HerServant

Yes, it seems obvious that, for whatever reason (and a number of good ones come to mind), Srila Prabhupada has placed the emphasis on the name of Sri Krishna.

 

Certainly, as you say, it is a conscious choice on the part of the acharya, and a manifestation of his mercy.

Yes. I would agree .. I think Srila Prabhupada saw Mayavadi philosophy as such a threat to the salvation of the living entity, that he saw no choice but direct all of the readers attention to Krsna.

In this way, for sure, the reader would have "no danger" of stumbling into darkness of impersonalism.

For devotees with firm faith in the personal God, Srila Prabhupada retains original sanskrit including transliterations. We can then go back and read meditate on God's many names revealed in SB

Hence for us devotees, satya param jnana realization is inseparable from the Person of God. The jnana realization is more like hearing the speaker in the next room. The words we hear are complete and convey the entire meaning, though the speaker is not directly visible. Yet, we KNOW also the person (the speaker) is the source of the Word!

Om Amen

HS and yours.

God is simultaneously personal and impersonal. It is only natural that both aspects will be described in the scriptures. It isn't infiltration, but the reality of the Lord's three features.

I agree with this of course. jnana and bhakti ... different and still one.

But Srila Prabhupada translates in such a way to Personalize technical terms which could otherwise be interpreted impersonally by Mayavadis

We should be reminded that there is also Brahmavadi

If a spiritual seeker is seeking God even in the advaita line, Krsna may fully bless their endeavor. As such, they will not say "I am god". They will say something more like "I am the droplet, God is the ocean" .. we are one. These authors will experience God as universal love, and this too is sattvic.

But if you examine a saying like

satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

You will not find a single historical, literary, linguistic reference to make the above say Krsna has the same meaning as satyam — truth; param — absolute;

The devotee knows Krsna is the absolute truth, but the name Krsna does not mean absolute truth .. it means "all attractive" .

Sat and tat and param satya have different meanings.

These are impersonal, jnana terms.

Your quote above says "no infiltration" .. but I disagree.

If we look at translations of Gita, SB etc. and how definitions of Sankrit words vary by translators, I think it is safe to say many translations and scriptures have been polluted.

Hence Srila Prabhupada entitles his BG "AS IT IS" !

Have you considered that the compilers of the various dictionaries to which you are referring may themselves be contaminated by Mayavadi philosophy? Perhaps the dictionary definitions are not wholly accurate?

If you look at BG and SB for example, many times, Srila Prabhupada decides to use Krsna in place of a less personal term for God that is present in the actual sanskrit.

This is a choice by Srila Prabhupada in any case. He chooses to direct the reader to the Person of Krsna rather than the nama rupa revealed in the name present in the scripture.

tat param--Krsna consciousness

mat-asrayah--in consciousness of Me (Krsna consciousness)

yunjita--must concentrate in Krsna consciousness

samadhau--in transcendental consciousness, or Krsna consciousness;

SB 1:1

om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ

tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ

tejo-vāri-mṛdāḿ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mṛṣā

dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaḿ satyaḿ paraḿ dhīmahi

The holy name Krsna does not appear above.

Srila Prabhupada's translation --

om — O my Lord; namaḥ — offering my obeisances; bhagavate — unto the Personality of Godhead; vāsudevāya — unto Vāsudeva (the son of Vasudeva), or Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the primeval Lord; janma-ādi — creation, sustenance and destruction; asya — of the manifested universes; yataḥ — from whom; anvayāt — directly; itarataḥ — indirectly; ca — and; artheṣu — purposes; abhijñaḥ — fully cognizant; sva-rāṭ — fully independent; tene — imparted; brahma — the Vedic knowledge; hṛdā — consciousness of the heart; yaḥ — one who; ādi-kavaye — unto the original created being; muhyanti — are illusioned; yat — about whom; sūrayaḥ — great sages and demigods; tejaḥ — fire; vāri — water; mṛdām — earth; yathā — as much as; vinimayaḥ — action and reaction; yatra — whereupon; tri-sargaḥ — three modes of creation, creative faculties; amṛṣā — almost factual; dhāmnā — along with all transcendental paraphernalia; svena — self-sufficiently; sadā — always; nirasta — negation by absence; kuhakam — illusion; satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

TRANSLATION

O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

In the above, Srila Prabhupada calls Bhagavan, "Krsna". In this case, his choice is to shift the devotees attention from the Nama Rupa of Bhagavan to the Nama Rupa of Krsna

Bhaga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sanskrit bhaga is a term for "lord, patron", but also for "wealth, prosperity". The cognate term in Old Persian, baga, means "god", also cognate is Slavic bog "god". The semantics is similar to English lord (from hlaford "bread warden"), the idea being that it is part of the function of a chieftain or leader to distribute riches or spoils among his followers.

Personified, Bhaga is one of the Adityas, a god of wealth and marriage in Hinduism. Virabhadra, a great powerful hero created by Shiva, once blinded him. In the Rigveda Bhaga is the god who supervises the distribution of goods and destiny to each man corresponding to his merits.

Srila Prabhupada makes it a point to direct one's meditation the name and form of Krsna (nama rupa) as he says

I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation

satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

as

I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

 

This is perfect for a devotee of Krsna who sees no distinction between the terms used in SB and Krsna Himself.

This is a very mild example of how Srila Prabhupada interchanges the name Krsna with technical terms in the SB. There are many many more examples.

This is not a criticism. I think his translation is great. However, at the same time, I believe this approach compromises Vyasadeva's intentions.

Specifically, that the other names for God are in and of themselves, revelatory!

All of the names of the Lord are perfect, and HE reveals Himself in these names as Nama Rupa !

Being a devotee to the Personal Lord, meditation on Him is greater than the Brahmavadi realization of satyam — truth; param — absolute, ... His absolute Truth essence.

I agree with theist in that the technical terms are perfect AS THEY ARE for a devotee who has a relationship with the Personal God. There is no conflict.

However, there IS difference and oneness.

I can say for certain that Faith and Love are One! This is a jnana. But as a devotee, I then seach Faith in Whom and Love for Whom and bhakti is manifest .. person to person.

HS and yours.

All of our traditions are invaded by Mayavadi .. even SB. I know that may seem like blasphemy to many, but I have studied SB and analysis points to Mayavadi infiltration, particularly to the degree of Mayavadi influence on the translator.

We (most of us) on this forum love Srila Prabhupada's translation because of the high degree of devotional personalism retained in his translation.

BUT the readers should recognized just how much Srila Prabhupada Personalizes BG and SB. Read the actual sanskrit and many impersonal technical terms are in the BG and SB

HS and yours

So saktyavesha avatara is not vishnu-tattva. He is jiva-tattva. So the Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Buddha, they come within the jiva-tattva especial power.

Bhagavata: They are saktyavesha avataras.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Acyutananda: So Nara-narayana Rishi is which?

Prabhupada: Nara-narayana Rishi was a shaktyavesha avatara. conv. 1974

Now we are getting somewhere!

SB 12.8.31: The mighty King Indra was most astonished when he heard of the mystic prowess of the exalted sage Markandeya and saw how Cupid and his associates had become powerless in his presence.

SB 12.8.32: Desiring to bestow His mercy upon the saintly Markandeya, who had perfectly fixed his mind in self-realization through penance, Vedic study and observance of regulative principles, the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally appeared before the sage in the forms of Nara and Narayana.

SB 12.8.33-34: One of Them was of a whitish complexion, the other blackish, and They both had four arms. Their eyes resembled the petals of blooming lotuses, and They wore garments of black deerskin and bark, along with the three-stranded sacred thread. In Their hands, which were most purifying, They carried the mendicant's waterpot, straight bamboo staff and lotus-seed prayer beads, as well as the all-purifying Vedas in the symbolic form of bundles of darbha grass. Their bearing was tall and Their yellow effulgence the color of radiant lightning. Appearing as austerity personified, They were being worshiped by the foremost demigods.

SB 12.8.35: These two sages, Nara and Narayana, were the direct personal forms of the Supreme Lord. When Markandeya Rishi saw Them, he immediately stood up and then with great respect offered Them obeisances by falling down flat on the ground like a stick.

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya.

I bow down to the Father and to the Son, the perfect son.

HS and yours.

That's the rationale I've used many times in discussions/debates with evangelical-type Christians, online and in person: the whole Adam and Eve thing is a symbolic story written to illustrate exactly what has already happened to all of us.

 

But none of them want to hear it that way; they consider Genesis "literal truth", and then ask "why has God deserted me (or us, mankind in general)" when something really horrible happens, like when a perfect little bundle of joy from heaven turns out to be a drug addict or gets killed in a car wreck at age 16.

 

A couple of times, close Christians have rhetorically asked me that question after these things happened to their children or children of friends/relatives, and then flat-out refused to listen to the Vedic version when I brought it up in a sincere effort to comfort them...it was taboo to them, they got a deer-in-the headlights look and changed the subject.

 

I've now altogether given up dialogue attempts with evangelical born-again types, online or in person.

Imagine telling a fundie that Genesis is Vedic text and has to be understood from that perspective. Like HV (Eve) is jiva and Adam (Atman)

The word for God's revealed knowledge in the Hebrew is Yeda Yada and in the Greek is Oida. Yeda is Veda . The dieity names Yahu and Yeshi and Yishma in Hebrew are Vasu and Vishnu in Sanskrit. In the Christian New Testament Eli-Yahu's (Hari-Vasu) knowledge is again called Oida or Eido ( the English word 'idea' is from Oida or Eido) hundreds of times. Together the yd , Oida word is used for knowledge over 900 times in the Hebrew and Greek Bible.

Sanskrit-related Greek Biblical word for knowledge is related to the root of the word 'knowledge' itself. ‘Know’ is related the Greek ‘Gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘jnan’. The ancient root jn, gn, kn had several meanings. Prominently, two meanings were associated with knowing and beginning.

Ganesha is Gnosis. When they open the scriptures, students and masters alike pray to Ganesha before beginning their labors. As Gan-eshvara, he is gen, jnan, Gnosis, know-ing personified, the very being and spirit of knowledge or jnan.

Yes and even Origen was not all that clear on it but he was definetly getting some knowledge from within.

 

But you know what I am saying I think, It may be there but you have to look for it. Some say it was taken out. I don't know but it is such a preliminary doctrine that it should just be understood.

 

Also if the soul was seen as existing in animals just like it says in Genesis first chapter then a case for animal rights would make sense to Christians much more than it presently does.

".. seek and ye shall find .." is a pretty serious statement of Jesus. We can't expect to look around for a few minutes then give up .. to quote the Vaisnavas, it may take "many many lifetimes"

Christians to a large extent are not really listening to their gurus and saddhus. I am talking about the true leaders. The saints (saddhus).

In 1990, His Holiness proclaimed that "the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren." He went on to say that all animals are "fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect" and that they are "as near to God as men are."

source:

http://www.goveg.com/f-popejohnpaulii.asp

I thought the brotherly philosophy taught by Jesus Christ was excellent. The taste derived from such worship was due to the Christian devotion to Jesus. I read all the books written by Theodore Parker and others, and books on Unitarianism I got from Calcutta. Because of these books my mind was attracted toward the devotion of Jesus. From the time of my childhood I had faith in bhakti. During the time I was in Ulagram hearing Hari Kirtan produced bliss in me.

This is very interesting and puts things in a proper light. First that HH Bhaktivindod Thakur was sincerely non sectarian. 2nd, that his exposure to Christian teaching was presented from Unitarian views.

Unitarian perspective is generally considered as heresy by apostolic (unbroken disciplic succession of Jesus). They reject the idea of the Trinity and propagate many other false teachings.

Frm this date until his death in 1842, Channing was the acknowledged leader of the denomination. Under his auspices the American Unitarian Association was founded at Boston in 1825 for the promotion of Unitarian interests.

 

After his death the radical element became predominant under the direction of Theodore Parker (1810-60), who succeeded him in influence. The authority of the Bible acknowledged by the old school was, under Parker, largely sacrificed to the principles of destructive criticism, and Unitarianism drifted rapidly into Rationalistic speculation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15154b.htm

Christians and Muslims alike reject reincarnation. And without understanding reincarnation there can be no rational understand of the way things work. The early church fathers like Origen did but the church ultimately reject it.

 

To understand reincarnation one must understand that the self is not the body. Not understanding this is where the eternal heaven or hell thinking comes in.

 

There is a verse they always quote which says it is appointed once for a man to die then the judgement. They think that closes the issue. But we also say that. If a person becomes God conscious in this life then no more appointments. If he doesn't he is judged in need of further work and a new prision term is arranged by his prarabdha karma.

 

What they fail to see is that we have already been judged and are now serving our sentence. Eternal damnation is actually a refference to samsara, the cycle of birth and death or as the Bible puts it "outer darkness". Or what we call bahiranga(if I remember right).

 

I have heard reincarnation called the missing link in Christianity.

Well .. the transmigration of the body to animal or from animal to body was rejected by St. Justin. I personally don't think his arguments hold water. BUT I think reincarnation is actually there in the doctrine of Purgatory.

The catholic history of teaching on purgatory includes life on earth as a part. If you go to purgatory after death, you get a new body and you are in a higher existence if in purgatory after this world of purgatory.

That is a reincarnation of sorts.

There is something unique to Christian teaching in this regard. If studied carefully, it is saying, that the prayers of the saints and the church get you to move up a notch on the spiritual plane and no matter what you don't have to take a birth on planet earth again.

Not saying I buy it, but it is interesting.

Wow I was somewhat fearful of opening this thread this evening but what a pleasant surprise. The Mods have been kept busy lately and it shouldn't be. We should police ourselves and have a more mature and gentle board.

 

I would like to raise a practical question. Presently Christianity is very very poor in the philosophy/theological department IMO while it has other strengths. Lots of basically descent good hearted people with a giving disposition. But we have been taught that religion without philosophy is mental speculation and we know that it takes more than mere sentiment to keep bhakti-lata-bija-growing without being stepped on and the followers mislead. Proper siddhanta is a sheild against the outer world and repeated birth and death.

 

I see the first need of Christianity is to have a clearly developed understanding of themselves as soul and not the body. Of course we all need this realization but I am speaking of just the intellectual level here.

 

Sharing what we have learned about the soul with the Christians would be a great service to Lord Jesus Christ and Krsna and would please Srila Prabhupada very much.

 

How do we bridge the gap? Is it possible even?

Well, I felt this way for a little while especially after discovering the SB. But I don't agree now.

I think what you *might* be saying is that Christians just have the message of Jesus in such a watered down state. They cannot convey nor can they understand Jesus' message.

Hence .. "No philosophy"

But this document is filled with fantastic gems:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Trouble is .. no one reads and meditates on the teachings, neither catholics or protestants.

I just went to a Pentacostal Church tonight.. I cannot see any similarities accept for Morals and a supreme being. Other than that they differ alot in teachings.. Christ doesnt teach Samsara.. He doesnt teach Maya.. In Christianity your natural nature is Evil.. you need Christ to cover it up..

Pentacostals are not apostolic christians having any system of GSS whatsoever.

Try these christians instead, then decide:

http://www.vagamon.com/kurisumala/kurisumala.htm

http://www.conventualsindia.org/communities7.php

This is what mahaksa and I see when this foul demon possessed of hellish mentality who mockingly calls himself guruvani posts.

 

Go to cp scroll down on the sidebar to the ignore list and type in guruvani. This brings much relief until he manages to disturb the whole thread.

 

Hare Krsna! It Works! On the top bar just under Audarya Fellowship select:

User CP (short for User Control Panel)

There is a buddy/ignore list setting.

Thank you again theist!

This is what mahaksa and I see when this foul demon possessed of hellish mentality who mockingly calls himself guruvani posts.

 

 

 

Go to cp scroll down on the sidebar to the ignore list and type in guruvani. This brings much relief until he manages to disturb the whole thread.

 

Until the Mods see fit to ban(again)this demon troll dressed as a vaisnava and as virtually every other vaisnava forum has done, he will continue to disturb the other members who want to peacefully discuss spiritual life.

Haribol! Thanks to Theist we now no how to "step in it" or "taste it"

he also referred to "Lord Buddha" but the Vaishnavas don't have anything to do with his teachings.

 

He also referred to "Lord Nelson" and some other "Lords".

 

Obviously, this Jesus mess is a problem for some neophyte devotees.

Prabhupada said Jesus is Isvara:

Bob: I asked one this, and he claimed that Jesus was also eating meat in the Bible.

Srila Prabhupada: That's all right. He may eat anything. He is powerful. But he has ordered, "Thou shalt not kill. You must stop killing." He is powerful. He can eat the whole world. But you cannot compare to Jesus Christ. You cannot imitate Jesus Christ; you have to abide by his order. Then you are guided by Jesus Christ. That is actually obedience. That is explained in the Bhagavata. One who is isvara, who is empowered, can do anything, but we cannot imitate. We have to abide by his order: "What he says to me, that I will do." You cannot imitate. You say that Jesus Christ ate meat. Admitting that, you do not know in what condition he ate meat. He is himself eating meat, but he is advising others not to kill. Do you think that Jesus Christ was contradicting himself?

I don't think that the forums at "INDIADIVINE" should constantly be disrupted by a handful of Jesus whiners who are like flies in the ointment of the great philosophical systems of India.

Guruvani, have you ever visited Kerala or Tamil Nadu? Last time I checked, they too are part of India. You should understand that you are very offensive to people from Kerala having a long intertwined history with Christianity, whether they be Hindu, Muslim or Christian.

A community known as Saint Thomas Christians has existed in Kerala

from very ancient times. They celebrate the feast of the Apostle

on the third of July. It is for them a day of obligation and

national rejoicing. They call it "Dukrana" (Commemoration) being

the day of his martyrdom according to tradition. It is believed

that the Apostle landed at Kodungalloor on the twenty-first of

November.

The sacred office of the oriental rite of Kerala for "Dukrana"

with its Octave reiterates the tradition. No other place or rite

keeps this Octave. The kindling of the light of faith, the opening

of the gate of heaven to the Indians and the glorious martyrdom of

the Apostle are commemorated in these prayers.

In the commemorative prayers of the Nestorian Church for the feast

of St. Thomas, it is clearly stated that the Apostle died a martyr

in India and his relics were translated to Edessa by a merchant

named Kabir.

The Malayalam popular songs of antiquity, known as "Thoma parvam"

and "MargamKali Pattu," describe vividly the advent of Thomas in

Kerala, his apostolate here and his martyrdom near a temple of the

goddess Kali at Mylapore, on the third of July, 72. "The Ramban

Songs" are also popular ballads which the St. Thomas Christians

have sung from generation to generation, narrating the work of

Thomas in Kerala. These ballads are believed to have been composed

by Ramban Thomas Maliekal who received baptism and priesthood from

the Apostle. The "Veeradian pattukal" are other popular melodies

sung by Hindus on special occasions. They extol the preaching of

Thomas in Kerala and the special privileges granted later by King

Cheraman Perumal to Kerala Christians.

The tomb of Thomas is traditionally believed to be at Mylapore. No

one has ever questioned this belief, and no other place has

claimed to contain his tomb. The Kerala Christians used to go on

pilgrimages every year to the tomb. They considered it their duty

to do so at least once in their lives. This practice continued

uninterrupted until 1654.[8]

According to tradition Thomas erected seven churches in Kerala at

Kodungalloor, Palayur, Parur, Kokkamangalam, Nilackal, Niranam and

Quilon. Hindus and Mohammedans also maintain this tradition and

offer prayers and gifts at these churches.

No one else claims to have introduced Christianity in Kerala. The

Church of Mesopotamia and Babylon respect the tradition of Kerala.

In 1542, the people of Sokotra told Saint Francis Xavier that

Thomas, after spreading the Gospel in their land, went to Malabar

and died a martyr at Mylapore.[9]

....e Doctrine of the Apostles>, a Syriac book produced in Edessa

in the second century, expressly declares that India received the

Apostle's "Hand of Priesthood" from Saint Thomas who planted and

built the church there. Abdias who was Bishop of Babylon (second

century), Dorotheus (third century), Saints Ephraem, Jerome,

Ambrose (fourth century), Theodore (fifth century), Saint Gregory

of Tours (sixth century), Saint Isidore (seventh century) and all

the early Fathers of the Church have attested to the preaching of

Thomas in India and his martyrdom in Mylapore. Ephraem further

states that the relics of the Apostle were transferred from

Mylapore to Edessa by a merchant.[10] Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/KERALA.TXT

Yeah, to be a christian or a vaisnava. Despite this obvious flaw in our character molded in the unfortunate era of Kali yuga, the idea of salvation is there nonetheless. But we say we are fallen, not because we are humble, like bhaktivinode who says the same thing, but because we recognize the indisputable fact of our condition. ...

 

"That literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories, names, forms, pastimes, associates, etc. of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation (Than the regulative Veda), full of transcendental words directed toward bringing a revolution in the impious lives of the world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified souls who are thoroughly honest." (SB 1:5:11)

The author of the Vedas, Srila Vyasadeva, is faced with this very question. He created shastra, yet without the sanction of Guru and Gauranga, it was incomplete. Sri Gurudeva, Narada Muni, exhibits His relationship with the Supreme Lord to Vyasadeva, and the result is the total commentary of the Veda in accordance with the definition cited above. The Goswamis of Vrndavana and their loving servants continue to compose such perfect shastra.

 

Many who claim to be of the Christian faith will automatically reject any answer to their theological mystery, but Lord Jesus Christ teaches only to those with ears to hear. The Vaisnava Sadhu humbly canvasses for the One Who has sent Him, He does not hide the Lord in the Heart from the assembly (Ps 40). Some may reject Paramatma thinking they are beyond His effect, that this is a lower truth. They, too, face the lonliness of forgetfulness. Paramatma, Lord Nityananda, Sri Chaitagurudeva, is the only One Who has full memory, and rememberance of swarupa siddhi comes from Him only. The trinity of guru-sadhu-shastra is the Supreme Absolute Truth, in combination, these three aspects form an exhibition of the actual personal relationship between the self and the Supreme Lord.

 

All glories to the assembled devotees, ys, mahaksadasa

Interesting posts once again (provide of course we ignore the devil )

So I personally believe that we are all saying the same thing yet having different perspectives.

I did not mean to say that Baladeva is ONLY Jiva Tattva, but that His manifestation IS ALSO the Shelter of All Jivas.

This means that the perfected Jiva rests within His Jiva body. He is not only Jiva body though. He offers Himself for the salvation of the jivas, but He is not only this perfect Jiva Tattva.

The absolute highest state that the living entity can attain is oneness (yet simultaneous difference) with the Perfect jiva body of Baladeva. This concept is expressed on the christian tradition as the body of Christ. I am not talking about brahmavadi merging into Jesus consciousness either. I am saying that our true identity is in relationship to Baladeva and Baladeva's relationship with Krsna.

I can see and understand more clearly from your posts the reasons why there are legitamate theological differences in the Trinity. I think these are more nuances that are admittedly far above me.

My Christian experience seems to be very vaisnava. I am not relying 1st on the doctrine and theology of either religion. Rather, I am saying I look at both in context of my personal experience.

So I am really enlivened (again) by this discussion because it feels like a genuine discussion among godbrothers having unique experiences.

It would be fantastic to someday have a kirtan with such wonderful and sincere and knowledgable godbrothers.

HS and yours.

Srila Prabhupada used the term, the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead to describe the pure devotee. I love this expression because it so perfectly reveals the actual position of the perfected jiva.

Right. So let's talk about the trinity for a moment. We will agree that the only Absolute is God Himself.

So we have Krsna Baladeva and Paramatma as Trinity. Since Baladeva is servitor, His form (and association) must be Perfect Jiva, i,e Jiva Tattva. But He is not limited As Jiva.

The perfect soul who receives His Mercy then too becomes perfect jiva. This I believe is Jesus' teaching in John 15:1 (I am the Vine, you are the branch, ny Father the vine dresser)

The Jiva relationship to Visnu is subordinate. It is dependent on, it rests on Visnu.

If Jesus is Jiva Tattva, it a makes no difference if He is branch or vine. The essence is the same.

This is why salvation can come directly from Baladeva or a saint. They are one.

Guru is one. Therefore it is the correct conception, even from the christian perspective to think of Jesus as perfect godbrother.

But any jiva soul that becomes pure must be Jiva Tattva and one with the Shelter of All Jivas. That is Baladeva, a divine person. He is simultaneously the same identity as those that obtain the fullness of His mercy, yet He is also beyond jiva tattva.

The desert fathers and christian saints have the realization that Jesus is that. A perfect person (expressed as "True Man" in the Christian creed) AND simultaneously the manifestation of the Father Visnu. This is why He is called True God and True Man.

No Jiva Tattva can be Jiva Tattva without being One with the Body of the Shelter of All jivas. That Shelter of All Jivas is known as Sankarsana, God Himself.

Yet HE does not reveal Himself that way but rather as a servant.

This is what I beleive is meant by Shakti Avesya .. partial revelation of the Godhead, because He does not choose to reveal Himself in fullness and opulence.

The varying degrees of Shakti Avesya all must still be one with jiva tattva.

This is why Paul calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God" and the Church fathers call Him "True Man" and "Only Begotten"

I concede, as the above thoughts indicate, now we are talking about the theological views and differences of the Trinity.

I am comfortable with the eastern view that Jesus is perfect godbrother. That is how He wishes to be thought of anyway.

"Our Father, who art in heaven ..."

But I am reasonably certain that if Baladeva makes an appearance, He would be the same "personality"

Whether you view that personality as the Vine that shelters all the branches, or just branch of the One True Vine, will be a matter of personal realization or logical conviction.

Devotees on either side are one, particularly if they keep it simple.

This describes Jesus as Lord Brahma, as is stated in the begining of John, and not Vishnu.

 

I'll add the quote from John in a minute.

I have no problem with Jesus being Lord Brahma either.

I do not view this thread as a debate. It is place to present different ideas.

I think I can make the following observation:

A realization of Jesus as master reveals His Lordship which is the same realization of Jesus as Visnu.

But Jesus says He reveals the Father. Then there must be a realization of Visnu as Visnu and in this realization, Jesus must be an associate.

We should remind ourselves we are "talking" about realizations we really could not describe with words.

Shakta avesa avatars come and go as they please, which is another point that should be discussed in any thread concerning Lord Jesus Christ. His mother is actually shaktavesa avatar, because SHE DOES COME AND GO AS SHE PLEASES, appears by her own will to countless individuals throughout history. Jesus may have knocked Saul of Tarsus off his mount, but who else? Mary of Axum has appeared at Fatima, Lourdes, Guadaloupe, and there is always a big deal when she does, usually opposed by christians who deny that She can do such things.

 

So, Jesus is not visnu, and those who say he is are NOT pleasing to him, because he admonishes his disciples for even calling him "good rabbi", saying only god is good.

 

All glories to the shaktivesa avatar, Mary of Axum, Daughter of Solomon, born of Hanna and Joachim, Israel, the wife of God.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

Jesus appears as servant of servants. Does Visnu? If St. Paul is correct, Jesus also renounces equality with God (Visnu) because Jesus' Himself does not deem equality with God "something to be grasp at/for"

But this does not mean the Jesus is not Visnu. IF Visnu wished to take birth and take the form of a servant, would He still be Visnu?

These are some of the questions that I have.

And one more question:

Where, anywhere in Vedas, Upanishads, and Vedic literature is there a reference to such a thing as Shakta avesa avatar?

I have not been able to find this term anywhere! (expect among the HK commentaries). No scripture seems to have such a term.

Burn the unbelievers

 

If a man does not believe in me, he is cast forth as

the branches of a tree, and is withered; and men

gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are

burned.

 

John 15:6

Seek and ye shall find.

First of all you must seek and ask the meaning. Do you think this passage refers to physical fire?

Or is the the fire of prana? Try translating Jesus words into sanskrit terms and see what you will find.

( .. not that "scholar" is really interested as all of "scholar's" posts to date are atheistic..)

For those really interested, here is a basic explanation:

"If you don't believe in me " (that means all of the spiritual precepts that Jesus teaches as they are one and the same with Him, the Word)

"he is cast forth as

the branches of a tree, and is withered" - that means anyone without spiritual discipline and devotion to God becomes weak and "withers" and covered in maya. Hence Withered branches are pruned from the Kingdom of God and are "cast forth" into the material modes of passion (fire) and ignorance.

"and men

gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are

burned."

Lusty affairs of "men" bond the withered vines and they burn in the fires of passion.

The way I understand this controversy among the Vaishnavas as to the identity of Baladeva is that some Vaishnavas see Lord Baladeva as a jiva, just like they see Srimati Radharani as a jiva. Not every Vaishnava school accepts Lord Krsna's brother as identical with Sankarsana, the direct expansion of Lor Vishnu. Thus there are many different Vaishnava teachings on Baladeva.

 

As to the similarities of Baladeva to the divinity of Jesus it is a very hard sell if one speaks of the Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding of things.

 

Best to avoid such comparisons as theological blunders seem inevitable here and chances of satisfying both mainstream Christians and mainstream Vaishnavas with our analysis are very slim.

PAMHO

I am not trying to "sell" the similarities. I don't want sell anything and I am not asking you to buy anything.

I am pointing out 2 things. First there is difference of theological interpretation of the relationship of Baladeva to jiva tattva.

Second, that the catholic credo (statement of core belief) says:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];" - The Nicene Creed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

So the person who wrote the thread asked "Is Jesus Visnu?"

To the body of christian believers, the answer has been "yes" and can be historically documented as such since the 1st century.

Now if you compare the CC Adi Lila and Vaisnava and Shaivaite theologies on Jiva Tattva, the only honest academic conclusion is that the Christian teachings on Jesus divinity and 2nd person of Godhead, and Vaisnava teachings on Baladeva have strong similarity.

Also, IF we were to expressed or decribe the Jesus Son of God, of the Nicene creed in sanskrit terminology, then WHO would we describe and how?

You can tell me Jesus is not Visnu and I am happy to respect your opinion.

But I can tell you what our belief is, and that is He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.

I personally do not see any conflict in the scriptures between our traditions. The only conflict arises in the commentary and evangelists.

Peace.

HS and yours

I heard on New Dwarka Radio that attraction to Yogic practices such as meditation are put away after learning about Bhakti. Does this mean Yogic Meditation is og no use? Because I have found it very benificial in my life.

Yes. All other forms are put away.

That is why all the devotees no longer read or comment on the philosophy of the vedas. Right?

I have asked a similar question but also did not get a response.

If Bhakti is best, then why is Gaudya math having so many books of advanced PhD topics?

Why do iskcon devotees criticize other religious beliefs as being simplistic and having no philosophy?

Why do these devotees always say that BG to SB to CC is like college then PhD then advanced PhD and other religions or philosophies are simple.

I thought simplicity is the point Bhakti.

Well then, I respectcully disagree.

 

Lord Caitanya clearly stated that the Jiva can never be Visnu. We are part and parcel of Lord Visnua, not Lord Visnu Himself.

You may respectfully disagree, but you are not correct to quote Sri Caitanya in this way. Please review the following:

From CC Adi-Lila Ch. 5. The Glories of Lord Nityananda Balarama

Text 5

"They are both one and the same identity. They differ only in form. He is the first bodily expansion of Krishna, and He assists in Lord Krishna’s transcendental pastimes."

Purport

"Balarama is a svamsa expansion of the Lord, and therefore there is no difference in potency between Krishna and Balarama."

Text 10 Purport

"Sri Balarama is the servitor Godhead who serves Lord Krishna in all affairs of existence and knowledge."

Text 18 Purport

"That transcendental abode exists by the energy of Sri Baladeva, who is the original whole of Shesha, or Ananta. The tantras also confirm this description by stating that the abode of Sri Anantadeva, the plenary portion of Baladeva, is called the kingdom of God."

Text 41 Purport

"Sankarshana, the second expansion, is Vasudeva's personal expansion for pastimes, and since He is the reservoir of all living entities, He is sometimes called jiva."

[For more important discussion of Lord Balarama as jiva, see especially numbered points 1 and 2 on page 170 regarding refutation of Adi Shankaracharya’s teaching that Sri Baladeva as jiva is the ordinary living entity.]

Text 41 Purport,

"In the spiritual sky there is a spiritual creative energy technically called shuddha-sattva, which is a pure spiritual energy that sustains all the Vaikuntha planets with the full opulences of knowledge, wealth, prowess etc. All these actions of shuddha-sattva display the potencies of Maha-Sankarshana, who is the ultimate reservoir of all individual living entities who are suffering in the material world. When the cosmic creation is annihilated, the living entities, who are indestructible by nature, rest in the body of Maha-Sankarshana. Sankarshana is sometimes therefore called the total jiva."

THE THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY REGARDING SRI BALADEVA AS JIVA TATTVA IS NOT ONLY BETWEEN THE SHANKARITES, SHAIVITES AND VAISHNAVAS, BUT IS ALSO FOUND BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SCHOOLS OR LINEAGES OF VAISHNAVISM AS WELL.

Christian thought is a branch of devotional Vaisnavism. The theology of Jesus and the teaching of His divinity is very similar to Vaisnava teaching on Baladeva.

There is no past or future in the spiritual world, only an eternal NOW, but couldn´t one say that this is absolute time, time which cannot be related to in terms of yesterday and tomorrow?

 

And if there is an yesterday and tomorrow, how can it then be only NOW?

 

In the spiritual world Krishna is the Time, but how is it functioning there?

 

 

And what about the space?

 

Here in the material world the space is relative, it can be measured and related, but what about the space in the spiritual world?

"Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away" - Mark 13:31

We have in contemporary physics the understanding that there are 4 basic aspect to physical phenomenon which have their analogues in vedic "cosmology":

Time (kala)

space (desa)

matter (anu)

energy (om)

If we consult the vedas and other western theistic scriptures we find that God is:

Timeless (eternal)

Omniscient (not bounded by space or dimension)

Omnipresent (non localized -- classical matter (ie particle) )

His Word (Om) which is simultaneously manifested externally and present without external manifestation

From the timeless comes time, from the indivisible comes division (atoms) etc.

Time in modern physics is relative to light in some context. It cannot be conceptualized without light (and darkness). Darkness is present even in relativistic cosmology (e.g. singularity, black hole, etc.) Time is also understood with respect space. That is, in there has to be a "frame of reference" in scientific analysis.

In the vedic literature, it is said that the heavenly planets are the ones closer to the center of the galaxies, having so many suns, that there is no darkness as we understand. Be even still, light must travel from these places in the cosmic manifestation. Hence, these places too are in time.

We can expect that in the presence of many suns, light may behave differently that we can understand or predict. For example, read this page on quantum teleportation

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html

For example, it may be easy to understand being in 2 places at once if you lived in a world having many (strange) interactions of many high energy light sources.

So these are merely some physical possibilities. The Lord of Time is still beyond the physics and time of the center of galaxies.

HS and yours

(post removed)

 

you are thinking of a different person

 

the site referred to in post number three is by a woman devotee Priitaa

 

her home page is http://www.geocities.com/priitaa/krishna_conscious_web_sites.htm

OK .. I understand completely .. thx