raghu

How many of his "pure devotee" disciple gurus fell down? How many of them demanded and received unquestioning obedience on the basis of their perceived spiritual position, rather than on objective examination of their views and behavior based on shastra? How many disgruntled ex-iskcond devotees have been left behind, bitter due to being misled? Are you always this obtuse?

Did Sri Krishna make Duryodhana refuse to give back the kingdom to Pandavas, and then send in the Pandavas to massacre women and children just to prove His superiority over all? Read for understanding and compare. "If you are honest you will find many similar events in the Vedas which seem cruel from a mundane perspective. Jihad sites are a good source" - local Vaishnava preacher

I agree. Other bogus Hindu missionaries did it too. Vivekananda did it. Sai Baba did it. Rajneesh did it etc etc. Are you really planning on quoting every two-bit charlatan to bolster your claims? I must say that I am really amazed at your cluelessness.

Vaishnava conclusions do not rest on claims of spiritual superiority but rather on the authority of shruti and to a lesser extent smriti. No one is an independent authority. Even Sri Krishna Himself speaks on the basis of what is known from the Vedas and dharma-shastras. The idea that one has to follow a person and believe whatever he says because he is arbitrarily designated as "pure devotee" is cultish and regressive. Perhaps if more iskcon people knew that from the beginning, there would not be such a huge population of disgruntled ex-devotees who were misled by "pure devotees" who later fell down and became quite degraded in their bhakti.

The Old Testament (Exodus 7.2-5) also describes how "God" will punish the people of Egypt. He states that he will make Pharaoh refuse to listen to Moses, thus prompting he (God) to punish the people of Egypt in various ways. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them." Moses and Aaron did so; they did just as the LORD commanded them. Now Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh. The punishments were as follows - turning the waters of the Nile into blood, the plague of frogs, gnats, flies, killing the Egyptian livestock, the plague of boils, hail, locusts, darkness, and then tops it off by killing all of the first-born children of Egypt. In each case, the texts make it clear that it was the people of Egypt who had to suffer from all of these punishments because Pharaoh's heart was hardened. It was also mentioned numerous times that the "Lord" himself hardened Pharaoh's heart, resulting in the various punishments up to and including the atrocity of killing the first-born children of Egypt. Does this "god" behave the way Sri Hari does? Does Sri Krishna manipulate people into defying Him so that He can send plagues into their houses and kill their children? Again, don't take my word for it - just read the text yourself.

I don't claim to read their minds. Whether it was a "preaching tactic" or not is besides the point. The bottom line is that such claims are totally unfounded. There is no historical or scriptural evidence to support it. There is no precedent for such ideas prior to Bhaktivedanta or Bhaktisiddhanta.

The Old Testament (specifically the Book of Exodus 4:24-26) describes how "God" arbitrarily decided to kill the son of Moses, changing his mind only when the boy's mother circumcised him on the spot with a piece of flint and no anesthesia (ouch!). At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. This is the "god" that our iskcon friends would have us believe is another form of Sri Vishnu. Does Sri Krishna behave in such cruel and whimsical ways? To me, this is just one of many Biblical examples about the personality of the Biblical god that make it hard to believe that he is the same as Lord Krishna. I am providing this for your information only. Feel free to examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

No one contests the fact that there is no limit to the number of avataras Sri Hari can have. What is questionable is the fuzzy logic to the effect that because Lord has unlimited avataras, one must therefore accept Jesus as a shakti-avesha avatara because someone said so. ... it is an unfounded statement, with no historical, scriptural, or traditional backing. When iskcon devotees claim that Jesus is something that he is not, it is not defamation to refute such claims. If the iskcon people could demonstrate some semblance of intellectual honesty, they would accept the weaknesses inherent in their claims instead of flinging accusations of "defamation" and so on when people scrutinize them.

Short-term memory problems today? Let me jog your memory: <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->"This is a rather shocking comment raghu. It is certainly offensive to the Lord unless you in fact are a perfectly realized soul or the Lord Himself." As I have pointed out in the past, invoking the term "offensive" is a favored ploy of iskcon cultists to discourage scrutiny of their views. And in regards to the organized attempts to wipe out Vaishnava and Hindu culture, you had this to say: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." And of course, to give excuses for why they choose to do nothing. You've already received the opinion. "Jesus as Vaisnava" (sic) is not a feature of mainstream Vaishnavism. The only Vaishnavas who say that are iskcon Vaishnavas, and even their predecessors don't say that. Otherwise, Sri Vaishnavas don't say that. Tattvavadis don't say that, pre-Prabhupada, pre-Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't say that, pushti-marg followers don't say that, etc etc. When you ask someone for their opinion, you should be prepared to hear it without flinging baseless accusations of prejudice when that opinion does not meet with your liking. Aside from Prabhupada, you quoted a few other Hindu sources on Jesus, but none of these are Vaishnava. All of them have in the common the same reason why Prabhupada said nice things about Jesus - they were all looking for converts from the Western world and wanted to say things that could enable Westerners to relate to whatever version of Hinduism they were propagating. One can hardly be considered objective in representing one's religion when one is willing to manufacture ideas for the sole purpose of enticing others to convert. Another way of saying this is "being honest is good, telling lies is bad." You can rail at me all you want, but at the end of the day the following remain indisputable facts: 1) There is no conclusive historical evidence that Jesus worshipped Vishnu or any known form of Vishnu. 2) There is no sastric evidence that attests to the identity of Jesus as a Vaishnava. 3) Christanity as we know it today bears no resemblance to any form of Vaishnavism. 4) The claim that today's Christianity is different from the so-called "real Christianity" is hampered by the lack of any historical evidence testifying as to what the real Christianity is. 5) The "God" of the Judeo-Christian tradition is, by their own accounts, a wrathful, mercurial, and jealous god. He has all personality traits that make him completely unlike Sr Vishnu. QED he is not Vishnu, but some other entity who was wrongly deified as a form of Vishnu. I admire your persistent (if not pathetic) attempts to come across as condescending to me. Suggestion - it is generally a good idea not to post snobby remarks at the very end of a post that is rife with flaky ideas and wishy-washy thinking. You want to at least come across as intelligent before you try to make someone feel bad. But that is just a suggestion.

Trouble writing in complete sentences (Her Servant)? Given up claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto "offensive to the Lord?" History has shown that one man with an idea, even a misguided man with a wrong idea, can inspire millions to destroy in his name. So yes, when I see his followers writing derogatory commentaries on our scriptures that form the basis of academic Indology, lobbying for the right to legally steal money from Hindu temples and use it to fund hate-propaganda against Hindus, and auctioning off sacred Vaishnava sites of pilgrimmage for the purpose of building churches, I have to admit that I'm a bit concerned about it. But I suppose you would white-wash this sort of cultural destruction as a "conversion" to a simpler form of Vaishnavism, now wouldn't you?

As others have already observed, the name "Hindu" is derived from a word used by foreigners to describe people living in ancient India. Over time it has come to refer to the many and sundry traditions that at least theoretically accept the authority of the Veda. There is nothing wrong with such a usage provided that people don't read too much into it. The problems start when some people (usually Hindu) start speaking of "Hinduism" as if it is single religion, usually by attributing many ideas to the "Hindu religion" that are in fact beliefs of Advaita or neo-Advaita. Unfortunately, iskcon usage also perpetuates this when iskcon people blindly criticize the term "Hindu" without understanding context. It's all very nice and good to speak of "Vaishnava" as a spiritual designation, but the fact of the matter is that most Hindus are not Vaishnavas, and for the purposes of discussion it is convenient to have one term to describe all of the Veda-derived religions rather than saying, "Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Shaivites, Smarthas, nyayis, yogis, etc" every time one would otherwise have just said "Hindu."

Where in any of the accounts of Ramanuja's life is such a thing spoken of? What is so clear about Chaitanya's reference in the above verses? The name "Sri Krishna Chaithanya" is not even in these verses. Also, the above two lines are often quoted by iskcon devotees as if they are a single verse. They are NOT. They are parts of *two* *different* verses juxtaposed together and passed off as a "clear description" of Sri Krishna Chaitanya.

Krishnaleela wrote the following very reasonable points: To which Theist had this to say: What does this glib, tangential, and off-topic response have to do with anything that Krishnaleela wrote? It should be fairly *obvious* to anyone who can read English what was being discussed here. "Her Servant" brought up some very loose lingustic associations and tried to draw a very oblique conclusion on that basis. She was obviously not concerned with the scientific validity of such reasoning (even though she was appealing to a scientific discipline), which is why "Krishnaleela" very reasonably questioned it. The validity of linguistic analysis, or even of any science, has nothing to do with whether the participants are Indian or Hindu. I don't really know if Krishnaleela is Indian or not, and frankly I do not care when discussing the merits of the arguments he made. But the other hand, Theist could not tolerate letting him have the last word, and lacking anything even remotely intelligent to contribute himself, chose to resort to ad hominem attacks. Is he really so deluded as to believe that calling his opponent's ethnicity into question has actually addressed any one point of substance in the posting? This is becoming a recurring theme in the iskcon/gaudiya community and Theist and others like gHari are prime examples of this. They frequently question the validity, and sometimes even the right, of other posters and their opinions based solely on the poster's background. In their eyes, no Hindu or Indian is qualified to articulate a valid point about spirituality, religion, or Vaishnavism unless he already agrees with the myopic concept of Vaishnavism that Theist and gHari already to. The fact of the matter is that neither Theist nor Ghari have any qualification to speak on the subject matter of Vaishnavism. They simply have no clue on the subject. Numerous times I have caught them saying things that are contradicted by the spritual leaders of their sampradaya with nary an explanation from them as to why they disagree with their own gurus. One can only conclude that they have no gurus, or that their so-called gurus are bogus. Who are these people to criticize *anyone* on the subject of spirituality? Have they accepted a guru, which is one of the cornerstones of any Vaishnava tradition? Have they sacrificed their pride and false ego in the fires of the initiation ritual? Have they worshipped with their intelligence (gita 18.70) the revealed sastras and developed the humility that comes with true devotional knowledge? Apparently, these principes are only good enough for them to use against those they dislike, but not sufficiently important for them to actually follow. Any "mental speculator" can mouth words like "devotion,bhakti,soul," and how it is different from the body, and speak about Sri Krishna in a very general way, but at the end of the day his so-called knowledge is meaningless if he does not at least belong to any sampradaya. Theist and gHari are not Gaudiya Vaishnavas. They aren't Vaishnavas at all, period. They have not even begun the process of becoming Vaishnavas, which begins with the humbling process of accepting a qualified guru. And yet, the entire bulk of their so-called "arguments" rests on the implicit premise of their being "Vaishnavas" and having correct spiritual knowledge on "transcendental" matters. This is a sham. They are nothing more than unqualified, social misfits who had the opportunity to hear some Vaishnava philosophy and now use it as a sledgehammer to attack anyone who won't see eye to eye with them. This entire forum would be better served if these individuals could get off their soapbox pedestals and learn to self-moderate occasionally (see Theist's racially motivated comments above). Perhaps then we could have an intelligent discussion that would befit a Vaishnava community.

Ok, so you are not Vaishnavas then?

I really do not know how to explain this to you without coming across as a "sectarian Hindu," but I will try nevertheless. Most of the great Vaishnava acharyas did not think of their teachings as an original product based on their fertile imaginations, but rather as the reinstatement of an eternal tradition based on flawless shabda-pramana. For this reason real Vaishnavas will not bother to mix in ideas borrowed from philosophers or "prophets" speaking on the basis of paurusheya-granthas invented during specific times and places. In the shrutis and smritis quoted by Vaishnavas for centuries prior to the imperialist age, there is mention of many great bhagavatas that are accepted as such by members of various different sampradayas. Strangely, Jesus does not figure into any of those lists. The inclusion of Jesus as a Vaishnava by some groups corresponds exactly with the attempts of those groups to reach out to an English-speaking audience in the 20th century. You put 2 and 2 together and figure out what that means.

Well, you obviously care what I think, or you wouldn't be taking the time to respond.

gHari, your sentences are so disconnected in relation to one another that it scares me to think how your synapses function.

I didn't realize you could "defeat" someone by simply declaring "defeated" in writing. I guess it's easy to do when you depend on the moderation team to remove the posts you are responding to.

I would not say that. The dharma-shastras are very clear on what is and is not proper conduct. I agree, or at least I am not aware of such a tradition. In most cases, this has historically been the case. Arjuna was not allowed to leave the battlefield. Sri Krishna instructed him that it is better to do his own duty improperly than to adopt the duties of another. What to speak of the ones who are still in the organization and looking the other way when all sorts of bogus ideas are being promoted... Ultimately it does not matter whether they are "Hindu" or not. I look past the labels and see if they practice what they preach. When you hear all this talk about "bona fide parampara" and "passing down the teachings unchanged" you get a hint of authenticity. But then you see them making up fables about Jesus, Mohammed, etc then their deviation becomes obvious.

It's not shocking. It's just true. You iskcon types claim that everything is offensive to the Lord when it disagrees with your quaint theories. You insist that someone must be a "perfectly realized soul" in order to dare to disagree with you, and yet despite not being a "perfectly realized soul" yourself you continue to manufacture one fairy tale after another. Yes, it was directed to you, because in your desperation to conceal the fact that you are propagating a lie, you resorted to baseless accusations of hatred. Unlike you, I don't have to care about your motives. The bottom line is that your Jesus theories are just "mental speculation" with not even a hint of evidence to support them. No amount of crying is going to change that, and if you had even a modicum of intellectual honesty, you would stop trying.

Most "Christians" who joined iskcon (or at least the many I have met) were atheists or new-agers. That didn't stop them from being lured in by Jesus propaganda.

No, the topic was raised because certain individuals with less-than-ethical motives continue to propagate a falsehood about Jesus' identity for the sole purpose of winning Western converts and increasing their sect's numbers. It is only because the claims are so utterly devoid of logic and reason that their proponents must resort to accusations of hatred and bigotry in order to conceal their tracks from those who question them. No, I'm afraid the Supreme and Absolute Lord did not say that. You said it.

Herein lies the problem with the gaudiya vaishnava community. They are the ones who make baseless statements about Jesus as an "empowered Vaishnava" or whatever, and they call it defamation if anyone objects to such ridiculous theories. It is ok for them to make anything up just to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but it is not ok for someone to call them to question. And of course, we once again see the effect of the Jesus-preaching on the perceptions these non-Vaishnava converts have about gaudiya vaishnavaism: There you have it, ladies and gentleman. Never mind converting to gaudiya vaishnavism on its own merits; it was only when some flattering words were spoken about Jesus that he suddenly found gaudiya vaishnavism worthy of his attention. Hence I have very correctly stated that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" myth is nothing more than a white lie invented for the sole purpose of attracting Westerners to gaudiya vaishnavism. What more need be said? He just confirmed it.

In response to the point I raised about many converts being attracted to gaudiya vaishnavism for reasons other than careful study of differing points of view, Shakti-Fan wrote "Generally bhaktas are attracted to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu because they have a hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava. For those who are attracted to Bala Gopal and vatsalya rasa, they will tend towards Madhvacarya's line (without Mahaprabhu)." No, I was quite clearly making the point that many people follow a religion for sentimental reasons and used two examples to illustrate this - (1) people who are taken with Advaita even though many rigorous philosophical treatises exist which refute it, and (2) people such as the iskcon members on this forum who hail gaudiya vaishnavaism as the purest expression of krishna-bhakti without knowing or even caring what other bhakti traditions have to say on the subject.

Not birth only. One must have the birth, and one must have the right conduct, to be considered to belong to a specific varna. Otherwise, one's classification as belonging to this or that varna is in name only. There are rare examples of one being converted to a varna that is different than the one of his birth. These are unusual. The wholesale conversion of mlecchas into "brahmin" caste in iskcon is a relatively new phenomenon.