jesus=baladeva ?

[Guest guest]

some of you may have recently seen some articles

in VNN by P.Sharma a student of history,he gives a scholars

view of who or what is jesus.

 

This inspired another article by someone called

'servant of mary' .

 

Sharma's Burning Cross

 

BY SERVANT,OF,MARY

 

EDITORIAL, Jan 1 (VNN) — Letter to Sivananda NY April 19, 1968 - "Regarding the Christian's Trinity, I believe it is called God, the Holy Ghost, and the son. Person in Krishna Consciousness accepts this by the name Visnu, Paramatma, and Jiva. God is a Person, the holy spirit or the supersoul is a person, and the living entity is also a person. Also, Mary is the representation of the energy of God. Either as internal energy Radharani or as external energy Durga, the energy of Godhead can be considered the mother of the living entities. But there is no clash between the Bible and the Vedas, simply some people formulate their personal ideas and cause quarrelings."

 

It is with great sadness, that at this time of year when Christians are being instructed by their pastors, priests, and ministers to pray for world peace, VNN published The Burning Cross by P. Sharma.

 

In 1976, I first encountered ISKCON devotees and the spirit of brotherhood and love was pervasive in ISKCON. Sometime in the early 1980s I lost contact with all of my godbrothers, and still to this day, have not found them. In the 80s and 90s period, I spent some time in a very strict and austere Trappist (Catholic) monastery (vegetarian I might add) and had deeply profound spiritual experiences there.

 

Sometime in the mid 1990s I began to study and taste the nectar within Vaisnava literatures and Srila Prabhupada's writings.

 

My heart overflowed with so much love of God I could do nothing but think of Him day and night and night and day.

 

I desired to find my godbrothers and started visiting ISKCON temples all over the USA. I was devastated by what I found. Many temples were in shambles (e.g Carl St. in SF) and the number of devotees was so terribly small. Whenever I was 'discovered' to be a Jesus Bhakta, the mood became ugly among devotees in many temples.

 

I have a simple prophecy for each of you. Accept humbly Jesus as did Prabhupada and try to taste his realization of Jesus as 2nd person of the Godhead Sri Baladeva.

 

If this is done, the former glories of ISKCON will be restored, devotees will return, and kirtans will flourish everywhere.

 

Your servant in Christ (Kriste),

 

Hare Krsna! Jesu Ki Jaya!

 

 

 

i mean c'mon, If we accept Jesus as Baladeva as Prabhupada

did then god will bestow the benedictions He Has taken

away ?

 

Is He serious ?

 

First ,Prabhupada never taught that Jesus is Baladeva,

when asked about the Christian Trinity Prabhupada

always would confound the very concept of the

Trinity.

 

The Trinitarian doctrine is not accepted by all

Christians, the ones that do accept Trinitarian

ideas are those that explicitly believe Jesus

is God incarnate,which is the whole point of the

Trinitarian doctrine in the first place.

 

God in three aspects,that is Trinitarian doctrine,

Jesus is fully the Father,and fully the holy

spirit,as the others are also fully each other.

 

The Jiva is not present in this concept,Prabhupada

would always change the concept of Trinitarian

doctrine so that it would fit into the Vedic concept,

Visnu,Paramatma,and jiva, which is exactly what many

Christians believe,but not Trinitarians.

 

Sects like Jehovahs witness,Christian Scientists,

Unitarians,etc, they teach like Prabhupada says,

but that is not Trinitarian doctrine,The Trinitarian

doctrine is specifically that put forth by Catholics,

Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy,all following

the same teachings put forth in Constantines day

as official church dogma,this was in opposition

to the other main camp of Arian, they taught as Prabhupada

and other non traditional Christians do, That jesus

was a human.

 

that became known as heresy,and was stamped out as much as

possible, the christian world was split between these

opposing ideologies,Jesus as God or Jesus as human,

eventually millions have died on this single point of doctrine.

 

The offical church position was called Trinitarian,

the concept of God as father,son, and spirit,

All equally God.

 

So Prabhupada ammusingly always confounded the entire

idea of the Trinity , He changed the entire meaning of Trinity into a concept where

Jesus was no longer God,what most Christians consider

heresy.

 

So the idea put forth that Prabhupada taught that Baladeva

and Jesus are the same is incorrect,Baladeva is

fully God,in the trinitarian concept of Srila Prabhupada

that position is not the same as Jesus,who Prabhupada

put as son of God,a jiva, the non traditional

Christian concept of Jesus as human.

 

'servant of mary' is confusing two seperate concepts,

the concept of Baladeva as Guru tattva and the concept

of Jesus as Guru, In Prabhupadas trinity concept Jesus

is a jiva, a human, he may indeed be a Guru of some type,

but that is not the same as Baladeva who is God,

Baladeva is considered to be the teaching or Guru aspect

of God,but that doesn't mean any teacher or guru is Baladeva,Baladeva works through the human,but they are not the same,Jesus may have been empowered by Baladeva as a teacher ,But in Prabhupadas teaching He always made the point of Jesus being a jiva,human.

[theist]

I shared the same concerns over that article published on VNN. I also wrote them an email and explained what I thought of it and that that was the reason I was taken VNN off my favorites list.

[Kulapavana]

one of the biggest problems Krishna devotees face is that for one "Jesus bhakta" there are 100's of "Christians" who consider us to be heathens or even devil worshippers. Thus it is hard for many of us to have much sympathy for such misguided "followers of Jesus". Still, respect for Jesus of Nazareth is very much a universal thing among devotees.

 

Anyway, it is better to stick one's chosen tradition instead of trying to invent a new one.

[theist]

 

Still, respect for Jesus of Nazareth is very much a universal thing among devotees.

 

 

Among devotees no doubt, but what of the bulk of us who have no such vision. Well we can rely on the hundreds of quotes of praise from Srila Prabhupada. From Prabhupada's lips respect can be gained.

 

I feel the same about the millions of Hindus who profess they "know all about Krsna from their culture." I choose to ignore them all and focus on Prabhupada's point of view instead.

 

[Kulapavana]

"Among devotees no doubt, but what of the bulk of us who have no such vision"

 

I consider both of us to be devotees, along with most of other members of Lord Caitanya missions. I was hinting at devotees making a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth and many who claim to be his followers. If you study the history of early Christianity this distinction becomes very, very clear.

 

All this is not intended to offend Christians (real or imaginary) but only to present a different perspective on Hindu-Christian relations.

[theist]

point is taken if you mean to separte the founders from the imitation followers. Or even the true followers from from the imitation ones.

 

But concerning the position of Jesus we hear Prabhupada refer to him as a shakya-vesa avatar and then some demons claim he was a fable based on their pseudo scholars shiksa gurus imaginations.

 

So such people are directly opposing Prabhupada.

 

This has nothing to do with anything that was done by those claiming to be connected to Christ but who weren't any more than the thousands of false gurus ect. that had sex with their followers claiming it was rasa lila.

 

Should I judge krsna by their actions?

[Guest guest]

But concerning the position of Jesus we hear Prabhupada refer to him as a shakya-vesa avatar and then some demons claim he was a fable based on their pseudo scholars shiksa gurus imaginations.

 

 

i think you judge to harshly, What Prabhupada said about

Jesus needs to be understood within the context of

his preaching mission among christian societies.

 

Many hindus criticize Srila Prabhupada because He takes

such a stance when answering people in the west on

what he thinks of Jesus,they do not consider the

mission he was on, time ,place ,and circumstance

are the factors taken into consideration when

preaching .

 

For example if a Christian goes to india

and wants to preach about Jesus then condemns

Krishna and Rama as mythological beings

the people may find that to be offensive,

a better tactic would be to include Krishna

and Rama as being empowered by Jesus,precursors

to the final revelation of Jesus as supreme

lord.

 

That same preacher when preaching to a congregation

of christians

in Butte,Montana if asked about hinduism

would not reply in the same manner, He would not

include Krishna and Rama as being part of the

empowerment entourage of Jesus,the people in that

congregation would see that as a demonic influence.

 

so this is how Prabhupada preached,in the christian world

He would include Jesus within his religious concept,

Jesus has a place within the context of His subservience

to Krsna,If when asked by christians what He thought

of Jesus His responce was tempered by time,place,

and circumstance,He included jesus as empowered

By Krsna,as He would Muhammed or any believer

of a different faith,always he would try and

make it shown that the different "gurus"

or "prophets" fit into the Vedic conception only

as relevent when seen as Krsna's representative.

 

so those hindus who criticize Prabhupada because he wasn't more critical of christianity or islam need to understand

what and why he spoke as he did,at the same time

we oursleves should understand what Prabhupada was trying

to do, He would include whatever a persons faith was

into the Vaisnava concept,that shouldn't be mistaken

to mean the Srila Prabhupada accepted those beliefs

of other faiths,he simply would try and put their

faith into the Vaisnava concept.

 

so whatever Jesus or muhammed actually spoke

or whether they were real or whether they

were factually empowered was irrelevant

to Srila Prabhupada,He was simply trying to

bring people to his conception of Krsna

being the ultimate source and authority

of all prophets and gurus of all religions.

 

so if we are preaching to an atheist or a jew

or scholar or hindu who disbelieve in Jesus as an

actual historical fact,it would be

foolish to tell Him that Jesus was

in fact empowered by god, everything

has it's place in the mission of Mahaprabhu.

[theist]

Just to save you time I don't take Prabhupada's instructions filtered through your mind. I have trouble enough with my own.

[Guest guest]

yes well that is your right,no one is telling you to

accept or you are a demon,maybe you should

look into that.

[Guest guest]

the following are Srila Prabhupadas words on the various

"prophets" or gurus or "incarnations",

we can see his attitude was of bringing other concepts

into the Krsna conception,He gives equal respect

to Jesus,Sankara,Mohammed,Buddha,Guru Nanak

and Jehovah.

 

Does He say we should accept all of their teachings

as being the same ,or the same as Sri Krsna Caitanya ?

 

No,clearly they have different philosophies,But Prabhupada

preached according to the time,place,and circumstance,

He wasn't trying to establish Sankara or Jesus or Judaism

or Buddhism or Sikhism as being the same as Gaudiya thought,He simply tries to be inclusive and bring His audience into His view,All things are under Krsna's

control,so in that sense all religious teachers are

empowered by Krsna,not that we should not discriminate

and accept blindly all teachings.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

"God's service is dharma. This dharma may be described differently in different countries according to different cultural and climatic conditions or situations, but in every religious scripture obedience to God is instructed. No scripture says that there is no God or that we as living entities are independent-- not the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas or even the Buddhist literatures. ...We may accept Krsna, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, or Lord Buddha, or Sankaracarya, or Guru Nanak, but in any case acceptance of authority is required."

 

 

 

 

Just like Lord Buddha's teaching. Lord Buddha's teachings is... That is also detachment from matter, nirväsësa. Nirväna. But he does not speak anything about the spirit soul. Because the position in which he was speaking, that position, for the human, humanity, was not suitable for understanding what is the constitution of spirit, therefore he did not say anything about spirit. He simply preached nonviolence. So far our body is concerned, he stressed on the point that we should be nonviolent. We should not be killing animals anymore. That was his preaching. Similarly, Sankara... A little more than Buddha. He said, "No, no. Matter is not all. The spirit is real thing. Matter is false." Brahma satyaà jagan mithyä. Now, he did not say about the activities of spiritual life. He simply gave hint that there, that matter is false. Matter is generated by spirit. Spirit is the real, principle thing. Just like Buddha did not say anything about spirit. He simply wanted that detachment of, from matter. But detachment from matter... Then where is my stand? Where is my stand? If I leave this room, I must have another room to stay. So that is the position of Buddha. He did not say about the spirit. But Sankara, Sankara said, "No, matter is our false position. Spirit is real position." But he did not say anything, what are the activities of the spiritual life. Then Sri Rämänujäcärya came. He described the actual position of spiritual life. These are gradual development. Your, I mean to say, Lord Jesus, also, Lord Jesus Christ, he also gave hints of spiritual life, kingdom of God. So when we speak of kingdom of God, a kingdom, vacant, cannot be. Kingdom means there must be activities. Otherwise, what is the meaning of kingdom? So, of course, he did not give any detailed account of the kingdom of God, but he gave hint.

 

 

So people are manufacturing, in the name of so-called religion, "This is our religion. This is...This is Hindu religion.This is Muslim religion.This is Christian religion." Or "This is Buddha religion." And "This is Sikh religion.This is that religion, that religion..." They have manufactured so many religions, so many religions. But real religion is dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Religion means the codes and the laws given by the Lord, given by God. That is religion. Simple definition of religion is: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Just like law is given by the state, by the government. You cannot manufacture law. I have repeatedly said. Law is made by the government. Similarly, religion is made by God. If you accept God's religion, then that is religion. And what is God's religion? (aside:) If you stand, you come stand here. Other people are seeing. God's religion is... You'll find in the Bhagavad-gita, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. This is God's religion.

 

 

"A person who accepts the path of devotional service is not bereft of the results derived from studying the Vedas, performing austere sacrifices, giving charity, or pursuing philosophical and fruitive activities. At the end he reaches the supreme abode." (Bg. 8.28) Here Krsna says that the purpose of all Vedic instructions is to achieve the ultimate goal of life--to go back to Godhead. All scriptures from all countries aim at this goal. This has also been the message of all religious reformers or acaryas. In the West, for example, Lord Jesus Christ spread this same message. Similarly, Lord Buddha and Muhammad. No one advises us to make our permanent settlement here in this material world. There may be small differences according to country, time, and circumstance, and according to scriptural injunction, but the main principle that we are not meant for this material world but for the spiritual world is accepted by all genuine transcendentalists. All indications for the satisfaction of our soul's innermost desires point to those worlds of Krsna beyond birth and death.