Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Yofu

  1. Jesus's God rejoices your death


    "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." (Deuteronomy 28:63)




    If the religious mind believes that God represents a loving God, then one must wonder about God, as described in the Bible, who would rejoice to destroy some of his creations.


    Should we hold honor to an insane God? The Bible assures us that God possess an evil spirit with hate, and full of wrath, and here he rejoices in destruction! God appears completely devoid of any wit or humor; a mental state that psychologists have observed in many schizophrenics.



    Vishnu would not rejoice your death.....


    I wish devotees would stop trying be christian Vaisnavas.....

  2. The idea that the Guru is omniscient is a pet ideal of Jadhurani dasi, who is now a follower of Srila BV Narayana Maharaja. She lectures incessanty on this central idea. She needs the guru to be omniscient for her to have faith in the guru or bhakti. So for Jadhurani, Srila Prabhupada and Srila BV Narayana Maharaja are both omniscient, and she feels safe in her beliefs.


    Belief in guru omniscince is actually a childish belief and encourages personality cult worship. The western branch of gaudiyaism is riddled with personality cultism. Pick any group and you'll find personality cultism. We come across it here in these forums all the time. For further evidence, look at any Gaudiya site and see the amount of web pages about the acarya of the organisation. Sometimes there are more pages about the guru on the site than pages explaining our tradition.


    The-my-guru-knows-everything belief is a sign of the immature disciple. It creates the idea of "superman-magical" gurus in which the guru can do everything. This idea, in my opinion, cheapens the idea of guru and is a form of idolatary.


    I accept the guru knows his disciples' hearts and as such gives instructions befitting her spiritual progress.


    For material advice I will consult material experts and for spiritual advice I will consult the Vaisnavsas, and for superheros I'll read comics....


    It's not hard to figure that one out.

    The address on the invitiation is coming from England.


    In England they refer to respectable women as "lady" this or "lady" that.


    It's a cultural nuance based upon time and circumstance.


    ain't nothing wrong with that.



    I lived in England for 12 years and the term "Lady" is not used as Guruvani thinks it is...


    All Glories to Sri Guru and Gouranga!

    All Glories to Sri Radha Vinoda Bihari!


    Dandavat Pranam,


    Maharajah's, Prabhu's and Didi's,


    Please join us for our next big harinam in central London Saturday June 30th 5 pm beginning outside the Covent Garden Tube Station.


    Meet the world renowned devotional painter 'Lady Syamarani' same evening at a public programme 7-10 pm at the Dragon Hall, 17 Stukeley Street, Holborn, London.


    Please grace us with your presence for the pleasure of Guru and Gouranga!



    Lady Syamarani? What?

  5. I came across this silliness on dandavats.com:




    Too often we hear various people speaking anti-American views, as if anti-Americanism has become the latest fashion. So as Vaisnavas, what should be our attitude towards America? We should first analyze how Srila Prabhupada felt towards America, especially in his last days. Of course he strongly condemned the materialistic western societies, and their ideologies as well. But did Srila Prabhupada hate America? No, he did not. The reality is that he felt himself so indebted to America for “giving him her children, money, and resources”, to quote his own words, that he wanted to come back to America one last time even though he was only months away from death and could not even walk. He desired very strongly to come to America, to visit the Gita Nagari farm. He stopped in Britian on the way, and after a few days he told Tamal Krishna Goswami that he felt too sick to make the trip, and so they went back to Vrindavan, instead of coming to the Gita-Nagari farm as was planned. That is how indebted Srila Prabhupada felt himself to the Americans, that he was willing to come one last time to America, even in such a physically weakened condition. Think about this for a moment, before continuing.


    Based on the above information, it might be slightly offensive to Srila Prabhupada to speak anti-American views and slurs, when he was on his deathbed and still he could not forget how obliged he felt himself to America.



    So now George W. can quote Srila Prabhupada as to how great America is.


    Articles like this are further evidence of the fundamentalism that is found in the western branch of Gaudiyaism....

  6. I think the Christian Vaisnavas are really loosing the plot with their "your being offensive to Christ" statements. I often find this "you're-being-offensive prabhu" tatic being used by devotees when they are loosing a argument, or don't like what is being said.


    The other tatic used by devotees is to use the "Srila Prabhupada says..." tatic. The problem with this tatic is that Srila Prabhupada said many things on many topics. Sometimes it appears he contradicts himself. So when you say "Srila Prabhpada says..." please mention the context in which he said what he said. There's a "Srila Prabhupada says..." for nearly everything. I looked at the VNN article mention by Guruvani, and Srila Prabhuopada is less than complamentary towards Christians.


    One last thought: How many Jesus threads have there being on here since this forum started?


    Wasn't it only last month when someone said Jesus is Kalki?

  7. Here we go again. Christian Vaisnavaism or should that be Vaisnava Christianity? What is it with you guys?


    As I keep asking, why are there no murtis of Christ in any Vaisnava temple in India? Why isn't this form of "Vaisnavism" found in the writings of the Gosvamis? Why do you have sentimentality towards your former religion? Next you'll be telling us that Jesus died for our sins.


    Even IF Jesus was an acarya, he is a pretty minor one when compared to the great Vaisnava acarays. Jesus or Haridas Thakura, for example? Haridas Thakura by a long way. Jesus or any of Mahaprahu's associates? Again, Mahapraphu's associates. So in the scheme of things Jesus is, and should be, a minor character in the Vaisnava world. Just because Christianity is the biggest religion on this planet, it doesn't mean that Jesus should be mixed into Vaisnavaism.


    It makes me cringe when devotees celebrate christmas day or easter by chanting "Jesus ki jaya" at the end of arti or put Jesus pictures on their altars and do puja to him.


    Be a Christian or be a Vaisnava, you can't be both.


    Just because Srila Prabhupada says we should love Jesus if we love Krishna, does not mean we should worship Jesus. Not to love all jivas is jiva apradha, so in that sense I respect Jesus.

  8. There had been much debate about Srila Prabhupada's original successors. Some believe he did appoint them and some believe he didn't appoint them.


    Now imagine that you are one of those original young sucessors, and you want and need others to recongise you as a pure devotee or guru. At fist everyone starts to worship you as good as God. You start giving classes and say that the jiva was originally with Krsna in the spiritul world, because Srila Prabhupada said so in this classes.


    Then someone goes to other Vaisnavas in India and learns that the jiva was never with Krishna. That person comes back to the West and tells other what he had learned. What do you, a pure devotee and Guru, do about this upstart?


    Firstly, you condemn the upstart, and the upstart's Guru. Secondly, ban him and others like him then you meet with your other successor guru friends and issue whole society edicts telling everyone that Srila Prabhupada is the only way and anyone who doubts you doubts Srila Prabhupada.


    Still, more devotees learn that the jiva didn't fall from the spiritual world. The issue becomes a major issue. Your position as a guru is under threat. you are thinking "If my disciples think I'm wrong about jiva tattva then they will reject me." You and other gurus look to Srila Prabhupada's lectures and find quotes to bolster your views. You breathe a sign of relief.


    Still more devotees question the fall theory by pointing out that Srila Prabhupada's books clearly state that the jiva cannot from the spiritual world. Many of your original co-successor's fall down, only to be replaced by others. You need the fall theory to be believed. You and your co-successors wish the issue would go away.


    Then you have the bright idea of publishing a book about the fall theory, still the issue refuses to go away. Even though, other acaryas state that the jiva doesn't fall you, in a final attempt to bolster the fall theory, play the Srila-Prabhupada-is-the-only-way card to hide the flaws and illogic of the fall theory. Devotees in your society accept the idea to show their loyality to Srila Prabhupada. To question you is tyo question Srila Prabhupada.


    Your guruship is maintained and many devotees have excepted the fall theory. The fall theory now has a life of it's own, with newer and newer developments within the philosophy.



    I wonder if this could happen in real life?


    [Rolling my eyes] Right, right. I'm sure HerServant (and most of the rest of us) are well aware of this fact. Let's add to that that much of Hinduism as practiced today is a perversion of the Vedic ideals. Same goes for Islam (and Muslim ideals). Why did you bring this up? Feeling a little bitter, maybe?



    There is Christ of History and Christ of faith. The historical Christ is very different from the Christ of faith. Most of modern christianity is based on Saint Paul's version of Christ. Saint Paul even argued against those disciples who actually met Christ. Christ's brother James, who was the first christian bishop, is written out the estabished Christian history. Why? Because James' understanding of Jesus conflicts with Paul's version. James' version of Christ did not involve salvation via the blood of Christ.


    So Jesus as understood by many Christians today is not the historial Jesus. So trying meld Gaudiya teaching with a politically motivated version of Jesus won't wash with me.


    Imagine if a devotee started a Prahupadaism cult, and argued against Prahupada disciples, claimed that Srila Prabhupada died for our sins, and this devotee views became widespread. Then 400 years after Prahupada's disappearance this devotee's followers vote to make Srila Prabhupada God, and this view dominated. And this devotees writing became "sastra". Would you accept that?


    Well this happened with Jesus. Check out Christian history....check out the councils of Orange, Nicea...anyone who didn't argree with politics of the time were banned etc...


    Check out the writings of James, Jesus' brother...check out the Gospels not found in the official Bible.



    Once again, this is off the topic. Time, place and circumstances. Gaudiya Vaishnavas might not find the Christian mood to be palatable, but, obviously, there are many souls for whom this Rasa resonates. Is this Christian doctrine not also part of the mercy of the Lord?


    Salvation via the death of Jesus is not a rasa, since political theology is not bhakti. Srila Bhaktisiddhnata, in line with our acaryas,criticised salvation as it is reward seeking. Bhakti is devoid of reward seeking as explained by Srila Rupa Gosvami's first verse of Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu.



    Why is Srimati Radharani not mentioned by name in the Srimad Bhagavatam?


    Radhika is not mentioned by name because Sukadeva would have gone into to samadhi upon uttering her Holy Name., and would not have been able to finish his narration of the Bhagavatam.


    Although not mentioned by name, she is mentioned. She is mentioned by the gopis as they go looking for the Lord after he vanishes from the Rasa-dance. They glorify her importance.





    Can you be so certain that Jesus is *not* mentioned in the writings of the Goswamis (I'm not claiming that he is)? Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not mentioned by name in Srimad Bhagavatam, but the sages with greater insight than you and I have pointed out the evidence for the rest of us.


    Like Radhika, Mahaprabu is not mentioned by name, but he is mentioned by Garga muni as a hidden avatara.


    How? Could Sri Chaitanya even be minimized by anything? Please answer. I am also curious, has Sri Chaitanya asked for you to come to His defense? I don't see how this thread conflicts in anyway with the glories of Sri Chaitanya.


    Of course Sri Caitanya hasn't asked me to come to his defense. Silly question.


    Kalki is due to appear at the end of Kali-yuga. Since Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago, this would mean that Kali-yuga ended then (if Jesus was Kalki.) So Sri Caitanya would have been incorrect when he spoke about this age being Kali-yuga. His sankitana movement being the process for awakening Krishna-prema in Kali-yuga could not be true, since it is no longer Kali-yuga accorrding to the Jesus=Kali devotees.


    What age is it, if not Kali-yuga? Or is it that Jesus forgot to mention to Mahaprabhu that Kali-yuga ended 25th December 5 B.C.?


    At this point I will raise what many will experience as an uncomfortable question.


    Kalki is said to come at the conjunction of the two yugas, Kali & Satya, and that conjunction is said to be 427,000 years away. We are expected to believe that the geography of the earth will be like it is today with Shambala in the north of India etc.


    A lot of changes come in 427,000 years.


    Do you really believe this prophecy to be factually correct? If so, why do you believe it?


    What's wrong with saying yes?


    In SB, it is mentioned that Kalki will be born in the house of Visnu Yasa. Visnu Yasa is a single person. Here Yasa is not used for Kalki.


    Proofs have been given to claim different people as Kalki - Bahaullah, Muhammad, Jesus.


    Therefore, Christ is not Kalki. The information that is being ignored by these Jesus=Kalki, Muhammad=Kalki people is that Kalki is to appear at the conjunction of two yugas. Neither, Jesus or Muhammad fit this description.


    The saddest thing of all, is how Jesus=Kali etc "devotees" minimise Sri Chaitanya by their claims.


    Jesus does not give the highest rasa, nor does Muhammad. Only Chaitanya gives the highest prema that's one of the reason's he appeared in this Kali yuga.


    Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Visnu Yas'aa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers.


    This verse does not apply to Christ, since Christ did not appear at the conjunction of two yugas.


    I find it alarming that "Christian-Vaisnavas", try to mould the two different faiths together.


    Christianity as practised today is actually St. Paulism and churchianity.


    Just a few questions:


    Why are there no pictures or "murtis" of Christ in any temple in Vrndanava or Navadvip?


    Why is this Jesus-vaisnava concoction not mentioned in the writing of the Gosvamis?


    Why is that the "son of God" not mentioned directly in the Vedas?


    Why is it that the main Chrisitian belief of salvation through the violent death of their saviour not found as a limb of bhakti in Gaudiya sastra?


    P.S. my comments on CC is largely due to the rejection of all other scriptures by the HKs except ones that don't line up with their own philosophy. I have given examples of many including Mahabharata and quoted extensively from it and shiva Purana and shiva Gita. But the devotees could never give any explaination on them. They simply rejected them as fabricated. Regards.


    Hk's? Do you mean Iskcon, GM, or Gaudiyas in general? I don't consider myself a HK as for most people this means Iskcon, and I'm not a member of that organisation. I perfer to be called a Vaisnava.


    Where's your evidence that Gaudiya's reject Mahabharata?


    The CC is consistent with the Vedic scriptures, and your rejection of CC because you perceive HK's (?) rejection of Shiva Purana etc is rather silly. It seems you have an axe to grind.


    So we can overide Shastra and Vedas and Puranas with Chaitanya Charitamrita then...? We thought Chaitanya Charitamrita dealt basically with Lord Chaitanya's pastimes and understanding him and was written in Kaliyuga.


    It is obvious that you haven't read these chapters, since the Vedas and Puranas are quoted in these chapters to show Sri Krishna is the source of Maha Vishnu.


    Sri Caitanya-caritamrta is sastra. I like said, read it!

  • Create New...