nirvisesa -sunyavadi?

[Guest guest]

Is Christianity and Islam impersonalism and voidism?

 

Haribol.

[theist]

Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated surrender to the Supreme Person. He prayed "Lord not my will but your will be done." He said "I and the Father are OneHe also said the Father is greater than I." Sound familiar? One and different.

 

His whole life was one of loving submission to the Supreme Person. Where can anyone find voidism or impersonalism in His life or His teachings?

[Guruvani]

Either way, Lord Krishna has advised that we abandon these religions and surrender unto him.

 

[Gauracandra]

I don't know enough about Islam (though from what I've read it is possible it is impersonalistic). But Christianity is not based on impersonalism.

 

If you want to read a great article check out G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". After reading that article I developed a new found understanding of what makes Western civilization not Eastern civilization. There are those who will claim that all religions are the same. They all teach fundamental values, to be good and such. But this is not true. The philosophical conclusions of Christianity are diametrically opposed to voidism.

 

After reading "The Everlasting Man" what you will realize is that what made Western civilization was precisely that it wasn't Impersonalism. It is about shape and form. Western civilization is about shape and (most of) Eastern civilization is about shapelessness.

 

Check it out, its really very good.

[Guest guest]

Then how come Lord Jesus Christ never revealed the name of God or His form? It seems that Christians today perceive God to be some abstract Holy Spirit instead of a Person. Also, when Jesus Christ refers to "Father," is it Krsna or one of His expansions, i.e. Narayana?

 

Haribol.

[theist]

We don't know what he revealed to his disciples. What does it matter if its Krsna or Narayana? Please see CC Adi-lila chapter 1

[Guest guest]

According to Srila Prabhupada Jesus surname was Christ=Chrishna/Krsna.He is the most beloved son of the supreme personality of Godhead.

 

In Islam I think God is impersonal but if Allah is approached as a loving supreme deity then he becomes personal.God is always personal but spirit souls have a tendency to see him both personal and impersonal.

 

JOY

[theist]

Allen Ginsberg: Well, then how would you adapt the Krsna chanting to Christianity? By seeing Krsna as Christ or Christ as Krsna and sounding Christ’s image in Krsna’s name?

 

Prabhupäda: Krsna, Christ... Of course, this question was several times put to me. Christ says that “I am son of God.” And Krsna says “I am God.” So there is no difference. Son of God and God, we respect everyone. If I respect your father, I respect you also. Do you mean to say if I disrespect your father, you’ll be pleased upon me? No. That is our philosophy. So Caitanya Mahäprabhu says that I am servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of Krsna [Cc. Madhya 13.80]. So if anyone loves Krsna, he must love Lord Jesus Christ also. And if one perfectly loves Jesus Christ he must love Krsna. If he says, “Why shall I love Krsna? I shall love Jesus Christ,” then he has no knowledge. And if one says, “Why shall I love Jesus Christ? I shall love...”, then he has also no knowledge. If one understands Krsna, then he will understand Jesus Christ. If one understands Jesus Christ, you’ll understand Krsna.

 

[Guest guest]

these are authentic religions... maybe in origin they have not defects(because they are given by the lord or a spiritual master).. now they are full of voidism and impersonalism.. more or less

 

it is not surprising

 

hinduism in origin was simply krsna consciousness, now it is 99% impersonal and mayavadi

 

 

[krishna_s]

I don't see how we can say anything definitive about the original Christianity and Islam, since we have no evidence regarding the nature of these religions during their early periods.

 

As far as how they are practiced now, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord. Does one get advancement in spiritual life by eating cow meat? Because the vast majority of Christians and Muslims happily eat beef and do not find any scriptural directive against it. Even orthodox Advaitins won't stoop to eating cow meat.

 

If Christianity and Islam were started by devotees of Lord Krishna, then one would logically expect certain common themes in all three religious traditions, such as for example, cow-protection. Instead, there appears to be little evidence today that such sacred Vedic principles were ever present in these other religions.

 

Unfortunately, many Christian converts to Krishna-consciousness aren't likely to be bothered by such details, since their sympathies to their parent religions seem to override any consideration of evidence or scholarship.

 

regards,

 

- K

[theist]

Well you easily discard the words of Srila Prabhupada at your own peril I think. But its your choice.

 

Speculate all you like. Don't forget though that Buddha was an incarnation and I believe Adi Shankar was Sivaji.

 

Myself I am comfortable with Prabhupada's words on the subject and feel on solid ground there. Mundane scholarship means nothing to me.

[Guest guest]

maybe hinduism, being a little more close to krsna, is a little less protected against corruption

 

but surely we do see corruption in hinduism.. so it could be (unfortunately) only a question of time (if hinduists does not reject imperonalism and voidism and follow a pure devotee of krsna)

 

i practice krsna consciousness from twenty years, but not to betray my roots(especially if not required by my spiritual master) and obviously not to join another idea of fanatic and material religion (especially if not required by my spiritual master)

 

maybe you have your personal hinduism

[I_love_krishna_]

Which Christianity are you talking about, the one who is in your thoughts? or the one that Christ preached?

 

 

Which Islam are you talking about... the one who is in your thoughts, or the one that Muhammed forced ?

 

Same with Buddhism, the one that is in people's thoughts or the one buddha preached?

 

 

If you think they are the same, I am sorry, but I think they are not.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

i have SURELY my preference for gurudeva /prabhupada /caitanyamahaprabhu /radhakrsna

 

but dealing with other religions and understanding them and their saints or masters, i try to follow the advices of the people i have now mentioned

 

:-)

 

(i do not know many "classic hinduists", only a few indian friends... but, having learned something on indian religion by srila prabhupada books, i am very amazed to see such quantity of INTEGRALISM in hindu believers!!!)

[krishna_s]

Guest wrote:

 

"Which Christianity are you talking about, the one who is in your thoughts? or the one that Christ preached?

Which Islam are you talking about... the one who is in your thoughts, or the one that Muhammed forced ? "

 

Reread my posting. I believe I made it clear:

 

"AS FAR AS HOW THEY ARE PRACTICED NOW, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord."

 

Theist wrote:

 

"Well you easily discard the words of Srila Prabhupada at your own peril I think. But its your choice."

 

Srila Prabhupada himself took great pains to refute many contemporary Christian beliefs, such as the idea that Jesus had a material body, that he actually suffered and died on the cross, that meat-eating is ok, etc etc. Many of these conversations are documented in Back to Godhead, under the section "Srila Prabhupada Speaks Out." I have discarded nothing.

 

It is only ISKCON and other Western devotees who, motivated by wishful thinking primarily, discard such considerations when they cozy up to Christians, all the while levelling all sorts of attacks and innuendos against other Hindus with no regard to the piety of the people they criticize. What is the basis for such a double standard? It's not Srila Prabhupada, I can guarantee you.

 

"Speculate all you like."

 

Ahh yes, the common ISKCON rejoinder. "I don't like what you are saying, Prabhu, so it is speculation."

 

"Don't forget though that Buddha was an incarnation and I believe Adi Shankar was Sivaji."

 

And this is relevant how?

 

"Myself I am comfortable with Prabhupada's words on the subject and feel on solid ground there. Mundane scholarship means nothing to me."

 

I see. So if Christians and secular scholars request you to substantiate your view (that Christianity is an outgrowth of Vedic religion), your sole evidence will be, "my spiritual master told me so?" I'm sure that will be quite convincing to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his personal guru.

 

Contemporary Christianity is no more advanced in its spiritual outlook than Advaita. Srila Prabhupada may have said that Christians were indirectly worshipping Krishna (a fact which one must accept based on his opinion), but he has said the same thing about Advaitins and Brahmavaadiis (who meditate on impersonal Brahman, which shaastra says is one aspect of Krishna and Srila Prabhupada agrees). Both Advaitins and Christians make the mistake of saying that God has a material body (in the latter case, Christians take Jesus to be God and say he has material body of flesh with which he can suffer). So, no points there for Christianity. And as far as saadhana goes, everyone knows that orthodox Advaitins are required to be far more austere that contemporary Christians. Christians can eat whatever they want; they happily slaughter and eat cows while orthodox Advaitins at least in theory will object to this.

 

So who is doing the speculating here, Theist? ISKCON devotees' praise for Christianity and Christians while simultaneously condemning Advaitic Hinduism is the worst kind of sectarian hypocrisy. ISKCONites need to stop looking for approval from Christians and just remain diligent in their practice of Krishna-consciousness, AS IT IS. This tendency of ISKCONites to cozy up to Christians has led to all sorts of heresies in ISKCON based solely on medicore scholarship. These include the following:

 

1) That Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna

2) That the deity Yahweh of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the same as Lord Brahmaa, based on etymological similarity or some such

3) That meat-eating is acceptable if one is a Christian

4) That murthis of Jesus, Mary, etc. can be installed on the altar and worshipped alongside Radha, Krishna, Narasimha, etc.

5) That the concept of soul in Christianity is the same as the Vedic concept of soul (it isn't)

6) That the Jewish preoccupation with the number 9 is related to the Vedic preoccupation with 108 (because 1 and 8 are numerals in 108, and 1+8=9 -- I'm not joking, this is actually in Satyaraja dasa's Om Shalom book)

7) That one can chant the name of Jehovah in place of Hare Krishna and get the same spiritual benefit

8) That all Vaishnavas regard Jesus as a bona fide guru (they don't - most other sampradaayas say nothing about Jesus)

 

...and so on, and so forth.

 

None of the above speculations have any endorsement whatsoever by Srila Prabhupada, or by shaastra. And yet there are ISKCON devotees who carelessly repeat them with no regard to even the semblance of proper scholarship. Sometimes when I point it out, they quote back to me warnings against "mundane scholarship" to defend their lack of evidence. But since when is all scholarship mundane? Does being a devotee mean we aren't supposed to think? Or that we aren't supposed to remain honest in our representation of guru and shaastra? Mundane scholarship establishes a material end. Transcendental scholarship is based on the Vedic literatures and establishes a transcendental end. The Jesus sympathies in ISKCON are neither scholarship nor based on Vedic literature. Even the quotes from Bhavishya Puraana offered by some devotees only suggest the prediction of Jesus, but they say nothing about his spiritual position or substantiate the high regard for that religion which many ISKCON members have. In fact, quite to the contrary, they actually quote Jesus as saying he will preach to mlecchas this mleccha-dharma, which just proves my earlier point that ISKCON devotees give Christianity more emphasis than it is due, shaastrically speaking. Note that the Padma Puraana (uttara-khaaNDa, 236th adhyaaya) describes Buddhism, maayaavaada, nyaaya, Shaivism, Paashupata shaastra, etc. as merely doctrines meant to mislead those who have no devotion to Vishnu, but even these doctrines are not labelled as being for mlecchas like Christianity is.

 

yours,

 

- K

[I_love_krishna_]

The God of Christianity and all other religions that we see here are one and the same.

 

We are on different levels of realization. When we go to higher and higher levels, we will leave ignorance and gain wisdom.

 

As we gain Wisdom, we see less differences between us because the approach to the reality will be the same.

 

There is no such thing as mlecha but thats my personal opinion.

 

Thank you.

 

[Guest guest]

all your assumption is based on the fact that western harekrsnas are sectarian with advaitism and not with christianity.... well, it is not my case.. i have my preferences for guru and krsna, i have my judgements on other religions, but i am not like that

 

i know the limits of "nirvisesha/sunnyavadi" religions all over the world but i am not prepared to behave as a fanatic hinduist..

 

maybe the next life

[krishna_s]

"The God of Christianity and all other religions that we see here are one and the same."

 

That's a nice sentiment, but how do you know? More importantly, can you prove that to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru?

 

Just out of curiosity, when you "all other religions," do you really and truly include "all other religions?"

 

"There is no such thing as mlecha but thats my personal opinion. "

 

Since when have personal opinions superseeded shaastra?

 

- K

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tat tvam asi... you can the same example in another post..

 

Tat tvam Asi, is "That I am".

 

This is seen in the Bible when God talks to Moses :

 

"And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you."

 

[I_love_krishna_]

That is me! From this time on, i will remember to log in when I come to this forum

Sorry about that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gHari]

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in the introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita:<blockquote>The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma. </blockquote>Anyone who is rejecting any religious heritage should definitely read this short introduction about sectarian religion. It will save some time.

 

gHari

[krishna_s]

At the risk of sounding rude, the following is a perfect example of what I am talking about -- when wishy-washy, sentimental, wishful thinking causes devotees to blatantly misinterpret the Vedic literature in their attempts to reconcile Vedic religion with non-Vedic religions. More below:

 

Guest? wrote:

 

"Tat tvam asi... you can the same example in another post..

 

Tat tvam Asi, is "That I am".

 

This is seen in the Bible when God talks to Moses :

 

"And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.""

----

 

"tat tvam asi" literally, means "that thou art." The speaker is not God, nor is the statement directed to God. This statement occurs in a conversation recorded in the Chandogya Upanishad between Svetaketu and his father, after the former had returned from his studies of the Vedas and become puffed up. Uddhaalaka, his father, humbles him by instructing him to fast and showing how his ability to recite the Vedas has diminished, and then repeats to his son "sa aatmaatattvamasiShvetaketo" to indicate (depending on interpretation) that Shvetaketu is the jiivaatmaa and not his material body or that Shvetaketu is not the Paramaatmaa (depends on how you parse the Sanskrit and interpret "aatmaa" - sa aatmaa tat tvam asi or sa aatmaa atat tvam asi).

 

The point here is that neither of the interpretations are at all consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept "I am that I am" by any stretch of the imagination. For devotees to even argue this is an example of blatantly medicore scholarship or, worse, outright dishonesty.

 

So why do I bother to mention this? Is it even important? Can't we all just interpret Sanskrit statements from the Upanishads any way we choose, even if we haven't read them, know Sanskrit, or even know what we are talking about?

 

The problem is, like it or not, we will be seen as representatives of Srila Prabhupada, and our mistakes become seen as his mistakes. It is disgraceful conduct to misinterpret Upanishadic statements for the purpose of fulfilling a personal agenda, even more so when others are led to believe that such misinterpretations have the guru's sanction. We don't want Srila Prabhupada to appear as a sentimentalist or as an incompetent Sanskrit scholar.

 

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, that many ISKCON devotees, guided by wishful thinking and biased towards non-Vedic religions in which they were raised, have a habit of making speculative and blatantly incorrect statements about shaastra and siddhaanta which do nothing other than misrepresent Srila Prabhupada and mislead people in general. The example above, where tat tvam asi is wrongly equated with "I am that I am" is a perfect example of this.

 

Therefore, ISKCON devotees need to stop reading all kinds of things into Srila Prabhupada's praise of other religions, and just practice Krishna-Consciousness AS IT IS.

 

yours,

 

- K

[yasodanandana]

sincerely i do not see this big problem in iskcon or western vaishnavas in general... the 99% of the devotees i know have generally a correct understanding of the relation ship between western religions and krsna consciousness......... the remaining 1% are fanatics

 

so the problem, for me, is the opposite

 

deviation is not good.. in any sense

[krishna_s]

gHari wrote:

 

"Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in the introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita:

The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma.

Anyone who is rejecting any religious heritage should definitely read this short introduction about sectarian religion. It will save some time."

 

This is a very poor example to bring up.

 

For one thing, it is well known that Shrii Krishna-samhitaa was written for the purpose of presenting Vaishnavism to non-devotees. It says many things about Vaishnava "mythology," the dating of scriptures, and so on which are not acceptable to pure devotees.

 

Secondly, even Srila Bhaktivinod is quite critical of Christianity according to his own writings. I don't recall the exact reference - I think it was his Tattva-suutra or his Amnaaya-suutra wherein he criticizes the "faith-based, no need to do work" approach of Christians quite viciously. I will have to dig up this reference at some point when I unpack my books next month.

 

Thirdly, this still does not address how one proves the alleged similarities between Islam, Christianity, and Vaishnavism to those who are not in Srila Prabhupada/Srila Bhaktivinoda's sampradaaya. Without objective evidence, you have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

[I_love_krishna_]

believe what ever you wish, but the truth remains the same.