What do Hare Krishna devotees believe about Christ?

[Priitaa]

The article on Balarama is interesting. I never read/heard Prabhupada say anything to indicate this connection even in the slightest, so I tend to question it. Though I think what I question MORE is that we so often want to make one personality 'into' someone. Is Jesus this person or that? Is someone else that other one, or this other one? Sometimes I feel they are simply themselves, merely having similar qualities & behavior due to great purity.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[theist]

what you mean Pritha. I share that view. The Brahma/ Christ/ Haridas connection at least has some support as the Bible clearly has Jesus as the secondary creator. But from our present position we really can't see.

 

Like Arjuna and Christ. There I see different persons with the same message. What confuses me about the Balarama idea is that Prabhupada clearly said Christ was jiva-tattva. Christ also pointed to this fact.

 

Of course there is always a oneness with difference. We know that ultimately the message is one.

 

Haribol

[Priitaa]

Thanks Thiest,

 

I don't mean to sound like I have a problem with ever considering that one great saint, ray of Vishnu, etc., may reincarnate and do some new great thing, just that we may (sometimes) take it a bit too far. Sometimes trying to make them into another soul we are interested in.

 

Or, even if they are that personality, it seems to take away from what they are doing now (etc). Then, what if they are not that personality? But I dont mean to appear too close minded or fanatical, as I believe its ok to wonder a bit. What a boring world it would be if we were not allowed to wonder. And we have the most perfect religion that offers that option. Only, I feel to keep it within sensible limits. Brahma/Christ/Haridas at least has some scriptural connection. Tho I really haven't a clue on that one. LOL

 

That is no reflection on the Balaram issue. My opinion there is, as you too have noticed, Prabhupada was clear that Jesus is jiva-tattava, Balarama is Vishnu-tattva.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[Guest guest]

Haribol, interesting! When I first read CC, I was quite amazed as well as attracted to the citations from gaura ganodesh dapika, showing Chaitanya lila in relation to krsna lila. However, there was always a danger in a tendency to say such and such was such and such, because, ultimately, a danger of mayavad exists. Because all positions are already taken? And if a devote is a devotee from a previous appearance, where does that leave me?

 

Acintya beda beda tattwa is a veghicle where we can see the relationship between visnu and jiva tattwa. Jesus is god in that he has dovetailed his desire with the father. Thus he can be considered Arjuna-like, or Haridas-like, but is jiva tattwa a monism. Are all devotees just radharani in the ultimate sense?

 

I do not get this message from Srila Prabhupada's science. mahak is, was, and will always be mahak, if not, all is lost. Individuality in eternity in relationship with Krsna is the essence of KC. Rememberance of swarup means that I come to know my rasa.

 

Of course, this does not detract from another factual teaching, that when krsna descends, either as himself, a full incarnation, or invests to a jiva (ie parasurama, prthu, et al), he may call upon his eternal associates to appear with him as he pleases. This is the purport of gaura ganodesa dapika.

 

Jesus is Jesus, and we can see from his activities that his relationship as servant and friend of the supreme (he calls Him Eloyha as well as Father) stands alone, without the need for us to decide whether he is balarama, haridas, brahma, arjuna, etc.

 

In fact, in CC, srila prabhupada notes Vaisnava dispute between an acarys (i believe bilvamangala, but I may be wrong) and GGD description about Prahlada and Chaitanya Lila. This is not to be seen as a contention between author of GGD and the acarya, rather as an interesting and nectar producing dispute on a transcendental level. So, I can say that Jesus is Brahma and Haridas without fearing offense to any of these great personalities, merely noting all of their great contributions in helping me become more Kr5sna Conscious.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[gHari]

I recently discovered that someone had saved this old Christnet usenet response on their website. It somehow reminded me of this thread:

<blockquote>On Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:22:19 GMT, Dan wrote:

<blockquote>[...] Question: Which religions, according to the Roman Catholic Church, contain *all* truth? [...]</blockquote>

 

Dan, quite frankly from a Hindu perspective, most Christians appear to worship the demigod, Brahma, who creates the entire material cosmos. They often speak of God being the creator of the world.

 

However there are many Brahmas over time, who serve the primal Lord Krsna, who is also known as Govinda and Syamasundara, in this pastime of creating a playground for the living entities to exercise their desire to be lord - lords of the world. Only when they come back to their senses and realize that they are not the lords, but are eternally God's dependents, will they once again return to the Kingdom of God to be with Him.

 

Granted there is very little information about God directly in the Bible - His pastimes, His dress, His appearance, His relationships, etc. But then, most Christians don't seem to be too concerned about who He really is, anyway. Suffice to refer to Him as the word dog spelled backwards, for all we care .... some sort of black box, a magic giver of bread. We really don't have the time; quite too busy enjoying this world.

 

And so gives rise our tendency to use religion to meet our normal ego requirements - we are the greatest. We are superior: we are right; they are wrong. We shall deride them for we are superior; we are right, they are wrong. We can kill them because we are superior; we are right, they are wrong.

 

The honest Christian is a Hindu and the honest Hindu is a Christian. Once one gets beyond the words, beyond the idiom, only He remains. May we all strive for that goal, for He is the only goal of life ... all else is inconsequential, simply teardrops in the ocean of eternity.

 

Sorry to get all religious on you here, folks.

 

Gary

--

THE RADMAN . . . . Gary Stevason ..... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2108

Caitanya@torfree.net

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall

deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita

</blockquote>

gHari

[Finally has a browser that can post here again]

[theist]

about time.

 

"gHari

[Finally has a browser that can post here again] "

 

 

[Priitaa]

 

However, there was always a danger in a tendency to say such and such was such and such, because, ultimately, a danger of mayavad exists. Because all positions are already taken? And if a devote is a devotee from a previous appearance, where does that leave me?

 

 

I am also wondering where that leaves me. :-) That is, maybe you could clarify, as I had no idea it had any connection to Mayavadi. Just fun mental games devotees sometimes like to participate in. ha But in order that I can make sure I do not commit this offsense, or to see where I may have done so and thus can avoid it in the future, plesae explain to me how this can result in something Mayavadi? Thank you.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[Priitaa]

Gh,

 

Interesting, tho I still have to say, it is one (or more) person's 'opinion,' as Prabhupada never said Jesus is Lord Brahma or visa versa. And he was not one to hide such things. He was always telling us this one was an incarnation of that one, etc. Even on Jesus, he gave us controverisal information, such as, he did not die on the cross, Jesus lived in Kashmir, and so on. Now, if it turns out that Jesus is indeed Brahama, that's fine. I just see mostly we are speculating and becoming attached to our speculations, thus looking for more evidence to prove them. :-) So, am not sure what to think of this Jesus is Braham idea, but will remain open to it for now.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[theist]

Pritha, Just to make sure I understand you correctly, when you say that Prabhupada said Jesus did not die on the cross you are not suggesting that there was no cruifixation. Only that death itself is a superfical concept.

 

same page?

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

Right Theist,

 

Jesus WAS indeed crucified, but he survived the ordeal. He later moved to Kashmir Inida, and his tomb/samadhi is there.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[livingentity]

a program about this on the history Channel (I think). They found a tomb there that was obviously not typical to any others and had jewish script on it. It dated back to the time of Christ. There was other evidence concerning Christ being there at the time including some scrolls mentioning a man named Isa (??not sure if that is correct) which translated out to Christ. It has been a long time since I saw the program and my memory is short but I would like to see it again. I believe it was called "Searching for Christ."

[Priitaa]

Yes, Chrit's name is also Isa. This name is actually used in various religions for him (as he preached all over the world). Other names were similar. It more denotes his position than anything. Isa Messiah or Isa das, same. Servant of God.

 

That sounds like his tomb which was on the program you described.

 

Personally, and from all I've read so far, tho he was Jewish, I believe he knew Krishna is God. He just had a specific misison.

 

YS,

Priitaa

 

[Priitaa]

By the way, there is also mention of Jesus/Isa in the Bhavisya Purana, part of the Maha Purana. It's in Sanskrit. He says he came as the savior of the mlecca's. He says this over and over. He was clear on what his (difficult!) mission was. And they tried to kill him for it. Just see. Anyway, it is there, in our scrolls too.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[gHari]

Prtha dd,

 

I was not trying to suggest that Lord Jesus is an incarnation of Lord Brahma. As I remember, I had become peeved at the attitude of the Christians on that forum towards non-Christians. They were all bickering like demons sorta like we get at times here, and there.

 

gHari

[Priitaa]

Oh, that's ok, Gh. At this point, I'm not sure which devotee belives what. ha Moslty, I am just trying to figure out what 'I' believe about who Jesus is.

 

But you make a good point. Not to bicker to such extreme degrees but instead find something in common.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[theist]

http://gaudiyavedanta.net/books/bog_gethsemane.htm

[BlackFog]

Forgive me for interrupting. Regarding Jesus, I have been perusing the comments here, and find people making some remarkable claims. I would really like to know the historical sources for this information (that He didn't really die, that He visited Kashmir, that He worshipped Lord Jagannath, and so on). Can anyone enlighten me? In particular, where and when did Srila Prabhupada say that Jesus didn't really die?

Haribol!

BlackFog

[gHari]

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> Just like Jesus Christ. He is being crucified, and still he is merciful: "God, these people do not know what they are doing. Please excuse them." This is sAdhu. He is personally being disturbed by the demons, but still, he is merciful to the general people. They are suffering for want of KRSNa consciousness. So even up to the point of death, he is trying to preach KRSNa consciousness. "Let the people be benefited. Eh, what is this material body? Even if I am killed, I am not killed. This body is killed, that's all." This is sAdhu. TitikSavaH kAruNikAH. In one side he is tolerant, and other side, merciful.</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> Just like in the Bible, the first injunction is "Thou shall not kill." This means the people were, in those days, at least people who were all around Christ, they were very much expert in killing. Otherwise why he says first, "Thou shall not kill"? So this injunction must be followed. Unfortunately they first of all killed Jesus Christ: "You are speaking ‘Thou shall not kill'? I shall kill you." Just see. This is the position. "So what is my fault? You want to kill me?Because you are speaking of God, therefore we shall kill you." And actually it actually happened. This is demonic.</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> So Lord says, KRSNa says, ajo 'pi sann avyayAtmA: "Although I have no business to come down here, and I am eternal..." Both of us are, the Lord and the living ent..., we are, both of us are eternal. BhUtAnAm Izvaro 'pi san. Izvara. Why He comes? When Lord comes, He comes out of His good will. And when we come, we are forced. We have been forced to accept this body under the condition of the material nature. So when Lord comes or His representative comes, they do not accept the condition of the material nature. That is the distinction between ordinary living entity and the Supreme Lord or His representative. Just like Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. So he could not be crucified. It is a, I mean to say, false notion. There was, there was resurrection. Because God or God's representative, they are not under the laws of this material nature. That's a very, I mean to say, wide subject matter. We shall gradually understand as we make progress in the Bhagavad-gItA. So KRSNa says that "Although I am the Lord of everything, still, I assume this incarnation and I come. I come."</blockquote>

 

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

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> Yes. Otherwise how there can be resurrection? Ordinary body cannot be resurrected. He appeared in his spiritual body, certainly. Jesus Christ told, if I remember, that "Lord, excuse these persons," who were crucifying him. Is it not? He knew that "These rascals, they are killing me, but... They are offending certainly. So they do not know that I cannot be killed, but they are thinking that they are killing." You see? But that was offensive, therefore he begged Lord to be excused because God cannot excuse to the offenders of the devotee. He can excuse one who is offender to God, but if somebody is offender to the devotee, God never excuses. Therefore he prayed for them. That is devotee's qualification. He prays for everyone, even of his enemy. And he could not be killed. That he knew. But those rascals, they thought they were killing Jesus Christ.</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> To get out of this miserable condition, Sukadeva says, here it is, says, karuNayA Aha. KaruNayA means "out of compassion." People are suffering. This is VaiSNava. VaiSNava takes so much trouble to speak to the rascals and dulls about God consciousness. Why? Out of compassion. They are very compassionate. "Oh, so many people are suffering for want of knowledge. Let me try to give them some knowledge." KaruNayA. This is VaiSNava's qualification. He is very kind. TitikSavaH kAruNikAH. TitikSavaH kAruNikAH. Just like Lord Jesus Christ. He was being crucified. Still, he was saying, "My father, they do not know what they are doing." Is it not? He is so much compassionate that "These rascals do not know what they are doing, rascals. Still, I request You to forgive them." This is VaiSNava. Personally he is suffering, but he is still compassionate. There was an article recently, that Jesus Christ, although he was crucified, he did not die. Yes. He went to Kashmir. Some historical references are there. So actually, when he was representative of God, son of God, how these rascals could kill him? It was a show only.

 

Anyway, so the devotees, they are so compassionate that titikSavaH, they suffer all kinds of odds in this material world. Still, they try to give the information, "There is God, there is kingdom of God. You are suffering here. Please do this so that you can again come back to home." This is the VaiSNava.</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> What is that?

Guest (2): Somebody... I have heard or read somewhere that Christ had studied in India. Is this true?

PrabhupAda: Yes, I have also heard, but I do not know whether it is true. Maybe, because India is the place of learning. From China, from other places, from Greece, the history says, they used to go to India. So quite possible. And I have heard from reliable sources that Christ was absent from his home for twelve years, and he went to India for studying. Maybe. Yes. Yes?</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda:<blockquote> The Vedic civilization is... Therefore India was open to everyone: "Come on. Come here." Therefore they entered as friend, and they conquered. Because India was open. "Yes, you are guest. Come on. You learn here." Lord Jesus Christ also went there to learn. So they kept open everything. Para-upakAra. Still, Caitanya MahAprabhu said... Whatever is done is done. Caitanya MahAprabhu is speaking when it was already conquered by the Mohammedans, the Pathans, but still He said, "Those who have taken birth in India, they must do this para-upakAra, do good to others." He never said, "Don't allow anyone." The Mohammedans have come. He did not care whether Mohammedans comes or Christians come. He knew that "Indian culture is so strong, these rascals cannot do anything. They will come here and plunder for some years and then go away. That's all. So let them do that. But your culture, Indian culture, is so great that you should distribute." BhArata-bhUmite manuSya-janma haila yAra: [Cc. Adi 9.41] "Anyone who has taken birth in India, he should first of all make his life successful and distribute this knowledge all over the world." That is Caitanya MahAprabhu's mission. We are engaged in that mission.</blockquote>

 

PrabhupAda: That's all. All right. If there is no question, chant Hare KRSNa. (end)</blockquote>

[Guruvani]

I remember reading somewhere in a purport of Srimad Bhagavatam where Prabhupada says that sometimes these siddhas from siddhaloka (a satellite of Brahmaloka) come to Earth as "MESSIAHS" to help relieve the suffering of the conditioned souls on Earth. MY personal impression from that statement was that he was referring to Christ, so since then I have beleived that Christ was a great mystic devotee from Siddhaloka who came to preach to the fallen souls of the middle-east.

I don't remember where exactly I read that. If someone wants to research it more I think they will find such a statement by Srila Prabhupada somewhere in the Bhagavatam.

[theist]

I've read that also, but concerning Lord Jesus Christ he said he came straight from the spiritual world.

[livingentity]

NOt sure if this is the verse you are speaking of but in the word for word sanskrit - we are told that siddha-isah means masters of mystic power.

 

Isa - name of Christ in India?

 

 

"O great souls, I have heard that among the great and perfect persons wandering the surface of the earth to instruct knowledge to people covered by ignorance are Sanat-kumAra, NArada, ™bhu, AGgirA, Devala, Asita, ApAntaratamA [VyAsadeva], MArkaNDeya, Gautama, VasiSTha, BhagavAn ParazurAma, Kapila, Sukadeva, DurvAsA, YAjJavalkya, JAtukarNa and AruNi. Others are Romaza, Cyavana, DattAtreya, šsuri, PataJjali, the great sage Dhaumya who is like the head of the Vedas, the sage PaJcazikha, HiraNyanAbha, Kauzalya, Srutadeva and ™tadhvaja. You must certainly be among them.

 

PURPORT

 

The word jJAna-hetavaH is very significant because great personalities like those listed in these verses wander on the surface of the globe not to mislead the populace, but to distribute real knowledge. Without this knowledge, human life is wasted. The human form of life is meant for realization of one's relationship with KRSNa, or God. One who lacks this knowledge is categorized among the animals. The Lord Himself says in Bhagavad-gItA (7.15):

 

na mAM duSkRtino mUDhAH

prapadyante narAdhamAH

mAyayApahRta-jJAnA

AsuraM bhAvam AzritAH

 

"Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons, do not surrender unto Me."

Ignorance is the bodily conception of life (yasyAtma-buddhiH kuNape tri-dhAtuke. .. sa eva go-kharaH). Practically everyone throughout the universe, especially on this planet, BhUrloka, thinks that there is no separate existence of the body and soul and therefore no need of self-realization. But that is not a fact. Therefore all the brAhmaNas listed here, being devotees, travel all over the world to awaken KRSNa consciousness in the hearts of such foolish materialists.

The AcAryas mentioned in these verses are described in the MahAbhArata. The word paJcazikha is also important. One who is liberated from the conceptions of annamaya, prANamaya, manomaya, vijJAnamaya and Anandamaya and who is perfectly aware of the subtle coverings of the soul is called paJcazikha. According to the statements of the MahAbhArata (SAnti-parva, Chapters 218-219), an AcArya named PaJcazikha took birth in the family of MahArAja Janaka, the ruler of Mithila. The SAGkhya philosophers accept PaJcazikhAcArya as one of them. Real knowledge pertains to the living entity dwelling within the body. Unfortunately, because of ignorance, the living entity identifies himself with the body and therefore feels pleasure and pain."

 

[Guest guest]

Isa - name of Christ in India?

 

_

 

Isuh is the name of christ in India. They call him Isuh prabhuah -its from a movie called karunamaya (thats where I saw it)

 

-I love krishna

[livingentity]

Isa is also name for Christ in India.

[Guruvani]

Narada Muni is also said to be from siddha-loka and he has ability to go back and forth from Vaikuntha to this Universe. Jesus might be of similar calibre, able to go from Vaikuntha to this Universe. Many siddhas have that power and their planet of residence in this world is siddha-loka. At the time of universal desolution they return to the Vaikuntha world.

 

Jesus was referred to as the MESSIAH in his culture and I firmly believe Prabhupada used that specific term as it relates most commonly to Christ. There is really no other figure in human history known as the MESSIAH besides Christ and I don't think Prabhupada would have used that term if he were not indicating Christ.

 

He could have come from Vaikuntha to siddha-loka or attained Vaikuntha from siddha-loka. There is no other MESSIAH that has been known since the time of Christ.

 

Christ always referred to his father in Heaven. Heaven and Vaikuntha are two different worlds. There are some indications in the Old Testament that the God of the Bible was not at all Krishna, rather some demigod or possibly Lord Brahma.

The God of the Bible liked burnt offerings of meat. We know for certain that such offerings could never have been made to Krishna. If the God of Christ is the same God of the Old Testament, then the God of Christ could not have been Krishna, rather some demigod who accepted burnt offerings of meat. It says in the Bible that God loved the smell of burnt animals in the sacrifice and the taste of their blood. There is no way that the God of the Bible could have been Krishna or Vishnu.

 

Prabhupada also said that the Bible was the scripture of the mlecchas and if you read the Bible you will become a mleccha. The God of the Old Testament was a jealous and destructive God as he himself admitted in the Old Testament. He caused the Jews to destroy entire cities including the women, children and everything that breathed.

 

Prabhupada was very careful not to start a war with the Christians, but if you read the Bible you will find that the God of the Bible was a meat-eater who was very vengeful and wrathful. This is not Lord Vishnu, the God of Goodness, rather some other diety more akin to Kali.

 

I have no sentiments about Christ or the Bible. Prabhupada is the saviour of the modern world, not the religion that promotes and condones wholesale slaughter of cows.

 

The Jesus we think we know is nothing like the real Jesus. Jesus was a Jew and he didn't look anything like the modern western portrayal of Jesus.

 

I think most of what Prabhupada said about Jesus was just diplomacy to avoid a war with the Christians and to placate devotees who were sentimental about Jesus. In the Chaitanya Caritamrita Prabhupada said that devotees like Haridas Thakur and Vasudeva Datta were MILLIONS OF TIMES GREATER THAN CHRIST. If Christ was such a great pure devotee then why would Prabhupada say that? That tells me that Christ was not really everything that the sentimental Christian devotees would like to think him to be. Prabhupada was very wise and wiley when it came to avoiding a religious war with the Christians, but in his books he told the truth that the real pure devotees are millions of times greater than Jesus Christ. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[theist]

That is certainly possible. I have no independent knowledge on this and some of what I believe does seem to be contradictory. For instance, I tend to believe that Christ and Brahma are one and the same yet I believe Christ came from the spiritual world. I also believe that Christ goes from planet to planet distributing love of God. In my mind I tend to vision Christ drawing souls to Brahmaloka for further teaching and then returning to Vaikuntha with him when the universe closes. Just musings of course.