Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

primate

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by primate


  1.  

    “Take heed of the Living One while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see Him, and be unable to do so.”- Jesus, Gospel of Thomas

     

    “All who dwell on earth may find you” - Jewish Prayer Book

     

    “True knowledge can only be attained by a human being.” - Krishna

     

    “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave” - Muhammad

     

    “The sage who is intent on yoga comes to Brahman without long delay” -Bhagavad-gita

     

    “Search with sincerity and in the end you will find the truth.” -Buddha

     

    “If thou seekest hidden treasures, thou shall find the knowledge of God” -Bible, Proverbs

     

    http://theharmonyinstitute.org/ten/ten.pdf

     


  2. It’s sad and disappointing to see this discussion forum being closed at last. It has been great fun at times, and for me it has been the primary way to interact with devotees of various religious backgrounds. It was most revealing to see the differences and indeed the actual similarities of various scriptures and philosophies. This really broadened my personal perspective on both science and religion to the extent that I am convinced that both can ultimately be unified into a single philosophy of the nature of Absolute Truth, which is logically consistent and can be known, understood and verified by everyone. I think that will be an important part of the future of religion anyway, but internet discussion forums such as Audarya, may greatly facilitate the process. Of course there are other websites, but it will not be the same. (Any suggestions?) I will particularly miss Theist and Melvin, but I also wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to all the other members, for their much inspiring and knowledgeable contributions to my personal understanding of reality and general spirituality.

     

    All the best! :)


  3.  

    You think too much. God's revelations are descending in that they come to us by God's grace and not by our mind. I believe in the past I addressed the difference between philosophic speculation and mental speculation.

     

    Well, since the forums are closing within a few days, I guess we don’t have time to revisit that discussion. I think Prabhupada himself said that religion without philosophy is sentiment. One must inquire into the truth. The rest is up to God’s grace.

     

     

    Anyway your point is incorrect because each vortex as you call it that comes off the individual souls is NOT a person. You have no ability to create another living being. That is done by God alone.

     

    That’s exactly what is illustrated in the vortex analogy of post #45. Every small localized vortex is created as a function of God’s overall non-localized energy. Forget about vortices within vortices. If such a hierarchy exists in reality, it’s clear that we are at the very bottom and God is at the absolute top (although every living being is obviously created within another living being as its offspring).

     

     

    Krishna has various energies. The living entities are one such energy called marginal energy and are always subordinate to Him. Marginal entities, us, are tiny points of consciousness, localized and not omnipresent. Only Krishna is omnipresent.

     

    In the analogy, all vortices (the tiny conscious entities) are localized. Yet, they are created and sustained by God’s omnipresent energy which continuously flows through them!

     

     

    He also has what is called an inferior energy which is always unconscious and makes up the energies but subtle and gross that make up these manifested universes. Your vortexs would fall under this category, Inferior, non-conscious, non-living.

     

    We already agreed elsewhere (in discussing the sun analogy and a mathematical chaos analogy), that no material analogy of absolute reality can be perfect. In a sun analogy of reality, the sun and the sunlight are also not exactly God and his energies. In a fire analogy, the tiny sparks are also not living entities. Likewise, in this vortex analogy, the flowing water must be seen as just a very crude analogue of God’s energies that create and sustain vortices that must be seen as a very crude analogue of our individual or personal consciousness. The whole idea is just to indicate how we might be both one with God and different from God, and how simultaneously God can be a person like us, albeit a transcendental one. Actually, this vortex analogy is quite similar to my earlier mathematical chaos analogy. The latter is even simpler and much more powerful, but also more difficult to imagine or visualize in your mind.

     

    Anyway, It has been a rare pleasure discussing these ideas with you. It’s quite sad the forum will be closed. I really think we ultimately could have agreed on a more formal or logical concept of God, in accordance with Vaishnavism and perhaps even modern science. Actually, I don’t think we disagree that much. We just see things from a different perspective. I wish you all the very best.

     

    Hare Krishna! :)


  4.  

    Sorry primate, Please don't consider me rude but you are very much into the mental plane and I don't care to enter your mind along with you by analyzing one analogy of yours after another.

     

    That’s no problem. It’s a bit of a shame though, because I think my latest analogy nicely illustrates the proposition in post #14, on the basis of which you accused me of impersonalism! I assume that you agree then, that this is not impersonalism:

     

    #14 Our consciousness is personal (an obvious fact). Our consciousness, including our sense of Self, is part of reality (another obvious fact). If everything in reality is God (a premise), then God must be total consciousness (a logical conclusion). And if all consciousness is personal (a speculative proposition), then God must be personal (a logical conclusion)..

     

     

     

    You are not the Supreme Self. You are part of the Supreme Self. That's all.

     

    Agreed! :)


  5.  

    Basically you are speaking impersonalist ideas. I would suggest trying to hear Vaisnava doctrine for what it is instead of everytime trying to make it conform to your preconceived ideas on what is or should be.

     

    You would still be free to disagree with the Vaishnava view of Reality, of course, but at least you would know what you are disagreeing with.

    Another analogy:

     

    Suppose everything is consciousness. Since nothing in our individual reality (down to the absolute quantum level) is ever static, consciousness must be an extremely dynamical phenomenon. Nevertheless, each individual person must be a relatively stable recurrent dynamical pattern of consciousness, which forms a coherent dynamical conscious system in itself.

     

    This may be seen as the small persistent eddies in an overall whirlpool. The small eddies are part of larger vortices, which are in turn part of larger vortices et cetera. If in this analogy each persistent dynamical pattern of a vortex is an individual person, the small eddies are individual persons and the larger vortices are also individual persons. Ultimately all individual consciousness exists within this overall whirlpool of consciousness that is itself a person.

     

    Now, if the overall whirlpool is God, every individual vortex or person is part of God and ultimately one with God. However, each individual person is also different from God.

     

    If you think this analogy is impersonalistic, then can you explain why..?


  6.  

    ^ i get you...a bit..except the "all beings and material structure emerge from within you." part.

     

    Yes, I guess that’s about the epicentral question in most religious doctrines: If ordinary (material) sense perception does not represent the ultimate nature of reality, then what is the ultimate (enlightened/liberated) nature of reality? The basic idea seems to be that you go back to your essential Self, and the smaller it gets (while you are still consciously aware of what you are doing), the more essential it is. Ultimately, you get to a point where you must admit that everything is essentially nothing but your consciousness or your Self. From that point onwards, it should be clear that everything (all material structure and beings) autonomously emerge from within you, or from your Self.

     

    That’s my two cents, anyway.. :)

     

    Maybe Paramatma can be likened to the input signal of a television set. Many different broadcasts of different stations are encoded, superimposed upon each other, within a single, relatively simple alternating electrical signal. Each jivatma is tuned (by remote control) to pick out the partial signal of one particular station, which is simultaneously one with and different from the total input signal. A voila, the station’s broadcast is being received. This is also similar to, e.g., paying attention to one particular voice in a crowded and noisy public place. So, God can be both One (the simple complex signal) and variegated (composed of different conscious beings)..


  7.  

    But seriously, your position does not appear to comply with standard Vaishnavism, unless I am reading you wrong. How do you define Liberation? Do you see the jiva worshipping Vishnu in Vaikunta?

     

    Well, I can’t tell you first hand, but I believe enlightenment (or liberation) refers to a continuum of illuminated states of consciousness (chit) in which the ultimate (spiritual) nature of reality has become apparent to some degree. Sense perception is essentially illusory in that it does not represent the ultimate nature of the reality we encounter. To experience the ultimate nature of reality, one must meditate on the fundamental outlook that all beings and material structures are not outside you, but emerge from within (as released from Brahman into existence). Illumination is then traditionally described as a mysterious arising of being out of not-being.

     

    "All progress leads from the more material to the less material; until at length it conducts us into regions where reality is perceived without the use of any laborious material structure at all. You yourselves know that individuals of higher mentality do not always have to pass through a material experience. If they are cognizant of its cause and effect, they can grasp it without painstakingly suffering it: they do not need the laborious material structure to see its reality. It is the same way in the still higher levels beyond. You are all leading up to a consciousness of reality without its material shadows, its material reflections, its material manifestations, as aids to comprehension." (Stewart Edward White, Across the Unknown)

     

     

     

    I take it your thought is that the jivas merge into the one great non-differentiated Self at liberation and their identities all merge as well.

     

    So, it seems that liberation or enlightenment is a staged process. Most probably human consciousness is already a higher stage than e.g. animal consciousness. And since we retain our individuality as conscious human beings, I don’t see why we wouldn’t retain our individuality at any subsequent liberated state of being. Even if it’s possible to completely merge into Brahman, I couldn’t say if this is to be preferred over personally "worshipping Krishna in Vaikunta"..


  8.  

    Primate, the same doubt somehow always lingers with me after reading your posts. You agree that God is a person. Now please let me hear you clearly and simply state that there is more than one person in Godhead.

    Do you mean Vishnu/Krishna (i.e., the all-pervading transcendental Supersoul/Paramatma) and the jivas? In as far as jivas exist in Vishnu and are therefore qualitatively the same, both are conscious persons at a different quantitative level. I guess it can then be said that Jivas are part of Godhead, thus there is more than one person in Godhead. However, ultimately Jivatma and Paramatma are (also) one. So I’m not sure. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly..


  9.  

    ^ We are not a 'part' of Brahm exactly.Generally,the amsa of Something is of His own nature.

     

    So if you say that Jeeva is an amsa of Bhagavan,it actually means Jeeva too should be able to control maya.

     

    So the vaishnavas say that Jeevatma is Energy of Bhagavan and not His part as such.

    So we are never a 'part' of His consiousness or His spiritual body.

     

    Sri Krsna's hand is Sri Krsna.Sri Krsna's toe nail is Sri Krsna.So we cannot be part of His spiritual body.

     

    Same applies to His consiousness.The Sri Krsna Who stays in an atom down in Hell is completely Indifferent from the Sri Krsna in goloka.

    So we are not even a part of His consiousness.

     

    If this were so,He wouldn't have existed separately in every living entity's heart.He lives almost just within the Jeevatma.Thus the upanishads say,"There are TWO birds."

     

     

    Getting back to the point : I didn't know the bible holds the same stance !!! Omg,this is huge !!

     

    Anyway,the body which we have is 100% true.We cannot percieve the spirit soul.Exactly the same way,we cannot percieve the Spiritual body of Bhagavan.

     

    But He never leaves His body.That's like saying Jeevatma left His Jeevatma body.

     

    Let's go to the definition of cit in gita.Bhagavan says,"You just cannot destroy something that is cit in nature."

    Sri Maharaj ji says,"Challenge Bhagavan.Destroy us and show !! He cannot destroy the Jeevatmas.It's not possible.Why ? They are cit."

     

    Even Shankaracharya says,"Rama,you are sat.chit.ananda."

    Done.

     

    It's signed by Sri Shankaracharya himself.There is not doubt that Sri Rama/Sri Krsna's bodies are eternal.

    When I said, we are a part of God, I didn’t exactly mean this in terms of space or locality. I think our individual being is a specific dynamical aspect of God’s primordial cosmic energy (or shakti). Your statement, "Jeevatma is Energy of Bhagavan" might cover that.

     

    Since we are obviously nothing but consciousness, the divine creative energy (of which every living creature is a fractional dynamic aspect) can be posited as total or complete consciousness (even though there may be much more to it).

     

    Consciousness (chit) implies existence (sat). Hence, our sense of Self (I think, therefore I am). Total consciousness (God) must then have a total (or transcendental or supreme and blissful) sense of Self-existence (sat-chit-ananda). Thus, God is a Person..


  10.  

    Actually it is very bewildering and i personally do not (if i may even say so.But it is in my mind and i might as well say it.) approve the ascension technique of Sri KRsna/sri Rama (I know I know !!! Who am i to even say so but..).

     

    But these two....they could've just ascended in front of material eyes as well.

    ...

     

    I guess Jesus Christ did a slightly better job. :) Not to change the subject to the Christian perspective, but the same confusing metaphysical idea is of course found in Christianity. How can God be a flesh and blood human being who suffers and dies, and then resurrects from the grave and rise up into heaven?

     

    According to Paul, Jesus ascended to heaven in a spiritual body. Even ordinary humans will not enter the Kingdom of God in flesh and blood but by a spiritual body: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be" (I Corinthians 15: 35-37). "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (44) "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (50).

     

    I think this is also the Vedic position. Every living being has an eternal spiritual existence and a spiritual body. Everything we consciously perceive in this material reality is just a limited projection of a much more elaborate underlying spiritual reality. We are simply unaware or ignorant of this fact.

     

    So why then wouldn’t Krishna (or Christ for that matter) exploit this metaphysical mechanism of maya, in order to manifest or project Himself in the material world? People ignorantly perceived Him as a flesh and blood human being (just like they ignorantly perceive themselves as their material bodies), whereas in reality He existed as an eternal spiritual being with a spiritual body. God knows what actually happened in this spiritual reality when Krishna appeared to be shot in the foot and died. Moreover, Krishna is God himself, so all human form and consciousness is part and parcel of His all pervading spiritual body and consciousness. Confusing? Yes. But isn’t this what the Vedas tell us?


  11.  

    Ok, but God is not limited to being just consciousness. Just left at this statement is impersonalism. He has a variety of energies which are all under His control.

     

    Your statements sometimes sound impersonal to me. I may be wrong though.

    You often use the term Self which is good but along with Self there is always Superself. Do you agree?

    Yes, I agree. This is implied by the proposition that "total consciousness remains personal"..


  12. Perhaps only partial (material/human) consciousness has limitations, such as emotions (because of lack of holistic/spiritual knowledge) and physical limitations (because of material laws of nature).

     

    Even Krishna avatar was subject to such limitations. Krishna died because a hunter shot him in the foot after mistaking him for a deer in the woods. And, for example, the need to do battle and other descriptions in the Mahabharata epic indicate that Krishna avatar was subject to human limitations and human emotions:

     

    According to Mahabarata Drona Parva (182.41-43), Krishna , incarnate God, loses sleep over the threat to Arjuna’s life. He worries, as any other human being would do, over the possible death of his best friend, the man whom he loves above all else. He worries that he might fail in the mission he has set for himself. And worrying, he says: “I do not think it is so important to save my father, nor my mother, nor you my brothers, nor even my own life, as it is to save Arjuna in this war.”

     

    What we see here is the distress, the torment that only a human being can feel – and not God. And the intense relief only a human being can feel when a terrible calamity has been averted on the brink of its happening. God does not lose sleep over the death of a mortal. God does not dance for joy when that mortal is pulled out from the jaws of death. Only a human being does. And if it is God who does these, it is God who has come under the limitations of being born a human being.

     

    Krishna: Human Limitations of Incarnated God : Krishna: Human Limitations of Incarnated God, satya chaitanya blogs on sulekha, Religion blogs, satya chaitanya blog from india

     


  13.  

    Ok gotcha. I agree, we are parts of God and a certain partial manifestation of His Person. One and different.

     

    Not at all a "highly speculative proposition."

    How about this one:

     

    Our consciousness is personal (an obvious fact). Our consciousness, including our sense of Self, is part of reality (another obvious fact). If everything in reality is God (a premise), then God must be total consciousness (a logical conclusion). And if all consciousness is personal (a speculative proposition), then God must be personal (a logical conclusion).. :)


  14.  

    I don't understand this primate. Please flush it out for me a bit.

    God is personal (that's a premise). If everything is God (another premise), then everything in reality must be personal (a logical conclusion). Since your consciousness is part of reality (an obvious fact), your sense of Self might be the manifestation of the personal aspect of God within your consciousness (a highly speculative proposition)..


  15.  

    First of all let me say that I believe the Supreme dwells equally in everyone as paramatma. Since he is all-pervading he hears the prayers of everyone.

     

    That’s fully compatible with the Christian belief that God dwells in everyone as the Holy Spirit. "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16). In Christianity God is the self-existent Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 44:24; Acts 14:15; Eph. 3:9). And God is the self-existent Sustainer and Governor of all things (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). The eternal Son of God is described as the One who "upholds all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3) and the One in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17).

     

     

    That being said, I think the Bhagavad Gita is the highest and best revelation

    of that Supreme Being. Of course that is my shradda which is based upon my karma among other things. If I equate other scriptures with that which I believe was spoken directly by Sri Vishnu himself, then the Bhagavad Gita is no longer special. If I equate other names by which people choose to call their conception of a higher power with the 1,000 names of Vishnu, then the names Hari, Krishna and Rama are no longer special.

     

    Bhagavad Gita may indeed be the highest and best revelation of Absolute Truth, although there are no objective methods to determine any Scripture as the highest or best. As you indicated, this is ultimately a very personal matter. But I must agree that Vedic scriptures describe the nature of Absolute Truth or God in much more detail, than the Christian Bible. However, as argued, both scriptures describe God and His relation to the Self in a remarkably similar fashion, using similar terms and concepts. Hence, Christianity appears to be much closer to Vaishnavism than it is to any other religion, even though other religions such as Islam or Judaism are partially based on the same scriptures (OT). I personally find this astonishing. Given that Christianity and Vaishnavism are completely separate traditions, how can they reach the same basic conclusions about the nature of God? Moreover, the New Testament might be the latest rendering of this Absolute Truth, whereas arguably the Vedas are the oldest religious scriptures known to man. Could it be that ultimately both scriptures have the same author, God himself?

     

     

    In India they have this idea that a persons religion is like their mother. Everyone has the right to think that their mother is the best in the world. If they don't tell me that my mother is the same as theirs then we can live peacefully as brothers. If they don't tell me to disown my mother in order to embrace theirs, then we can live peacefully as brothers. OM SHANTI

     

    Agreed. :)


  16.  

    What then is the basis for rejecting any path as wrong? Most religions do accept the concept of a creator God. Your argument allows only two kinds of religions - atheistic religions like Buddhism and all other theistic religions (which are all correct).

     

    As I said, a panentheistic concept of God should be the most important criterion. I.e., God must be one with his creation. That is, of course, if it is accepted that Vaishnavism is a correct path.

     

     

    Then this should also include Islam, Judaism, Shaivism, Shaktism and most other religions in the world. But most Christians, Muslims would disagree with this theory of compatibility. Most Vaishnavas would disagree with accepting Shaivism as a valid path. In summary, your position is rejected by the majority.

     

    I am not sure about, for example, Islam. Islam seems to adhere to a strictly deistic doctrine in which the creation and the creator cannot be equal. Such dualism between God and His creation is definitely not a part of the panentheistic doctrine of Vaishnavism and Christianity.

     

     

    I take the positon that the mainstream interpretation of any scripture is the correct one. An isolated interpretation only supported by a few and contradicting the mainstream version is usually not a sound interpretation and has other motives behind it - in your case, the reconciliation of two disparate religions for purely sentimental reasons.

     

    That could lead to a kind of religious anarchy. Original scriptures define a religion, not any pagan interpretation like eternal hell and other misconceptions and/or mistranslations. By the way, my reading of Christian scripture actually is the mainstream interpretation among Christians, just as my interpretation of Vaishnavism represents the mainstream interpretation. And this has nothing to do with sentimentality. It's just facts and information. Only a bigot would misrepresent Christianity for his own sentimental reasons..


  17.  

    ...

    Clearly idol worshipping is unequivocably condemned all throughout the Bible.

    Both Jews and Christians have always taught that the law of God reveals his character. So what to make of the 2nd commandment? It is at the heart of the law of Jehovah and clearly reveals something about his character that is not consonant with Brahman or Sri Vishnu.

     

    The jealousy referenced in the 2nd commandment is further elucidated

    all throughout the Bible - a consistent theme:

    ...

     

    Clearly, idol worship is forbidden when it implies worshipping different gods than the God of Jesus Christ or the Absolute Truth. The Catholic church, for example, allows it's followers to bow down before statues when in prayer. Anyone can walk into a Catholic church and see devotees kneeling before every statue placed within.

     

    As far as a ‘jealous’ God is concerned, certainly we learn from Scripture that there is such a thing as a ‘godly jealousy’. We find the Apostle Paul declaring to the Corinthian Church, " For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) He had an earnest, cautious, anxious concern for their holiness, that the Lord Jesus might be honoured in their lives. Jealousy, like anger, is not evil in itself, or it could never be ascribed to God.

     

    Anyway, Christians believe in the new covenant (new testament) that is referenced to in the Old Testament as follows: 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares Yahweh, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares Yahweh. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares Yahweh, "I will put my Law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh,' for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares Yahweh, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:31-34)

     

    In the New Testament, Jesus repeated some of the commandments in Matthew 19:16–19 and condensed them into two general commands: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Mat. 22:34-40)

     

    So surely Jesus couldn’t have agreed with the gruesome passages in the Old Testament you quoted and which most certainly are not part of Christianity or representative of God’s character in Christianity. God is nothing but love.

     

    If that first [Old] covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second (Heb. 8:7). He [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament (Heb. 9:15). Jesus [is] the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24).

     

    By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His [Jesus’] commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous (1 Jn. 5:2-3).


  18.  

    One Absolute Truth yes. But you yourself said that there "may be a wrong path". I think your radical universalism is not valid. I don't think you successfully impeached Dr. Morales' arguments and I do not find yours cogent / valid since your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

     

    Of course in as far as a religion may promote the worship of, e.g., tree spirits or extra terrestrials, it can be said that there are wrong paths. Even a self-contained and complete system of belief such as Buddhism, is obviously a wrong path to knowing God, because it denies the existence of God altogether, which is not to say that the practice of Buddhism doesn’t have spiritual value. It can be argued, however, that if Hinduism/Vaishnavism is the correct path, then it is not reasonable to reject Christianity as a wrong path. I agree that there are some problems (most notably the pagan myth of eternal hell in Christianity), but solely based on the similar concept of God and the similar method of attaining knowledge or consciousness of God through finding Him within the Self, I think it can be said that Vaishnavism and Christianity are compatible religious philosophies.

     

    Most importantly, Vaishnavism and Christianity have the doctrine of monistic theism or panentheism in common. All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Panentheism which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well. And contrary to the claims of Dr. Morales, this also is the Christian position.

     

    The Christian position is that God is the self-existent Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 44:24; Acts 14:15; Eph. 3:9). On the basis of biblical witness Christians believe that God is also the self-existent Sustainer and Governor of all things (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). The eternal Son of God, who became incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ, is described as the One who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3) and the One in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17).

     

    Taking this one step further, God the Father in Christianity is the all pervading Brahman in Hinduism, and Christ is Krishna, and God incarnate Jesus Christ is at the same level as Krishna avatar. Furthermore, God the Father and Christ the Son are One in Christianity, which is equivalent to Brahman and Vishnu/Krishna being One panentheistic Godhead in Vaishnavism. Finally, this might leave Paramatma as the equivalent of Holy Spirit in Christianity.

     

    Now, I’m not in the least suggesting that you should change your ishta-devata from Vishnu or Krishna to Christ. I am just saying that personally I am quite convinced and in fact believe that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible philosophies of the nature of Absolute Truth, and that (consequently) both are valid paths to knowledge or consciousness of God.

×
×
  • Create New...