Worship of Jesus in different temples

atma · August 24, 2001

This is in reference to a previous post where I learn that Maitreya was kick out of a temple because he refused to give up Jesus. Just to let you know Maitreyaji, I spent few Xmas in different Iskcon temples and they did worship and put the picture of Jesus in the altar on 25th December. In Medo Lago near Milan (Italy),they had this huge celebration for Christmas and even they distributed presents for all the devotees! Most of the family members came to see the bhaktas and was VERY family oriented. Really nice. In Lima, Peru, the same thing. Picture in the altar, nice kirtana and prasada and even the congregational members were encouraged to bring offerings for the Deities in that day. In Quito, Ecuador, we had beautiful bhajans and a great feast for everybody. Same thing in Santiago, Chile. Even though many times they tried to say that the feast and celebration was for the end of the Marathon, it wasn't so because the Marathon continued until New Year.

It was mostly because everybody came from a Roman Catholic background and everybody understood that we didn't have to give up Jesus, actually with Krishna conciousness we can understand His teachings better.

In Bangkok, Thailand, they used to have Budha in the altar. Same thing in Singapore, in Bhima's temple.

Tarun · September 16, 2001

1) In 1974-5 New Dvarka, we received a letter from SP saying Jesus could be worshipped side by side with RAdhA-KRSNa.

2) From 1987-93 KirtanAnanda, DevAnanda and Advaita had a KC Center on Manhattan Av in Greenpoint, Brooklyn a Slavic neighborhood.

To improve public relations they kept a Jesus of Prague statue next to their RAdhA-Muralidhar altar.

JRdd · September 16, 2001

This is all wonderful to hear. I remember in Bhaktivedanta Manor we used to have wodnerful celebrations of Jesus birthday. Really, unforgettable. Christmas revues, Christmas dinner, extended family, etc.

I keep a little picture of Jesus with children on my altar, and am seeking a frame for a larger print I got at a thrift store, also with children, that I just love. I am glad to hear that about Prabhupada saying that about Jesus on the altar. Makes it even better. Of course knowing Jesus is a pure devotee and shaktavesa avatar, I already felt my own inpsiration in making him more visible to me.

JR

Yashoda dd · September 25, 2001

Dear Tarun prabhu,

dandavat pranams. Sri Guru and Gauranga jayataha.

The letter you mentioned in your message - is there any chance you find it and quote it on this forum?

I find it very contaminating when neophyte devotee comes with the idea that to respect the personality of Jesus Christ is "low and non-intelligent". The letter may help them to rise abow that level of understanding.

Ys, Ydd

September 25, 2001

<h3>Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura on Christianity:</h3>

adi-jivaparadhad vai

sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya

vibhor dandena niskrtih

adi--original; jiva--soul; aparadhad--because of the offense; vai--indeed; sarvesam--of all; bandhanam--bondage; dhruvam--indeed; tatha--so; anya--of other; jiva-bhutasya--souls; vibhor--of God;

dandena--by the punishment; niskrtih--deliverance.

Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities.

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that this material world is not a place of

unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They decided that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment?

What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being, the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of

their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.

janmato jiva-sambhavo

maranante na janma vai

yat-krtam samsrtau tena

jivasya caramam phalam

janmatah--from birth; jiva--of the living entities; sambhavo--birth; marana--death; ante--at the end; na--not; janma--birth; vai--indeed; yat--what; krtam--done; samsrtau--in the world; tena--by that; jivasya--of the living entity; caramam--final; phalam--result.

(These philosophers say that) the living entity's life begins at birth and ends with death. After death, he is not born again. After death he attains the results of his actions in that one lifetime.

To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things: "The living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after

death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have souls." Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion.

In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living entities born into very different situations? The followers of this

religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into a house filled with sufferings, another living entity born into a house filled with joys, another living entity born into the house of a person devoted to

God, and another living enttity born into a wicked atheist's house?

Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why

is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational.

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion

completely unacceptable.

atra sthitasya jivasya

karma-jnananusilanat

visvonnati-vidhanena

kartavyam isa-tosanam

atra--here; sthitasya--situated; jivasya--of the soul; karma--fruitive work; jnana--mental speculation; anusilanat--by cultivating; visva--world; unnati--elevation; vidhanena--by the way; kartavyam--to be done; isa--of God; tosanam--satisfaction.

(These philosophers say that) by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should make improvements in the material

world and in this way please God.

The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work

and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good

to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fuitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation

(jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world.

Tarun · July 9, 2002

Yashoda ddji: this SP letter may have been to JT - JayatIrtha

I recall JT mentioning it while giving class in LA.

I don't recall seeing it. It may be within 5 SP letters-books.

Try a search.

March 24, 2003

You wrote "In 1974-5 New Dvarka, we received a letter from SP saying Jesus could be worshipped side by side with RAdhA-KRSNa."

Can I somehow get a copy of that letter? Does it still exist? Do you offer any puja to Jesus? Thank you, David

April 20, 2003

Why would Prabhupad say that? We should always keep the devotees at the feet of Krsna... no? Even on the altar we do not put the picture of Guru next to Krsna. Oh well, Jesus is surely a great soul. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

hare_krishna · July 23, 2003

I don't think Jesus was any kind of Avatara. He was just a popular guy in that time.

July 20, 2005

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!

There is the question - can we keep other pictures on the Altar?

Here are some quotes from Srila Prabhupada [and Krishna] on Jesus and biblical faith in general - and - keeping a picture of another Shaktyavesha Avatara on the Altar:

"...Setting up an altar at home means receiving the Lord and His pure devotees as your most honored guests...What do you need for an altar? Here are the essentials:

1. A picture of Srila Prabhupada.

2. A picture of Lord Caitanya and His associates.

3. A picture of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna..." [Quest for Enlightenment]

So there is no specific point that one cannot place other pictures of other pure devotees and empowered incarnations on the altar.

The point would be the placement and the context in which they are worshipped - so in that respect I looked up some of these quotes in this connection:

"...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..." [sB 2.4.18, Purport]

"...Lord Jesus Christ was crucified by the nonbelievers..." [sB 2.8.6, Purport]

"...It is said that Lord Jesus Christ, when twelve years old, was shocked to see the Jews sacrificing birds and animals in the synagogues and that he therefore rejected the Jewish system of religion and started the religious system of Christianity, adhering to the Old Testament commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” ..." [sB 7.15.10, Purport]

"...They have let Jesus Christ make a contract for taking all their sinful reactions so they can go on with all nonsense. That is their religion. Christ was so magnanimous that he took all their sins and suffered, but that does not induce them to stop all these sins. They have not come to that sense. They have taken it very easily. “Let Lord Jesus Christ suffer, and we’ll do all nonsense.” Is it not?...Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation. But it is very hard to find a man who is actually being guided by Jesus Christ..." [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers]

"...Anyone who has preached... The religious leaders all over the world... Take Lord Jesus Christ or Krishna or Mu hammed or Lord Buddha. Nobody has said that “You will be happy in this material world.” Nobody has said. “You continue this manufacturing of factories, and you will be happy.” Has anybody said? No...." [Lecture June 27, 1974]

"...Devotee: Prabhupäda? Does Lord Jesus Christ appear in the spiritual sky with the body he manifested on the earth?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Otherwise how there can be resurrection? Ordinary body cannot be resurrected. He appeared in his spiritual body, certainly...." [Lecture January 03, 1969]

"...Now, now the principal religions of the world - Hindu religion, Muslim religion, Christian religion, and Buddha religion - most of them believes some supreme authority or personality coming down from the kingdom of God. Just like in your Christian religion Lord Jesus Christ, he claimed to be the son of God and coming from the kingdom of God to reclaim you. So this claim of Lord Jesus Christ, we admit. We, the followers of Bhagavad-gita, we admit this claim. So there is no difference of opinion between the followers of Hindu religion and Christian religion. In details there may be, according to country, climate and people, in details there may be difference, but that does not make any material difference...." [Lecture July 20, 1966]

"...So this temple worship or accepting some authority, either you accept Krishna or you accept Lord Jesus Christ or Jehovah or Lord Buddha or Guru Nanak, that is a different, I mean to say, kinds of faith, but this acceptance of authority is there in everywhere. Now who is the highest authority, that we have to see by understanding Vedic literature, by our arguments, by our sense, by our understanding. But this acceptance of authority is there...." [Lecture June 13, 1968]

"...The Lord says that the purpose of all Vedic instruction is to achieve the highest goal of life, back to Godhead. Any scripture of any country, not only of this Bhagavad-gita, but any scripture, they are aiming simply how to get us back to Godhead. That is the purpose. Take for any ex... Take for example any of the great religious reformers or acaryas of any country. In your country, Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Buddha. Of course, Lord Buddha, he ad vented himself in India, but later on his philosophy was broadcast all over Asia. Then Lord Krishna, or Hazrat Muhammad - anyone take. Nobody will say that “You make your best plan in this material world and live peacefully.” That is a common factor. There may be little difference according to country, climate and situation in the scriptural injunction, but the main principle—that we are not meant for this material world, we have our destination in the spiritual world—that is accepted by everyone...." [Lecture November 21, 1966]

"...Yes. You can read also Bible. That is nice...." [February 27, 1975]

"...So how we can accept a avatars, a saktyavesha avatara, whose names are not mentioned herein? Then we have to... As in the beginning, Lord Caitanya says that by the symptoms we can understand that He is saktyavesha. By the symptoms and activities and influence. So what is that symptom? Symptom is that eternal and temporary. So avatara, incarnation, comes to glorify the eternal existence of the Supreme Lord. So any avatara, any incarnation, he comes to glorify that “There is spiritual kingdom, there is God, and I have come to reclaim you to back to Godhead, back to home.” This is the symptom. So therefore, by that symptom, we accept Lord Jesus Christ as saktyavesha avatara, or Hazrat Muhammad, he’s also. Because these two religious leaders of the world, they preached about the glorification of the Supreme Lord. And they sacrificed everything for preaching the glories of the Lord. Therefore... And their influence and their followers, there are... These are the symptoms by which we can understand that Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad was, were saktyavesha avatara.

So far Buddha is concerned, he’s also considered saktyavesha avatara. He preached this Nirvana philosophy. Although he did not speak about God, because it is considered that he was himself God, but the people amongst whom he preached, they were mostly atheistic people; therefore he did not preach about God. But he did not deny also...." [Lecture December 31, 1966]

"...Generally the...religion depends on this Crucifixion incident in the life of Lord Jesus Christ, but I think depiction of this incident simply stimulates the tensions of difference of opinion, and difference of religious principles, between the Jews and the Christians..." [Letter dated July 07, 1968]

"...Regarding your questions about [chanting] various names of God, we have nothing to do with [chanting] Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc. If somebody else wants to chant in this way it is all right, but nobody is chanting Jesus etc. If they like, let them do that but as far as we are concerned, we should be satisfied with the Hare Krishna Mantra and nothing more....God has millions of names undoubtedly, but we are especially concerned with the name of Krishna because we are in the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu Who chanted this Holy Name, Krishna. Everyone should be particular to his particular disciplic succession or sampradaya's regulative principles. This is required, as much as there are many different political parties, although every one is meant to serve the country...." [Letter February 13, 1966]

"...Prabhupada: So God said that... God must say. So you say God: Jehovah; and we say God: Krishna. What is the wrong?..." [Conversation January 11, 1977]

"...We have great respect for Lord Jesus Christ. We accept him as powerful incarnation of Krishna, as much as we accept Lord Buddha. We can adjust the Buddhists, Christians, and even the Mohammedans to our KC movement, so if the religious heads of these faiths [do not] try to understand our philosophy, certainly there will be great impetus in the matter of spiritual rejuvenation of the world..." [June 03, 1969]0

"...If so desired, we can worship the picture of Lord Jesus Christ who we admit as the son of Godhead. We worship all worthy sons and servants of God..." [Letter October 01, 1969]

"...Everyone is addicted to hearing of the activities of another person, whether a politician or a rich man or an imaginary character whose activities are created in a novel. There are so many nonsensical literature's, stories and books of speculative philosophy. Materialistic persons are very interested in reading such literature, but when they are presented with genuine books of knowledge like Shrimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita, Vishnu Purana or other scriptures of the world, such as the Bible and Koran, they are not interested..." [sB 3.32.9, Purport]

So we have to look at this:

"...Regarding your questions about [chanting] various names of God, we have nothing to do with [chanting] Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc. If somebody else wants to chant in this way it is all right, but nobody is chanting Jesus etc. If they like, let them do that but as far as we are concerned, we should be satisfied with the Hare Krishna Mantra and nothing more....God has millions of names undoubtedly, but we are especially concerned with the name of Krishna because we are in the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu Who chanted this Holy Name, Krishna. Everyone should be particular to his particular disciplic succession or sampradaya's regulative principles. This is required, as much as there are many different political parties, although every one is meant to serve the country...." [Letter February 13, 1966]

That goes a great deal into the issue - so while it may not be wrong to keep these other pictures on Altars all the time - we usually do not do that - as Prabhupada says:

"...Everyone should be particular to his particular disciplic succession or sampradaya's regulative principles. This is required..."

So unless it is an appearance day of the particular avatara - we would not see them on the Altar in the Temple - just like with the devas Shiva-Shakti.

We must be care full not to blend our faith into a hodgepodge of faiths - no matter the path that we are on.

Of course real ssincerityis the point - if we are sincere - then we of course will ccertainlywish to offer respects to everyone who is serving God - and naturally those souls who came as pure devotees to save fallen souls.

We will all read and understand the cohesive message of all scriptures - but we will not lose sight of our own primary scriptures.

Sure home Altars may have a little more room for including pictures like this - if you wish to keep the picture of Jesus on your Altar - do so - but it's best place it in the right location - like if you could place it on the wall - on the right side of the altar [not right on] - then offer your iincenseto Him as part of the worship of the pure devotees of the Lord.

We must be care full not to make the mistakes that KIRTANANADA did with his ill-blending of ideas - so much of that led to his offences to Srila Prabhupada - which then led to his will full fall downs.

Just see where Krishna has him now - do we wonder if he has an Altar now - and who is he is keeping on it?

Most reading this Will not know of this offender and his offences to Prabhupada - and as I see it the only value any discussion about his situation serves is to show us what not to do.

Here is a glimpse from a letter Prabhupada wrote on October 19, 1967:

"...I congratulate you for your successful dealing with your good brother, Sriman Brahmananda, against His falling back a prey to Kirtanananda's recent propaganda. To save a man from impersonal calamity is the greatest service to humanity. I also thank Rupanuga & Rayarama for helping you in your very laudable action. Brahmananda is very pure at heart. He might have been misled by Kirtanananda for the time being but Krishna did not allow him to fall back. According to Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Lord is full in six opulences & the rascal impersonalists says that the Lord has no form & the most dangerous accusation for the Lord that He assumes a material form when he descends. The Impersonalist is of the opinion that the absolute has no form & He appears in a particular type of form according to the whim of nonsense; The impersonalist presents any form nonsensical by his imagination & worships it as God. This accusation of the Lord is the greatest offence of the nonsense impersonalist. Such offender can never realize the transcendental form of the Lord & the Lord puts such nonsense into more & more darkness so that the dangerous impersonalist can never know the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I do not believe that Kirtanananda has gone to such an extent of ailing situation but if he does not rectify himself immediately his future is very dark. If he is sincere in his concept of impersonal Absolute he should enter into correspondence with me & I shall refute all his arguments; but I understand that he could not answer you even when you hit him with some questions..."

So see how long he was serving with offence!

What did Prabhupada say:

"...if he does not rectify himself immediately his future is very dark..."

History speaks for itself - think of the offences to Prabhupada and to the other disciples of Prabhupada - his own god brothers!

His incorrigible hodgepodge understanding was the start of his fall.

So in that light see how started his bhakti and - how he ended it!

The question is there - why did he have such a bad disposition?

He wanted to make Guru into an impersonal God - so that he could be God.

He wanted to be God - not the servant of God.

Not to mention that he was a deviant sex offender as well - no doubt a result of his blending tantric and sahidya ideas into his bhakti!

So it has been said that if we are sincere then everything will be in the proper perspective in our understandings - but if we are not sincere - and if we fall prey to the modes of passion and ignorance in our pursuit of God - then we might end up like him.

We must not forget that an offence to Guru and/or God and/or sincere devotees and/or [to a lesser extent] innocent souls - is like a disease - one that spreads throughout the minds and hearts of those infected.

The primary causes of offence is lust - in its many and varied forms.

What does Krishna say:

"The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust, which veils the real knowledge of the living entity and bewilders him." [bG 3.37]

So when the mind becomes contaminated and one becomes offensive one will tend try to create all false interpretations - to justify oneself - which leads to blending.

Even in contemporary film - like the sleazy thief guy in the 1990's Mummy movie with Brendon Fraser - recall - he had religious icons of every description around his neck - but none worked for his protection in the end...

Bhakta Don Muntean · July 20, 2005

[please re-read my post - it's edited]

I think this is the letter: