raghu

Perhaps that is more a limitation in your vision than an actual reality.

 

I see plenty of Vaishnava influence in Jesus' teachings.

Well, anything is possible. Perhaps my vision is deluded and there is something there that I am not seeing. What specifically do you see as the obviously Vaishnava influences on Jesus' teachings that distinguish them from Judaism? Note that I am not asking what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, but rather what are the Vaishnava influences on Christianity?

Amazing the hostility that has emerged from what seems to be an otherwise straightforward and well-supported thesis.

For all the evidence the GV Swami put forward to support his arguments, the angry rebuttals so far are limited to (1) a statement that the swami just proved himself to be foolish (no explanation why), (2) another statement that the real Jesus and his teachings is different from what we know to be Christianity (again no explanation or evidence supporting this), and (3) some thing to the effect that we should not nit-pick over what others "foolishly actually believe" followed by an article from an ex-convict that has nothing to do with the original posting.

What is interesting from the articles by Swami Narasingha are the following indisputable points that he raises:

1 - there is no evidence in the scriptures (Vedas and supplementary sources) that Vishnu send His messengers to teach non-Vedic religions

2- there is no cross-cultural references to Jesus or prophets of semitic or arabic religions the Vedic canon

3 - many core ideas of Vedic world view which one would expect to be present in simplified versions of Vaishnava dharma taught elsewhere (such as karma, samsara, go-raksha, etc) are not present in other religions claimed by iskcon people to be valid.

4 - The idea that Christianity, Islam, and/or Judaism are valid paths taught by messengers of Sri Krishna is not feature of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as enunciated by the immediate successors of Sri Chaithanya

5 - For that matter, at least one Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya - Bhaktivinod Thakur, writes very critical comments about Christianity in his writings. Does this mean ISKCON people will say that their own acharya is a foolish person who is criticizing what other people "foolishly actually believe?"

Some folks claim Jesus visited and studied in India.

Well, my friend's niece claims that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, but her belief in this does not make it so.

It's curious don't you think, that if he supposedly studied in India and was influenced in some way by Krishna, that no trace of this Vaishnava influence seems to have survived in his teachings?

My apologies. This is the message I got in e-mail, the previous one was the article which this is a response to - both can be found on their website. I apparently do not have sufficient permission to post the URL for that website, but I'm sure you can google it if you want....

More on Real Religion is Not Man Made

by

Swami B.G. Narasignha

The following are some devotees' comments on Narasingha Maharaja's

article "Real Religion is Not Man Made" followed by Maharaja's reply.

Devotee: Very interesting article but it created some doubts in me.

Does God not reveal his teachings in many places simultaneously?

Narasingha Maharaja: There is no such statement in the revealed

scriptures [sastras] that Visnu/Krsna [God] reveals His teachings in

many places simultaneously. When it is mentioned that religion is

taught according to time, place and circumstances then that is

referring to bona fide teachers of eternal religion, like Sri

Ramanujacarya and Sri Madhvacarya and not upstarts like Mohammed,

Jesus or St. Paul.

What is mentioned however is that in Kali-yuga many false doctrines

and religions will sprout up all over the world. This pertains to

false doctrines sprouting up in India such as Mayavada, Buddhism,

Sahajiyaism, etc and in western countries this applies to paganism

and the Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Islam and Christianity] that

are considered the religions of the Mlecchas.

Devotee: I mean, other religions may not have the pure essence of

Vaisnava philosophy, but still they have some seed of real bhakti

that can sprout and grow to some level.

Narasingha Maharaja: If they don't have the "pure essence," then it

is contradictory to say that they have "some seed of real bhakti."

Pure essence and the seed of real bhakti are synonymous. The "seed of

real bhakti" is the intrinsic knowledge of who God is and what our

eternal relationship with Him is. The real seed of bhakti is not a

hazy or unclear conception. Because Christianity and other Kali-yuga

religions have no clear conception, they cannot develop in any useful

manner. Nor does God appear or send his bona fide representative to

teach a hazy conception, unless it is for the purpose of deluding the

atheists such as in the case of Sankaracarya.

Vaisnavas reject the teachings of Sankaracarya as irreligious even

though Sankaracarya was Siva [a great devotee]. So even if we did

accept Jesus as a representative of God, because the teachings of

Christianity are vague and imperfect, we reject them as having no

practical application. For example, in the past 2,000 years it has

not been possible for Christians to understand who God is or even

what the soul is or anything about reincarnation, etc. That means

that even after practicing Christianity for a lifetime, a Christian

still dies in ignorance and goes to `Hell' for his sins. The idea

that Jesus died for one's sins and one is thus eligible to enter

Heaven and live eternal life is a man-made idea, an idea created by

Paul to get easy followers. Such an idea is not a reality.

Devotee: The idea that all manifestations of religion other that pure

bhakti are only creations of the mind seems too radical to me.

Narasingha Maharaja: This may be a radical idea, but it is also a

historical fact. Christianity developed from a Jewish heresy and was

mostly fabricated by Paul. Judaism had received its scriptures and

religion [monotheism] from the Persians [Zoroastrians] and Zoroaster

had been rejected from Vedic civilization for concocting a heretical

philosophy [this is mentioned in the Rg-Veda]. Starting with

Zoroaster one mental concoction simply gave birth to another mental

concoction and the end of such mental concoctions is nowhere in

sight – especially as concerns Christianity. They go on concocting

ideas such as salvation thru Jesus, purgatory, virgin births, Heaven,

Jesus is God, inventing scripture, etc — none of which are anything

less than a mental concoction.

The history of Christianity reads something like this: Jesus was a

Jew, Christians were Jewish heretics, after killing off all Gnostic

Christians and other sects of Christianity, the Orthodox church

reigned supreme, Roman Catholicism crushed the Orthodox Church and

killed any remnants of ancient Christianity and persecuted the Jews,

Protestant Churches were the bastards of Catholicism, the Mormons are

a Christian cult among the Protestants and Jesus is coming soon!

Devotee: I have translated one article by Bhaktivinoda Thakura who

respects other signs of bhakti in other religions. According to the

article of Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Swami Maharaja, religions other

than Vaisnavism cannot lead their adepts towards God. Until now I was

thinking that although these religions cannot give one, for instance

madhurya-rasa, still they allow one to make spiritual progress that

ultimately will give that person the highest position.

Narasingha Maharaja: No amount of progress in ignorance gives one the

highest position, not even after a million births. Without a clear

idea of who God is and how to serve Him, one remains lost in the fog

of misconception and wanders in the material world forever.

Devotee: Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written as follows: "Sectarianism

is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first

ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with

sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through

disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving

it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and

locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not

necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is

different from another.
As a community gradually develops more

respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other

communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian

symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial."

Narasingha Maharaja: The 'sectarianism' that Bhaktivinoda is speaking

about is Christianity and Islam. The Absolute Truth is Vaisnavism.

Real Vaisnavism is the Truth taught by acaryas. Those ideas gradually

become changed as in the case of Zoroaster and gradually become

doctrines like Christianity that hate other communities.

We do not hate Christians, we hate ignorance and to defeat ignorance

we preach the Truth. Christianity, on the other hand, has a horribly

blood-stained history of killing everything and anything that they do

not understand. Christianity is therefore sectarian, whereas

Vaisnavism or sanatana-dharma is the eternal function of the soul

(jaiva-dharma).

In the stage of being a kanistha-adhikari Vaisnava one cannot make

proper distinctions between real religious principles and maya

[illusion]. The fact is that many devotees of the Krishna

consciousness movement these days have become stuck in the kanistha-

adhikari stage and are not making proper advancement. However, when

one becomes situated in the stage of madhyama-adhikari, by proper

association and guidance, then one is able to discriminate between

eternal religious principles and sectarianism such as Christianity.

Devotee: Bhaktivinoda continues as follows; "The religious principles

taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious

principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar

to Saiva-dharma. This is scientific consideration of truths regarding

religious principles. Those who consider their own religious

principles as real dharma and others religious principles as

irreligion or sub-religion are unable to ascertain the truth due to

being influenced by prejudice. Actually religious principles followed

by people in general are different only due to the different

qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious

principles of all living entities are one."

Narasingha Maharaja: Bhakivinoda is speaking in such a way as to

encourage the followers of sectarian doctrines such as Christianity

and Islam to give up their limited concepts and recognize real dharma

[Vaisnavism]. Bhaktivinoda is not condemning the followers of

Vaisnava dharma as sectarian for recognizing that Vaisnava dharma is

the eternal function of the soul.

Don't forget that Bhaktivinoda's opinion is [as stated in Tattva-

viveka] that no intelligent person will accept the ideas of salvation

thru the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus as Christianity

suggests.

Text and commentary from Tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinoda as follows:

Text 1.25

adi-jivaparadhadvai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskrtih

Some say that due to the sin committed by the first living entity,

all other living entities are therefore trapped in the material

world. Thus God accepts punishment in order to deliver the living

entities.

Commentary

Contemplating the virtues and vices of this world, some moralistic

monotheists came to the conclusion that this world is not a place of

pure pleasure. In fact, the sufferings are more than the pleasures.

They concluded that this world was a prison house meant to punish the

jivas. If there is punishment, then there must also be a crime. If

there is no crime, why would there be punishment? What crime did the

jivas commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of

small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea.

They said that God created the first jiva and had him stay in a

pleasurable garden with his wife. He was forbidden to eat the fruit

of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil advice of an impious

person, the first beings ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge,

thus disobeying God's instructions. They then fell from that place

into the world filled with misery. Due to their offense, all living

entities are also offenders from the time of their birth. Not seeing

any other way to eliminate this offense, God Himself took birth

amongst human beings, accepted all the sins of those jivas who took

shelter of Him, and then He died. Those that do not follow Him fall

into hell eternally. Thus God punishes Himself in order to liberate

the jivas. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this, ei

matati sahaja-buddhite ayatva kora jay na.

Text 1.26.

janmato jiva-sambhavo maranante na janma vai

yat-krtam samsrtau tena jivasya caramam phalam

They claim that the jiva's life begins at birth and terminates at

death. After death, he is not born again. Whatever activities that

jiva has performed, he will attain the results at the end.

Commentary

To have faith in this mixed-up religion one must first believe these

rather illogical ideas – the living entity's life begins at birth and

ends at death. Before birth the jiva did not exist, and after death

the jiva will no longer reside in the realm of material activities.

Also only humans have consciousness and other creatures do not. Only

those with minute intelligence can identify with this (ei visvasati

nitanta sankirna prajnar paricaya).

The jiva is not spiritual by nature. By His own will the Supreme

Being created the jivas out of dull matter. Why do jivas appear in

very unequal situations? These people cannot say. Why is one jiva

born into a house filled with misery, another jiva born into a house

full of happiness, another jiva is born in the house of a devotee and

another living entity born into the house of a demoniac atheist? Why

is one jiva born in a place where he is prone to perform good acts,

and become pious? Why is another jiva born in a place where he is

encouraged to perform sinful acts and becomes wicked? They cannot

say. In this way it seems that God is irrational (isvarake avivecaka

bolite hoy).

Why do they consider that animals have no consciousness? Why do birds

and beasts not have consciousness like humans? Why do the human only

have one life, and due of their actions in that life must attain

eternal heaven or eternal hell? One who believes in a compassionate

God will find this system totally unacceptable (e visvas udoyamoya

isvaranugata loker pakse nitasta agrahya).

Devotee: I feel that religion has different levels and presenting

everything only in black and white does not convince me. I hope that

nobody will crucify me if I write that there were many really exalted

and wise persons in other traditions, like St. Francis, Tolstoy and

many others.

Narasingha Maharaja: If you consider St. Francis or Tolstoy

as "really exalted" then you must be prepared to recognize that India

has millions of such exalted persons. In fact even the rickshaw

drivers in Vrndavana, Mayapura and Jagannatha Puri are thousands of

times more advanced than either St. Francis or Tolstoy. There are

million and millions of people in India who know Krsna is God. They

know about reincarnation, vegetarianism, karma and other Vedic

knowledge.

Holy places like Haridvara, Hrsikesa and Badarinatha have produced

thousands of saintly personalities equal and greater than Jesus or

John the Baptist, but the only difference is that their followers did

not forsake them and crucify them. Even an average 'good Hindu' is

hundreds of times greater than Jesus and what to speak of Vaisnavas

like Vasudeva Datta, who are considered thousands of times greater

and more magnanimous than Jesus. So why then are a small handful of

persons from the western Mleccha civilizations, who have only meager

knowledge of God and the purpose of life, being considered really

exalted? The answer lies in that even after coming in contact with

Vaisnavism, it is difficult for some devotees to give up their

previous misconceptions and religious bias.

Devotee: Of course, they were not on the level of Haridasa Thakura

but there is such a thing as gradual progress and they were on high

moral and ethical level and were thinking a lot about God, so maybe

in future lives it will be more easy for them to get to this high

level of bhakti.

Narasingha Maharaja: Not only were they not on the level of Haridasa

Thakura, they were not even on the level of the average Hindu

housewife who is strictly vegetarian, who follows Ekadasi and who

worships Bala-Krsna everyday.

Among the Mlecchas, comparatively speaking, St. Francis and Tolstoy

may have been above average but when compared to the standards of

spirituality in India, they were far below average. When you stop to

think about it, in the era of St. Francis and Tolstoy, even so-called

educated people in Europe didn't know how to clean their backsides

after passing stool or to take a daily bath.

Devotee: Although Narasingha Maharaja`s article is interesting, my

heart is much more moved by this dialog of a Christian with Sridhara

Maharaja, `Beyond Christianity' from the book, `Sri Krishna, Reality

the Beautiful.'

In the following conversation, Srila Sridhara Maharaja compares

theistic beliefs with some Christian students from America.

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity?

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not

fullfledged, but the basis of devotional theism. We find the

principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least

physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-

sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged

theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of

Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what

attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in

Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does

not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing

us to come face to face with the object of our service. The

conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain

that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the

foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect."

Narasingha Maharaja: Yes, Christianity is imperfect, vague and

unclear as Sridhara Maharaja has mentioned. If you knew Sridhara

Maharaja, then you also will know that when something is unclear,

vague and imperfect that it cannot lead to perfection. Sridhar

Maharaja was also fond of saying that, "No amount of ignorance can

produce knowledge. No amount of darkness can produce light." Only

pure bhakti can give pure bhakti, therefore one must give up all

cheating man made religions as adharma or unfavorable for the

cultivation of Krsna consciousness and take complete shelter of jaiva-

dharma, the eternal religion.

An interesting message I got in an e-mail recently. Interesting because it is quite a different view from that which is often enunciated in iskcon circles....

Real Religion is not Man-made

by

Swami B.G. Narasingha

During a recent visit to Europe I had some informal discussions about

religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas and I was

surprised to hear some devotees speak about such groups as the Sufis,

Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians

and Muslims as being deeply `surrendered' souls. Of course, generally

speaking this may be true – but surrendered to what? I would like to

point out in this article that sraddha [faith], saranagati

[surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and

activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to

Krsna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the

continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in ancient

times.

The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God

himself – dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not

man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic

relationship that exists between Krsna and all living entities

eternally. This is sometimes called sanatana-dharma, eternal

religious principles. In a word sanatana-dharma has been summed up as

seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme

Being. Therefore, so-called service to various deities or to icons

that are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true

sense of the word.

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of

spirituality in India that, "At present many false meanings have been

imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to

man, obedience to the teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati

Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928)

In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all

sorts of misconceptions and innovations have also been passed off as

spiritual practices, devotion, service, love of God, etc, when in

fact they are not.

In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura

has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka,

Ch.1 as follows:

"The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj. It is said

in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3)

bhaj ityesa vai dhatuh

sevayam parikirtitah

tasmat seva budhaih prokta

bhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi

"The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful

sadhakas should engage in the service of Sri Krsna with great

endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born."

The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul

[atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead

[bhagavan]. In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul

or the Personality of Godhead exists in the world's popular mundane

religions. Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the

popular mundane religions as transcendental.

Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west,

Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows:

"Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure

is fundamental to all these religions. Unlike the transcendental

words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal. Therefore, one

who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt

about them since they lack a solid foundation." (Sarasvati Thakura,

purport, Cc. Adi 17.169)

Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose

seva. First surrender, then serve: tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya. This surrender means far more than one's strict

obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or

thought. Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krsna and

not to that of anything else. First surrender [pranipatena] then

serving mood [sevaya] manifests. And to surrender one must have

faith, sraddha.

If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not

a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute

Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so-

called belief is only a temporary state of mind fabricated under the

modes of material nature. Such a mental belief system is not to be

confused with sraddha.

Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of

nature. Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the

living entity the path of devotional service, krsna-bhakti.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in his

Mahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10.

The definition of sraddha is this:

sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscaya

krsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya

"By performing transcendental loving service to Krsna, one

automatically performs all secondary activities. This confident, firm

faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is

known as sraddha." (Cc. Madhya 22.62)

To have firm conviction that devotion to Krsna is the only means for

the living entity, and that performance of karma and jnana devoid of

bhakti are useless. Such a favorable inclination of the heart is

called sraddha.

Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates from the

internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi. This

energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krsna and

therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any

lesser gods or masters. As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha

is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krsna."

Sraddha reveals Krsna [Visnu] and no other. However, if one finds

oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those

of the Abrahamic tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune

and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha.

In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's

greatest acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm

conviction that by serving Krsna all other purposes will be served.

The numerous so-called religions of the world that exist outside the

Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real

connection to the Absolute Truth. Over time the proponents of these

major world religions have done much harm to the world and deceived a

multitude of people by engaging them in impious activities and all in

the name of `good faith.'

If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion

one will discover that all contemporary religious thought has

originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These

religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome

theology but rather as a Vedic heresy. The first heresy of this kind

was Zoroastrianism that gained a following in the western frontiers

of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was

written.

Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of

monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the

Vedas. Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras

[demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity.

Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his

new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka:

"Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a very ancient philosopher. When his

philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran. It

was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally

powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the

religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran.

Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three

gods, or a `Trinity' made its appearance in the religion

[Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion.

"At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of

Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this,

so they made a compromise stating that these three concocted gods

were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Tattva-

viveka 1/21)

Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in approximately 500 BCE, the

Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea.

In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the

idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god of the

Mountains or the god of Abraham. The idea that there is one Supreme

God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who

the Supreme God was eluded them.

Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient world

had been pagan in their beliefs. From monotheism, first being

introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed

and then Islam developed along those lines. But in no case was the

nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known.

In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about

personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord

Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation

of Jesus. These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should be

cautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to

the opinions of previous acaryas.

Thus, all the so-called religions west of the Indus River can

rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic

religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting

from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in

the name of the Protestant Church and New Age Religions.

Unfortunately, none of these said heresies represent the Supreme

Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the

ultimate goal of life.

So Jesus is a form of the "supreme consciousness" and not to accept this is silly?

Why would you expect to see tilak on Jesus? He is not a Vaishnava.

Is this not what some iskcon members would refer to as "menal speculation" or a "mental concoction?"

When I first wrote about my relationship with Pranada Dasi, I understated the length and seriousness of it. I was frightened and wanted to protect my reputation, Pranada’s reputation, and not cause unnecessary damage to the faith of many devotees who counted on me to provide a proper example of Krsna consciousness. In retrospect this was a mistake, and I hope this letter serves to clarify matters.

 

 

As a young sannyasi I developed a secret attraction for Pranada Dasi in 1978 in Los Angeles. Later, I gave her and her husband at the time, Vadiraja Dasa, second initiation. I never revealed this attraction to her or anyone. In 1980 when Pranada Dasi’s marriage to Vadiraja dasa failed I suggested she move to Gita-nagari. Sometime later she began managing Gita-nagari Press, my tape ministry, and assisting me in a secretarial role as my typist for letters to my disciples and other duties required to fulfill my GBC responsibilities. From 1980 to 1985, due to my ongoing attraction to her, I instructed her, as her spiritual master, to do many things that were quite difficult for her. These included moving away from Gita-nagari, leaving her son behind, and getting married (I had previously insisted she vow never to remarry). After she married and moved away from my home zone my attraction subsided. Therefore, my attraction lasted about seven years.

In December of 2001, I was at a medical and spiritual low point in my life. I had wanted to tell Pranada Dasi, before I died of my old feelings for her because this was a part of my life. Naively I told her of my prior attachment to her. I did not anticipate the result of my confession, which was a revival of the old feelings. Thus began an illicit and intimate romantic phone, e-mail, and letter exchange lasting over a year. During this year she also visited me three times in Ireland, and during one such visit, there was physical intimacy.

 

Here is a question for the iskcon members of this forum.

 

The person who wrote this letter admitting to a relationship with a female disciple, and then admitting to lying about it in true Bill Clinton fashion - is he a Hindu, a Vaishnava, both, or neither?

 

Please justify with sensible arguments.

 

 

Suuure, he's got an answer for everything, ranging from why his followers went on crusades to witch hunting to genocides and inquisition, and the rest. Let's stop kidding ourselves, please. Jesus has done more harm than good, and the sooner so-called Vaishnavas get rid of this 'Jesus preached KC' line, the better it's for Mahaprabhu's movement.

How will it be better? If there is one thing history teaches, it is that you can rally more people by telling them sweet lies than unvarnished truth. The Jesus myth will always be a part of iskcon canon, because it's a hook by which they attract Western people raised in Judeo-Christian civilization who would otherwise be uninterested in what appears to them to be nothing more than a foreign, hindu movement.

I for one have always been amazed at how iskcon devotees can claim to know about the "real" Jesus and the "real" christianity, which modern Christians supposedly do not. Who here has the original teachings of the historic Jesus in their original Aramaic? The fact of the matter is that iskcon people imagine jesus according to their own tastes and preferences, with hardly any consistent, factual evidence to support their claims.

Can someone explain, please

Krishna Consciousness is Consciousness of Krishna!

I am ready to accept your initiation now.

the opposite is also true, Raghu... How many times have scriptures been quoted here, only to be debunked as "Tamasic" scripture or the like? What ever is our disposition, so we follow - whether you are an advaithin, dvaithin, etc.

Gaea,

The threefold classification of puranas into sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic classes is not arbitrary, but something that is found *in* the puranas themselves, specifically in the Padma Purana and Matsya Purana. I can provide the exact quotes if you wish.

I certainly hope I do not have to convince you why sattvic sources of information are more conducive to self-realization over rajasic or tamasic ones. If we cannot agree on that point, that I'm afraid there is very little possibility of rational dialog.

In any case, Vedantins base their conclusions on what is in shruti, with Puranas used only as dependent authorities. I think someone provided the quote earlier from the Rig Veda about how Shiva derives his power from Vishnu. For an honest person, that should be sufficient to establish Vishnu's superior position. But your friend, in typical evasive style, simply blew it off and referred to some Shiva stotras in the smriti. As if this establishes anything.

Gokul, weren't you always singing the praise of Sri Madvacharya and Sri Raghavendra? Whatever happened to you? Why have you given up Dvaita and taken to mayavada? Seems as if tatvAbhimAniasurAs are guiding you along the wrong path.

 

Yes, I noticed that too.

ahh.. you are so emotional! The same Krishna after giving the knowledge of BhagwadGita and finishing that war, tell how he he became so. And how he worshipped Mahadeva! You didn't read that? lol

No he didn't read that, because it isn't there in the Gita.

As far as the rest of your message is concerned, you might want to try something a bit more novel, like responding to specific evidence with specific evidence. So far, whenever specific evidence is brought forward that contradicts your position, you just wave it off and allude to something else that is different.

It seems that the best you can do is assert that the scriptures are inconsistent. If they are inconsistent, I fail to see how that proves your position, and if your position is found on scriptural inconsistency, then any religious doctrine that is derived from them stands defeated, including yours.

How can you tell that Quotes appearing in Padma purana, Garuda purana etc.. degrading Shankara was actually given by Lord Vyasa ? It would have later inserted by Anti-advaithins.

 

How do you know that those quotes are inserted by "anti-advaithins?" Do you have proof? Or is your sole basis for asserting this the fact that they present a picture that is inconvenient to your worldview?

This is a tired refrain amongst the Advaitins. They claim that theirs is the one true philosophy espoused in scripture, but whenever and wherever scripture disagrees with them, they just say it is interpolated.

I don't see how Nostradamus' writings are any more credible than the Bhagavata's. You might consider applying your criticism a little more evenly across the board.

Some of the advaitin arguments on this thread are blatantly hilarious. I especially liked the one that says, "Vaishnavas cannot defeat Advaita because Vaishnava believe the name, form, etc of Vishnu are real and eternal." Yes, and another way of saying that is "You cannot defeat me because you hold beliefs that oppose mine." Uh-huh....

After that, we have Advaitins daring Vaishnavas to say anything against Advaita, and the moment the Vaishnavas start quoting from shruti or smriti, then suddenly "no no no, you can debate with us but you can't quote scripture!"

We have some real Voltaires in this group

Hari OM:

 

You make more noise than any meaningful reply, you had not given reply even for the basic question , "what is vaishnava vedanata?" you are rather more interested in making noise and picking up a fight rather than meaningful discussions, sorry i am not for this game.

Time is short, and your grasp on reality seems tenuous as demonstrated by your inability to correctly recall who started trouble here and who is saying what to whom. Once again I note that you continue to make embarassingly trite if not grossly inaccurate generalizations about other religions with little a care in the world for the actual facts about what they teach. Obviously, if your whole basis for recommending Advaita is your ability to knockdown strawmen, then you aren't going to convince anyone who is intelligent enough to look at the facts.

To find out what Vaishnava Vedanta is, I have asked you to go and read the commentaries on Vedanta-sutras by Vaishnavas like Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Apparently, this was still not clear to you, so I will give the step-by-step process:

1) Go to your local library (the place where they keep the books).

2) Do a card-catalog search for "Vedanta-sutras" and "Madhva." Repeat for different commentators' names.

3) Take a note of the books' availability and location.

4) Go to the appropriate shelves and pick up the books.

5) Take the books to the checkout counter.

6) Check out the books.

7) Go home, read the books carefully, and be happy.

8) Come back here when you have more of an idea as to what you are talking about.

While we are on the subject, you may want to do the same for the writings of Sri Sankaracharya, since it is rapidly becoming obvious that you have at best a fuzzy idea of what Advaita actually teaches.

Advaita is only one Vedanta-school. We call it "Vedanta" only formally because they have their own commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra and presume to speak on what they think is the subject of Vedanta. But factually speaking, all other Vedanta schools disagree with the atheistic conclusions of Advaita, and most Vedanta schools are in fact theistic, Vaishnava, and bhakti-oriented, which is more in keeping with what is taught in the scriptures.

It is a hard pill to swallow for the neo-advaitin cult gurus whose so-called "philosophy" has so caught hold of the collective Hindu imagination. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Advaita is not synonymous with Vedanta, and all other Vedanta schools are definitely united in their disagreement with Advaita.

As to your other question, yes I have studied Sanskrit. While some sentences can be interpreted grammatically in more than one way due to different ways of parsing based on sandhi rules or different possibilities of agreement with the different cases, context is used to help narrow down the possibilities to the one, correct meaning. If scripture does not have a singular meaning, and its meaning is instead subjective based on the whims of an unqualified reader, then it would be all together useless to go to the scripture for guidance in the first place, since one might as well claim himself to be the authority. The saying, "One who is his own guru has a fool for a disciple" is relevant here.

Another point that emerges is that if one does not know the language, there is no question of one claiming to "interpret" anything or defend any specific "interpretation." This is common sense.