nirvisesa -sunyavadi?

[Guest guest]

I find it curious, Krishna S., that you are so repulsed by Chritianity. In your first post in this thread you stated that 'I don't see how we can say anything definitive about the original Christianity and Islam, since we have no evidence regarding the nature of these religions in their early periods.' This sentence speaks volumes about you and what you know and don't know. How can you speak of scholarship on the one hand and make such an ignorant statement on the other? Why not stick to your area of study and experitise since you obviously know little to nothing about Christianity. Contrary to your statement there is actually quite alot known about the early church and it's practices. I personally have little interest in such matters since I am a follower of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but since you brought up the fact that what we say and do will be seen with critical eyes since we are representing something so noble and sublime, I think it only right to correct you in your false statements.

 

This thread was started with the question of whether or not Christianity and Islam are impersonalistic or voidistic. It is not about the similarities or lack thereof between various religious systems and scriptures.

 

Clearly Christianity is not impersonalistic or voidistic - end of discussion really.

 

The fact that Christianity is from another part of the world with different social customs is quite obvious and I see no reason whatsoever to expect cow protection to have been developed independently in another culture/religion. The common theme is non-violence. How many devotees are really embracing the underlying concept. Of course, cow protection means much more to vaishnavas than mere non-violence - but how many devotees around the world whether they be from a christian or hindu background are fully embracing what it means to be truly non-violent. Label reading and simply delcaring that something is o.k. to offer because it doesn't contain certain ingredients is not what this injuction is about. It calls for us to be truly conscious in all that we do. What about the cows that are used to produce milk in this country - how are they treated? Shall we support such treatment - is that what is meant by cow protection? Surely not! What about polluting the environment with pesticides and inorganic fertilizers - again surely not a good practice and not consistent with all it means to be thoughtful and progressive.

 

I wouldn't simply sit back and judge an entire group of individuals based on a single practice and state that there can be no spiritual advancement due to not following it the way that a 'hindu' does. This is not only unreasonalbe but quite fanatical. We are meant to become soft hearted people. Do you not see all the good that Christians do for their fellow man? Do you not know of followers of hindu Dharma that are miserly and lack compassion? I know of many Christians personally who sacrifice so much time, money, effort etc. They are living exemplary lives in many ways and they practice with all their hearts. Shall we say that there can be no progress in them because they are meat eaters? Sorry, I don't buy it. Back it up with scripture as well as common sense and practical experience. What I mean to say is a specific injunction that says 'no progress in spiritual life if one eats beef.' Shall we simply ignore the tangible and practical progress we see in our brother man based on such a conception? Shall we ignore our own logic as well as our own sensory perception in the matter?

 

I was talking to a christian aquaintence of mine the other day and he said that he had seen a special on India and he was very repulsed by so many things. He said, 'they have temples for rats! And he said, 'the living conditions are so abominable. Then he said, 'the public transportation in Mumbai has so many people shoving and pushing and ladies get abused without any recourse.' He didn't say it, but I knew he was thinking 'how can anyone make spiritual advancement is such a society'.

 

I told him of my own journey to India and my own impressions which were quite different from what he had seen on television. I explained some aspects of Vedanta and Vedic philosophy to him so that he would have a different perspective from which to view the sensory data he was subjected to.

 

I hope that in your stay in the U.S. that you will find that your predudices melt away that you find the goodness in people wherever you may be.

 

We are followers of Mahaprabhu for a reason, but we do not denigrate others or claim that ours is the only valid method of approach to divinity.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

The fact that Christianity is from another part of the world with different social customs is quite obvious and I see no reason whatsoever to expect cow protection to have been developed independently in another culture/religion.

 

 

I think his point is that "dharma" is the injunction coming directly from God (dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam), thus it may be logical to conclude God would have established certain fundamental principles in other cultures if He was actually establishing a religion focusing on shuddha-bhakti.

 

Principles such as cow protection are not Hindu cultural beliefs or social customs, they are themselves sat-dharma.

 

I personally do not know what was taught in the Christian religion thousands of years ago or whether cow protection was one of these principles. If it wasn't one of these principles, then I would personally conclude that these teachings (at whatever point in time) were not centered on pure devotional service to the Lord.

 

I think Bhaktivinoda Thakur's own views on this topic are quite relevant:

 

 

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist 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.

 

 

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 entity 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.

 

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 fruitive 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.

 

(From Tattva-viveka commentary)

 

 

 

I believe the section in bold is right in line with Krishna_s's statement about cow protection.

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, I have read that bit by Bhaktivinoda Thakur before. However, it really misses the mark on many counts. Christians do not worship God with the express hope of having a happy material life. That is a big misconception. They are interested in serving God and suffering is a big part of that. Ever heard of Job? (technically that's old testament - but his story serves to illustrate that Christians are no strangers to embracing suffering as part of their service) They are instructed to act as Jesus did and take up their own 'cross' on a daily basis. This is quite different than the idea of worship for the reward of material benefit.

 

Anyway, I am a follower of Mahaprabhu - I have practically no interest in Christianity because it doesn't focus on Krsna personally. It's principles are good and the general moral teachings are fine but I have no attraction for salvation.

 

I didn't get the correlation between the highlighted section and Krishna_s' comments and cow protection. However I will simply state what should be obvious to anyone - progress comes in stages and we are multi-dimensial beings. There are those who follow the principle of cow protection who don't appear to be making much progress spiritually and other who don't who do. It is not a simple formula like that.

 

I am not interested in comparitive religion per say - but making blanket statements about those who follow another faith such as Krishna_s did is not progressive and leads to little ability to dialogue. There can be no meaningful dialogue with such a dogmatic approach. If anything, it makes what we are involved in seem petty and spiteful with little compassion or understanding of those who follow a different path.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's statements about philanthropy in terms of Christian theology miss the mark considerably as well. The Christian idea is that they serve God in each person. They are taught to see Christ in each and every person and behave accordingly. This is nicely stated by Christ when he instructed his followers that, 'whatever you do unto the least of these that you do unto me.'

 

The hindus have adopted a similar idea known as Harijana seva - but it is not completely analogous. Anyway, I have no arguments in terms of our ideals and what we are about and what constitutes suddha bhakti. I just find it less than charitable to say that no member of another religion can make any spiritual progress due to their not following a precept of another. By that I don't mean that I don't accept cow protection as important, I just don't see it as the big show stopper that Krishna_s makes it out to be and I also find that many people who advocate cow protection fall far short of the ideal.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[theist]

Does Krishna_s drink milk in the west? All devotees should look into milk drinking and the veal industry. Ever wonder what happens to those male calves who will never give milk. Or the female cow slaves once they are a little past their prime milking years? Not a pretty picture.

 

 

We must also remember that Bhaktivinode himself was a meat eatter and only gave it up as a last attachment. Are we to assume that while he was eatting meat he made no progress?

[gHari]

K,

 

You should have read the link. Will one be swan-like or ass-like? But then, does one have a choice?

 

gHari

 

 

[Guruvani]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Guruvani]

Audarya-lila das says:

 

Yes, I have read that bit by Bhaktivinoda Thakur before. However, it really misses the mark on many counts.

 

 

and he says:

 

 

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's statements about philanthropy in terms of Christian theology miss the mark considerably as well.

 

 

 

My high opinion of him has just been seriously diminished with such arrogance and impudence to condescend to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur with these words.

 

Such statements betray a very feeble and blunted understanding of Bhaktivinode.

 

I thought Audarya-lila das was coming along nicely as a student of Sridhar Maharaja's siksha, but I can see that his sentiments and arrogance have created a great stumbling block to his advancement with such an offensive attitude towards the wisdom of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

[Guruvani]

[Message deleted - Please keep all postings on the philosophy and avoid personal insults - admin5]

[theist]

I like Audarya-lilas post and really agree with it very much. In fact I learn something positive from him every time he does offer up his thoughts.

 

You Guruvani on the other hand, I learn from as well. But from a reverse angle I am sorry to say. And even when I do directly agree with you I have to fight through the insults to others to get to that point.

 

Why don't you refute philosphicaly his points if you can and really prove your understanding of the truth. Not many around here are fooled by flag wavers and cheerleaders anymore.

 

Instead you choose to try and pain heart his feelings by directing attacking his guru. A most barbaric and uncivilized thing to do. It's also a creeper killer.

 

The amazing thing just before I click on this thread I happened to read these two verses from SB 11.23.2-3

 

 

Lord Sri Krsna said: O disciple of Brhaspati, there is virtually no saintly man in this world capable of resettling his own mind after it has been disturbed by the insulting words of uncivilized men.

 

Sharp arrows which peirce one's chest and reach the heart do not cause as much suffering as the arrows of harsh, insulting words that become lodged within the heart when spoken by uncivilized men.

 

 

Feel free to attack me now if you like. It will just fit in with the rest of the chapter. Such synchronicity is hard to find.

[Guruvani]

Maybe Audarya-lila das has some criticisms of Bhaktivinode in his own mind, but I am surpised that he is foolish enough to advertise them on the internet.

 

I guess you think it is alright for him to criticise and vilify Bhaktivinode (who is our real guru)and we are supposed to just give ditto and let him go on with his nonsense unchecked.

 

So, I have come to show errors in the preaching of neophyte gurus and now I am the bad guy?

 

What will they think of next?

[theist]

Its your style. Look i am just trying to learn this lesson myself after being 51 years on this planet this time around. Words are powerful. They are meant for enlightening others and not for wounding them.

 

Like we spoke of before. The knife in the hands of a criminal and the knife in the hands of a surgeon are not the same. but the surgeon will also first try to dull the pain in the patient as much as possible. In emergency, like a battlefield that may not be possible, but then he cuts as a last resort.

 

Now I am also suspicious of Tripurari's role in promoting homosex marriage etc. But on the other hand i can also see that Krsna has given him alot of insight. It may be the safest and most effect thing to slow down and try to weigh out each point on its on merit. It's clear from Prabhupada's teaching that homosex marriages have no place in Iskcon. But that idea is not all that is Tripurari Swami.

 

But seriously Audarya-lila has always shown a high level of personal interaction here on these forums. Few can claim that and i'm not one of them. So even if we think he says something wrong let's give him the respect he has already long earned?

 

Bhaktivinode himself told us not to blindly accept the writing of the past authors.

 

There are many types of Christianity going on out there. What Bhaktivinode said didn't encompass all of them.

 

Anyway this thread has diverted much so let's bring it back. For Christianity I see a major problem with their theology is they have no clear definition of what is the nature of the soul. See them as pre-schoolers in that sense.Although I know many of them have a MUCH stronger practical faith then I do. On a philosophical level we should help them understand more along these lines if possible and not be content with using the words of the past acarya's to feed our delusions of being bigger stronger and wiser.

[Guest guest]

If you were offended by my remarks I apologize to you, however I have serious doubts that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was offended in any way. I didn't villify him. I don't accept everything I read from anyone. Bhaktivinoda Thakur said many things regarding Christianity at different times. I found the quotes that JNDAS presented by him to be of the category of relative truth and I pointed it out. There are many branches of knowledge and I don't expect a Gaudiya Vaishnava Guru to have perfect command of them all. As far as representing Christianity and what it is about I would say that Bhaktivinoda Thakur's remarks that I commented on are not much different in terms of revelation or accuracy than a well read and practicing Christians are when he comments on Hinduism. Of course there is some difference because the educational system in India at the time of Bhaktinoda Thakur was heavily influenced by Christianity and western education certainly doesn't have much influence coming from Hinduism. Nevertheless, any well read Christian will have a cursory idea of what Hinduism is all about and what it's goals are based on some education in world religions - but they certainly won't be able to represent the tradition accurately.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guruvani]

The problem I see with Audaraya-lila's argument is that he is arguing with Bhaktivinode on his(Audarya-lila's) idealized conception of Christianity and not the common Christianity that is prevalent in society.

 

He is trying to make it out that modern Christians are following the pristine, idealized Christianity that has been philosophized by Christian theologians in their most inspired thinking, when in actuality most so-called Christians of today follow a very mundane and philanthropic brand of Christianity that has very little to do with the idealized precepts of Christianity and is based on the bodily concept of life.

 

I am not personally offended by anything he has said. I am just surpised that he would be so foolish as to try and expect that other devotees would be sympathetic to his differences with Bhaktivinode.

 

The hungry should be fed. But philanthropy is philanthropy and religion is religion. Distributing prasadam is not the same as passing out hamburgers.

 

Passing out hamburgers is not religion!!

[Guest guest]

Ok... please explain this to me Guruvani

[Guest guest]

"I_love_krishna"

[krishna_s]

 

 

I find it curious, Krishna S., that you are so repulsed by Chritianity.

 

 

 

 

I find it even more curious that, despite stating my objections clearly and with recourse to reasoning, nevertheless your responses are based wholly on sectarian bias and sentiment with no regard for the evidence.

 

Yes, I admit openly that I find cow-killing in this age of Kali to be repulsive. Especially when it is done by people who claim to be followers of a "religion."

 

 

 

In your first post in this thread you stated that 'I don't see how we can say anything definitive about the original Christianity and Islam, since we have no evidence regarding the nature of these religions in their early periods.' This sentence speaks volumes about you and what you know and don't know. How can you speak of scholarship on the one hand and make such an ignorant statement on the other? Why not stick to your area of study and experitise since you obviously know little to nothing about Christianity.

 

 

 

 

A common ISKCON devotee argument goes likes this: "Christianity and Islam are bona fide paths to God. But many of the things they do today (like cow-killing) are due to their own misinterpretations of the original Christianity and Islam. The original Christianity and Islam are nothing like they are today." Proponents of this argument point out that the Bible, with all its references to eating of meat, etc were heavily edited/interpolated around the time of the Council of Nicea (4th-5th century if memory serves). Based on that argument, we do not have access to the original Bible. Devotees conclude that the original Bible was far more compatible with Sanaatana-dharma, but my point simply is that if we don't have access to the original, then we don't know one way or another. We can't conclude, objectively speaking, that the original must have been more compatible with our religious views merely because it serves our agenda.

 

I believe that was a clear enough statement on my part. You can either respond to this, or you can continue to indulge in accusations of prejudice to cover up for your inability to respond convincingly in an evidence-based fashion.

 

 

 

Contrary to your statement there is actually quite alot known about the early church and it's practices.

 

 

 

 

Great. I love to be educated. So quote to me the original Biblical injunctions against cow-killing, and I will gladly admit I'm wrong.

 

 

 

I personally have little interest in such matters since I am a follower of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but since you brought up the fact that what we say and do will be seen with critical eyes since we are representing something so noble and sublime, I think it only right to correct you in your false statements.

 

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

 

 

 

This thread was started with the question of whether or not Christianity and Islam are impersonalistic or voidistic. It is not about the similarities or lack thereof between various religious systems and scriptures.

 

 

 

 

It was until Guest wrote on 7/9/03:

 

"these are authentic religions... maybe in origin they have not defects(because they are given by the lord or a spiritual master).. "

 

My response was to this point only. If you have a problem with the change of emphasis in this thread, then take it up with Guest.

 

 

 

Clearly Christianity is not impersonalistic or voidistic - end of discussion really.

 

 

 

 

Usually conclusions come after deliberations based on evidence. Were you planning on addressing the points of contention, or were you just hoping that by saying something with confidence, I would just accept it as factual?

 

Christians say that Jesus is both the son of God, as well as God Himself. But then they say that Jesus suffered during the crucifixion. He is commonly depicted as bleeding and injured in this regard. Of course, Krishna gave the illusion that He was "wounded" during the battle of Kurukshetra. But Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus actually suffered for our sins, rather than the suffering being a mere illusion. Thus assigning a material body to God, this is one thing in common which Christians have with Advaitins.

 

Christians cannot describe the sat-chid-aananda vigraha of their worshipable Lord. In the few cases where they do, such as in the paintings of Michelangelo, God is depicted as a very old man. Thus, Christians either refuse to describe the form of God (making their God concept impersonal), or they base their concept of God on the materialistic notion that because He is the oldest living entity, He must therefore look old. In either case, the conception is based on a lack of understanding of the transcendental body of the Lord - a type of misunderstanding shared by many impersonalists.

 

 

 

The fact that Christianity is from another part of the world with different social customs is quite obvious and I see no reason whatsoever to expect cow protection to have been developed independently in another culture/religion.

 

 

 

 

If Christianity were indeed a bona fide religion, there would be no need for it to have "developed" the principle of cow-protection, since religion is handed down by the Lord:

 

"In the Srimad Bhagavad-gita the Lord asserts that He appears in every millennium just to reestablish the way of religion. The way of religion is made by the Supreme Lord." (SB 1.8.35 purport)

 

naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH |

naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 ||

 

The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.15).

 

Thus, if Christianity was truly handed down by Naaraayana, the principle of cow-protection would be present there also.

 

 

 

The common theme is non-violence.

 

 

 

 

So Christians can be non-violent even though they eat cows?

 

 

 

How many devotees are really embracing the underlying concept. Of course, cow protection means much more to vaishnavas than mere non-violence - but how many devotees around the world whether they be from a christian or hindu background are fully embracing what it means to be truly non-violent. Label reading and simply delcaring that something is o.k. to offer because it doesn't contain certain ingredients is not what this injuction is about. It calls for us to be truly conscious in all that we do. What about the cows that are used to produce milk in this country - how are they treated? Shall we support such treatment - is that what is meant by cow protection? Surely not! What about polluting the environment with pesticides and inorganic fertilizers - again surely not a good practice and not consistent with all it means to be thoughtful and progressive.

 

 

 

 

So on one hand, you criticize those devotees who use fertilizers and drink milk because of the violent means by which these things are manufactured/provided, but you look the other way when Christians blatantly eat cow meat.

 

The point here, of course, is not whether or not Hindus can be doing things more in accord with shaastra. That is a separate discussion. The point here is whether or not contemporary Christianity and pure Christianity are bona fide religions inspired by beings familiar with Sanaatana-dharma with a goal of establishing an alternate route to self-realization.

 

As far as this is concerned, it is obvious that Christianity, even in its purest form, cannot be an alternate route to self-realization any more than karma yoga or jnaana yoga are valid alternatives to bhakti yoga. The shaastras clearly state:

 

kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha |

kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa 1.3.43 ||

 

This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43).

 

Note that no such claims have been made about any other Puraana, what to speak of any other non-Vedic scripture, like the Bible. Also we have:

 

bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa shakya aham eva.m-vidho 'rjuna |

j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 ||

 

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54)

 

Only by undivided devotional service (ananya-bhakti) can one attain the Supreme Lord. Thus, believing that Christianity is an alternative to Vaishnavism requires believing that you can get undivided devotional service to God in a religion where His name, form, qualities, and pastimes are not even revealed to you.

 

etaavaaneve loke'smin pu.msaa.m dharmaH paraH smR^itaH |

bhaktiyogo bhagavati tannaamagrahaNaadibhiH || bhaa 6.3.22 ||

 

Devotional service, beginning with the chanting of the holy name of the Lord, is the ultimate religious principle for the living entity in human society (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.3.22).

 

Note that devotional service here is specific for devotional service to Vishnu, and is implicitly understood to refer to undivided devotional service. Furthermore, even if one could learn "bhakti" by studying Christianity, it is stated here that not just any kind of bhakti, but that bhakti beginning with Harinaama, is the ultimate religious principle. Does Christianity teach Harinaama? Far from it - contemporary Christians regard Vishnu as a "Hindu god," His archa-vigraha as a "craven image," or "idol," and His followers to be mere idolaters.

 

Finally, we have the very well-known verse from the Brhad-Naaradiiya Puraana:

 

harer naama harer naam harer naamaiva kevalam |

kalau naastyaiva naastyaiva naastyaiva gatir anyathaa ||

 

Which clearly states that there is "no other way" to achieve the supreme goal but by chanting the name of Hari.

 

Thus, accepting these statements of the Vedas, one cannot honestly accept the Bible as an alternative religion, sufficient to bring one to God-realization. Therefore, the Bible is at best a stepping stone for people to bring them back into Vedic culture, rather than a complete alternative to God-realization.

 

However, even a bona fide path that brings people back towards Vedic culture would logically require that they be reformed from sinful activities so that they acquire the qualification to approach the Bhaagavatam. But it is well known that in contemporary Christianity at least, meat eating and even beef eating are perfectly acceptable even for casual consumption, and no sin is thought to be earned through such a nefarious practice. Please see the quotes below which clearly describe the consequences of meat-eating, and then try to tell me in all honesty that a Christian can eat meat in such circumstances and still make "spiritual advancement."

 

 

 

I wouldn't simply sit back and judge an entire group of individuals based on a single practice and state that there can be no spiritual advancement due to not following it the way that a 'hindu' does.

 

 

 

 

Bhagavad-giitaa is extremely clear on this point, that without following the regulative principles, one cannot attain the supreme goal:

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 ||

 

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24)

 

maa.m sa bhakShayitaa'mutra yasya maa.msamihaad myaham |

etatmaa.msasya maa.msatva.m pravadanti maniiShiNaH || MS 5.55 ||

 

'Me he (mam sah)' will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word 'flesh'

(mamsah) (manu smR^iti 5.55).

 

anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii |

sa.mskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashcheti ghaatakaaH || MS 5.51 ||

 

He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51).

 

yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam |

vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 ||

 

As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smR^iti 5.38).

 

Thus, what you think or do not think is besides the point.

 

The danger is in thinking that because someone follows another religion, they are therefore entitled to commit grossly sinful activities and still make spiritual advancement. What kind of logic is this? Are Vedas only applicable to Hindus? This is the logic of maayaavaadiis but not those of Vaishnava Vedaantins. By relativizing the position of the Vedas, ISKCON devotees only succeed in making Srila Prabhupada a laughing stock amongst other Vedaantins.

 

[tangential sentiments deleted]

 

 

 

We are followers of Mahaprabhu for a reason, but we do not denigrate others or claim that ours is the only valid method of approach to divinity.

 

 

 

 

Being followers of Mahaaprabhu does not mean sentimental acceptance of non-Vedic doctrines and ignoring evidence, logic, and common-sense. Far from convincing me of anything, all you have done is prove my point - that the overemphasis on Srila Prabhupada's praise of Christianity has led to numerous heresies among Western devotees, some of which you just demonstrated here: relativizing the Vedas and excusing the sin of cow-killing. My point all along is that Krishna-consciousness (and thus, the Vedic literature, sanaatana-dharma, etc) should be taken AS IT IS. When I made this point to maayaavaadi Hindus, I was labeled as a "fundamentalist" by them. Similarly, the same is being done by Christian sympathizers within ISKCON. In both cases the accusations are leveled by people who can't admit that their bluff has been called.

 

ISKCON devotees need to abandon this perpetual double standard - on one hand they criticize many contemporary Advaitins, even the pious ones, but on the other hand they are full of praise for Christianity despite its permissive attitude towards grossly sinful activity. The same standard needs to be applied for all, rather than adopting one standard for the "Hindoos" and another for Christianity.

 

It used to be that critics of Sanaatana-dharma took the position of University intellectuals and published volumes of anti-Vedic, pseudo-scholarly rubbish. This was the age of Max Muller, H.H. Wilson, et. al. But today, we are seeing a different trend: Christians who cannot fully let go of their own religion just convert to Vaishnavism thanks to the causeless mercy of a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada, and then use this newfound position as a platform to praise Christianity, relativize the Vedas, and lash out at whatever misguided "Hindoos" in the ISKCON congregation who object.*

 

I wonder which approach of attacking Sanaatana-dharma from within - the arrogant British Indologists, or the closet-Christian-turned-Vaishnava, is the more effective one?

 

yours,

 

- K

 

* For example, I recall one ISKCON Sunday feast class I attended in Honolulu in the summer of 1996, in which the speaker (his name was something like Guru-Kripa das and he was praised as a "senior devotee" of ISKCON) boldly asserted that all demigods were rascals and their worshippers were rascals, regardless of whatever other pious qualifications they might posess. But of course, the same was not true of Christians, even though they might be meat-eaters and liquor drinkers. He also stated that the Upanishadic statement "maatro devo bhava pitro devo bhava aachaarya devo bhava" was nothing more than maayaavaadii speculation, and that the Hindu ceremony performed for the death of a departed love one was also tainted by maayaavaada. Go figure. WIth "devotees" like this in ISKCON, who needs critics like Max Muller?

[krishna_s]

gHari, before you ascribe something to Srila Bhaktivinod, based on a text he wrote which was not intended for devotees, why don't you read this? This is the excerpt I was referring to, only it is from Tattva-Viveka. I find it illuminating. Perhaps you would do well to consider it also (thanks to Jahnava-Nitai for finding it).

 

 

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist 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.

 

 

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 entity 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.

 

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 fruitive 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.

 

(From Tattva-viveka commentary)

 

 

 

As you can see, gHari, this is obviously in regards to Christianity, and it isn't terribly positive. Now my question is, are you going to follow suit since Srila Bhaktivinod wrote this, or are you going to stay firmly planted on *your* high horse?

 

regards,

 

- K

[theist]

I find your approach and tone borish. Don't you have another book to read?

[krishna_s]

Theist wrote:

 

I find your approach and tone borish. Don't you have another book to read?

 

 

 

Would you like to respond to the evidence presented, or are you going to retract your position? Either would be acceptable conduct in this context; hurling derisive remarks at me gains you nothing.

 

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Regardless of your rhetoric and verbose reply to my post to you, the simple point remains that your approach leaves much to be desired. The Christians do not accept the Vedas as scripture anymore than you accept the Bible. You can find many learned Christian scholars that can easily get on their high 'scripture quote' horse and show you to be less than spiritual and that you are following a spirituality based on 'speculation'. For instance you may have read the quote from the Bible where Jesus says, 'no one comes to the father but by me', or how about 'every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord' - you can pick so many - just like the quotes you wish to beat people over the head with showing that they are not followers of true religion because they don't chant the name of Hari.

 

The fact of the matter is that Srila Prabhupada had a much broader and deeper vision than you do and he was not merely placating the mlecchas to entice them to convert.

 

BTW, I never said that the earliest manuscripts of Christianity will show it to be more 'Vedic'. That is simply not true. Time, place and circumstance is always taken into consideration in terms of divine revelation. Christians believe that they have the higest revelation and the key to the 'one true God'. You apparently feel that you have the key and that they don't. You both have your scriptures to beat each other over the head with to prove your points - now what?

 

For the Christian, theirs is the highest revelation and all others are subordinate and will find their final resting place in Christ Jesus. This has scriptural backing - the backing of their own scriptures - so simply quoting scripture is obviously not enough. We have to incorporate the teaching of scripture into our very lives and become transformed so that we can become instrumental in transforming others.

 

Do you think it is exemplary behavior of a vaishnava to denigrate an entire group of people (well over 1 billion people) and make a comment that they can make no spiritual progress? Sorry - I don't find this type of rhetoric to be in keeping with the heart of a vaishnava.

 

I am not a Christian nor do I pay much attention to Christianity in general, but I do appreciate the lives and living example of those Christians who put their scriptures into practice. Likewise I appreciate a Vaishnava who has taken the scripture to heart and incorporated it into his/her daily life such that they have become truly transformed. This is much different than someone who reads and studies and has a mental understanding of scripture but who lacks the substance of being truly transformed by it.

 

Here is a nice quote about sectarianism and how it affects the sadhaka for you to contemplate. It is from a Sanga posting titled 'With the help of the Demons':

 

Davagni: The Forest Fire of Inner Hatred

 

The flames of disregard for the methods of worship and conception of God held by other communities can consume the sadhaka. One must understand the virtues of raga-marga bhakti and often point out the shortcomings of other paths for the benefit of others. One must also sing the virtues of Sri Krishna exclusively to intensify one's own bhajana. Yet one must also think that others who worship other conceptions of God are worshipping Sri Krishna in one of his many forms. Demigods like Shiva, Brahma, Ganapati, and avataras such as Vishnu, Rama, Narasingha, Varaha, and others are all manifestations of the Lord for either specific functions or the experience of emotional states in reciprocity with various devotees. Sri Krishna swallows the forest fire of inner hatred concealed by external worship of himself. Thus he saves those unaware of the extent of his glories from burning in the fire of sectarianism

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

[Guest guest]

Contemporary Christianity (with its moral laxity regarding meat-eating, its identification of Jesus as God, its concept of God in a material body, and so on and so forth) is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path by Vedic standards. This is all I have set out to prove, and I have more than done so.

 

In spite of your fanatical outrage, you have not given me any reason to believe otherwise. When a person presents a theory that is later refuted with evidence and argument, an honest approach would be to retract that theory if one has no further counter-arguments to offer.

 

For example, you originally implied that a Christian could make spiritual progress in spite of his meat-eating, and challenged me to provide evidence stating to the contrary. Now that I have done so, you seem curiously silent on that issue, electing instead to accuse me of all sorts of things.

 

Why ask for evidence if you were simply going to ignore it anyway? At least admit that you have no interest in the conclusions of shaastra when they are at odds with your conclusions. Then, like the followers of Vivekananda and Chinmayananda, I will know where you stand.

 

But instead, you choose to take the easy way out by painting me as a Hindu fundamentalist. You obviously understand well what many secular politicians figured out decades ago - truth based on dry facts can always be drowned out by appealing to sentimentalism, and thus generating as much emotional hysteria as possible so people will be fooled into forgetting the facts. Kudos to you. Well played. I'm from the old-fashioned school that requires me to respond with evidence-based arguments, but that is a dying breed these days.

 

When ISKCON devotees behaved as you did, I always objected to it in the past; apparently so did BV Tripurari swami. But it appears that even his followers are no strangers to the art of character assasinations. So, you win (for now). My feeble skills are no match for your emotional outcries of prejudice and all that.

 

But if I see you or others preaching these kinds of apasiddhaantas again, I won't hesitate to point out the facts. Eventually, you are going to have to learn to deal with the evidence, rather than throwing temper tantrums because they don't agree with your theories.

 

yours,

 

- K

[theist]

krsna_s,

 

Sorry I won't retract my statement. I just recognize that often we use books and knowledge as a way of hiding from others and ourselves. You can post as you wish of course, but for myself when i see someone pull out the Rules for Debate Handbook I just put on my headphones and boogie on down to the road.

 

Slow up. Make your point and then really try to listen to the responses.

 

You see some of us would like to find a way to cross the divide a bit with the Christians to help them understand why animal slaughter is not a good practice. just trying tom win a debate won't accomplish that. By the way do you drink milk?

[gHari]

K,

 

You speak of Srila Prabhupada as though he means something to you. Yet why do you voice opinions contrary to those voiced by him? Why do you even question Prabhupada's statements that Jesus is an empowered incarnation?<blockquote>"Christianity bona fide? You're joking, right?"</blockquote>

This is not Prabhupada.

 

Have you not heard Srila Prabhupada's reverence and love for Lord Jesus Christ? Find an MP3 file and listen.

 

Christianity is not a school of rules and regulations. It is a school of surrender. Only a few can follow it. "Sometimes we are so dull, naturally, that we cannot understand."

 

How many people in India? How many pure devotees? Su-durlabhaH.

 

gHari

[Guest guest]

I am not out to 'defeat' you in any way, shape or form. I agree in principle with much of what you have said - but I am merely pointing out to you that those who follow the Bible have equally good arguments backed up by their scripture that tells them that we are following a path which isn't 'Biblical'. It's good to have convictions and to follow your chosen path, but in my opinion at least, it is not very palatable to go around beating people over the head with dogma and decrying them based on your own faith tradition and your reading of it. You have said that the Advaitins that you have had discussions with labelled you as a fanatic or fundamentalist. Have you met any of the Christian fundamentalists? They go around preaching that they have a monopoly on the truth and that if you don't follow the same path and interpretation that they do you are not 'saved'. This type of 'preaching' is mostly uneffective and is symptomatic one who lacks in spiritual depth and has an inablility to see that logic is imperfect and that others have logic to back up their positions as well. The Vedanta itself informs us that logic is inconclusive. What we are really after is genuine devotion. We should be ready to honor that wherever we see it even if it manifests in a tradtion outside our own.

 

Do you think that you know Krsna because you have read about him? That you are chanting Krsna nama based on the external syllables and sound? That you are seeing Krsna in his archa vigraha? You yourself quoted the verse from the Bhagavad Gita wherein Krsna says that he reserves the right to reveal himself to those whose eyes are tinged with love. No one can force their way in and claim God as the object of their investigation. He always remains in the Supersubjective realm and we remain his objects. We can only know of him what he chooses to reveal.

 

If you have a problem with Iskcon you should take it up with the authorities of that institution. My Guru Maharaja left Iskcon but not for the reasons that you have implied. He left because he was told that he could not take instruction from Sridhara Maharaja and that in order to stay in the institution he would have to renounce his relationship with him - something he is obviously unwilling to do.

 

My only complaint about your presentation is that in the name of being right and Vedic you are willing to dismiss an entire group of people and relegate them to 'those who can't advance' even though they are sincerely engaged in devotion to God. Never mind the fact that they follow a different scripture and their revelation differs from that found in the Vedas. Are they sincerely praying? Are they sacrificing and changing their lives as an act of surrender and devotion? Are they developing Godly symptoms? Are they becoming transformed?

 

Let me remind you again of my own experience which has clearly shown me that those who abstain from meat eating are not always advancing in spiritual life very well and in many cases have serious character flaws which impede their progress. I also have the experience that many people who do eat meat have much better character and have developed many of the symptoms outlined in the Bhagavad Gita that describe the saintly. That experience has to balanced with the scriptural injunctions and made sense of.

 

As far as whether or not Christianity is impersonal I would think that the simple quote from the Bible that man is made in the image of God should be enough to convince anyone that the God they worship is a person. They also say that no man has seen God which is why they don't have any images of him. That doesn't mean that they believe in an impersonal doctrine. It simply means that God is beyond the realm of human senses and intellect and that your eyes if anything get in the way to seeing him.

 

For the Christian it is not so important what goes into the mouth as it is what comes out of it. While I don't agree entirely with this premise - I see the value in emphasising what we say and how we say it. How we treat other people and how we engage ourselves with the world.

 

I apologize to you for having offended you in any way. I know you are a faithful devotee and I have no enmity toward you whatsoever. I can see that my initial post to you could have been worded much differently and would not have been offensive to you personally. I beg your forgiveness for that. My point about scholarship was simply to state that there are plenty of Biblical scholars and those who study the Christian tradition and history and they would not agree with your assertion that little is known about the early church. That comment was in no way meant to give you the impression that that knowledge is repleat with evidence that the Christian tradition more closely mirrored the Vedic relevation in all of it's details. That was a conclusion you seemed to have jumped to based on previous dialogues with other devotees.

 

Over the years of dialoguing with Christians I have come to the conclusion that there indeed is unity in diversity and I don't try to understand Christianity from a 'Vedic' perspective and try to fit it's doctrines with the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. My interactions have strenthened my own convictions about the path I have chosen to follow while also giving me a deeper appreciation of the paths of others.

 

Interestingly, the Catholic position is similar to yours, although it is a little more generous in some ways. They basically say that all religions are good and have intrinsic value in terms to helping to foster devotion but that they will only reach their culmination in the revelation of Christ Jesus. In other words - they see all other 'paths' as stepping stones to Christ. Much as you have said that the Christian path can be seen as a preliminary stage prior to coming to the Vedic standard (although you qualified that we the comment that their meat eating totally disqualifies them so it is really not a stepping stone).

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[krishna_s]

gHari would you like to comment on Bhaktivinod Thakur's Tattva-Viveka comments on Christianity? Or were you only willing to use Bhaktivinod when you thought his writings would support your agenda? I guess you demonstrate by your silence what you truly think of Bhaktivinod Thakur - not an absolute authority, but to be accepted only when you agree with him.

 

 

You speak of Srila Prabhupada as though he means something to you. Yet why do you voice opinions contrary to those voiced by him? Why do you even question Prabhupada's statements that Jesus is an empowered incarnation?

 

 

It generally helps when people read what I write, instead of reading INTO what I wrote. In any case, no one, be it Theist, Audarya-lila, or yourself have offered any response to any specific points I have brought up, choosing instead to knock down strawmen. If I say Jesus is not Krishna, you respond that I am defying Prabhupada, quoting him as saying that Jesus is a pure devotee (which is not the same thing as saying he is Krishna and in fact contradicts that and supports what I have said...). If I say meat-eating is wrong for everybody, you say again I am defying Prabhupada, although SRila Prabhupada himself never excused meat-eating for Christians and in fact argued with them viciously on this subject. If I say Vedas have absolute authority, and not just relative authority for Hindus only, you decry this as fundamentalism, even though this is the position of all Vaishnava aachaaryas including Srila Prabhupada. If I say that ISKCON devotees are guilty of a double standard for criticizing Hindus for sins which they overlook when judging Christians, you reply with more accusations of prejudice, bigotry, etc.

 

All I have set out to prove is that contemporary Christian ideas, and the heresies in ISKCON based on appeasement of that religious group, have no support in Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada. I have also pointed out that you have no objective evidence by which to determine what the original Christianity must have been like. In response to this, Theist wants to talk about milk-drinking, while Audarya-lila wants to talk about how you can't arbitrarily judge one set of scriptures to be more authoritative than another's. Ignoring for the moment the moral-relativism inherent in that line of argument, since when has it been the subject of anything I brought up? Never. Go back and reread carefully what I have written. I will summarize it again:

 

1) Contemporary (i.e. today) Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path according to Vedic culture, what with its views on animal-killing, its attempt to identify Jesus as God, its attempt to assign a material body to God, etc.

2) Original Christianity of Jesus Christ may or may not have been different from contemporary Christianity and also bona fide in some sense, but we lack objective evidence to prove that to anyone who is not a follower of Srila Prabhupada

3) Even if original Christianity was different from contemporary Christiantity and a bona fide path in its own way, it is still not a path that independently leads to the supreme goal - like karma-yoga, jnaana-yoga, varnaashrama-dharma, etc it at best reforms one so they can practice bhakti-yoga (see evidence already quoted). The evidence from the Bhaagavata clearly indicates that by bhakti-yoga beginning with Hari-naama only does one attain the supreme goal. (if you have a problem with this "fundamentalism" please take it up with Vyaasa, all I have done is to quote his very straightforward statements) in this regard.

4) Many ideas based on appeasement of Christians, such as the idea that Jesus is Krishna Himself, that Christianity is an equal alternative to Vaishnavism and that one need not take to worship of Vishnu, that chanting Jehovah is equal to chanting of Hare Krishna, that meat-eating is acceptable for Christians and that they can still make spiritual advancement despite eating meat, that Vedic injunctions are relevant to Hindus only, etc etc. are all heresies with no support from shaastra or Srila Prabhupada. Their popularity does not make them correct.

5) The criticism of Hindus for acts which are also committed by Christians, even though the latter are not criticized, is a blatant double standard that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If devotees wish to criticize, they should do so based on a uniform standard, rather than appeasing those with whom they have some personal sympathy. Better yet, devotees can show compassion for all, by honestly pointing out the errors committed by *both* Hindus and Christians with specific reference to shaastra, and encouraging both to give up their mental preconceptions and try to follow the proper dharma.

 

None of the above are controversial positions. I have either plainly stated the truth or showed how the truth is understood by reference to straightforward evidence. If one lacks the intellectual honesty to respond to what I have written or retract their speculations, then I have nothing further to say to them. Fanatics and sentimentalists never like to have their bluff called. But the truth is an easier position to defend, even if it does not always win out in the age of Kali Yuga. As I said before, you can either respond to what I have written, or you can argue on some other tangent and knock down strawmen. I won't dignify any more examples of the latter with a response.

 

yours,

 

- K