Is Christianity the religion of untruth?

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

"Bhavishya Purana is one of the most highly interpolated text and ideally belonging to the stable of Aurangazeb."

 

May be or may be not. You also claimed Vedas as interpolation of Islam. Before stating anything you have to give evidence. That is not the point. I did not ask for the verse from Bhavishya purana for authority. I am only curious what it says.

[Guest guest]

 

"Bhavishya Purana is one of the most highly interpolated text and ideally belonging to the stable of Aurangazeb."

 

May be or may be not. You also claimed Vedas as interpolation of Islam. Before stating anything you have to give evidence. That is not the point. I did not ask for the verse from Bhavishya purana for authority. I am only curious what it says.

 

 

Notice I said that "ideally belonging to the stable of Aurangazeb." The Vedas are entirely interpolated far more than Bhavishya Purana ever was. If you are curious about what it says just read the Koran. Today's Hindus are only practicing Akbarianity or sometimes called Ismaelam.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Dear J.N.Dasjee,

 

1. Do you consider mleccha dharmas will lead to salvation ?

 

2. Any knowledge that contradicts Vedas or has origin outside the Vedas is essentially Tamasik in nature. So such scriptures surely cannot lead to salvation. In that way only Vedas are true and IT is a necessary condition for salvation (Lord Krishna's grace being the sufficient condition). So how can other mleccha scriptures lead one to Mukti ?

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

"The Vedas are entirely interpolated far more than Bhavishya Purana ever was."

 

This is BS (I am sorry to use such a word for lack of better wods to describe it). Can you exactly point out verses from samhita or upanishads that proves your claim ?

[Guest guest]

Sri Sankara points out the srutis to say that the experience of the Absolute is immediate an real. We all experience the Self. We may call it as One or Many, infinitesimal and/or infinite, eternal or temporary, matter or spirit - whatever. But we cannot deny the existence of the Self. As we can deny even the existence every thing else but the Self, the Self is the Absolute truth.

 

I am therefore I am. There is no better way for me to know my self than by my self. We can never disprove others' spiritual experience (experience of the self). Thus we can never disprove the spiritual experience of the rishis, Jesus, Prophet or even Sai Baba however hard we try through reason. But we can see if these are self consistent systems of thought. We can point out these flaws as we see it and we tend to place in systems of thought that seem flawless.

 

As there are so many flaws in the Bible and Quran, I tend to place my faith in the statements of the Vedas.

 

We can only evaluate if the experience of the sages is an internally self-consistent system or whether it fits in with other systems of thought like logic. The vedic statements about the nature of the Self are internally self consistent.

 

Unless proven otherwise, the sruti has to be considered absolute. The sruti does declare that Krishna is para brahman. So, one accepts the conclusion as such.

[raga]

 

The sruti does declare that Krishna is para brahman. So, one accepts the conclusion as such.

 

 

I know of a couple of verses in this regard, but I am curious if you have anything new in store. Where do you find this exact statement in the sruti?

[karthik_v]

Dear J N Dasji,

 

 

You are holding on to a terrible double standard. When Shankara talks about pouring lead in the ears of a shudra, you claim (without basis) that it is interpolation. Can you show a statement in Shankara's writings where he says Shudras should be taught the Vedas? On the contrary he states the opposite.

 

 

I already offered to provide the arguments as to why these are considered as interpolations. I will do so this week-end. In fact, I can provide statements where Sankara says that mukti should be made available to ALL and specifically and explicitly includes SHUDRAS in that list.

 

 

But you will criticize Jesus for things he never even said.

 

 

Never. Can you please show me where I did so? I only criticize him for what is attributed to him.

 

 

You will quote a passage from the old testament and claim "Jesus said this."

 

 

Only if that OT verse is included in the NT also. Every verse in NT was either spoken by Jesus or has his approval - atleast that is what the church claims.

 

 

1) the old testament is not spoken by Jesus, 2) could have been interpolated at later times, 3) there was no bible during Jesus's time.

 

 

Neither were the 10 commandments originally spoken by Jesus. Nevertheless, SP used to quote one of them, Thou shall not kill, to drive home his point that today's Christians are violating Jesus' teachings. Does it become double standards, if I do that? Actually, both SP and I are correct on this. The church has included many parts of OT in their Bible and claim that Jesus approved those passages. Hence, attributing them to Jesus.

 

Yes, they could have been interpolated at later times. How do we know which parts were interpolated? I can argue that all those Biblical verses relating to ahimsa, love etc., were all interpolations and borrowed from Buddhism through the Greeks. I can argue that the original Bible was devoid of anything good and that is why it appealed to a Barbarian called Constantine.

 

Very true that there was no Bible during the times of Jesus [i mean the time attributed to him. Let us not make it sound as if he really existed]. In fact, there was no Christianity either. Isn't that the reason I address him as Jesus, the rebel rabbi? Jesus was a Jew and belonged to a Jewish sect and practised Judaism. At best, he [meaning the real Jesus] was a small time rebel Rabbi, who was executed for his audacity and for angering the parochial Jewish leaders.

 

 

Here are the facts:

 

1) Shankara speaks negatively about shudras.

2) The Puranas speak negatively of Shudras.

3) The Dharma-shastras speak negatively of shudras.

4) The Niti-shashtras speak negatively about shudras.

5) The Bhagavad Gita speaks negatively about shudras.

6) All of these books were preserved in libraries in South India, and protected from the Muslims.

 

 

1. Debatable. I will provide the arguments.

2-4. None of these were considered as THE BOOKS until the time of Madhvacarya. Only shrutis had that place of honour and they don't talk ill of shudras. They treat all as equal.

5. Bhagavad Gita is not shruti again. Nor is it free from interpolation. Before Sankara, nobody argued on the basis of BG. Even after Sankara's time, it was never the primary treatise. Only shrutis had that place of honour. The popularity of BG is because of the European interest in it. The entire genre of Tamil bhakti works, of Nayanmars as well as Azhwars, show no knowledge of BG. None of the Advaitin writers in Tamil have even quoted BG once. Isn't that clear sign that it was never THE scripture?

6. Only, Tamilnadu was relatively free from Muslim invasion. Even then, Khilji's barbarians invaded Tamilnadu and raped our people. The place where most of the Sanskrit books were preserved was Vijayanagara empire. Even that fell into the hands of Muslims. So, our smritis were never protected from them. Only shrutis were, as they were dependent on oral recitation.

 

 

7) Karthik doesn't like to speak negatively about Shudras, so books in categories 1 - 6 must all be interpolated.

 

 

It is very true that I don't like to talk negatively about shudras, women or blacks. To me, there can be no discrimination on the basis of our birth. Let us not forget for a moment that almost all the smritis were originally written by shudras. It is another story that a few Brahmins actively re-wrote them under the Moghul, Bahmani and British rule - a sizeable number of those Brahmins hailing from Bengal.

 

But, that is not the reason why I consider them to be interpolations. Please tell me if there are multiple recensions is it not apparent that there has been interpolation? For example, Bhandarkar edition found 30% of the 1,00,000 verses in Mahabharat to be interpolations. We have recensions in Ramayana with verses ranging from 24,000 to 48,000. Is it not clear that there have been interpolations?

 

 

8) The present bible is a perfect representation of what Jesus taught, and therefore we should criticize him based on things he never said.

 

 

At least, I have a basis for criticizing him - his supposed teachings in the form of the Bible, which the church unanimously says are his words. On what basis does one glorify him - that too as the Son of the God? Frankly, Jesus won't even figure in my scheme of things, but for all these silly glorifications. When the evil church is scheming to proselytize my poor country men with the support of tonnes of money, the last thing I want is some Hindu acarya going around glorifying Jesus, lending further credence to his cult. It is then that I am tempted to flash the facts and put Jesus in his place - which is nowhere.

 

 

Thats the double standard I am talking about. You should at least have the strength to criticize Shankara along the same lines as Jesus, or people will simply interprete your stance as religious intolerance. Everyone likes to say my religion is best and all others are false.

 

 

You have assumed that I blindly support Sankara. Not the case. If indeed Sankara did say those abominable things, I am totally opposed to them. But, the simple fact is that the Tamil works on Advaita have all been written by shudras, who practised it. Isn't that the reason I have always argued that nobody is perfect? Not for me is the dogma of blindly clinging on to a guru, no matter what his faults are. There are many great things to be gleaned from the writings of Sankara, SP, Aurobindo.... But nobody becomes Son of the God, in my book. Nor the embodiment of perfection.

 

Dear Raguraman prabhu,

 

 

You also claimed Vedas as interpolation of Islam. Before stating anything you have to give evidence.

 

 

I never said that the shrutis have been interpolated. But, I can understand your confusion. Another guest said that, but last time when I posted, I forgot to log on. So, that Guest statement was mine. I hold the vedas to be free from interpretation [every academic scholar too does so] and in the highest esteem.

 

Dear Guest,

 

 

Notice I said that "ideally belonging to the stable of Aurangazeb." ...

 

 

Those were my words. Plagiarism is the foremost sign of intellectual debauchery. You have been talking about interpolation in the vedas, without answering the questions Shvu and I raised yesterday. Today,you are plagiarising my words and claiming them as yours. Please don't forget that the administrator can confirm the identity through IP address. He can even make them public. How about using your real Muslim name for posting? If you think that you are converting the members of this forum to that epidemic called Islam by your tactics, then let me assure you that you are puerile.

[shvu]

 

You can find the relevant Bhavishya Puraana quote here along with more Info about the Gaudiya poition on Jesus.

 

http://www.hknet.org.nz/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm

 

Cheers

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

Even Bhavishya purana does not mention Jesus as avatara. What is the basis on which GV acharyas call him as avatara. Were they simply speculating ???

 

On what authority does HKs base their idea of different kind of avatars ??? Can anyone explain it.

[Guest guest]

Bhakta Joy here.

 

In my opinion GV acaryas know nature of Jesus by their divine vision.There is no doubt that Jesus is son of God.

 

my 2 cents worth...

God bless.

[raga]

 

Even Bhavishya purana does not mention Jesus as avatara. What is the basis on which GV acharyas call him as avatara. Were they simply speculating ???

 

 

As you mention "Gaudiya Vaishnava Acaryas", I must note that I do not recall reading a single sentence from the writings of the Six Gosvamis, Narottama, Visvanatha or Baladeva, who are among the foundational authors of the Gaudiya tradition. Thus it certainly is not a prominent doctrine in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, though some recent acaryas in one particular branch of the tradition have commented on the ontological status of Jesus.

 

Let me nevertheless clarify the subject matter of Saktyavesa-avatara. When the power of the Lord for fulfilling a particular purpose is bestowed to a living entity, he is known as a saktyavesa-avatara. The powers bestowed are the power to teach divine wisdom, the power to instill devotion into others, the power to rule the world, and the power to create, among others. They are further divided into those who are directly empowered by the Lord and those who manifest a reflection of the Lord's potency. The manifestations of the former category are known as "avatara", whereas the latter category are known as "vibhuti". Examples of "vibhuti" are Indra, Agni, Mt. Meru, Brihaspati and so forth. Collectively they are known as the "saktyavesa-avataras". You may study the 10th chapter of the Gita, "Vibhuti Yoga", to get a glimpse of the Lord's "vibhuti". Consequently, even if we do not award the status of a full saktyavesa-avatara, let us be generous and at least recognize him as a noteworthy vibhuti of the Lord. After all, his life has significantly influenced the world for over 2000 years, modeling the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of human beings.

 

[Guest guest]

raga:"let us be generous and at least recognize him as a noteworthy vibhuti of the Lord. After all, his life has significantly influenced the world for over 2000 years, modeling the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of human beings."

 

Generous raga?I doubt if there is one person here that can even begin to begin to estimate His glories.

 

Reminds me of Jayatirtha in the early 70's.Somebody asked if Jesus would come again and JT said "If he does he can stay in one of our temples."That brought laughter.I hope JT has found his head by now.

 

I realize your comment was not intended to be like his.The point of this post is just to remind us of our VERY limited ability to estimate the position of a genuine shatyavesa avatar.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Religion is a tool that we can use to get to God. The tool itself does not matter as long as you get to God. It doesn't matter what tools you use to bulid a table, just as long as the table is built. In the end, there is only one complete universal all encompasing God of totality. I don't think he would mind how we came to Him, just as long as we came to him. Love transcends all limits and boundries. We all seek spirituality and connection with God, that is our nature. Don't bash another religion for they ALL are divine because they lead to God. There are as many paths to God as there are people.

[Kulapavana]

I remember hearing this analogy of religions and rat poison:

 

rat poison is 99.5% good food, and 0.5% poison

 

The same can be said about some religions... it's the small percentage of the "poison" that gets you

[Guest guest]

"The tool itself does not matter as long as you got to God."

 

I totally agree with this. I think we all do. But you cannot compare God to a table.

 

Your analogy holds true only if God is so disposed… He can lend His mercy anywhere. We agree.

 

But some processes are better than others. We should see objectively who has the best information. And we should be careful not to dismiss some sources out of prejudices, etc.

 

I think all personal religions have a since of divinity. Yeah, even the impersonal ones I guess.

 

But saying that you are only acknowledging the oneness of them. When we consider the merits of each, the Vedas (and especially Krsna consciousness reign supreme).

 

ancient paztriot

[Guest guest]

"There are as many paths to God as there are people."

 

But not the last word. Certainly, most of the people show no progress in understanding the religious or moral field. I mean just look around. Will all these individual paths actually lead the many individuals back. NO. In most cases, not.

 

Even the Hare Krsna refugees are still waiting for purity and purpose. It's not a cheap thing. The trick is that actual yoga or connection.

 

There are some institutions that reign supreme. Hardvard and Yale are two. The quality of knowledge and faculty are considered to be the best.

 

Prabhupada single-handedly established his ISKCON as the premier religious order. I'm not talking popularity and numbers. I'm talking about knoweldge and wisdom.

 

He exposed alot of ignorance in society at all levels - armed with this Vedic knowledge.

 

We act or don't act based on what we hear.

 

Prabhupada required vegetarians for nonviolent reasons. Christians don't comply. Most people don't. But to Krsnas it's very important - even as a prerequisite for understanding God.

 

So you hear and make choices based on your faith. But you have to take a stand. You have to take a position. There must be proceedure and science and all that - if we are rational.

 

So why can't ISKCON also enjoy that religious liberalism? Sometimes when we condemn other religions, it is because we see them as destructive - actually. I mean why are there so many hypocrites who eat meat? Why hypocrite? Because there is a double standard. I eat you. Not the other way around.

 

Why can't people see this Vedic Krsna consciousness is the best process? In fact it's so good it is considered a science. Where is the liberalism for us?

 

America, after becoming an industrial tiger, decided religion is best kept at home. So what effect does a government have on religion when they tell people God is not relevent in so many state affairs? The practical result is what you have now: a secular state.

 

If we artificially equate all religions then they sort of cancel each other out… which is the unofficial policy of the government. If they all have the truth, then no one has the truth… this political stuff… divide and conquer… and steal and cheat and lie…

 

ancient paztriot

[Guest guest]

karthik_v wrote:

 

 

Bhagavad Gita is not shruti again. Nor is it free from interpolation.

 

 

 

Before Sankara, nobody argued on the basis of BG. Even after Sankara's time, it was never the primary treatise. Only shrutis had that place of honour. The popularity of BG is because of the European interest in it.

 

 

 

Let us not forget for a moment that almost all the smritis were originally written by shudras. It is another story that a few Brahmins actively re-wrote them under the Moghul, Bahmani and British rule - a sizeable number of those Brahmins hailing from Bengal.

 

 

 

I can't help but notice that this Karthik fellow has a habit of stating things as if they are obvious facts, hoping perhaps that the confidence with which he says them will conceal the fact that he has offered no evidence to substantiate them.

 

Some people speak simply because they like to hear their own voice. Similarly, others post only because they like to read what they write.

 

I for one would be glad to see some genuine discussions taking place between individuals who feel constrained to provide some evidence for their claims.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very interesting and enlightening! There is an interesting ressemblance too between the couples : Osiris/Isis (married brother and sister), Abraham and Sarah, and Mama Ocllo/Manco Capac, founders of the Inca civilization. Mama Ocllo and Manco Capaca are married sister and brother, both children of the Father Sun, sent by their father to civilize the Earth. They 'emerged from the waters' in a 'totora', a boat made of rose canes, whose construction is incredibly similar to the Egyptian ones. Manco was holding a golden specter (vara de oro). The God of the Water is called Nyi.

[Guest guest]

Your reaction is a bit aggressive. Fear of the truth? Let those who have the courage to search the truth continue their search. You don't have to read it.

[Guest guest]

No amount of scientific or historical information will dislodge blind faith. But, all those who seek the real truth, beneath the reality that was brainwashed unto us, are really grateful for the objective data provided.

[Tarun]

So far I'm concerned, Jesus was lacto-vegetarian which made us a shoe-in for ISKCON.

Nonviolence begins with diet.

One professor Chang-Rodriguez often repeated:

"Tell me what u eat, I'll tell u who u r."

Jesus drank unfermented juice. Any church preaching this?

Kaliyuga hypocrisy can cajole any good religion into supporting slaughterhouses & waging continuous war.

Case in point - Wash DC

[Guest guest]

Get your facts right before copy /paste

 

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

 

There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin. And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison. Also, Mithra was formed within a solid mountain, not within a cave. While, logically, a cave was left behind once Mithra dug himself out, saying he was born in a cave is wrong. There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them.

 

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

 

First of all, any religious figure could logically be described as a great traveling teacher and master. However, this label does NOT seem to apply to Mithra. Great and Master, perhaps. But nowhere in his story does he travel or teach.

 

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

 

In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

 

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

 

The earliest references to Mithra’s followers being promised immortality date to around 200 A.D. So again, this was likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

 

5. He performed miracles.

 

This is true, and claims of Mithra’s miracles do date to the pre-Christian Persian versions. But miracles themselves date to far earlier (Noah story, anyone?). So the idea that Jesus’ miracles were inspired by Mithra’s miracles is rather ridiculous. Since Mithra never did anything which equates to Jesus’ miracles (such as walking on water or raising the dead), this could not be called a significant comparison.

 

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

 

Mithra slayed a bull. He was not a bull. He did not slay himself or sacrifice himself in any sense, and the slaying of the bull wasn’t for world peace. For that matter, Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t for world peace, either, but for salvation for those individuals who choose to follow Him.

 

7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

 

There’s no references in any Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being resurrected. There are some external sources suggesting that Mithra died (though how he died is not made clear), but these date to the 4th century at the earliest. I’d say that this would mean they were inspired by Christianity, but since they don’t mention any burial in a tomb or resurrection, I’d say we couldn’t call it ‘inspired’ at all.

 

8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

 

Again, no resurrection.

 

9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

 

Mithra was never called ‘the good shepherd’ or identified with any lamb. He was identified with a lion, but since the lion is associated with Judeo-Christianity all the way back to the book of Genesis, this hardly suggests that Jesus’ lion was inspired by Mithra’s lion. And besides, any references to lions in Mithraic literature date to post-Christian times, making this even less significant.

 

10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos,Redeemer,Savior" and "Messiah."

 

Mithra was never called any of these things, even in the Roman version of Mithraism

 

11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

 

Mithraists did not appoint Sunday as Mithra’s day until post-Christian times.

 

12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

 

Mithra had several special days, but all were in September or October. Mithraists did apparently celebrate the beginning of each season, so there was a celebration at the beginning of spring, but this wasn’t any ‘principal festival’, and the celebration was only for the season itself, not for Mithra.

 

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

 

The closest thing the Mithraic religion has to Jesus’ last supper is the celebration of a meal Mithra had with the sun god after slaying the bull. But nowhere is this called a ‘eucharist’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’, and since it happened AFTER Mithra’s ‘sacrifice’ and not before (as Jesus’ was), it’s hardly a comparison. As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times and, besides that, wasn’t said by Mithra, but by Zarathustra.

 

14. His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.

 

First, Mithra’s sacrifice was not of himself, but of a bull. I’m not sure why the skeptics are using the word ‘annual’ in here, since it only happened once. And the sacrifice did not happen on any sort of Passover, nor was it an atonement of anything.

 

15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

 

So why hasn’t Golding allowed anyone else to see these texts? Are they the pre-Christian Persian texts, or the post-Christian Roman texts? Until Golding opens these texts up for scrutiny, we can do no more than take his word for it. My best guess is that, if these texts exist, they were inspired by 1 Cor 10:4, not the other way around.

 

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conducted by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

 

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia apparently does say these things. But what the critics fail to mention is that it’s describing Mithraic services conducted after Christian times, and thus services and figureheads likely inspired by Christian services and figureheads. The mention of the ‘chief of fathers’ always living at Rome is pretty clear evidence that it’s referring to only Roman Mithraism. Why would the Persian Mithraists have a figurehead in Rome?

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Too bad you cannot accept truth - Christian religion is a meld of Mithraism and Judaism – that’s a fact – however – that does not negate the genuine mission of Jesus Christ – nor does it invalidate the faith of Christians…

[Guest guest]

Bhakta Don is a Myth.

The Guest is a Myth.

Tarun is a Myth.

Kulapavana is a Myth.

Raga and Raguraman and all the rest are Myths.

 

Myth is a Myth.

 

Jesus knew these things.

 

If he didn't, it doesn't matter, since saying "Jesus knew these things" is as real as saying "Bhakta Don", "Tarun", "Kulapavan" and all the rest. Its the content, and not the subject. It is the meaning and not the words.

 

Everything else is an obstruction.

 

K R S