Hare Christians?

[bija]

Here is some of my thoughts from another thread. Open dialogue on these points may be worthy of discussion. But please, do try to keep personal insults to a minimum. Thx.

 

 

Click here for the original thread discussion - is mukti a myth?

 

This idea of salvation seems to be well built into abrahamic faiths. Is the abrahamic concept of salvation necessary for all? I think not.

 

Maybe Srikanth, the vedic concept of mukti, and the abrahamic concept of salvation, have some key fundamental differences.

 

I am not qualified or studied enough to go into specifics about fundmamental differences. But one can see that processes do vary, by observing the practicioners of the various faiths. And the natures they have developed. And their behaviours, word usage, practices etc.

 

Some on this forum like to class people like myself as, Hare Christians. So in this regard I just mentioned, they may well be right! If one is self-honest, that he is not yet on the transcendental platform, such may be the case, and criticism accepted. Such a devotees faith may be influenced by the modes of material nature. As long as one is aware of that, his progress is sure (for he has acknowledged a higher principle than his current nature and station). If he is not aware, or denies it due to pride, then his religion may be nothing but a dividing point. And as history has proven, sometimes even quite dangerous.

 

Those who are critical (of neophytes) and their current station, may need to see that each living being is on the progressive path, one way or another. And that such a development is sanctioned by the grace of God.

 

There is a Bhagavad Gita verse in this regard:

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Chapter 17 verse 3

sattvanarupa sarvasya

sraddha bhavati bharata

sraddha-mayo yam puruso

yo yac-chraddhah sa eva sah

 

O son of Bharata, according to one's existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

So really, unless one gets to the transcendental position, his faith may be still influenced by the material modes (of goodness, passion, and or ignorance) depending. by bija

Pure bhakti in the Gaudiya tradition is said to be in the stage of suddha-sattva, not influenced by the material modes. Transcendental. If one has studied the Gaudiya sastras he will understand whether his devotion is suddha-sattva or not. Just as he will understand whether he is chanting suddha (pure) Name or not.

 

If the Hare Christian still has desires for salvation, it is not suddha-bhakti. But motivated bhakti.

[suchandra]

 

 

Pure bhakti in the Gaudiya tradition is said to be in the stage of suddha-sattva, not influenced by the material modes.

Since there would be today no Vaishnavism possible in the West without Abrahamic pioneer work, it is of course kind of primitive and artificial move trying to redline and exclude Abrahmic teaching from the path of pure bhakti.

 

Rather the great acaryas like Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura always taught how to dovetail and not to compulsively eradicate things which are in fact part of present Vaishnavism.

 

Can a sannyasi say, I reject my mother because she's a woman? Without his mother he could have never become a learned renunciate. So these are foolish ideas, we find nowhere in the Vedas.

 

Since the acaryas even teach that Lord Jesus is a great devotee of the Lord, we find our so called advanced spiritual position immediatey in the camp of aparadhi when debasing and villyfying those who see things in proper context as Hare Christians.

[bija]

I firmly believe people make a mistake when they reject that which has been an integral part of one's journey back to home. Personally I see all these things as integral to God's loving grace and kindness, and master plan to bring us home. I am of the opinion that if such things are rejected, that may be a symptom of lack of spiritual depth and vision.

 

Pure bhakti can definately be found in various traditions, but not in this material condition some of us find ourselves in (the mind). Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Prabhupada knew the universal application of simple, selfless, devotion free of the modes, and understood the need for gradual progression toward transcendent vision.

 

The above post is my own encounter and experience, and by no means do I suggest applicable to all people.

 

 

Since there would be today no Vaishnavism possible in the West without Abrahamic pioneer work, it is of course kind of primitive and artificial move trying to redline and exclude Abrahmic teaching from the path of pure bhakti.

If these views do not fit into the common vaisnava interpretation then so be it. We were never all expected to fit into one mould. I agree with your above quote.

 

We must remember Srila Prabhupada did say, christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim etc are all material designations. Why? Because the designation is influenced by the modes.

[bija]

 

So really, unless one gets to the transcendental position, his faith may be still influenced by the material modes (of goodness, passion, and or ignorance) depending. by bija

 

We must remember Suchandra Srila Prabhupada did say, christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim etc are all material designations. Why? Because the designation is influenced by the modes. bija

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 17.3

sattvānurūpā sarvasya

śraddhā bhavati bhārata

śraddhā-mayo 'yaḿ puruṣo

yo yac-chraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ

 

SYNONYMS

sattva-anurūpā — according to the existence; sarvasya — of everyone; śraddhā — faith; bhavati — becomes; bhārata — O son of Bharata; śraddhā — faith; mayaḥ — full of; ayam — this; puruṣaḥ — living entity; yaḥ — who; yat — having which; śraddhaḥ — faith; saḥ — thus; eva — certainly; saḥ — he.

 

 

TRANSLATION

O son of Bharata, according to one's existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

 

 

PURPORT

Everyone has a particular type of faith, regardless of what he is. But his faith is considered good, passionate or ignorant according to the nature he has acquired. Thus, according to his particular type of faith, one associates with certain persons. Now the real fact is that every living being, as is stated in the Fifteenth Chapter, is originally a fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. Therefore one is originally transcendental to all the modes of material nature. But when one forgets his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and comes into contact with the material nature in conditional life, he generates his own position by association with the different varieties of material nature. The resultant artificial faith and existence are only material. Although one may be conducted by some impression, or some conception of life, originally he is nirguṇa, or transcendental. Therefore one has to become cleansed of the material contamination that he has acquired, in order to regain his relationship with the Supreme Lord. That is the only path back without fear: Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If one is situated in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then that path is guaranteed for his elevation to the perfectional stage. If one does not take to this path of self-realization, then he is surely to be conducted by the influence of the modes of nature.

The word śraddhā, or "faith," is very significant in this verse. Śraddhā, or faith, originally comes out of the mode of goodness. One's faith may be in a demigod or some created God or some mental concoction. One's strong faith is supposed to be productive of works of material goodness. But in material conditional life, no works are completely purified. They are mixed. They are not in pure goodness. Pure goodness is transcendental; in purified goodness one can understand the real nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As long as one's faith is not completely in purified goodness, the faith is subject to contamination by any of the modes of material nature. The contaminated modes of material nature expand to the heart. Therefore according to the position of the heart in contact with a particular mode of material nature, one's faith is established. It should be understood that if one's heart is in the mode of goodness his faith is also in the mode of goodness. If his heart is in the mode of passion, his faith is also in the mode of passion. And if his heart is in the mode of darkness, illusion, his faith is also thus contaminated. Thus we find different types of faith in this world, and there are different types of religions due to different types of faith. The real principle of religious faith is situated in the mode of pure goodness, but because the heart is tainted we find different types of religious principles. Thus according to different types of faith, there are different kinds of worship.

 

[bija]

Since the acaryas even teach that Lord Jesus is a great devotee of the Lord.... suchandra

[suchandra]

 

We must remember Srila Prabhupada did say, christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim etc are all material designations. Why? Because the designation is influenced by the modes.

Since you insist upon presenting christian as mundane bodily designation, what about a christian who is vegetarian, chants all day the holy name of God and preaches that love of God and to 24h serve God is the highest goal in life?

 

Btw, without Christianity you wouldnt be able to read and write. Did you know that in India 400 million people are illiterate? Since you need to know how to read for studying sastra but learned how to read in a Christian school, another prove that without Christianity nobody would be Vaishnava.

 

And since Christianity made it possible that people become Vaishnavas, one shouldnt be constantly badmouthing these humble servants of Vaishnavism.

[stonehearted]

 

Since there would be today no Vaishnavism possible in the West without Abrahamic pioneer work,

Oh, has this been established as fact? I wasn't aware of that. What sort of sukriti could be created by eating the flesh of poor, slaughtered animals, especially cows?

[Bishadi]

 

what about a christian who is vegetarian, chants all day the holy name of God and preaches that love of God and to 24h serve God is the highest goal in life?

 

that is what i was thinking when seeing the thread title.

 

that a bunch of guru's 'requiring' all the chanting, specific menu, submission to them and their beliefs; they could be called Hairy Christiana's

 

Not much different, the preachers/teachers want submission to their ideals.

[AncientMariner]

 

that is what i was thinking when seeing the thread title.

 

that a bunch of guru's 'requiring' all the chanting, specific menu, submission to them and their beliefs; they could be called Hairy Christiana's

 

Not much different, the preachers/teachers want submission to their ideals.

 

 

I think the Hare Krishna Gurus claim absolute authority over required submission because their ultimate authority is Krishna and his writings which only the guru can actually understand although it does seem difficult to figure out exactly who is a guru and who is not when dealing with Vaisnava institutions and what level of freedom the student has in determining their choice of guru or wether the guru should be appointed by the institution etc..

[suchandra]

 

Oh, has this been established as fact? I wasn't aware of that. What sort of sukriti could be created by eating the flesh of poor, slaughtered animals, especially cows?

Good point, agreed, that seems the actual reason! Vaishnavas have badly failed to actually uplift struggling Christianity, because they themselves are stuck in struggling?

 

Instead we find Vaishnavas preaching, Christianity = uncurable meat eaters. Guess Prabhupada was not so unsuccessful in turning Christinas into vegetarians and always pointed out that Jesus taught "thou shallt not kill" and many things what Vaishnavas also believe.

 

Like God is the Supreme Person. But since modern Vaishnavas are so much against "material designations" like Christianity who preach to believe in a personal God, why bother, why preach to those and help them to advance?

 

When Prabhupada writes in Srimad-Bhagvatam, "Jesus Christ and Muhammad, two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe", present Vaishnava leaders say, oh, Prabhupada was a Hare Christian?

[bija]

 

Since you insist upon presenting christian as mundane bodily designation, what about a christian who is vegetarian, chants all day the holy name of God and preaches that love of God and to 24h serve God is the highest goal in life? by suchandra

There needs to be a distinction made between the bhakta and the temporary designation. Between the soul and the body.

 

In this thread I have accepted forum members criticism, that I am a Hare Christian (to open a point of discussion). An odd term really, a term with the Holy eternal name Radhey mixed with a materially designated word. True in some way, for faith mixed with the modes - my exact point off this thread. Trying in this thread to open up what the word Hare Christian word means, not trying to condemn Christianity. That is not the purpose of this thread.

 

Please read Srila Prabhupada's full purport...as to what Krsna consciousness is. There is some real gems in this purport.

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 17.3

sattvānurūpā sarvasya

śraddhā bhavati bhārata

śraddhā-mayo 'yaḿ puruṣo

yo yac-chraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ

 

SYNONYMS

sattva-anurūpā — according to the existence; sarvasya — of everyone; śraddhā — faith; bhavati — becomes; bhārata — O son of Bharata; śraddhā — faith; mayaḥ — full of; ayam — this; puruṣaḥ — living entity; yaḥ — who; yat — having which; śraddhaḥ — faith; saḥ — thus; eva — certainly; saḥ — he.

 

 

TRANSLATION

O son of Bharata, according to one's existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

 

 

PURPORT

Everyone has a particular type of faith, regardless of what he is. But his faith is considered good, passionate or ignorant according to the nature he has acquired. Thus, according to his particular type of faith, one associates with certain persons. Now the real fact is that every living being, as is stated in the Fifteenth Chapter, is originally a fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. Therefore one is originally transcendental to all the modes of material nature. But when one forgets his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and comes into contact with the material nature in conditional life, he generates his own position by association with the different varieties of material nature. The resultant artificial faith and existence are only material. Although one may be conducted by some impression, or some conception of life, originally he is nirguṇa, or transcendental. Therefore one has to become cleansed of the material contamination that he has acquired, in order to regain his relationship with the Supreme Lord. That is the only path back without fear: Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If one is situated in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then that path is guaranteed for his elevation to the perfectional stage. If one does not take to this path of self-realization, then he is surely to be conducted by the influence of the modes of nature.

The word śraddhā, or "faith," is very significant in this verse. Śraddhā, or faith, originally comes out of the mode of goodness. One's faith may be in a demigod or some created God or some mental concoction. One's strong faith is supposed to be productive of works of material goodness. But in material conditional life, no works are completely purified. They are mixed. They are not in pure goodness. Pure goodness is transcendental; in purified goodness one can understand the real nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As long as one's faith is not completely in purified goodness, the faith is subject to contamination by any of the modes of material nature. The contaminated modes of material nature expand to the heart. Therefore according to the position of the heart in contact with a particular mode of material nature, one's faith is established. It should be understood that if one's heart is in the mode of goodness his faith is also in the mode of goodness. If his heart is in the mode of passion, his faith is also in the mode of passion. And if his heart is in the mode of darkness, illusion, his faith is also thus contaminated. Thus we find different types of faith in this world, and there are different types of religions due to different types of faith. The real principle of religious faith is situated in the mode of pure goodness, but because the heart is tainted we find different types of religious principles. Thus according to different types of faith, there are different kinds of worship.</td></tr></tbody></table>

[AncientMariner]

 

When Prabhupada writes in Srimad-Bhagvatam, "Jesus Christ and Muhammad, two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe", present Vaishnava leaders say, oh, Prabhupada was a Hare Christian?

 

 

The inner sanctum of really, really highly intelligent Vaisnavas realize that Prabhupada didn't mean any of that and he was just using a preaching device to trick Muslims and Christians into becoming Hare Krishnas or so I have been told. But you have to get really, really, really intelligent to finally have this realization and only a select few ever come to this magnificent realization.

[bija]

 

The inner sanctum of really, really highly intelligent Vaisnavas realize that Prabhupada didn't mean any of that and he was just using a preaching device to trick Muslims and Christians into becoming Hare Krishnas or so I have been told. by ancient

Maybe more to the point he was trying to open up to people what transcendentalism is. Not just some further designation.

 

 

...they could be called Hairy Christiana's posted by bishadi

 

 

The Hairless Christiana...

 

 

Here are some more forum members favorite designations:

 

The happy christinas... (that one is my favorite), it was a classic by RadhaMukunda from memory

The happy krsna's...(there is alot of truth in that)

The hairy krsna's...(there is proof of that)...some greatly dislike the hair!

The happy hippies....(enough said)...was that ARJ (enough said)?

[theist]

 

Oh, has this been established as fact? I wasn't aware of that. What sort of sukriti could be created by eating the flesh of poor, slaughtered animals, especially cows?

 

Well how about the sukriti that comes from prayer, or bowing down before the representative of God?

[theist]

 

The inner sanctum of really, really highly intelligent Vaisnavas realize that Prabhupada didn't mean any of that and he was just using a preaching device to trick Muslims and Christians into becoming Hare Krishnas or so I have been told. But you have to get really, really, really intelligent to finally have this realization and only a select few ever come to this magnificent realization.

Horse***t.

 

This is the same mentality that some sannyasins of Srila Prabhupada fell into and they started preaching that really Srila Prabhupada was Krishna and his saying he wasn't was just a device to get jivas attracted to Krishna.

 

Prabhupada booted them out of Iskcon when he found out about it.

[kaisersose]

 

The inner sanctum of really, really highly intelligent Vaisnavas realize that Prabhupada didn't mean any of that and he was just using a preaching device to trick Muslims and Christians into becoming Hare Krishnas or so I have been told. But you have to get really, really, really intelligent to finally have this realization and only a select few ever come to this magnificent realization.

 

Right and if anyone disagrees it just means he or she is not really really highly intelligent.

 

Based on this, people should think twice before disagreeing - at least outwardly in public.

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

 

from the ebook Message of Godhead by Srila Prabhupada.

http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Message_of_Godhead.pdf

....real spiritualism is transcendental to the various religions that focus on the gross material body or the subtle material mind. This sanatana-dharma, the eternal

 

 

religion, is never established just for one particular people, place, or time.

 

 

It is for this reason that sanatana-dharma is also termed all-pervasive. All

 

 

other religions except the one that is known as sanatana-dharma are meant for

 

 

the culturing of physical or psychological effects.

 

 

The psychological effects of various peoples, places, and times have led us

 

 

to designate ourselves as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Congressites,

 

 

Luddites, Socialists, Bolsheviks, and so forth. Specifically in the field of

 

 

religion, we have tried to establish many varieties of ephemeral physical and

 

 

mental arrangements, varieties of denominations, according to various peoples,

 

 

places, and times. And precisely for this reason, we can envision ourselves

 

 

"changing religions." One who is a "Hindu" today may become a "Muhammadan" the

 

 

next day, or one who is a "Muhammadan" today may become a "Christian" the next

 

 

day, and so on. But when we attain transcendental knowledge and are established

 

 

in the actual, eternal religion of the actual living entity--the spirit soul--

 

 

then and then only can we attain real, undeniable peace, prosperity, and

 

 

happiness in the world. Until that time, there can be no peace and prosperity

 

 

for us, because we are not situated on the plane of sanatana-dharma, or the

 

 

eternal religion of the soul.

 

 

Being minute and thus invisible to our material eyes, the spirit soul is

 

 

called inexplicable, inconceivable, and so on. The spirit soul is nonetheless

 

 

understood to be eternal, because he is never subject to the ordeals of birth,

 

 

death, disease, and old age or to any other physical transformations. Therefore,

 

 

eternal peace and prosperity will be established only when there is vigorous

 

 

propagation of this inexplicable, eternal religion of the living spirit soul.

 

 

For then only shall we be relieved of physical transformations such as birth,

 

 

death, disease, and old age. We should always remember, however, that this

 

 

eternal religion of the soul is never bound by any physical limitation of

 

 

people, place, or time.

 

 

 

Sri Krsna wished to establish the nature of unnalloyed devotion, which is situated in pure goodness. The material nature is a mixture of three modes – goodness, passion, and ignorance. The material nature is always in flux with mixtures of these three modes. Processes such as philosophy or religion that are a mixture of these modes will never offer perfect happiness to the soul. Even if the process is situated in the material mode of goodness there will be some mixing of the lower modes. The soul needs to raise itself to pure goodness, free of the material modes. That is the message of Bhagavad Gita. Unmotivated, selfless devotional service is free of the contamination of the material modes.

[suchandra]

 

In this thread I have accepted forum members criticism, that I am a Hare Christian (to open a point of discussion).

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

The actual criticism will come from present Vaishnava institutions who see Jesus as actual thread against their presently installed spiritual level.

 

Since Christians believe that Jesus is so powerful to give guidance from within and absorb sins they consider Jesus as their diksa-guru.

 

When it comes to present Vaishnava institutions they made laws to ban any members who speak out to become disciples of Bhaktivedanta Swami.

 

In other words, the spiritual understanding of present Vaishnava institutions is that they badly failed to make a new revision, a new version of vedic siddhanta, but fully depend on taking siksa from Prabhupada, but when it comes that someone is considering to see Prabhupada not only as his siksa-guru but also his diksa-guru, he is excommunicated and told to leave.

 

What the Vaishnava institutions or "stonehearted" are de facto preaching is that worship of Lord Jesus is rather humbug, or they say, Lord Jesus has the power to initiate whereas Prabhupada, the siksa-guru of all present gurus, has no power, is unable to guide you from within and absorb your sinful reactions.

 

Since this looks rather like easy to see through arbitrariness and not like a genuine presentation of vedic knowledge, could be that therefore the only remaining answer of many is not to present intelligent reason but primitively deride Lord Jesus.

 

In other words, such folks find themselves immediately in the company of quarreling kanistha-adikari/aparadhi/mental speculators and when examining the present preaching perfomance of Western Vaishnava institutions this option could be hitting the mark.

[Bishadi]

 

I think the Hare Krishna Gurus claim absolute authority over required submission because their ultimate authority is Krishna

That is like suggesting the Pope is the authority directly from God. Or an Iman is of Allah.... etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

 

and his writings which only the guru can actually understand

seems again.... that is why equality does not exist.

 

The teachers suggest they are it and maintain the divide between truth and beliefs.

 

The greatest teacher, gives of the self for the others to know life.

 

When each can know life by the words of the guru, then he be the teacher.

 

which Guru shares life pure to all nature? That is the test!

 

 

 

 

although it does seem difficult to figure out exactly who is a guru and who is not when dealing with Vaisnava institutions and what level of freedom the student has in determining their choice of guru or wether the guru should be appointed by the institution etc..

 

a guru being appointed is the lulu............

 

no teacher is pure unless that teacher knows life (bliss) an loves enough to share without the need of things, power or to lead.........

 

ever notice the great ones NEVER ask to be the guru?

 

and when a guru even suggests they are it, and then cannot combine the knowledge of mankind for the Peace of mankind; then the mark on their fore-head becomes a bulls-eye..... as what they steal of others minds will be their ever lasting........

 

so test your guru.......... ask them for life!

[stonehearted]

 

Well how about the sukriti that comes from prayer, or bowing down before the representative of God?

What prayer? "God, give me something to eat"? It's better than nothing, I guess, but you might want to check Srila Prabhupada's response to that. Even though I thought about it, even prayed about it, when I was young, I had no clue how to pray until I read chapter 8 of the Bhagavatam's first canto.

 

Bow down? I grew up in the Methodist Church, went to a Presbyterian Church for a couple of years (until their anti-Catholic teachings in Sunday school freaked me out), and to an Episcopal church when I was a teenager. No one taught me to bow down to anyone. When I was seven, I asked our minister what God was like. He was not only stumped, but flabbergasted to encounter such a question. No one could tell us what it means to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But tithing, well, they understood that.

 

I was inherently religious from as far back as I can remember (well, maybe spiritual--I don't know), but I got nothing but cheating religion until I met Prabhupada's disciples in 1969. It was a great relief to find, in the second verse of the Bhagavatam, that cheating religion is the first thing we reject.

 

There are Christians whom I respect, who seem to have grasped the spirit of Jesus' teachings. But they're few and far between, especially in the churches.

[theist]

 

Bow down? I grew up in the Methodist Church, went to a Presbyterian Church for a couple of years (until their anti-Catholic teachings in Sunday school freaked me out), and to an Episcopal church when I was a teenager. No one taught me to bow down to anyone. When I was seven, I asked our minister what God was like. He was not only stumped, but flabbergasted to encounter such a question. No one could tell us what it means to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But tithing, well, they understood that.

 

Looks like you were in the wrong place Babhru? Sorry you had such a negative experience. I suppose in some ways I am lucky I had no contact with oraganized religion (being an atheist) and thus no negative experiences to be bitter about.

 

I see in Prabhupada's teaching a very broadminded understanding of spiritual life as well as an honest appreciation for even the slightest move towards God from any soul regardless of religious affiliation as shown in the quote below.

 

 

 

For less intelligent men, this beginning of spiritual life is essential, and only foolish men decry the establishment of such places of worship, which are required to raise the standard of spiritual attributes for the mass of people. For less intelligent persons, bowing down before the authority of the Lord, as generally done in the temples, mosques or churches, is as beneficial as it is for the advanced devotees to meditate upon Him by active service.-purport SB 1.8.19

[suchandra]

 

What prayer? "God, give me something to eat"? It's better than nothing, I guess, but you might want to check Srila Prabhupada's response to that. Even though I thought about it, even prayed about it, when I was young, I had no clue how to pray until I read chapter 8 of the Bhagavatam's first canto.

 

Bow down? I grew up in the Methodist Church, went to a Presbyterian Church for a couple of years (until their anti-Catholic teachings in Sunday school freaked me out), and to an Episcopal church when I was a teenager. No one taught me to bow down to anyone. When I was seven, I asked our minister what God was like. He was not only stumped, but flabbergasted to encounter such a question. No one could tell us what it means to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But tithing, well, they understood that.

 

I was inherently religious from as far back as I can remember (well, maybe spiritual--I don't know), but I got nothing but cheating religion until I met Prabhupada's disciples in 1969. It was a great relief to find, in the second verse of the Bhagavatam, that cheating religion is the first thing we reject.

 

There are Christians whom I respect, who seem to have grasped the spirit of Jesus' teachings. But they're few and far between, especially in the churches.

This is rather a disappointing presentation and lacking differentation between present corrupted Christianity and Jesus Christ as characterized by the acaryas, as, "great devotee of the Lord".

 

Even Seventh-Day Adventist can explain how corruption entered the Church whereas Vaishnava institutions foolishly conclude, Jesus and present Christianity is projjhita, cheating religion.

 

At least when studying the great acaryas' literarily essence we don't find this type of superficiality but instead adequate etiquette to address Lord Jesus not as cheater, but as bonafide son of God.

 

My personal advice to present Vaishnava institutions therefore is, stopp the lifestyle of aparadha/platform of kanistha and become firmly situated as madhyama-adikari as ordered by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Madhudviṣa: “The ten offenses to avoid while chanting the mahā- mantra. Number one: Blaspheming the Lord’s devotee.”

 

Prabhupāda: Now just try to understand. Any devotee of Lord should not be blasphemed. It doesn’t matter in any country. Just like Lord Jesus Christ, he is a great devotee. And even Muhammad, he’s also a devotee. It is not that because we are devotee and they are not devotee. Don’t think like that. Anyone who is preaching the glories of God, he is a devotee. He should not be blasphemed. You should be careful. Then?

Lecture & Initiation

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Seattle, October 20, 1968

[stonehearted]

 

Looks like you were in the wrong place Babhru? Sorry you had such a negative experience.

I was exactly where I needed to be. I had a need to understand God that could be filled only by Srimad-Bhagavatam, nothing less. And when I found it I was ready.

 

 

I suppose in some ways I am lucky I had no contact with oraganized religion (being an atheist) and thus no negative experiences to be bitter about.

Bitter? Hell, I'm grateful. I got what I needed from them, and when I asked hard questions directly of my pastors, at least they didn't lie. That doesn't mean I didn't see through pretense of what the Bhagavatam calls kaitava dharma. As Krishna das Kaviraja says,

 

ajnana-tamera nama kahiye ‘kaitava'

dharma-artha-kama-moksa-vancha adi saba

The darkness of ignorance is called kaitava, the way of cheating, which begins with religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation.

 

 

I see in Prabhupada's teaching a very broadminded understanding of spiritual life as well as an honest appreciation for even the slightest move towards God from any soul regardless of religious affiliation as shown in the quote below.

Yes, honest appreciation for any move toward God in order to show us what real movement toward the Godhead is. The first thing I learned from him is that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The second is that anything less than pure devotion to Krishna has no real use.

[suchandra]

 

I was exactly where I needed to be. I had a need to understand God that could be filled only by Srimad-Bhagavatam, nothing less. And when I found it I was ready.

 

 

Bitter? Hell, I'm grateful. I got what I needed from them, and when I asked hard questions directly of my pastors, at least they didn't lie. That doesn't mean I didn't see through pretense of what the Bhagavatam calls kaitava dharma. As Krishna das Kaviraja says,

ajnana-tamera nama kahiye ‘kaitava'

dharma-artha-kama-moksa-vancha adi saba

The darkness of ignorance is called kaitava, the way of cheating, which begins with religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation.

 

 

Yes, honest appreciation for any move toward God in order to show us what real movement toward the Godhead is. The first thing I learned from him is that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The second is that anything less than pure devotion to Krishna has no real use.

Looks like rather unteachable by vedic proof. Gladly the Lord has multiple device management system how to teach the unteachable.

 

Madhudviṣa: “The ten offenses to avoid while chanting the mahā- mantra. Number one: Blaspheming the Lord’s devotee.”

 

Prabhupāda: Now just try to understand. Any devotee of Lord should not be blasphemed. It doesn’t matter in any country. Just like Lord Jesus Christ, he is a great devotee. And even Muhammad, he’s also a devotee. It is not that because we are devotee and they are not devotee. Don’t think like that. Anyone who is preaching the glories of God, he is a devotee. He should not be blasphemed. You should be careful. Then?

[stonehearted]

 

This is rather a disappointing presentation and lacking differentation between present corrupted Christianity and Jesus Christ as characterized by the acaryas, as, "great devotee of the Lord".

Gee, I'm sorry you're disappointed. You must have missed my profession of admiration for real Christians, folk like Dorothy Day and Shane Claiborne. And my nod to the essence of Jesus' teachings. That's found in his instruction to love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves, and in his Sermon on the Mount. My problem is with what's presented as Christianity by churches.

 

 

Even Seventh-Day Adventist can explain how corruption entered the Church whereas Vaishnava institutions foolishly conclude, Jesus and present Christianity is projjhita, cheating religion.

Well, duh! I read a lot of Ellen G. White's stuff in the mid '70s, and I found much to admire in her thinking. You'll never be able to show where I've criticized Jesus or his teachings.

 

 

At least when studying the great acaryas' literarily essence we don't find this type of superficiality but instead adequate etiquette to address Lord Jesus not as cheater, but as bonafide son of God.

 

I've never said anywhere that Jesus is not a bona fide representative of God.