Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and other bogus persons

[kaisersose]

 

Prabhupada said "Christianity is Vaishnavism".

He did not say that the people who claim to be Christians are Vaishnavas.

He said that "Christianity" is Vaishnavism and he is referring to the theology and not to the pseudo-Christians.

 

As I have said in the past, this is an old, cunning trick of separating the founder from the actual teaching & system.

 

This separation allows wannabe Gurus to criticize the system and yet pay lip homage to celebrity Gurus. Shankara was Shiva, but Mayavada is poison, Mayavadins are evil. Jesus was wonderful, but his followers are not.

 

No matter what trickery you adopt, criticizing Mayavadins is the same as criticizing Shankara as he is the biggest Mayavadin of all. Same with crticizing Christians, and everyone else.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Wrong Again. You are still holding on to the Shaivism = Advaita theory, which is wrong.

 

Shaivas see their final abode as Kailsas where they will reside with Shiva. Most of them never even heard of Brahman nor are are they interested.

 

There is world beyond the little ikscon world you lvie in, in case you want to explore and learn the truth.

 

Cheers

 

There is no Kailasa mentioned in any Purana as existing within the Paravyoma.

Kailasa is a planet in this material universe.

It is not a transcendental planet.

 

So, your argument cannot stand as there is no eternal Kailasa mentioned in any Purana.

Kailasa will perish at the time of Pralaya and Shiva will merge back into Lord Vishnu and come back out at the time of the next creation.

[kaisersose]

 

There is no Kailasa mentioned in any Purana as existing within the Paravyoma.

Kailasa is a planet in this material universe.

It is not a transcendental planet.

 

So, your argument cannot stand as there is no eternal Kailasa mentioned in any Purana.

Kailasa will perish at the time of Pralaya and Shiva will merge back into Lord Vishnu and come back out at the time of the next creation.

 

Why should it be mentioned in the Puranas? Where is this requirement coming from?

 

And obviously you cannot use Vaishnava scriptures to prove anything about Shaivism. Also explain how a foreign religion which has no Purana reference is acceptable while a local religion is not.

 

Cheers

[sant]

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>Originally Posted by kaisersose

Wrong Again. You are still holding on to the Shaivism = Advaita theory, which is wrong.

Shaivas see their final abode as Kailsas where they will reside with Shiva. Most of them never even heard of Brahman nor are are they interested.

There is world beyond the little ikscon world you lvie in, in case you want to explore and learn the truth.

Cheers

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->DO YOU KNOW MOST SHAIV ARE NIRGUN

I THINK ONLY AGHORIS ARE SAGUN

READ ABOUT SHAIVISM AND COME

[Sonic Yogi]

 

HA......HA........HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and what exactly is the difference between christianity proper and psuedo christianity ? maybe you are trying to sugggest ideal christianity . but remember that there is nothing like ideal christianity or ideal hinduism . it is an utopian concept that never existed .

 

either prabhupada was relying on this utopian absurdity or he is genuinely meaning practicing christianity .

 

 

you're absurd !!!!!!!!!

 

No. It is very simple.

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

Animal killers cannot be accepted as followers of Jesus or as Christians.

 

Actually, the term Christian was manufactured by Paul I think.

Jesus never mentioned any term like "Christian".

Jesus instructed to become "sons of God".

Jesus never manufactured that term.

Paul manufactured that idea and of course he was also not very smart to get himself beheaded in Rome.

 

The "Christian" religion was manufactured by Paul and built upon and therefore we have "Roman Catholic" and so many other "Christian" sects.

 

 

Ultimately, Srila Prabhupada was just being very diplomatic and gave Muslims and Christians a lot more credit than they deserved.

 

That is the difference between him and apostle Paul who was not so smart and was beheaded for being too outspoken about the cult he was promoting.

[sant]

 

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

I HAVE A DOUBT ON THIS

IF THAT WAS TRUE THEN WHY WOULD JESUS HELP THE FISHER MAN TO CATCH FISH

AND ALSO THE SOLDIERS AND PEOPLE OF LAW KILL CRIMINALS

IS THAT NOT KILLING

BUT THAT IS JUSTIFIED IS IT?

[kaisersose]

 

No. It is very simple.

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

Animal killers cannot be accepted as followers of Jesus or as Christians.

 

That does not wash at all -

 

1) Most meat eaters on the planet never killed a single animal in their lives. Eating a Whopper is not the same as slaughtering a cow. And Jesus did not say "Thou shall not eat meat". He associated with fishermen, ate lamb, etc.

 

2) When Jesus said "thou shall not kill" he talked about killing humans. That is how the billion+ Christians of the world have interpreted it. Now if a small group of modern Bengali Vaishnavas choose to interpret the Bible differently, who cares? Their interpretation is worth exactly nothing and is an obvious farce.

 

3) The Mahbharata has the story of a butcher who was enlightened - to illustrate this very important point.

 

In short, your meat-eating theory has no scriptural support. It's origin lies in the minds of some Brahmanas from 2000 years ago.

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

In short, your meat-eating theory has no scriptural support. It's origin lies in the minds of some Brahmanas from 2000 years ago.

 

NO BHAGWAD GITA TALKS ABOUT SATWIK FOOD,PURANAS SUPPORT BEING SATWIC BRAHMANAS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EAT ANY MEAT EXCEPT FEW CASES

THE THING IS DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES

HAVE YOU READ MAHABHARAT REMEMBER YUDHISTHARS JUDGEMENT ON HOW HE HANDLES THE CASE OF THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PEOPLE[bRAHMAN,SHUDRA,KHSATRIYA,VAISHYA] WHO HAD TOGETHER KILLED A MAN.EACH WERE GIVEN DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS

BESIDES KILLING ANIMALS FOR SATISFYING YOUR TAMO GUN TASTE IS NO GOOD THING

[Sonic Yogi]

 

I HAVE A DOUBT ON THIS

IF THAT WAS TRUE THEN WHY WOULD JESUS HELP THE FISHER MAN TO CATCH FISH

AND ALSO THE SOLDIERS AND PEOPLE OF LAW KILL CRIMINALS

IS THAT NOT KILLING

BUT THAT IS JUSTIFIED IS IT?

 

In that part of the world at that time there was scarcity of grains, fruits and vegetables.

So, even it says in Veda that in emergency in absence of sufficient food grains that even meat and fish can be eaten.

 

Srila Prabhupada recommended that if they eat meat that to eat the lower animals first like fish, pigs or dogs but to not eat the cow under any circumstance.

 

So, eating fish is not much different than killing plants which also have life.

Ultimately, even the vegetarian kills plants and insects in the production of food.

So, the Vedic standard is to not eat meat if at all possible.

In emergency you can.

 

Even Prabhupada recommended that animals can die naturally and then the meat can be eaten without any bad karma of killing the animal.

 

It is not the meat-eating that is so bad, but the killing of the animal that is the bad karma.

 

In emergency then fish is the first kind of meat that humans can eat with minimum karma as fish are very low life forms.

 

Fruit-of-the-ganga...........

[sant]

 

In that part of the world at that time there was scarcity of grains, fruits and vegetables.

So, even it says in Veda that in emergency in absence of sufficient food grains that even meat and fish can be eaten.

 

Srila Prabhupada recommended that if they eat meat that to eat the lower animals first like fish, pigs or dogs but to not eat the cow under any circumstance.

 

So, eating fish is not much different than killing plants which also have life.

Ultimately, even the vegetarian kills plants and insects in the production of food.

So, the Vedic standard is to not eat meat if at all possible.

In emergency you can.

 

Even Prabhupada recommended that animals can die naturally and then the meat can be eaten without any bad karma of killing the animal.

 

It is not the meat-eating that is so bad, but the killing of the animal that is the bad karma.

 

In emergency then fish is the first kind of meat that humans can eat with minimum karma as fish are very low life forms.

 

Fruit-of-the-ganga...........

 

 

THANKS SONIC YOGI

[Smiley]

sant, the links are now up and please bear in mind that I am not trying to say that any of this reflects on Swami Prabhupada who always preached non-violence and even his enemies say was pure;

however I feel that purity does not equate to being free from error and everything should be on the table and be subject to discussion for those who feel they want to discuss topics such as these.

 

My warning was because I have learned first hand that Vaishnavs, like people of other religions will sometimes resort to violence when they feel that their sacred icons are disrespected (I myself have been threatened in Los Angeles).

 

Sulocana's Murder

http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/977/1/Sulocanas-Murder---For-the-Record/Page1.html

 

http://harekrishnanetwork.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=1105629%3ATopic%3A41748

 

 

Killing Sparks Federal Probe of Krishna Sect

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/57984345.html?dids=57984345:57984345&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+20%2C+1986&author=JOHN+DART&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Killing+Sparks+Federal+Probe+of+Krishna+Sect+Group+Members+Cite+Internal+Conflicts%2C+Allege+Threats+After+Disenchanted+Devotee%27s+Murder&pqatl=google

 

 

im sorry smiley

you took quite some time but im shore you must have been finding the link

please forgive me

[Sonic Yogi]

 

That does not wash at all -

 

1) Most meat eaters on the planet never killed a single animal in their lives. Eating a Whopper is not the same as slaughtering a cow. And Jesus did not say "Thou shall not eat meat". He associated with fishermen, ate lamb, etc.

 

2) When Jesus said "thou shall not kill" he talked about killing humans. That is how the billion+ Christians of the world have interpreted it. Now if a small group of modern Bengali Vaishnavas choose to interpret the Bible differently, who cares? Their interpretation is worth exactly nothing and is an obvious farce.

 

3) The Mahbharata has the story of a butcher who was enlightened - to illustrate this very important point.

 

In short, your meat-eating theory has no scriptural support. It's origin lies in the minds of some Brahmanas from 2000 years ago.

 

Cheers

 

Lots of ideas, but unfortunately they are all wrong.

Eating a hamburger is animal killing according to Vedic law.

Who kills the animal, who butchers it, who sells the meat, who cooks it and who eats it are all implicated in the sin of animal killing and that is in Vedic law.

 

"though shalt not kill" does not apply only to humans.

That is another false interpretation that bogus "Christians" have been making for many years.

 

Animal flesh has never been mentioned in any Vedic text as being fit for offering to Vishnu.

It is not anything manufactured by any brahmans from 2000 years ago.

 

The Vedic rule is to eat only what has been offered to Vishnu.

Meat is not acceptable to Vishnu and this is not food in Vedic culture that goes back millions of years in Puranic history.

 

Many of the histories in the Puranas go back millions of years.

They are not something new from a few thousand years ago.

[sant]

But Srila Prabhupada Himself Says That In Self Defence One Can Kill

So Thou Shall Not Kill Can Be Intepreted In Different Ways

[Sonic Yogi]

 

But Srila Prabhupada Himself Says That In Self Defence One Can Kill

So Thou Shall Not Kill Can Be Intepreted In Different Ways

 

It is not what Prabhupada said, but it is a Vedic law that an attacker can be killed in self-defense.

Prabhupada did not make any rules.

He only taught the Vedic or the Vaishnava laws.

[kaisersose]

 

Lots of ideas, but unfortunately they are all wrong.

Eating a hamburger is animal killing according to Vedic law.

Who kills the animal, who butchers it, who sells the meat, who cooks it and who eats it are all implicated in the sin of animal killing and that is in Vedic law.

 

In your last post, you said karma is accrued by the killer and almost no karma is associated with the eater. And where is this vedic law on meat-eating, anyway?

 

 

"though shalt not kill" does not apply only to humans.

That is another false interpretation that bogus "Christians" have been making for many years.

 

If you are disagreeing with the mainstream, you will have to prove it. Else, your position has no value as I explained earlier.

 

 

Animal flesh has never been mentioned in any Vedic text as being fit for offering to Vishnu.

 

Dude?? The whole concept of Vedic religion was founded on animal sacrifice. There are grand stories of how the system eventually died down to be replaced by Bhakti and how Shankara, Madhva etc., were still opposing and replacing sacrificial animals with flour animals as late as the 13th century AD. Again, you have to learn more which means looking beyond your little iskcon world.

 

 

The Vedic rule is to eat only what has been offered to Vishnu.

Meat is not acceptable to Vishnu and this is not food in Vedic culture that goes back millions of years in Puranic history.

 

Prove that meat is not acceptable to Vishnu. The cow either goes to heaven or evolves into a better life, which would make Vishnu happy. Cultural aspects of the Indian sub continent do not constitute proof.

 

Cheers

[sant]

But Then The Christiians Were Not Following Vedic Laws .

So How Does Thou Shall Not Kill Apply To Them?

I Guess You Were A Non Hindu Earlier [no Ofense]so You Must Know

They Have Turkey In Christmas With Wine

And Beleive In Nonsense Santa Claus Theories

Now Children Are Forgetting True Christmas Spirit

[Smiley]

 

... Prabhupada did not make any rules.

He only taught the Vedic or the Vaishnava laws.

 

Can't gurus make up rules themselves? I don't think his

ideas about giving 50% to the work of Krishna or not being

able to use your genitals except for procreation are Vedic.

If they are please provide reference from the Vedas

because I have not read them all.

[sant]

 

not being

able to use your genitals except for procreation are Vedic.

 

this he said because he wanted to tell you to control sexual desires and have sex to create babies rather than to enjoy sex and lust.

now isnt this in the vedas .

he teaches on the basis of vedas

[sant]

srila prabhupada saw krisna all the time

he is a great devotee

his teachings are great and based on vedas

[Kulapavana]

 

The problem with your assertion is that it makes Islam into a monistic faith that ultimately proposes oneness of God and the living entity.

For that reason, Muslim scholars reject this monistic interpretation of Islam.

 

I have WAY TOO MUCH respect for the Vedic monism to equate that path with Islam. Do you see Vedic monists running around butchering people in the name of their religion? No you do not. That makes them infinitely more advanced in my book.

 

Islam is it's own category in the religious sphere. There is no need to artificially lump it with other doctrines.

[Smiley]

One can teach practically anything and say that it is based upon the Vedas in some way. The question should be "Was the common understanding in Vedic times that married people should only use their genitals for procreation?"

If so, please provide reference. If not then admit that it is a newer idea. I am not saying that gurus don't have the right to make rules for their disciples but let's be clear if that is what he did; if so then it should only be looked upon as a special discipline for ISKCON members and should not be looked upon as moral principles applicable to everyone - such as do not kill a cow.

 

 

this he said because he wanted to tell you to control sexual desires and have sex to create babies rather than to enjoy sex and lust.

now isnt this in the vedas .

he teaches on the basis of vedas

[visnujana]

 

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."

 

Yet, Chand Kazi himself and many generations of his descendants and subordinates were following vaisnava dharma perfectly while still wearing Muslim dress and adopting all other external paraphernalia and practices pertaining to the Muslim religion. This is simply a historical fact. Vaisnavas to this day are worshiping Chand Kazi's samadhi (grave) in Navadvipa, WB, which they would never do to someone who is not a pure vaisnava.

Now my question is would you not call it that Caitanya has proved that their real internal religion was vaisnavism? We are not talking about religion in the social sense here but in the personal. Would you personally follow something that you didn't believe yourself?

...and that is all Prabhupada is saying here. He is not saying that all Muslims are Vaisnavas as some twisted the meaning of his words later in this thread.

For more information on this - Jaiva-Dharma, chapter 6.

[Guest Melvin1]

Is it true that Srila Prabhupada`s Guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawasti Maharaj, was also Adolph Hitler`s Guru?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Is it true that Srila Prabhupada`s Guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawasti Maharaj, was also Adolph Hitler`s Guru?

 

No. It is not true.

I think the story goes that Bon Maharaja, the disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur tried to preach to Hitler and even had an appointment to meet with him.

Something happened and Hitler had to attend to some other important things.

I guess as Bon Maharaja was waiting outside the room to get his audience with Hitler, Hitler walked out of the room and down the hall and simply nodded and waved to Bon Maharaja in gesture.

 

That was the end of the attempt to get to Hitler and preach as best I know.

I am not sure it was Bon Maharaja, but it was some disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

 

I vaguely remember this story that I heard some 25 years ago.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

In your last post, you said karma is accrued by the killer and almost no karma is associated with the eater. And where is this vedic law on meat-eating, anyway?

 

 

 

If you are disagreeing with the mainstream, you will have to prove it. Else, your position has no value as I explained earlier.

 

 

 

Dude?? The whole concept of Vedic religion was founded on animal sacrifice. There are grand stories of how the system eventually died down to be replaced by Bhakti and how Shankara, Madhva etc., were still opposing and replacing sacrificial animals with flour animals as late as the 13th century AD. Again, you have to learn more which means looking beyond your little iskcon world.

 

 

 

Prove that meat is not acceptable to Vishnu. The cow either goes to heaven or evolves into a better life, which would make Vishnu happy. Cultural aspects of the Indian sub continent do not constitute proof.

 

Cheers

Animal sacrifice in Vedic culture was not about killing an animal, making an offering and eating the meat.

 

Vedic animal sacrifices were meant for proving the power of Vedic mantras.

The animal went into the fire as an old animal and came out as a young rejuvenated horse.

 

Mostly, they were horse sacrifices where the Brahmans tested the power of the Vedic mantras by restoring the horse to full youthful life.

 

Horse sacrifices for Vishnu were NEVER meant for the purpose of offering meat to Vishnu or the eating of meat by Brahmanas or anyone.

 

You are totally ignorant about the true meaning and purpose of a Vedic horse sacrifice.

 

In a horse sacrifice the old body of the horse was burned and a new, youthful horse was produced in the Vedic sacrifice.

 

As with most everything, the so-called animal sacrifices of the Vedic brahmanas have been misunderstood and the very idea has been abused by low-class, ignorant Hindus for thousands of years who like to claim the meat-eating and animal sacrifices were Vedic.

 

Like the bogus caste system of India, the concept of animal sacrifice has as well been abused by ignorant Hindus for their evil purposes.

 

In fact, this abuse of the concept of animal sacrifice in the name of the Vedas is said by acharyas to be the reason for the advent of Buddha avatar who rejected the Vedas and decried animal sacrifice and animal killing.