Smiley Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I would like to hear everyone's views on the following exchange; Hṛdayānanda: (translating) What do we think of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and other bogus persons and all these different messengers of God? Prabhupāda: They have got little advancement. Just like Mohammedans, they accept the kingdom of God, and the Buddhists, they say that this material world has to be finished. Buddhists do not give any information of the spiritual world, but they do not like this material world; they want to finish it. So every religious principle is preached according to the candidate, place and time. So if one surpasses these stages, then he can come to the higher stages of spiritual understanding. Hṛdayānanda: [break] (translating) ...take that maybe religion is simply imagination or a big business. Prabhupāda: Yes, if there is no right information, it is something like that. [break] We should try to understand what is religion. Religion means the law of God. Just like law means the rulings given by the state, that is law, similarly, religion means the rulings given by God. But if one does not know what is God, then how he can accept what is His ruling? Therefore anyone who has got very scanty knowledge of God, that kind of religion is also scanty. That is the definition in the Vedic literature. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam: [sB 6.3.19] "Dharma, or religion, means the codes or the law given by God." And the Bhagavad-gītā, the same ruling is given, law, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: [bg. 18.66] "You give up all types of man-made religion; you simply surrender unto Me." Therefore the conclusion is religion means to surrender to God. So one who is fully surrendered to God, he is religionist. (end) http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=157117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Pure love and bhakti for krisna is for the rarest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Hṛdayānanda: (translating) What do we think of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and other bogus persons and all these different messengers of God? he has already made it evident on what he thinks or wants to continue thinking -- that they are all ' bogus ' !!! unfortunately this mentality is still lingering on in present day iskcon followers of western descent .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehat Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Is Hṛdayānanda actually saying this or is he translating a question for someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 You can't make anything out of it. Prabhupada was not out to start any conflict with the other religions in the world so he was very diplomatic and gracious giving these other religions probably a lot more credibility that they deserved. You aren't going to find any over criticism of Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha coming from Sirla Prabhupada, but if you read his books you will find covert undermining of the so-called religions they founded or that have been manufactured around these figures. If you want to know what Srila Prabhupada really thinks about these other religions you can find it in his books in purports such as: SB 8.8.21 purport: We actually see that there are many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and religionists of other cults who adhere to their religious principles very nicely but are not equal to all living entities. Indeed, although they profess to be very religious, they kill poor animals. Such religion has no meaning. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.8) says: dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ puḿsāḿ viṣvaksena-kathāsu yaḥ notpādayed yadi ratiḿ śrama eva hi kevalam One may be very expert in following the religious principles of his own sect, but if he has no tendency to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his observance of religious principles is simply a waste of time. One must develop a sense of loving Vāsudeva (vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ [bg. 7.19]). The sign of a devotee is that he is a friend to everyone (suhṛdaḿ sarva-bhūtānām). A devotee will never allow a poor animal to be killed in the name of religion. This is the difference between a superficially religious person and a devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So, according to this purport, Srila Prabhupada considered non-vegetarian people of these other religions as "superficially religious". Srila Prabhupada draws the line at animal killing and non-vegetarianism. He doesn't give any credit to meat-eaters who try to pose a religious people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Prabhupada is actually being polite here. The god depicted in islamic and christian books is a jealous and vengefull one. <b>Krishna is not a jealous god. In my book a jealous and vengeful god is no god</b>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Btw, Buddha never said he is god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Islam is really a total impersonalism, not much different from Mayavada school. I find it curious Prabhupada would consider it to be Vaishnavism: Srila Prabhupada: Islam is also Vaishnavism. Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaishnavism. Srila Prabhupada: No, no. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talked with the Pathanas (Muslims). He proved that "Yourreligion is Vaishnavism." (Moraing walk. Bombay, 17/02/74) Srila Prabhupada: Then Islam is Vaishnava dharma (religion) in a crude form like Christianity. (Room conversation. Tehran, 14/03/75) In his exchanges with Kazi, Mahaprabhu actually challenged the impersonalistic ideas of the Islam and did not equate that religion with Vaishnavism. He said: CC Ādi 17.167: "There are many mistakes and illusions in your scriptures. Their compilers, not knowing the essence of knowledge, gave orders that were against reason and argument." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Kulapavana, Prabhupada is known to be politically correct, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Idol worship is an integral part of Vaishnavism, which is a big no-no for the faceless Allah, Mohamed, and his followers - a crime punishable by death. It is impossible for Chaitaya or anyone else to prove that Islam = Vaishnavism. It is only possible if one takes the position that anything = anything. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think the idea that Srila Prabhupada was trying to convey is that Christians and Muslims both believe that God is a person, even though it is against their beliefs that God's actual form can be seen or known by man. They believe that God is a person, but they don't believe that he has revealed his form or his actual personal features to man. So, the idea is that anyone who accepts that God is a person as opposed to an impersonal spirit is on the platform of Vaishnavism as a believer in a personal God. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. I can accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think the idea that Srila Prabhupada was trying to convey is that Christians and Muslims both believe that God is a person, even though it is against their beliefs that God's actual form can be seen or known by man. In Islam, the idea that Allah is a person is a blasphemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Kulapavana, Prabhupada is known to be politically correct, sometimes. Yes, this is how I understand his comments on Islam. However, most of his followers take such comments as plain truth and 'siddhanta' - thus concocting a doctrine which is illogical and contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think the idea that Srila Prabhupada was trying to convey is that Christians and Muslims both believe that God is a person, even though it is against their beliefs that God's actual form can be seen or known by man. They believe that God is a person, but they don't believe that he has revealed his form or his actual personal features to man. So, the idea is that anyone who accepts that God is a person as opposed to an impersonal spirit is on the platform of Vaishnavism as a believer in a personal God. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. I can accept that. You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are... To view Allah as a person is to invite his wrath - and the wrath of his followers. Ironically, Shiva, Ganapathi, the tamil God Ayannar, etc., are persons, but thee is simply no way Prabhupada is going to call their followers Vaishnavas just because they accept personal Gods. However, he had no problems aligning foreign [non-Indian] beliefs with Vaishnavism though they were not personal, rejected idol worship, ate meat, etc. Coincidentally, these beliefs come from countries where the $$$ is better than the Indian INR. Is this a religious position or a political position? Requires some good old fashioned honesty to come out of denial* and call a spade a spade. *Denial in this context - Keep telling myself that my beliefs are flawless, my Guru never said anything incorrect and if anyone shows evidence, call him a Prabhupada hater and a Christian hater. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are... To view Allah as a person is to invite his wrath - and the wrath of his followers. Ironically, Shiva, Ganapathi, the tamil God Ayannar, etc., are persons, but thee is simply no way Prabhupada is going to call their followers Vaishnavas just because they accept personal Gods. However, he had no problems aligning foreign [non-Indian] beliefs with Vaishnavism though they were not personal, rejected idol worship, ate meat, etc. Coincidentally, these beliefs come from countries where the $$$ is better than the Indian INR. Is this a religious position or a political position? Requires some good old fashioned honesty to come out of denial* and call a spade a spade. *Denial in this context - Keep telling myself that my beliefs are flawless, my Guru never said anything incorrect and if anyone shows evidence, call him a Prabhupada hater and a Christian hater. Cheers You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Allah is a male God who created the universe. Allah is conceived of as a person whose actual personal from and features are thought to exist but which are not known to man. If you don't understand that in Islam Allah is a male being and creator God of the universe, then you should just stop blabbering. God is a person in Islam. God is not an impersonal spirit energy in Islam. God is a person. To say otherwise is stupidity. Muslims pray to a personal God not to some impersonal spirit field from which all life springs forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 To view Allah as a person is to invite his wrath - and the wrath of his followers. Ironically, Shiva, Ganapathi, the tamil God Ayannar, etc., are persons, but thee is simply no way Prabhupada is going to call their followers Vaishnavas just because they accept personal Gods. well said !! a meat eater (including beef) , idol demolisher , orthodox muslim believing in allah in perfect exclusion of any other dieties appear vaishnav to prabhupada . a meat eater( including beef) , anti idolatry , orthodox catholic with an absolute abhorrence towards pagan gods seem vaishnav to prabhupada . and so on with all other world religions . but sadly due to some unknown cause a vegetarian , truthful hindu shakta shaiva or ganapatya who shudders to think of eating a cow , following the vedas and puranas with full belief in personal god can never be a vaishnav . ridiculous and insane !!! thats what it is !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 but sadly due to some unknown cause a vegetarian , truthful hindu shakta shaiva or ganapatya who shudders to think of eating a cow , following the vedas and puranas with full belief in personal god can never be a vaishnav . I dont think there is anything sad about it, unless someone is eager to seek the stamp of Prabupada's approval and I do not know anyone who is thus inclined. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 It doesn't matter in that Swami Prabhupada did not take issue with the question. Is Hṛdayānanda actually saying this or is he translating a question for someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>To view Allah as a person is to invite his wrath - and the wrath of his followers. Ironically, Shiva, Ganapathi, the tamil God Ayannar, etc., are persons, but thee is simply no way Prabhupada is going to call their followers Vaishnavas just because they accept personal Gods. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> srila prabhupada says that allah refers to the person holding the post of god eg. allah mean president and not george bush <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 In what way is saying "Islam is also Vaishnavism" politically correct? Any Muslim would find it offensive - just go into any mosque and ask. Kulapavana, Prabhupada is known to be politically correct, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 The statement was not that he claimed to be God but that he was a "bogus person". Btw, Buddha never said he is god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately people have been killed for saying less and so it is good that these truths can be communicated anonymously. well said !! a meat eater (including beef) , idol demolisher , orthodox muslim believing in allah in perfect exclusion of any other dieties appear vaishnav to prabhupada . a meat eater( including beef) , anti idolatry , orthodox catholic with an absolute abhorrence towards pagan gods seem vaishnav to prabhupada . and so on with all other world religions . but sadly due to some unknown cause a vegetarian , truthful hindu shakta shaiva or ganapatya who shudders to think of eating a cow , following the vedas and puranas with full belief in personal god can never be a vaishnav . ridiculous and insane !!! thats what it is !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately people have been killed for saying less and so it is good that these truths can be communicated anonymously. whos been killed for saying less be clear or dont say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 In what way is saying "Islam is Vaishnavism" politically correct? When people speak of essential unity of all religions, such as: "we are all worshipping the same one God", "all religions are good" etc. this can be seen as political correctnes. It is political correctness - because you do not want to offend others by showing inferiority of their religion. When Srila Rupa Goswami spoke of attributes of God in his Nectar of Devotion, he has analyzed the qualities of perfected jivas, Lord Shiva. Lord Narayana, and Lord Krsna based on the Vedic shastras. No acharya has analyzed the Christian God, or the Islamic God in a similar fashion. Thus any claims that the Christian God, or the Islamic God are Lord Vishnu are more or less sentimental or political statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 When people speak of essential unity of all religions, such as: "we are all worshipping the same one God", "all religions are good" etc. this can be seen as political correctnes. Correct. It is political correctness - because you do not want to offend others by showing inferiority of their religion. This univeral definition does not exactly apply to Prabhupada. He made no pretensions of downplaying the value of non-Vaishnava beliefs from inside India as they played no role in his agenda. But he was careful not to rub Christians and Muslims (from foreign countries) the wrong way as their endorsement was critical to the success and future of his mission. Hence, the position of Jesus = Vaishnava, Allah = Krishna, Mayavada = poison, Vaishnavas are not Hindus, Shiva = demiGod, etc. He said what he had to say for his circumstances. Does not take much to separate out Vaishnava concepts from the sales pitch in the above list. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts