jesus and bridal mysticism

[Guest guest]

What follows is the latest tidbit from

Bhakti Ananda Goswami.

 

Being a fan of his writings i always await the bits and pieces of ancient history he shares with us, here he goes

into some stuff on the connections between Catholicism,

Heliopolitan monotheism(greek/mediterranean) ,Judaism and

Vaisnavism.

 

i follow with a short comment.

 

 

 

---------------------------

Jesus, Bridal Mysticism, and Madhurya Rasa[b/]

 

HARE KRISHNA ! SRI SRI GURU and GAURANGA KI JAYA ! JESU KI JAYA !

 

DEAREST FRIENDS,

 

PLEASE ACCEPT MY HUMBLE OBEISANCES, AND EXCUSE MY WRITING IN ALL UPPER CASE, DUE TO SOME VISION PROBLEMS.

 

FIRST, ONE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE TERM ‘BRIDAL MYSTICISM’ SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THAT DIVINE LOVE MYSTICISM IN THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS, IN WHICH THE SUPREME LOVER IS GOD. FOR MILLINEA THE MOST POWERFUL CURRENT OF RABBINICAL TRADITION HAS CONSISTANTLY ASSERTED THAT THE LOVER OF THE “SONG” IS GOD (“HASHEM” = THE HOLY NAME” !) THESE JEWISH MASTERS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED THE “SONG OF SONGS” AGAINST CHARGES OF MUNDANITY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. IN FACT THE “SONG”, WHICH IS THE JUDEO-CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL SOURCE FOR BRIDAL MYSTICISM, HAS BEEN AND IS STILL CONSIDERED THE “HOLY OF HOLIES” BY BOTH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN (ESPECIALLY CATHOLIC) MYSTICS AND DEVOUTE BIBLICAL SCHOLARS TODAY.

 

THEREFORE IT IS COMPLETELY UNINFORMED OUTSIDER SPECULATION FOR SOMEONE TO STATE THAT THE BRIDAL MYSTICISM OF CHRISTIANITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ‘CONJUGAL’ LOVE OF GOD ! THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF JUDEO-CATHOLIC / CHRISTIAN GURU, SHASTRA AND SADHU DECLARE THAT THE LOVER OF THE “SONG” IS GOD. WHILE SOME VAISHNAVAS MAY NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS IS VISHNU TATTVA, IN ORDER TO TAKE GOD OUT OF JUDEO-CATHOLIC BRIDAL MYSTICISM, THEY WILL HAVE TO ERASE / DENY THESE ENTIRE TRADITIONS, WHICH HAVE THE “SONG” AS THE “HOLY OF HOLIES” AT THEIR MYSTICAL CORE OF REVELATION.

 

>IN THE EARLY 1980S I ATTENDED SOME AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGIONS AND SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE CONFERENCES, AND ESPECIALLY PARTICIPATED IN SOME OPEN DISCUSSIONS OF THE “SONG”. I WAS INTERESTED TO COMPARE JEWISH SCHOLARSHIP AND CHRISTIAN SCHOLARSHIP ON THE “SONG”. AFTER REVIEWING THE LITERATURE AND >ATTENDING CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON IT, I CHOSE TWO AUTHORS TO RESPOND TO IN MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THE “SONG”. THESE WERE ROBERT GORDIS, WHO HAD WRITTEN THE AMERICAN JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY TEXT BOOK ON THE “SONG”, AND MARVIN POPE, WHO HAD WRITTEN THE ANCHOR BIBLE COMMENTARY SERIES VOLUME ON THE “SONG”. (SEE GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR THESE BELOW.)

 

I COMPLETELY DISAGREED WITH GORDIS, BECAUSE OF HIS MODERNIST MUNDANE INTERPRETATION, AND COULD HARDLY STAND TO READ HIS DUMBED-DOWN TRANSLATION OF THE “SONG”, BUT WHAT I FOUND VERY USEFUL ABOUT HIS BOOK WAS HIS SUMMARY OF THE TRADITIONAL WAYS THAT THE SONG HAD BEEN INTERPRETED. IN THESE WAYS, WHICH OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE WRITTEN ON AT LENGTH, ONE CAN SEE REFLECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHRISTIAN AND VAISHNAVA UNDERSTANDINGS.

 

TRADITIONAL JUDEO-CATHOLIC INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE LOVER AND THE BELOVED (MAIDEN) IN THE “SONG OF SONGS”

 

1. HIGHEST: GOD IS THE LOVER, AND HIS PERSONAL SHEKINAH (SHAKTI OR ‘QUEEN SABBATH’ RELATED BRIDE) IS HIS BELOVED.

 

JEWISH SCHOLARS HAVE ACTUALLY SPECULATED THAT THIS TRADITION IS RELATED TO SOME HIERO-GAMOS ‘SACRED MARRIAGE’ TRADITION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN. I HAVE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WHAT THAT TRADITION IS....THE CULTUS OF RHODA-KOUROS HELIOS AND THE KORAE-DIONYSOS ON RHODES.

 

ON RHODES, GOD’S PERSONAL SHEKINAH / SHAKTI IS RHODA ! SHE IS ALSO CALLED NYMPHIA (LOTUS = PADMA = LAKSHMI) AND ASTERIA (TARA). THUS RHODA-SHEKINAH-NYMPHIA-ASTERIA-MARIAM-CORONIS, THE PERSONAL ‘EXPANSION’ AND BELOVED OF GOD IN THE RHODIAN-RELATED JEWISH TRADITION IS RADHA-SHAKTI-PADMA(SRI OR LAKSHMI)-TARA-NARAYANI-HARINI.

 

IN CATHOLIC BRIDAL MYSTICISM, SHE IS OF COURSE IDENTIFIED WITH MARY IN HER HIGHEST MOST HIDDEN FORM AS THE “MYSTICAL ROSE” ...ROSA = RHODA = RADHA ! THE COUNTLESS ICONS OF MARY IN WHICH SHE HAS AN INNER DRESS OF RED OR PINK, AND AN OUTER MANTAL OF BLUE, REVEAL HER AS BOTH RADHA AND NILA (DURGA).

 

2. CONGREGATIONALLY: GOD IS THE BRIDE GROOM AND ALL OF THE REDEEMED OF ISRAEL COLLECTIVELY ARE THE BRIDE. IN SHEKINAH MYSTICISM, THESE SOUL-SPARKS OF SHEKINAH ARE GATHERED-BACK IN AND THROUGH HER INTO HER LOVE AFFAIR WITH GOD. THEIR UNION WITH GOD IS MEDIATED BOTH THROUGH THE MESSIAH AND SHEKINAH.

 

IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, THIS IS THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AS THE “BRIDE OF CHRIST”.

 

3. INDIVIDUALLY: THE THIRD READING OF THE “SONG” IS THAT THE LOVER IS GOD AND THE LOVE-SICK MAIDEN IS THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL. AGAIN THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE GREEK PLATONIC (HELIOS WORSHIPING) CONCEPT THAT THE FINITE SOUL OR SELF IS FEMININE IN RELATIONSHIP TO GOD (FEMININE PSYCHE WHO IS LOVE-SICK FOR EROS).

 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN GREEK HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM, IT IS HELIOS KOUROS WHO DANCES WITH RHODA AND HER EXPANSIONS THE ‘GODDESSES’ LIKE THE MUSES, KORAE, HORAE, NYMPHS, NYADS ETC., BUT IT IS DIONYSOS WHO COMES TO EARTH AND DANCES WITH THE HUMAN DEVOTEES OF HELIOS. HE IS NON-DIFFERENT THAN HELIOS KOUROS, IS HIS ‘SECOND PERSON’ OR AS VAISHNAVAS WOULD SAY, HIS FIRST PLENARY ‘EXPANSION’. HE IS THE HIGH PRIEST HIEROPHANT AND INITIATOR INTO THE MYSTERIES OF RHODA-KOUROS. IN ALL RESPECTS THIS DIONYSOS (NOT THE LATE LEFT HAND TANTRIC PSEUDO-DIONYSOS OF THE ORGIASTIC BACCHANTS OR MAENADS) IS BOTH BALADEVA AND JESUS CHRIST.

 

SO WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS DEVOTED IN BRIDAL MYSTICISM DO NOT CONSUMATE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH ‘GOD THE FATHER’ (WHICH WOULD BE RASA BHASA), THEY DO DANCE IN THE “PARADISE ROUND” OR SACRED CIRCLE DANCE WITH GOD THE LOVER AS THE MESSIAH OR JESUS. SINCE WE ARE REPEATEDLY TOLD THAT BALADEVA IS GOD-FROM-GOD ETC., THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. SO WHAT THEN IS THE EXCUSE FOR VAISHNAVAS TO ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THE RASA LILA OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE IT IS ‘ONLY’ WITH THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, LORD BALADEVA, AS IF THAT IS A MINOR THING !!! THINK ABOUT IT, THE GAUDIYA ASPIRATION IS NOT TO REPLACE SRIMATE RADHARANI IN THE RASA DANCE ! GOD FORBID !!! IT IS ONLY TO ASSIST HER IN HER ROMANCE WITH SRI KRISHNA ! FOR SOULS DEVOTED IN THE CONJUGAL MOOD WHO WISH TO DANCE WITH GOD....LORD BALADEVA ENACTS HIS RASA LILA PASTIMES. ALL OF SRI KRISHNA’S VARIEGATED EXPANSIONS FOR PASTIMES ARE THROUGH, WITH AND IN LORD BALADEVA ! THIS SHOULD GIVE US A CLUE AS TO WHO THE GOPIS ARE ACTUALLY DANCING WITH, AND WHY THEY ARE COMPLETELY SATISFIED, DURING THEIR RASA LILA WITH SRI BALADEVA, THE ‘SECOND PERSON’ OF THE GODHEAD.

 

BY THE WAY, POPE SPECULATED THAT THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE “SONG” AND INDIA.

 

SO THE FIRST QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE LOVER IN THE “SONG” IS GOD, HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN GURU, SHASTRA AND SADHU. MUNDANERS, OUTSIDERS AND NOW MODERNISTS (LIKE GORDIS) MAY DENY THAT THE POEM REFERS TO GOD, BUT THE TRADITION OF THE JEWISH AND CATHOLIC SAINTS EMPHATICALLY SAYS IT DOES !

 

NOW TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS, AS OPPOSED TO ALL OF THE OTHER ‘HEALERS’ AND SAVIORS ...

 

REGARDING THE EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY OF JESUS CHRIST, FIRST WE MUST KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IF WE THINK THAT THERE WAS / IS ONLY ONE JESUS CHRIST TO INVESTIGATE. THE FACT IS THAT BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE EMERGENCE OF JESUS OF BETHLEHEM EPHRATA INTO HISTORY, THERE WERE NUMEROUS SUPPOSED CHRISTS (ANOINTED SAVIORS) CALLED IASAS, IASON, JOSHUA, YASHAS AND RELATED NAMES IN HISTORY AND LEGEND. IASAS WAS ONE OF THE MAIN BY-NAMES OF ASCLEPIUS, THE GREAT PHYSICIAN FORM OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD OF THE ANCIENT KRISHNA-VISHNU-PARAMATMA TRADITION. ASCLEPIUS IASAS WAS NO MINOR DEITY EITHER, AS ALL OF HUMANITY’S EARLIEST AND GREATEST CENTERS OF LEARNING WERE AT HIS PLACES OF WORSHIP, AND WERE DEDICATED TO HIM. AT THESE CENTERS, WHICH IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION WERE CLEARLY PART OF THE RHODIAN TRADITION HELIOPOLITAN ASLYA FEDERATIONS, IASAS WAS CONSIDERED THE LILA ‘SON OF GOD’ ON EARTH , BUT THEOLOGICALLY HE WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HELIOPOLITAN GODHEAD (BAL, YAHU, DIONYSOS, OSIRIS ETC.) THUS AT DELPHI,

 

THE “TWO BROTHERS” HELIOS (BY THE LATE NAME APOLLO) AND DIONYSOS WERE WORSHIPED AS TWO PERSONS OF THE SAME GODHEAD, AND IT WAS HELIOS KOUROS (APOLLO IS A BY-NAME OF KOUROS) WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON. DIONYSOS WAS THE SUPREME HIEROPHANT AND SPIRITUAL MASTER, INITIATOR AND SAVIOR-GOD OF THE MYSTERIES OF KOUROS-APOLLO. ON EARTH DIONYSOS WAS INCARNATE AS THE SPIRITUAL MASTER WHO LED THE CHORUS KYKLOS / CHAKRA CIRCLE-DANCE OF KOUROS-APOLLO AND HIS MILK MAID GIRLS KORAE, MUSES, NYMPHS, NYADS, HORAE ETC. AS KOUROS WAS THE ORIGIN OF ALL THINGS, MAN AND THE ‘GODS’, HIS SUPREME SHEKINAH / HEKET / SEKHET (SHAKTI) NAMED RHODA WAS THE ORIGIN OF ALL THE KORAE, MUSES GODDESSES ETC. BOTH HELIOS KOUROS AND DIONYSOS HAD THEIR CIRCLE DANCES WITH THESE MAIDENS AND GODDESSES. AND IN FACT, THEY BOTH HAD THEIR SACRED DANCES WITH THEIR EXPANSION COWHERD BOYS / GODS TOO, CALLED KOUROI.

 

ALL OF HELIOS WORSHIPPING MEDITERRANEAN CIVILIZATION REVOLVED AROUND THE LITURGICAL CYCLE OF THE FEASTS AND FASTS OF HELIOS-DIONYSOS AND THEIR HORAE / KORAE ETC. FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES CELEBRATED THE LOVE AFFAIRS OF HELIOS KOUROS AND RHODA, AND DIONYSOS AND THE KORAE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. BOTH THE RIGOROUS TEMPLE WORSHIP OF KING HELIOS POLIEUS BASILEOS, AND THE ECSTATIC PASTORAL RITES OF KOUROS HELIOS-DIONYSOS (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE LATE LEFT HAND TANTRIC OBSCENITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PSEUDO-DIONYSOS OR ANTI-CHRIST TRADITIONS) WERE PART OF THE SAME HELIOPOLITAN RELIGION. THIS COMES THROUGH INTO CATHOLICISM AS THE TRADITION OF GOD’S WORSHIP IN AWE AND REVERENCE IN THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, AND THE TRADITION OF GOD’S DANCE OF DIVINE LOVE WITH HIS ‘BRIDES’ (NYMPHIA) IN HIS ETERNAL PASTORAL GARDEN OF PARADISE.

 

ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED IN-DEPTH THE HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM OF THE ORPHICS, PYTHAGOREANS OR PLATONISTS, COULD RECOGNISE THE TWO PERSONS OF THIS DEITY HELIOS-DIONYSOS AS KRISHNA AND BALARAMA, IF THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH OUR TRADITION OF VAISHNAVISM. AND IN FACT, DR. J. STILSON JUDAH, MY FIELD FACULTY MENTOR FOR MY MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM, DID RECOGNIZE APOLLO-DIONYSUS AS KRISHNA-BALARAMA. DR. JUDAH WAS ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS IDENTIFICATION. HE HAD ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION HIMSELF OVER A LIFETIME, BUT HAD NOT ASSEMBLED THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. WHEN I APPROACHED HIM ABOUT MY LONG STUDY OF THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HELIOS KOUROS-DIONYSUS AND KRISHNA-BALARAMA, HE WAS THRILLED, HE ACTUALLY WEPT TEARS OF ECSTASY AND SHOWED ME THAT HIS HAIR WAS STANDING ON END! AND ALTHOUGH HIS DEAR WIFE WAS MORTALLY ILL, HE THEN CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT BRIEFLY TO HELP ME SET UP MY MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM, IN WHICH I SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO PROVE BY INTERDISCIPLINARY EVIDENCE THAT THE SUPREME HELIOPOLITAN GODHEAD OF THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN REGION WAS KRISHNA-BALARAMA-PARAMATMA.

 

AS A CHRISTIAN, WHO ALSO LOVED KRISHNA-BALARAMA AND RADHARANI, AND WHO VENERATED SRILA PRABHUPADA, DR. JUDAH WAS ESPECIALLY THRILLED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT ASCLEPIUS-IASAS WAS THE MOST POPULAR INCARNATION OF DIONYSUS ! KNOWING THAT ASCLEPIUS WAS ‘PROPHETICALLY’ THE CATHOLIC JESUS CHRIST, REALIZATION OF THIS IDENTITY GAVE HIM THE GREATEST JOY. THE HOMERIC POLYTHEISTS, THE JNANI MONISTS AND PANTHEISTS AND OTHERS OF LESSER REALIZATION MAY HAVE HAD THEIR LESSER SAVIORS OR IASAS-HEALERS, BUT THE ASCLEPIUS-IASAS CHRISTOS OF THE GREAT MONOTHEISTIC HELIOPOLITAN ASYLA FEDERATIONS AND UNIVERSITY CENTERS WAS CLEARLY THE JESUS CHRIST OF CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH. THE LESSER IASAS-HEALERS WERE MERE MORTALS, DEMIGODS, ‘POSSESSED’ OR EMPOWERED ‘ANOINTED ONES’. ONLY THE IASAS / JESUS OF THE HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISTS WAS THE INCARNATE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. ONLY HE WAS “TRUE GOD, FROM TRUE GOD, MONO GENOUS (‘ONLY BEGOTTEN’ SOLE, ALONE, ONLY GENERATED), HOMO OUSIOS ‘ONE IN BEING’ WITH “THE FATHER” THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, BOTH SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL. THE HOLY SPIRIT (PARAMATMA) PROCEEDED FROM BOTH HE AND THE FATHER! HE WAS THE ORIGINAL SPIRITUAL MASTER AND INITIATOR INTO THE MYSTERIES OF DIVINE LOVE! ALL REVELATION AND ALL SALVATION WAS THROUGH HIM, BECAUSE HE WAS THE COSMIC SACRIFICE WHO RECONCILED ALL THINGS UNTO GOD IN HIS OWN MYSTICAL BODY.

 

IF WE HONESTLY COMPARE THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF OUR TRADITION OF VAISHNAVISM TO THAT OF HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM AND CATHOLICISM, WE WILL SEE THAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT DR. JUDAH HIMSELF CAME TO REALIZE AFTER A LIFETIME OF STUDY. HOWEVER VAISHNAVAS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPARING THESE THEOLOGIES. THEY HAVE NOT COMPARED THE HIGHEST CHRISTOLOGY OF THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS CHRIST TO THAT OF ASCLEPIUS-DIONYSUS AND BALARAMA. INSTEAD THEY HAVE COMPARED THE TEACHINGS OF LESSER JESUSES TO GAUDIYA VAISHNAVA BHAGAVAN-BRAHMAN-PARAMATMA TEACHINGS. IN THE CASE OF SRILA PRABHUPADA’S DISCIPLES, THEY APPARENTLY DID NOT ENGAGE SRILA PRABHUPADA IN ANY DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY. IT SEEMS THAT THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN NEO-GNOSTICISM AND THE ‘NEW AGE JESUS’. THEY ONLY WANTED TO DISCUSS LESSER JESUSES, AND SO SINCE THEY WERE NOT PREPARED OR APPARENTLY WILLING TO DIALOGUE WITH HIM ON THE HIGHEST CHRISTOLOGY OF CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC GURU, SHASTRA AND SADHU, HE RESPONDED TO THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR READINESS AND WILLINGNESS.

 

PUFFED-UP WITH A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GREEK RELIGION, SOME OF SRILA PRABHUPADA’S DISCIPLES PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT IT TO HIM, BUT THEY ALSO COMPLETELY FAILED TO DISCUSS WITH HIM THE HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM OF RHODES AND THE MEDITERRANEAN, EVEN THOUGH ANCIENT GREEK WRITERS AND MODERN SCHOLARS HAD PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HELIOPOLITAN RELIGION AND THE WORSHIP OF KRISHNA AND BALARAMA. ONE TIME I WANTED TO CONTACT SRILA PRABHUPADA ABOUT A 100 YEAR OLD STUDY THAT I FOUND COMPARING APOLLO AND THE MUSES TO KRISHNA AND THE GOPIS, BUT THESE SAME PUFFED-UP ‘SCHOLAR’ DEVOTEES CREATED A WALL AROUND SRILA PRABHUPADA, AND DID NOT ALLOW ME ACCESS TO HIM. WHEN I WANTED TO DIALOGUE WITH HIM ABOUT MY RESEARCH, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS NONSENSE ‘SPECULATION’ AND THAT I SHOULD NOT BOTHER HIM BY WRITING TO HIM. IN THE MEANTIME SENIOR DEVOTEES WERE PUBLISHING THEIR OWN DISCOURSE WITH SRILA PRABHUPADA. THUS INSTEAD OF GETTING SRILA PRABHUPADA’S RESPONSES TO AND REFLECTIONS ON HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM, AND THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS, INSTEAD THESE LEADERS ONLY GAVE US HIS RESPONSES TO AND REFLECTIONS ON WHAT THEY PRESENTED AS GREEK PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION. THUS IT APPEARS THAT SRILA PRABHUPADA WAS NEVER ENGAGED BY HIS DISCIPLES IN ANY (RECORDED) MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF VAISHNAVA-RELATED GREEK, JEWISH AND CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC TRADITION. INSTEAD HIS OPINION WAS SOUGHT REGARDING THINGS LIKE THE (FRAUDULENT) NEW AGE CHANNELED ‘AQUARIAN GOSPEL’, AND ANTI-CATHOLIC HATE LITERATURE FROM THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES. IT SEEMS THAT HIS OWN EXPOSURE TO CHRISTIANITY WAS TO PROTESTANTISM. SO WHEN WE READ HIS COMMENTS REGARDING JESUS CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY, WE SEE A COMBINATION OF RESPONSES TO HIS DISCIPLES. THESE RESPONSES RANGE FROM RATHER MAIN-STREAM PROTESTANT TO NEO-GNOSTIC AND NEW AGE. WHAT WE DON’T EVER SEE IS SRILA PRABHUPADA COMPARING CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY TO BHAGAVAN, BALARAMA AND PARAMATMA.

 

THE BRAHMAN MAY BE A FEATURE OF LORD BALADEVA, BECAUSE SRI KRISHNA’S BODILY EFFULGENCE IS BALARAMA, BUT THE BRAHMAN IS NOT EITHER A PERSON, OR PERSONAL FEATURE OF THE GODHEAD. THE THREE KINDS OF GOD REALIZATION DESCRIBED AS BHAGAVAN, PARAMATMAN AND BRAHMAN, ARE NOT ANALOGOUS TO THE THREE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD IN CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY. THE PERSONS OF THE CATHOLIC GODHEAD ARE EACH CO-ETERNAL OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT PERSONS. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS BRAHMAN REALIZATION IN CATHOLICISM, BUT IT IS CONSIDERED THE LOWEST KIND OF SPIRITUAL AWAKENING OR MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE. IN CATHOLICISM THERE HAS BEEN A LOT WRITTEN ON THIS UNITIVE EXPERIENCE OF GOD’S PERVASIVE SPIRITUAL ‘LIGHT’ IN CREATION, BUT IT IS RIGHTLY NOT CONSIDERED AN EXPERIENCE OF THE PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD. INSTEAD IT IS CONSIDERED A FORM OF NATURE (OR NATURAL) MYSTICISM. NEITHER IS THE SO-CALLED ‘TRIMURTI’ OF BRAHMA, VISHNU AND SHIVA ANALOGOUS TO THE CATHOLIC TRINITY. THESE MISCONCEPTIONS HAVE CAUSED ENORMOUS CONFUSION AMONG HINDUS AND VAISHNAVAS. ONE MUST UNDERSTAND CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY TO PROPERLY MAKE THE COMPARISONS. THE THREE PERSONS OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITY ARE HISTORICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY RELATED TO KRISHNA (BHAGAVAN), BALADEVA AND PARAMATMA. OF THESE THREE PERSONS, THE THEOLOGY OF BALADEVA IS THAT OF THE CATHOLIC SECOND PERSON, WHO CAME TO EARTH AS JESUS CHRIST, GOD’S “ONLY BEGOTTEN (MONO GENOUS) SON”. THIS SONSHIP IS NOT AT ALL LIKE ANY OTHER KIND OF ‘SONSHIP’. RATHER CATHOLIC REVELATION CLEARLY IDENTIFIES JESUS AS UNIQUELY THE FIRST, SOLE, SINGULAR AND ONLY GENERATION (MONO GENOUS) OR ‘EXPANSION’ OF GOD THE FATHER.

 

PLEASE NOTE THAT AS THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, JESUS CHRIST IS CO-ETERNAL WITH THE FATHER. THUS AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS, BAL (YAHU, DIONYSUS, OSIRIS) WAS SOMETIMES CONSIDERED THE BROTHER OR ALTER-FORM OF ELI (THE SUPREME SEMITIC AND BIBLICAL FATHER-GOD) AND SOMETIMES CONSIDERED HIS SON. SONSHIP WAS OFTEN CONNECTED, AS WITH ASCLEPIUS IASAS, WITH BAL-YAHU’S INCARNATION SAVIOR FORMS.

 

TRY TO SEE PAST THE SPECULATIONS OF THE BELOW AUTHOR TO THE ESSENTIAL POINTS REGARDING ‘APOLLO’ AND DIONYSUS.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Cwye_888/apollo.html

 

The union of Apollo and Dionysos at Delphi was a divine acknowledement of this. Despite the sharp opposition between their two realms, the two brothers were joined together by an eternal bond. ‘In Apollo all of the splendour of the Olympic converges and confronts the realms of eternal becoming and eternal passing. Apollo with Dionysos, the intoxicated leader of the choral dance of the terrestrial sphere—that would give the total world dimension. In this union the Dionysiac earthly duality would be elevated into a new and higher duality, the eternal contrast between a restless, whirling life and a still, far-seeing spirit.’ And the Apollonian spirit would reach its noblest heights. Not only did Apollo cede Delphi to Dionysos during the winter months but, as Plutarch tells us, they both received high honours throughout the year. Indeed the pediments of Apollo’s temple portray on one side Apollo with Leto, his mother, Artemis and the Muses, and on the other side Dionysos with his raving Maenads.

 

Even Apollo’s handmaidens, the Muses, the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, are personifications of man’s highest intellectual and artistic aspirations and bear testimony to the essential interconnectedness of reason and intuition, clarity and vision. ‘Our earliest education,’ says Plato in the Laws, ‘comes through the Muses and Apollo.’ And the nine Muses—or simply ‘the Nine’ as poets through the ages have called them—were the source of inspiration for scientists and historians, no less than for poets and artists. Urania was the Muse of astronomy and astrology; Clio, the Muse of history; Melpomene, the Muse of tragedy; Thalia the Muse of comedy; Terpsichore, the Muse of choral song; Calliope, the Muse of epic poetry; Erato, the Muse of love poetry; Euterpe, the Muse of lyric poetry; and Polythymnia, the Muse of sacred poetry.

 

Did the stars and the tides and your own heart

Dance with the heavenly Nine?

 

Apollo may have been a distant god, but there was nothing distant about the Muses: men’s hearts danced with them, men’s minds were inspired by them, men’s souls melted and their spirits soared through them. Apollo’s handmaidens wrought their effect on men in a way which was clearly Dionysian.

 

Despite the mythological union of the two gods, the contrast between Apollonian objective clarity and Dionysian mystic exuberance remains a psychological reality that has dominated Western history. Apollo may have been the god of the arts as well as science, of music and poetry as well as mathematics and medicine, but in our culture the split between the scientific and the unscientific, the objective and the subjective, has become absolute. Yet as all the great scientists would attest, there is nothing exclusively rational and objective about science. Imagination, intuition, inspiration, enthusiasm—all the Dionysian elements of our being—are at least as important in scientific discovery as Apollonian logic, discipline and clarity.

 

When Descartes announced ‘I think, therefore I am’, and modern man rejected the Dionysian element in the Apollonian order, our culture became fatally fragmented. What was not ‘objective’ was automatically assumed to be untrue, reason’s march of conquest became a rout, and man, the self-reliant victor, was transformed into our century’s uprooted, haunted fugitive. The god of light and reason, disconnected from Dionysos and the depths, became exhausted, and the exhaustion has spread over our Apollonian world.

 

REGIONALLY THERE WERE MANY NON-BHAKTI JNANI AND EVEN NON-THEISTIC GROUPS WHICH HAD THEIR OWN VERSIONS OF IASAS. THERE WERE MUNDANE POLYTHEISTS AND IMPERSONAL PANTHEISTS WHO HAD THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT IASAS. AS THE CATHOLIC TRADITION CARRIED ON THE HIGHEST HELIOPOLITAN TRADITIONS OF ASCLEPIUS-IASAS / JESUS, THE TRADITIONS OF THE LESSER JESUSES WERE CARRIED ON BY THE GNOSTICS ETC. SO, ANY ATTEMPT TO ARRIVE AT A WELL-INFORMED CONCLUSION REGARDING THE EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY OF JESUS CHRIST, MUST FIRST BEGIN WITH THE QUESTION OF WHOSE JESUS WE ARE DISCUSSING. THE JESUS OF THE GNOSTICS HAS NOW BECOME THE JESUS OF THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT, AND THE JESUS OF THE NEW AGE INFLUENCED HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT. THIS JESUS IS ONLY A MAN, A JIVA SOUL, A MUSLIM-LIKE PROPHET, AN ARYAN ASCENDED MASTER, AN ESSENE, A JESUS-SEMINAR-LIKE JEWISH REBEL, OR AT MOST THE GNOSTIC DEMI-URGOS BRAHMA, OR AN EMPOWERED JIVA ‘SHAKTYAVESHA AVATARA’. THE CHARACTER, ATTRIBUTES, ACTIVITIES / HISTORIES ETC. OF THESE LESSER JESUSES HAS ALL BEEN WELL DEFINED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PROMOTERS. VARIOUS DEVOTEES HAVE PROMOTED A VARIETY OF THESE LESSER JESUSES. SO IF DEVOTEES WANT TO DISCUSS THE MUSLIM PROPHET JESUS WHO IS SUPPOSEDLY BURIED IN KASMIR, THEY SHOULD REALIZE THAT IS WHO / WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING. IF THEY WANT TO DISCUSS THE OCCULT ARYAN JESUS OF THEOSOPHY AND THE LATER THIRD REICH, THEY SHOULD REALIZE THAT IS WHO / WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING. IF THEY WANT TO DISCUSS THE LATE CONCOCTED JESUSES OF LEVI, SZEKELY, OR JOSEPH SMITH...BY ALL MEANS DISCUSS THEM, BUT REALIZE THAT IS WHAT / WHO IS UNDER DISCUSSION. IF THE SUBJECT IS THE BRAHMA-JESUS, MERE JIVA-SOUL OR SHAKTYAVESHA AVATARA OF ISKCON AND THE HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT, THEN DISCUSS THESE JESUSES, BUT DO NOT CONFUSE ANY OF THESE LESSER JESUSES WITH THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS OF HELIOPOLITAN MONOTHEISM AND CATHOLIC GURU, SHASTRA AND SADHU, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AT ALL THE SAME JESUSES.

 

MUCH MORE SPECIFICITY IS REQUIRED. A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAN BE A VERY DANGEROUSLY CONFUSING THING.

 

WISHING YOU ALL PEACE AND PREMA,

 

BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI

 

 

 

---------------------------

 

my wee reply.

You are correct in saying most hindus are not well educated in the

varieties of christian philosophy.

 

I have a few questions,You seem to believe that Christianity(correct me if i am wrong,i think this is what you have

said in earlier writings)

is a creation independent of and at the same time similar to other older philosophies.(they are the same

religions in different incarnations,i think this is what you are saying) I find this to be unbelievable,to me it seems as if Chriistian dogma was created using bits and pieces of previous dogmas,(with "acceptance of jesus" as the be all and end all of enlightenment)because of this we find repeating religious motifs,we find greek philosophy all throughout christianity,we find 'bridal mysticism" borrowed from judaism or Heliopolitan monotheism,

we find many similar borrowings from the mithras cult(mithras and mitra, are not the same, it has been disproved that the roman mithras was the same as the aryan or persian mitra,

the cult of mithras borrowed the name but the philosophy was different).

 

It would appear that bridal mysticism was plagarized by both judaism and christianity,

and in turn when a careful study of the ancient world is done we will find that Heliopolitan

and Platonic concepts also were plagarized as well as almost all middle eastern religions,

as the torah says it would appear that in fact civilization was of a single (although varied

like india today) religion,culture and language.

 

Going back in time we find a pervasive aryan presence throughout the mediterranean region,

wasn't Dyonisus supposedly from greater India ?

We find aryan concepts because of aryan influence,when you state that these various similar

concepts arose indepedently because of One God giving divine knowledge to different

groups(in a different writing) ,i find that to be a bit sentimental,accurate in one sense(God is giving everyone

all concepts at all times) at the same time biased against historical accuracy in favor

of some sentiment of brotherly inclusiveness, which is fine for making friends with

closed minded sectarianists,but for those who seek accuracy and truth maybe

another explanation can be understood.

 

We find similar concepts because of One religion spreading and creating new religions

when they merge with local beliefs.

 

The whole Indo-european concept is based on this idea of a diffusion of one ancient

culture merging with localized tribal beliefs as the dominant civilization spread to the

hinterlands,so therefore it would only be expected to find similar religious concepts and

words.

 

Christianity evolved it's philosophy and at each stage of it's "officialdom" the new influences can be

traced to previous belief systems,what we end up with is a religion that from all points

of view is plagarized from one ancient source, although taking a roundabout course.

 

So when we are asked to see Jesus as equivalent to Baladeva for some of us this is

a comparision of a real entity and real potency to a fictional hypothesis.

 

How is Christianity any different then Mormonism in that both are plagarized and have

borrowed the main portion of their philosophy from other sources ?

 

Both have created a new vision of god using older archtypes,both are therefore fictions.

 

And we can see this when we examine christianity closely in comparison to Vaisnavism,

Jesus as God the deliverer is clearly plagarized ,Whom did Jesus deliver ?

How did He accomplish this ? Why should we accept that claim anymore then the

claim made for the guy down the street ?

Jesus as God the savior was a creation of religionists,we have no actual examples

of Jesus teaching any form of religious practice or Sadhana,this is how

one becomes "saved ", by following a prescribed process of enlightenment,

the jesus that is taught by christians did no such thing,according to christian

dogma,faith alone in Jesus as god,as savior, is all that is required to be "saved".

 

What in fact is this "savior" philosophy ? is this actual enlightenment ? or just empty claims

of superiority ? what process did jesus give to bring about enlightenment ?

That is Baladevas function,God as savior brings the process of self realization,

without that there is no "saving" ,there is no manifestation of God as

deliverer .

 

Does christianity provide the method Jesus taught for becoming "saved" ?

becoming delivered ?

 

No, they simply say he accomplished that by dying on the cross, in that act we are saved,

only of course if we "accept" Jesus as God,and that He died for our sins.

 

there is no actual delivering methodology,no process of enlightenment,only acceptance

of divinity,How does this Jesus qualify to be compared to God as Deliverer ?

 

How is this to be equated with god as the great healer ?

without a method of healing us ,now, all we have are myths,

without a process given by jesus to deliver us ,here and now,

there is no delivering potency,it's all phony.

 

How is their jesus to be equated to Rasa-raja,

Or the diety of the rasa dance ?

 

without a methodology of enlightenment given by jesus or anyone else

any claim for that person being the delivering potency of godhead

is vacant of sound reason,without the methodology to

experience Jesus as Baladeva what validity is there to claim

they are the same ?

 

Just because you can create a religious dogma that utilizes previous

religious ideas doesn't mean that what has been created is potent

and empowered as a representative of the real thing.

 

should we accept pure plagarism.

 

Should religious philosophy become a toy to be used to propagate personal ideas ?

Jesus as Baladeva may have some philosophical resemblance on one level but so can

a religion i can create,if i use similar motifs in my dogma,if i create a philosophy

with myself in a role similar to Baladeva,if i add judaic or heliopolitan concepts of

the chorus, does that in and of itself make my new religion bonafide ?

Should you be asked to try and see how i am equivalent to Baladeva,Jesus or Dyonisus ?

How I am the center of the rasa dance ?

 

will this be then seen as a bonafide tradition inspired by God ?

 

how is this different from what you are asking from us ?

 

I can understand how there are similarities in different religions,but that can be explained

by diffusion,not by independent incarnations of God teaching the same thing,in different places,

it least this is how i see it.

 

also you compare the chorus dance to the rasa dance,and the feminine psyche

"bride of Christ" and jivas in their relation to God.

 

Again we can see these concepts while similar externally in fact are similar due

to diffusion, and we can see that these concepts have a symbolic quality that

is left out by interpreters in all most all cases.

 

They prefer to see the feminine symbolism of dependent beings as conotating actual femaleness,and therefore god as actually male ,they take the rasa dance to mean the male Godhead is dancing with female

humans or jivas,instead of the whole thing being a symbolic representation with sexual identity

being used as a symbolic device for instruction,they take the whole thing as a literal definition

of the highest reality.

 

In the same way the whole jesus story is by nature symbolic,If in fact Jesus as told by

the apostolic tradition can be shown to be an invention utilizing older traditions

then in that sense we can find some semblance of truth in christianity,it's when

we take the jesus story literally and historically accurate that we run into trouble,

when used as a symbolic showcase for older more complete understandings then

it has value,but to take Jesus as actually being equivalent to Baladeva literally,

is no different then saying all religions are the same,if someone worships

Sun Myung Moon as Jesus incarnate(as many do) that is just as bonafide as Catholic claims

of the authenticity of Jesus as God,and the popes, where does it end ? who decides

who is a bonafide avatar and who is not ?

 

Can an avatar of god's mercy,the incarnation of the

delivering potency of god in his personal incarnation,

can that be created by fiat ?

 

If we cannot create God by our proclamations

why should we accept that this was acceptable

in the past ?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Can't say I'm a fan of his writings. He hodge-podges, is often inaccurate, and denies certain points most find enough evidence to be true, as untrue. Nope, can't say I get inspired by his 'beliefs.' I suggest he renounce Catholicism. Not Jesus, just catholocism. also suggest he detach somewhat from Jesus. Vaisnavas place greater interest in Lord Sri Krishna.

[Guest guest]

 

I suggest he renounce Catholicism. Not Jesus, just catholocism. also suggest he detach somewhat from Jesus. Vaisnavas place greater interest in Lord Sri Krishna.

 

 

 

i disagree,while I differ from Him on a few esoteric

or historical points, i believe He provides a great

service,For the scholars of the Abrahamic tradition

and related mediterranean sects

(and secret societies) His writings can

bring to them a whole new understaing they are

unaware of.

 

For the most part this large community of scholars

have little to no understanding of Vedic religion,

they are absorbed in their own fields,Someone like

Goswami can shake up the entire scholarly community

to it's core,just like what He did to the Theosophy

Society.

So i am a BIG FAN of His work,and I hope that those with

the means will investigate His work and help him get

it organized and published.

 

 

As far as accuracy it is all very subjective in the field

of ancient scholarship, when interpreting culturaly

relevant concepts of 300 b.c. into todays

world there is bound to be a lot of different takes

due to the nature of context.

[Guest guest]

Many unsubstantiated claims by BAG, does he ever cite any references to show the basis of his claims? Who will take him seriously if he doesn't?

 

Quote BAG: "SO WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS DEVOTED IN BRIDAL MYSTICISM DO NOT CONSUMATE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH ‘GOD THE FATHER’ (WHICH WOULD BE RASA BHASA), THEY DO DANCE IN THE “PARADISE ROUND” OR SACRED CIRCLE DANCE WITH GOD THE LOVER AS THE MESSIAH OR JESUS."

 

 

They 'DANCE WITH GOD THE LOVER AS THE MESSIAH OR JESUS'? Jesus is not Baladeva, Baladeva does not regard Krishna as a father. That is rasa abhasa. Srila Sridhara Maharaja says those who are satisfied with worshiping Jesus will remain in his eternal paraphernalia.

 

Christian: There is one book called The Way of The Pilgrim, about a Christian who chants the name of Jesus on beads.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, the Catholics also use beads. Some Christians may chant the name of Christ.

 

Christian: This man was chanting the name of Jesus, his heart was growing soft, and he was feeling ecstasy, great love for Jesus.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest satisfaction, he is fated to be there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna Reality The Beautiful~

 

 

Sridhara Maharaja: Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaja that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer"

 

[...]

 

To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole...I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception.

 

[...]

 

We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent.

 

We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna

Reality The Beautiful~

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

WHILE SOME VAISHNAVAS MAY NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC JESUS IS VISHNU TATTVA, IN ORDER TO TAKE GOD OUT OF JUDEO-CATHOLIC BRIDAL MYSTICISM, THEY WILL HAVE TO ERASE / DENY THESE ENTIRE TRADITIONS, WHICH HAVE THE “SONG” AS THE “HOLY OF HOLIES” AT THEIR MYSTICAL CORE OF REVELATION.

 

 

 

Umm, Jesus is NOT Vishnu Tattva. There is no sAstra-pramAna to substantiate such a view. Period.

 

Who here is speculating? The one who follows what sAstra says, or the one who makes up ideas not found in sAstra?

 

 

 

[dhaa]

 

There is no sAstra-pramAna to substantiate such a view. Period.

 

 

 

exactly, case closed

[dhaa]

 

b.a.g: WHAT THEN IS THE EXCUSE FOR VAISHNAVAS TO ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THE RASA LILA OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE IT IS ‘ONLY’ WITH THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, LORD BALADEVA

 

 

b.a.g says jews & christians 'rasa lila' is with baladeva (who he arbitrarily says is jesus). wile sridhar maharaj & bhaktisiddhanta sarasvati say christians consort relationship is with gods son, devotee:

 

 

Sridhara Maharaja: Once some Christian priests...they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God."

 

 

gods son/devotee jesus who is jiva tattva isnt visnu tattva, saying so is mayavad

[Guest guest]

 

i disagree,while I differ from Him on a few esoteric

or historical points, i believe He provides a great

service,For the scholars of the Abrahamic tradition

and related mediterranean sects

(and secret societies) His writings can

bring to them a whole new understaing they are

unaware of.

 

For the most part this large community of scholars

have little to no understanding of Vedic religion,

they are absorbed in their own fields,Someone like

Goswami can shake up the entire scholarly community

to it's core,just like what He did to the Theosophy

Society.

 

 

Better he should give up the hodge-podging and attract the same audience with unadulterated teachings of Prabhupada. I dont buy it that it can't be done. It use to be done, devoteed did it all the time, so if he has the know - how now, as it appears, he should simply give up the Catholicism or else use Prabhuapda's quotes ONLY on Catholicism (and Jesus as JIVA tattva), and preach for that perspective. He could do a much greater service that way. To believe it can't be done is to believe purity is not as powerful as hodge-podging.