Jesus is the only way?

[leyh]

The following is an excerpt from East West dialogues, a collection of conversations between Reverend Alvin Van Pelt Hart, a noted Christian theologian and ordained Episcopal Priest and Satyaraja Dasa (Steven Rosen) an American devotee of Krishna. Satyaraja Dasa is an initiated disciple of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Parbhupada, Founder-acarya (Spiritual Master) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

 

Satyaraja Dasa: I have a question for you. Generally, nowadays, Christians feel that there is no need for a spiritual master. I think this is largely attributable to the fact that Christians feel that Jesus is the only guru. You know, Christian exclusivity. Jesus is the only way...

Rev.Hart: Yes, I see your point. I would have to say that this is a very narrow-minded conception. Certainly it is not representative of true Christianity. This type of “Christian exclusivity”, as you call it, is of course based on the book of John (14.6),where Jesus says, “ I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me."

Satyaraja Dasa: That's it. That’s the one they always quote. Only through Jesus, they say. We do not need any living spiritual master.

Rev.Hart: Yes. This is an unfortunate interpretation --- one that is quite prominent, however.Anyway, the Original Greek has a different story to tell. ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa;oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.

Satyaraja Dasa: Can you translate?

Rev. Hart:Well,I've already quoted the verse, but the key word here is erketai.This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb. In other words, a more accurate translation would be as follows: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can presently come to the Father, except through me.” You see? In Palestine, two thousand years ago, Jesus was the guru. If he wanted to say that he would be the teacher for all time, he would have used a word other than erketai,but he didn't.

In one sense, of course, I can empathize with my fellow Christians. I have also accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.But objectively, there is no reason to say that he is the only one, although many do say such a thing. (Steven Rosen, East-West Dialogues, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1989, p.54)

 

 

BTW,Is the Satyraja Dasa in the conversation by any chance the same Satyaraja Dasa that frequently posts on this forum?

(Subsequently edited for spelling and factual mistakes)

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Tarun]

Distinct SatyarAj, different hemisphere, same stratosphere.

Jesus Christ is the Only Way

So Chant Hare KRSNa Everyday

[Janus]

Christianity was founded by Paul, not by Jesus who did not himself found a new religion at all, but who only attempted to play out an accepted role within the context of an already existing religion, Judaism.

The Jesus of Pauls creation is a ficticious character, having nothing to do with the real Jesus, who would have found Pauls interpretation of him idolatrous and offensive, as is attested to by the fact that the Nazarene Church, the actual church of Jesus's disciple Peter and Jesus's brother James basicly proclaimed Paul heretical and disowned him.

There is considerable evidence that Paul, the mythmaker, who had never met Jesus even once in his life, but who relied instead upon visions; was a manipulative liar who misrepresented not only Jesus but himself also in order to mislead the innocent people into accepting his presentation of Christianity.

Srila Prabhupada often refered to Religion in the West, meaning Christianity as Blind Faith and sentiment and Bhaktivinode Thakur referring to Christianity apraised it correctly as "The damned Churches of the World".

Pauls version of Christianity allowed slavery and permitted it to function as a tool for the oppression of the masses continually and also served to create anti-Semitism by blaming the Jews and not the Romans for Jesus's execution, changing also the motivation from a political to a religious one, which it wasn't.

So for two-thousand years people have been the blind faith participants in a religion started by a proven liar, Paul, who couldn't even read Hebrew btw.

Hari bol

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Christianity was founded by Paul, not by Jesus who did not himself found a new religion at all, but who only attempted to play out an accepted role within the context of an already existing religion, Judaism. (Janus)

 

Gaudiya-vaisnavism was founded by Krsnadasa et al, not by Caitanya who did not himself found a new religion at all, but who only attempted to play out an accepted role within the context of an already existing religion, Hinduism.

 

This religion was a big fail and later on Bhaktivinoda has tried to re-edict a new version of it by mixing some newly Christian and Muslin conceptions.

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Bhaktivinoda has tried to re-edict a new version of it by mixing some newly Christian and Muslin conceptions.

 

 

Satyaraja,

 

What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Suryaz

[Guest guest]

I wouldn’t say that Jesus is the only way, but in fact he is a way. Muktas like him exist in a state of non-separation from the Lord (Vedanta-sutra 4.4.4) and they can create their own worlds into the samvyoma of their hearts to live there with their friends, relatives, and all the living entities that they love (Vedanta-sutra 4.4.8). A mukta like him is under the control of no one but the Lord, therefore he is the master of all and has no other master than the Lord Himself (Vedanta-sutra 4.4.9). As the Gospel says he is the owner of his Father’s realm.

 

According to St John’s Gospel Jesus has said that at his Father abode there are many rooms and he was preparing one of these rooms for those who could love him.

 

One may attain mukti by Hari’s free will and grace without following any other mukta (guru or master). This is possible and there are countless examples of that. Others may go to a world created by a mukta to relish with Hari in that same environment.

 

Isn’t your Prabhupada doing and preaching the same?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology were Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam. Therefore Maya should be combated. This is not found anywhere in srutis and even in Gaudiya-vaisnavism before him. This is a typical Semitic influence in Hinduism.

 

There are many others, like his conception of jiva’s fall down as an incomplete spark of Brahman, the concept of sadhana as a ‘duty’, his conception of ‘bhut-parasth’ (idolatry) and so on. No one can deny the great social, philosophical, cultural and religious influence that Moors had all over India and specially in Bengal due one thousand years of domination. For certain Bhaktivinoda wasn’t free of that influence.

 

[premananda]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology were Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam. Therefore Maya should be combated. This is not found anywhere in srutis and even in Gaudiya-vaisnavism before him. This is a typical Semitic influence in Hinduism.

 

There are many others, like his conception of jiva’s fall down as an incomplete spark of Brahman, the concept of sadhana as a ‘duty’, his conception of ‘bhut-parasth’ (idolatry) and so on. No one can deny the great social, philosophical, cultural and religious influence that Moors had all over India and specially in Bengal due one thousand years of domination. For certain Bhaktivinoda wasn’t free of that influence.

You write so much non-sense

 

[This message has been edited by premananda (edited 10-12-2001).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology...

 

.... the concept of sadhana as a ‘duty’.....

I thought Bhaktisiddhanta was the orchestrater of the "sadhana as a duty" bit.

 

Satyaraja,

 

Where does Bhaktivinoda do this?

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology were Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam. Therefore Maya should be combated. This is not found anywhere in srutis and even in Gaudiya-vaisnavism before him. This is a typical Semitic influence in Hinduism.

 

B]

“Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam.”

 

Satyaraja,

 

Certainly in BG devi or maya is described by Krishna as his “divine energy” and is for the jiva difficult to overcome. And in Bhaktivedanta Swami's purport to Chapter 5 Text 16 (BG) he identifies “nescience” as “Satan”. Here, he also mentions that living entities are bewildered by “nescience”. Moreover, he says, that to think oneself as God is the “last snare of nescience”.

 

Sound like he is saying Satan is Maya – Have you got any ideas about this?

 

 

However, the notion that “Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva” goes back further (than Bhaktivinoda). Are there not traces of that in Srimad Bhagavatam? And Srimad Bhagavatam was published during the 5th century CE. This was before Islam

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Tarun]

SatyarAj-ji:

A question in my nerves you lit

Yet I think you have no answer fit

To satisfy & show me not to quit...

In other words:

By Hari's Grace, who attained mukti sans mukta-sanga?

Hint: if even ZrI RAm & ZrI KRSNa accepted gurus...

[leyh]

Originally posted by leyh:

The following is an excerpt from East West dialogues, a collection of conversations between Reverend Alvin Van Pelt Hart, a noted Christian theologian and ordained Episcopal Priest and Satyaraja Dasa (Steven Rosen) an American devotee of Krishna. Satyaraja Dasa is an initiated disciple of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Parbhupada, Founder-acarya (Spiritual Master) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

 

Satyaraja Dasa: I have a question for you. Generally, nowadays, Christians feel that there is no need for a spiritual master. I think this is largely attributable to the fact that Christians feel that Jesus is the only guru. You know, Christian exclusivity. Jesus is the only way...

Rev.Hart: Yes, I see your point. I would have to say that this is a very narrow-minded conception. Certainly it is not representative of true Christianity. This type of “Christian exclusivity”, as you call it, is of course based on the book of John (14.6),where Jesus says, “ I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me."

Satyaraja Dasa: That's it. That’s the one they always quote. Only through Jesus, they say. We do not need any living spiritual master.

Rev.Hart: Yes. This is an unfortunate interpretation --- one that is quite prominent, however.Anyway, the Original Greek has a different story to tell. ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa;oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.

Satyaraja Dasa: Can you translate?

Rev. Hart:Well,I've already quoted the verse, but the key word here is erketai.This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb. In other words, a more accurate translation would be as follows: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can presently come to the Father, except through me.” You see? In Palestine, two thousand years ago, Jesus was the guru. If he wanted to say that he would be the teacher for all time, he would have used a word other than erketai,but he didn't.

In one sense, of course, I can empathize with my fellow Christians. I have also accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.But objectively, there is no reason to say that he is the only one, although many do say such a thing. (Steven Rosen, East-West Dialogues, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1989, p.54)

 

 

BTW,Is the Satyraja Dasa in the conversation by any chance the same Satyaraja Dasa that frequently posts on this forum?

(Subsequently edited for spelling and factual mistakes)

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

Sorry about the repeated edits...I keep ignoring the spell-check and every time i see a typo....

 

 

[shvu]

 

SatyarAj-ji:

A question in my nerves you lit

Yet I think you have no answer fit

To satisfy & show me not to quit...

In other words:

By Hari's Grace, who attained mukti sans mukta-sanga?

Hint: if even ZrI RAm & ZrI KRSNa accepted gurus

How about Ramana?

 

No Guru, no sadhana, no background and yet it happened to him. If you accept him as a realized soul, that is.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[valaya]

Haribol Leyh! Just delete the previous automatic edit messages at the end of your post and only one (the latest) will appear.

[valaya]

I remember How Srila Prabhupada often warned us against becoming `so-called Christians`. Now some of the so-called `Prabhupada-nugas` are saying he alone is the way and they have no need for the guidance or even association of any living guru. In fact, Riviks are encouraging those who have never had the direct personal association of Srila Prabhupada, while he was alive, to take `initiation` from him with their help and a picture. What to make of all this?

 

My understanding is that the momentary physical association of a pure devotee transfers His Divine Grace automatically, at least to some extent. I never spoke to Prabhupada, yet he pointed at and forcefully chastised me for not sitting properly, something I still cannot do due to physical problems. I remain without any formal initiation. What to do when no particular present day guru seems comparable to him?

 

The scriptures tell us that we all need `dust from the lotus feet of the pure devotee`. What's that about? After sweeping the temple room floor when the Sunday feast had finished, I'd pile up all the dust and put some on my head (must be at least one pure devotee there, eh?). Also, how about caranamrita (I used to sneak into the temple room after everyone else was asleep and finish off what was left...)? Then there's Radha-kunda water (still have over a quart left from my visit to India), maha-prasadam, etc. etc. Does it really come down to a matter of faith?

 

I first saw Srila Prabhupada thirty years ago and that's when he yelled at me, "Sit properly or GET OUT"! The devotees called it special mercy and I seem to have been receiving it ever since... If anyone else finds themselves in a similar position, where they feel they are being forced into Krsna-consciousness in spite of themselves, rather than due to any partcular sadhana they may be performing, I'd certainly like to hear from them (amanpeter@hotmail.com).

 

Anyway, this is how I see it, prabhus, right or wrong. We've all been touched by His Divine Grace somehow or other... Whether or not we can be defined as devotees is actually irrelevant, because we are all destined to become perfected souls eventually. Sri Guru is one and we are all `under the influence`. Since I am apparently unable to surrender to any one gurudev at this point in time, I seek shelter only in Srimati Radharani (as I see Her), trusting that in the future all necessary arrangements will be made by Her. I'd rather keep vows I haven't made than make vows I do not keep...

 

I do believe that the process of Bhakti should be much more simple and natural than we tend to make it, for whatever reasons. After all, we are not the controllers, are we? Thank God for that!

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-12-2001).]

[Caitanyachandra]

Jesus is the only way.,

.

[valaya]

Originally posted by Caitanyachandra:

Jesus is the only way.,

.

 

I believe Lord Jesus Christ has personally helped me a lot and I've been praying to him ever since I can remember. In fact, I still do sometimes. I used to plead with him to save me from all this `madness` that started with ISKCON, but he only seemed to help me accept it by providing a deeper understanding. Took the edge off, so to speak...

 

valaya RR

 

 

[leyh]

Originally posted by valaya:

I remember How Srila Prabhupada often warned us against becoming `so-called Christians`. Now some of the so-called `Prabhupada-nugas` are saying he alone is the way and they have no need for the guidance or even association of any living guru. In fact, Riviks are encouraging those who have never had the direct personal association of Srila Prabhupada, while he was alive, to take `initiation` from him with their help and a picture. What to make of all this?

 

My understanding is that the momentary physical association of a pure devotee transfers His Divine Grace automatically, at least to some extent. I never spoke to Prabhupada, yet he pointed at and forcefully chastised me for not sitting properly, something I still cannot do due to physical problems. I remain without any formal initiation. What to do when no particular present day guru seems comparable to him?

 

The scriptures tell us that we all need `dust from the lotus feet of the pure devotee`. What's that about? After sweeping the temple room floor when the Sunday feast had finished, I'd pile up all the dust and put some on my head (must be at least one pure devotee there, eh?). Also, how about caranamrita (I used to sneak into the temple room after everyone else was asleep and finish off what was left...)? Then there's Radha-kunda water (still have over a quart left from my visit to India), maha-prasadam, etc. etc. Does it really come down to a matter of faith?

 

I first saw Srila Prabhupada thirty years ago and that's when he yelled at me, "Sit properly or GET OUT"! The devotees called it special mercy and I seem to have been receiving it ever since... If anyone else finds themselves in a similar position, where they feel they are being forced into Krsna-consciousness in spite of themselves, rather than due to any partcular sadhana they may be performing, I'd certainly like to hear from them (amanpeter@hotmail.com).

 

Anyway, this is how I see it, prabhus, right or wrong. We've all been touched by His Divine Grace somehow or other... Whether or not we can be defined as devotees is actually irrelevant, because we are all destined to become perfected souls eventually. Sri Guru is one and we are all `under the influence`. Since I am apparently unable to surrender to any one gurudev at this point in time, I seek shelter only in Srimati Radharani (as I see Her), trusting that in the future all necessary arrangements will be made by Her. I'd rather keep vows I haven't made than make vows I do not keep...

 

I do believe that the process of Bhakti should be much more simple and natural than we tend to make it, for whatever reasons. After all, we are not the controllers, are we? Thank God for that!

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-12-2001).]

Hare Krsna, Valaya Prabhu!In The New Testament, it is written:"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."(Hebrews 12:6)

 

Just as the Lord chastises in the spirit of love, so does the Lord's pure devotee chastise in the same spirit.I think it is your good fortune that Srila Prabhupada pointed you for that one moment.I can already imagine how, when you return back to Godhead, Srila Prabhupada might say to you with nostalgia:"I remember you. You were the rascal who didn't sit properly."

 

Would you mind sharing some more details about how Srila Prabhupada came to single you out?

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-13-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Tarun: SatyarAj-ji:

A question in my nerves you lit

Yet I think you have no answer fit

To satisfy & show me not to quit...

In other words:

By Hari's Grace, who attained mukti sans mukta-sanga?

Hint: if even ZrI RAm & ZrI KRSNa accepted gurus...

 

Satyaraj: One may attain mukti by Hari’s free will and grace without following any other mukta (guru or master). This is possible and there are countless examples of that. Others may go to a world created by a mukta to relish with Hari in that same environment.

 

Mukti is caused by vidya, not actually only by another mukta’s sanga. Some may attain this vidya and some simply may not. There are 5 cycles of transmigration, or five oblations of water explained in Chandogya Upansad and Vedanta-sutra.

 

During Kali-yuga most of people who may attain a human body are actually in the 3rd oblation’s path and would never attain mukti without mukta-sanga. They are unfit to attain vidya. They will enter into the samvyoma of another mukta’s heart and there they will relish that mukta’s satya-sankalpa with Hari.

 

Those who are placed into the 5th oblation’s path (the path of Arci, or the path or light) won’t follow any other mukta, as they are in the path of vidya by their own account due Hari’s free will and grace. They are fit to attain vidya. They will become muktas and will create a personal samvyoma within their hearts to reciprocate with Hari their own satya-sankalpa.

 

[valaya]

Originally posted by leyh:

Hare Krsna, Valaya Prabhu!In The New Testament, it is written:"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."(Hebrews 12:6)

 

Just as the Lord chastises in the spirit of love, so does the Lord's pure devotee chastise in the same spirit.I think it is your good fortune that Srila Prabhupada pointed you for that one moment.I can already imagine how, when you return back to Godhead, Srila Prabhupada might say to you with nostalgia:"I remember you. You were the rascal who didn't sit properly."

 

Would you mind sharing some more details about how Srila Prabhupada came to single you out?

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-13-2001).]

 

Dear Leyh, believe me I'm well aware of that biblical quote! I cling to anything that might help me see my wretched life in some positive way and possibly salvage something of value from the wreckage. Unfortunately, when I attempt to share my experiences on these forums (Dharma-mela, VNN, Audarya Fellowship) most of the response is extremely discouraging. Please Email me personally: amanpeter@hotmail.com

 

valaya RR

 

 

[leyh]

Originally posted by leyh:

The following is an excerpt from East West dialogues, a collection of conversations between Reverend Alvin Van Pelt Hart, a noted Christian theologian and ordained Episcopal Priest and Satyaraja Dasa (Steven Rosen) an American devotee of Krishna. Satyaraja Dasa is an initiated disciple of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Parbhupada, Founder-acarya (Spiritual Master) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

 

Satyaraja Dasa: I have a question for you. Generally, nowadays, Christians feel that there is no need for a spiritual master. I think this is largely attributable to the fact that Christians feel that Jesus is the only guru. You know, Christian exclusivity. Jesus is the only way...

Rev.Hart: Yes, I see your point. I would have to say that this is a very narrow-minded conception. Certainly it is not representative of true Christianity. This type of “Christian exclusivity”, as you call it, is of course based on the book of John (14.6),where Jesus says, “ I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me."

Satyaraja Dasa: That's it. That’s the one they always quote. Only through Jesus, they say. We do not need any living spiritual master.

Rev.Hart: Yes. This is an unfortunate interpretation --- one that is quite prominent, however.Anyway, the Original Greek has a different story to tell. ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa;oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.

Satyaraja Dasa: Can you translate?

Rev. Hart:Well,I've already quoted the verse, but the key word here is erketai.This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb. In other words, a more accurate translation would be as follows: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can presently come to the Father, except through me.” You see? In Palestine, two thousand years ago, Jesus was the guru. If he wanted to say that he would be the teacher for all time, he would have used a word other than erketai,but he didn't.

In one sense, of course, I can empathize with my fellow Christians. I have also accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.But objectively, there is no reason to say that he is the only one, although many do say such a thing. (Steven Rosen, East-West Dialogues, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1989, p.54)

 

 

BTW,Is the Satyraja Dasa in the conversation by any chance the same Satyaraja Dasa that frequently posts on this forum?

(Subsequently edited for spelling and factual mistakes)

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-12-2001).]

I'm still curious as to whether the Satyaraja dasa in the above conversation is the same Satyaraja dasa who posts in this forum.Is it you,Satyaraja?

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 10-27-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

BTW,Is the Satyraja Dasa in the conversation by any chance the same Satyaraja Dasa that frequently posts on this forum?

No. The Satyaraja from the conversation is a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The Satyaraja here used to be a disciple of Narayana Maharaj, but later rejected his guru, but forgot to reject the name his guru gave him.