Lord Jesus Christ - Abandon all varieties of religion

[cbrahma]

You may dispense with Jesus as a Jewish mystic if you like. Actually Jewish mysticism has a very complex system of interpreting the universe call Kabbalah. The Essenes to which John the Baptist belonged were also a type of mystic, opposed to the priestly caste/temple system. Jesus was definitely opposed to it and said so. He had no problem, however, framing his 'mystical' experiences in terms that were not simply Judaic, but universal. He made problematic statements like 'No one comes to the Father except through Me" calling Himself the "Son of Man", also implying unambiguously that He was the Messiah.

[Kulapavana]

 

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?

 

settle down a bit, please... just because someone sees no need to buy into your concept of Jesus does not make them a bad person.

[matarisvan]

Another Christian Vaishnava...

 

 

a vaishnava can't be vaishnava and antichrist at the same time.

 

Why not? The two are not related. For your benefit and your education not identifying Jesus as a Vaishnava is not the same as being antichrist. Try not to go overboard as you christian vaishnavas have already made a big mockery on this forum of your knowledge and ability to think clearly.

 

 

Can you say us what you have against Him?

 

He has laid out his position point by point. Did you respond to his post without reading it?

[tackleberry]

Jesus never existed. So I don't see why we must believe in this non-existent entity in order to be vaishnava. Belief in the supremacy of Vishnu makes one a vaishnav. Therefore, the mythical Jesus is irrelevant to vaishnavism.

[shvu]

 

Jesus never existed. So I don't see why we must believe in this non-existent entity in order to be vaishnava. Belief in the supremacy of Vishnu makes one a vaishnav. Therefore, the mythical Jesus is irrelevant to vaishnavism.

 

The point is, even he was real, he is still not connected to Vaishnavism anymore than a Shaiva prophet.

 

Cheers

[CCC]

 

Another Christian Vaishnava...

 

 

 

Why not? The two are not related. For your benefit and your education not identifying Jesus as a Vaishnava is not the same as being antichrist. Try not to go overboard as you christian vaishnavas have already made a big mockery on this forum of your knowledge and ability to think clearly.

 

 

 

He has laid out his position point by point. Did you respond to his post without reading it?

Of course they are related Lord Jesus is a servant of the Lord, He was sent by the Lord, where is proof of this? the Bible. So if you denny a servant of God out of envy, anger or belittle him, do you think that you are pleasing God? He is sending his son for you, He is sending a Guru to you and you spit in his face, do you understand? do you understand that Christians are right when they say that Lord Jesus is the way for them? Do you understand the principle of Guru?

 

Antichrist are all who are against Lord Jesus, and if you are against him you are against God and his plan, is simply. If you are against His beloved servants you are against God, or do you think that you will reach the Lord directly or looking down on his servants? as dark warrior say, he is better than Jesus.

 

Lord Jesus is a worshiper of Vishnu, the only God, even He was sent by the Lord, in this sense He is Vaishnava, Bonafide Christian are vaishnavas because are worshipping the only worshipable Lord. The Koran the bible the vedas say that God is one, so they are worshipping diferent gods or are worshipping the same Lord?

 

So how you can say that Lord Jesus is not a vaishnava if god is one?

[tackleberry]

 

Of course they are related Lord Jesus is a servant of the Lord, He was sent by the Lord, where is proof of this? the Bible.

 

Since Vaishnavas don't accept the bible, it invariably follows that they do not accept stories about Jesus either. Therefore, belief in Jesus is totally irrelevant to Vaishnavism.

[shvu]

 

Lord Jesus is a worshiper of Vishnu, the only God, even He was sent by the Lord, in this sense He is Vaishnava, Bonafide Christian are vaishnavas because are worshipping the only worshipable Lord. The Koran the bible the vedas say that God is one, so they are worshipping diferent gods or are worshipping the same Lord?

 

So how you can say that Lord Jesus is not a vaishnava if god is one?

 

This topic has been whipped to death before, but anyway consider this.

 

1. A Shaiva prophet says Shiva is the supreme Lord

2. The Bible says Jesus came down from the Lord [unnamed]

3. There is only one God, so the unnamed Biblical God must be Shiva

4. It follows Jesus is a Shaiva, a true worshipper of Lord Shiva, the supreme Lord.

 

If you have no objections to this, then the argument you presented is correct too. If you use Vaishnava scriptures as an anchor & question the validity of Shaiva scriptures/prophets, then you must with equal rigor question the validity of a bible and a christian prophet too.

 

If you will not accept Jesus was a Shaiva worshipping the Supreme Lord Shiva, then you will have to - by the same logic - not accept Jesus as a Vaishnava either.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

One important point about the Bible saying there is only one God -

 

They are aware of other Gods, but these Gods are false and therefore their God is the only God. This is *completely* different from saying all Gods are the same one God.

 

So the Bible does not accept Vishnu as its God. Rather, it says Vishnu is a false God.

 

Cheers

[xexon]

 

You may dispense with Jesus as a Jewish mystic if you like. Actually Jewish mysticism has a very complex system of interpreting the universe call Kabbalah. The Essenes to which John the Baptist belonged were also a type of mystic, opposed to the priestly caste/temple system. Jesus was definitely opposed to it and said so. He had no problem, however, framing his 'mystical' experiences in terms that were not simply Judaic, but universal. He made problematic statements like 'No one comes to the Father except through Me" calling Himself the "Son of Man", also implying unambiguously that He was the Messiah.

 

He was Jewish, but not a product of Jewish myticism. No, Jesus got his initiation further east than Israel.

 

Don't confuse the master's words with those that wrote about him. The scriptures are written by common men who spent time with someone extraordinary. I have several problems with the way they worded things in scripture. I don't think it was with intent as much as it was lack of understanding. The is little evidence in their writings that they were anything more than scribes recording what they saw. NOT the holy men that Christianity has made them out to be.

 

Universal truths are just that. They never change, but can be dressed up according to whatever culture embraces them.

 

Sometimes, even the simple truths are too much for people to comprehend, so must be broken down into stories and parables. Bite sized pieces for your mind to digest.

 

Spiritual children need smaller bites than those who are mature in spirit.

 

 

 

x

[raghu]

 

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

 

He doesn't enjoy any attention from traditional Vaishnavas. He does enjoy a lot of attention from iskcon devotees, who are supposedly Vaishnavas.

 

As far as why, we have already had extensive discussions in which the character of the Biblical god was shown to be completely unlike that of Sri Hari. We have pointed out the total absence of any evidence in the Vedas substantiating this idea that Jesus is an "empowered servant" of Vishnu and similar theories that are en vogue amongst the new-age, iskcon community. Still, for reasons that are unclear they continue to hold that the Biblical god who is partial to the Hebrews, who manipulates the Egyptians to refuse his demands, and who then subsequently hurls plagues and natural disasters to punish those same Egyptians, is the same as the chariot-driver of Arjuna who is content to merely speak the truth and let the individual living entity make up his own choice. Does Krishna punish people simply for worshipping other devas? No. Does Krishna play racial favorites? No.

 

Basically the iskcon people have some idea that the real Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are different from what their followers hold them to be, and even different from what their scriptures hold them to be. But then again they have no proof of what these religions really are. The more you press them for objective evidence, the more they will post ad hominem attacks that target your character. Theirs is not a logical position. Look at how agitated Theist became when I pointed out the contradiction in his position about non-sectarian Vaishnavism and sectarian Vedas!

 

 

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

 

I would not say that He does not do anything that is not in the sastras. I would say rather that if someone claims that He did something that is not documented in sastra, then the burden of proof is on them to show this.

 

Of course, in iskcon, the standard of proof is whatever one has heard from one's guru. In iskcon, members are taught not to ask any pointed questions of their guru. They are supposed to just accept whatever the guru says or else they are ostracized from the camp. Thus, you have "gurus" who take depression medication, "gurus" who commune wth aliens from other planets, "gurus" who advocate recognition of homosexual marriages, etc.

 

 

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.

 

I will take this opportunity to point out how the iskcon translation of the above shloka is so out of character with what iskcon people actually do. On one hand, one is supposed to "give up all varieties of religion" and yet on the other hand iskcon people talk all about jesus and read more about Bible than they do about vedanta. And then again despite giving all lip service to Jesus and non-vedic religions they say they are trying to "cultivate devotional service free of all mundane designations."

[indulekhadasi]

With all due respect to raghu, it seems he just loves to paint everyone with one brush. Don't you see how many times he criticizes ISKCON? How can an institution made by a pure devotee be at fault? The fault lies in the hearts of people INSIDE the institution. But the institution itself cannot be at fault. Especially when there are so many sincere devotees in ISKCON (some people don't like hearing this).

Look here, if I am not criticizing the Shaivites then you have no right to criticize Vaishnavas. Maybe if you read the Bhagavatam you would understand the effects of Vaishnava aparadha. Look at some of the really pure devotees in ISKCON that were here and are still here- Goura Govinda Maharaja, Bhakti Swarupa Damodara Maharaja and Radha Govinda Maharaja. I doubt raghu can find one single fault in these elevated personalities.

[matarisvan]

 

Don't you see how many times he criticizes ISKCON? How can an institution made by a pure devotee be at fault?

 

with all due respects to you. As everyone knows the institution is plagued with problems and that means the founder was not a pure devotee by your logic.

 

 

The fault lies in the hearts of people INSIDE the institution. But the institution itself cannot be at fault.

 

People who were bought in and placed in elevated positions by the Founder. People who turned out to be no better than the dregs of human society. The founder was an ordinary person who was prone to mistakes which means the institution founded by him can be at fault too as it was clearly not opened by someone who was divinely empowered. If divine empowerment was behind ISKCON and Sai baba Ashram, then we would not be hearing sex molestation cases from these organizations.

 

 

Look here, if I am not criticizing the Shaivites then you have no right to criticize Vaishnavas.

 

when you say I do you mean yourself or ISKCON as a whole? if it is the latter then you are wrong as many of your friends have taken a lot of pleasure by putting down shiva, his devotees, advaita, hinduism, and several other gaudiya groups they disagree with.

[tackleberry]

 

With all due respect to raghu, it seems he just loves to paint everyone with one brush. Don't you see how many times he criticizes ISKCON? How can an institution made by a pure devotee be at fault? The fault lies in the hearts of people INSIDE the institution. But the institution itself cannot be at fault. Especially when there are so many sincere devotees in ISKCON (some people don't like hearing this).

Look here, if I am not criticizing the Shaivites then you have no right to criticize Vaishnavas. Maybe if you read the Bhagavatam you would understand the effects of Vaishnava aparadha. Look at some of the really pure devotees in ISKCON that were here and are still here- Goura Govinda Maharaja, Bhakti Swarupa Damodara Maharaja and Radha Govinda Maharaja. I doubt raghu can find one single fault in these elevated personalities.

 

Just like Iskonites like to criticize Hindus/hinduism, others also have the right to criticize Iskcon. Or, are you suggesting that iskcon is beyond reproach? If iskconites spend more time in defending jesus than they do in studying gita, they're going to be attacked for their hypocrisy.

[Kulapavana]

 

With all due respect to raghu, it seems he just loves to paint everyone with one brush. Don't you see how many times he criticizes ISKCON?

 

Didi Indulekha, people criticize Iskcon because Iskcon criticizes everybody, even their closest sangas. Because Iskcon devotees go overboard in their generalizations and simplifications, many people dismiss Iskcon as a bunch of wanabe bhaktas who have very little clue of what a proper Vaishnava behavior is, or what is the standard of vedic knowledge. It all starts at home. Action and reaction.

 

Iskcon devotees don't even use a broad brush to paint others - they use spray paint

[Kulapavana]

 

People who were bought in and placed in elevated positions by the Founder. People who turned out to be no better than the dregs of human society. The founder was an ordinary person who was prone to mistakes which means the institution founded by him can be at fault too as it was clearly not opened by someone who was divinely empowered. If divine empowerment was behind ISKCON and Sai baba Ashram, then we would not be hearing sex molestation cases from these organizations.

 

 

Yes, it can be argued that Srila Prabhupada was not a very good judge of human character, because so many of his disciples turned out to be a huge disappointment. But that was because he had an incredible faith in the power of Holy Name and in the process of bhakti yoga, always hoping his disciples would eventually become purified. Yes, the mistakes were there, but there were many more great success stories. So lets try to be fair.

[raghu]

 

Didi Indulekha, people criticize Iskcon because Iskcon criticizes everybody, even their closest sangas. Because Iskcon devotees go overboard in their generalizations and simplifications, many people dismiss Iskcon as a bunch of wanabe bhaktas who have very little clue of what a proper Vaishnava behavior is, or what is the standard of vedic knowledge. It all starts at home. Action and reaction.

 

Iskcon devotees don't even use a broad brush to paint others - they use spray paint

 

Once again, here is the pompous statement that the iskcon devotee made which got this thread really hot:

 

 

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.

 

As I had mentioned, the iskconite happily criticizes Hindus but does not include members of his own camp. I have observed that no small minority of married couples in iskcon do things that are not "pure devotional service" or "attaining spiritual life" but they are not criticized. Our iskcon friend is more interested in criticizing non-iskcon people than specifically in bringing people to the level of "spiritual life."

 

"Those who live in glass houses..." It amazes me that with iskcon's history, there are people who still like to get up on their soapbox and criticize everyone else.

 

Not only are iskconites so myopic in their criticism, but even when you bring up this double standard, still the iskconites behave as if they are being persecuted. It's as if the faults of others, no matter how small, must always be the subject of public discussion by people who cannot even demonstrate any standard of brahminical behavior, while the faults of iskcon members, no matter how egregious, are always to be minimized and swept under the rug.

 

By the way, some comments were made earlier in this thread about the character/motivations of Prabhupada/ISKCON's founder. I am in now way supporting or endorsing those claims. I have not said anything about that. My focus is purely on the double-standard of criticizing Hindus while turning a blind eye towards the bad behavior of one's own camp. I also mentioned something about the whole Jesus nonsense, but anyway that is old.

[Kulapavana]

 

Not only are iskconites so myopic in their criticism, but even when you bring up this double standard, still the iskconites behave as if they are being persecuted. It's as if the faults of others, no matter how small, must always be the subject of public discussion by people who cannot even demonstrate any standard of brahminical behavior, while the faults of iskcon members, no matter how egregious, are always to be minimized and swept under the rug.

 

Prabhu, I have been fighting these attitudes from within Iskcon (as in some ways I do belong to that camp) for many years. This process will take generations. I am often aghast at the level of acrimony in various discussions among Iskcon devotees. That is a poor standard of human behavior, let alone brahminical behavior.

 

Anyway, you are not unique in your views expressed here and I know quite a few Iskcon devotees who share them. We sometimes need level headed outsiders to see our faults. Dandavat pranams...

[cbrahma]

 

As I had mentioned, the iskconite happily criticizes Hindus but does not include members of his own camp. I have observed that no small minority of married couples in iskcon do things that are not "pure devotional service" or "attaining spiritual life" but they are not criticized. Our iskcon friend is more interested in criticizing non-iskcon people than specifically in bringing people to the level of "spiritual life."

 

 

ISKCON membership is primarily Indian/Hindu.

[tackleberry]

 

ISKCON membership is primarily Indian/Hindu.

 

Iskcon never claims to be Hindu, they consider themselves different from all religions, including Hinduism. Part of the reason why they attack Hindus...if not, why would they?

[cbrahma]

 

Iskcon never claims to be Hindu, they consider themselves different from all religions, including Hinduism. Part of the reason why they attack Hindus...if not, why would they?

Really? Go to ISKCON.com. I have frequented an ISKCON temple for a year and I heard a lot of Christian-bashing and no Hindu-bashing which is the majority of the 'congregation'. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

[tackleberry]

 

Prabhu, I have been fighting these attitudes from within Iskcon (as in some ways I do belong to that camp) for many years. This process will take generations. I am often aghast at the level of acrimony in various discussions among Iskcon devotees. That is a poor standard of human behavior, let alone brahminical behavior.

 

Anyway, you are not unique in your views expressed here and I know quite a few Iskcon devotees who share them. We sometimes need level headed outsiders to see our faults. Dandavat pranams...

 

I think there's intolerance from both sides. Whilst iskconite intolerance is similar to christianity, hindu intolerance is somewhat peculiar, in that Hindus cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't share their view that all paths are valid etc. This also is intolerance, though not half as dangerous as the iskconite variety. It's more an annoying habit of the hindus to attack anyone who refuses to believe that all paths are valid.

[tackleberry]

 

Really? Go to ISKCON.com. I have frequented an ISKCON temple for a year and I heard a lot of Christian-bashing and no Hindu-bashing which is the majority of the 'congregation'. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

 

Who's feeding who? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[indulekhadasi]

 

Didi Indulekha, people criticize Iskcon because Iskcon criticizes everybody, even their closest sangas. Because Iskcon devotees go overboard in their generalizations and simplifications, many people dismiss Iskcon as a bunch of wanabe bhaktas who have very little clue of what a proper Vaishnava behavior is, or what is the standard of vedic knowledge. It all starts at home. Action and reaction.

 

Iskcon devotees don't even use a broad brush to paint others - they use spray paint

 

Although it is true that many devotees need work with being respectful to others it is not true that ALL ISKCON DEVOTEES ARE BAD. That was my only point.

[indulekhadasi]

 

with all due respects to you. As everyone knows the institution is plagued with problems and that means the founder was not a pure devotee by your logic.

 

 

 

People who were bought in and placed in elevated positions by the Founder. People who turned out to be no better than the dregs of human society. The founder was an ordinary person who was prone to mistakes which means the institution founded by him can be at fault too as it was clearly not opened by someone who was divinely empowered. If divine empowerment was behind ISKCON and Sai baba Ashram, then we would not be hearing sex molestation cases from these organizations.

 

 

 

when you say I do you mean yourself or ISKCON as a whole? if it is the latter then you are wrong as many of your friends have taken a lot of pleasure by putting down shiva, his devotees, advaita, hinduism, and several other gaudiya groups they disagree with.

 

In that case Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was also not a pure devotee.

Also please understand that often Prabhupada was pressured by his disciples to do different things- such as give sannyasa even if he himself knew that they weren't ready. Prabhupada, like Kulapavana prabhu said, was immersed in the Holy Name. So sometimes it was difficult to argue with his disciples on political topics.

 

When I was talking about being respectful to Shaivites, I was talking about myself. Nevertheless when people just talk about the whole of ISKCON like that, I will be affected. Because I am a member. But when I don't engage in activities I am being accused of, sometimes it hurts. I think you can all understand that.

 

Please forgive me for all my offenses.

indulekhadasi

 

Oh, and sorry for butting in and changing the whole topic of conversation. Please forgive me, Mahak prabhu and all the other devotees! I will also not post on this thread any longer as it seems I am agitating the mind of many people.