Guruvani

Jesus was an individual, so they say. So, the comparison is good as far as I am concerned. As for me, I am not going to give any credit to Jesus if in fact even senior disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur have been neglected by Srila Prabhupada. Christianity is a major world religion on the strength of Roman and British political influence. As a religion on it's own it has no actual substance as far as I am concerned.

Somebody should get them an airtight vacuum sealed box to keep such a sacred object in. With modern methods the blanket could be preserved for many hundred more years. Otherwise, it will be destroyed by air and environmental elements. If the blanket is genuine then it should have an entire shrine devoted to it's preservation.

The Maha-mantra is not a prayer as much as it is simply a glorification of the Lord. By glorifying Krishna and his internal energy we bring our consciousness into focus on the absolute. When we focus on the absolute, then all the relative considerations are automatically satisified. If we glorify Lord Krishna then we can attract his attention to our plight. If we can get the attention of Krishna, then he will take care of everything else. We only pray for service to Krishna. Krishna takes care of all the small stuff even without our asking. He knows what we need better than we do. Call out the name of Krishna and get his attention! If we can get the attention of Krishna then all our needs are fulfilled automatically. The chanting is the dovetailing of the individual consciousness into the absolute supreme consciousness. All relative factors are satisfied when we dovetail into the absolute.

The great pure devotees and acharyas have told that we should not ask for the removal of misery or pain, but that we only pray to be allowed to perform some devotional service and never forget Krishna under any circumstance. So many great devotees have suffered for their dedication to Lord Krishna, but they never asked for relief from the misery. We don't need to ask for relief of misery. Misery goes away automatically when we practice pure devotional service. Still, as an example to the world, the great devotees accept suffering to teach us that we should serve even if we are in a suffering condition. We only ask for service......... nothing else. We don't ask for relief of misery or liberation to Goloka. The only pure prayer is for service alone and the chance to remember Krishna.

You don't have to be a genius to see that if Srila Prabhupada says things in preaching to non-devotees, Christians and other such mundaners, that contradicts shastric siddhanta that he must have been making concessions to spoon-feed them the process of hearing from the sadhu. I certainly DO NOT accept that every last word Srila Prabhupada spoke was absolute and in total compliance with shastric standards. He made many compromises in his preaching for the purpose of gradually bringing people in to the Vaishnava Dharma. However, it gets to be a problem when neophyte devotees who don't know shastric siddhanta accept every last word of Srila Prabhupada to be absolute and conclusive. Some devotees have left the Saraswata camp due to the fact that they could not distinguish preaching tactics from deviated siddhanta. Some devotees well familiar with shastra and tradition have left the Saraswata school because they could not separate preaching tactics from deviated siddhanta. I don't write off Srila Prabhupada or the Saraswata school as being deviant from the tradition. I understand that they have made compromises and adjustments in their preaching for the purpose of reaching in to western societies. Some devotees just leave and seek out "traditional" camps. I prefer to try and understand how the Saraswata acharyas are not deviants, but have made compromises in their preachings for the sake of reaching people in the western world.

Jesus meets none of the criteria given in shastra as being a bona fide spiritual master as he has no sampradaya and did not preach the Yuga Dharma of chanting the Maha-mantra. As such, like Srila Prabhupada said, we accept Jesus but we don't accept his philosophy. So, what use is a religious leader whose philosophy has been rejected even by Srila Prabhupada? The Gaudiya siddhanta is that there is no other way in this age for deliverance except for the chanting of the Holy name of Krishna. Since, chanting the Holy Name of Krishna is not preached or practiced by Jesus, I subsequently reject him and his apa-sampradaya they call the Christian church. There is no other way, no other way, no other way and that includes that Jesus is also not the way of deliverance in this age of kali. The shastra declares that the only bona system in this age is the chanting of Hare Krishna. As such, Jesus and his cult do not meet the Vedic requirements for being a bona fide spiritual system in the age of kali. I am not going to give Jesus any special consideration. If he doesn't meet the shastric requirements then he is out of the picture. There is only ONE WAY in this age and it is NOT Jesus.

Then why did Srila Prabhupada even exclude his very own Godbrothers from the ISKCON paradigm? Why are so many saintly Hindus abused for not having proper sampradaya? I don't see any reason why the Jesus cult should get special concessions that so many other sects and cults of the world do not get from the Vaishnava authorities. Even babajis at Radha kunda chanting the names of the Lord under extreme austerity for many years are rejected by the Saraswata acharyas, so I am certainly not going to give the Jesus cult any special consideration. Many saintly devotees of Krishna have been excluded in the Saraswata school. Other than as a preaching device I don't see any reason why the Jesus cult should get any special favor. The remarks Srila Prabhupada made about Jesus were just preaching tactics. Otherwise, Jesus was nobody special. Buddha was a shaktyavesha avatar as well, but I don't see devotees injecting quotes from Buddha into every spiritual conversation on this forum. Jesus has his place, but bringing him up in every discussion amongst devotees is considered objectionable to some devotees who don't want to hear about Jesus in every discussion that devotees have. Jesus should stay in his own topics. Bringing Jesus into every Krishna consciousness discussion of Vaishnava topics is just offensive to some people.

At one time when the Muslims were invading and conquering India, they would force Hindus to eat meat or otherwise force them into some act that would cause them to lose their caste. That was an extremely cruel and malicious act. Now, if the Vaishnavas try to sneak food offered to Hindu gods down the bellies of Muslim children they are asking for a serious reaction that could ultimately result in the burning of temples and the killing of Vaishnavas. Religious fanaticism does not accomplish the goals of the Vaishnava preaching mission in the modern age.

I just seems to me like a double standard that the Vaishnavas do not recognize the Hindu yogis, swamis and gurus without the proper Vedic authencity and proper Sampradaya but Jesus somehow gets special treatment. There are many pious and saintly Hindus and even Vaishnavas like the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada who were disciples of Srila Saraswati Goswami that were berated by Srila Prabhupada while Jesus gets some special concession. To me it is quite obvious that Srila Prabhupada adjusted his preaching strategy for his western audience and stretched the truth to accomodate the sentiments of Christian society for the purpose of avoiding conflict with said Christian societies. Otherwise, by all the standard guidelines that comes with the Vaishnava philosophy, Jesus would not be accepted as a bona fide religious authority. Myself, I don't give him any special recognition. He gets the same consideration that all the other apa-sampradaya cults of India get. As far as I am concerned many of the yogis, swamis and gurus of India that have been rejected by the Vaishnavas are far more advanced than Jesus. For me, he gets held to the same standard as all other apa-sampradaya cults.

Feeding food that has been offered to Hindu gods to Muslims would be a good way to get yourself killed if in fact such an offense incites the anger of Islamic fanatics. To a Muslim such an act is extremely offensive. I am not sure if such clandestine "preaching" was ever practiced before westerners took to the Vaishnava faith, but most Hindus are well aware of the wrath of an angry Muslim and would not attempt such tactics.

My point is that the Vaishnavas do not accept or approve of religious systems that have no proper connection with the recognized Vedic sampradayas. Within traditional Vaishnavism there are four main disciplic lineages (sampradayas), each of which traces its roots back to a specific Vedic personality. The four sampradayas follow subtly different philosophical systems regarding the relationship between the soul (jiva) and God (Vishnu), although the majority of other core beliefs are identical. Rudra-Sampradaya <dl><dd>Philosophy: Shuddhadvaita ("pure nondualism"), espoused by Vallabhacharya.</dd></dl> Brahma-Sampradaya <dl><dd>Philosophy: Dvaita ("dualism"), espoused by Madhvacharya, and also -</dd><dd>Achintya Bheda Abheda ("inconceivable oneness and difference"), espoused by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (See Gaudiya Vaishnavism).</dd></dl> Lakshmi-Sampradaya <dl><dd>Philosophy: Vishishtadvaita ("qualified nondualism"), espoused by Ramanuja (See Sri Vaishnavism).</dd></dl> Kumara-Sampradaya <dl><dd>Philosophy: Dvaitadvaita ("duality in unity"), espoused by Nimbarka. (See Nimbarka Sampradaya)</dd><dt></dt></dl>Jesus has not shown to be connected to any authorized sampradaya.

The apostle Paul invented the term and the concept of the anti-Christ. It is not within the teachings of Christ himself.

Srila Prabhupada has denounced all the gurus, swamis and yogis who preach outside proper parampara, so why did Jesus get special concession?

True, so sectarian religions like Christianity don't belong with Krishna consciounsess.

Well, Krishna says abandon all varieties of religion. If Srila Prabhupada says you don't have to abandon all these other religions then he must not be telling the truth as a preaching tactic.

I don't take Srila Prabhupada's statements to non-devotees as being absolute. Preaching tactics and THE TRUTH are often not in perfect accord. In the shastra, Krishna says give up all that other sentimental stuff and surrender to HIM.

Why are the Jesus people among the devotees always the ones that never joined the movement or left after a few weeks? It is obvious that Jesus has held back some devotees or has been used as an excuse not to surrender to the Krishna consciousness movement. Is Jesus many times just an excuse to not surrender to Krishna? Within the KC movement Jesus is almost a non-entity. On the fringe, Jesus is important. Why do Krishna devotees stay hung up on Jesus as if Jesus has something to do with Krishna consciousness? Many of us came from Christian backgrounds, myself included, but some of us just move on and some of us cling to Jesus for some odd reason. I grew up in a Christian family, went to church for years and Bible school in the summer. But, when I found out about Krishna I just moved on. Is Jesus just an excuse why some devotees won't give everything to Krishna?

I think there should be another section of the forum for personal attacks and vendettas. These attacks on people we don't like don't belong in the "spiritual discussions" part of the forum. Take your personal grudges somewhere else. Who gives a damn about what little nobodies in ISKCON are doing! The whole damn institution is about personal promotion. Why single out one chump to pick on? He sees that it is going on all over ISKCON and is just following the pack.

ISKCON seems to be doing best in 3rd world countries or countries coming out of the communist melt-down of Russia. In well-informed western countries ISKCON has just become a flailing skeleton of it's former self. Western people don't like cheap imitations. That is why we buy Japanese cars. We want the good stuff. Naive new devotees accept neophtye ISKCON gurus because they don't know any better. All they know is the post-Prabhupada ISKCON and they buy into it out of ignorance.

Bhagavad Gita;

According to the figures you give then you are right. However, in that 70% Vaishnava figure is included the Shaivites, because actually Lord Siva is a Vaishnava and promotes Vaishnavism. According to Wikipedia, Shaivism is included in Vaishnavism and the 70% Vaishnava statistic. Shankaracharya has a significant following in India, but I think the Vaishnavas surely outnumber the impersonalists by more than 2 to 1. My guess is that the Christian (British) influence has also been a blow to the impersonal monists of the Advaita school. Personalism is more popular in the modern age than monism.

What do you mean Krishna in the background? This world is about illusioned souls creating their own destinies in accordance with the laws of material nature. Krishna doesn't cause "brutal child rape". Karmic reactions cause it.

On face value it would have to include reincarnation, as otherwise death would somehow undo the law of "as you sew, so shall you reap". Without reincarnation there could not be in effect the reaping of all one sews. It's basically the same theory that one's next birth will be determined by the desires in the heart balanced against pious credits or lack thereof. Anyway, different things have different meanings for different people. I don't read the Bible from the "Christian" perspective, so I see different meanings than Christians see.

Really? In the Bible it says "as you sew, so shall you reap". If that isn't the law of karma then I don't know what is. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (karma) (what goes around comes around)

Srila Prabhupada also said: Letter to Hansadutta June 1972 I think the expansion effort under the multitude of ISKCON gurus has fulfilled Srila Prabhupada's prediction and the whole thing has been lost. Expansion should stop until ISKCON can tend to the needs of the devotees that Srila Prabhupada himself made. That's my view.