tackleberry

How can you prove anybody existed? There is more evidence that Jesus existed than he didn't. In fact at this point in history there is more evidence for Jesus's historical existence than Krsna's.

Thank you for giving yourself away.

Krishna's existence hasn't been proven. Rama's existence hasn't been proven. Shiva's existence hasn't been proven. That there's even a Creator of our universe hasn't been proven! So, going by your argument, I guess we shouldn't talk about anything to do with the spiritual world or God, since none of it can be proven.

If you don't believe in Krishna, then don't call yourself Vaishnava. Simple.

In conversations or a lecture. Do you have vedabase? If so run a search on Christ-loka.

 

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

And those who don't are implying that SP went against shastra. Which would you prefer, then? SP the diplomat, or SP the ajnAni? If the latter, why would you follow him?

Your inability to grasp a simple logical point is phenomenal. You persist in claiming sanatana dharma is a religion. The whole point is that it cannot be

reduced to this or that sect, but includes all bona fide religions who have sanatana dharma as their essence.

So all these bona fide religions are sanatana dharma, eh? And what are these bona fide religions...?

LOL. This is just too much. Yes we should scrutinize the professed guru, but once we have accepted that he is bona fide , then we should take him at his word. Are you saying that Prabhupada is not bona fide?

Don't see what the big deal is. SP referred to christ loka, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the shastra. If you're intelligent at all, you'll reject SP's idea and stick to shastra. Doesn't mean you reject SP completely. So you keep SP and shastra, both.

Everything is eternal in the sense that everything is a potency of Krsna and He is eternal. But you are mixing the meaning of what is being said. Krsna can manifest His potencies and he can also withdraw them into himself which he periodically does. In this way matter is also eternal.

 

You are trying to confuse the issue because you don't like the truth of the definition.

 

Prabhupada's illumination on the term sanatana dharma stands. Furthermore it is on this platform that Lord Caitanya's transcendental movement takes place. It is also this same transcendental movement that Prabhupada brought to the west.

By your own admission, everything is eternal. And because everything is eternal, don't you think it peculiar to restrict Sanatana Dharma to Chaitanya's movement to the exclusion of every other religion?

I don't know why people are infatuated with the term 'sanatana dharma.' According to veda, entities like KAla, AkASa, and SabdA are also eternal. According to some acharyas, evil is eternal. False religion is eternal. Which means, eternity has nothing to do with truth. Truth may be eternal or nitya, but that doesn't mean all nitya vastu-s are truth.

Nonsense. I attacked the issue front and center and had to spend most of my time weeding out all the logical fallacies.

Whatever you say!

You take yourself way to seriously in thinking you have Prabhupada properly analyzed.

In all honesty, Kulapavana seems to be one of the few people around here to have analyzed Prabhupada, critically and rationally. Others are refusing to do so, NOT out of love for SP, but on account of their irrational attachment to their former religious backgrounds.

Not that old thing again:sleep:

That topic has been rehashed, warmed over and ressurrected more times than it deserves.

That's because you and your friends never answered it. You guys have cleverly evaded the issue.

That is your assumption. Not Prabhupda's.

What then was Prabhupada's assumption?

Yes I call surrender to Christ surrender to Krsna.

But Krishna doesn't! So you're going against the Lord's teaching....

How is attachment to Christ an obstacle to surrender to Krsna?

How can one surrender to Reality, whilst yet attached to myths?

As Jesus' existence hasn't been proven, the question as to whether he was Vaishnava doesn't arise. It's as foolish as discussing the favorite color of a barren woman's son!

I have never been a member of Christianity. As I have said 10,000 times I grew uo an atheist.

 

Christ is a person not a religion.

In other words, you will surrender to Krishna WITHOUT ever abandoning your attachment to Christ. But would you call this surrender?

I do not see it that way at all. SP was certainly making adjustments to the tradition when preaching in the West, like including women in the ashramas, giving them Gayatri, marrying his disciples, etc. ALL preaching is done in relation to time place and circumstances - even Lord Krsna does it that way. Remember the Buddha incarnation? What? Krsna did not have faith in Himself and had to compromise? Perish the thought!!!

BuddhAvatAr was for a specific purpose-to delude the asura-s. But in any case, we cannot compare normal people with Lord Krishna and his transcendental activities.

Bottom line, SP used to say neo-vedantins like Vivekananda and Mahesh Yogi have twisted vedanta in order to present it to a western audience. But SP himself was guilty of this, wasn't he? He too made compromises, as you've mentioned in your post. Yet, he wasted no time in blasting neo-vedantins for doing the same thing. This is what I am referring to, this appears quite peculiar to me.

All religions fall short that is why Krishna tells in the Gita to abandon them, That includes Hinduism.

In that case, are you prepared to abandon Christ and surrender to Krishna?

In order to make Vaishnavism appeal to people with strong pro-Christian sentiment in the West, Prabhupada presented Krsna Consciousness in a particular fashion. Some of his followers took this compromise teachings as the final word, and stopped making the transition towards real Vaishnavism. They froze half way across the path. That was the risk he took. But many made it to the other side, casting away all former sentiments. Thus the risk was IMO worth taking.

I am quite puzzled by this, to say the least. If Prabhupada had so much faith in Krishna, he could've presented Vaishnavism in its pure form with no regard for Christian sentiments, safe in the knowledge that Krishna would take care of the rest. That he chose to do otherwise raises some interesting questions on SP's convictions. Some people might wonder why a devotee would act like salesman, unless he lacked faith in the Supreme.

As if the teachings of Christ are illegal and unethical. Sheesh...what a crippled intelligence.

I didn't say that at all, it's your dubious method of inference. CB says there's no explicit condemnation of C in the veda and other shAstrA-s; and therefore, C must be valid. Then again, there's no explicit condemnation of many unethical activities in the veda. Does that mean we must consider them valid? Bottom line, a self-evident fact needs no extrinsic proof. Agama or scripture is necessary with respect to atIndriya vastu-s, objects beyond sense perception. But the present case is well established by pratyaksha, so where's the need for Agama, as CB insists?

You haven't given Sastric and authoritative support to a single one of your claims.

Just a clarification. What do you mean by 'sastric support?' Are you expecting us to quote some verse in the veda that declares C to be incompatible with V? If so, you might want to violate traffic rules, because there's no explicit condemnation in the sastra. The same goes for many other illegal and unethical activities. Hopefully, you catch my drift.

You haven't given Sastric and authoritative support to a single one of your claims. They are wholesale assumptions that establish nothing except in your own sectarian mind. And don't try to turn the queston on itself. Nobody is asserting that Jesus is a Vaisnava. You are claiming that Vaisnavism and Christianity are incompatible. The burden of proof is on you. Saying that there is not evidence that he is, in insufficient proof of incompatibility.

Your question is similar to asking a person to prove his innocence, which isn't necessary at all. Such an approach will be met with censure and ridicule in the real world. Likewise, what you call 'incompatibility' requires no proof unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which means, it's up to you to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible, failing which we'll have to conclude that they aren't.

Whats the purpose of meditation as a devotee? Is it just for mental discipline?

For a Vaishnava, meditation is the steady, unbroken concentration on Vishnu's qualities, forms, and activities. There are many purposes, foremost being the desire to attain His grace. But more importantly, one cannot have the direct vision of God (aparOxa jnAnam), unless one is able to fix the image steadily in one's mind. This is why meditation is very important for a Vaishnava, but it comes at a later stage in life. Initially, of course, your time is better spent in svAdhyAya and smaraNam. This helps one prepare for dhyAnam, which eventually leads to aparOxa jnAnam.

I dont understand exactly what that means.. What is it of Krishna I'm supposed to think about at all times? I mean do I see everything as Krishna? Or do I think of the qualities at all times? His form?

Not in a mechanical way, though. You relate everything to Krishna. When you drink water, for instance, relate the taste to Krishna. When you see some mind-boggling stuff, just try to see those things as reflections of Krishna's achintya shakti. And so forth. This is smaraNa, rather than dhyAna. DhyAna, which is the unbroken concentration on the Lord, is only possible for superior deva-s like Vayu, Shiva, and the rest. For us humans, this should suffice.

Also, try to understand this verse in the Gita.

Bhagavat Gita 9.27

yat karoṣi yad aśnāsi

yaj juhoṣi dadāsi yat

yat tapasyasi kaunteya

tat kuruṣva mad-arpaṇam

SYNONYMS

yat — whatever; karoṣi — you do; yat — whatever; aśnāsi — you eat; yat — whatever; juhoṣi — you offer; dadāsi — you give away; yat — whatever; yat — whatever; tapasyasi — austerities you perform; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; tat — that; kuruṣva — do; mat — unto Me; arpaṇam — as an offering.

TRANSLATION

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.

theres more but i couldnt even if i wanted to tell anybody about it.......the only person that knows whats going on in my head is god...

Most of us know what it is. It's got to do with the matters of the heart. You're in love with someone, and that 'someone' doesn't reciprocate. You think there's no justice in this world, no god. Right?

Is there any source like Bhagavatam etc. that lists Chaitanya's avatarhood in unmistakable terms? Not bhavishya and other obscure purana-s, but something more authentic....