Who was the spiritual master of Jesus?

[AncientMariner]

Did Jesus have a spiritual master? I have no doubt that Jesus is a saktyavesa-avatara so does that mean that from birth he was empowered by Krishna and if so does that mean that Krishna was his guru from within or was John the Baptist his guru and if so what sampradaya was John the Baptist from? I wish there really were no hard and fast rules to chanting but one minute they say there is hard and fast rules to chanting and next minute they say there is no hard and fast rules to chanting. Hopefully this trying to figure out who is properly initiated and who is not properly initiated is an Earthly phenomena. On the Vaikuntha planets we will probably be so busy in our particular relationship with Krishna that all these squabbles will seem ridiculous in hindsight.

[Kulapavana]

this is a murky subject, with much controversy.

 

some Jews claim Jesus was a wayward disciple in the Kabalah line. some historians link Jesus (and John the Baptist) to the Essenes, a seperate Jewish sect interested in mysticism. some say he accepted initiation from the Kashmiri Vaishnava sampradaya masters.

 

whatever his lineage might be, he was recognized by Srila Prabhupada as a genuine spiritual master, so the issue is in following his teachings.

 

it always amazes me how worked up some devotees get over these topics (Jesus and Christianity) considering that they are quite irrelevant for us. maybe some sentiments are just too hard to renounce?

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

was.

[Guest guest]

one minute they say there is hard and fast rules to chanting and next minute they say there is no hard and fast rules to chanting

 

the "next" minute is the right one

 

"Hopefully this trying to figure out who is properly initiated and who is not properly initiated is an Earthly phenomena. On the Vaikuntha planets we will probably be so busy in our particular relationship with Krishna that all these squabbles will seem ridiculous in hindsight. "

 

in vaikunta everyone is following the religion... everyone has his spiritual master...even sri krsna bhagavan

[Guest guest]

Who is the Spiritual master for Sree Krishna Baghwan in Vaikunta. I have never heard. Please enlighten me.

Thanks

 

[Guest guest]

Who is the Spiritual master for Sree Krishna Baghwan in Vaikunta. I have never heard. Please enlighten me.

Thanks

 

[Guest guest]

John was Jesus' initiating guru. He was a student of Isaiah, as well as Enoch, two authorities he cited often in his preaching mission. Mo latah, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

"Who is the Spiritual master for Sree Krishna Baghwan in Vaikunta. I have never heard. Please enlighten me.

Thanks"

 

Sandipani Muni

 

[Guest guest]

sri rama's master is Vasistha

[shambu]

—"Who is the Spiritual master for Sree Krishna Baghwan in Vaikunta. I have never heard. Please enlighten me.

Thanks"

 

Sandipani Muni—

 

Only in His earthly lila Sri Krishna has a gurudeva. To show conditioned souls the right example. Furthermore there is no Krishna in Vaikuntha Lokas. Only Vishnu/Narayana is there. He has no guru either. Being source of everything, what does He need a guru for?

[Guest guest]

Only in His earthly lila Sri Krishna has a gurudeva.

..there's no "earhtly" lila... vrindavana is in the spiritual world and lilas are eternally performing

 

Furthermore there is no Krishna in Vaikuntha Lokas.

..where's vrindavan if not in vaikunta? goloka vrindavan?

 

Being source of everything, what does He need a guru for?

..you already said it... to show the right behaviour

 

 

[shambu]

—..there's no "earthly" lila... vrindavana is in the spiritual world and lilas are eternally performing—

 

Yeah, in a sense you're right! I found this quote in Brahma-samhita, purport to Verse 2, that confirms your point:

 

"Sri Sanatana Gosvami has told....in his Brihad Bhagavatamrita....: "He displays His pastimes here in this land as He is used to do in Goloka. The difference between the two planes lies only in their locations as high and low; that is, in other words, Krsna plays exactly the same part in Goloka as He exhibits on the mundane plane of Gokula. There is practically no difference between Gokula and Goloka save that this what exists in the shape of Goloka in the upper region is the same as Gokula on the mundane plane when Krsna showed His various activity here."

 

And in the BS purport to Verse 37 we read:

 

"Those pastimes that manifest themselves on the mundane plane, are His visible pastimes. All those very pastimes exist in their nonvisible form in Goloka beyond the ken [= purview] of mundane knowledge. In His visible pastimes Krsna sojourns in Gokula, Mathura and Dvaraka. Those pastimes that are nonvisible in those three places, are visible in their spiritual sites of Vrindavana.

"From the conclusions just stated it is clear that there is no distinction between the visible and nonvisible pastimes. The apostle Jiva Gosvami in his commentary on this sloka as well as in the gloss of Ujjvala-nilamani and Krsna-sandarbha remarks that "the visible pastimes of Krsna are the creation of His cit (spiritual) potency. Being in conjunction with the reference to mundane function they exhibit certain features which seem to be true by the influence of the limiting potency (Maya); BUT THESE CANNNOT EXIST IN THE TRANSCENDENTAL REALITY. THE DESTRUCTION OF DEMONS, ILLICIT PARAMOURSHIP, BIRTH, ETC. ARE EXAMPLES OF THIS PECULIARITY."

 

So this means that in His eternal pastimes in Goloka Vrindavana Krsna is not engaged in fighting demons, has no "illicit" paramour-relationships with Gopis, nor does he ever get born there. But when He manifests Himself on this plane He appears to do all this. So there IS a subtle difference between Krsna's manifested pastimes on this Earth and His unmanifested pastimes in His eternal abode, Goloka Vrindavana, even though ontologically they are non-different. So I figured that it must be so that His accepting a Spiritual Master (Sandipani Muni) is also part of this "peculiarity," and that this pastime doesn't occur in His spiritual abode as part of His nitya-lila. You confirm my opinion that Sri Krsna accepted a guru only for the purpose of setting the right example for us conditioned souls. Since there are no conditioned souls in Goloka, what would be the use of His accepting a guru in that realm?

 

—Furthermore there is no Krishna in Vaikuntha Lokas.

..where's vrindavan if not in vaikunta? goloka vrindavan?—

 

Goloka Vrindavan is the name for Krishna's own abode, where His eternal lila is taking place in madhurya, vatsalya, and sakhya rasa. Vaikuntha is the name for the vast Spiritual Sky where Lord Narayana is residing on innumerable Vaikuntha planets, being worshiped there in different four-armed Visnu-forms in an opulent manner by devotees who are primarily in dasya-rasa. The distinction between these two realms is that Goloka is a place of Madhurya (or: sweetness, intimacy) whereas Vaikuntha is a place of Aishvarya (opulence, awe and everence). Thus the two are situated in different spheres; in other words I don't think that Goloka can be considered to be part of Vaikuntha, even though both are purely spiritual. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Vanguard]

I don't understand why Jesus would need a guru even if he is a Satyavesh avatar. Jesus primarily preached in the middle east, outside of India, where disciplic succession matters were nearly as big a deal. Christians worship Jesus as the son of God. Muslims revere Isa (Jesus) as being a prophet (who they contend was not killed on the cross). Neither ask this question about disciplic succession. Since Krsna accepts Guru to set an example, and disciplic succession wasn't an intended example to set with Jesus in particular, it doesn't matter.

[shambu]

I think "disciplic succession" or guru-parampara isn't a concept that is exclusive to India; it's a universal phenomenon. In all fields of knowledge, whether spiritual or material, knowledge is imparted through a chain of knowledgable and qualified persons. This must also be the case with the Judaic tradition, where Jesus is part of. The form of this chain of knowledge may differ from the Indian or Vedic concept, but the idea is the same. Amongst the Israelites there is a tradition of more or less self-manifested acharyas, called "prophets." Not to mention the numerous recognized rabbis of different schools, who impart their knowledge and interpretation of scriptures to their students etc.

 

I think John the Baptist was recognized by his different manifestations as a Prophet connected to the advent of Jesus, and sri mahaksadasa makes a very good point by stating that he is to be considered Jesus' guru, no matter what specific spiritual lineage he may have belonged to. It was just preordained to be so. At least to me it seems clear he was Jesus' diksa-guru, so to speak. Just read this passage from the gospel of Matthew:

 

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.

14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

 

Note well that right after the baptism the spiritual connection was made and his spiritual identity was revealed. Isn't this the meaning of "initiation" (diksa)?

[Kulapavana]

I doubt you can really equate baptism with diksa initiation. baptism is about washing away of the 'original' sin, diksa is about conscious acceptance of a teacher.

 

also, there is no reference anywhere to Jesus taking instructions from John the Baptist.

 

devotees often project specific meaning into elements of other traditions that suppose to paralel the Vedic system. mostly, it is a mere speculation on their part.

[shambu]

—I doubt you can really equate baptism with diksa initiation. baptism is about washing away of the 'original' sin, diksa is about conscious acceptance of a teacher.—

 

In both cases the underlying idea is "rebirth" in the spiritual sense, by establishing a bond between God and the individual through the medium of a guru ot teacher (Jesus). Even in the case of Vaisnava-diksa there is strong emphasis on refraining from sinful activities by promising to follow 4 regulative principles at the time of initiation (at least in ISKCON). I never heard that according to Christians the "original sin" is supposed to be washed away at the time of Baptism, but in any case the symbolism of the ritual is one of purification. In Vedic tradition the purifying element is taken to be fire, in the Essene tradition followed by Jesus water is the element that purifies. Take into account that fire in a desertlike area is mostly considered a hostile element, so the people living in such an environment will not be attracted to fire-rituals. Water on the other hand is experienced as more benificent by such people.

 

—also, there is no reference anywhere to Jesus taking instructions from John the Baptist. —

 

No, that's why I said he could be considered diksa-guru.

 

—devotees often project specific meaning into elements of other traditions that suppose to paralel the Vedic system. mostly, it is a mere speculation on their part. —

 

As far as I am concerned, "devotees" (meaning Vaisnavas) have a tendency towards exclusivism that is not always very healthy or even realistic. Probably you will find my "speculations" far over the top.... I hate sectarianism, can I help it?

[Kulapavana]

Christians have several explanations for baptism, all more or less revolving around purification or rebirth. Catholics and E.Orthodox baptize infants and believe it purifies one of all sins, including the "original" sin and that without it the entry into Heaven is impossible, even for a newborn baby. Relating baptism to diksa thus seems artificial.

[Kulapavana]

""devotees" (meaning Vaisnavas) have a tendency towards exclusivism that is not always very healthy or even realistic"

 

there is no real need to mix religious traditions, especially for Vaishnavas. however, we do need to recognize genuine spiritualty in other people and other traditions. exclusivism based on pride is bad, but there ARE very important differences between "us" and "them" which should not be forgotten.

[shambu]

Of course one should not try to mix religious traditions, that may cause one to end up confused. There is a difference between faithfully following (and preaching) a certain religious tradition and "sectarianism." I hope you don't feel offended that I used this word...

[Guest guest]

Instruction may come from siksa, diksa may only initiate. Also, when a superior devotee takes initiation from one not as esteemed, this happens all the time, and the guru and the disciple know this quite well, and act accordingly, to set example. Johns deferrence to Lord Jesus is not different than Iswari Puris recognition of Lord Chaitanyas glorious position.

 

As far as vedic tradition, guru-disciple relationship transcends vedas, and is universal. Basic apprenticeships are based on this fact, that the elders pass on their knowledge to serious students. All indigeneous societies operate on this common principal, as our friend red wolf would concur with if he should read here. The only thing that doesnt jive with reality is the artificiality of guru-disciple based on eccliastics, formality, memberships, official recognition, etc. These things are created by man for materialistic reasons, and actually destroy the ideals of natural learning processes, much like apprenticeships have gone by the wayside because of trade manuals produced to arbirtarily inflict the tradesmen with standards which may not produce quality workmanship as in the ways of the apprenticeships.

 

And Johns teachings to Lord Jesus are between guru and disciple, maybe not for common consumprion, like all CONFIDENTIAL relationships of this type.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

PS John, too, had a guru. Gabriel taught him well, as he taught Solomon and Mekeda, and Menelech in bygone ages. The demigods can appear as they wish to impart the ways and teachings of the supreme, like Narada Muni, Vyasadeva, and others who are not bound by time and place.

 

[Guest guest]

"we do need to recognize genuine spiritualty in other people and other traditions."

 

••maybe we do not need it.. but if we see a genuine tradition and we do not recognize his genuinity we commit aparadha

[Kulapavana]

certainly no offense taken, prabhu. I do appreciate the points you are making and simply want to expand on them a little.

 

yes, there is a big difference between faithfully following (and preaching) a certain religious tradition and "sectarianism." there is also a real risk of contaminating our own tradition with udesireable foreign influences - I see it all the time on both individual and group level (eg.ISKCON)