krishna_s

I don't see how ISKCON can claim to be a bona fide, Vedaantic tradition if it embraced a post-samaadhi ritvik initiation concept. There is no shaastric precedent for such a thing. Shaastras do not provide for accepting initiation from a departed guru though the medium of an unqualified individual.

I can't help but note that, once again, you have offered no reply to Bhaktivinod Thakura's criticisms of Christianity in that Tattva-Viveka excerpt previously posted (twice now in this very thread). But of course, you don't seem to have any problem with what he wrote, only the fact that I pointed out that he wrote it. Not only that, but you don't really seem to have any idea what I wrote, since your only concern demonstrated above is the good character of Christ, which was not a subject of any of my postings. If you aren't going to read what I write, then why bother responding? A position that is refuted by scripture should be retracted by men who are honest; ignoring such scriptural considerations and knocking down strawmen does you no credit. For what it's worth, you are a hypocrite. When you couldn't respond to my objections, you tried to play the "Prabhupada" card by implying that I did not value his teachings. But then you tried to quote Bhaktivinod Thakur when you thought he supported your position, only to ignore him when his actual comments about Christianity were revealed. Furthermore, when I pointed out, from a scriptural standpoint, the practices in contemporary Christianity which make it unacceptable from a Vedic perspective, you say I am insulting Christ, being rude, etc. But then you yourself say things like: "Sometimes we are so dull, naturally, that we cannot understand." "Will one be swan-like or ass-like? But then, does one have a choice?" Obviously, you have no problem hurling real insults back at me. Then again, I'm no Christ. So maybe you feel that hurling insults at ordinary jiivas is acceptable when a rational, evidence-based response escapes one. At least if you were a maayaavaadii, I could argue that you are just being rude to yourself. I'm obviously not going to get a response from you that has anything to do with what I wrote. And you obviously aren't going to extricate yourself from this discussion without trying to publicly convince everyone that I'm guilty of all sorts of evil character flaws, as if that somehow changed the scriptural injunctions and their implications. - K

I can't help but note that, once again, you have offered no reply to Bhaktivinod Thakura's criticisms of Christianity in that Tattva-Viveka excerpt previously posted (twice now in this very thread). But of course, you don't seem to have any problem with what he wrote, only the fact that I pointed out that he wrote it. Not only that, but you don't really seem to have any idea what I wrote, since your only concern demonstrated above is the good character of Christ, which was not a subject of any of my postings. If you aren't going to read what I write, then why bother responding? A position that is refuted by scripture should be retracted by men who are honest; ignoring such scriptural considerations and knocking down strawmen does you no credit. For what it's worth, you are a hypocrite. When you couldn't respond to my objections, you tried to play the "Prabhupada" card by implying that I did not value his teachings. But then you tried to quote Bhaktivinod Thakur when you thought he supported your position, only to ignore him when his actual comments about Christianity were revealed. Furthermore, when I pointed out, from a scriptural standpoint, the practices in contemporary Christianity which make it unacceptable from a Vedic perspective, you say I am insulting Christ, being rude, etc. But then you yourself say things like: "Sometimes we are so dull, naturally, that we cannot understand." "Will one be swan-like or ass-like? But then, does one have a choice?" Obviously, you have no problem hurling real insults back at me. Then again, I'm no Christ. So maybe you feel that hurling insults at ordinary jiivas is acceptable when a rational, evidence-based response escapes one. At least if you were a maayaavaadii, I could argue that you are just being rude to yourself. I'm obviously not going to get a response from you that has anything to do with what I wrote. And you obviously aren't going to extricate yourself from this discussion without trying to publicly convince everyone that I'm guilty of all sorts of evil character flaws, as if that somehow changed the scriptural injunctions and their implications. - K

Theist, you get an answer to your question when I get an answer to mine. Rest assured I have no fear of answering any questions you have about milk drinking or whatever. My conscience on this point is quite clean - I do look quite carefully into what I buy before I buy it. I just object in principle to people like you who ignore everything I write, only to ask tangential questions with little if any relevance to what is being discussed. You demand answers from me, but you refuse to address any questions I have aired on this forum. Answer my questions and then I will answer yours. Continue to ignore my objections and I will leave you to your speculations. Just as an aside, whether I condemn or do not condemn someone's meat-eating is not the point. The point is that the scriptures clearly condemn it, which is why contemporary Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious tradition according to Vedic literature. You can go on and rail all you want about any alleged hypocrisies in my behavior (that being a typical ISKCON tactic), but what the scriptures say remains the same. And this has been my whole point all along. But you and gHari want to turn this away from scriptural considerations and more into an issue of some perceived personal problem I allegedly have against Christianity. I have little respect for that sort of dishonesty. I have made it abundantly clear that the scriptures take a position. If I'm a hypocrite as you allege, that position still does not change. If ISKCON devotees hadn't managed to so muck up the issue regarding Vaishnavism and Christianity, I would not have to point it out. And if their speculations had not been so difficult to defend, you would not have to turn this into a character debate, as many fanatics do when they paint themselves into a corner with their unfounded speculations. yours, - K

Theist, you get an answer to your question when I get an answer to mine. Rest assured I have no fear of answering any questions you have about milk drinking or whatever. My conscience on this point is quite clean - I do look quite carefully into what I buy before I buy it. I just object in principle to people like you who ignore everything I write, only to ask tangential questions with little if any relevance to what is being discussed. You demand answers from me, but you refuse to address any questions I have aired on this forum. Answer my questions and then I will answer yours. Continue to ignore my objections and I will leave you to your speculations. Just as an aside, whether I condemn or do not condemn someone's meat-eating is not the point. The point is that the scriptures clearly condemn it, which is why contemporary Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious tradition according to Vedic literature. You can go on and rail all you want about any alleged hypocrisies in my behavior (that being a typical ISKCON tactic), but what the scriptures say remains the same. And this has been my whole point all along. But you and gHari want to turn this away from scriptural considerations and more into an issue of some perceived personal problem I allegedly have against Christianity. I have little respect for that sort of dishonesty. I have made it abundantly clear that the scriptures take a position. If I'm a hypocrite as you allege, that position still does not change. If ISKCON devotees hadn't managed to so muck up the issue regarding Vaishnavism and Christianity, I would not have to point it out. And if their speculations had not been so difficult to defend, you would not have to turn this into a character debate, as many fanatics do when they paint themselves into a corner with their unfounded speculations. yours, - K

gHari would you like to comment on Bhaktivinod Thakur's Tattva-Viveka comments on Christianity? Or were you only willing to use Bhaktivinod when you thought his writings would support your agenda? I guess you demonstrate by your silence what you truly think of Bhaktivinod Thakur - not an absolute authority, but to be accepted only when you agree with him. It generally helps when people read what I write, instead of reading INTO what I wrote. In any case, no one, be it Theist, Audarya-lila, or yourself have offered any response to any specific points I have brought up, choosing instead to knock down strawmen. If I say Jesus is not Krishna, you respond that I am defying Prabhupada, quoting him as saying that Jesus is a pure devotee (which is not the same thing as saying he is Krishna and in fact contradicts that and supports what I have said...). If I say meat-eating is wrong for everybody, you say again I am defying Prabhupada, although SRila Prabhupada himself never excused meat-eating for Christians and in fact argued with them viciously on this subject. If I say Vedas have absolute authority, and not just relative authority for Hindus only, you decry this as fundamentalism, even though this is the position of all Vaishnava aachaaryas including Srila Prabhupada. If I say that ISKCON devotees are guilty of a double standard for criticizing Hindus for sins which they overlook when judging Christians, you reply with more accusations of prejudice, bigotry, etc. All I have set out to prove is that contemporary Christian ideas, and the heresies in ISKCON based on appeasement of that religious group, have no support in Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada. I have also pointed out that you have no objective evidence by which to determine what the original Christianity must have been like. In response to this, Theist wants to talk about milk-drinking, while Audarya-lila wants to talk about how you can't arbitrarily judge one set of scriptures to be more authoritative than another's. Ignoring for the moment the moral-relativism inherent in that line of argument, since when has it been the subject of anything I brought up? Never. Go back and reread carefully what I have written. I will summarize it again: 1) Contemporary (i.e. today) Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path according to Vedic culture, what with its views on animal-killing, its attempt to identify Jesus as God, its attempt to assign a material body to God, etc. 2) Original Christianity of Jesus Christ may or may not have been different from contemporary Christianity and also bona fide in some sense, but we lack objective evidence to prove that to anyone who is not a follower of Srila Prabhupada 3) Even if original Christianity was different from contemporary Christiantity and a bona fide path in its own way, it is still not a path that independently leads to the supreme goal - like karma-yoga, jnaana-yoga, varnaashrama-dharma, etc it at best reforms one so they can practice bhakti-yoga (see evidence already quoted). The evidence from the Bhaagavata clearly indicates that by bhakti-yoga beginning with Hari-naama only does one attain the supreme goal. (if you have a problem with this "fundamentalism" please take it up with Vyaasa, all I have done is to quote his very straightforward statements) in this regard. 4) Many ideas based on appeasement of Christians, such as the idea that Jesus is Krishna Himself, that Christianity is an equal alternative to Vaishnavism and that one need not take to worship of Vishnu, that chanting Jehovah is equal to chanting of Hare Krishna, that meat-eating is acceptable for Christians and that they can still make spiritual advancement despite eating meat, that Vedic injunctions are relevant to Hindus only, etc etc. are all heresies with no support from shaastra or Srila Prabhupada. Their popularity does not make them correct. 5) The criticism of Hindus for acts which are also committed by Christians, even though the latter are not criticized, is a blatant double standard that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If devotees wish to criticize, they should do so based on a uniform standard, rather than appeasing those with whom they have some personal sympathy. Better yet, devotees can show compassion for all, by honestly pointing out the errors committed by *both* Hindus and Christians with specific reference to shaastra, and encouraging both to give up their mental preconceptions and try to follow the proper dharma. None of the above are controversial positions. I have either plainly stated the truth or showed how the truth is understood by reference to straightforward evidence. If one lacks the intellectual honesty to respond to what I have written or retract their speculations, then I have nothing further to say to them. Fanatics and sentimentalists never like to have their bluff called. But the truth is an easier position to defend, even if it does not always win out in the age of Kali Yuga. As I said before, you can either respond to what I have written, or you can argue on some other tangent and knock down strawmen. I won't dignify any more examples of the latter with a response. yours, - K

gHari would you like to comment on Bhaktivinod Thakur's Tattva-Viveka comments on Christianity? Or were you only willing to use Bhaktivinod when you thought his writings would support your agenda? I guess you demonstrate by your silence what you truly think of Bhaktivinod Thakur - not an absolute authority, but to be accepted only when you agree with him. It generally helps when people read what I write, instead of reading INTO what I wrote. In any case, no one, be it Theist, Audarya-lila, or yourself have offered any response to any specific points I have brought up, choosing instead to knock down strawmen. If I say Jesus is not Krishna, you respond that I am defying Prabhupada, quoting him as saying that Jesus is a pure devotee (which is not the same thing as saying he is Krishna and in fact contradicts that and supports what I have said...). If I say meat-eating is wrong for everybody, you say again I am defying Prabhupada, although SRila Prabhupada himself never excused meat-eating for Christians and in fact argued with them viciously on this subject. If I say Vedas have absolute authority, and not just relative authority for Hindus only, you decry this as fundamentalism, even though this is the position of all Vaishnava aachaaryas including Srila Prabhupada. If I say that ISKCON devotees are guilty of a double standard for criticizing Hindus for sins which they overlook when judging Christians, you reply with more accusations of prejudice, bigotry, etc. All I have set out to prove is that contemporary Christian ideas, and the heresies in ISKCON based on appeasement of that religious group, have no support in Vedic literature or Srila Prabhupada. I have also pointed out that you have no objective evidence by which to determine what the original Christianity must have been like. In response to this, Theist wants to talk about milk-drinking, while Audarya-lila wants to talk about how you can't arbitrarily judge one set of scriptures to be more authoritative than another's. Ignoring for the moment the moral-relativism inherent in that line of argument, since when has it been the subject of anything I brought up? Never. Go back and reread carefully what I have written. I will summarize it again: 1) Contemporary (i.e. today) Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path according to Vedic culture, what with its views on animal-killing, its attempt to identify Jesus as God, its attempt to assign a material body to God, etc. 2) Original Christianity of Jesus Christ may or may not have been different from contemporary Christianity and also bona fide in some sense, but we lack objective evidence to prove that to anyone who is not a follower of Srila Prabhupada 3) Even if original Christianity was different from contemporary Christiantity and a bona fide path in its own way, it is still not a path that independently leads to the supreme goal - like karma-yoga, jnaana-yoga, varnaashrama-dharma, etc it at best reforms one so they can practice bhakti-yoga (see evidence already quoted). The evidence from the Bhaagavata clearly indicates that by bhakti-yoga beginning with Hari-naama only does one attain the supreme goal. (if you have a problem with this "fundamentalism" please take it up with Vyaasa, all I have done is to quote his very straightforward statements) in this regard. 4) Many ideas based on appeasement of Christians, such as the idea that Jesus is Krishna Himself, that Christianity is an equal alternative to Vaishnavism and that one need not take to worship of Vishnu, that chanting Jehovah is equal to chanting of Hare Krishna, that meat-eating is acceptable for Christians and that they can still make spiritual advancement despite eating meat, that Vedic injunctions are relevant to Hindus only, etc etc. are all heresies with no support from shaastra or Srila Prabhupada. Their popularity does not make them correct. 5) The criticism of Hindus for acts which are also committed by Christians, even though the latter are not criticized, is a blatant double standard that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If devotees wish to criticize, they should do so based on a uniform standard, rather than appeasing those with whom they have some personal sympathy. Better yet, devotees can show compassion for all, by honestly pointing out the errors committed by *both* Hindus and Christians with specific reference to shaastra, and encouraging both to give up their mental preconceptions and try to follow the proper dharma. None of the above are controversial positions. I have either plainly stated the truth or showed how the truth is understood by reference to straightforward evidence. If one lacks the intellectual honesty to respond to what I have written or retract their speculations, then I have nothing further to say to them. Fanatics and sentimentalists never like to have their bluff called. But the truth is an easier position to defend, even if it does not always win out in the age of Kali Yuga. As I said before, you can either respond to what I have written, or you can argue on some other tangent and knock down strawmen. I won't dignify any more examples of the latter with a response. yours, - K

Theist wrote: Would you like to respond to the evidence presented, or are you going to retract your position? Either would be acceptable conduct in this context; hurling derisive remarks at me gains you nothing. - K

Theist wrote: Would you like to respond to the evidence presented, or are you going to retract your position? Either would be acceptable conduct in this context; hurling derisive remarks at me gains you nothing. - K

A guest wrote: There are indeed a number of books available. Consider for example, the well known publication of "Ramakrishna's Foot" by Jeffrey Kripal, based as it is on the Ramakrishna Kathamrita authored by Ramakrishna's own disciple Mahendranath Gupta. Kripal very elegantly deconstructs the entire Ramakrishna myth, revealing a man who was motivated more by homoerotic sensuality in the guise of Tantra and Kali bhakti rather than anything genuinely spiritual in the Vedic sense. People who are ignorant of shaastra take bhakti very cheaply. That he had popular appeal does not make him a devotee. Ananya-bhakti is defined in shaastras, not in the imaginations of the uneducated, lay population. - K

A guest wrote: There are indeed a number of books available. Consider for example, the well known publication of "Ramakrishna's Foot" by Jeffrey Kripal, based as it is on the Ramakrishna Kathamrita authored by Ramakrishna's own disciple Mahendranath Gupta. Kripal very elegantly deconstructs the entire Ramakrishna myth, revealing a man who was motivated more by homoerotic sensuality in the guise of Tantra and Kali bhakti rather than anything genuinely spiritual in the Vedic sense. People who are ignorant of shaastra take bhakti very cheaply. That he had popular appeal does not make him a devotee. Ananya-bhakti is defined in shaastras, not in the imaginations of the uneducated, lay population. - K

gHari, before you ascribe something to Srila Bhaktivinod, based on a text he wrote which was not intended for devotees, why don't you read this? This is the excerpt I was referring to, only it is from Tattva-Viveka. I find it illuminating. Perhaps you would do well to consider it also (thanks to Jahnava-Nitai for finding it). As you can see, gHari, this is obviously in regards to Christianity, and it isn't terribly positive. Now my question is, are you going to follow suit since Srila Bhaktivinod wrote this, or are you going to stay firmly planted on *your* high horse? regards, - K

gHari, before you ascribe something to Srila Bhaktivinod, based on a text he wrote which was not intended for devotees, why don't you read this? This is the excerpt I was referring to, only it is from Tattva-Viveka. I find it illuminating. Perhaps you would do well to consider it also (thanks to Jahnava-Nitai for finding it). As you can see, gHari, this is obviously in regards to Christianity, and it isn't terribly positive. Now my question is, are you going to follow suit since Srila Bhaktivinod wrote this, or are you going to stay firmly planted on *your* high horse? regards, - K

I find it even more curious that, despite stating my objections clearly and with recourse to reasoning, nevertheless your responses are based wholly on sectarian bias and sentiment with no regard for the evidence. Yes, I admit openly that I find cow-killing in this age of Kali to be repulsive. Especially when it is done by people who claim to be followers of a "religion." A common ISKCON devotee argument goes likes this: "Christianity and Islam are bona fide paths to God. But many of the things they do today (like cow-killing) are due to their own misinterpretations of the original Christianity and Islam. The original Christianity and Islam are nothing like they are today." Proponents of this argument point out that the Bible, with all its references to eating of meat, etc were heavily edited/interpolated around the time of the Council of Nicea (4th-5th century if memory serves). Based on that argument, we do not have access to the original Bible. Devotees conclude that the original Bible was far more compatible with Sanaatana-dharma, but my point simply is that if we don't have access to the original, then we don't know one way or another. We can't conclude, objectively speaking, that the original must have been more compatible with our religious views merely because it serves our agenda. I believe that was a clear enough statement on my part. You can either respond to this, or you can continue to indulge in accusations of prejudice to cover up for your inability to respond convincingly in an evidence-based fashion. Great. I love to be educated. So quote to me the original Biblical injunctions against cow-killing, and I will gladly admit I'm wrong. I'm still waiting for that to happen. It was until Guest wrote on 7/9/03: "these are authentic religions... maybe in origin they have not defects(because they are given by the lord or a spiritual master).. " My response was to this point only. If you have a problem with the change of emphasis in this thread, then take it up with Guest. Usually conclusions come after deliberations based on evidence. Were you planning on addressing the points of contention, or were you just hoping that by saying something with confidence, I would just accept it as factual? Christians say that Jesus is both the son of God, as well as God Himself. But then they say that Jesus suffered during the crucifixion. He is commonly depicted as bleeding and injured in this regard. Of course, Krishna gave the illusion that He was "wounded" during the battle of Kurukshetra. But Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus actually suffered for our sins, rather than the suffering being a mere illusion. Thus assigning a material body to God, this is one thing in common which Christians have with Advaitins. Christians cannot describe the sat-chid-aananda vigraha of their worshipable Lord. In the few cases where they do, such as in the paintings of Michelangelo, God is depicted as a very old man. Thus, Christians either refuse to describe the form of God (making their God concept impersonal), or they base their concept of God on the materialistic notion that because He is the oldest living entity, He must therefore look old. In either case, the conception is based on a lack of understanding of the transcendental body of the Lord - a type of misunderstanding shared by many impersonalists. If Christianity were indeed a bona fide religion, there would be no need for it to have "developed" the principle of cow-protection, since religion is handed down by the Lord: "In the Srimad Bhagavad-gita the Lord asserts that He appears in every millennium just to reestablish the way of religion. The way of religion is made by the Supreme Lord." (SB 1.8.35 purport) naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH | naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 || The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.15). Thus, if Christianity was truly handed down by Naaraayana, the principle of cow-protection would be present there also. So Christians can be non-violent even though they eat cows? So on one hand, you criticize those devotees who use fertilizers and drink milk because of the violent means by which these things are manufactured/provided, but you look the other way when Christians blatantly eat cow meat. The point here, of course, is not whether or not Hindus can be doing things more in accord with shaastra. That is a separate discussion. The point here is whether or not contemporary Christianity and pure Christianity are bona fide religions inspired by beings familiar with Sanaatana-dharma with a goal of establishing an alternate route to self-realization. As far as this is concerned, it is obvious that Christianity, even in its purest form, cannot be an alternate route to self-realization any more than karma yoga or jnaana yoga are valid alternatives to bhakti yoga. The shaastras clearly state: kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha | kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa 1.3.43 || This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43). Note that no such claims have been made about any other Puraana, what to speak of any other non-Vedic scripture, like the Bible. Also we have: bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa shakya aham eva.m-vidho 'rjuna | j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 || My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54) Only by undivided devotional service (ananya-bhakti) can one attain the Supreme Lord. Thus, believing that Christianity is an alternative to Vaishnavism requires believing that you can get undivided devotional service to God in a religion where His name, form, qualities, and pastimes are not even revealed to you. etaavaaneve loke'smin pu.msaa.m dharmaH paraH smR^itaH | bhaktiyogo bhagavati tannaamagrahaNaadibhiH || bhaa 6.3.22 || Devotional service, beginning with the chanting of the holy name of the Lord, is the ultimate religious principle for the living entity in human society (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.3.22). Note that devotional service here is specific for devotional service to Vishnu, and is implicitly understood to refer to undivided devotional service. Furthermore, even if one could learn "bhakti" by studying Christianity, it is stated here that not just any kind of bhakti, but that bhakti beginning with Harinaama, is the ultimate religious principle. Does Christianity teach Harinaama? Far from it - contemporary Christians regard Vishnu as a "Hindu god," His archa-vigraha as a "craven image," or "idol," and His followers to be mere idolaters. Finally, we have the very well-known verse from the Brhad-Naaradiiya Puraana: harer naama harer naam harer naamaiva kevalam | kalau naastyaiva naastyaiva naastyaiva gatir anyathaa || Which clearly states that there is "no other way" to achieve the supreme goal but by chanting the name of Hari. Thus, accepting these statements of the Vedas, one cannot honestly accept the Bible as an alternative religion, sufficient to bring one to God-realization. Therefore, the Bible is at best a stepping stone for people to bring them back into Vedic culture, rather than a complete alternative to God-realization. However, even a bona fide path that brings people back towards Vedic culture would logically require that they be reformed from sinful activities so that they acquire the qualification to approach the Bhaagavatam. But it is well known that in contemporary Christianity at least, meat eating and even beef eating are perfectly acceptable even for casual consumption, and no sin is thought to be earned through such a nefarious practice. Please see the quotes below which clearly describe the consequences of meat-eating, and then try to tell me in all honesty that a Christian can eat meat in such circumstances and still make "spiritual advancement." Bhagavad-giitaa is extremely clear on this point, that without following the regulative principles, one cannot attain the supreme goal: yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH | na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 || He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23) tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau | j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 || One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24) maa.m sa bhakShayitaa'mutra yasya maa.msamihaad myaham | etatmaa.msasya maa.msatva.m pravadanti maniiShiNaH || MS 5.55 || 'Me he (mam sah)' will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word 'flesh' (mamsah) (manu smR^iti 5.55). anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii | sa.mskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashcheti ghaatakaaH || MS 5.51 || He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51). yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam | vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smR^iti 5.38). Thus, what you think or do not think is besides the point. The danger is in thinking that because someone follows another religion, they are therefore entitled to commit grossly sinful activities and still make spiritual advancement. What kind of logic is this? Are Vedas only applicable to Hindus? This is the logic of maayaavaadiis but not those of Vaishnava Vedaantins. By relativizing the position of the Vedas, ISKCON devotees only succeed in making Srila Prabhupada a laughing stock amongst other Vedaantins. [tangential sentiments deleted] Being followers of Mahaaprabhu does not mean sentimental acceptance of non-Vedic doctrines and ignoring evidence, logic, and common-sense. Far from convincing me of anything, all you have done is prove my point - that the overemphasis on Srila Prabhupada's praise of Christianity has led to numerous heresies among Western devotees, some of which you just demonstrated here: relativizing the Vedas and excusing the sin of cow-killing. My point all along is that Krishna-consciousness (and thus, the Vedic literature, sanaatana-dharma, etc) should be taken AS IT IS. When I made this point to maayaavaadi Hindus, I was labeled as a "fundamentalist" by them. Similarly, the same is being done by Christian sympathizers within ISKCON. In both cases the accusations are leveled by people who can't admit that their bluff has been called. ISKCON devotees need to abandon this perpetual double standard - on one hand they criticize many contemporary Advaitins, even the pious ones, but on the other hand they are full of praise for Christianity despite its permissive attitude towards grossly sinful activity. The same standard needs to be applied for all, rather than adopting one standard for the "Hindoos" and another for Christianity. It used to be that critics of Sanaatana-dharma took the position of University intellectuals and published volumes of anti-Vedic, pseudo-scholarly rubbish. This was the age of Max Muller, H.H. Wilson, et. al. But today, we are seeing a different trend: Christians who cannot fully let go of their own religion just convert to Vaishnavism thanks to the causeless mercy of a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada, and then use this newfound position as a platform to praise Christianity, relativize the Vedas, and lash out at whatever misguided "Hindoos" in the ISKCON congregation who object.* I wonder which approach of attacking Sanaatana-dharma from within - the arrogant British Indologists, or the closet-Christian-turned-Vaishnava, is the more effective one? yours, - K * For example, I recall one ISKCON Sunday feast class I attended in Honolulu in the summer of 1996, in which the speaker (his name was something like Guru-Kripa das and he was praised as a "senior devotee" of ISKCON) boldly asserted that all demigods were rascals and their worshippers were rascals, regardless of whatever other pious qualifications they might posess. But of course, the same was not true of Christians, even though they might be meat-eaters and liquor drinkers. He also stated that the Upanishadic statement "maatro devo bhava pitro devo bhava aachaarya devo bhava" was nothing more than maayaavaadii speculation, and that the Hindu ceremony performed for the death of a departed love one was also tainted by maayaavaada. Go figure. WIth "devotees" like this in ISKCON, who needs critics like Max Muller?

I find it even more curious that, despite stating my objections clearly and with recourse to reasoning, nevertheless your responses are based wholly on sectarian bias and sentiment with no regard for the evidence. Yes, I admit openly that I find cow-killing in this age of Kali to be repulsive. Especially when it is done by people who claim to be followers of a "religion." A common ISKCON devotee argument goes likes this: "Christianity and Islam are bona fide paths to God. But many of the things they do today (like cow-killing) are due to their own misinterpretations of the original Christianity and Islam. The original Christianity and Islam are nothing like they are today." Proponents of this argument point out that the Bible, with all its references to eating of meat, etc were heavily edited/interpolated around the time of the Council of Nicea (4th-5th century if memory serves). Based on that argument, we do not have access to the original Bible. Devotees conclude that the original Bible was far more compatible with Sanaatana-dharma, but my point simply is that if we don't have access to the original, then we don't know one way or another. We can't conclude, objectively speaking, that the original must have been more compatible with our religious views merely because it serves our agenda. I believe that was a clear enough statement on my part. You can either respond to this, or you can continue to indulge in accusations of prejudice to cover up for your inability to respond convincingly in an evidence-based fashion. Great. I love to be educated. So quote to me the original Biblical injunctions against cow-killing, and I will gladly admit I'm wrong. I'm still waiting for that to happen. It was until Guest wrote on 7/9/03: "these are authentic religions... maybe in origin they have not defects(because they are given by the lord or a spiritual master).. " My response was to this point only. If you have a problem with the change of emphasis in this thread, then take it up with Guest. Usually conclusions come after deliberations based on evidence. Were you planning on addressing the points of contention, or were you just hoping that by saying something with confidence, I would just accept it as factual? Christians say that Jesus is both the son of God, as well as God Himself. But then they say that Jesus suffered during the crucifixion. He is commonly depicted as bleeding and injured in this regard. Of course, Krishna gave the illusion that He was "wounded" during the battle of Kurukshetra. But Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus actually suffered for our sins, rather than the suffering being a mere illusion. Thus assigning a material body to God, this is one thing in common which Christians have with Advaitins. Christians cannot describe the sat-chid-aananda vigraha of their worshipable Lord. In the few cases where they do, such as in the paintings of Michelangelo, God is depicted as a very old man. Thus, Christians either refuse to describe the form of God (making their God concept impersonal), or they base their concept of God on the materialistic notion that because He is the oldest living entity, He must therefore look old. In either case, the conception is based on a lack of understanding of the transcendental body of the Lord - a type of misunderstanding shared by many impersonalists. If Christianity were indeed a bona fide religion, there would be no need for it to have "developed" the principle of cow-protection, since religion is handed down by the Lord: "In the Srimad Bhagavad-gita the Lord asserts that He appears in every millennium just to reestablish the way of religion. The way of religion is made by the Supreme Lord." (SB 1.8.35 purport) naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH | naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 || The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.15). Thus, if Christianity was truly handed down by Naaraayana, the principle of cow-protection would be present there also. So Christians can be non-violent even though they eat cows? So on one hand, you criticize those devotees who use fertilizers and drink milk because of the violent means by which these things are manufactured/provided, but you look the other way when Christians blatantly eat cow meat. The point here, of course, is not whether or not Hindus can be doing things more in accord with shaastra. That is a separate discussion. The point here is whether or not contemporary Christianity and pure Christianity are bona fide religions inspired by beings familiar with Sanaatana-dharma with a goal of establishing an alternate route to self-realization. As far as this is concerned, it is obvious that Christianity, even in its purest form, cannot be an alternate route to self-realization any more than karma yoga or jnaana yoga are valid alternatives to bhakti yoga. The shaastras clearly state: kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha | kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa 1.3.43 || This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43). Note that no such claims have been made about any other Puraana, what to speak of any other non-Vedic scripture, like the Bible. Also we have: bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa shakya aham eva.m-vidho 'rjuna | j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 || My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54) Only by undivided devotional service (ananya-bhakti) can one attain the Supreme Lord. Thus, believing that Christianity is an alternative to Vaishnavism requires believing that you can get undivided devotional service to God in a religion where His name, form, qualities, and pastimes are not even revealed to you. etaavaaneve loke'smin pu.msaa.m dharmaH paraH smR^itaH | bhaktiyogo bhagavati tannaamagrahaNaadibhiH || bhaa 6.3.22 || Devotional service, beginning with the chanting of the holy name of the Lord, is the ultimate religious principle for the living entity in human society (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.3.22). Note that devotional service here is specific for devotional service to Vishnu, and is implicitly understood to refer to undivided devotional service. Furthermore, even if one could learn "bhakti" by studying Christianity, it is stated here that not just any kind of bhakti, but that bhakti beginning with Harinaama, is the ultimate religious principle. Does Christianity teach Harinaama? Far from it - contemporary Christians regard Vishnu as a "Hindu god," His archa-vigraha as a "craven image," or "idol," and His followers to be mere idolaters. Finally, we have the very well-known verse from the Brhad-Naaradiiya Puraana: harer naama harer naam harer naamaiva kevalam | kalau naastyaiva naastyaiva naastyaiva gatir anyathaa || Which clearly states that there is "no other way" to achieve the supreme goal but by chanting the name of Hari. Thus, accepting these statements of the Vedas, one cannot honestly accept the Bible as an alternative religion, sufficient to bring one to God-realization. Therefore, the Bible is at best a stepping stone for people to bring them back into Vedic culture, rather than a complete alternative to God-realization. However, even a bona fide path that brings people back towards Vedic culture would logically require that they be reformed from sinful activities so that they acquire the qualification to approach the Bhaagavatam. But it is well known that in contemporary Christianity at least, meat eating and even beef eating are perfectly acceptable even for casual consumption, and no sin is thought to be earned through such a nefarious practice. Please see the quotes below which clearly describe the consequences of meat-eating, and then try to tell me in all honesty that a Christian can eat meat in such circumstances and still make "spiritual advancement." Bhagavad-giitaa is extremely clear on this point, that without following the regulative principles, one cannot attain the supreme goal: yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH | na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 || He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23) tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau | j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 || One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24) maa.m sa bhakShayitaa'mutra yasya maa.msamihaad myaham | etatmaa.msasya maa.msatva.m pravadanti maniiShiNaH || MS 5.55 || 'Me he (mam sah)' will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word 'flesh' (mamsah) (manu smR^iti 5.55). anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii | sa.mskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashcheti ghaatakaaH || MS 5.51 || He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51). yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam | vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smR^iti 5.38). Thus, what you think or do not think is besides the point. The danger is in thinking that because someone follows another religion, they are therefore entitled to commit grossly sinful activities and still make spiritual advancement. What kind of logic is this? Are Vedas only applicable to Hindus? This is the logic of maayaavaadiis but not those of Vaishnava Vedaantins. By relativizing the position of the Vedas, ISKCON devotees only succeed in making Srila Prabhupada a laughing stock amongst other Vedaantins. [tangential sentiments deleted] Being followers of Mahaaprabhu does not mean sentimental acceptance of non-Vedic doctrines and ignoring evidence, logic, and common-sense. Far from convincing me of anything, all you have done is prove my point - that the overemphasis on Srila Prabhupada's praise of Christianity has led to numerous heresies among Western devotees, some of which you just demonstrated here: relativizing the Vedas and excusing the sin of cow-killing. My point all along is that Krishna-consciousness (and thus, the Vedic literature, sanaatana-dharma, etc) should be taken AS IT IS. When I made this point to maayaavaadi Hindus, I was labeled as a "fundamentalist" by them. Similarly, the same is being done by Christian sympathizers within ISKCON. In both cases the accusations are leveled by people who can't admit that their bluff has been called. ISKCON devotees need to abandon this perpetual double standard - on one hand they criticize many contemporary Advaitins, even the pious ones, but on the other hand they are full of praise for Christianity despite its permissive attitude towards grossly sinful activity. The same standard needs to be applied for all, rather than adopting one standard for the "Hindoos" and another for Christianity. It used to be that critics of Sanaatana-dharma took the position of University intellectuals and published volumes of anti-Vedic, pseudo-scholarly rubbish. This was the age of Max Muller, H.H. Wilson, et. al. But today, we are seeing a different trend: Christians who cannot fully let go of their own religion just convert to Vaishnavism thanks to the causeless mercy of a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada, and then use this newfound position as a platform to praise Christianity, relativize the Vedas, and lash out at whatever misguided "Hindoos" in the ISKCON congregation who object.* I wonder which approach of attacking Sanaatana-dharma from within - the arrogant British Indologists, or the closet-Christian-turned-Vaishnava, is the more effective one? yours, - K * For example, I recall one ISKCON Sunday feast class I attended in Honolulu in the summer of 1996, in which the speaker (his name was something like Guru-Kripa das and he was praised as a "senior devotee" of ISKCON) boldly asserted that all demigods were rascals and their worshippers were rascals, regardless of whatever other pious qualifications they might posess. But of course, the same was not true of Christians, even though they might be meat-eaters and liquor drinkers. He also stated that the Upanishadic statement "maatro devo bhava pitro devo bhava aachaarya devo bhava" was nothing more than maayaavaadii speculation, and that the Hindu ceremony performed for the death of a departed love one was also tainted by maayaavaada. Go figure. WIth "devotees" like this in ISKCON, who needs critics like Max Muller?

gHari wrote: "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in the introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita: 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. Anyone who is rejecting any religious heritage should definitely read this short introduction about sectarian religion. It will save some time." This is a very poor example to bring up. For one thing, it is well known that Shrii Krishna-samhitaa was written for the purpose of presenting Vaishnavism to non-devotees. It says many things about Vaishnava "mythology," the dating of scriptures, and so on which are not acceptable to pure devotees. Secondly, even Srila Bhaktivinod is quite critical of Christianity according to his own writings. I don't recall the exact reference - I think it was his Tattva-suutra or his Amnaaya-suutra wherein he criticizes the "faith-based, no need to do work" approach of Christians quite viciously. I will have to dig up this reference at some point when I unpack my books next month. Thirdly, this still does not address how one proves the alleged similarities between Islam, Christianity, and Vaishnavism to those who are not in Srila Prabhupada/Srila Bhaktivinoda's sampradaaya. Without objective evidence, you have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

gHari wrote: "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in the introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita: 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. Anyone who is rejecting any religious heritage should definitely read this short introduction about sectarian religion. It will save some time." This is a very poor example to bring up. For one thing, it is well known that Shrii Krishna-samhitaa was written for the purpose of presenting Vaishnavism to non-devotees. It says many things about Vaishnava "mythology," the dating of scriptures, and so on which are not acceptable to pure devotees. Secondly, even Srila Bhaktivinod is quite critical of Christianity according to his own writings. I don't recall the exact reference - I think it was his Tattva-suutra or his Amnaaya-suutra wherein he criticizes the "faith-based, no need to do work" approach of Christians quite viciously. I will have to dig up this reference at some point when I unpack my books next month. Thirdly, this still does not address how one proves the alleged similarities between Islam, Christianity, and Vaishnavism to those who are not in Srila Prabhupada/Srila Bhaktivinoda's sampradaaya. Without objective evidence, you have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

At the risk of sounding rude, the following is a perfect example of what I am talking about -- when wishy-washy, sentimental, wishful thinking causes devotees to blatantly misinterpret the Vedic literature in their attempts to reconcile Vedic religion with non-Vedic religions. More below: Guest? wrote: "Tat tvam asi... you can the same example in another post.. Tat tvam Asi, is "That I am". This is seen in the Bible when God talks to Moses : "And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you."" ---- "tat tvam asi" literally, means "that thou art." The speaker is not God, nor is the statement directed to God. This statement occurs in a conversation recorded in the Chandogya Upanishad between Svetaketu and his father, after the former had returned from his studies of the Vedas and become puffed up. Uddhaalaka, his father, humbles him by instructing him to fast and showing how his ability to recite the Vedas has diminished, and then repeats to his son "sa aatmaatattvamasiShvetaketo" to indicate (depending on interpretation) that Shvetaketu is the jiivaatmaa and not his material body or that Shvetaketu is not the Paramaatmaa (depends on how you parse the Sanskrit and interpret "aatmaa" - sa aatmaa tat tvam asi or sa aatmaa atat tvam asi). The point here is that neither of the interpretations are at all consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept "I am that I am" by any stretch of the imagination. For devotees to even argue this is an example of blatantly medicore scholarship or, worse, outright dishonesty. So why do I bother to mention this? Is it even important? Can't we all just interpret Sanskrit statements from the Upanishads any way we choose, even if we haven't read them, know Sanskrit, or even know what we are talking about? The problem is, like it or not, we will be seen as representatives of Srila Prabhupada, and our mistakes become seen as his mistakes. It is disgraceful conduct to misinterpret Upanishadic statements for the purpose of fulfilling a personal agenda, even more so when others are led to believe that such misinterpretations have the guru's sanction. We don't want Srila Prabhupada to appear as a sentimentalist or as an incompetent Sanskrit scholar. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, that many ISKCON devotees, guided by wishful thinking and biased towards non-Vedic religions in which they were raised, have a habit of making speculative and blatantly incorrect statements about shaastra and siddhaanta which do nothing other than misrepresent Srila Prabhupada and mislead people in general. The example above, where tat tvam asi is wrongly equated with "I am that I am" is a perfect example of this. Therefore, ISKCON devotees need to stop reading all kinds of things into Srila Prabhupada's praise of other religions, and just practice Krishna-Consciousness AS IT IS. yours, - K

At the risk of sounding rude, the following is a perfect example of what I am talking about -- when wishy-washy, sentimental, wishful thinking causes devotees to blatantly misinterpret the Vedic literature in their attempts to reconcile Vedic religion with non-Vedic religions. More below: Guest? wrote: "Tat tvam asi... you can the same example in another post.. Tat tvam Asi, is "That I am". This is seen in the Bible when God talks to Moses : "And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you."" ---- "tat tvam asi" literally, means "that thou art." The speaker is not God, nor is the statement directed to God. This statement occurs in a conversation recorded in the Chandogya Upanishad between Svetaketu and his father, after the former had returned from his studies of the Vedas and become puffed up. Uddhaalaka, his father, humbles him by instructing him to fast and showing how his ability to recite the Vedas has diminished, and then repeats to his son "sa aatmaatattvamasiShvetaketo" to indicate (depending on interpretation) that Shvetaketu is the jiivaatmaa and not his material body or that Shvetaketu is not the Paramaatmaa (depends on how you parse the Sanskrit and interpret "aatmaa" - sa aatmaa tat tvam asi or sa aatmaa atat tvam asi). The point here is that neither of the interpretations are at all consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept "I am that I am" by any stretch of the imagination. For devotees to even argue this is an example of blatantly medicore scholarship or, worse, outright dishonesty. So why do I bother to mention this? Is it even important? Can't we all just interpret Sanskrit statements from the Upanishads any way we choose, even if we haven't read them, know Sanskrit, or even know what we are talking about? The problem is, like it or not, we will be seen as representatives of Srila Prabhupada, and our mistakes become seen as his mistakes. It is disgraceful conduct to misinterpret Upanishadic statements for the purpose of fulfilling a personal agenda, even more so when others are led to believe that such misinterpretations have the guru's sanction. We don't want Srila Prabhupada to appear as a sentimentalist or as an incompetent Sanskrit scholar. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, that many ISKCON devotees, guided by wishful thinking and biased towards non-Vedic religions in which they were raised, have a habit of making speculative and blatantly incorrect statements about shaastra and siddhaanta which do nothing other than misrepresent Srila Prabhupada and mislead people in general. The example above, where tat tvam asi is wrongly equated with "I am that I am" is a perfect example of this. Therefore, ISKCON devotees need to stop reading all kinds of things into Srila Prabhupada's praise of other religions, and just practice Krishna-Consciousness AS IT IS. yours, - K

"The God of Christianity and all other religions that we see here are one and the same." That's a nice sentiment, but how do you know? More importantly, can you prove that to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru? Just out of curiosity, when you "all other religions," do you really and truly include "all other religions?" "There is no such thing as mlecha but thats my personal opinion. " Since when have personal opinions superseeded shaastra? - K

"The God of Christianity and all other religions that we see here are one and the same." That's a nice sentiment, but how do you know? More importantly, can you prove that to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru? Just out of curiosity, when you "all other religions," do you really and truly include "all other religions?" "There is no such thing as mlecha but thats my personal opinion. " Since when have personal opinions superseeded shaastra? - K

Guest wrote: "Which Christianity are you talking about, the one who is in your thoughts? or the one that Christ preached? Which Islam are you talking about... the one who is in your thoughts, or the one that Muhammed forced ? " Reread my posting. I believe I made it clear: "AS FAR AS HOW THEY ARE PRACTICED NOW, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord." Theist wrote: "Well you easily discard the words of Srila Prabhupada at your own peril I think. But its your choice." Srila Prabhupada himself took great pains to refute many contemporary Christian beliefs, such as the idea that Jesus had a material body, that he actually suffered and died on the cross, that meat-eating is ok, etc etc. Many of these conversations are documented in Back to Godhead, under the section "Srila Prabhupada Speaks Out." I have discarded nothing. It is only ISKCON and other Western devotees who, motivated by wishful thinking primarily, discard such considerations when they cozy up to Christians, all the while levelling all sorts of attacks and innuendos against other Hindus with no regard to the piety of the people they criticize. What is the basis for such a double standard? It's not Srila Prabhupada, I can guarantee you. "Speculate all you like." Ahh yes, the common ISKCON rejoinder. "I don't like what you are saying, Prabhu, so it is speculation." "Don't forget though that Buddha was an incarnation and I believe Adi Shankar was Sivaji." And this is relevant how? "Myself I am comfortable with Prabhupada's words on the subject and feel on solid ground there. Mundane scholarship means nothing to me." I see. So if Christians and secular scholars request you to substantiate your view (that Christianity is an outgrowth of Vedic religion), your sole evidence will be, "my spiritual master told me so?" I'm sure that will be quite convincing to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his personal guru. Contemporary Christianity is no more advanced in its spiritual outlook than Advaita. Srila Prabhupada may have said that Christians were indirectly worshipping Krishna (a fact which one must accept based on his opinion), but he has said the same thing about Advaitins and Brahmavaadiis (who meditate on impersonal Brahman, which shaastra says is one aspect of Krishna and Srila Prabhupada agrees). Both Advaitins and Christians make the mistake of saying that God has a material body (in the latter case, Christians take Jesus to be God and say he has material body of flesh with which he can suffer). So, no points there for Christianity. And as far as saadhana goes, everyone knows that orthodox Advaitins are required to be far more austere that contemporary Christians. Christians can eat whatever they want; they happily slaughter and eat cows while orthodox Advaitins at least in theory will object to this. So who is doing the speculating here, Theist? ISKCON devotees' praise for Christianity and Christians while simultaneously condemning Advaitic Hinduism is the worst kind of sectarian hypocrisy. ISKCONites need to stop looking for approval from Christians and just remain diligent in their practice of Krishna-consciousness, AS IT IS. This tendency of ISKCONites to cozy up to Christians has led to all sorts of heresies in ISKCON based solely on medicore scholarship. These include the following: 1) That Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna 2) That the deity Yahweh of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the same as Lord Brahmaa, based on etymological similarity or some such 3) That meat-eating is acceptable if one is a Christian 4) That murthis of Jesus, Mary, etc. can be installed on the altar and worshipped alongside Radha, Krishna, Narasimha, etc. 5) That the concept of soul in Christianity is the same as the Vedic concept of soul (it isn't) 6) That the Jewish preoccupation with the number 9 is related to the Vedic preoccupation with 108 (because 1 and 8 are numerals in 108, and 1+8=9 -- I'm not joking, this is actually in Satyaraja dasa's Om Shalom book) 7) That one can chant the name of Jehovah in place of Hare Krishna and get the same spiritual benefit 8) That all Vaishnavas regard Jesus as a bona fide guru (they don't - most other sampradaayas say nothing about Jesus) ...and so on, and so forth. None of the above speculations have any endorsement whatsoever by Srila Prabhupada, or by shaastra. And yet there are ISKCON devotees who carelessly repeat them with no regard to even the semblance of proper scholarship. Sometimes when I point it out, they quote back to me warnings against "mundane scholarship" to defend their lack of evidence. But since when is all scholarship mundane? Does being a devotee mean we aren't supposed to think? Or that we aren't supposed to remain honest in our representation of guru and shaastra? Mundane scholarship establishes a material end. Transcendental scholarship is based on the Vedic literatures and establishes a transcendental end. The Jesus sympathies in ISKCON are neither scholarship nor based on Vedic literature. Even the quotes from Bhavishya Puraana offered by some devotees only suggest the prediction of Jesus, but they say nothing about his spiritual position or substantiate the high regard for that religion which many ISKCON members have. In fact, quite to the contrary, they actually quote Jesus as saying he will preach to mlecchas this mleccha-dharma, which just proves my earlier point that ISKCON devotees give Christianity more emphasis than it is due, shaastrically speaking. Note that the Padma Puraana (uttara-khaaNDa, 236th adhyaaya) describes Buddhism, maayaavaada, nyaaya, Shaivism, Paashupata shaastra, etc. as merely doctrines meant to mislead those who have no devotion to Vishnu, but even these doctrines are not labelled as being for mlecchas like Christianity is. yours, - K

Guest wrote: "Which Christianity are you talking about, the one who is in your thoughts? or the one that Christ preached? Which Islam are you talking about... the one who is in your thoughts, or the one that Muhammed forced ? " Reread my posting. I believe I made it clear: "AS FAR AS HOW THEY ARE PRACTICED NOW, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord." Theist wrote: "Well you easily discard the words of Srila Prabhupada at your own peril I think. But its your choice." Srila Prabhupada himself took great pains to refute many contemporary Christian beliefs, such as the idea that Jesus had a material body, that he actually suffered and died on the cross, that meat-eating is ok, etc etc. Many of these conversations are documented in Back to Godhead, under the section "Srila Prabhupada Speaks Out." I have discarded nothing. It is only ISKCON and other Western devotees who, motivated by wishful thinking primarily, discard such considerations when they cozy up to Christians, all the while levelling all sorts of attacks and innuendos against other Hindus with no regard to the piety of the people they criticize. What is the basis for such a double standard? It's not Srila Prabhupada, I can guarantee you. "Speculate all you like." Ahh yes, the common ISKCON rejoinder. "I don't like what you are saying, Prabhu, so it is speculation." "Don't forget though that Buddha was an incarnation and I believe Adi Shankar was Sivaji." And this is relevant how? "Myself I am comfortable with Prabhupada's words on the subject and feel on solid ground there. Mundane scholarship means nothing to me." I see. So if Christians and secular scholars request you to substantiate your view (that Christianity is an outgrowth of Vedic religion), your sole evidence will be, "my spiritual master told me so?" I'm sure that will be quite convincing to someone who does not accept Srila Prabhupada as his personal guru. Contemporary Christianity is no more advanced in its spiritual outlook than Advaita. Srila Prabhupada may have said that Christians were indirectly worshipping Krishna (a fact which one must accept based on his opinion), but he has said the same thing about Advaitins and Brahmavaadiis (who meditate on impersonal Brahman, which shaastra says is one aspect of Krishna and Srila Prabhupada agrees). Both Advaitins and Christians make the mistake of saying that God has a material body (in the latter case, Christians take Jesus to be God and say he has material body of flesh with which he can suffer). So, no points there for Christianity. And as far as saadhana goes, everyone knows that orthodox Advaitins are required to be far more austere that contemporary Christians. Christians can eat whatever they want; they happily slaughter and eat cows while orthodox Advaitins at least in theory will object to this. So who is doing the speculating here, Theist? ISKCON devotees' praise for Christianity and Christians while simultaneously condemning Advaitic Hinduism is the worst kind of sectarian hypocrisy. ISKCONites need to stop looking for approval from Christians and just remain diligent in their practice of Krishna-consciousness, AS IT IS. This tendency of ISKCONites to cozy up to Christians has led to all sorts of heresies in ISKCON based solely on medicore scholarship. These include the following: 1) That Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna 2) That the deity Yahweh of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the same as Lord Brahmaa, based on etymological similarity or some such 3) That meat-eating is acceptable if one is a Christian 4) That murthis of Jesus, Mary, etc. can be installed on the altar and worshipped alongside Radha, Krishna, Narasimha, etc. 5) That the concept of soul in Christianity is the same as the Vedic concept of soul (it isn't) 6) That the Jewish preoccupation with the number 9 is related to the Vedic preoccupation with 108 (because 1 and 8 are numerals in 108, and 1+8=9 -- I'm not joking, this is actually in Satyaraja dasa's Om Shalom book) 7) That one can chant the name of Jehovah in place of Hare Krishna and get the same spiritual benefit 8) That all Vaishnavas regard Jesus as a bona fide guru (they don't - most other sampradaayas say nothing about Jesus) ...and so on, and so forth. None of the above speculations have any endorsement whatsoever by Srila Prabhupada, or by shaastra. And yet there are ISKCON devotees who carelessly repeat them with no regard to even the semblance of proper scholarship. Sometimes when I point it out, they quote back to me warnings against "mundane scholarship" to defend their lack of evidence. But since when is all scholarship mundane? Does being a devotee mean we aren't supposed to think? Or that we aren't supposed to remain honest in our representation of guru and shaastra? Mundane scholarship establishes a material end. Transcendental scholarship is based on the Vedic literatures and establishes a transcendental end. The Jesus sympathies in ISKCON are neither scholarship nor based on Vedic literature. Even the quotes from Bhavishya Puraana offered by some devotees only suggest the prediction of Jesus, but they say nothing about his spiritual position or substantiate the high regard for that religion which many ISKCON members have. In fact, quite to the contrary, they actually quote Jesus as saying he will preach to mlecchas this mleccha-dharma, which just proves my earlier point that ISKCON devotees give Christianity more emphasis than it is due, shaastrically speaking. Note that the Padma Puraana (uttara-khaaNDa, 236th adhyaaya) describes Buddhism, maayaavaada, nyaaya, Shaivism, Paashupata shaastra, etc. as merely doctrines meant to mislead those who have no devotion to Vishnu, but even these doctrines are not labelled as being for mlecchas like Christianity is. yours, - K

SDdasa appears to be repeating a common misinterpretation of SB 1.3.28 held by other South Indian Vaishnavas. But any 3rd party (i.e. neutral and unbiased in this regard) translation of the Bhaagavata translates the "ete-chaamsha" verse exactly as the Gaudiiyas have done - with Krishna being referred to as the svayam bhagavaan, in contrast to the others who are plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions. This is the straightforward understanding of the verse, with alternate interpretations requiring a certain degree of suspension of disbelief in order to accept. This point of view, where Krishna is equated with the svayam bhagavaan, or original form of the Lord, also has support in shruti. For example, the Krishna Upanishad: goparuupo hariH saakShaan maayaavigrahadhaaraNaH durbodha.m kuhaka.m tasya maayayaa mohita.m jagat || KrU 1.10 || The Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in His original form as a cowherd boy. Cheated and bewildered by His illusory potency, the world could not understand His true identity (kR^iShNa upaniShad 1.10). Also in the Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad, we have the following: sa hovaachaabjayonir yo'vataaraaNaa.m madhye shreShTho'vataaraH ko bhavati yena lokaas tuShTaa devaas tuShTaa bhavanti ya.m smR^itvaa muktaa asmaat sa.msaaraat bhavanti katha.m vaasyaavataarasya brahmataa bhavati || GTU 2.33-34 || Brahmaa said: Among Your many incarnations, which is the best, the one that makes humans and demigods happy, the one that, remembering Him, they become liberated from repeated birth and death? Why is this incarnation the best (gopaala-taapanii upaniShad 2.33-34)? The answers which follow Lord Brahmaa's question are in regards to the Lord's manifestation as Krishna. Here are a few highlights: vishvaruupa.m para.m jyotiH svaruupa.m rupavarjitam hR^idaa maa.m sa.msmaran brahman matpada.m yaati nishchitam || GTU 2.55 || O Brahmaa, he who with all his heart mediates on Me, whose form is the resting place of all forms, whose form is supremely powerful and splendid, whose form is wonderful, and who has no material form, goes to My abode. Of this there is no doubt (gopaala-taapani upaniShad 2.55). In the above, the context is Krishna, as it is Gopaala-Purii which has just been discussed along with the Lord's manifestation there. Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thakur says that "vishva-ruupam" means "source of all forms," i.e. source of all other Vishnu-tattvas. The universal form is not the subject here, because the context does not support such an interpretation. tasyaam adhiShThitaH kR^iShNaruupii puujyas tvayaa sadaa || GTU 2.57 || You should always worship Me as Krishna in Mathuraa (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.57). o.m gopaalaaya nijaruupaaya o.m tat sad bhuur bhuvaH svas tasmai vai namo namaH || GTU 2.107 || Om. Obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose original form is that of a cowherd boy. Om tat sat. Bhuur Bhuvah and Svah. Obeisances, obeisances to Him (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.107). Thus, the shaastras agree that while all forms of Vishnu are qualitatively and quantitatively the same, nevertheless it is Krishna who is the svayam bhagavaan - the full manifestation of the Lord. regards, - K

SDdasa appears to be repeating a common misinterpretation of SB 1.3.28 held by other South Indian Vaishnavas. But any 3rd party (i.e. neutral and unbiased in this regard) translation of the Bhaagavata translates the "ete-chaamsha" verse exactly as the Gaudiiyas have done - with Krishna being referred to as the svayam bhagavaan, in contrast to the others who are plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions. This is the straightforward understanding of the verse, with alternate interpretations requiring a certain degree of suspension of disbelief in order to accept. This point of view, where Krishna is equated with the svayam bhagavaan, or original form of the Lord, also has support in shruti. For example, the Krishna Upanishad: goparuupo hariH saakShaan maayaavigrahadhaaraNaH durbodha.m kuhaka.m tasya maayayaa mohita.m jagat || KrU 1.10 || The Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in His original form as a cowherd boy. Cheated and bewildered by His illusory potency, the world could not understand His true identity (kR^iShNa upaniShad 1.10). Also in the Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad, we have the following: sa hovaachaabjayonir yo'vataaraaNaa.m madhye shreShTho'vataaraH ko bhavati yena lokaas tuShTaa devaas tuShTaa bhavanti ya.m smR^itvaa muktaa asmaat sa.msaaraat bhavanti katha.m vaasyaavataarasya brahmataa bhavati || GTU 2.33-34 || Brahmaa said: Among Your many incarnations, which is the best, the one that makes humans and demigods happy, the one that, remembering Him, they become liberated from repeated birth and death? Why is this incarnation the best (gopaala-taapanii upaniShad 2.33-34)? The answers which follow Lord Brahmaa's question are in regards to the Lord's manifestation as Krishna. Here are a few highlights: vishvaruupa.m para.m jyotiH svaruupa.m rupavarjitam hR^idaa maa.m sa.msmaran brahman matpada.m yaati nishchitam || GTU 2.55 || O Brahmaa, he who with all his heart mediates on Me, whose form is the resting place of all forms, whose form is supremely powerful and splendid, whose form is wonderful, and who has no material form, goes to My abode. Of this there is no doubt (gopaala-taapani upaniShad 2.55). In the above, the context is Krishna, as it is Gopaala-Purii which has just been discussed along with the Lord's manifestation there. Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thakur says that "vishva-ruupam" means "source of all forms," i.e. source of all other Vishnu-tattvas. The universal form is not the subject here, because the context does not support such an interpretation. tasyaam adhiShThitaH kR^iShNaruupii puujyas tvayaa sadaa || GTU 2.57 || You should always worship Me as Krishna in Mathuraa (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.57). o.m gopaalaaya nijaruupaaya o.m tat sad bhuur bhuvaH svas tasmai vai namo namaH || GTU 2.107 || Om. Obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose original form is that of a cowherd boy. Om tat sat. Bhuur Bhuvah and Svah. Obeisances, obeisances to Him (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.107). Thus, the shaastras agree that while all forms of Vishnu are qualitatively and quantitatively the same, nevertheless it is Krishna who is the svayam bhagavaan - the full manifestation of the Lord. regards, - K