HerServant

" God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." - 1 John 4:16 "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." - 1 John 4:8

"While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." - Mark 14:22-24 That is why Judas betrayed Jesus. Because He ended the Passover "covenant" to take a spotless lamb to the temple to be slaughtered by a priest. He replaced the animal sacrifice with bread and wine and told His disciples this the New Covenant. Do this in rememberence of Him. When He uttered this order (to celebrate Passover with bread and wine instead of animal slaughter), Judas said "no Jesus .. you can't end Passover ritual.. you can't end thousands of years of tradition and Jewish law" and therefore Judas betrayed Jesus. Thus by Jesus taking bread and wine and saying it is His Body and Blood it for certain cost Jesus His mortal life (body and blood). Therefore, the breaking of the bread and the taking of the wine in the name of Jesus is INDIFFERENT from He Himself. Praise be the immortal Savior who sacrificed Himself to protect the innocents and to liberate those in bondage! OM Amen.

PAHMO. I think this thread is rather interesting and it relates to my personal experience and exposure to ISKCON and Krsna Consciousness. As many on the forum know, I am not an initiated devotee. I did not take initiation because of "the fairytale". I had first exposure to ISKCON and the KC movement in the mid 70s. I was not too attracted to the movement at that time because the presentation (in my case) was convoluted by neophyte devotees, either having lack of understanding or intelligence to present the Spiritual science of BG and SB, or because they had personal problems/issues (e.g. drugs, scams, etc.) and could not understand spiritual sciences. When first exposed, I was a teenager and studying the catholic Mystics and many devotees distributing literature could not even answer the most basic philosophical questions. Therefore, I saw no benefit in following them. 20 years later I became very interested in eastern thought and recalled the HKs, particularly them being in possession of a storehouse of Sacred Literature. I read and studied BG and SB along with Srila Prabhupada's purports. I visited ISKCON temples all over the US. What I found was a "crumbled and shattered" fairytale. Please let me explain further. Many devotees I met were bitter, confrontational, manipulative, and depressed. After many years of "research" I concluded that "Perfectionism" is the BIG problem with the ISKCON brand of Spirituality. The ISKCON philosophy stresses "top most devotee" ideology but hardly anyone and perhaps no one could "live up to the standard" . I believe because of this fact , the "good as Jesus" and "Jesus as pure devotee" became a philosophical obsession within ISKCON. Attacking Jesus' divinity became an agenda of the ISKCON philosophical school because "top most devotees that are perfectly situated in Krsna Consciousness" have no need for "The Savior". Only fallen sinners need a savior. Therefore, followers of "the fairytale" when experiencing "fall down" after "fall down" cannot bear the failure. Without a Savior, they cannot accept their inadequacies and limitations. That is why I have said then and now that only Jesus can save the movement. There is no other way .. in my opinion. There needs to be a flawless perfect soul, a lila that we meditate on that helps us navigate us through our transgressions .. because we will likely make sins until the day we die. So I can read SB and BG through the "eyes of Christ". My faith is such that someday, His Divine Life will illumine me to such a great degree that the darkness of sin will be no more. That the endless reservoir of His Mercy will eventually open my stone heart to such a degree that I will finally understand His endless love. And when this happens, it is His perfect devotedness that will fill me .. His topmost-ness devotion that will rule me .. His love of the Father will saturate me .. Call Him what you will .. I know Him as the Savior of this world and of the entire cosmic manifestation. Her servant and yours.

So what is soul in Vaisnava terms ? A person? or impersonal? If a person, then what makes up a person? Why no memory of previous lives? Because the "person" of the previous life was not a "person" at all? What makes a person a person? I know and you know. A person's true identity is only known in relationship with God. But if you are having a life of imperfect relationship, then in fact you have no memory of relationship with God at all. So I prefer the Christian view .. that Person and Soul go together. You can sit and debate re-incarnation all you like, but you will have to concede that your re-incarnated "person" in a previous life is no person at all if you have no memories of that life. And even if you have a memory of previous lives .. what is your memory .. A memory of what? Your rapt and saturated loving relationship with Krsna? No .. otherwise you would not be here on this planet. Come let's see who is mayavadi when speaking of soul as not person. I want to close my ears when all the technical (impersonal) philosophy starts pouring forth.

You mean, Protestant theologians who must speculate because they reject the authority of apostolic (disciplic) succession and the GSS in general. The mention of the soul is right there in the 2nd chapter of the 1st book of the Bible, and I quote from the oldest translation of the Bible in existence (The Septuagint) : - Gen 2:7 source: http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/2.asp

" Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. " - 1st John 4:7-11

The Bible says a LOT about the Holy Name of God starting with the 10 commandments "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" Both Hebrew scriptures and Christian Scriptures, reverence and praising God by invoking His Holy Name is a constant. Jesus taught disciples to pray to the Father saying "Hallowed be The Name" . The Bible is a Vedic text as well. You can understand this easily when reading Veda, then reading Bible, but it is not so easy the other way around. Jesus said : Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matt 7:7-11 This is is a reference to spiritual inquiry. The Bible has an entire book about Madhura rasa too. See http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/songs/song1.htm

Eve in Hebrew is hv (no vowels) Hv is jiva .. Adam shares roots with atman Now read the story of the fall in context of Atman and jiva. The same cause of the "fall" in vedic scripture is the same. That is, the consciouness of Anu (Atom .. Adam) the masculine individual aspect of Atman with sensual aspect of jiva appears ego, the vain idea of an existence separate from God. "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,.. " Genesis 3:5 The temptation described is one that Atman and Jiva desired an existence separate from God. Envy God's position. This is why BG ch 9:1 Krsna says "' Because you are NEVER envious of ME .." Only after the first original sin is removed, then can you get the most confidential knowledge of Krsna. HS and yours.

You must love your "Jesus myth" because you spend much of Krsna's energy on Jesus. You claim need of historians (even if they be atheists) to prove Jesus existed. And the historical evidence of Krsna? Since when does faith need to be upheld by historians? In fact, without "myth" there is no faith. It cannot be scientifically proven that a Brahma weapon can be manifest by a devotee. Can you believe it to be possible? Or Jesus walking on water .. it cannot be scientifically proven. It requires faith. It is clear your desire is actually to drive the name of Jesus out of this forum. Ha ha ha ha ha hah ha ha ha hah Hiranyakashipu cannot make Prahlada stop saying Krsna ha ha hahahha ha hahahahahah hahah a

Guruvani You are clearly against Jesus more than Christians in your postings. While you have a right to your opinion about Jesus, I challenge you to start your tirade against Mary. If in fact everything you say on Jesus is correct, then your position of Her Son Jesus should equally apply to Her. Therefore, please "teach" the entire forum and world what we should think of Her and let us see if Krsna appreciates it. If you are telling the Truth to the world about Jesus, then we will known soon after you tell us about Mary.

Q1: Does this mean that everything he said to people BEFORE they became devotees were "not in perfect accord"? Q2: True or False: Srila Prabhupada's lectures and preaching to non-devotees was not absolute. Q3: How is it possible for the "TRUTH" to be represented imperfectly (not in perfect accord) by a perfect devotee?

PAHMO He is not dishonest. After I found some of his articles in 2002 I searched to contact him (with failure). Eventually though I was able to contact him by phone several years ago and I spoke to him at length. He stated emphatically that BOTH traditions should not be mingled. He said that he is speaking from his personal realization and calls this "private revelation" between God and his devotee. Further that private revelation is NOT authorative as a general teaching to all the world. I asked him very specific questions about Mahaprabhu and he told me that for questions about Mahaprabhu go and seek Radhanath swami for answers (Which I did). He said if you have questions about catholic theology then consult the saints and find the monks who are closest to the realizations of the christian saints. If you study his writing from either Christian of Vaisnava view, it is challenge to both (for example on the western side, he also says Christ is the Greek god Helios and Asclepius) So from all sides he is controversial. So the point is look from one side (without bias and sectarian view) and listen from that side, you have a triune theology that has strong similarities to the vaisnava theology of trinity. Looking (without bias or sectarian view) from vaisnava side, you see strong similarity between the vaisnvava view of the identity of baladeva and how christians worship Jesus. That is all. Both traditions are respected. And by the way .. BAG takes just as much "heat" from catholics and christians because he makes these comparisons. But again .. I've spoken to him and Radhanath swami. They are both very sincere, non sectarian devotees. In fact, when I walked with HH Radhanath swami to discuss sectarian difference, he told me that "sectarian distinctions are just "not in him I wish you could see his face as he told me this .. I have nothing more to say. HS and yours

PAHMO. You are misunderstanding the title. The authors intent is to present BOTH Vaisnava view and Christian view in the same article and point out similarity. NOT to say at all, that Vaisnava accepts that he is an incarnation in a Vaisnava tradition. What is being presented is that there is similarity in the theology and that this similarity stems occurs independently in God's revelation to the devotee. So you can't look at this article like a Christian trying to sell a Vaisnava on Jesus as Baladeva. This article is pointing out that Christians identify with Jesus (theologically) in the same manner that Vaisnavas take Balarama. It is my opinion that the author's realization is unity between Balarama and Jesus as one and the same. I personally have no such realization so I cannot pretend to comment as the two being the same Lord. But I CAN honestly and sincerely comment, that the similarity of the theology exists. I posted here not to turn Narad as incarnation thread into a christian thread, but rather to point out, that these controversy among devotee understanding of Krsna's incarnations has different answers among different traditions. When reading through this information by BAGoswami, and just looking or examining in context of his explanation of divine person to divine person to jiva soul relationship of love, this to me explains the question correctly.

This the is Christina theology of the christian saddhus from the beginning of Christianity. That He was with God (Visnu tattva) before stepping into time as True Man (Jiva Tattva). In fact this is the very core to the teaching of Trinity. For 17 centuries and beyond the credo (summary of belief for christians) is of Jesus that He is "True God AND True Man" In sanskrit terms this means He is Visnu tattva and Jiva Tattva Which is why he is called by catholic sannyasis as Balarama.

- Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.376 So the conclusion of any discussion on distinction between avatars is the above quote? And to Arjuna himself, what to speak of us fallen sinners? Krsna is telling Arjuna that this knowledge is of no use as His Fragment is the same as Himself. Also He is saying there is no distinction in this single quote among the avatar .. simultaneous oneness and difference WITHIN the Godhead is not the SAME as simultaneous oneness and difference in the jiva soul This is clearly a fact as the Lord's nama rupa (names and forms) are innumerable. This verse makes it clear that Shakta avesya is the One and indifferent with Krsna. The conditioned soul is lifted up to jiva Tattva But Jesus stooped down to become like us and be jiva tattva. Man cannot comprehend God EVER EVER EVER. Hence He reveals Himself to us in nama rupa. Each revelation of nama rupa is simultaneously one and different from others. Even the nama rupa of shakta avesya and other avatars ... one and different. Not to God .. but to our limited understanding of Him.

Don't take this the wrong way .. but the comments on this thread are not answers. PAHMO mahak prabhu .. but the answer you give doesn't add up for me. First of all, comparing Prahlada to demon because of his bloodline is not correct (you left out His mother) Second He is a Person .. not a weed. We know the Lord never teaches anywhere that His presence in material energy is equal to His personal form, direct or indirect. Third .. no pure devotee of Visnu is demon. Krsna say I am Prahlada for other reasons than given. He didn't say He was Narasimhadeva. It means His mercy is present as Great Devotee Incarnation of Himself, among demons AKA US FOOLS!!!! If we can't even be attracted to the purest worship of Krsna coming from the purest child among us, how can we EVER possibly get to Krsna? No way to approach Narashimhadeva but by Prahlada .. no way to Father but by Son. HS and yours.

OK .. I found your reference in CC (sorry I missed it ) Who is the single fragment is Krsna referring to?

Why does Krsna not say, "among atheists, I am the partial expansion of myself, Prahlada" ? He does not say that. He says, "I AM Prahlada"

I wasn't aware of this scripture .. what is the source?

Among atheists I AM Prahlada. He is simultaneously Prahlada and Narasimha Quote: prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds. TRANSLATION Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu. - BG 10:30 So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said? I take Krsna as the highest authority. He is Prahlada! HS and yours

- BG 10:30 So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said? I take Krsna as the highest authority. The word shakta-avesya appears nowhere in any bonafide or authorized scripture HS and yours

This is very interesting, also beautiful, and at the same time a jnana (then to bhakti) meditation Jnana because "All that is" is "impersonal" . That is, if we meditate on His as the Cause and the Cause of Causes, and All that Is, we naturally enter an introspective state This introspection ultimately leads us to the Heart where we experience Love. If we use the sanskrit terms for Cause of all causes and All that is, we can "loosely" say these terms are impersonal. The experience of God's love, without the revelation of His Divine Person or Personal Form is NOT mayavadi, hence the expression of this experience in technical terms cannot be mayavadi. This is brahmavadi. The devotees however experience God in His Person and the brahmavadi experience is simultaneously present within an experience of Personal relationship. It occurs to me as we collaborate on this thread, that we may never be able to exhaust the meaning of bhedabheda I guess I should have realized that because of the "inconceivable" part