Christianity and Vaisnavism

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dark is very compassionate, he wants each and everyone on this earth to attain Moksha at one go, which is my wish also, but we are not in Alice in wonderland.

 

Sarcasm without substance is useless, Amlesh. Vedanta is based on logic, reasoning, and most importantly, Veda. Not any other text.

 

 

What you've said is true Dark, but the other routes if properly followed will lead some day or the other to Vishnu. It's a matter of the level of consiousness of every individual.

 

An animal or a plant is destined to get moksha. The only sastra given by the Lord is the Veda. Hence, following the Nitya Karmas as prescribed in Veda is the duty of all Astikas.

 

Those who do not follow these duties are Nastikas. Lord Vishnu did not give the Bible, trust me. Hence, Christians, along with Shavities, Buddhists, etc. are Nastikas.

 

If all personal religions were Astikas, its ironic that Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva accepted Advaita, Impersonalism as Vedantic, although rejecting it as a path for moksha. Yet, they condemned personal Shaivism as Nastika.

 

They will get moksha when they get a better birth. Christianity is not an authentic path. Its the Jiva who gets Moksha due to his own svarupa, as sesha to the Lord Narayana.

 

EDIT: Btw, no reason to get upset or argue, Bija and Amlesh. I am only telling you what traditional Vaishnavism is. If you finally accept that you are NOT Vaishnavas, I wouldn't be arguing with you. I have Christian friends as well, and I don't argue with them.

 

Just don't mix Vaishnavism with Christianity. You can certainly believe every path is right. Unfortunately, Vaishnavism does not say that.

[cbrahma]

 

Christianity is not an authentic path.

 

The sectarian prouncement of the Yuga.

[thehat]

Christianity is not an authentic path - Dark Warrior.

 

Dark, how can we be so sure that Christianity is not an authentic path? Many christians rebut, and say that my dear Lord Krishna is not real, and thus his prescribed path for liberation is not authentic.

Being a limited person with limited intelligence I can't draw absolute conclusions as to which path is 'correct'. Sure, I render service to Lord Krsna because I have affection for him, and most importantly faith in his words - but still, I could be taking a gamble in the sense that my path may not be authentic and in fact the christians path is authentic. And thus, if the christians path is authentic then devotees of Krishna go to hell?

 

I'm just curious of your answer. I really don't care what others say about Krsna as far as validity is concerned. It doesn't change how I feel in respect of him.

[Amlesh]

 

Sarcasm without substance is useless, Amlesh. Vedanta is based on logic, reasoning, and most importantly, Veda. Not any other text.

 

An animal or a plant is destined to get moksha. The only sastra given by the Lord is the Veda. Hence, following the Nitya Karmas as prescribed in Veda is the duty of all Astikas.

 

I'm not sarcastic but may be illogical. I admit about what you've said about Veda, but it's not a text to be decoded so easily. From time to time sages come to explain those texts according to time and circumstances and in a limited way. It happens because not everybody can understand the Vedas perfectly in this material world.

 

 

Those who do not follow these duties are Nastikas. Lord Vishnu did not give the Bible, trust me. Hence, Christians, along with Shavities, Buddhists, etc. are Nastikas.

 

True, but that does not mean we should despise them and force them to learn something which is not to their calibre. It will be detrimental for them.

 

 

If all personal religions were Astikas, its ironic that Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva accepted Advaita, Impersonalism as Vedantic, although rejecting it as a path for moksha. Yet, they condemned personal Shaivism as Nastika.

 

True again, but in some way or the other they are praying to those ones who are dear to God only. For e.g., Shiva is very dear to Hari, Buddha is an incarnation to Hari and so on. I know that what you would expect from a Vaishnav is far much higher than than of a Christian and Shaivate. But that's the rule in the material world you can never get real followers of Hari at one go in this material world. It is a settled rule, confirmed by Hari himself.

 

 

They will get moksha when they get a better birth. Christianity is not an authentic path. Its the Jiva who gets Moksha due to his own svarupa, as sesha to the Lord Narayana.

 

Jesus did what he can, I can never blame him for that. Infact i respect Him for that. I know for the followers of Jesus, it's mighty long and winding road but it's like that.

 

 

EDIT: Btw, no reason to get upset or argue, Bija and Amlesh. I am only telling you what traditional Vaishnavism is. If you finally accept that you are NOT Vaishnavas, I wouldn't be arguing with you. I have Christian friends as well, and I don't argue with them.

 

Just don't mix Vaishnavism with Christianity. You can certainly believe every path is right. Unfortunately, Vaishnavism does not say that.

As concerning me, I know that I'm not a Vaishnava. I'm always in search of one. That's why I would certainly not mind to see Yamraj one day after my death, but the only thing I'll ask Krishna is let me remember who I'm actually facing, one of His Dearest.

 

And for sure I never mix Vaishnava with Christianity. Vaishnavism is the Universal set and Christianity is an element of it.

[Dark Warrior]

My dear friend, I was simply saying that Vaishnavas do not consider Christianity as a true path. If you feel Christianity is the truth, please follow it.

[Amlesh]

 

My dear friend, I was simply saying that Vaishnavas do not consider Christianity as a true path. If you feel Christianity is the truth, please follow it.

 

I don't follow their path, but I respect what Jesus did for them, though there are things lacking in his teaching, which even Jesus confirmed about it.

[bija]

 

Btw, no reason to get upset or argue, Bija and Amlesh. post by dark

No worries mate, I am far from upset...I am enjoying the chat, listening, and learning. (I released my angst on another thread to some innocent soul a few minutes ago - bloody embarrasing:()

 

 

 

And for sure I never mix Vaishnava with Christianity. Vaishnavism is the Universal set and Christianity is an element of it. post by amlesh

Agree.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I'm not sarcastic but may be illogical. I admit about what you've said about Veda, but it's not a text to be decoded so easily. From time to time sages come to explain those texts according to time and circumstances and in a limited way. It happens because not everybody can understand the Vedas perfectly in this material world.

 

Haha...That's what Neovedantins say. If Veda was so difficult to understand, then what's the purpose of their existence?

 

You do not accept the Vaishnava acharya's explanations of the Veda, so you say it cannot be understood. I feel I certainly get its message. So does Sri Ramanuja. If nobody could understand the Veda, then there would be no Vedantic system.

 

 

True, but that does not mean we should despise them and force them to learn something which is not to their calibre. It will be detrimental for them.

 

When did I say that? I am simply asking people to be either christians or Vaishnavas. Do not mix the two and say one god gave both Bible and Veda. Vaishnavas believe Vishnu did not give Bible, Christians believe Jesus did not give Veda. Simple as that.

 

My friend, I just don't want you to confuse Vaishnavism with Christianity. They are poles apart. Unknown to Hare Krishnas, even the basic methodology of Surrender is different.

 

 

True again, but in some way or the other they are praying to those ones who are dear to God only. For e.g., Shiva is very dear to Hari, Buddha is an incarnation to Hari and so on. I know that what you would expect from a Vaishnav is far much higher than than of a Christian and Shaivate. But that's the rule in the material world you can never get real followers of Hari at one go in this material world. It is a settled rule, confirmed by Hari himself.

 

Shiva is a Vedic God. Shaivism is an unvedic religion. There is a difference.

 

Similarly, Advaita is not the philosophy of the Upanishads. But the Advaitic tradition is Vedantic.

 

 

Jesus did what he can, I can never blame him for that. Infact i respect Him for that. I know for the followers of Jesus, it's mighty long and winding road but it's like that.

 

Jesus may have been a swell chap, a kind fellow, but there's no way you can drag him into Vaishnavism and say that he provided a legitimate way.

 

 

 

As concerning me, I know that I'm not a Vaishnava. I'm always in search of one.

 

Thank You!!

 

 

And for sure I never mix Vaishnava with Christianity. Vaishnavism is the Universal set and Christianity is an element of it.

 

Christianity is not an element. It is simply too far apart.

[cbrahma]

 

My dear friend, I was simply saying that Vaishnavas do not consider Christianity as a true path. If you feel Christianity is the truth, please follow it.

Well you're one self-proclaimed Vaisnava speaking on behalf of those you have decided are the only 'true' Vaisnavas. That is already suspicious.

 

 

Haridasa Thakura said, “I am the most sinful and lowest among men. Later I shall eat one palmful of prasadam while waiting outside.”

PURPORT

Although the Hindus and Muslims lived together in a very friendly manner, still there were distinctions between them. The Mohammedans were considered yavanas, or lowborn, and whenever a Muslim was invited, he would be fed outside of the house. Although personally called by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu to take prasadam with Them, still, out of great humility, Haridasa Thakura submitted, “I shall take the prasadam outside of the house.” Although Haridasa Thakura was an exalted Vaisnava accepted by Advaita Acarya, Nityananda Prabhu and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, nonetheless, in order not to disturb social tranquility, he humbly kept himself in the position of a Muslim, outside the jurisdiction of the Hindu community. Therefore he proposed to take prasadam outside the house. Although he was in an exalted position and equal to other great Vaisnavas, he considered himself a papistha, a most sinful man, and adhama, the lowest among men. Although a Vaisnava may be very much advanced spiritually, he keeps himself externally humble and submissive.

HDG Srila Prabhupada

 

 

 

Nityananda dasa: A new caste has emerged in Baragachi consisting of people who refer to themselves as descendants of Vaisnavas. Kanistha-adhikari householders invite them and feed them in the name of Vaisnava seva. How is this to be viewed?

Babaji: Have these descendants of Vaisnavas taken up suddhabhakti?

Nityananda dasa: I don’t see suddha-bhakti in any of them. They only call themselves Vaisnavas. Some of them wear kaupinas (loincloths).

Babaji: I cannot say why is this type of practice is in vogue. It should not be done. I can only surmise that it is going on because kanistha Vaisnavas have no ability to recognize who is a true

Vaisnava.

Nityananda dasa: Do the descendants of Vaisnavas deserve any special regard?

Babaji: Honor is due for those who are actually Vaisnavas. If the descendants of Vaisnavas are pure Vaisnavas, they should be honored in proportion to their advancement in bhakti.

Nityananda dasa: What if the descendant of a Vaisnava is only a worldly man?

Babaji: Then he should be considered as a worldly man and not as a Vaisnava; he should not be honored as a Vaisnava. One should always remember the instruction given by Sriman Mahaprabhu (Siksastaka 3):

 

[bija]

 

...but I respect what Jesus did for them, though there are things lacking in his teaching, which even Jesus confirmed about it. by amlesh

Yes he did Amlesh...he said there are many things I cannot yet tell them.

 

He was self-realized. Where he is now...I do not know.

[Dark Warrior]

Realised on which God?

 

If its Vishnu, Good. But we have no proof.

 

If he was sent by Shiva, he is a Shaivite prophet. Which means, he is as unvedic as Shaivism.

 

There you go.

[Amlesh]

 

Yes he did Amlesh...he said there are many things I cannot yet tell them.

 

He was self-realized.

 

I know, he also said, after coming to his realm he'll explain the rest.

 

But even for the Christians, his realm is not easily attainable.

[Amlesh]

 

Realised on which God?

 

If its Vishnu, Good. But we have no proof.

 

If he was sent by Shiva, he is a Shaivite prophet. Which means, he is as unvedic as Shaivism.

 

There you go.

 

He said explicitly, I'm the son of God.

 

Is there 10 gods? Of course there is only one, it's Hari.

[Dark Warrior]

1) Parasara Muni clearly says in Vishnu Purana, that bharatavarsha is punya bhumi. So that negates any idea of Vishnu sending prophets to the middle east. Although yes, bhagavan can do some things that violate sastras, He never does it. Because, He feels that if He stays within sastras, His devotees will have more faith in them.

 

2) Shaivites call Shiva as Supreme God, and Shaktas call Devi as Supreme. If Jesus was a Shaivite or a Shakta, He would consider Shiva or Devi as supreme. Hence, Christianity becomes a sect of Shaktism or Shaivism.

 

Therefore, Vaishnavism is not Christianity, and the latter is also not Vaishnavism.

[bija]

 

Sure, I render service to Lord Krsna because I have affection for him, and most importantly faith in his words - but still, I could be taking a gamble in the sense that my path may not be authentic and in fact the christians path is authentic. And thus, if the christians path is authentic then devotees of Krishna go to hell? by the hat

Well I guess Dark has one good thing that helps us...he does not condemn us to hell for eternity. Such is the attractiveness of the Vedic culture.

 

I got bible bashed on the weekend by a Seventh Day Adventist, who obviously thought Krsna was a demon. Later that night I came home and put on tilaka...and I swear to God I looked in the mirror and wondered whether it was the 'mark of the beast'...I picked up my bead bag and shivered.

 

I am grateful Hat that my faith cannot be shaken by the strong will of such condemners as this sectarian christian. Its funny actually he thinks all christians are wrong too. There is very little beauty in that.

[Dark Warrior]

Obviously, a Vaishnava would consider all Christians as following a wrong faith. Did you expect Sri Ramanuja to say that Shiva or Brahma can give moksha? Nope. In fact, Sri Ramanuja went so far as to say Shaivites have tamo guna.

 

And obviously, a Christian would say Vaishnavism is false.

 

So, all I am saying is, choose a faith, or remain non-committed. Don't say you are a Vaishnava who believes that Jesus will save you, or that all Vaishnavas should accept Christianity.

[bija]

 

I know, he also said, after coming to his realm he'll explain the rest. by amlesh

 

Yes he called that the comforter. As far as I understand this is param-atma (universal internal guru).

 

It is not easy for most people hey.

[bija]

 

Don't say you are a Vaishnava who believes that Jesus will save you, or that all Vaishnavas should accept Christianity. by Dark

 

Not many on this forum are saying this kind of thing...are they?

[Dark Warrior]

The title of this thread is 'Christianity and Vaishnavism'. The thread starter says that Jesus was a Vaishnava and that those who don't accept christianity as a legitimate path are sectarian.

 

Yes, I would say many people in this forum are of this view.

[Amlesh]

 

1) Parasara Muni clearly says in Vishnu Purana, that bharatavarsha is punya bhumi. So that negates any idea of Vishnu sending prophets to the middle east. Although yes, bhagavan can do some things that violate sastras, He never does it. Because, He feels that if He stays within sastras, His devotees will have more faith in them.

 

2) Shaivites call Shiva as Supreme God, and Shaktas call Devi as Supreme. If Jesus was a Shaivite or a Shakta, He would consider Shiva or Devi as supreme. Hence, Christianity becomes a sect of Shaktism or Shaivism.

 

Therefore, Vaishnavism is not Christianity, and the latter is also not Vaishnavism.

 

1. It's your interpretation about Parasara Muni.

2. Vaishnavism gives the missing links between the different school of thoughts. That's why I say He is the Son of God [Hari].

[bija]

[Amlesh]

 

Yes he called that the comforter. As far as I understand this is param-atma (universal internal guru).

 

It is not easy for most people hey.

 

Yep... I know.

[Dark Warrior]

 

1. It's your interpretation about Parasara Muni.

 

Nope. Sorry. Ask any learned Vedantin and he will tell you what it means. According to Vedic tradition, Bharatavarsha is the Punya Bhumi for cleansing karmas. If you are a Vaishnava, you have to believe in the historicity of the Puranas and Ithihasas.

 

Please stop ducking the issues.

 

 

2. Vaishnavism gives the missing links between the different school of thoughts. That's why I say He is the Son of God [Hari].

 

I see. And what 'missing links' are they?

 

Shaivism has a tradition of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Saranagati to Shiva. Are you even aware that there are Shaivites who follow the Gaudiya Philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda?

 

There is no proof that the Christian god is Hari. Heck, Jesus in the gnostic gospels sounds like an advaitin. Once again, you are simply harboring assumptions. The concept of original sin, etc. is Unvedic.

 

Furthermore, the religions rely on the personal experience of Jesus or Mohammed, which is opposed to Vedanta. Vedantins do not accept personal experience as a valid pramana.

 

In any case, Vishnu Purana has completely negated any sort of 'divinity' for unvedic characters.

[bija]

 

Jesus in the gnostic gospels sounds like an advaitin by dark

Gnostic gospels are considered heresy by most christian schools.

 

The four gospels in the bible vary in some ways. The gospel of John seems to have similarity to buddhism in some subtle aspects. One wonders what connection the writers had to traditions of that time. Maybe the tradition did not really structure until Rome took charge.

[Amlesh]

 

Nope. Sorry. Ask any learned Vedantin and he will tell you what it means. According to Vedic tradition, Bharatavarsha is the Punya Bhumi for cleansing karmas. If you are a Vaishnava, you have to believe in the historicity of the Puranas and Ithihasas.

 

Please stop ducking the issues.

 

 

 

I see. And what 'missing links' are they?

 

Shaivism has a tradition of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Saranagati to Shiva. Are you even aware that there are Shaivites who follow the Gaudiya Philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda?

 

There is no proof that the Christian god is Hari. Heck, Jesus in the gnostic gospels sounds like an advaitin. Once again, you are simply harboring assumptions. The concept of original sin, etc. is Unvedic.

 

Furthermore, the religions rely on the personal experience of Jesus or Mohammed, which is opposed to Vedanta. Vedantins do not accept personal experience as a valid pramana.

 

In any case, Vishnu Purana has completely negated any sort of 'divinity' for unvedic characters.

 

The day you meet a real Vaishnava you tell me.

 

The way you perceive Itihaas and Puranas are your way, mine is different from you. Furthermore, it's a proof with these ideas that you have, you'll be unwilling to help any other entities with the exceptions of those who think like you.

 

Don't ask me mine, I see them as the sons of God only, even the worst of their Kind.