raghu

Well if a mayavadi needs to believe he is one with Vishnu in order to talk about Hari-katha and chant Vishnu Sahasranama, then why bother if it works for him? The answer is obvious - you can't learn the Truth by subscribing to falsehoods. Nor can you truly surrender to the Lord when you hang on to all sorts of preconceived notions of what you want truth to be. It amazes me that when iskcon devotees quote "sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA..." they mean it in the sense of "shut up and stop disagreeing with me" rather than "give up all other pre-conceived notions and attachments and just accept what Sri Krishna has said." How many of these "surrendered souls" do you think would still practice vaishnavism if their leaders one day got up and told them that Christianity is not a valid path to self-realization? You know the answer - they would immediately reject such leaders, as they did when they called narasingha swami "foolish person" and worse. What question is there of surrender? These people want everything on their own terms. They have no concept of what "guru" really means.

With all due respect to your beliefs, people can invent all sorts of arbitrary theories to explain why some people like them and others do not. Why do some people like gaudiya vaishnavism? Oh, they have secret attract in their heart for madhurya rasa. Why do some people get attracted to Tattvavada? Oh, they are dry speculators who like "intellectual exercise." Says who? Was Jayatirtha's devotion to the Lord any less than yours simply because he wrote a rigorous commentary on Srimad Ananda Tirtha's Brahma-sutra bhashya the likes of which iskcon people would likely be unable to comprehend? And when a gaudiya vaishnava calls another Vaishnava by such labels as "fool,bigot," or "village idiot" for daring to disagree, even though that Vaishnava might be senior in terms of age or experience, then is that the logical result of the gaudiya vaishnavas having "hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava?" Please.

I am very curious to know what the difference is between Vishnuswami's view on "total dependence" and the view of other Vaishnava commentators. Recognizing and praising a fellow bhagavata and pandit is always gracious. However, what in the world does it mean to say two views are "simultaneously one and different???" To me, that sounds like another way of saying, "I want to disagree with you even while agreeing with you, so please don't take issue with my disagreement." There is nothing subjective about Sri Madhva's Brahma-sutra bhashya. There and in other works you will find the "rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada."

Defeat is not a question of popularity. After the writings of Sri Ananda Tirtha there is hardly anything new or original that need be brought up to refute Advaita. However, that does not mean that people will not flock to Advaita if their own individual biases lead them in that direction. From Srimad Acharya's standpoint, all these philosophies including Advaita are all eternal - they exist to delude the jiva-atmas who are averse to surrendering to Sri Hari. In Kali Yuga a philosophy can be defeated and still be very popular. People in general don't think very carefully about what they believe but instead follow whatever suits them. Take this forum and iskcon for instance. Do you think these people actually made a comparative study of different Vaishnava Vedanta commentaries before committing themselves to gaudiya vaishnavism? Of course not. They are mostly following whatever they follow for sentimental reasons and don't want to hear any doubts about their beliefs. It is just like that with Advaita also. Blind followers don't grant any tradition credibility.

At the iskcon temple near where I live, all of the initiated (and mostly NOT Indian) devotees eat at hotels/restaurants, watch television and movies, and eat chocolate. Their marriages often do not stay intact. They divorce, remarry, and allow men and women to mix freely. They are quite shameless about it in fact. There is even a movement among them to allow homosexual people to have marriage. I just recently read something about an iskcon guru and sannyasi who admitted to having been degraded in his bhakti with a woman and then admitted to lying about it to cover his rear end. And he is now being allowed to remain in the society on "retirement" status or something like that. It's strange to me that when iskcon people speak of individuals who don't follow their principles, they always look outward, as if it were a distinctly Indian phenomenon, rather than looking at the leaders and initiated members within their ranks who took vows to follow the rules. How do you expect others to follow your example when your example is no example to be followed? That's truly unfortunate. Perhaps iskcon society can learn lessons on tolerance and open-mindedeness from the members of this forum. After all, where else can you raise a controversial subject and be responded to with intelligent, thought-provoking comments that are based entirely on the merits of what is discussed instead of on one's status or membership within certain societies?

I do not know if that is true, but based on what I have seen here, I wouldn't be surprised. People who are unable to fit into the mainstream society and are desperate for social acceptance might find some of their coercive tactics (i.e. "disagree with me and you are a bigot and/or are not allowed an opinion") to be intimidating. That is not to say that I think being unable to fit into the "mainstream" is necessarily a bad thing. Mainstream culture is materialistic, atheistic, cruel to animals, and tolerant of many excesses. To me, that just underscores the tragedy that people looking for an alternative cannot get genuine guidance from some new religious movements that seem authentic on the surface ("bona fide parampara") but are in fact cultish and intellectually oppressive underneath.

I suppose you reserve that right for those who indiscrimnately accept your teachings as truth. Shame on me for daring to question you. Will you be issuing a fatwa now? And in response to my well-supported view that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" theory is a lie, another gaudiya has only this to say: It's little wonder that sensible individuals invariably get turned off to gaudiya vaishnavism. After all, if someone were really looking for a trite worldview charcterized by polarized absolutes, he would probably do better with fundamentalist Islam.

Whether preached to Vaishnavas or to Christians, the idea that Jesus is a Vaishnava still remains a lie.

I'm sorry to hear that you have are very taken with Christianity. Good luck to you.

It's nothing more than the opinion of one of your own swamis. Flaming me won't change that. What an admission! And by a gaudiya vaishnava no less.... Anyway, if that's the way you feel about your own religion, then far be it or me to correct you. OK. So by your own interpretation, stop preaching your "Jesus is a Vaishnavite" nonsense and just surrender to Krishna! Based on what I can tell from these forums, the definition of "bigot" is "one who has won an argument with an iskconite/gaudiya vaishnava."

Sri Ananda Tirtha's initiation into Vedic knowledge by Sri Vedavyasa is well documented in the two main biographies about him by his disciples. However, I could care less whether you believe them or not. Your own Sanatana gosvami says that one is a Vaishnava if he is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu, and not a Vaishnava if he does not meet those qualifications. That is the opinion of *your* acharya, which precludes any iskcon fantasies about Jesus or Mohammed or George Harrison or Princess Diana or Santa Claus being Vaishnavas. I don't see how you can consider yourself a gaudiya vaishnava if you disobey your own acharya's teachings. But, as I am sure you still don't grasp the significance of your inability to reconcile your opinions with his views, feel free to continue posting tangential points to skirt the issue.

The burden of proof is on he who is making the outlandish claim in the first place. Otherwise, one can simply make any ridiculous claim and hold it true because no one can refute it. Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the god of the Jews and the Christians was not really some rakshasa who, by using his mystic powers, presented himself as an all-powerful deity to superstitious people living outside Vedic civilization in order to create a religion of rakshasa-like followers for the purpose of undermining dharma in Kali Yuga? Consider the following facts - The god of the Bible is a "jealous god," as he himself states in the Old Testament: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord am a jealous god...." Compare and contrast with the personality of Sri Krishna, who is content to accept one's surrender and remain indifferent to others who chooses to worship other devatas. Indeed, He is the one who facilitates the foolish desires of those who wish to worship anya-devatas (BG 7.21-22) - yet He does not become jealous or directly punish them. The god of the Old Testament is partial to some races over others. He favors the Hebrews (for no obvious reason - many still doubt him throughout Exodus) over the Egyptians. In contrast, the bhAgavata purANa 2.4.18 says that people of all races can be purified by taking shelter of Sri Vishnu. He does not play racial favorites. The god of the Hebrews/Christians is partial and cruel. According to Exodus, he makes pharaoh stubborn in the face of Moses' demands that the Hebrews be released, just so he can attack the people of Egypt with plagues, locusts, etc. He even strikes down their first-born children just to make a point! This sounds like rakshasa behavior. As devious as our rakshasa friend was, however, he could not help but be disappointed with the Hebrews. After all, there were limits to their desires for expansion - they were content to have escaped Egyptian slavery. These were not the violent and dominating race he was secretly hoping for, and so the rakshasa arranged for a new variation of the religion - Christianity - which was forged under the violent tutelage of Roman persecution. So well had the Christians learned the lesson of violent persecution that they were quick to take up those reins once the Roman Empire fell out of power, inaugurating centuries of religious suppression and intersectarian conflict that rage throughout Europe even to this day. Now, the Christians must certainly have impressed our little rakshasa mischief-maker, because in their bloody wake, they had managed to uproot all sorts of indigenous peoples - pagans, druids, Native American tribals, etc. But after 5 or 6 centuries they still had not attacked the people our rakshasa friend hated the most - the land of the Vaishnavas, where dharma was still flourishing. And so he appeared as an angel in Arabia and inspired Mohammed, creating a religion of violent expansionism and religious suppression the likes of which the world had not yet encountered - Islam. And then the rakshasa sat back and laughed with glee as its followers finally made their way into India, systematically attacking and razing the temples of Vishnu, bringing down the surviving elements of Vaishnava civilization. Who here can definitively say that my analysis is wrong? Anyone who can ask the question, "what mantra is the Lord's prayer a translation of?" This has nothing to do with the iskconite's claims about Christianity as a "bona fide" path. Stay on the subject, please.

same source as above: The simple fact is that although seemingly firm in their convictions about Jesus, most contemporary Vaisnavas have not made a thorough study of the Bible or of Christian history. Their knowledge is mostly derived from romanticized hearsay, the propaganda of the Church or the propaganda of Church dissidents [New Age gurus in favor of Jesus being something different from the Church]. That is to say that even the 'ideal' of Jesus is something that has been exaggerated and romanticized, but has no actual basis, other than having been borrowed from pagan and other much wiser traditions than Christianity. If one studies the Bible objectively like many intelligent people have done, then an obvious conclusion is that today's 'Fundamentalist Christians' are actually following the Bible! This means that the Bible was created with a fundamentalist mentality, whereby anyone who does not accept Jesus goes to Hell and witches and heretics should be put to death. In the past Christians performed many atrocities based on Biblical authority and the same ideal continues among the Christian right wing today. On the other hand, the liberal Christians have no authority for what they think the teachings of Jesus are, other than their speculations. They have no scripture to support their views. Question: There are certain things that I have appreciation for in Christianity such as that Christians in general have a very clear understanding that they are not God. This gives them a much better position than the great amount of atheists, Buddhists and Mayavadi's out there dominating the 'spiritual' scene in the West. Devotion to a personal God remains a central theme, and I think it is for this reason our acaryas have spoken of Vaisnavism as extended Christianity. I have yet to meet the first Buddhist who changed his outlook to Vaisnavism, whereas Christians have done so in larger number. So, I do feel your statement, about it being misfortunate if one appreciates Christianity, to be rather strong. Answer: I mostly disagree with your statement. In the first place Christianity is admittedly one of the main causes of atheism in the modern world. Christian dogma and Christians have done more to turn intelligent people away from God than Darwin and the host of scientists in his wake. In fact, some atheists are more God conscious with their 'humanistic views' than Christians with their Bible-banging rhetoric and lack of knowledge. Furthermore, the Christians are Mayavadis in that they say that the guru [Jesus] is God. As for Christians like the Mormons, their belief is that they themselves will become 'gods' and rule their own universe. And as for the early Christians, they are the one's that took the divinity out of nature and declared themselves 'Lords' of the material world. Thus they are largely to blame for the environmental holocaust. Christians may have an idea that God is a person but what type of person is their God? In their opinion, God has given them the right to exploit the material energy for their fullest enjoyment. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28) Ultimately every Christian believes in Heaven, but it is clear in the Bible that Heaven is on this Earth after the Day of Judgment and that the saved will inherit and enjoy the Earth. The idea that Heaven is somewhere in the sky is an idea that came into Christianity much later, after the time of Jesus. Early Christians were an apocalyptic cult that was awaiting the final battle between good and evil in which evil would be destroyed and they would inherit the earth after the Day of Judgment. Christians are still waiting for the apocalypse and the Day of Judgment - one has but to read The Book of Revelations to understand this fact or just tune into any Sunday morning televangelist program. It is also a fact that since the alleged time of Jesus, every Christian generation has preached that they are living in the 'End of Times', that Jesus was coming within their generation to judge the living and the dead and to bring God's kingdom to Earth. This is still the Christian worldview in 2006. And what does Jesus say he will do on ‘Judgment Day’? Check this out: "The son of man will dispatch his angels to collection from his kingdom all who draw others to apostasy [to reject Jesus], and all evildoers. The angels will hurl them into the fiery furnace where they will wail and grind their teeth." [Matthew 13-41] The success in preaching Krsna consciousness in the west has not been due to people having a favorable Christian background, but rather the success has been due to certain political doctrines [constitutions] in the west granting freedom of religion. Particularly there is the constitution of the United States [where Krsna Consciousness got a foot hold in the west] that guarantees freedom of religion, but this doctrine was not the work of Christians - it was the work of Deists who made up most of the founding fathers of America. In fact, it was the fear of a Christian theocracy taking control in America that prompted the founding fathers to separate church and state. You say that devotion to a personal God remains a central theme in Christianity and that because of this Christians have converted to Vaisnavism in larger numbers, but I do not find this to be entirely true. Many of the devotees who first joined Krsna consciousness in the 1960's and 1970's had practiced some sort of impersonalism, Zen, etc. Very few were practicing Christians, if any. The greater number of devotees from the west, who have converted to Krsna Consciousness did so after rejecting Christianity and the materialistic culture that Christianity fostered. They rejected Christianity because of Christianity's lack of knowledge of even the most basic spiritual points, because of Christian hypocrisy and because of Christianity lacking compassion for other living beings. The fact is that hardcore Christians rarely, if ever, convert to Vaisnavism. Question: I have been personally present when my Gurudeva spoke appreciatively of Christianity, and he did not do that just to be polite or for preaching purposes. Answer: Yes, that may be the fact [the romanticized ideal is laudable], but according to Sarasvati Thakura and also according to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Christianity is not something that is desirable for a Gaudiya Vaisnava. Bhaktivinoda Thakura considers that some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea and that this is not acceptable to intelligent men. "Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin, all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities." "Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being [a snake], the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died [was crucified]. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal Hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this!" (Tattva-viveka) One may also note that since many western devotees in contemporary times came from Christian cultures, that our acaryas sometimes were generous in their statements about Christianity. But at the same time we may also note that they were very outspoken and direct about any concoctions within their own Indian traditions. Thus, it is for those of us from Christian cultures to speak out about Christian concoction as our acaryas have done in speaking out against Hindu concoctions. Question: I have some appreciation for the Christian monk Thomas Keating. For me he has many saintly qualities. I genuinely feel I am not mistaking 'being nice' for saintliness here. It is about displaying the qualities of saintliness as we know them from our Vaisnava scriptures: tolerance, humility, devotion to God. He may not have the philosophical understanding of the Vaisnava conception, but he displays certain qualities of a devotee to a much higher extent then so many followers of krsna-bhakti that I know. Answer: I have never met Thomas Keating but I have met several Vaisnava paramahamsas so I also have some idea about saintly qualities. As per my understanding, one may have 'saintly qualities' to some extent but without proper knowledge one is not actually a saint. If a person has no proper knowledge of the soul or of God then such a person is a neophyte [kanistha] and it is not possible for the neophytes to have 'saintly qualities' - that would be a contradiction Thomas Keating in your opinion may have saintly qualities, but in fact so do many atheists such as the Dalai Lama or even Amrta Ma for that matter. Mahatma Gandhi was also considered a saint [a saint among politicians, but a politician among saints]. These personalities that I mention may have tolerance, humility and so-called devotion to God but the question is, to which God? Of course, the Dalai Lama says there is no God. Amrta Ma and others like Sai Baba say they are God, and all Christians [Thomas Keating included] say that Jesus is God or that the God of Abraham is God. The fact is that all the above are mistaken. Jesus is not God nor did he say he was and the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, was a pagan God [one of many] in early Judaism - not the monotheistic God that he is made out to be today. So without knowing who God is - then all the so-called saintly qualities one may have simply fall short of the mark. Even if one blindly accepts that everything that Jesus taught is true still it does not compare to even a drop of the great ocean of Krsna Consciousness. Sarasvati Thakura put it this way: "The highest morality taught by the noble Jesus does not come even near the principles of amorous love enshrined in the devotees of Krsna." (Srila Sarasvati Thakura - Interview with Prof. Suthers) In addition to the above it is also a fact that India has produced thousands of sadhus over the past 2,000 years, having saintly character and many of them as great as or greater than the alleged Jesus - particularly since the time of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. As for the Vaisnava literatures [produced by the saints of India] that deal with the Absolute Truth and the ultimate goal of love of God - the Christian world has nothing to even slightly compare. In the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, these so-called Christian priests [monks] are comparable to the Putana demon. Christianity amounts to soul killing because it pats everyone on the back and tells everyone to just believe in Jesus, to be happy in this material world and then go to heaven to enjoy when they die - because Jesus died for their sins. There is nothing spiritual in such a conception. Christianity, when taken to task, has no spiritual knowledge or proper conception of Reality. Question: I have been reading some writings of Christian mystics and some articles by Thomas Keating, and they convey a certain degree of realization that goes much beyond what most people know of Christianity. They also seem to have developed good techniques for meditation, that have helped me in my own japa. I think more devotees could benefit from a better system for nama-japa since, for the great majority of devotees, it doesn't get very far beyond the level of chanting with a totally distracted mind. Answer: The Christian mystics and others that you speak of were at best trying to reach God by the ascending process whereas what Bhagavata devotee have to offer and what is given by your guru and the sadhus is coming down to us unadulterated and full of transcendental nectar - descending in parampara. Those given to the ascending process can never know Krsna nor do their processes actually enhance Krsna Consciousness. Only Krsna Consciousness can enhance Krsna Consciousness. Since receiving your email I have also read some of the articles of Thomas Keating and in none of them did I find any spiritual knowledge that even remotely approaches the beginning chapters of Bhagavad-gita. Keating often refers to parables and stories from the Bible and tries to squeeze out some truth - but alas he only comes up with some sentiment and an occasional sub-religious principle. In none of his articles did I find any information about the soul or who God is. Religion without proper knowledge is sentiment and knowledge without religion is speculation. As for the 'good techniques for meditation' developed by Christians and the writings of Christian mystics, one should question from where these techniques and writings have come? Are they 'God sent' or simply the product of mental interpretations? I am highly doubtful that such techniques have any real applicability to Krsna Consciousness. Rather, I am of the opinion that such interests develop from our own anarthas and lack of faith. If one is interested in 'techniques' to improve one's Krsna conscious sadhana, then our recommendation is that one should study the books of the six Gosvamis and their bona-fide representatives. External techniques are actually of no use in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is built on three spiritual principles; sraddha, saranagati and seva [faith, surrender, and service]. If one is having trouble controlling the mind while chanting or developing the qualities of a Vaisnava then one should question one's own sincerity. A wandering mind is due to anarthas and aparadhas and not because of a lack in technique. A staunch disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta by the name of Sadananda Prabhu was of the opinion that, "If a religion doesn't even have a clear concept of what the individual atma is, what to speak of God, it is not worth the name 'religion' at all." Sadananda Prabhu is also on record as having said to another Vaisnava that, "If he didn't like the razor-sharp distinctions in bhakti, he could return to his old mysticism.Mysticism," he said, "appears only where bhakti is not present." [Note: Sadananda Prabhu was the first person from a Judeo-Christian background [Germany, 1933] to embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism and become a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He was a strong preacher and as is evident from the above quotes, he gave up completely any sentimental attachments for Christianity.] Question: People have an aversion to fundamentalism. Hardly anybody goes to Church here anymore, the old way just doesn't work anymore. So in order for me to effectively preach Vaisnavism, an appreciative view of the aspects of Christianity that are also present in our tradition is only helpful. Answer: Yes, many people have an aversion to fundamentalism as you have mentioned but not all. There are over 50 million Christians in America who are hardcore fundamentalists [and they have the guns]! That's a lot of people. These fundamentalist Christians, given the political authority, would imprison you and every other Hare Krsna devotee in the world. In fact, wherever the fundamentalist Christians, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the clout they use that to interfere with the spreading of Krsna Consciousness. Russia, Serbia, Germany, USA and even India are places where this has recently occurred. Real Christianity is a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. It is not a religion of love or even of peace as the propaganda tells us. Throughout history whenever there has been a Christian theocracy, there has been repression, torture and death brought upon the people. Even Martin Luther, who stood up against the oppression of the Catholic Church, after coming to power himself brought about his own brand of repression and sanctioned the burning of thousands of so-called witches and heretics. In England, when the Protestants came to power, they persecuted the Catholics and when the Catholics came to power they persecuted the Protestants. Thousands of innocent people died! In Ireland this fight is still going on for the past couple of centuries. Then there are the Muslim fundamentalists and they number in the many millions also. So to say that there is no market in this world for fundamentalism is not accurate. Fundamentalism may also be a good thing - it depends on what type of fundamentalism we are talking about. Krsna Consciousness is purified fundamentalism. The Absolute Truth [Krsna] is the fundamental basis of Reality. To speak this conception directly [frankly and straightforward] and to point out that the cheating religions of the world are the principle cause of suffering may not be appreciated by the liberal left, but compromising the truth and becoming duplicitous is not the solution - it only serves to perpetuate the delusions of ignorance that Christianity has spread around the world for more than 2,000 years. People should be informed that Christianity is a man-made religion and that because of such it has no real value for spiritual advancement. Preaching means philosophical war against ignorance. Truth will set us free!

http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/62-more-on-christianity.html#More-on-Christianity It is a hard lump to swallow for many of us with Judeo-Christian backgrounds - but the fact is that Christianity is not a transcendental religion. As I mentioned in my previous article, for all the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Christians still do not know what the soul is. Understanding the soul is the first step in God realization. Christians haven't even made the first step in 2,000 years. They still think they are the body. Why? Because Christianity is a man-made religion. It is not bona-fide or transcendental. Question: I think it is possible to appreciate good aspects of other faiths without watering ones own philosophy down or creating some kind of rasabhasa, although this danger is always there of course. Answer: The principle to see the best in everything is indeed laudable and this is certainly true of the 'romanticized ideal' of Jesus. But herein lies the problem - what was the ideal of Jesus? Who was Jesus and what did he actually teach? As it turns out, there is no reliable source to answer these questions other than the Bible, which was created after the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. This council, convened by the Roman emperor Constantine and attended by 318 Church Fathers of the then loose-knit cult of Christianity, was motivated by political and despotic ambitions. At the council the divinity of Jesus [as good as God] was fabricated and any reasonable understanding or Gospel of who Jesus might have been [such as the views of Arian and the Gnostics] was henceforth driven into extinction. When the Church fathers assembled at Nicea the council began with a punch out. The commonly accepted story amongst scholars is that Bishop Nicholas of Myra rushed across the hall and hardily punched Arian in the nose. Thus the stage was set - there was a preconceived doctrine to be put in place regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ and anyone who didn't heed this doctrine would be dealt with in the strictest physical terms! For the past 1681 years the Bible has been delivered as 'The Infallible Word of God' on the end of a sword and now its being delivered on the end of a bayonet [cloaked in democracy]. Christianity began as a Jewish heresy, born from dissatisfaction with the status quo of Judaism and a need for change. Unfortunately, men and not God inspired those changes and for the past 2,000 years the same thing has continued - men are dissatisfied with the status quo of the Church and so they set about creating new reforms, new doctrines, new political alliances, new dogmas and New Age concepts. The plot thickens and the distance between superstitions about God and the Absolute Truth increases. Many contemporary Vaisnavas like to pick and choose what they want to believe about Jesus. In doing so they neglect the example of Jesus himself. For example: Jesus was a student of the Torah [the Old Testament] and Jesus says he came to uphold/fulfill the 'Laws of Moses. But which Christian or proponent of Christ these days bothers to follow the laws of Moses? It was good enough for Jesus but they don't take the trouble to follow it themselves. The Laws of Moses, were given to Moses by the God of Abraham, Jehovah. Some may argue that the God of the Old Testament is actually Krsna but this cannot be established from the texts itself. In the Old Testament the two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, make an offering to God. Cain offers grains and the fruits of the land because he was a tiller of the fields. Abel offered slaughtered lambs to God because he was the herder of sheep. It is said that God ignored the offerings of Cain and only accepted the 'blood' offering of Abel! So how can any sane person say that this is the same God as Krsna? The Old Testament God is the God that causes famine to fall upon the Earth and among other atrocities causes his so-called chosen people [the Jews] to eat their own children. Here we find God speaking in the Bible, but how could anyone possibly compare this to the words of Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita? "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you - so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot - will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities." [God spoke: Deuteronomy 28:53-57 (also Lev 26:29)] And why does God bring this wrath upon his people? "Because thou serve not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things." [Deuteronomy 28:47] The question arises, how can we love such a God, a God which Jesus himself revered in the Torah? The God of Jesus could not have been Krsna.

Ummm, excuse me young one, but the Heliodorus column is Greek in origin, not "Biblical." Is it too much to ask that you get your facts straight?

Just as indulgence in the senses cannot lead to sense control, so also ignorance cannot lead to knowledge. A theme that is oft repeated in the smrutis is that real knowledge burns away all ignorance and false conceptions. A guru who tells a lie to lure someone into believing something that is true will attract insincere disciples who just want religion on their own terms. These foolish individuals just go on to become insincere gurus who continue to misrepresent their sampradaya with bogus conceptions born of their own ignorance. Really now - these so-called "gurus" who say (for example) that Jesus is an incarnation of Brahma - can they really be considered authentic gaudiya vaishnavas? At least if these people could just stop invoking "Vaishnavism" and just call themselves Hindus or something else, then their writings would not be such an eye-sore on the internet. Practically speaking most of the vocal iskcon people on this forum know more about Jesus and Christiantity than they do about Vaishnavism. Iskcon's lies have created a whole class of these pseudo-devotees who mix a little Christianity with a little Hinduism and pass it off as Vaishnavism, much like some of your Bengali sahaja cults. Is it just me, or do some gaudiyas see the act of thinking and reasoning to be inherently dangerous in some sense?

It shows that he would not be considered a Vaishnava as per the definition of "Vaishnava" given by your gaudiya vaishnava acharya. God can have whatever names He likes, but it does not follow that just any name is a name of God. I'm saying that anyone can claim to worship the Supreme Lord, but merely claiming someone or something to be the Supreme Lord does not make it so. Ask Sanatana gosvami. It was his quote. Take it up with Sanatana gosvami. This was his definition. If you don't feel that sanatana gosvami's views are important to gaudiya vaishnavism then far be it for me to tell you what to believe. Though I find it strange that on one hand, you are concerned with my supposed lack of qualification to speak about gaudiya vaishnavism, yet you have no problem asserting all kinds of ideas about gaudiya vaishnavism and aren't afraid to add to or even contradict your own acharyas. I don't really find you interesting in the least bit. I think that you and other iskcon people just throw around words like "Hindu fanatic" and other innuendo to conveniently avoid the reasonable doubts people have about your illogical theories. I also would point out that while my posting was made in a public forum, I certainly did not seek out your specific opinion until you started to respond with more ambiguous and often irrelevant points. If you were unable to form a coherent sentence in the first place, you can always exercise your right not to participate in the discussion instead of railing at me due to your own inadequacies. regards, raghu

Regarding who is and who is not a Vaishnava as per gaudiya vaishnava philosophy, here is the opinion of Sanatana gosvami, one of the sampradaya acharyas of gaudiya vaishnavism and a direct disciple of Sri Chaithanya: <CENTER>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah </CENTER> "One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana) This is a very unambiguous and exclusionary statement. If one wants to accept that Jesus is a Vaishnava, then one should show that he worshipped Vishnu and that he was initiated into a Vaishnava mantra. It is not sufficient to say that all gods are the same God or that all mantras are ultimately Vaishanva mantras - that is nothing more than a convenient misrepresentation of facts to force a square peg to fit into a round hole. All religions attribute omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and other common attributes to their God-figures, but that does not mean they are all derived from the same God concept. By such standards, Jesus cannot be considered a Vaishnava by any gaudiya vaishnava who wants to retain a semblance of intellectual honesty. Of course, gaudiyas may feel free to disagree with their own acharya, which is perfectly fine by me!

Given your inability to comprehend basic facts and stick to the subject, I don't see any evidence that you are competent to speak on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Why should I care what you think about my qualification? I did acknowledge that SP and maybe SBST think that Jesus is a Vaishnava. I just pointed out the uncomfortable truth that none of their predecessors *ever* made such a claim in their writings. This makes their claim nothing more than a recent fabrication - an add-on to the GV theology just for the purpose of making it more appealing to Westerners. Flaming me isn't going to change history.

Ahem, but *I* am not claiming anything about iskcon/hare krishna movement's effect on the world. I have not said anything about it one way or another. I am only using the logic of the iskcon people (e.g. that their philosophy is a "higher philosophy") to show how it is inconsistent with their idea that Jesus is a Vishnu-bhakta who was propagating some limited, scaled-down Vaishnava dharma to people unqualified to hear full Hari-katha. The argument that Jesus is a Vaishnava cannot be supported by a dispassionate review of the available evidence. It can certainly be argued that today's Christianity is not the same as the Christianity propagated by Jesus. But then here is no evidence of what that "original" Christianity is, beyond the wishful thinking of (surprise, surprise) christian people who converted to iskcon Vaishnavism. There is also no evidence in any classical Vaishnava sampradaya of any positive recognition of the status of Jesus or other non-Hindu "prophets" even well after these other religions were introduced to India. What to speak of other Vaishnava sampradayas, there is not even one single statement about the supposed greatness of Jesus or Mohammed in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya prior to iskcon and iskcon's guru's guru! So far as I can tell, the sole reason iskcon would have for presenting Jesus or Mohammed as Vaishnavas/empowered preachers/shaktiaveshas is to get followers from members of those religions who would otherwise be unable to relate. It is no different from any other Hindu organization making laudatory or accepting statements about other religions and their prophets. Vivekananda did it. Sai Baba did it. Whether one says that Jesus is another form of Brahman or a "pure devotee of Krishna" is immateral; the bottom line is that he is just making something up. "kishnadasa" writes that there is absolutely no point in debating this issue. I agree, in as much as a debate usually occurs when the conclusion is not already obvious, and each side has an intelligent reason to believe as he does. What intelligent rationale can one offer for the idea that Jesus and Mohammed are actually Vaishnavas in disguise preaching different but valid "mleccha-dharmas" to unqualified people? On the contrary, there are innumerable reasons why any intelligent person will reject such an outrageous hypothesis: - No evidence in the writings of your sampradaya acharyas to support it - No evidence in shastra to support it - No conclusive evidence in the teachings of these other religions that can be indisputably traced to any Vaishnava tradition - Many ideas in these other religions (i.e. meat-eating, razing the temples of idol-worshippers, go to this prophet only or go to hell forever, only one lifetime, no concept of karma) that are actually incompatible or offensive to Vaishnavism - Followers of Christianity and Islam both did and continue to do irreparable harm to Vaishnava culture, so why would Sri Vishnu send His servants to create such "bona fide" religions when they just end up attacking Vaishnavism? - Inconsistency in saying that ancient Palestinians and Arabians were unqualified to hear full Vaishnavism due to being degraded, and yet even more highly degraded modern audience is not so restricted from hearing

Bhaktivinod criticized the Adam and Eve myth and said many other uncomplimentary things about Christianity in one of his books - I think it was Tattva-Viveka but I don't recall exactly. The Swami Narasingha quoted from it also in that article. Strange that he would do that to a religion whose founder he respected as a shakti-avesh, don't you think? In any case, it is an indisputable fact that prior to iskcon's guru's guru there is no mention of jesus = shakti avesha avatar in gaudiya literature. But if you know of evidence to the contrary, please feel free to correct me. Huh? What is the motivation in presenting Jesus as an "empowered vaishnava" to a primarily Christian audience? It is obvious - to get followers who could not otherwise relate to Vaishnavism. When someone is motivated to propagate something that is logically unsound and factually incorrect, does that not worry you? One does not need special motivation to question a false allegation or want to establish truth. But if it matters to you, I guess you could say that I am motivated by a need to find out how anyone can claim that Jesus is a Vaishnava and still be taken seriously either by Jesus followers or Vaishnavas.

I agree with the idea of finding fault in onesself rather than finding it in others, but that is not the point of this discussion, which is in regards to the validity of certain ideas regarding a supposed relationship between Christ and Sri Krishna. For some unclear reason some people want to turn this into a discussion of character, as if this is the only thing they can do to avoid having certain cherished beliefs scrutinized in a public forum. I must point out that intoxicated hippies of 1960's San Francisco are no more qualified to hear Hari-katha than were "the simple folk" of ancient Palestine. If the establishment of iskcon in an environment of free sex and free drugs is possible, then it begs the question as to why these other supposedly shakti-avesha avatars did not come teach what iskcon taught in their respective historical periods, which were no more degraded than is contemporary modern civilization.

How exactly does being famous prove anything? Madonna is famous. Brittney Spears is also famous. Kareena Kapur is famous. Is the validity of religious faith now to be judged on the basis of popular vote instead of facts and truth?

Well, Bhaktivinod Thakura did not call Christ a shaktiavesha avatar and in fact criticized Christianity quite harshly in his writings. So, does this mean SP and SBST are upstarts for opposing their guru's guru? Prior to SP and possibly SBST there are no references in the gaudiya vaishnava writings about christ or mohammed or any other religion's prophet as being a shaktiavesha avatar. It is safe to say that prior to iskcon the idea of "jesus as an empowered Vaishnava" is not a feature of gaudiya vaishnavism. Rather interesting, don't you think, that the introduction of "Jesus as shaktiavesha avatar" happens to correspond with the introduction of gaudiya vaishnavism in the west?

I'm glad someone else seems to be noticing the strangeness of it all. Let's face it - it's not just a problem among the rank-and-file iskcon members but even amongst their upper echelons. The idea that Jesus and Mohammed are shaktiavesha avatars or empowered preachers or whatever is so firmly entrenched in their thinking that they just don't seem to grasp how obviously bizarre such claims are. I have personally witnessed friends of mine being indoctrinated into iskcon and worked over with this idea, to the point that when they start questioning it they are either required to accept it on faith or they are suddenly excommunicated from the group for not accepting it. Let's think about this logically. If the purpose of some of these "mleccha dharmas" is to emphasize right conduct to degraded civilizations whose members are not yet ready to embrace higher philosophy (i.e. Vishnu-bhakti), then why do iskcon people preach Vishnu-bhakti now, in contemporary Western civilization which is arguably *more* degraded than 1st century Rome or 6th century Arabia? Why were people of ancient Rome or Arabia unfit to hear Hari-katha but somehow the 1960's LSD-intoxicated hippies of America were not? Vishnu is all-knowing and would know what damage followers of Christianity and Islam would do to Hindu/Vedic civilization. Whether or not such followers are following their religions is immaterial; the fact remains that they were hostile to Hinduism on the basis of their Christianity or Islam. There can be no doubting the horrors Islam has done and continues to do to the fabric of Hindu society - the razing of temples, the abduction and raping of captive women, etc. And Christian proselytizers undercut the reverence people have for Vedas and brahmins in so many intellectually dishonest ways. Why would Lord Vishnu send prophets to the earth to found such religions when He knows that their religions would ultimately grow and threaten Vaishnavism?