Jesus and Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

On the contrary, cBrahma has just brilliantly pointed out that those who think Jesus is incompatible with Vaishnavism are Pseudovaishnavas. This means, 99.99% of traditional Vaishnavas are pseudo-, according to him.

 

His major argument is, 'Srila Prabhupada and Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura said so'. However, I have provided sufficient proof from sastra to show that it isn't supported.

 

He calls us 'pseudo'. I have been kinder and called him a moron.

I didn't call anybody a pseudo-Vaisnava except you for all sorts of obvious reasons, not the least of which is your puffed up offensive attitude over your little bit of book knowledge. You are reversing the sequence of events. You have been routinely offensive and arrogant with just about anybody who doesn't automatically accept your sectarian views. That is objectively speaking pseudo-Vaisnava. You only have yourself to blame.

[Amlesh]

 

1) I do not despise Christianity. I have Christian friends. I despise people who try to link Christianity with Vaishnavism.

 

2) Please provide me with a pramana that says Jesus was a devotee of Krishna.

 

3) Theatrics.

 

4) Very deep. How about some substance next time?

1. the feelings of despise is still there

 

2. ask Krishna Himself

 

3. Not Theatrics but purely logical, read the Gita well

 

4. I can give u that substance but you seem to be allergical to that. It reminds me of Chanakya Pandita and Krishna about, a secret should remain a secret.

[cbrahma]

 

Because the kanistha-adhikari's faith is not actually based on the statements of the Vedic literature he cannot understand the exalted position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, seated as Supersoul in everyone's heart. The essential qualification of a Vaisnava, which is to offer all respects to others, is conspicuous by it's absence in a kanistha adhikari. When one climbs to the Madhyama or second class platform he is able to understand the expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, while the kanistha adhikaris entire knowledge of the Lord is limited to the Deity.

 

Right. That applies to all atheists, agnostics, buddhists, etc.

 

But note this:

 

1) Jiva Goswami was clear that the God in everyone's hearts is Krishna.

 

2) Christians do not accept that Krishna is in their heart.

 

Get the picture?

 

And who said my realisation is limited to the deity in temples?

 

The antaryami Lord (indweller) has been shown to be an amazing avatar by none other than the great Sri Vaishnava, Thirumazhisai Alvar. He used to talk to his indwelling Lord, and once, the Lord actually manifested from His heart.

 

I have named my antaryami 'Hrishikesa'. My acharya recommended it. Like it?

 

Luke.17 (RSV)

[20] Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

[21 ] nor will they say, `Lo, here it is!' or `There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.

 

 

 

Luke 17 (KJV)

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

You pontificate ignorantly on Christianity in the same way you say I make claims about Vaisnavism. But I have practiced and studied Vaisnavism far more than you have practiced and studied Christianity, unless you were just not paying attention.

[Dark Warrior]

Let me tell you that Lord Rama Himself worshipped Lord Ranganatha of Srirangam (Lord can only worship Himself as protocol). And Lord Ranganatha is still there.

 

When you go to Srirangam, the preists will ask you to hold two pillars while looking at the Lord. That is because it is held that the Lord's eyes are so captivating that you will be completely swept away by their beauty.

 

Have you any idea of the greatness of the archa avatar? Of course, to a Christian, its 'idol worship'.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You pontificate ignorantly on Christianity in the same way you say I make claims about Vaisnavism. But I have practiced and studied Vaisnavism far more than you have practiced and studied Christianity, unless you were just not paying attention.

 

Again?

 

Shaivites believe that Shiva is in their hearts. Shaktas believe it is Devi. Ganapatyas believe it is Ganesha.

 

So what was Jesus talking about?

 

Furthermore, the 'Kingdom of God' is within you is also similar to Lord Buddha's quote:

 

'The Buddha Nature is within you. Find it.'

 

Only those who believe Krishna (and not Shiva, Ganesha, etc.) are in their hearts are Vaishnavas. Jesus did not specify his God. We cannot assume he was talking about Krishna. Christians will not accept it is Krishna.

[bija]

Anyone for a game of cricket? is it all just a game Dark. I am starting to wonder. Or are you sincere in your preaching of Sri Vaisnavism?

[Dark Warrior]

 

I didn't call anybody a pseudo-Vaisnava except you for all sorts of obvious reasons, not the least of which is your puffed up offensive attitude over your little bit of book knowledge. You are reversing the sequence of events. You have been routinely offensive and arrogant with just about anybody who doesn't automatically accept your sectarian views. That is objectively speaking pseudo-Vaisnava. You only have yourself to blame.

 

Haven't you ignored Raghu?

 

He is also a Vaishnava, in case you haven't noticed.

[guliaditya]

 

Your views don't offend me. They're your views. I don't see any proof that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism.

 

 

If u have decided to continue in unwanted debate then keep on going.

All the best to u.

 

Pranaam

[Dark Warrior]

 

Anyone for a game of cricket? is it all just a game Dark. I am starting to wonder. Or are you sincere in your preaching of Sri Vaisnavism?

 

If you notice, I place my flawless points quite harshly. Perhaps, the harshness can be done away with, but it hardly diminishes my case.

 

I am a Sri Vaishnava, a Ramanuja Dasa. Trust me.

[bija]

okie dokes...just making sure...to see if I should converse with you;)

 

only people I trust are me and my dog:rolleyes:

[Dark Warrior]

Let me enlighten cBrahma of the greatness of Archa Avatara. A Sri Vaishnava acharya, Sri Parasara Bhattar refused to go to Vaikuntha because he wanted to stay with Lord Ranganatha in Srirangam.

 

There is a great deal of theory behind the worship of Archa Moorthy(sanctified icon). Firstly let me clear up one basic question. Some people are of the opinion that the Vedas do not say anything about icon/idol worship. They say that these are later developments. This view is not correct. The great Vedanta Desika , in his work Satcharita Raksha has quoted in detail passages from the Atharva Veda, which give instructions about how to make idols and how to install and sanctify them. Some people also believe that there are passages in the Upanishads, which approve temple worship. Finally, the Pancha Ratra samhita, which is in fact, a part of the Vedas, tells us the rationale of the Archa Moorthy.

 

When an idol is properly made according to the instructions in the Agamas and then installed strictly as per the procedure given in the scriptures and then sanctified with chanting of the mantras from the Vedas, God, in his mercy enters the idol with his Suddha Sattva sarira.(Suddha Sattva is the material which constitutes the objects in Sri Vaikunta.) The presence of God in the idol becomes many times more than the metal or stone content of the idol. Therefore, what we see and worship is not a figure, which is made of stone or metal. It is God himself who has taken that particular form so that we can worship him easily. This called the Archa form of God. In fact it can be called an incarnation of God. It is important to note that when worshipping God in his Archa form, one should NOT think that one is worshipping something made of metal or stone. To do so is a bad sin. One must remember that God has taken the Archa avatara out of mercy for us and think and behave accordingly.

 

Let us go a little bit deeper in to the Pancha Ratra sastra. It talks of five different manifestations of Sriman Narayana, The supreme Lord. The first one is his Para form. This refers to his infinite aspect. It also refers to the Para Vasudeva form in which he is present in Sri Vaikunta, his eternal abode. The second is his three Vyuha aspects. These are for creation, maintenance and dissolution. The next one is Vibhava. This refers to his incarnations such as Rama, Krishna, etc. The fourth one is Antaryami. This refers to the God present in the Heart. The final one, which is the most important as far as we are concerned, is the Archa avatara described above.

 

This statement can be illustrated by an example. Let us imagine that there is a man stranded in a remote place. He is thirsty and wants water. Where should he look for water? He knows astronomy. He knows that there is a lot of water in outer space and in the Milky Way in space. But these sources of water are of no use to him. Similarly, the Para and Vyuha aspects of Sriman Narayana are of no use to a man who wants to experience him right here. Taking the Vibhava or Avatar aspect, this is like a seasonal stream, in which water is present only during the rainy season. During the rest of the year, it will be dry. Similarly, Avatars last only for limited periods. Unless one is present while an Avatar is going on, they are of no use to us. The probability of our being present during an Avatar is low.

 

Let us go back to our thirsty friend. Shall we ask him to dig a Well and drink water from it? It is very unlikely that he will have the stamina and patience for the job. After all he is already very thirsty! Viewing the Antaryami is equally difficult.

 

The thirsty man is left with only one choice. He has to find a pool or tank of water and his problems are solved! He can quench his thirst without any difficulty. The Archa Avatar is like a readily available pool of water. This shows its greatness as well as its easy accessibility. This is why most Alwars have sung numerous hymns in praise of Archa moorthys in holy centres. (Punya Kshetras). A lot more can be written on this topic. However, I am stopping here. Please contact me if you want to know more.

 

There is a great deal of scientific metaphysics in the design, construction and operation of temples. This subject is dealt with in great detail in Agama scriptures. (e.g, Pancha Ratra Agama).

If a person goes to temple with Bhakthi and strictly adheres the rules to be followed when visiting temples, then, by the time he reaches the Sanctum Sanctorum, all negative thoughts will be driven out of his mind and he will be able to have divine experience.

[cbrahma]

 

Again?

 

Shaivites believe that Shiva is in their hearts. Shaktas believe it is Devi. Ganapatyas believe it is Ganesha.

 

So what was Jesus talking about?

 

Furthermore, the 'Kingdom of God' is within you is also similar to Lord Buddha's quote:

 

'The Buddha Nature is within you. Find it.'

 

Only those who believe Krishna (and not Shiva, Ganesha, etc.) are in their hearts are Vaishnavas. Jesus did not specify his God. We cannot assume he was talking about Krishna. Christians will not accept it is Krishna.

You keep comparing Christianity to Shaivites which is ok since there are similarities between all bona fide religions. If we carry the analogy further, then Jesus is like Siva, and since Siva is a Vaisnava, then so is Jesus. What is your point?

Because Jesus didn't actually say Krsna, he's not a Vaisnava? That is a philosophically narrow point of view, not in keeping with the GV acaryas. I tire of quoting them, because you dismiss and misrepresent them to accomodate your trivialization of Vaisnavism as a religious sect. Maybe it's an Indian thing.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You keep comparing Christianity to Shaivites which is ok since there are similarities between all bona fide religions. If we carry the analogy further, then Jesus is like Siva, and since Siva is a Vaisnava, the so is Jesus. What is your point?

 

Shiva is a Vaishnava. But Shaivites worship Shiva as the Supreme Lord. There is no one above Shiva and Vishnu is called a demigod by Shaivites. This means, they lack jnana.

 

Shiva is a Vaishnava, but he is not a Bhagavata by the way.

 

Similarly, Jesus may have studied the Vedas, and he may have come to the conclusion that Shiva is Supreme. Therby, God the Father is Shiva.

 

Adi Sankara was a Vaishnava advaitin. Even he condemned Shaivism.

 

 

Because Jesus didn't actually say Krsna, he's not a Vaisnava? That is a philosophically narrow point of view, not in keeping with the GV acaryas. I tire of quoting them, because you dismiss and misrepresent them to accomodate your trivialization of Vaisnavism as a religious sect. Maybe it's an Indian thing.

 

Let's see:

 

1) Jesus did not say Krishna. Which means, he could have been a Shaivite or a Shakta.

 

2) Jesus is not in scriptures.

 

3) No acharya prior to the 20th century has ever eulogised Jesus.

 

4) The basic mantras like 'OM', or concepts of reincarnation (details, not hints) are missing.

 

So, the logical conclusion is that Jesus is not Vaishnava, and he may not even be Vedic. To assume that the God is Krishna is indeed far-fetched.

 

Raghu is a Gaudiya Vaishnava and he has clearly pointed out that no Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya endorses your views. Take him off your ignore list and argue with him if you have the courage to do so.

[Amlesh]

Sorry to all of you if I've said something wrong.

 

Anyways, my mistake, after seeing the title only I should have refrained myself in adding my views.

 

It is my last post for this thread and I admit my frailties.

[cbrahma]

 

Shiva is a Vaishnava. But Shaivites worship Shiva as the Supreme Lord. There is no one above Shiva and Vishnu is called a demigod by Shaivites. This means, they lack jnana.

 

Shiva is a Vaishnava, but he is not a Bhagavata by the way.

 

Similarly, Jesus may have studied the Vedas, and he may have come to the conclusion that Shiva is Supreme. Therby, God the Father is Shiva.

 

Adi Sankara was a Vaishnava advaitin. Even he condemned Shaivism.

 

 

 

Let's see:

 

1) Jesus did not say Krishna. Which means, he could have been a Shaivite or a Shakta.

 

2) Jesus is not in scriptures.

 

3) No acharya prior to the 20th century has ever eulogised Jesus.

 

4) The basic mantras like 'OM', or concepts of reincarnation (details, not hints) are missing.

 

So, the logical conclusion is that Jesus is not Vaishnava, and he may not even be Vedic. To assume that the God is Krishna is indeed far-fetched.

 

Raghu is a Gaudiya Vaishnava and he has clearly pointed out that no Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya endorses your views. Take him off your ignore list and argue with him if you have the courage to do so.

 

We read from Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto Four, Chapter Four: “Sati Quits Her Body.”

TEXT 22

naitena dehena hare krtagaso

dehodbhavenalam alam kujanmana

vrida mamabhut kujana-prasangatas

taj janma dhig yo mahatam avadya-krt

SYNONYMS

na—not; etena—by this; dehena—by the body; hare—to Lord Siva; krta-agasah—having committed offenses; deha-udbhavena—produced from your body; alam alam—enough, enough; ku-janmana—with a contemptible birth; vrida—shame; mama—my; abhut—was; ku-jana-prasangatah—from a relationship with a bad person; tat janma—that birth; dhik—shameful; yah—who; mahatam—of the great personalities; avadya-krt—an offender.

TRANSLATION

You are an offender at the lotus feet of Lord Siva, and unfortunately I have a body produced from yours. I am very much ashamed of our bodily relationship, and I condemn myself because my body is contaminated by a relationship with a person who is an offender at the lotus feet of the greatest personality.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

Lord Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. It is stated, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. Sambhu, Lord Siva, is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. In the previous verses, Sati has described that Lord Siva is always in a transcendental position because he is situated in pure vasudeva. Vasudeva is that state from which Krsna, Vasudeva, is born, so Lord Siva is the greatest devotee of Lord Krsna, and Sati’s behavior is exemplary because no one should tolerate blasphemy against Lord Visnu or His devotee. Sati is aggrieved not for her personal association with Lord Siva but because her body is related with that of Daksa, who is an offender at Lord Siva’s lotus feet. She feels herself to be condemned because of the body given by her father, Daksa.

 

[cbrahma]

 

Let me enlighten cBrahma of the greatness of Archa Avatara. A Sri Vaishnava acharya, Sri Parasara Bhattar refused to go to Vaikuntha because he wanted to stay with Lord Ranganatha in Srirangam.

 

There is a great deal of theory behind the worship of Archa Moorthy(sanctified icon). Firstly let me clear up one basic question. Some people are of the opinion that the Vedas do not say anything about icon/idol worship. They say that these are later developments. This view is not correct. The great Vedanta Desika , in his work Satcharita Raksha has quoted in detail passages from the Atharva Veda, which give instructions about how to make idols and how to install and sanctify them. Some people also believe that there are passages in the Upanishads, which approve temple worship. Finally, the Pancha Ratra samhita, which is in fact, a part of the Vedas, tells us the rationale of the Archa Moorthy.

 

When an idol is properly made according to the instructions in the Agamas and then installed strictly as per the procedure given in the scriptures and then sanctified with chanting of the mantras from the Vedas, God, in his mercy enters the idol with his Suddha Sattva sarira.(Suddha Sattva is the material which constitutes the objects in Sri Vaikunta.) The presence of God in the idol becomes many times more than the metal or stone content of the idol. Therefore, what we see and worship is not a figure, which is made of stone or metal. It is God himself who has taken that particular form so that we can worship him easily. This called the Archa form of God. In fact it can be called an incarnation of God. It is important to note that when worshipping God in his Archa form, one should NOT think that one is worshipping something made of metal or stone. To do so is a bad sin. One must remember that God has taken the Archa avatara out of mercy for us and think and behave accordingly.

 

Let us go a little bit deeper in to the Pancha Ratra sastra. It talks of five different manifestations of Sriman Narayana, The supreme Lord. The first one is his Para form. This refers to his infinite aspect. It also refers to the Para Vasudeva form in which he is present in Sri Vaikunta, his eternal abode. The second is his three Vyuha aspects. These are for creation, maintenance and dissolution. The next one is Vibhava. This refers to his incarnations such as Rama, Krishna, etc. The fourth one is Antaryami. This refers to the God present in the Heart. The final one, which is the most important as far as we are concerned, is the Archa avatara described above.

 

This statement can be illustrated by an example. Let us imagine that there is a man stranded in a remote place. He is thirsty and wants water. Where should he look for water? He knows astronomy. He knows that there is a lot of water in outer space and in the Milky Way in space. But these sources of water are of no use to him. Similarly, the Para and Vyuha aspects of Sriman Narayana are of no use to a man who wants to experience him right here. Taking the Vibhava or Avatar aspect, this is like a seasonal stream, in which water is present only during the rainy season. During the rest of the year, it will be dry. Similarly, Avatars last only for limited periods. Unless one is present while an Avatar is going on, they are of no use to us. The probability of our being present during an Avatar is low.

 

Let us go back to our thirsty friend. Shall we ask him to dig a Well and drink water from it? It is very unlikely that he will have the stamina and patience for the job. After all he is already very thirsty! Viewing the Antaryami is equally difficult.

 

The thirsty man is left with only one choice. He has to find a pool or tank of water and his problems are solved! He can quench his thirst without any difficulty. The Archa Avatar is like a readily available pool of water. This shows its greatness as well as its easy accessibility. This is why most Alwars have sung numerous hymns in praise of Archa moorthys in holy centres. (Punya Kshetras). A lot more can be written on this topic. However, I am stopping here. Please contact me if you want to know more.

 

There is a great deal of scientific metaphysics in the design, construction and operation of temples. This subject is dealt with in great detail in Agama scriptures. (e.g, Pancha Ratra Agama).

If a person goes to temple with Bhakthi and strictly adheres the rules to be followed when visiting temples, then, by the time he reaches the Sanctum Sanctorum, all negative thoughts will be driven out of his mind and he will be able to have divine experience.

Your usual illogic. I never said or even implied I had a problem with arca vigraha. I was quoting Jiva Goswami. Take it up with him. You seem to think you are peers anyways.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Your usual illogic. I never said or even implied I had a problem with arca vigraha. I was quoting Jiva Goswami. Take it up with him. You seem to think you are peers anyways.

 

I am not going to 'take it up' with Jiva Goswami. He certainly was a Vaishnava acharya who had great love for Puri Jagannath (the Lord most dear to Gaudiyas).

 

You were the one who said Antaryami is greater than Archa. I showed you why its not. If gaudiyas disagree with it, its a philosophical difference between two Vaishnava schools. And that's a common thing, so no big deal.

[Dark Warrior]

my body is contaminated by a relationship with a person who is an offender at the lotus feet of the greatest personality.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

Lord Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. It is stated, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. Sambhu, Lord Siva, is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. In the previous verses, Sati has described that Lord Siva is always in a transcendental position because he is situated in pure vasudeva. Vasudeva is that state from which Krsna, Vasudeva, is born, so Lord Siva is the greatest devotee of Lord Krsna, and Sati’s behavior is exemplary because no one should tolerate blasphemy against Lord Visnu or His devotee. Sati is aggrieved not for her personal association with Lord Siva but because her body is related with that of Daksa, who is an offender at Lord Siva’s lotus feet. She feels herself to be condemned because of the body given by her father, Daksa.

 

Shall I call you a moron again?

 

What has this got to do with Shaivism?

 

Shaivism, or worship of Shiva as supreme, is unvedic, irrespective of Shiva's status. All Vaishnava acharyas have condemned it.

 

Shiva Purana is tamasic, ie, in the mode of ignorance.

 

Jesus could be a Shaiva, a Ganapatya or a Shaktya. He could even have been a Buddhist (judging by the gnostic gospels).

 

Here I see your hypocrisy again. So, now you want me to believe that Shaivas are Vaishnavas, so Jesus is a Vaishnava as well?

 

Shiva is a Deva. Equating a Deva with Vishnu is an offense. Shaivites are offenders.

[cbrahma]

 

I am not going to 'take it up' with Jiva Goswami. He certainly was a Vaishnava acharya who had great love for Puri Jagannath (the Lord most dear to Gaudiyas).

 

You were the one who said Antaryami is greater than Archa. I showed you why its not. If gaudiyas disagree with it, its a philosophical difference between two Vaishnava schools. And that's a common thing, so no big deal.

I did not even mention Antaryami. Your logical faculties are amazingly deficient. Now disagreement is no big deal, as long as you have decided that they hold the enviable title of vaisnava. I actually have no problem with the analogy that Christians are like Shaivites because Jesus and Lord Siva have an important quality in common - compassion for the most fallen. It occurs to me however that is Lord Caitanya's most salient characteristic and by implication , ought to be for the Gaudiya Vaisnava.

[Dark Warrior]

I think everyone can see the lack of logic in cBrahma's posts. My point is clearly established.

 

Jesus was a philosopher/mystic who could have had some Vedic Connections. He could have worshipped a Vedic God, or he could have simply formulated his own ideas on God. If he was a Shaivite or a Shakta, he cannot be a Vaishnava. There is no proof to show he was a Vaishnava.

 

Such a simple fact. Yet, it is so difficult for cBrahma to understand this.

[cbrahma]

 

my body is contaminated by a relationship with a person who is an offender at the lotus feet of the greatest personality.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

Lord Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. It is stated, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. Sambhu, Lord Siva, is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. In the previous verses, Sati has described that Lord Siva is always in a transcendental position because he is situated in pure vasudeva. Vasudeva is that state from which Krsna, Vasudeva, is born, so Lord Siva is the greatest devotee of Lord Krsna, and Sati’s behavior is exemplary because no one should tolerate blasphemy against Lord Visnu or His devotee. Sati is aggrieved not for her personal association with Lord Siva but because her body is related with that of Daksa, who is an offender at Lord Siva’s lotus feet. She feels herself to be condemned because of the body given by her father, Daksa.

 

Shall I call you a moron again?

 

What has this got to do with Shaivism?

 

Shaivism, or worship of Shiva as supreme, is unvedic, irrespective of Shiva's status. All Vaishnava acharyas have condemned it.

 

Shiva Purana is tamasic, ie, in the mode of ignorance.

 

Jesus could be a Shaiva, a Ganapatya or a Shaktya. He could even have been a Buddhist (judging by the gnostic gospels).

 

Here I see your hypocrisy again. So, now you want me to believe that Shaivas are Vaishnavas, so Jesus is a Vaishnava as well?

 

Shiva is a Deva. Equating a Deva with Vishnu is an offense. Shaivites are offenders.

It has to do with lord siva - now stay with here-- Shaivites worship Siva- See the connection?

[Dark Warrior]

 

I did not even mention Antaryami. Your logical faculties are amazingly deficient. Now disagreement is no big deal, as long as you have decided that they hold the enviable title of vaisnava. I actually have no problem with the analogy that Christians are like Shaivites because Jesus and Lord Siva have an important quality in common - compassion for the most fallen. It occurs to me however that is Lord Caitanya's most salient characteristic and by implication , ought to be for the Gaudiya Vaisnava.

 

Moron, Shiva may be a Vaishnava but his followers who worship him as supreme are not Vaishnavas. Shiva acquired a boon from Vishnu wherby all those who were in the mode of ignorance would worship him.

 

Shaivites won't get moksha. Similarly, Christians won't. Unless the Lord by His independence gives them moksha.

 

What sort of stupid logic is this?

 

A Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu. PERIOD.

[Dark Warrior]

 

It has to do with lord siva - now stay with here-- Shaivites worship Siva- See the connection?

 

Vaishnava - Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu.

 

Shaiva - Shiva is supreme. Vishnu is a demigod.

 

Tell me, are you completely off your rocker? Talk about a Jesus fanboy, you will do anything to play up your idol.

[cbrahma]

 

I think everyone can see the lack of logic in cBrahma's posts. My point is clearly established.

 

Jesus was a philosopher/mystic who could have had some Vedic Connections. He could have worshipped a Vedic God, or he could have simply formulated his own ideas on God. If he was a Shaivite or a Shakta, he cannot be a Vaishnava. There is no proof to show he was a Vaishnava.

 

Such a simple fact. Yet, it is so difficult for cBrahma to understand this.

A simple fact. Because you say so? You offer nothing in the way of proof. You speak like your own authority, whereas I in my moronic way keep quoting the acaryas, which you reinterpret to your own purpose.

I will accept the possibility that Jesus has connection with Vedanta and even Shaivism, but Christianity is not demigod worship. Jesus in no way suggests worshipping in the temple is the highest thing. He stresses worshipping in Spirit and in Truth.

[Dark Warrior]

Only advaitins hold that Vishnu and Shiva are the same.

 

I think cBrahma is most suited for advaita. Because you can worship Jesus, Shiva, or even a cat or dog and get moksha, according to that philosophy.