Guruvani

The bottom line for me is what Srila Prabhupada wrote in his books; so, you guys can spend your time concerned with Jesus. I don't have time for that. I prefer to put my life energy into the Gaudiya philosophy. Madhya 15.163 purport. So I prefer the Vaishnavas..... why?

I already posted it a few posts back on the last page of this topic. But, here it is.

Srila Prabhupada letter to Aniruddha das: So, Jesus was Jivatattva. Srila Prabhupada compares him with Buddha. We are not followers of Buddha either. Buddha preached the most virulent form of atheism known to man. Jesus, Buddha........ not concerned with either one.

Srila Prabhupada:

So, Srila Prabhupada said that after 2000 years nobody was yet following Christ. So, what use is the whole bluster about Jesus?

Srila Prabhupada:

does that mean I have to eat fish too? According to Rupa Goswami, devotional service to Krishna that ignores sruti, smriti and Purana is simply a disturbance to the bhakti culture. I don't see any sruti, smriti or Purana in the teachings of Jesus, so maybe that is why this whole Jesus thing is just a disturbance to the society of devotees. Jesus never offered his food to Krishna. Jesus never chanted the Maha-mantra. Jesus never chanted any name of God. Jesus said that you cannot realize God through chanting. Jesus does not come in any sampradaya that is authorized by the Vedic authority. So, really, I am at a loss as to how this whole Jesus thing really has any place in the life of a devotee. By all the traditional measures of the Vedic authority, Jesus and the Christian cult are apa-sampradaya and a disturbance to the true devotional science. Why should a devotee be required to accept a guru who doesn't come in any of the authorized sampradayas? According to all the rules of the Vaishnava shastra, it is forbidden to take knowledge of God from outside the authorized sampradayas. Why should we break the rules and go outside the authorized sampradayas to hear about Jesus? What is the difference bewtween Jesus and Bubba Free John?

Well, even if you can convince yourself and me too that the meaning is like that, it won't help the situation because I am not the Christian bigot who thinks that all other religions are the work of the devil. I certainly don't need to believe in Jesus for my own salvation. Devotees have done without Jesus for thousands of years and devotees certainly don't need Jesus to be a Krishna conscious devotee. Why now that all devotees have to love Jesus? It's not me you need to convince to solve the problem. it's the millions of Christian bigots in the world that you need to convince. So, go get 'em tiger!!!

No, my problem is with Christ. He said he was the only way to God and that nobody can get to God but through him. Well, I will spare you the explitives, but any such teaching as far as I am concerned is a load of hog manure. And, this dogma has been at the root of centuries of Christian bigotry and prejudice. These kinds of religous dogmas are going to be the ruination of the human race someday. The ISLAMIC version of this dogma is an unrelenting scourge on the planet. These religious bigots from both sides are causing a clash that will someday bring down the world economies and bring human society to it's knees. So, I am not too fond of these bigoted religious faiths of either flavor.

Still, all we have are matters of faith. I can't accept that Jesus is the only way to salvation or the only way to God. So, real or unreal, I can't buy into the Pauline cult of Christianity. Even if Jesus was real, he never left behind a single written document to record his teachings and the way the gospels came about are also very suspect having come about 100 years after the supposed life of Christ. I don't like the 100 year timeline between the crucifiction and the coming of the gospels.

Whether Jesus was an actual historical figure or not can never be proved or disproved one way or the other. As far as that goes, we don't have any proof that Josephus was anything more than a fiction character that somebody dreamed up and wrote about. The bottom line is not so much if Jesus was real or not, but whether or not a person accepts the teachings that are ascribed to the supposed person of Jesus Christ. Even if Jesus was real, I don't accept his claim to be the only way to God. Statements like that just convince me that he was a fiction character because if he was real I can't imagine any sane person saying anything like that. Jesus the Son of God? God only had ONE son? My Dad had four sons but God can only have one? Whether Jesus was real or not, is not crucial to me. Even if he was a real historical figure I cannot accept him as a spiritual master because his teachings are against the teachings of Krishna. As well, this claim to being "the only way to God" has been at the root of thousands of years of Christian bigotry and prejudice. Can any religion in the wolrd expect to be brothers with Christians when they know that Christians believe that their way is the ONLY way? There is no room for spiritual brotherhood between Christians and any other religion of the world because they have a philosophy of exclusivity. I hate that kind of religious bigotry. Christian philosophy creates bigots and fanatics like Jerry Falwell. I think that man was a sorry excuse for a human being. I have no use for a religion that creates bigots and lunatics like that.

If I accept Jesus, then I have to accept what he said that he is "the way, the truth and the life and NO man comes to God but through him". Well, I can't accept that. So, I can't accept Jesus. I don't think Srila Prabhupada would ever accept that either. If he really accepts Jesus, then he has to accept that Jesus is the only way. I don't think Srila Prabhupada would agree that.

I learned about Siva from Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta Swami. He has given us Bhagavat Purana and other books of shastra. Lord Advaita he is the one who called down Lord Krishna to come as Mahaprabhu. By the call of Lord Advaita then Lord Krishna he came to Earth as Sri Chaitanyadev. Sri Advaita Acharya he has his own parampara of disciplic succession. So Lord Siva in the form of Lord Advaita he had the power to call down Lord Krishna to come as Mahaprabhu and preach the Yuga Dharma of Sankirtan Yagna. Sukadeva Goswami who spoke Bhagavat Purana is also said to be an incarnation of Lord Siva. So, he is guru that way too. Then again coming as Sri Advaita.

Lord Advaita is same all powerful God. But, even this form of God he considers himself a devotee of Krishna because Krishna is the original form of God that all other Gods come from. We do worship all forms of Siva if we are passing by the temple we are supposed to offer worship to Siva if we are there. Otherwise, we worship Siva as Sri Advaita Acharya because he is with Mahaprabhu. Actually, our guru has said that Siva is another form of Krishna. Siva is a form of the Supreme God. He is not some demigod like Indra or Brahma.

Shaivs are devotee of Siva as supreme form of God. Vaishnava are devotees of Shiva in his other form as devotee of Mahaprabhu. Siva is a very great God in Gaudiya theology. His is same as Vishnu, but differnt form and differnt function. When Maha-Vishnu comes in contract with Durga devi he becomes Siva.

Siva appears on the Gaudiya altar as Lord Advaita Acharya. We worship that form of Lord Siva who appeared with Mahaprabhu 500 years ago in Bengal. So, Lord Siva he incarnated with Mahaprabhu. We also know that Siva is a form of Maha-Vishnu.

we are allowed to pour ganges water on the Shiva linga as that is very pleasing to him. but, we do that in the Siva temple not in the Gaudiya temple.

not if you understand that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna whose plenary expansion Maha-Vishnu creates the entire material world that you live in. Please show me in Siva Purana where Siva creates the material universes. Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva are the same person. Only as Lord Siva the Lord Vishnu performs a special function he cannot do as Lord Vishnu. Before Lord Vishnu can have dealings with the material energy his must transform himself into Siva. Siva and Vishnu are one and the same but with different functions.

There are many gurus that we don't put on the altar. We don't have Sukadeva on the altar either. We don't have Brahma the founder of the sampradaya on the altar. We don't have Vyasadeva on the altar. We don't have Prahlada on the altar. We don't have Kapiladev on the altar. We can't put every guru on the altar. But, we do have the teachings of Lord Siva in our shastra and he is considered the greatest of all Vaishnavas. So, we respect Siva as the greatest of all the devotees of Krishna. We also recognize that he is God and has his own realm of the spiritual world like Narayana and Krishna have their own spiritual planets. We don't worship Siva for material things. We ask him to bless us to be sincere devotees of Krishna.

so, really the whole historical claim to Jesus hinges on 2 verses from a Christian interpretation of some writings of the so-called historian Josephus? sounds flimsy if you are trying to use that to prove that Jesus was historically real. so, the whole argument that Jesus was historically real is not sound enough to really make a solid case.