion out of Lord Caitanya's movement, identify with it as ourselves, feel separate from others and their "faiths".

 

But this is not limited to Iskcon or Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

 

Getting back to the issue, my point was simply that when one of these iskcon types gets on his soapbox and starts preaching about the inability of people to follow some spiritual values, he invariably names Hindus, Christians, and other religious groups as guilty parties but never other iskcon devotees. That pompous quote again:

 

"Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

 

If the author of this remark were truly interested in getting everyone to "take to pure spiritual life," then he would be equally attentive to the hypocrites within his own cult. But that isn't really the case here. This is all about someone who wants to feel good about himself by making unflattering generalizations about other religious groups.

 

 

The symptom of this mentality is shown as soon as one starts to speak of Vaisnavism as a product of this mundane world, started by a certain class of people, in a certain tract of land, at a certain time in history, and characterized by certain cultural and religious rituals etc.

 

Really? Now that is interesting. Because I can definitely remember a certain someone opining on these very forums that the Vedas are sectarian Hindu books, and even going so far as to ridicule someone for basing his views on God on those sectarian, "Hindu books."

 

As far as real Vaishnavas are unconcerned, Vedas are unauthored and beginningless and not the product of any specific person or culture. But then again I remember the same certain someone objecting to that idea as well.

 

It is strange that one would argue that Vaishnavism is "not a product of this mundane world" (which I have no problem with) and yet believe that the Vedas upon which that same Vaishnavism is based are sectarian Hindu books.

[theist]

 

Getting back to the issue, my point was simply that when one of these iskcon types gets on his soapbox and starts preaching about the inability of people to follow some spiritual values, he invariably names Hindus, Christians, and other religious groups as guilty parties but never other iskcon devotees. That pompous quote again:

 

"Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

 

If the author of this remark were truly interested in getting everyone to "take to pure spiritual life," then he would be equally attentive to the hypocrites within his own cult. But that isn't really the case here. This is all about someone who wants to feel good about himself by making unflattering generalizations about other religious groups.

 

If you weren't so new to this forum you would be more familar with writers views and not just grab on a section of one post to go off on a friggin' tantrum.

 

As far as the rest of your post you never understood me then so why should I try again to clarify my position for you and waste more time. Think what you like. No one really cares.

[theist]

 

Please don't talk to me about religion in the same breath as Vaisnava. Certainly not ISKCON which has managed to corrupt a spiritual movement into a religion that is nothing more than a Hindu church.

The number of hoops one has to jump through, all the brahminical pieties and varna-ashrama dharma distinctions and honors and qualifications are hardly the abandonment of religion, they are more the abandonment to religion.

 

"Abandonment to religion." Absolutely. Great phrase.

[Beggar]

 

Please don't talk to me about religion in the same breath as Vaisnava. Certainly not ISKCON which has managed to corrupt a spiritual movement into a religion that is nothing more than a Hindu church.

The number of hoops one has to jump through, all the brahminical pieties and varna-ashrama dharma distinctions and honors and qualifications are hardly the abandonment of religion, they are more the abandonment to religion.

 

Following (or not) the "brahminical standard" and varnasrama by Westerners or modern persons is a valid issue. But the turning of a Caitanyaite spiritual movement into "chuchianity" (Hindu chuch) can be a completely separate issue; or at least it should be open for discussion. This is my objection, if you are really interested in discussion, it doesn't help to use such a broad brush to paint your picture. Simplistic answers to reject something may really be just the opposite coin of simplistic acceptance. I don't see much value in either approach for both are equally over-simplistic. But I will admit that your "abandonment to religion" statement is quite witty.

[suchandra]

 

Jesus was a Jewish yogi. Make no mistake of this. And his life was/is a hard act to follow for a common person then or now.

 

I think Gandhi summed it up best:

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

 

 

 

 

 

x

 

Well spoken by Gandhi, however when considering how many Christians there're, not a diplomatic statement.

 

Below Prabhupada comments on Krishna is so merciful that when you, "abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me", we're immediately excused for all our sinful life.

Surely only works with a truly bona fide spiritual master.

 

Hṛdayānanda: “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.”

 

Prabhupāda: So, when you are free from sinful life and the reaction of sinful life, then you are immediately on the spiritual platform. So here Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He assures that “You simply surrender unto Me, and I immediately excuse you for all your sinful life.” So it can be done in one second. It doesn’t take much time. One second. He says “immediately.” But we don’t want that, that is the difficulty.

 

full conversation: http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/760608gc.la.htm

 

Garden Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 8, 1976, Los Angeles

[Amlesh]

 

Well spoken by Gandhi, however when considering how many Christians there're, not a diplomatic statement.

 

Well, for sure Gandhiji was not a diplomat but a Statesman, that you've made no mistake.

And i'm suppose the Mahatma was cent per cent right in his statement; the only way to be cent per cent free from any kind of frailties is when one get the know and aspire to serve Krishna.

The divine son did his job...but his followers did not get the priviledge to know about His Supreme Father.

[cbrahma]

 

Jesus was a Jewish yogi. Make no mistake of this. And his life was/is a hard act to follow for a common person then or now.

 

I think Gandhi summed it up best:

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

 

 

 

 

 

x

The same could be said of pseudo-devotees, of which there are legion, who are more interested in appearances - all the religious accoutrements of brahminical culture, wearing dhoti, quoting Sanskrit, etc., than a relationship with god.

[shvu]

 

Jesus was a Jewish yogi. Make no mistake of this. And his life was/is a hard act to follow for a common person then or now.

 

I think Gandhi summed it up best:

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

x

 

And the Buddhists are unlike Buddha, Hare krishnas are unlike Krishna...

 

Why should they be like their religious icons? If the christians are like christ, then why will they bother to follow him?

 

Isnt this this just a case of Gandhi blabbering? Many people when they get famous, get into the habit of making statements just for the sake of saying something as there are people around them recording their statements for posterity. And quite of a few of such statements turn out to be stupid.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

If you weren't so new to this forum you would be more familar with writers views and not just grab on a section of one post to go off on a friggin' tantrum.

 

As far as the rest of your post you never understood me then so why should I try again to clarify my position for you and waste more time. Think what you like. No one really cares.

 

I care. So logically, that proves you wrong.

 

You as usual ducked from responding to the hard part by accusing Raghu of throwing tantrums. But that is OK....You are what you are, and you can only think and act the way you are wired. If you are still posting here in 2011 and then 2015 and then 2020, you will still be thinking and acting the the exact same way. Respond to posts in detail, when they are easy, and when they are challenging, accuse the poster of inappropriate writing and escape. But then like I said, you are what you are.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

Kool Jude....

It's a spiritual forum, not a Marial Art one

[Kulapavana]

 

The following teaching of Lord Jesus Christ is not unlike the demand from Krsna that Arjuna choose His Actual Self while rejecting all varieties of religion.

 

 

That verse is not speaking about rejecting religions. How many religions do you think Arjuna had? The verse is speaking about rejecting customary material obligations (dharmas) in order to fully surrender to the will of God.

 

The biblical story you quote is about the power of faith, and thus the two are not quite the same

[Kulapavana]

 

The first rule of religion is to falsely identify the self as linked to the hierarchy of that religious system. This ends all hope of hearing from the Vaisnava Acarya.

 

And how do you know who is a Vaishnava acharya? You must accept the hierarchy of that religious system, because the acharya is at the top of it... thus your argument makes no sense.

[Dark Warrior]

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

 

1) Even great devotees of Siva who plucked their eyes out in devotion are not considered Vaishnavas. What to speak of Jesus, who didn't even teach the basic knowledge of the Vedas.

 

2) Jesus talked of a loving and kind god, which may be Yahweh, Allah, Ganesha, Siva or Brahma, etc. This god is way too boring to be Krishna.

 

3) The basic principles of ahimsa, rejecting materialism are found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. Yet, none of these religions are valid.

 

4) Jesus may have shown ahimsa, but it is nothing compared to Mahavira, for instance, who even refused to wear clothes in case he hurt the germs on his body. Yet, Mahavira is a nastika, and not a Vaishnava. So how is Jesus a Vaishnava?

 

5) Sri Hari does not do anything that isn't in the sastras. Therfore, he did not 'send' Jesus or Mohammed.

 

The greatest of Christian Mystics and even Jesus could not think of God except reverentially. Yet, I myself, a jivatma caught in samsara, can think of Krishna as the mischievous child. This shows that even I am better realised than Jesus or St. Francis or St. John of the Cross ever were.

 

I will accept that ultimately, the prayers of muslims and christians do indeed go to Krishna. But that isn't because of Jesus's mediatorship or Mohammed's work. Its because there is no-one who can accept and fulfill prayers except Krishna.

 

 

Coming to the Sloka,

 

Sarva Dharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja,

Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayisyami Masuchaha.

 

There are many meanings hidden in this sloka, and it is called a 'Rahasya Mantra' (Secret Mantra) by Sri Vaishnavas due to its hidden meanings. Strictly speaking, I am not supposed to reveal it in public (against the sastras), but since we are all Vaishnavas here, I guess there is no harm.

 

I will post the meanings in another thread. It is too big to post here.

[matarisvan]

 

Haribol, from semi-retired-ville. I am not writing this topic starter to encourage the usual christian fanaticism. In fact, such fanatics actually hate delving into the actual teachings of Lord Jesus Christ.

By "actual techings of christ" you mean how you have understood it and interrpeted it along Hare Krishna lines? Obviously anyone who does not think as you do must be a fanatic.

 

Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life.

The following teaching of Lord Jesus Christ is not unlike the demand from Krsna that Arjuna choose His Actual Self while rejecting all varieties of religion.

What an ignorant way of interpreting the Bhagavad Gita. Do you really believe Krishna was telling Arjuna to give up Islam, Judaism and Hinduism? All of these three were not existing during the time of the Mahabharata. What other religions was Krishna talking about?

 

When Krsna advises Arjuna to abandon all varieties of religion, the reasons are plain. Religion is a watered down materialism that rejects "aham brahmasmi" that is incompatible with virtually any teaching of a Vaisnava. My own spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, may have utilized som reflection of hindu type practices, however, he did not teach hinduism, and did not refer to his foundation as a hindu organization.

Yes and everyone is aware of the politics behind that. Breaking away from Hnduism is not the same as becoming free from all varieties of religion when you are still holding on it with a different name. If you give up Hinduism you give up Vaishnavism. But Krishna never told Arjuna to give up all varieties of religion to begin with...so the point is moot. How many varieties was Arjuna dabbling in anyway?

 

Anyway, food for thought. I have not espoused christianity (anti-christian religion) here, so I hope all the anti-christs will not bother with this thread. I do not cast pearls before swine.

Haribol, hope all are well, ys, mahaksadasa

But you have espoused an ignorant view of the Bhagavad Gita and your holier than thou attitude and your completely bogus view of Hinduism, Vaishnavism and the relation between the two.

Not much progress for someone who has already reached semi-retirement.

[matarisvan]

 

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

 

The only reason anyone would connect Jesus to Vaishnavism is if that person has a christian background. Other than this, there is no reason at all.

 

Prabhupada was aware that the Christians of America would have a hard time giving up Christ and switching over to a Pagan, idol worshipping belief from India. To solve these problems, he told them Jesus was a Vaishnava (with no basis in fact) and Vaishnavas were not Hindus (completely untrue).

 

He told them what they wanted to hear and his ploy worked well. The result is we have theists and mahaks here who go on and on about Jesus as a Vaishnava and their grossly incorrect view of Hinduism which does not contain Vaishnavism.

[Kulapavana]

Ultimately Krsna's call to surrender to Him alone means that surrender to a guru is not a substitute for a surrender to God. A real guru will teach you how to surrender to God, not to him (guru). That is what Prabhupada was teaching, but most of his grouppie disciples missed the point, and now preach that one must surrender to their guru alone. That is a bogus conclusion which is not supported by Krsna, who says here:

 

MAM EKAM saranam vraja

[cbrahma]

Before somebody tosses around the word Vaisnava and excludes Jesus from that designation he should know what it means.

It is a very special term that literally means a devotee of Visnu. Jesus was not a disicple of Visnu, nor did he teach Vedic culture. He preached no specific culture but worship of God in Spirit and in Truth. The fussy brahminism, the caste consciousness, the incredibly complicated processes for even approaching a lesser Deity in Vedic scriptures is far removed from the Simplicity of Christ's teachings in Spirit and in Truth.

I am completely OK with the claim that Jesus is not a Vaisnava, especially since they are so rare and becoming one is about as likely as learning to levitate by practicing astanaga yoga.

[CCC]

 

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

 

1) Even great devotees of Siva who plucked their eyes out in devotion are not considered Vaishnavas. What to speak of Jesus, who didn't even teach the basic knowledge of the Vedas.

 

2) Jesus talked of a loving and kind god, which may be Yahweh, Allah, Ganesha, Siva or Brahma, etc. This god is way too boring to be Krishna.

 

3) The basic principles of ahimsa, rejecting materialism are found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. Yet, none of these religions are valid.

 

4) Jesus may have shown ahimsa, but it is nothing compared to Mahavira, for instance, who even refused to wear clothes in case he hurt the germs on his body. Yet, Mahavira is a nastika, and not a Vaishnava. So how is Jesus a Vaishnava?

 

5) Sri Hari does not do anything that isn't in the sastras. Therfore, he did not 'send' Jesus or Mohammed.

 

The greatest of Christian Mystics and even Jesus could not think of God except reverentially. Yet, I myself, a jivatma caught in samsara, can think of Krishna as the mischievous child. This shows that even I am better realised than Jesus or St. Francis or St. John of the Cross ever were.

 

I will accept that ultimately, the prayers of muslims and christians do indeed go to Krishna. But that isn't because of Jesus's mediatorship or Mohammed's work. Its because there is no-one who can accept and fulfill prayers except Krishna.

 

 

Coming to the Sloka,

 

Sarva Dharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja,

Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayisyami Masuchaha.

 

There are many meanings hidden in this sloka, and it is called a 'Rahasya Mantra' (Secret Mantra) by Sri Vaishnavas due to its hidden meanings. Strictly speaking, I am not supposed to reveal it in public (against the sastras), but since we are all Vaishnavas here, I guess there is no harm.

 

I will post the meanings in another thread. It is too big to post here.

 

are you a vaishnava? a vaishnava can't be vaishnava and antichrist at the same time. Talking about secret mantras and their meanings and you can't understand a simply thing about Lord Jesus identity?

 

Can you say us what you have against Him?

[xexon]

It might come as a shock to some of you, but mystics have been around longer than any "system" used to describe them.

 

When a person becomes a mystic, they will often attempt to explain their inner experiences through their native religion first. Jesus did this. He wasn't talking to people in India or wherever he picked this up from, he was talking to people he grew up with in another land. Judaism was his vehicle for doing so.

 

But like all mystics, there are things within the mystical experience itself which rallies against the status quo. If you're a priest or a politician, people like this are who you fear.

 

They mean change. And when they go against written scripture, they are often seen as heretics or worse.

 

 

x