Priitaa

Yes, Chrit's name is also Isa. This name is actually used in various religions for him (as he preached all over the world). Other names were similar. It more denotes his position than anything. Isa Messiah or Isa das, same. Servant of God. That sounds like his tomb which was on the program you described. Personally, and from all I've read so far, tho he was Jewish, I believe he knew Krishna is God. He just had a specific misison. YS, Priitaa

Gh, Interesting, tho I still have to say, it is one (or more) person's 'opinion,' as Prabhupada never said Jesus is Lord Brahma or visa versa. And he was not one to hide such things. He was always telling us this one was an incarnation of that one, etc. Even on Jesus, he gave us controverisal information, such as, he did not die on the cross, Jesus lived in Kashmir, and so on. Now, if it turns out that Jesus is indeed Brahama, that's fine. I just see mostly we are speculating and becoming attached to our speculations, thus looking for more evidence to prove them. :-) So, am not sure what to think of this Jesus is Braham idea, but will remain open to it for now. YS, Prtha dd

I am also wondering where that leaves me. :-) That is, maybe you could clarify, as I had no idea it had any connection to Mayavadi. Just fun mental games devotees sometimes like to participate in. ha But in order that I can make sure I do not commit this offsense, or to see where I may have done so and thus can avoid it in the future, plesae explain to me how this can result in something Mayavadi? Thank you. YS, Prtha dd

Thank you for answering my questions. That expalins it. We are not Hindus. Krishna consciousness is different from Hinduism. As far as any 'formless' being superior or realized thru forms, or impersonal brahmana is concerend, and I have heard all this before, I dont know what Gita you are reading, but that is mistaken idea at best. I humbly suggest you give Prabhupada's a chance. If the ancient scriptures are not translated by a pure devotee, all sorts of misunderstandings manifest as if shastra, when they are not. Try: http://www.asitis.com I'll take the book. ha I don't go on blind faith and revealed Vedic literature tells us otherwise. Merely because some did not know about Vaisnavism does not mean it did not exist. Karma or whatever reasons, can cause someone to take birth in an area that they are kept in ignorance. I would need further evidence than this. According to Vedic literatures, there have been Krishna temples on this planet forever I think I shall look at Shiva's links as soon as I get a few minutes. Wishing you well. Hare Krishna. YS, Prtha dd

Thank you for answering my questions. That expalins it. We are not Hindus. Krishna consciousness is different from Hinduism. As far as any 'formless' being superior or realized thru forms, or impersonal brahmana is concerend, and I have heard all this before, I dont know what Gita you are reading, but that is mistaken idea at best. I humbly suggest you give Prabhupada's a chance. If the ancient scriptures are not translated by a pure devotee, all sorts of misunderstandings manifest as if shastra, when they are not. Try: http://www.asitis.com I'll take the book. ha I don't go on blind faith and revealed Vedic literature tells us otherwise. Merely because some did not know about Vaisnavism does not mean it did not exist. Karma or whatever reasons, can cause someone to take birth in an area that they are kept in ignorance. I would need further evidence than this. According to Vedic literatures, there have been Krishna temples on this planet forever I think I shall look at Shiva's links as soon as I get a few minutes. Wishing you well. Hare Krishna. YS, Prtha dd

1-Are you therefore saying that prior to devotees of Krishna on this planet, there were devotees of Shiva? 2-If so, are you saying you believe Shiva is God? What is your opinion on this? As you probably know, most of us here believe Krishna as the first, one and only Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore everything originated from Him. Please give us your proof. 3-I find this hard to believe. Will also need proof. Thank you for your time. Hare Krishna. YS, Prtha dd

1-Are you therefore saying that prior to devotees of Krishna on this planet, there were devotees of Shiva? 2-If so, are you saying you believe Shiva is God? What is your opinion on this? As you probably know, most of us here believe Krishna as the first, one and only Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore everything originated from Him. Please give us your proof. 3-I find this hard to believe. Will also need proof. Thank you for your time. Hare Krishna. YS, Prtha dd

Thank you both LivingEntity and StoneHearted. I must confess, I could have sworn I once read an old post where you said you were the same person, thus Babru. :-) Are you sure you are not playing games? If so, busted! ha If not, oh well. Yes, in the Bible (but not the Gita) the word "meat" has often been conveniently mistranslated, a result of Chruch meddling. I have done some research on this, have a web page that includes a bit of it. Always more to uncover but the basics are there. Tho even if 'meat' just meant 'food,' the reader of the Bible or any tampered scripture, would not know what had been intentionally hidden from their sight. Thus, they ate meat thinking it was no big deal. (Poor grandma.) Essenes have cleared a lot of this up and we as devotees benefit. Though they are just one source, but have brought to light the very strong possibility, and probability, that Christ was a vegetarian. Babru (wherever you are), my English and spelling will surely fail your paper grading. :-) Thanks for your tolerance. YS, Prtha (Priitaa) d.d.

I don't know what version you are reading, but unless the Gita is translated by the pure devotee, than the countless and therefore contradictory translations out there, don't explain it properly. So I am not trying to hassle you or anything. Just, if you want to see where we are coming from, check out: http://www.asitis.com YS, Prtha dd

Actually, I am thankful to Babru for his repeated replies to these posts so I don't have to. (Others may feel that way too, even if they are quiet.) I know without a doubt the iniatiated (or similar) devotees are in total agreement, tho I sympathize with Enlightened, having started on the path and not understanding the severity of murder of animals. While nothing touches Krishna (as it was never about HIS contamination but our own), to hurt any God's creature is what we are against. You can choose that eating or not eating meat is the same, or whatever belief system you want to make yours, and that is your right. However, Bhagavad-gita and all the revealed Vedic literature state otherwise. Anyway, this is a Hare Krishna message board where all are welcome, just to know that we are all in agreement on this topic. But I wish Enlightened well. YS, Prtha

Thanks Thiest, I don't mean to sound like I have a problem with ever considering that one great saint, ray of Vishnu, etc., may reincarnate and do some new great thing, just that we may (sometimes) take it a bit too far. Sometimes trying to make them into another soul we are interested in. Or, even if they are that personality, it seems to take away from what they are doing now (etc). Then, what if they are not that personality? But I dont mean to appear too close minded or fanatical, as I believe its ok to wonder a bit. What a boring world it would be if we were not allowed to wonder. And we have the most perfect religion that offers that option. Only, I feel to keep it within sensible limits. Brahma/Christ/Haridas at least has some scriptural connection. Tho I really haven't a clue on that one. LOL That is no reflection on the Balaram issue. My opinion there is, as you too have noticed, Prabhupada was clear that Jesus is jiva-tattava, Balarama is Vishnu-tattva. YS, Prtha dd

The article on Balarama is interesting. I never read/heard Prabhupada say anything to indicate this connection even in the slightest, so I tend to question it. Though I think what I question MORE is that we so often want to make one personality 'into' someone. Is Jesus this person or that? Is someone else that other one, or this other one? Sometimes I feel they are simply themselves, merely having similar qualities & behavior due to great purity. YS, Prtha dd

OMGosh! This is disgusting! Offensive, and downright wrong! I am going to put it in my newsletter, tho it may not come out for another week or two. (It takes time.) But it will go out. I have over 200 rs. Hope that helps, cuz this has to be stopped! They are just making money off of Prabhupada's name. Thanks for the tip. I will pass it on. YS, Prtha dd

Haribol! I highly doubt the Lord is punishing you for preaching! Srila Prabhupada started a preaching movement, so we have all been insulted repeatedly by fundamental Christians. Too bad you lost friends tho. Many of us lost friends when we joined. I remember being so excited about moving into an 'ashrama,' that I told everybody and invited them to come visit. This one who I thought to be very opened minded, was actully offensive! And the others, tho not offensive, well, I lost those friends. But the way I see it is that now, I have much better ones! And now at least I have devotees of Krishna for my friends! So it was worth it. As far as what to tell the Christians and what not to, I generally try not to agitate their minds. If they are open to it, I will tell. If they are not, I leave them alone. Better they believe in something than nothing cuz we have much power, much knowledge, and it would be easy to disprove their fundamental fanaticism. However, the result of that too often is not that they turn to Krishna, but at least their is risk they go agnostic or athiestic. So I have read it is better to let them believe in some form of religiosity than none, or else we will have a corrupt society. Or more corrupt. Many spoke their minds in youth. :-) Not to worry. We learn as we go. Haribol! YS, Prtha dd

Thank you for this link. This was exactly the kind of thing I was talking about previously - that there is plenty of evidence about Krishna, they are just looking in all the wrong places. And I read many similar accounts in BTG. Tho am always looking for more, especially online! :-) There were some initial problems getting into the link tho, just due to typo's, so I fixed and reposted here. Anyone sould be able to just click on it now. Again, glad someone posted something like this. Thanks. YS, Prtha dd

And I thought I was logged in. Sorry. YS, Prtha dd

Hmmmm I could have sworn that sign outside the old Methodist church I use to attend said Unitarian, but now I am not sure. You could be right. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, as what they preached inside where I attended, regardless of what others preached, is that Christ was Son and not God. This, I felt, was one of the reasons I was able to come to Krishna consciousness, because I had never heard in my life that Jesus was God! Phew. Thank Krishna for that. Maybe things have changed, but I read about the origin of Methoidists as rebellion against those who believed Jesus was God. There may be various opinions on this, as there are on everything. I know I should check out that link, I just have been busy reading Vedic shastra right now (about Lord Caitanya), and don't really want to read something else at the moment. But most likely, my curiousity will eventually get the better of me, and I will. :-) Thanks. By the way everyone, HAPPY GAURA-PURNIMA!!!!!!!!!!! YS, Prtha dd

Yes, Mr. Rogers missed out on the contact with Lord Caitanya, Prabhupada, and the devotees. That's unfortunate. The way I see it, he's on his way up. I once heard that Prabbhupada said if people are going to be a Christian, then let them be a real Christian and Christ can actually help them. Mr. Rogers was a vegetarian and so few Christians get the importance of 'tho shalt not kill.' He did. Maybe Mr. Rogers is on Christ's planet right now and his gurudeva, Jesus, is teaching him about Krishna. :-) Or maybe he will, unfortunately, have to take birth again, but it appears that it would be a pious birth. I think of all the devotee children who benefited from watching his show and see it as a form of devotional service he unknowingly performed. I can't comment on Kirtanananda. All I can speak of is in general, that one never looses the devotional service they do, yet if they knowing commit offense after offense, it is worse then the nondevotee who is on their way up but may make an offense out of ignorance. Of course, the devotee can always throw themselves at the feet of Srila Prabhupada and the assembled devotees (tho these days, more honest when done in private) and beg for forgiveness. As long as they adding the needed purification work (which may include therapy, especailly for a sex offender), then they can be forgiven. From that point on tho, they must continue to do their work and be honest about the level they are truthfully on. But Krishna is not beyond forgiveneess, just that I have seen too few actually go that route. YS, Prtha dd

I didn't know Methodists had branches. They broke away from the portestants, as they Methodists "are" the branch, as I understood it. But its no big deal. If there were to alter their doctrine, I would not be surprised. Just that I wouldn't want to speculate on it as a fact, but ulatimately its not so important to me. I belonged to the Methodist Unitarian church, which is just a regular Methodist church. Yes, they still believed in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, thus the Trinity idea is there, but the Methodists at the time understood "Son" actually as son. And as guru, tho they would never use that word; but not as God. I don't know that Prabhupada was against the Trinity idea tho. Father being God/Krishna, Son being guru, and Holy Spirt being our soul or SuperSoul. Unless you have read something I have not. (Dogma, now that's different.) YS, Prtha dd

As I was first reading this, I did not realize it was a quote from Prabhupada. Thank you for this. I had never heard that particular quote. Quite an eye opener, and it sure makes a person think. Anyhow, always more to learn about spirutal life. Everytime we think we got it all figured out, there is more. Thank goodness for that. Ours is not a dull path. Keeps us humble too. YS, Prtha dd

Siva, Thanks for the info. I will check out that site as soon as I have a chance. Regarding the belief's of the Methodists, I know their theology cuz I was one. However, they may have changed their doctrine. This I do not know about. The Methodist church started due to disagreement with other Christians religions because those particular religions believed Jesus was God, and not the son of God. This, the Methodists strongly took issue with, so they broke away and the Methodist church was founded. And that is what I was taught (about Jesus) when I attended church. I believe we would have to look into it facutually if we wanted to see if anything changed, since that's an integral part of their doctrine. I am not surprised the Catholics could not archeologically find much historical proof to back up their belief about Jesus. That's because Jesus is not one of them, he's one of us. :-) As you may know, Jesus preached in India, Tibet, Peru, Etc. But where did he decide to settle down for the rest of his life? India! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I would not be surprised if, in their research, the Catholic church discovered more archeological findings in these areas than their own. Or they may have found out that Jesus was a Vaisnava, the very religion they detested, so they tried to brush that under the carpet, IMHO. YS, Prtha dd

As I reread your post, it appears you are saying the same thing I am saying, tho it feels like the long route to China. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Anyway, if it helped someone, that's good. Those who believe God can't create things that "can't" be created, are seeing materially. There is NOTHING God can't create, even if people can't fit it into boxes and triangles. :-) This can't be understood with the mind, can't be understood thru mathematical calculations, can't be understood thru logic. This can only be understood with the heart and with the soul. YS, Prtha dd

As I reread your post, it appears you are saying the same thing I am saying, tho it feels like the long route to China. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Anyway, if it helped someone, that's good. Those who believe God can't create things that "can't" be created, are seeing materially. There is NOTHING God can't create, even if people can't fit it into boxes and triangles. :-) This can't be understood with the mind, can't be understood thru mathematical calculations, can't be understood thru logic. This can only be understood with the heart and with the soul. YS, Prtha dd

Actually, you are correct. They did not allow for much testing. Its the Shroud of Turin. But they are claiming Christ lived and died in Kashmir, India, and that THIS is what he meant when he spoke of the "Holy Land." (!) Here's more. ----- The Shroud of Turin (see previous page) shows full-length front and back images of what appears to be a crucified man. It is made of fine linen and is 3.5 feet wide and a little over 14 feet long. The markings and the image on the Shroud appear to correspond to Biblical descriptions of the brutal beating and persecution of Jesus Christ. There are many people who believe that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. There are others who believe it to be a medieval fraud created by some ingenious individual. The picture is generally very well known. That picture is actually the photographic negative of the image on Shroud of Turin. But when one actually views the Shroud itself, the image appears very faint, though distinct. So, the negative produced from photographing the Shroud gives an indication of how the Shroud would have looked to the human eye before it faded over the centuries. The Shroud is owned by the Catholic Church. You may read more about the Shroud of Turin at http://64.224.220.220 , a fascinating site. Another excellent site is the Shroud of Turin Website, managed by Mr. Barry Schwortz, the photographer responsible for photographing every square centimeter of the Shroud of Turin during the 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientific investigations. You may also wish to check out the site run by the Council for the Study of the Shroud of Turin. What on earth has the Shroud of Turin to do with the theory of Jesus in India? That's what we'll examine. One hypothesis that is constantly propagated by Christians (particularly Catholics) who believe that the Shroud is genuine is that the image on the Shroud proves that Jesus Christ actually resurrected, emitting a burst of light and radiation causing the image to form on the Shroud. It has been claimed that science has not, as yet, discovered how the image was made. But there are those who believe that the Shroud of Turin might tell another story: that the markings and image on the Shroud prove that Jesus survived the crucifixion. They claim that there is a very natural explanation of how the image on the Shroud was made, although, of course, that explanation is rejected by Christians and by scientists who begin their scientific studies of the Shroud with the assumption that whoever the Shroud covered was dead. Those who believe that the Shroud stands as proof that Christ survived the crucifixion avow that if one begins with the assumption that the body was still alive after the crucifixion, then a natural explanation of how the image was made comes to the fore. Bioplastic Coating on the Shroud of Turin In 1978, the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientist, Dr. Ray Rogers, of the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, who had been one of the participants of the first thorough scientific studies of the Shroud (conducted in Turin, Italy) hand-delivered 32 sticky-tape slides containing fibers of the Shroud of Turin to Dr. Walter McCrone, a microscopist. Dr. McCrone noticed what he believed to be powdered iron oxide on the fibers that had been taken specifically from body image areas of the Shroud. Iron oxide is a natural pigment that has been used in art for thousands of years. He also noticed other materials that led him to the conclusion that the Shroud was a medieval forgery produced by a very clever artist. McCrone's finding was at complete variance with the findings of Dr. Heller, whose research identified the stains on the Shroud as bloodstains. Heller, in his book, Report on the Shroud of Turin, noted the following: Thus far, our positive blood tests had included (1) microspectrophotometric scans of crystals and fibrils, (2) reflectance scans on the Shroud, (3) positive hemochromogen tests, (4) positive cyanomethemoglobin tests, (5) positive tests for bile pigments, and (6) characteristic heme porphyrin fluorescence. Any one of these is proof of the presence of blood, and each is acceptable in a court of law. Taken together, they are irrefutable. So there now existed two diametrically opposed conclusions regarding the blood on the Shroud, both coming from noted scientists in their fields. In the meantime the scientific community had been urging the Vatican to allow carbon dating of the Shroud as a way to settle the issue. In October of 1987, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, of Turin, Italy, approved a list of three radiocarbon laboratories that would be allowed enough samples of the Shroud to carry out the test. These labs were: The Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology's radiocarbon-dating facility at Zurich, and the University of Arizona's facility at Tucson. The results was performed, and on October 13, 1988 in the British Museum's Press Room, it was announced that the carbon dating had dated the Shroud to somewhere between the years 1260-1390. The conclusion was that the Shroud was a fake. But at a conference held in Rome, Italy in June of 1993, and sponsored by the Centre International d'Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes rocked the entire Shroud community in a paper he read entitled, Biogenic Varnish and the Shroud of Turin. Valdes discovered that on many ancient artifacts, there exists a plaque-like coating that accumulates over centuries. He called this coating a "bioplastic material." This material accumulates through the activity of millions of bacteria fungi that build up into a hard casing similar to a coral reef. Dr. Garza-Valdes explained that this bioplastic coating is invisible unless a special medium is used to disclose its presence. In April of 1993, Dr. Garza-Valdes traveled to Turin, Italy for the purpose of examining under a microscope some threads of the Shroud that were in the possession of Giovanni Riggi. He described his first reaction, upon viewing these threads, as follows: "As soon as I looked at a segment in the microscope, I knew it was heavily contaminated. I knew that what had been radiocarbon dated was a mixture of linen and bacteria and fungi and bioplastic coating that had grown on the fibers for centuries." Walter McCrone raised the objection that if such a coating existed on the carbon-dated fibers of the Shroud of Turin, then that coating would have been removed due to a very stringent pretreatment cleaning routinely performed by radiocarbon-dating laboratories. This cleaning is performed specifically to remove any contaminants that might exist on a specimen and, as a consequence, interfere with the results of the test. All three of the laboratories that dated the Shroud fibers had used a cleaning agent composed of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. So, Dr. Garza-Valdes reproduced this cleaning process, and concluded: "When you clean these with hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide not simply with the concentration used by the radiocarbon laboratories but with six times the strength of that used in 1988, you don’t do a single thing to the bacteria and the bioplastic coating. The only thing that you do is to dissolve part of the cellulose from the flax, so that you are going to make bigger the contaminant in relation to the cellulose of the flax." But how was it possible that three different radiocarbon-dating laboratories could have missed this coating? Garza-Valdes argued that the bioplastic coating is like clear plastic, and one can look right through it just as one would look through glass. He said: "This is why many people have looked with the microscope and have missed the deposit and said the fibers are clean. A few years ago they could not have understood how the Mayans gave that beautiful polish to the ancient jades. No one could understand the technology they used to give that beautiful luster. But the Mayans didn't do it. It was the bacteria that deposited this acrylic on the ancient surfaces." "The DNA of God?" Well, despite Heller's tests demonstrating that blood does exist on the Shroud, and despite Garza-Valdes's discovery of the bioplastic coating, a debate emerged regarding the color of stains on the Shroud. Dr. Walter McCrone believed that since exposed blood eventually turns a brownish color, then the stains on the Shroud could not be blood because of their deep, red appearance. But Dr. Alan Adler, a STURP member, offered the biological explanation that if the Man of the Shroud had undergone torture, scourging, crucifixion and shock, then in less than 30 seconds, a high amount of billirubin would have been produced. Under these conditions, when the blood clots, an exudate forms that would remain, minus all the intact cells with haemoglobin, on any cloth with which it might come in contact. So, in the case of the Shroud, this enhanced bilirubin is what would have been left. This substance, which is a yellowish-orange, mixes with something called mehaemoglobin, and the result of this mixture is the very red color of the bloodstains. But despite these explanations, there still remained people who insisted that the blood was not blood at all, but paint. Scientists knew that if McCrone were correct if the bloodstains were paint, "then DNA could not be present." Conversely, if Heller and Adler were correct, then DNA would be found on the stains. In 1995, threads that had been taken from the Shroud during the 1978 STURP investigations were examined at Genoa's Institute of Legal Medicine. These threads had been taken from the foot area of the Shroud. Professor Marcello Canale, reported the following: "We have extracted the DNA present on these tiny threads and have amplified this with a chain reaction that allows us, via a particular enzyme, to keep on replicating the DNA an infinite number of times. It is a method that can be used even in the case of a single cell 'The DNA chain is very long, and we are able to identify very small sectors representing individual characteristics which can ultimately enable us to identify the individual from whom they derive.' " Dr. Victor Tyron and his wife, Nancy Mitchell Tyron of Texas University's Center for Advanced DNA Technologies, performed an independent test for DNA. They first established that the threads contained human blood, and then that DNA was present in the blood. The Shroud, the Tomb, and DNA "The DNA chain is very long, and we are able to identify very small sectors representing individual characteristics which can ultimately enable us to identify the individual from whom they derive." We have no idea how Professor Marcello Canale would "identify the individual from whom they derive," unless he were able to find a sample of DNA to compare with the Shroud DNA sample. If the Roza Bal could be searched for remains, and if DNA were to be extracted from those remains, then a comparison of DNA found on the Shroud to DNA found in the Roza Bal could be made. And if this comparison showed a match, then strong circumstantial evidence that would suggest: That the Man of the Shroud and the Man of the Tomb are the same person

Siva, Thank you for that informative post. That there are any findings at all to show a connection between Christianity and the Ramanuja line, that is surprising, as they hate to be connected to us but love to view us as heathens. It was quite an interesting read. Having been raised as a Christian myself, I was surprised to learn that many Christians believed Jesus was God. Matter of fact, I never had heard of such a thing until after I joined the movement and devotees were running up against it out on Sankirtana! I suspect it was a new concept than. So while I would agree with much of what Hans Kung has to say, it appears there are various branches of Christianity that hold different belief systems about Jesus. My mother was Catholic, my father - Methodist. I was raised Methodist, which is a historically known religion for the belief that Jesus was *son* of God. Maybe the Catholics believe otherwise, but that had not been my experience. At least, I never got this from my mother or her side of the family. I wonder if this is a kali yuga thing, as I was a child quit some time ago. <G> Times, and beliefs, may have changed? Also, some Christians believe Jesus was a vegetarian, and some also believe in karma and reincarnation; tho I must admit, they are not the conservatives or the fundamentalists. But there are Christians out there who take this view and back it up with Biblical verses. I would have to take issue with this Hans gentleman over his idea that in Jesus can be found historical believability that is not found in Krishna due to Krishna's appearence so long ago. There has been much archeological evidence of, for example, the existence of Dwarka. And others. He's just not looking in the right places. :-) In my research I was finding more and more, Krishna as the root of all religions. Of course we know that, but it's nice to see how it unfolded, somewhat. Jai! YS, Prtha dd