raghu

But, it doesn't keep with Vedic siddhanta.

Your view that anyone can become a brAhmana without the requisite birth is not supported by any mainstream scripture. But, as always, I will change my view if you can provide explicit evidence to the contrary.

As far as convention is concerned, in Vedic society one was generally known by the varna of his birth, and he was expected to take up the duties of his varna, which includes thread initiation & study of the Vedas by the brAhmanas.

There are numerous clear cut examples of this principle. Arjuna was a kShatriya who refused to fight on the grounds that he did not desire the kingdom, wealth, or other fruits of victory. This is a very sAttvik standard of thinking in one sense, but Arjuna did not suddenly become a brAhmana by such renunciation, and Sri Krishna rejected his idea that he could renounce the battlefield.

Drona was a brAhmana by birth but he took up kShatriya-dharma throughout his life. Drona's status did not change to that of a kShatriya - on the contrary, he was known throughout the mahAbhArata as a brAhmana. Indeed, this status was extended even to his son ashvatthAma even when the latter (as described in the bhAgavata - a scripture you claim to revere) committed a despicable act. The pramAna is located at the link below, and should be acceptable to you since it is translated by the guru you claim to follow:

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/7/43/en

The conclusion is that one should not abandon the duty that is allotted to him based on his birth. Birth is a prerequisite in the traditional varna system. By one's birth one knows what duties he is supposed to follow, and then he should execute those duties as best as he can.

The incorrectly fashionable idea that one can be assigned a varna based on his conduct without respect to his upbringing has led to numerous disasters in iskcon, of which you are already aware of quite a few. How many so-called "iskcon brAhmanas" were let loose on the world only to turn into villains of the highest order? And this too after lambasting traditional Hindus for following their system?

Before you criticize one system, first you should be able to give an example of a better system. The iskcon system is not better - it is a disaster even by charitable standards. At the very least you should be able to cite shAstra in defense of your point of view, but so far you have not done so, beyond an obscure reference alleged to be from one of the tAmasic purAnas that considers people akin to shUdras at birth in Kali Yuga.

Also, is it your conclusion that Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that one can changes his varna from that given to him at birth? Please answer. Because I can say with 100% certainty that this is NOT true based on the writings of your own AchAryas.

All of this is starting to become quite tangential to the original point.

My original purpose in starting this thread was to state, very clearly and in no uncertain terms, that the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is NOT handed down to them *unchanged* by the mAdhva paramparA, as is often claimed by the former. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas have changed many ideas and cannot use Madhva as an excuse to authenticate their philosophy, because their philosophy is actually in contradiction to many of Sri Madhva's views.

So far no one has contested this point directly, and andy108 has more or less agreed to it.

One of the posters earlier made a comment about the supposed "narrow-mindedness" of mAdhva Vaishnavas because they only offer brahminical intiation to brahmanas (which is fully in keeping with the Vedic tradition).

In response to this obvious personal attack, I cited numerous examples of Westerners initiated as gurus who became quite degraded. I brought this up as strong evidence of the unsuitability of accepting all those "who possessed the real inclination for leading the exclusive spiritual life" and passing them off as "gurus."

Typically, my response was censored, while the original inflammatory comments remain.

If you want to have a debate about which system of initiations is most correct, appropriate, or sensible, then you should show some courage and be prepared to acknowledge the historical facts pertaining to each system. Why criticize if you are not prepared to have an even debate? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

It is ironic that many of you verbalize disgust with certain Gaudiya Vaishnava "gurus" who were born in the United States, and yet you persist in praising the very mistaken ideas that allowed them to become "gurus" in the first place. And of course, when you use all kinds of unflattering remarks to describe them, it is allowed, but when I bring those same comments up to show you the shortcomings of your guru idea, it is suddenly abhorrent to you.

This list is largely from "History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature," by Dr. B. N. K. Sharma, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1981.

It also happens to be the same list that is accepted by all the mAdhva maths. But don't take my word for it - feel free to ask them yourself.

Professor Sharma is a self-appointed authority who shows no formal initiation into the Madhva sampradaya.

Um, you have no formal initiation into the MAdhva sampradaya. By your logic, that would invalidate any claim you make about Madhva as well.

RAGHU SAYS :"1) Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas are NOT handed down to them from the MAdhva sampradAya unchanged. Many Gaudiya ideas are exclusively their own, and not Madhva's, period."

 

Please refer to the post #4 above.

 

Please refer to posting #1 above

The Acarya passes as much of the essence that HE knows, as can be absorbed by those populating his audience. He brings them up a notch.

 

The next Acarya takes the torch and fills in the blanks.

Thank you for repeating what I wrote earlier: that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not the same as MAdhva Vaishnavism.

Brahmanas are alone considered to be eligible for the service of God by the Madhva community. Brahmanas are accordingly in sole charge of the religious institutions of the sect. They alone conduct all public and private worship. This is also the practice of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But in this matter also there is an important distinction between the two. The point has already been referred to in connection with propaganda and proselytization. The Madhvas are not prepared to go outside the pale of the caste brahmanas for imparting initiation for worship. In this they are in one sense too narrow in comparison with the method of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

And thank goodness for that. Fortunately, mAdhvas do not have to deal with gurus who "access other dimensions," write about UFO conspiracies, endorse degraded social institutions, paint childish pictures as a part of their psychotherapy, etc.

Sri Caitanya accepted all who possessed the real inclination for leading the exclusive spiritual life and bestowed on them even the position and function of the acarya.

Yes I agree, all spiritual souls who possess the "real inclination" for being acharyas.

You know, I agree that there are degraded brahmanas in every sampradaya, but I fail to understand how you can persist in your belief that you can turn mlecchas into gurus when the evidence *in front of your very eyes* shows that this is false. You yourself had stated earlier that you had "given up on the whole lot of them." So, why backtrack on that position now?

Anyway, suffice it to say that:

1) Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas are NOT handed down to them from the MAdhva sampradAya unchanged. Many Gaudiya ideas are exclusively their own, and not Madhva's, period.

2) Sri Madhva *never* wrote a book called "Mayavada-sata dushani" or "Tattva-Muktavali." These claims by iskcon devotees are spurious.

3) Those advocating a new-age guru paradigm might want to check the structural integrity of their glass houses before throwing stones.

That book is also known as Sri Tattva Muktavali.

Mayavada-sata-dusani and Sri Tattva Muktavali are the same BOOK!

Sri Madhva never wrote a book called "Sri Tattva Muktavali." Please again reference the *complete* listing of his authored works at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

Madhvacarya carefully studied all the Vedas from Vyasa, and later wrote his book 'Mayavada-sata-dusani', where he proved that

Sonic Yogi, Theist, et. al.

A complete listing of Sri Madhva's works can be found at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

Please note that there is no "Mayavada-sata-dusani" on that list.

I do now know why they iskcon people repeatedly claim that this book is written by Sri Madhva. I have reviewed a copy of this book given to me by an iskcon acquaintance and I can tell you that its treatment of the subject matter is very different in tone and depth from the works of Sri Madhva. The author of this work also claims his guru to be one "nArAyana-bhatta" at the very end; Sri Madhva had no guru by this name.

I wish the iskcon people would at least try to maintain some semblance of intellectual honesty before propagating claims like this.

I do believe in the universalism of all religions.

Then you do so in clear violation of Biblical tenets as described previously.

I don't think that arrogantly insulting another persons faith is going to resolve the issue at all. it only compounds the problem.

 

You worship your God and I will worship mine. If you really care about people then you would do your best to see the issue resolved instead of promoting hate.

The problems in your religion become apparent when one simply points out the very things your scriptures say, and people like you respond with vehement accusations of "promoting hate" and "arrogance." Why spew your venom at me? Have I said anything that is incorrect? On the contrary, it is all there in the Bible for everyone to see.

My experience with Christians is very similar to this. You are only too happy to preach your views to others, but when others question the validity of your views with reference to some of the disturbing things described in your scriptures, you become very hostile and defensive.

Once again, before this thread gets hijacked by tangential postings by iskcon groupies, let me again restate the facts.

First of all, in the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is published by iskcon, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami writes as follows:

THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION

Evaḿ paramparā-prāptam imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ (Bhagavad-gītā 4.2). This Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

1. Kṛṣṇa

2. Brahmā

3. Nārada

4. Vyāsa

5. Madhva

6. Padmanābha

7. Nṛhari

8. Mādhava

9. Akṣobhya

10. Jaya Tīrtha

11. Jñānasindhu

12. Dayānidhi

13. Vidyānidhi

14. Rājendra

15. Jayadharma

16. Puruṣottama

17. Brahmaṇya Tīrtha

18. Vyāsa Tīrtha

19. Lakṣmīpati

20. Mādhavendra Purī

21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita)

22. Lord Caitanya

23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana)

24. Raghunātha, Jīva

25. Kṛṣṇadāsa

26. Narottama

27. Viśvanātha

28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha

29. Bhaktivinoda

30. Gaurakiśora

31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī

32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svāmī Prabhupāda

 

(emphasis mine)

Once again, let me state that the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is NOT received in this "disciplic succession." Specifically, the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is not the Bhagavad-Gita as it is understood by Sri Madhva or his followers prior to the mAdhavendra-Ishvara-chaitanya line. Bhaktivedanta's Bhagavad-Gita commentary differs in a number of very important ways from that of Sri Madhva, and one cannot simply sweep these differences under the rug when claiming that the former is "authorized" because it is received from the latter.

This is not a jab at the Gaudiya tradition as a whole or at any of its followers. It is merely a statement of fact that the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is irreconciably *different* from the philosophy of the mAdhva paramparA from which it is alleged to have descended from. This should be clearly understood because many iskcon people claim that their Gita commentary is authentic because it is received, unchanged, from the previous AchAryas in their paramparA. That is actually quite false.

In another thread I found the following:

(Quote)

Originally Posted by sambya

"This supreme science of God is received through the disciplic succession."

That is funny. There is no disciplic succession from Vyasa or Krishna to Prabhupada where the message of the Gita was transferred faithfully without change. Madhvacharya is part of that alleged disciplic chain and his message of the Gita was very different. So anyone who came after him in that chain and differs from his teaching has effectively broken the chain and therefore Prabhupada is not in a disciplic succession. QED.

It is obviously just a sales pitch to fool people who do not know better and evidently it has worked well too.

Cheers (end of Quote)

I just wanted to chime in my agreement with the above. There is no "disciplic succession" in which the message of Sri Madhvacharya was transmitted without change to the Gaudiyas. The Bhagavad-gita commentaries of Prabhupada, Baladeva, and Vishvanatha are all different from that of Sri Madhva and actually disagree with him in several important ways. Actually, the Gaudiya commentaries are all different from each other as well.

Not that this should stop any of you. But I agree it is high time that this idea of a "bona fide, unbroken, disciplic succession" from which the Gaudiyas have supposedly received their philosophy pristine and pure, should be laid to rest.

I had problems with his overly aggressive fundraising, but he never came on like he was anything other that how he presented himself. He was a thug, happy to be a thug, and I liked his thuggery. At least he wasnt a hypocrite and falsely "spiritual" like the others who were REALLY the thugs.

 

You cannot change your nature, nor are you supposed to.

 

Really? Then why is iskcon initiating so many unqualified individuals into the sacred thread, etc? If you can't change their nature, then what is the point of saying that they are becoming qualified brahmanas?

I am curious. What is "vedic culture"?

 

We see the phrase bandied about by several iskconites here. If we are just subjectively basing that on individual opinions, then it does not mean much. There was an iskcon gentleman on this forum a few years ago who was of the opinion that watching TV is not "vedic culture" or appropriate for devotees. Not just R-rated programs, but watching TV in general. Then there are some who believe it is inappropriate for Brahmanas to cross the ocean and travel beyond. And then there is reinterpreting the concept of varnashrama to include Mlechchas, not eating beetroots, etc, etc. So what/who defines the boundaries, the shape and size of "vedic culture"?

 

I would interpret the phrase literally and say it was the culture of the time of the composition of the vedas, a lifestyle of which, most, if not all aspects, have become outdated and are no longer in practice anywhere in the world. But clearly, the general view on this forum appears to be different and I am curious to understand this view better.

I agree that "Vedic culture" is used very loosely on this forum. I use the term to refer to the customs, religion(s), habits, and attitudes of the people whose civilization is based on the Vedas and their supplementary literatures. I don't think that said culture is necessarily homogenous or static, but I think one can safely say that there is such a thing as "Vedic culture" without fear of overstepping one's bounds. We could also say "Hindu culture," but "Hindu" means different things to different people. On the other hand, most "Hindus" would at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas. We could also just say "ancient Indian culture," but I am discussing the indigenous culture and not the cultures of those who arrived in India later via invasions, etc and carried their own beliefs with them. Hence the term "Vedic culture."

One feature of said culture is varnAshrama dharma, and it is not correct to say that that it excludes people who are not following a monastic tradition. There is, after all, the marriage ashrama, and this has always been between men and women. We have no evidence of male-male marriages or female-female marriages being performed in Vedic society. Hence, it is dishonest for one to be a "guru" representing a "Vedic" tradition and yet go on to officially sanction, encourage, or otherwise recognize a same-sex union.

In this politically correct environment I just tell gay people I respect their right to choose who they love but this thought always pops into my head and it says "No matter what rationalization these people come up with from an anatomical perspective there is something inherently ridiculous about homosexuality."

But the real point has nothing to do with whether it is ridiculous or not.

The point is that homosexual unions are not a feature of Vedic culture, and a "guru" claiming (even implicitly) to represent "Vedic culture" has no rationale to publicly recognize or encourage such unions.

I am grateful for your challenges. You are forcing me to learn more about my faith. This is a good thing.

 

I apologize for my errors in typing and such. It may take me a while to get back to you on your last post.I want to make sure that what I say is correct.

 

I admit that many of my fellow Catholics may view me as somewhat of a heretic. But, I am convinced in the universalism of all faiths. i came here to learn more about yours. It seems the tables have turned, however.

 

I shall endeavor to provide a rebuttal.

Catholic,

Christians do not believe in the "universalism of all faiths."

I do not think any religion does, because it is impossible for one to logically justify accepting other religious traditions with ideas that are different and often contradictory to one's own.

But what makes Christianity self-defeating is this idea that you get one shot at salvation, and either end up in eternal heaven or eternal hell based on what you do. So, all other religions are wrong, and their followers go to hell. Which means if you live in a corner of the world without Christianity, then you automatically go to hell. If you were born before the advent of Christianity, you go to hell, etc etc.

This makes the "god" of Christianity partial and cruel. More on this later.

Unless of course you over-interpret the use of the present tense in John 14:6 in which Jesus gives his definitive statement of exclusivism. Interpreting in this way may allow you to suggest that Jesus is "presently" the only way to God - but then that still excludes other people who were sincerely following their respective religions during the same time period. Would a Jew in a far-flung corner of the Roman empire automatically be damned to Hell because he was not following Jesus when Jesus was living? That would be the logical conclusion of your interpretation. Another logical conclusion is that the remainder of the Bible is only valid for the specific time in which those teachings were spoken, which would again invalidate Christianity today.

The god of the Old Testament is, without a doubt, a very cruel and whimsical god who inflicts pain and torture on innocent people. In the Book of Exodus, we read that "God" repeatedly inflicts pain and suffering on the people of Egypt because pharaoh refused to heed the demands of Moses. This view of God along with all other ideas like some people are "chosen" by God are not very palatable to intelligent people. In the Vedic tradition, Sri Krishna is guilty of becoming involved in the political affairs of man when His devotees prayed for His intervention, but He did not torture civilians just to enforce His superiority. Quite the contrary - He gave Arjuna the option of listening to His teachings or ignoring them entirely. Sri Vishnu is not a "jealous God" who punishes people for engaging in wrong forms of worship.

A spiritual leader is supposed set a good example and live the standard that he preaches. The gurus of iskcon like hridayananda swami are preaching the idea that they are propagating "authentic" and "bona fideVedic culture." So when one such guru offers a public blessing to a homosexual couple, even though homosexual marriages are NOT a feature of Vedic culture, he is authenticating or even symbolically endorsing a non-Vedic institution. This would not be a problem were he not claiming to represent a sampradaya with origins in Vedic culture. But that is not the case here.

There is simply no way to rationalize this man's behavior as long as he allows himself to be thought of as a guru. What is difficult to rationalize is why his peers and followers tolerate this and similar degraded behaviors. As an outsider looking in, I have witnessed a never-ending series of bizarre ideas emanating not just from iskcon's rank-and-file devotee, but also from its spiritual leaders. These include such tasty concepts as: homosexuals dancers are auspicious at public functions, gurus who can "access higher dimensions," gurus who write about UFO's and conspiracy theories, etc etc. Why do iskcon gurus claim to represent an unbroken tradition originating with the compiler of the Vedas when they embrace all ideas that have nothing to do with the Vedas?

The reality is that many iskcon followers also have little interest in preserving the philosophical integrity of their tradition. Almost *everyone* on this thread who has complained about the gay marriage blessing has *also* been guilty of spreading wrong ideas in the name of their sampradaya, and I can quote postings from this very forum to prove it. Whether it is "Jesus is a pure devotee of Krishna" or "fall down from Vaikuntha" I have observed that when some of these ideas are shown to be false, many of you stubbornly cling to them even in public. So what is the real difference between you and the gay marriage swami? In principle, there is no difference.

People like hridayananda swami who give lip service to guru, Vedas, sampradaya, etc only exist because many of you also only give lip service to the same. If everyone truly believed in being faithful to these things then detractors like hridayananda would be thrown out immediately. But we all know this will not happen right? Is it actually likely that iskcon people will show some backbone and throw out the garbage? Or is it more likely that iskcon people will hem and haw, complain here and there, but ultimately accept that he is a "pure devotee" who is just "preaching" in his own special way?

Ultimately, it's a case of the blind being led by the blind. If you really want authentic Vaishnavism, maybe some of you should be looking elsewhere, preferably at gurus who practice what they preach.

You have to cry.There is a verse in the Vedanta sutra...Crying is your only tool.

 

Uhh, where is that stated in the Vedanta sutra?

 

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

 

<DL><DD>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. </DD></DL><TABLE borderColor=#000000 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4>

Romans 2 4)So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves.

 

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4><SUP>15</SUP> They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defence . . . on the day when, </TD></TR><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4><SUP>16</SUP> according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judgesall human secrets.

...these statements are taken totally out of context. When read *within* context, it is obvious that these statements are a criticism against hypocrisy and NOT a validation of other forms of worship, religion, etc. Hence:

13

<DD>For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

and

AND

<DT>17 <DD><SUP>7</SUP> Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God <DT>18 <DD>and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, <DT>19 <DD>and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, <DT>20 <DD>that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth-- <DT>21 <DD>then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? <DT>22 <DD>You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? <DT>23 <DD>You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

</DD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation which will include all the nations. 1 Corinthians 5) For that reason, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes; he will bring to light everything that is hidden in darkness and reveal the designs of all hearts. Then everyone will receive from God the appropriate commendation.

 

 

Your verse numbers appear to be incorrect - is this Corinthians chapter 1 verse 5?

Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

No doubt Christians give lip service to the Old Testament. But Christians would never accept the Vedas. So you are quite mistaken - Christianity means to accept the Bible and only those sources directly related to it.

As are the Muslims linked to the violence of the Moors. And let's not forget the Bhagadvad Gita was about a violent battle. Arjuna was exhorted to do what was his duty according to his station in life. The Crusaders were also doing what they believed was right. We know now that it wasn't right. The extremists Muslims also sincerely believe that what they are doing is right.Show me.

The Muslims and Crusaders were guilty of deliberately carrying out violence against non-combatants. This is a known historic fact. Trying to compare this with the Battle of Kurukshetra, which was a battle between two *armies,* is dishonest in the extreme. Unless you can show me scriptural or historic evidence in which the Mahabharata warriors attacked civilians. Can you?

Jesus never said he was the only way. In John 14:6 we read, ”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” In the original Greek version of this scripture, the word for “comes” is erchetai and it is very present tense meaning it does not apply to all people for all time. This verse applied only to those people Jesus was talking to at that time.

I respect you for trying, but the problems in your logic remain:

1) Catholics do seek converts. Just go to India and you will see Catholics bribing Hindus (usually the ones on the social fringe) with jobs and other financial incentives in exchange for conversion.

2) Catholics would not seek converts if they truly believed that others could gain salvation by sincerely following their own religion. Why build churches and send missionaries to foreign lands? Your theories are not even consistent with reality.

3) These Catholics who are seeking converts are not fringe believers - they have the sanction of the highest levels of Catholic orthodoxy. Or would you have me believe that the Pope and the bishops are not Catholic? Please have a look at http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8706&size=A in which the Pope speaks up in favor of conversions. And he does NOT qualify that to indicate that other religions are valid in some sense.

4) The "present-tense" argument as used above is an oft-repeated one given often by new-age religionists (i.e. iskcon devotees). The problem with this logic is that, by extension, much of Jesus's teachings can also be held to the same standard - i.e. that they were not meant for all times but rather for the specific time and context in which he spoke them. Then how can you develop a timeless religion around statements that were spoken for a specific time period? You should instead reject Christianity as being for its time and place only, and seek out something else, if you truly accept the above logic.

In the Aramaic Bible, Jesus’ own language, the word for “I” in this scripture is ena-ena or I-I. The meaning is not the same as ena which is an individual “I.” Ena-ena is a cosmic “I” or I AM THAT I AM (Ex. 3:13 -14). In another scripture, Jesus tells us that we make a mistake if we think he is good, “Why do you call me good?” ‘Jesus answered.’ “No one is good - except God alone.” (Luke 18:19). And again: “By myself I can do nothing.” (John 5:30). The way to reconcile “I am the way...” And “Don’t call me good...” is to understand that it is the I AM (ena-ena) that is talking in John 14:6.

 

Another way to "reconcile" them is to accept the obvious conclusion that they are inconsistent, and that the Bible has inconsistencies.

The I AM is bigger than Jesus in the same way that all the water on this earth is more than any individual lake. By analogy, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna are lakes filled with the one living I AM.

Some more problems with your "logic" (though I'm sure the iskcon types would be lapping it up by now).

1) Krishna is not a mere prophet - He is the Lord Himself, as He states numerous times in the gItA and is stated to be elsewhere. Even the iskcon free thinkers know and understand this. If Krishna's words are valid, then one cannot simply ignore them and argue that He was a mere guru or prophet in contradiction to what is said about Him.

2) Buddha's religion was non-theistic. Hence, the "I AM" which filled the "Buddha lake" cannot be the same as the "I AM" which filled the "Jesus lake." Unless you now wish to claim that Jesus was an atheist.

In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor:Luke 10:25-28 “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.'" If believing in Jesus were necessary to attain eternal life, Jesus would have been guilty of lying to the temple official in this scripture.

Nothing in the statement you quoted supports or refutes Christian exclusivity. In fact, the statement is obviously a general principle and one cannot infer anything from it about other religions and their validity.

Not a single time did Jesus ever warn us about other religions.

Excuse me?

Leviticus 19:4:

<SUP id=en-ESV-3286>4</SUP><SUP>(A)</SUP> Do not turn to idols<SUP>(B)</SUP> or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the LORD your God.

In fact there are multiple, *MULTIPLE* such warnings throughout the Bible. Clearly the Biblical god wanted that his followers distinguish themselves from the various pagan/pantheistic religions that existed during that time. Trying to claim otherwise is just blatantly false.

Rather, he said, “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50).

Well, the Bible also says:

<DT>Deuteronomy 12:15 <DD>"However, in any of your communities you may slaughter and eat to your heart's desire as much meat as the LORD, your God, has blessed you with; and the unclean as well as the clean may eat it, as they do the gazelle or the deer. "

<DD>

<DD>I am against animal slaughter. So logically I must be against Christianity.

</DD>

It is wrong. It doesn't work this way with the Catholic church anymore. There are fundamentalists types who do, though. I think they are sincere. Just like the terrorists think they are doing the right thing. But, threatening with hellfire and brimstone is just plain wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to Biblical Christianity:

1) the way to salvation is through Jesus Christ

2) there is no other way

3) those who don't get salvation go to hell eternally

This being the case, whether "fundamenalist" types say it or "moderate" types ignore it, the fact is that this sort of exclusivism is a part of the doctrine.

I know that the Catholic church went through a conversion at sword point phase hundreds of years ago. We grew out of that. The people who do these things today only give us a bad name.

I wonder what all those people who were put to the sword during that "phase" hundreds of years ago about Catholicism today. After all, you may claim you "grew out" of it, but your link to Jesus is in fact through that corrupt and violent phase.

I actually converted to Catholicism a few years ago. One of the reasons was because they don't actively seek out converts.

*cough* *cough* Are you kidding me? Catholics *actively* seek converts. They regard it as their sacred duty. In India they offer economic inducements to those who are willing to abandon their own non-Christian religion.

If the Lord is calling you to him, then you will wind up where you belong. It does not matter which religion you belong to. Only that you be the best devotee that you can be.

Funny, but that's not what Jesus (John 14:6) said:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

What more do you want raghu? I think it’s clear that either you don’t understand the simple point I made, or your psyche is incapable of accepting the fact that you were wrong. Anyway, you don’t seem to be interested in truth. Too bad. End of discussion. And please stop spamming the topic. All the best.

Does this mean you won't be sending me your money anytime soon? I do accept check if that makes it convenient.

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

Love is a verb. It is something you do, not something you 'have'. If one wishes to win the love of another, then the best thing to do is to be the best friend that person can be.

Why is it that Bible-thumping Christians use the "eternal hell and damnation" argument to get people to accept Christianity? Since you have just indicated that such threats to accomplish goals are manipulative and arrogant, don't you see this as a major weakness in Christianity?

There must be something here I do not understand.How can someone promise eternal damnation? First it sounds like he would still be trying to manipulate her with fear.Second, to my catholic ears it sounds heinously arrogant. Please enlighten me on this.

Wow you're right. Threatening eternal damnation is certainly manipulation. You can't love someone if you are told that the alternative is eternal damnation. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

I'm talking about human conscious experience. And I'm an expert on that.

Primate, since you have "scientifically" determined that we are all One, will you kindly hand over all of your cash, credit cards, and other valuable possessions to me? After all, you believe we are both One, so that should not be a problem for you, right?

No, I'm not joking. Up to now I have consistently refuted your arguments against my original claim that monism is an inherently simpler and thus scientifically more attractive theory than dualism.

What color is the sky in your world, Primate?

What you are asking seems to be wrong. How can you know you are truly in love if you have manipulated her into loving you through mantras? You will know when you are in love because she will love you back. If you really love her you will let her go because you would truly want her to be happy. Otherwise, your love isn't love at all. But a selfish type of possesive obsession.

 

Sorry.

Agreed. You can't force someone into loving you by using mantras. That is manipulation.

However, if you promise your girlfriend eternal damnation if she refuses to love you, then that is a different story. Try it - and watch general love blossom!